U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–557 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–173 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 30, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–12 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 81 

WITNESS 

Mueller, Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ................................................................ 5 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Robert S. Mueller, III to questions submitted by Senators Klobuchar, Franken, Grassley, Hatch, Kyl and Sessions ....................................... 34 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Mueller, Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement ............................................. 83 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Schumer, Durbin, Klobuchar, 

Franken, Coons, Blumenthal, Grassley, Sessions, Kyl, and Graham. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Today the Judiciary Committee will hear from 

Director Robert Mueller. 

This fall, the Director will complete his 10-year term overseeing 

the FBI. He and I were talking out back earlier, and I do not know 

when I have seen 10 years go by so quickly, and I am sure the Director feels the same way. He took over just days before the attacks 

of September 11th. And I told him a reference from Elizabethan 

England, which I will not repeat here, in the hearing room at that 

time, but it did seem like everything—it was almost as though they 

were trying to give the Director his full 10-year term in about the 

first 10 days, with all that went on. He has overseen a major transformation of the Bureau. While the FBI continues to perform all 

the functions of a Federal law enforcement agency, it has greatly 

increased its role in ensuring our National security. There have 

been growing pains and false starts, but Director Mueller has managed this transformation of a large and well-established agency 

with great professionalism and focus, and he will leave at the end 

of his tenure a better Bureau than he had when he came in. 

The Director has aggressively pursued both law enforcement and 

national security objectives while maintaining a strong commitment to the values and freedoms we hold most dear as Americans. 

In commemorating the 100th anniversary of the FBI several years 

ago—and I remember sitting there listening to the Director as he 

said this—he said: 

’’It is not enough to stop the terrorist—we must stop him while 

maintaining his civil liberties. It is not enough to catch the criminal—we must catch him while respecting his civil rights. It is not 

enough to prevent foreign countries from stealing our secrets—we 

must prevent that from happening while still upholding the rule of 

law. The rule of law, civil liberties, and civil rights—these are not 

2 

our burdens. They are what make us better. And they are what 

have made us better for the past 100 years.’’ 

I was in that audience when he said that. I think it is fair to say 

the audience went across the political spectrum, and his statement 

was greeted with long and sustained applause. 

I have tried to advance these same objectives with carefully calibrated criminal justice legislation like the Justice For All Act and 

national security legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization proposal that recently passed through this Committee. But 

I am gratified that the Director shares my commitment to working 

to keep all Americans safe while preserving the values of all Americans. 

I appreciate that the FBI has shown signs recently of real 

progress on issues vital to this Committee and to the country. National security and counterterrorism are central to the FBI’s mission. But it has been heartening to see this steady stream of important arrests of those who would do this country harm. 

Earlier this month, the FBI arrested Kevin Harpham for planning to bomb a march in honor of Martin Luther King Day in Spokane, Washington. Mr. Harpham reportedly had ties to white supremacist groups, and the plot he is accused of planning came dangerously close to succeeding. Had it succeeded with the bomb that 

he had, the results could have been devastating to a large crowd 

of people, and I commend the FBI for making this arrest, which 

shows the continuing threat posed by domestic terrorism and 

makes very clear that no one ethnic group has a monopoly on terror. 

Now, in the last Congress, we made great strides toward more 

effective fraud prevention and enforcement. I worked hard with 

Senator Grassley and others to craft and pass the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the most expansive anti-fraud legislation 

in more than a decade. It adds resources and statutory tools for effective prevention, detection, and enforcement of mortgage fraud 

and financial fraud. We have worked hard to ensure that both the 

health care reform legislation and Wall Street reform legislation 

passed last year had important new tools for cracking down on 

fraud. Senator Grassley and I are hard at work now on new legislation to provide greater support for aggressive enforcement of our 

fraud laws. 

I am pleased to see that the FBI has been taking advantage of 

this heightened support for fraud enforcement. They have greatly 

increased the number of agents investigating fraud. They have led 

to more fraud arrests, but also—and the taxpayers should be happy 

about this—they have led to greater fraud recoveries. And I am 

glad that the FBI has maintained its historic focus on combating 

corruption. I would hope that they would continue to crack down 

on the kinds of fraud that contributed so greatly to our current financial crisis and on corruption that undermines Americans’ faith 

in their democracy. 

Last, I have been heartened to see that the FBI’s statistics continue to show reductions in violent crime nationwide despite the 

painful recession, and I commend the FBI for their work in combating violent crime. I hope that Congress will continue to provide 

the urgently needed assistance to State and local law enforcement, 

3 

which has been vital to keeping crime down throughout the country. 

Then, of course, areas of major concern include the FBI’s continuing struggles with modernizing its technology and informationsharing systems. We will have vigorous oversight, and I know that 

today’s hearing will shed light on these areas. 

I thank Director Mueller for returning to the Committee, for his 

responsiveness to our oversight efforts, but especially for his personal example and impressive leadership over the past decade in 

returning the FBI to its best traditions. If you get to know the Director and his family, you can see he carries the same values to 

work, and I commend him for that. 

I also would say I commend him for the times when difficult 

things were happening, he has called me at home or on the road 

or in Vermont, and he actually traveled to Vermont with me to talk 

about it. That meant a great deal and means a great deal. And, of 

course, I thank the hard-working men and women of the FBI. And, 

again, without going into our personal conversations, earlier the 

Director and I were talking about how fortunate we are to have the 

kind of men and women who have put their lives on hold to uphold 

what is needed in our country. 

Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, oversight of the 

FBI is probably one of the most important oversight hearings that 

you have, and so I thank you. 

I would take a moment to publicly thank you, Director Mueller, 

for your service to America, and I do that just in case this might 

be the last time as Director of the FBI you are before this Committee. But I will bet you after you are in private life you will be 

asked to testify on various things before Congress in that capacity 

because of your experience. 

While we have had our share of disagreements, Director Mueller, 

I have always appreciated your candor and your willingness to 

work with us to get answers even if we do not always agree with 

what those answers are. For instance, I know there is a lot of 

agreement between you and me on the need to extend the PATRIOT Act provisions that are set to expire in May. The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act are very important tools 

used by law enforcement and the intelligence community to protect 

us from threats to our National security. They are vital to our ability to investigate, identify, track, and deter terrorists. 

It was recently revealed that the FBI successfully utilized a Section 215 order as part of the investigation that prevented a terrorist attack planned by a Saudi national in Texas. In that case it 

was revealed that the individual in question purchased bomb-making materials such as 3 gallons of sulfuric acid, clocks, chemistry 

sets, and a gas mask from online retailers Amazon.com and eBay. 

This case is the latest of many examples of successes of the PATRIOT Act provisions and your successful use of that. 

Given the numerous threats we face and the fact that the three 

expiring provisions have not been found to have been abused, the 

4 

Senate should work to reauthorize the expiring authority without 

amendment. 

Aside from the critical national security authority we need to reauthorize, I want to today eventually ask Director Mueller about 

a recent report that was issued by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee released in February entitled, ‘‘A 

Ticking Bomb’’ that examined the tragic shootings at Fort Hood 

that occurred November 2009. That report highlighted a number of 

problems at both the Department of Defense and the FBI and 

found ‘‘systematic failures in the Government’s handling of the 

Hasan case.’’ 

I was troubled to hear allegations contained in the report, including that an analyst on a Joint Terrorism Task Force was not provided full access to a key FBI data base simply because he was 

from a non-FBI agency. I want to hear from the Director whether 

he agreed with some of these key findings, what is being done to 

correct any deficiencies in the way terrorism cases are reviewed, 

and whether information sharing has been improved. 

I will also ask the Director some questions about FBI employee 

personnel matters. I have long been concerned about the plight of 

whistleblowers within the FBI. Director Mueller has made it a priority to instruct all employees of the FBI that retaliation against 

whistleblowers will not be tolerated, but, unfortunately, that directive has not always been followed by agents in the field, and I find 

one case particularly troubling. 

In 2007, the Department of Justice Inspector General issued a 

memorandum finding that a 30-year non-agent employee of the 

FBI, Robert Kobus, was retaliated against for protected whistleblowing. The Inspector General found that, ‘‘The FBI management 

in the New York Field Division improperly moved Kobus from the 

position of a senior administrative support manager to several nonsupervisory positions.’’ One of those positions included being demoted to OSHA safety officer. The retaliation was blatant and included moving his office to a cubicle on a vacant 24th floor of the 

FBI building. The Inspector General ultimately concluded that the 

decision to move him was in retaliation for disclosing wrongdoing 

to a special agent in charge of the field office, in this case an attendance fraud by FBI agents. This is exactly the type of retaliation against whistleblowers that should never occur. 

So I am working on a request that I shared with Chairman 

Leahy—you may not know about it, but I have given it to your 

staff—hoping that we can work together on this issue. But I would 

also request that the Government Accountability Office conduct a 

top-to-bottom review of the Department of Justice’s process for 

dealing with FBI whistleblowers. Delays like the one in the Kobus 

case send a clear signal to potential whistleblowers that reporting 

wrongdoing will only end up in an expensive bureaucratic mess. 

Another area of concern that I have relates to the FBI employee 

misconduct. In January of this year, the internal FBI Office of Professional Responsibility documents were leaked to the press. Those 

documents contained a number of shocking allegations about misconduct committed by employees of the FBI. An example: The document detailed FBI agents who were dismissed because they were 

arrested for drunk driving, engaged in improper relationships with 

5 

FBI informants, leaked classified information to reporters, sought 

reimbursement for expenditures they never made, and in one instance brought foreign nationals back into the FBI’s space after 

hours. I want to know more about these penalties, how they were 

determined. I think it is necessary and important to know in light 

of the fact that the Inspector General found in the May 2009 report 

that there is a perception among FBI employees that there is a 

double standard for discipline among higher-ranking and lowerranking employees. 

Director Mueller, over the past 8 months, I have been investigating systemic problems at the Philadelphia Public Housing Authority—outlandish salaries, sexual harassment settlements, and 

excessive legal billings, just to name a few of the problems, and I 

want to express my appreciation regarding the FBI’s ongoing investigation and recent seizure of expensive luggage purchased as gifts 

by the Philadelphia Public Housing Authority, and I hope the FBI 

follows through vigorously on any criminal violations that may 

have occurred at the Philadelphia Public Housing Authority. 

Finally, I want to ask the Director about the fiscal year 2012 

budget request that was submitted to Congress. I continue to have 

concerns with the FBI’s agency-wide case management system 

known as Sentinel. I want to know when this is going to end, how 

much more taxpayers’ money will be necessary, and how the FBI 

plans to maintain the older case management data base as part of 

the new system. After a decade of upgrading the system, not another dime of taxpayers’ money should be awarded until the FBI 

can prove the system will work and will be done on time. 

That is a lot to cover. I thank you for your patience as I cover 

those items. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Director Mueller, please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR, 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Leahy 

and Ranking Member Grassley and other members of the Committee who are here today. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before the Committee. 

I will start by saying that the FBI faces today unprecedented and 

increasingly complex challenges. We must identify and stop terrorists before they launch attacks against our citizens. We must protect our Government, businesses, and critical infrastructure from 

espionage and from the potentially devastating impact of cyberbased attacks. We must root out public corruption, fight white-collar and organized crime, stop child predators, and protect civil 

rights. 

We must also ensure we are building a structure that will carry 

the FBI into the future by continuing to enhance our intelligence 

capabilities, improve our business practices and training, and develop the next generation of Bureau leaders. And we must do all 

of this while respecting the authority given to us under the Constitution, upholding civil liberties, and the rule of law. 

6 

The challenges of carrying out this mission have never been 

greater as the FBI has never faced a more complex threat environment than it does today. Over the past year, the FBI has faced an 

extraordinary range of threats from terrorism, espionage, cyber attacks, and traditional crime. A few examples. 

Last October, there were the attempted bombings on air cargo 

flights bound for the United States from Yemen, directed by al 

Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Last May, there was the attempted car bombing in Times Square, aided by TTP in Pakistan. 

These attempted attacks demonstrate how al Qaeda and its affiliates still have the intent to strike inside the United States. 

In addition, there were a number of serious terror plots by lone 

offenders here in the United States. Their targets ranged from the 

Martin Luther King Day march in Spokane, Washington, as mentioned by the Chairman, to a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in 

Portland, Oregon; to subway stations in the Washington, D.C., 

Metro system. And while the motives and methods for these plots 

were varied, they were among the most difficult threats to combat. 

The espionage threat persisted as well. Last summer, there were 

the arrests of ten Russian spies, known as ‘‘illegals,’’ who secretly 

blended into American society in order to clandestinely gather information for Russia. And we continued to make significant arrests 

for economic espionage as foreign interests seek to steal controlled 

technologies. 

The cyber intrusion at Google last year highlighted the potential 

danger from a sophisticated Internet attack. And along with countless other cyber incidents, these attacks threaten to undermine the 

integrity of the Internet and to victimize the businesses and persons who rely on it. 

In our criminal investigations, we continue to uncover billion-dollar corporate and mortgage frauds that weaken the financial system and victimize investors, homeowners, and ultimately taxpayers. We also exposed health care scams involving false billings 

and fake treatments that endangered patients and fleeced Government health care programs. 

The extreme violence across our southwest border continued to 

impact the United States. As we saw the murders last March of 

American consulate workers in Juarez, Mexico, and the shooting 

last month of two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

agents in Mexico. And throughout the year, there were numerous 

corruption cases that undermined the public trust and countless 

violent gang cases that continued to take innocent lives and endanger our communities. 

As these examples demonstrate, the FBI’s mission to protect the 

American people has never been broader, and the demands on the 

FBI have never been greater. And to carry out these responsibilities, we do need Congress’ continued support more than ever. 

Let me briefly discuss two areas where Congress can help the 

FBI with its mission. First, we do encourage Congress to reauthorize the three FISA tools that are due to expire later this spring; 

the roving intercept authority is necessary for our national security 

mission and provides us with tools similar to what we use in criminal cases already and have used for a number of years. 

7 

The business records authority permits us to obtain key documents and data in our national security cases, including in our 

most serious terrorism matters. And the lone-wolf provision is important to combat the growing threat from lone offenders and 

homegrown radicalization. These authorities, all of which are conducted with full court review and approval, are critical to our national security. 

Second, the FBI and other Government agencies are now facing 

a growing gap in our ability to execute court-approved intercepts 

of certain modern communications technologies. We call this the 

problem of going dark. With the acceleration of new Internet-based 

technologies, we are increasingly unable to collect valuable evidence in cases ranging from child exploitation and pornography to 

organized crime and drug trafficking, as well as to terrorism and 

espionage. 

Let me emphasize at the outset that collecting this evidence has 

been approved by a court, but because the laws have not kept pace 

with the changes in technology, often we cannot obtain the information responsive to the court orders from the communications 

carrier. And we look forward to working with this Committee and 

Congress on the legislative fixes that may be necessary to close this 

gap and preserve our ability to protect all Americans. 

Last, let me say a few words about the impact of the continuing 

budget resolutions on the FBI and on our workforce. 

The support from this Committee and Congress has been an important part of transforming the FBI into the national security 

agency it is today. But for our transformation to be complete, we 

must continue to hire, train, and develop our cadre of agents, analysts, and staff to meet the complex threats we face now and in the 

future. 

Under the current levels in the continuing resolution, the FBI will have to absorb over $200 million in cuts, and without any 

change, the current CR will leave us with over 1,100 vacant positions by the end of the year. Put simply, these cuts would undermine our efforts to continue to transform the Bureau and undermine our efforts to carry out our mission. 

I appreciate the opportunity to review the FBI’s work in responding to the far-reaching threats we face today before you today. I 

also want to thank the Committee for your continued support, the 

support over the years that I have held this position, and not only 

support for me but most particularly for your support of the men 

and women of the FBI who do the work of this great institution. 

Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mueller appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, Director, and again, I reiterate my personal feelings and appreciation for what you have 

done and for the openness you have shown when I have had questions, and others on the Committee. All Senators I think have 

found you to be very accessible. 

Earlier this month—and I mentioned this in my opening statement about the FBI arresting Kevin Harpham in connection with 

a plot to bomb a parade in honor of Martin Luther King Day in 

8 

Spokane, Washington. And what I have read in the press is that 

the bomb was very sophisticated. The plot almost succeeded. With 

the large number of people around there, at looking at some of the 

press photographs, if the bomb had gone off, the results would have 

been horrible. 

Now, he reportedly had ties to white supremacist groups, and I 

mention this only because I do not want us to lose sight of the fact 

that domestic terrorism may not be as visible as international terrorism, but also the threat to us just as Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City and others. 

What is the threat posed by domestic terrorism? How would you 

just generally—not this particular case, but generally, how do you 

see the threat of domestic terrorism? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we have not lost sight, even with September 

11th, of the devastation that was wreaked by McVeigh in Oklahoma City in 1995, and we have, certainly before then but most 

particularly since then, had domestic terrorism almost as important an issue as the international terrorism that we have seen over 

the years. Whether it be white supremacists, militia extremists, 

sovereign citizen extremists, we continue to undertake investigations with adequate—where we have the predication to make certain that these groups do not present terrorist threats. 

I will tell you that most concerning is, yes, the groups themselves 

in some ways, but most concerning are the lone wolves, those persons who may have had some loose affiliation with one of these 

groups but may have been rejected by the group as being too extreme or individually found the group was not extreme enough and 

then on their own undertake an attack. And so I would say the possibility of activity from a lone wolf is the thing that we are most 

concerned about—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Those are the people that would be the hardest to track, I would take it. 

Mr. MUELLER. That is correct. They do not communicate with 

any others. It is really difficult to put into place the capabilities of 

alerting us when one of those individuals looks like they want to 

go operational. 

Chairman LEAHY. The Unabomber, people like that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Exactly. 

Chairman LEAHY. It is very hard. I agree with you, and I raise 

this just because I would hate to have everybody lose sight of the 

fact in a Nation of 300 million people and the size of our country 

that we do face questions of domestic terrorism, and we have to, 

not just at the FBI level but State and local and others, keep track 

of that, too. 

Last week, the press released an FBI memorandum providing 

guidance to the field on the interrogation of terrorist suspects arrested in the United States. Now, you could have people playing on 

all sides of the debate about how to treat terrorism suspects. As far 

as I could tell, the memo essentially reiterates current law. When 

I first became a prosecutor, Miranda came down. You had Escobido 

and then Miranda. I remember working with the police within my 

jurisdiction as to how you adapt to it. You have in your regular 

training programs for any new FBI agent how to do it. This memo 

reiterates the requirements of the Miranda decision, and it restates 

9 

the narrow parameters of the public safety exception, and there 

has always been—contrary to some of the plain rhetoric, there has 

always been a public safety exception, and it makes no changes to 

the requirements governing presentment of a suspect in court. If 

the agents believe the suspect has valuable intelligence, they can 

continue the interrogation even beyond the recognized parameters 

of the public safety exception and understanding the possible exclusion in court. 

I think you were wise to do it this way and not do it through 

trying to make a congressional change, and I will get into that in 

a moment. But have these procedures been effective in the past? 

You have had this in place now for a while. Have they been effective? Do you think they will be effective in the future? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do think they have been effective and will continue to be effective in the future. We are in some sense in uncharted but guided territory in the sense that the Quarles decision 

issued by the Supreme Court that establishes the public safety exception was applicable to a discrete set of facts relating to a robbery, and what we have to anticipate is how that public safety exception translates to the area of terrorism. And our guidance errs 

on the side of obtaining that information we need to prevent the 

next terrorist attack, but within what we think would be the parameters of the public safety exception if and when the Supreme 

Court has an opportunity to look at how expansive that particular 

exception is. 

Chairman LEAHY. And you have to assume they will. I recall 

being in a long meeting with the President, and I believe Attorney 

General Holder joined the meeting partway through. We were talking about whether we would make changes—try to make changes 

legislatively to Miranda. I argued that you cannot really do that. 

The Dickerson case, the Supreme Court said that Miranda is a constitutional decision, and a legislative act could not overrule that. 

But as a constitutional decision, it has been your experience, I take 

it, that the Supreme Court has carved out certain areas that show 

practicality in there, for want of a better word. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think we have to wait and see what the 

Supreme Court does. In the meantime, our principal responsibility 

when it comes to counterterrorism is stopping the next terrorist attack, and consequently, you look at each case as an opportunity to 

gather that intelligence and information that will stop the next terrorist attack. And that is foremost on our minds, but doing that 

within the construct that has been given to us by the Congress and 

the Supreme Court. 

Chairman LEAHY. And this memorandum gives some flexibility 

in—— 

Mr. MUELLER. It does. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I mentioned your tenure began 

just before the September 11th attacks and will wrap up just before 

the tenth anniversary of that. We have seen a big transformation. 

Now, your successor, whoever he or she may be, is going to sit 

down with you, if they are at all wise—certainly I would recommend it—to talk about what has happened in the last 10 years 

and certainly the views of the next 10 years. When you hand that 

leadership over, what would you say is the most—what would you 

10 

tell them is the most effective way to manage the extraordinary 

amount of data that is gathered by the FBI? It is like a tsunami, 

the data that comes in there. How do you do that and identify 

threats and hold our values? What kind of advice would you give? 

That will be my last question. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, generally, my advice would be to rely on the 

people in the FBI. I started a week before September 11th. I was 

new. I did not know really how the FBI operated other than looking at it from afar as an Assistant United States Attorney, and the 

remarkable thing is how that organization pulled together to undertake the responsibilities of responding to September 11th. And 

so regardless of what one does as the Director, it is the FBI as an 

organization and an institution that has the strength to carry us. 

With regard to the tsunami of information that you talk about, 

one of the lessons we have learned since September 11th is there 

has been a profusion of databases, different databases given different authorities, and what we have needed over a period of time, 

and not only us but others in the intelligence community, are the 

capabilities for federated searches that enable you to pull out the 

pieces of information from disparate databases and put them together to prevent the next terrorist attack. 

But as much as you can do this digitally, as much as you can 

do this with databases, it always is the human element, the personal element that ultimately is successful. And developing the persons who are capable of sifting through this data with the help of 

algorithms and the like is as important as developing the digital 

capability to sort through it. And so continuing to build the analytical cadre, continuing to build the type of agents and analysts and 

professional staff that no one understands, the technological area, 

but no one understands the human element of it is as important 

as anything else, and that is what we have tried to do, build up 

that capability since September 11th, and I would expect that my 

successor would continue on that path. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very, very much. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Director Mueller, I am going to start out with 

a question or two that probably you touched on in your testimony, 

but I think it is important that we get answers to specific questions. It is in regard to the PATRIOT Act. And you know the three 

provisions that are expiring. Do you agree that these three provisions should be made permanent? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Have these three tools been useful to the FBI 

to prevent terrorist attacks on our country? 

Mr. MUELLER. They have. Let me, if I can, briefly mention the 

business records provision has been used over 380 times. You alluded to an instance where it was used recently. It is absolutely essential that we have the ability to gather these records through 

that provision. Whether it be for identifying intelligence officers 

from other countries, these records enable us to get hotel records, 

travel records and the like, and without that capability, it would 

be difficult to develop the cases and the investigations in that 

arena as well as the counterterrorism arena without this provision. 

11 

The roving wiretap provision has been used more than 190 times. 

It is limited in the sense that we have to show that the individual 

for whom we wish this authority is trying to avoid surveillance, 

and, again, it is reviewed by the court before it is issued. And as 

I did mention in my testimony, we have had this capability on the 

criminal side of the house for any number of years. It has been 

very helpful in national security and important. 

The one we have not yet used is the lone-wolf provision, but I 

still believe that that is important. We have come close to using it 

in several of our cases. The one thing I would point out there is 

that the only time it is to be used is on a non-U.S. citizen and with 

court approval. And, consequently, while we have not used that 

provision, with the profusion of lone-wolf cases domestically and, 

indeed, some internationally, my expectation is we will be using 

this in the future, and I believe that it is important that it be reauthorized. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I think that your answer shows that if these 

provisions were not reauthorized or if they were substantially 

weakened by including new requirements, it would be detrimental 

to the agents in the field. Would that be a correct assumption? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRASSLEY. And kind of from your point of view whether 

any of these three provisions have been subject to any negative reports of finding abuse. 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not aware of any. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Let me go to three other tools which are 

not set to expire and are not part of the needed reauthorization. 

These are the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act pen register 

and trap-and-trace orders, national security letters, and delayed 

notice search warrants. The FBI regularly uses pen register/trapand-trace authority in both national security and criminal areas. Is 

that a correct assumption on my part? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Under current law these authorities have the 

same legal standard, relevance. That is correct, isn’t it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Do you believe increasing the legal burden on 

these investigative tools is necessary? 

Mr. MUELLER. Speaking generally, I would say no, I believe we 

are at a point in time where there has been the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the necessity for addressing the 

terrorist threat and threat from other criminal elements in the 

United States, and yet on the other hand, the protection of privacy, 

civil liberties. And I think that balance has been worked out satisfactorily over the years since September 11th. 

Senator GRASSLEY. National security letters are an essential part 

of building blocks of national security investigations. They have 

never had a sunset in law. Do you think that they need one now? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do not. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Delayed notice search warrants are primarily 

a criminal tool, not a national security tool. Is that right? 

Mr. MUELLER. That is correct. 

12 

Senator GRASSLEY. Has there been any criticism of their use that 

you know of requiring us to change the delay from 30 days to 7 

days? 

Mr. MUELLER. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Is there any advantage to decreasing the 

delay period? 

Mr. MUELLER. Did you say decreasing the delay period? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think the suggestion was decreasing it from—— 

Senator GRASSLEY. 30 to 7. 

Mr. MUELLER. That is something we would have to look at the 

impact there, but I am not aware of any abuse or any activity that 

directs or mandates such a change. Let me put it that way. 

Senator GRASSLEY. At least as of now then, I can conclude that 

you would not be able to say that you support a change at this 

point. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to look at the legislation and, quite 

obviously, the last word is the Justice Department terms and views 

letter. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. I would like to go to the Electronic 

Communications Protection Act. There is a coalition called the Digital Due Process Coalition, business and interest groups supporting 

a probable cause standard for obtaining all electronic communications regardless of its age, the location, or storage facilities or the 

providers of access to information. Do you support raising the legal 

standard for obtaining electronic communications to a probable 

cause determination? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do not, and that would be tremendously problematic in our capability of undertaking and successfully undertaking investigations to prevent terrorist attacks. We use the information, not the content of communications but the existence, in 

fact, of communications to make the case for probable cause that 

would enable us to utilize the more intrusive investigative powers 

that have been given to us by Congress. If that standard was to 

change, it would severely inhibit our ability to make those probable 

cause showings to the court in order to continue the investigation 

as is warranted. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Let me ask you specifically along that line if 

you think the legal standard to obtain information through a pen 

register or trap-and-trace order should be increased to a probable 

cause or 2703(d) standard. 

Mr. MUELLER. No, for the same reasons that I stated before. 

Senator GRASSLEY. OK. Do you agree that a change like this 

would be unworkable and burdensome? I think you have answered 

that, that it would be burdensome. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to look at the particular provision 

and look more closely at it to be able to answer that particular 

question. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I have more questions, but I think my time 

is up. I am going to leave for a few minutes and go to Agriculture, 

but I will come back. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

I yield to Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

13 

Director Mueller, I remember 10 years ago—it was like yesterday—when you came on board, and as with all of us, time goes by 

very, very quickly. But I want to express my deep, deep admiration 

and respect for you as a person and as an individual with the capabilities that you have and have demonstrated over the past 10 

years. You have been a crucial asset to our country, and I along 

with, I think, everybody who has been connected with you over 

these past 10 years looks at your tenure in terms of how much it 

has done for our country and how much we owe you by way of appreciation. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KOHL. I want to speak just a bit about what happened 

at Fort Hood. As you know, the Senate Homeland Security Committee released a report critical of the FBI. They said that the FBI 

conducted only a cursory investigation into evidence that existed 

that the shooter was frequently involved in talking with an al 

Qaeda-affiliated terrorist overseas. The report also said that the 

FBI failed to give the Pentagon full access to an FBI data base that 

likely would have sparked an in-depth inquiry that would most 

likely have avoided what occurred at Fort Hood. 

Going forward, which is really all we need to be concerned about 

at this time, what can you tell us about new procedures that are 

in place that will head off another Fort Hood in the future? 

Mr. MUELLER. I will say at the outset that this is one of—the 

pieces of information on the individuals responsible for Fort Hood 

were found in one of the thousands of cases we handle day in and 

day out. But what we found as a result of Hasan’s incident, his attack on that day, is there were gaps that we had to fill. 

Immediately afterwards, we looked at our procedures. We found 

that we could do a much better job at information sharing with 

DOD and, consequently, today elements of the Department of Defense serve on our National Joint Terrorism Task Force. They are 

in many of our Joint Terrorism Task Forces around the country, 

but most particularly we have a formalized process where we sit 

down and go through all the cases, whether a DOD case or our 

cases that may touch on DOD, so that we have before both entities 

a full review of those cases that may impact DOD. 

Second, we have put into place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a data base to pull together past e-mails 

and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search. So putting together a technological improvement 

to enhance our capabilities. 

Last, we—not last, actually. Two more things. Third, what we 

had done is assure that we have not just one office that is reviewing, say, communications traffic but have a redundancy of review 

at headquarters as well to make certain that we do not miss something. 

And, last, you alluded to an analyst’s inability to either access or 

knowledge of a particular data base, and we underwent an extensive training initiative for all persons serving on Joint Terrorism 

Task Forces in the wake of what happened at Fort Hood to assure 

that not only the persons have access to the databases, but were 

knowledgeable and knew when and where to utilize those particular databases. 

14 

So I do believe that we have addressed the issues that came to 

our attention immediately after the Fort Hood incident. 

Senator KOHL. Director Mueller, the ability of American companies to out-innovate and out-compete the rest of the world is more 

important today than ever. In 1996, I worked to pass the Economic 

Espionage Act. This is a law that makes it a Federal crime to steal 

trade secrets. And yet the FBI estimates that U.S. companies continue to lose billions of dollars each year when criminals do steal 

their trade secrets. 

I am currently reviewing the Economic Espionage Act to see 

what improvements are needed to better protect American companies. As a first step in this process, I am introducing legislation to 

increase maximum sentences for economic espionage from 15 to 20 

years and the Sentencing Guideline range. 

Do you support these penalty increases? Will you work with me 

as we consider additional updates to the law? And do you have any 

suggestions as to what we should be doing? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to, quite obviously, consult with Justice in terms of the response, but it seems to me that I would think 

we would look quite favorably on the suggestions of enhanced penalties in this arena. And, of course, we would work with you and 

your staff in terms of looking at what other areas might be improved through legislation. 

Senator KOHL. Maybe you can respond to this. In 1996, we considered including a Federal civil private right of action as a tool for 

companies to combat and deter theft of trade secrets. At the time 

we decided to forgo this and rely on State trade secret laws. Other 

criminal laws like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act contain companion Federal civil remedies for victims. 

What are your views as to how prosecutions and investigations 

could be improved if a private right of action was available? Might 

you support a change of this sort? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think we—and by ‘‘we,’’ I mean ourselves and 

the Justice Department—would have to look and see what is in the 

statute. I might be leery at the outset of including a private right 

of action, maybe because I would be somewhat concerned about 

overlap and conflicts in terms of investigations, and it is something 

that I would think that we would have to look at very closely to 

determine what adverse impact there might be on our ability as 

the Government actor to pursue these cases if there was a private 

right of action. I am not saying there should not be. I am just saying that is something that we ought to look at closely before the 

Justice Department gives a position on whatever legislation that is 

proposed. 

Senator KOHL. Finally, what advice would you give your successor in avoiding pitfalls that you experienced during your tenure? 

Mr. MUELLER. Whew. I would say rely on the great people in the 

FBI, just a remarkable organization, remarkable grouping of people. 

I think I would also say, when I have gotten in trouble, it is because I have not asked the hard questions and I have been satisfied with answers that were fine on the surface, but there were 

areas that I should have delved deeper and found out the answers 

myself. I could kick myself in some of those arenas. 

15 

One of the other things I would say is that it is important for 

us in the organization to understand what is necessary to protect 

the American public to grow and adjust to the new threats that are 

coming so much faster than they did 10, 15, or 20 years ago and 

be flexible and agile to address those threats, and the organization 

has to do what it needs to do for the American public as opposed 

to what we may enjoy or like doing as prosecutors or as agents. 

And the Bureau has always done that, and it is history, and we are 

going to have to do it, and do it swifter and faster in the future. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you very much. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, sir. 

I would like to acknowledge your service for probably one of the 

most challenging times in American history. I really appreciate 

what you have tried to do for our country in your whole force. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. You mentioned, I think, in your testimony 

about Border Patrol agents being killed. What is your assessment 

of the violence in Mexico? Are the border areas more dangerous? 

And where do you see this going in Mexico? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think anybody looking at what has happened in 

the last several years along the border but also inside Mexico in 

terms of the increasing homicides, the breakdown of, to the extent 

that there was any cartel—I do not want to say ‘‘justice,’’ but restraint—has long since been lost with the increase in homicides despite the efforts and intent of the Calderon administration from the 

outset to address it. 

From our perspective, the concern is the violence coming north 

of the border. From our perspective, we have seen and had several 

years ago an uptick in kidnappings of individuals who may live in 

the United States but have businesses or family be kidnapped in 

Mexico and the ransom sought from persons in the United States. 

We put together task forces to address that, and that has been reduced somewhat. 

We have a priority of looking at corruption along the border, and 

we have a number of agents looking at border corruption. We have 

had a number of cases of border corruption that we have successfully investigated. 

We have put together fusion squads or individuals who are familiar with corruption, familiar with the narcotics trafficking, whitecollar crime, money laundering and the like in the squads that we 

are using—‘‘hybrid squads’’ we call them—to address the activities 

on the border. And, finally, we have put together an intelligence capability down in El Paso that brings in the intelligence from each 

of our offices as well as from our legal attache in Mexico City and 

headquarters. And we integrate that with the other players that 

are working on the border. 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you said it would be a fair observation 

that securing our border is probably more important than ever, 

that criminal activity is growing and that terrorism threats are 

growing, and that we should really look at securing the border as 

a national security imperative? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think securing the border has always been a national security imperative, yes, sir. 

16 

Senator GRAHAM. But it seems to be even more so from your testimony. 

Now, you mentioned something in your testimony that you 

should maybe ask hard questions, and I think that is probably good 

advice for us all. When it comes to Miranda warnings, is it the 

FBI’s view that Miranda warnings are required for interviews that 

involve intelligence gathering for national security purposes? 

Mr. MUELLER. If there is no intent to utilize the results of those 

interviews in a courtroom and the purpose was gathering intelligence, yes, it would be—and that happens all the time, particularly overseas. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is it fair to say that homegrown terrorism is 

on the rise? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is it fair to say that we need to get our laws 

in shape to deal with a new threat, which is people attacking us 

who may be American citizens themselves who are here legally? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. So wouldn’t it be fair to say that we should as 

a Nation, the Congress and the administration, try to find a solution that would withstand court scrutiny to deal with the fact that 

when we are facing this threat, providing a lawyer and reading 

someone their rights when they may involve an act of terrorism is 

something that may be counterproductive at the time? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain I could go that far. I would say 

we are bound by what the Supreme Court has issued in terms 

of—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, do you think Congress should be involved 

in helping create a solution to this problem? 

Mr. MUELLER. It would be nice if Congress could, but we have 

got the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter in terms of the application of Miranda to the admissibility of statements, as I am 

sure—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I totally understand what you are saying, but 

it is my view that Miranda warnings are not required if the purpose of the interrogation is to gather intelligence about existing 

threats or future threats, because when you fight a war, you do not 

read people Miranda rights on the battlefield. Where is the battlefield? Is the United States part of the battlefield? 

Mr. MUELLER. One can speculate. I know there are persons who 

say everything is a battlefield now. I would stay—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, what do you think? 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Away from speculating on the battlefield. I know where you are going, but I will stay away from the 

definition of battlefield. 

Senator GRAHAM. In all fairness to you, I think it is pretty important to know where the battlefield is. To me, the battlefield is here 

at home. We have caught people who are trying to blow us up that 

are connected with people in Pakistan, allegedly. So, Mr. Director, 

I think home is the battlefield, and we need to craft solutions in 

light of this growing threat, and I look forward to working—and I 

would urge the administration to come to Congress to see if we can 

work together. 

17 

But under your policy guidance, this memorandum, how long can 

you hold someone without reading them their Miranda rights? If 

you catch someone here in America, an American citizen whom you 

suspect of being involved with al Qaeda or some foreign entity, a 

terrorist group, how long can you hold them without reading them 

their rights? How many questions can you ask them? And when do 

you have to present them to court? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, generally, within 24 to 48 hours one has to 

make the presentment to court, at which point in time they will be 

read their Miranda warnings. It depends on where you might be. 

It may be longer if you are not that close to a magistrate. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, let us continue to ask the hard questions. 

So under the policy, under the problem with presentment to court, 

you are talking about 24 or 48 hours. Is that enough time to gather 

intelligence? 

Mr. MUELLER. It may well be. In certain cases we have—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Could it well not be? 

Mr. MUELLER. It could not be. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, I mean, you might actually want to call 

foreign intelligence services and see what do they know about this 

guy. You would certainly want to call the CIA. You would want to 

call the DOD, and you would want to make a good assessment. 

I think the honest answer is that presentment and Miranda 

warnings need to be looked at anew in light of the domestic—in 

light of homegrown terrorism, and that is just my view. And I want 

to invite the administration to be a good partner on this, but I just 

feel like we are less safe with the current policy because the questions I have asked about how long you can hold them, 24 to 48 

hours, without a presentment problem is probably not a good solution to what I think is a growing problem. 

The last thing I want to ask you about is your budget. We are 

having a real debate up here about, you know, cutting Government, 

and God knows it needs to be reduced. But one thing about Government from my point of view is the first thing you want to do 

is protect your citizens. You are telling me that H.R. 1, if implemented the way it is today, would cost 1,100 job slots? 

Mr. MUELLER. We would not be able to fill 1,100 slots by September in order to meet the budget constrictions. 

Senator GRAHAM. So when we are deciding what is the right number to pick—you are losing $200 million. Is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, we are. 

Senator GRAHAM. And the plus-up you are asking in 2012, is that 

really—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Depending on what happens in 2011—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER.—will dictate to a certain extent the plus-ups in 

2012. And what we are struggling for is to get what we did not get 

in 2011 for 2012. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, you know we are deeply in debt, right? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. I thought you might agree with me there. And 

you have looked at this budget from a perspective that the Nation 

is deeply in debt? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

18 

Senator GRAHAM. And you are telling us, the Congress, that due 

to the threats that are multiplying exponentially you need this 

force to protect America? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank you, Director, for your service. You started a week before 9/ 

11, and it has been quite a decade. But thank you. You have done 

an excellent job. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. 

Senator SCHUMER. I would like to discuss first an issue that affects a small upstate community, Newburgh, New York. As you 

know, 2 years ago Newburgh saw gang activity and a violent crime 

spike. There were shootouts in the streets, repeated bank robberies, numerous homicides. At the time you and Attorney General 

Holder assured me the FBI and other Federal partners would work 

closely with local law enforcement and significantly increase Federal resources to counter gangs operating in the area, and you have 

done a good job on that. Last spring, this work led to an FBI investigation, a multi-agency sweep involving some 500 local, State, and 

Federal law enforcement agents and the arrest of 70 gang members 

in the city of Newburgh. It is not a large city, so that was very significant. 

Early last month there was another sweep, ten more gang suspects were arrested, and there have been reports now that the FBI 

is considering moving its Hudson Valley resident agency to Newburgh. I want to personally express my strong support of such a 

proposal. 

When I toured the streets of Newburgh with the local police department and your field agents, residents thanked the officers and 

agents and saw hope. As the community works to rebuild, I know 

that housing the FBI within the community will serve as an important gang deterrent, an important community resource. 

So can you commit to consider Newburgh closely as the location 

for the FBI resident agency location? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think I can make that commitment. I know the 

decision is in process and that the activities in or about Newburgh 

would be a factor, amongst other factors as well. But certainly we 

would consider the activity that you have adverted to over the last 

year or two in terms of where that resident agency should be located. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. And if you are having any space problems, we will find it for you. OK? But it is very important to move 

there. 

Mr. MUELLER. I understand. 

Senator SCHUMER. So I hope you will do everything you can to 

do that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Sure. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. The second question deals with the background checks pilot. In 2003, Congress passed the Criminal Background Check Pilot Program as part of the PROTECT Act. The legislation was introduced by Senator Hatch, cosponsored by a number of Senators on the Committee. I was one of them. This pilot 

19 

program was established to determine the feasibility of a nationwide fingerprint-based background check system for volunteers of 

youth-serving organizations like the Boys and Girls Club, the National Mentoring Partnership. Thanks to the great work of the FBI 

and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which 

processed background check requests, some 90,000 records have 

been requested and used since this pilot program’s inception. Six 

percent of the records included criminal histories of concern, including serious offenses, sexual abuse of minors, assault, child cruelty, even murder. 

So, Director Mueller, has the FBI experienced any problems in 

running these checks for these youth-serving organizations? For instance, does the FBI believe the costs associated with this pilot program to be overly burdensome or the work overly complex? 

Mr. MUELLER. My understanding is that there has been no problems with the processing of these requests through NCMEC. 

NCMEC is a tremendous organization. So we have not seen any 

problems, and I do believe that the charges that we—what we 

charge for is an appropriate charge, and my understanding is there 

have been no problems in terms of receiving the monies for those 

checks. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK, because as you know, NCMEC recently 

announced it would no longer operate the pilot program, leaving a 

number of youth service organizations without access. So given the 

Bureau’s experience with the pilot, do you agree such a permanent 

program could be helpful in the continued protection of our children? Are you willing to work with whatever organization takes 

NCMEC’s place? 

Mr. MUELLER. We would take directly from those youth service 

organizations the requests for doing the background checks. 

Senator SCHUMER. Good. 

Mr. MUELLER. And, consequently, I probably cannot say to what 

extent that going back to that practice would be detrimental to 

those organizations or others. 

Senator SCHUMER. But you are willing to work and make sure 

that this gap is filled again because it is a worthwhile—— 

Mr. MUELLER. If there is indeed a gap, yes, we are willing to 

work with NCMEC or youth service organizations in order to make 

certain that the processes undertaken—— 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. OK. Finally, guns, gun checks. The 

President himself has noted information included in our gun check 

system, NICS, which is supposed to prevent guns from being sold 

to the wrong people, is ‘‘often incomplete and inadequate.’’ The FBI 

relies on State governments to supply many of the records about 

people who are not allowed to possess guns, and there are lots of 

examples of this: people who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a State court, someone on probation for a State 

crime fails a drug test. And yet we are finding that many States 

are not complying. 

So you have any idea why so many States are not doing anything 

to help you enforce the Federal law in this regard, why we are not 

getting the information that we should to be on this list? Which, 

by the way, everyone supports. This is not about who should own 

a gun. This is once there is a consensus that say a felon or someVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:09 Jan 05, 2012 Jkt 071557 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71557.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
20 

body who is adjudicated mentally ill not get a gun, that they be on 

the list so they will not be sold a gun. 

Mr. MUELLER. We do everything we can to encourage the States 

to provide us the information that would be present in NICS that 

would prevent the sale of those particular guns. I do not think 

there is one particular factor that contributes to the inability or unwillingness of a State to provide that information. It may well be 

it costs additional time and money to ferret out that information 

and put into place a process to assure it goes into NICS. All we 

can do in the Bureau is encourage that the States provide us that 

information. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, you could just send us things we might 

be able to do now. As you know, I have been working on legislation 

on this for a long time. Representative McCarthy and I passed legislation about the mentally infirm, adjudicated mentally infirm, 

after Virginia Tech. Recently, Jared Loughner, the Tucson gunman, 

was rejected by the army due to his admitted drug use. Under the 

bill that McCarthy and I have put in, under Federal law, it seems 

to me such information could have been sent to NICS under existing law. 

So given that the President has stated that the NICS Improvement Act has not been properly implemented and Loughner’s ability to purchase a firearm even after admitting to the Federal Government—this is when he was applying to the armed forces—about 

his drug abuse, will you agree to examine the implementation of 

this legislation to ensure it is serving its intended purpose, for instance, having the armed forces report to NICS in these types of 

instances like Loughner? 

Mr. MUELLER. As I say, in every one of these instances we encourage, but we have no ability to do much more than encourage 

the responsiveness. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. And can you provide me with updated 

numbers in the next few days on how many people have been identified as drug abuses by each Federal agency? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think we can. 

Senator SCHUMER. Great. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Schumer. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, thank you for your service. You came to this office with unparalleled experience, the proven judgment, and integrity to lead the agency in an effective way. I believe you have done 

that. I salute you for it. The country has been lucky to have you 

there. I have worked with the FBI many, many years and have the 

greatest respect for the men and women who serve in that fabulous 

agency, truly I think it is fair to say the greatest law enforcement 

agency in the world. Would you agree? 

Mr. MUELLER. I cannot dispute that. 

Senator SESSIONS. I did not think you would, not perfect—— 

Chairman LEAHY. We would have some problems if you did, Director. 

21 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. It may not be perfect, and none of us are, but 

it is a great institution with fabulous men and women who serve 

every day, long hours and doing the things that are necessary to 

help protect us from crime and terrorist activities. 

I would like to follow up a little on Senator Graham’s questions 

about the Miranda warnings and the nature of the struggle that 

we are in with terrorism today. I remain totally baffled by this administration and, frankly, your perception that those who are dedicated to the destruction of this country, who enter our country with 

the design to attack and kill Americans somehow should be presumptively treated as criminals and should be provided Miranda 

warnings and other legal protections that we provide American citizens, but the kind of things that have never been provided to 

enemy combatants on the battlefield. 

First of all, I want to just make clear that I do not think it is 

speculative about where the battlefield is. I think the battlefield is 

where the enemy is attacking us. And we have seen that they are 

attacking us in our homeland. 

So I guess my first question is: How do you feel about the fundamental question of the apprehension of someone directly connected 

to al Qaeda in the United States bent on attacking the United 

States? Do you believe that should be treated as an act of war or 

a crime? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am going to leave that up to others to decide. 

I will tell you that we as an organization, if the responsibility given 

to us under the law is to make the arrest and there is an intent 

and a decision made by the President, whichever President it may 

be, whether it be Bush before or Obama now, that the person go 

through the Federal district courts and the procedures are mandated that we go through in order to have testimony admissible in 

a courtroom. 

Now, a decision can be made by the executive that they not go 

through the Federal criminal process of the United States, which 

is a decision to be made by the executive at whatever point in time, 

and that—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would agree—— 

Mr. MUELLER.—different procedures kick in. But if we are given 

the mandate to do the arrest and take them to trial and convict 

them under our courts, then there is a pathway that has been decided by the executive that we must follow. 

Senator SESSIONS. Have you made a recommendation that that 

is the way, the presumptive way—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I have not. No, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Have you opposed that? 

Mr. MUELLER. That is an issue that is left to the President, 

and—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Decided at a level above you? 

Mr. MUELLER. Way above me, yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I do not know, you being a long-time appointment, so you can speak candidly about what is important to 

protecting the safety of the United States of America. And you are 

not just expected to come here and rubber-stamp what decision is 

made in the White House. But according to the document you put 

22 

out on custodial interrogations, you say that the FBI policy, you 

will continue to adhere to the FBI policy regarding the use of Miranda warnings for custodial interrogations of operational terrorists. And you define operational terrorists as an arrestee who is 

reasonably believed to be either a high-level member of an international terrorist group or an operative. It goes on to describe that. 

So let us take the situation that Senator Graham was asking you 

about, and I think it is very important. If this is an enemy combatant, and I believe many of these terrorists are, associated with al 

Qaeda or organizations committed to the destruction of the United 

States, then they should be seen as a potential source of intelligence information that could help us identify who else may be in 

this organization, who else is threatening the United States. And 

isn’t it possible that you can obtain that kind of information 

through effective interrogation techniques? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I agree with you, it is absolutely essential 

in our first—when we have individuals who are involved in terrorist attacks, our first objective is to obtain the intelligence. And 

what our guidance is to our persons is that should be your objective—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that is—— 

Mr. MUELLER.—give advantage—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—your objective, but you indicate that there is 

some potential window of public safety exception which is not clear 

in any case law that I am aware of, not really clear what this public safety is. As you indicated, it cannot exceed 24 or 48 hours when 

they have to be brought before a Federal court if you are treating 

them as a criminal, right? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, if they are going to be treated in the courts 

of the United States—— 

Senator SESSIONS. How many hours—— 

Mr. MUELLER.—the requirement—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—has a court ever approved—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Let him finish. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, my time is about up, Mr. Chairman. It 

is an important issue. 

Chairman LEAHY. He has answered these questions several 

times already, but I would like to let him answer—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I would like to get a square answer out of it, 

too. 

Mr. MUELLER. And I am happy to answer. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, first of all—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me just say—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me just say to you—— 

Mr. MUELLER.—it is important to—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—this, and I will let you answer further. I believe that an individual arrested carrying a bomb, about to board 

an airplane in the United States directly connected to al Qaeda 

should be treated as an enemy combatant, does not need to be 

taken to court in 24 or 48 hours and given a lawyer, does not need 

to be given Miranda rights, may need to be subjected to weeks of 

interrogation utilizing the best information and techniques we have 

to find out who else in this country may be prepared to kill thousands of American citizens. And for you to say—and not acknowlVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:09 Jan 05, 2012 Jkt 071557 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71557.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
23 

edge that Miranda warnings can be counterproductive to that is inexplicable to me. So I would be glad to hear your comments. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I have not exactly said that, Senator. What 

I have said is that if a person is arrested—may I finish? If a person 

is arrested in the United States under our laws, we are guided by 

the statutes and by the Supreme Court in terms of what we can 

do. We have expanded and identified what we anticipate we should 

get when a terrorist has been arrested in the United States in 

terms of intelligence, and that is the first thing, without Miranda 

warnings, we do. But ultimately if that individual is to be prosecuted in the United States, there may well come a point in time 

where Miranda warnings are warranted. 

If the decision is made that the person is not going to go through 

our courts, that is a decision that is made by the executive and we 

quite obviously would follow that. But that person would not be in 

our custody or going through what we do day in and day out under 

the criminal justice system of the United States. 

Senator SESSIONS. How long do you wait before you give a Miranda warning under an exception? 

Mr. MUELLER. Under the exception? It is indeterminate. And we 

have had a number of occasions where we have put off both the 

giving of Miranda warnings as well as presentment for a number 

of days where we have got the person and the person agrees that 

they want to cooperate—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, they agree—— 

Mr. MUELLER.—and provide intelligence for a period of time. 

Senator SESSIONS. They agree. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, I would like to associate myself with all the 

other Senators who have commended you for your service. Thank 

you so much. 

I would also like to commend you for aggressively investigating 

mortgage fraud and predatory lending cases. Recently I became 

Chair of a new Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, 

and one thing I learned as I have been preparing for the Subcommittee’s work is that at the height of the subprime lending crisis in the summer of 2007, the No. 1 buyer of Internet advertising 

across all industries was a subprime lender. This was a company 

called Low Rate Source. Another top-five Internet advertiser in this 

period may sound more familiar—Countrywide Financial. 

And, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to add the 

Nielsen net ratings reports to the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. My point here is that subprime mortgages did 

not assign themselves, and one of the key ways that Countrywide 

Financial and other subprime lenders identified their targets was 

by gathering data about those customers online to see who might 

be a good mark and targeting them online, often without the customers’ having any idea that this was happening. Is this a trend 

24 

that the FBI has seen during its investigations of subprime lenders? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not familiar myself with that. I would have 

to get back to you on it. But we can do that. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, Mr. Director, it seems to me this is an 

area in which the FBI would be well served by working with the 

Federal Trade Commission. Can you tell me what you are currently 

doing to work with the FTC on this issue? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, I would have to get back to you on it. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Mr. MUELLER. I know we have a number of task forces and working groups with them, but I would have to get back to you with 

the specifics. 

Senator FRANKEN. I appreciate that. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. A while back, I saw Representative Peter 

King, Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in the 

House, say on TV pretty categorically that there was no cooperation from the Somali community or from community leadership in 

Minnesota after a very small number of members of that community went to Somalia to train with Al-Shabaab. My experience is 

that no one is more upset about what happened than the Twin Cities Somali community itself, and my understanding from talking to 

law enforcement is that there has been real cooperation from the 

community in Minnesota. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. I think that the Somali community in 

Minneapolis was taken aback by the number of young men who 

had traveled to Somalia to work with Al-Shabaab, and that that 

community, understanding what had happened to that community 

and the threat to the young men in that community, became very 

cooperative in terms of not wanting that to happen again. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, that was my understanding. He said 

quite categorically the opposite was true, and I take umbrage on 

behalf of the Somali community in the Twin Cities whom I represent. 

Now, it seems to me that it would make sense to have a Somali 

face on some of our counterterrorism efforts in the Somali community in Minnesota. Are you actively working to encourage and recruit members of key communities like the Somali community to 

actually become field agents? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, we are. We have not been as successful as 

we would like, but we continue to press hard and recruit from all 

segments of the community. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Many incidents have come to light recently of banks and debt collection agencies fraudulently signing affidavits. This has likely resulted in wrongful foreclosures and in consumers paying thousands 

of dollars in money that they do not owe. In fact, Lori Swanson, 

Minnesota’s Attorney General, filed a suit just yesterday against a 

large debt collection company alleging that it improperly signed 

hundreds of affidavits without verifying information. This has reportedly resulted in situations like that of a woman from Eagan, 

Minnesota—a southern suburb of the Twin Cities—who was purVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:09 Jan 05, 2012 Jkt 071557 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71557.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
25 

sued for years—a bill that she had already paid on time. She repeatedly sent her canceled check as proof of payment to the debt 

collector, but it took her a very long time to finally get the case dismissed by a court, and she has never been able to repair her credit. 

Do you think existing penalties for this type of fraud are strong 

enough? What more can we be doing to deter this kind of activity 

since it is so hard to make the victims whole after they have been 

defrauded? 

Mr. MUELLER. First, I would have to give some thought as to 

what additional legislation is necessary, whether it be enhanced 

penalties in a particular area. I can tell you that we have a number 

of investigations going into this general area, and we have found 

that with the success of these investigations, we do have indictments and persons do go away for a substantial period of time. I 

am not familiar with this particular case, and so I cannot say 

whether those activities in that case are under investigation. I 

could not anyhow, but I can assure you we have a number of investigations. 

Senator FRANKEN. Do not tell me anything I should not know. 

As you know, I have been very interested in how mortgage fraud 

has affected Minnesota. After our last oversight hearing, I submitted a question for the record asking you to explain the process 

by which the FBI chooses to prioritize resources for mortgage fraud 

cases. You said the FBI addresses the most prolific schemes that 

have the greatest impact on the communities where the fraud has 

occurred. 

I want to follow up on this because Minnesota has not just been 

affected by really big fraud cases. We have been hit by smaller 

frauds, too, where someone comes in and offers to refinance someone’s home loan, gets all of the homeowner’s information, then just 

steals the check when it arrives. Do you have the resources you 

need to investigate these smaller schemes and not just the highestprofile ones? And how are you working with state and local law enforcement to ensure that these outrageous cases of fraud are being 

prosecuted? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, what we endeavor to do is to work with 

State and local law enforcement in the form of either task forces 

or working groups, and we have currently 94 of these task forces 

and working groups around the country. We have almost 340 

agents doing this. Probably we could use some more, but we do do 

a triage across not just the universe of cases in the Federal arena, 

but also with State and local law enforcement to see if we can get 

resolution of all the cases across the board. And so we will sit down 

with a working group and say, OK, how can this case be best addressed. Some will go to Federal court. Some will go to State court 

to be handled by district attorneys and the like. But our endeavor 

is to identify the universe and make certain that we get all cases 

that we can addressed in some way, whether it be at the Federal 

level, State or local, and that requires the coordination with State 

and local law enforcement. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. And, again, thank you for your 

service. I hope your next job is slightly less pressure, but I do want 

you to keep serving our country, and I know you will in whatever 

way you choose. 

26 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

Senator Kyl. 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much. 

Director, I want to add my voice to those who have thanked you 

for your service. We appreciate it very much and obviously do wish 

you well. I would note, though, as in my case, your job is not quite 

done. I asked the Chairman if we might be calling you up one more 

time before you left. He said probably not, but I would not hold 

your breath yet. 

Mr. MUELLER. I am with the Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KYL. Let me first just follow up on a question that Senator Franken asked. The FBI does rely on the cooperation of the 

Muslim community to investigate radicalization particularly of 

young Muslims in the community. Is that not correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. True. 

Senator KYL. And I gather it would not be helpful to your efforts 

if members of the Muslim community refused to even talk to FBI 

agents without having their lawyer present. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would state at the outset everybody in the 

United States has a right to have a lawyer present, but what we 

would like and ask of these communities is that they encourage 

their persons to cooperate with us and provide us the information, 

the tripwires that will help prevent the next terrorist attack. 

Senator KYL. So it is not particularly helpful if they are advised 

that they do not talk to you unless they have a lawyer present? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am familiar with one of the placards that one 

entity had there, which across the board urged persons not to talk 

to the FBI. And that is not contributions we want from our citizens 

to stop crime, stop terrorist attacks. 

Senator KYL. Any citizen, for that matter. 

Mr. MUELLER. Any. 

Senator KYL. Right. Let me ask you about—could you describe 

just for the record in about 20 seconds what your Team Telecom 

mission is? 

Mr. MUELLER. Team Telecom. 

Senator KYL. Well, as I understand it, you have stood up a mission which assists in the evaluation of cyber activity by foreign corporations, for example. Maybe I should set the stage. I was just 

trying to set the preliminary stage. You are familiar with the Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator KYL. And there are a couple specific things that your 

Team Telecom has been advised. Maybe you have a different name 

for it. 

Mr. MUELLER. We call it CFIUS. I understand the process whereby the Government looks at the purchase of companies by—— 

Senator KYL. Right, and the FBI has a specific group that assists 

in that. 

Mr. MUELLER. We do. We call it CFIUS. Yes, we do. 

Senator KYL. Okay. One of the things that has been reported is 

that our country’s sixth largest cellular provider, U.S. Cellular, is 

27 

contemplating having Huawei build out its 4g network. Now, given 

the fact that we were concerned enough about Huawei’s potential 

contracting with AT&T and Sprint to the point that we intervened 

and both of those companies separated themselves from Huawei 

and did not move forward, what would your concerns be about such 

a contract with U.S. Cellular? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, this is something I am not certain we can 

address in open session. I can tell you the process is while we do 

not sit at the table with those who are in the CFIUS process, our 

recommendations or advice is often elicited, and we would do that 

in a classified setting. 

Senator KYL. And the kinds of advice that the FBI would give 

would be based upon just hypothetically what kind of a concern? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, concerns that—speaking generally, not 

about one company—— 

Senator KYL. Just generally, yes. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Or one particular process, but the 

concerns that through entities are operating with the backing of 

the Government that foreign governments may have access to classified communications to our intellectual property through proxies, 

and so the process, the CFIUS process, has been set up to assure 

that that possibility is examined, looked at, and a determination 

made as to whether or not a particular purchase of a company 

should go through. 

Senator KYL. Right. One of the things that has occurred, at least 

we understand, that Huawei has partnered with the company Hibernia to help build and deploy a cable from New York to the U.K. 

that will transmit sensitive data including market information 

from the New York Stock Exchange. And I am curious whether or 

not your team CFIUS or Team Telecom has reviewed that partnership with Hibernia and the cable license involved with this cable 

landing and whether you could inform us about any considerations 

that you would have there. 

Mr. MUELLER. At the outset, I am not familiar with the facts of 

that, but even if I were, I do believe it is the type of subject that 

would be addressed in a classified setting. 

Senator KYL. Okay. Just so folks that might not be quite as 

aware of this would understand, a little bit of background. This 

firm Huawei has a background with the People’s Liberation Army 

of China, is supported strongly by the Chinese Government, and at 

least in the past concerns have been raised about its involvement 

in the U.S. network, and that is the reason for the questions. 

Would you have a concern about FBI systems being integrated 

or having Huawei, for example, being integrated into FBI systems? 

Mr. MUELLER. I cannot speak to a particular company. I can say 

that ourselves, the intelligence community, are always concerned 

about assuring the security of our systems and the persons that are 

working on our systems or providing the capabilities that support 

our systems. 

Senator KYL. Would that also include even down to the local 

level? In other words, any network that might carry sensitive information or be connected with one that would carry sensitive information would potentially fall within the mission of the FBI taking 

a look at it. Is that correct? 

28 

Mr. MUELLER. It may well be that in those circumstances we 

would take a look at it. If you are talking about our systems, we 

would always be concerned about trap doors or back doors and 

ways into our systems. If there is a business purchase at some 

point, we may be asked to look at the impact of that purchase? 

Senator KYL. Just generally speaking, is there anything that you 

would ask of us at this point? Or could I just ask you to perhaps 

think about that and supply for the record any recommendations 

or suggestions you would have about assistance that Congress 

could provide for you to do your part of this mission? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Would be happy to. 

Senator KYL. Great. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KYL. And then just one last question. One of the things 

that has been on going with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security has been the matter—I am going back to the terrorist 

issue—of lexicon, and there is one theory that says you do not call 

people jihadists or Islamists because that simply gives credibility 

to their ideological foundation for their action. The other school of 

thought says if we are going to defeat a terrorist enemy, we need 

to at least be able to call it by its true name, understanding its etiology, its motivation of the people, what makes it tick so that we 

can effectively deal with it. 

Where does the FBI come down in this matter of terminology? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we call it as we see it. I understand that 

there is some discussion out there, but nobody has ever told us how 

we are supposed to describe terrorists or terrorist groups, and we 

try to give the most clear definition, but call it what it is. 

Senator KYL. Would you agree that one accurate description of 

some of these groups like al Qaeda, for example, is Islamist? 

Mr. MUELLER. Islamic extremists, absolutely. 

Senator KYL. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MUELLER. Extremists. ‘‘Extremists’’ is an accurate definition. 

Senator KYL. Just to be crystal clear, nobody is suggesting that 

the Muslim faith is responsible for all of this. But in the name of 

their view of their faith, a lot of folks—maybe not a lot, but a number of young people have been radicalized, and radicalized to extreme actions I guess is the reason for the extremist. But there is 

no denying the connection, in their mind at least, to their Islamist 

faith, I gather. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Agreed, yes. 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much, Mr. Director. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Kyl. 

Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, thank you so much for your testimony today and for 

your service to our country and for your diligent stewardship of the 

FBI. I have a number of areas I would like to touch on. 

First, in my former role as a county executive, I had responsibility for a county police department, and hopefully we will be focusing some latter this summer on the Federal and local law enforcement interface and collaboration. The FBI is an enormous 

source of valuable intelligence, not just in the national security 

29 

area, in the anti-terrorism area, but also just in routine local law 

enforcement—drug interdiction, violent crime, and so forth. 

Could you just comment on successes and areas of improvement 

for FBI intelligence sharing with local law enforcement and how 

you feel local law enforcement is doing nationally at moving toward 

intelligence-based policing? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me start with the information sharing. One of 

the great successes, I think, since September 11th is the growth of 

the Joint Terrorism Task Forces and that concept, and to the extent that we have been successful in cases, virtually all of them 

have been utilizing the combined resources of the FBI and other 

Federal agencies and State and local in the context of the Joint 

Terrorism Task Force. 

I am a great believer also in task forces across the board, whether it be mortgage fraud task forces or gang task forces, violent 

crime task forces, because it gives you the combined capabilities of 

the entities, but also gets everybody on the same page so those vehicles provide a sharing of intelligence. 

Second, I would say we are doing, I believe, a lot better job of 

informing generally State and local law enforcement of what is 

happening in the terrorism arena. We will all be, however, beat to 

the punch occasionally by CNN, and that is just a factor of life in 

this day and age. But right now we put out bulletins almost immediately after something becomes public with regard to a terrorist 

attack to all State and local law enforcement across the country. 

Fusion centers that are—I think there are 70-odd around the 

country now that also contribute to the sharing. On many of these, 

the majority of them, we have FBI personnel even though they are 

State entities that are participating. That contributes to the sharing as well. 

There will always be some tension between ourselves and others, 

particularly when the information that we are utilizing is classified 

because it may come from the CIA or NSA, and persons who do not 

get that information are often frustrated. So there will always be 

that tension, but I think we have made substantial progress, and 

that is one of the pluses, positive aspects of what has happened 

since September 11th. 

Senator COONS. And how do you address concerns about classified information access? What is your process or prioritization 

when you reach a tipping point and conclude that it is essential 

that local law enforcement have access to that information? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, any person who is assigned to a Joint Terrorism Task Force goes through a background check and gets a topsecret clearance. And so if you are State and local and you are on 

a task force, you have access to that which the agents sitting to 

your right and left have. Many police chiefs have also gotten clearances so that they can have access to—police chiefs or sheriffs, access to the information. 

But it has been our position throughout that if a person is responsible for the safety of a particular community, classification 

should not stand in the way of getting the information they need 

to protect their community. If there is a threat to a particular—to 

Wilmington, Delaware, and—— 

Senator COONS. Thinking hypothetically. 

30 

Mr. MUELLER. Hypothetically. And the chief of police has not got 

a clearance but there is a potential threat, you will get the information on that. We will find a way to get it, because I firmly believe those persons who have the responsibility for security have 

the right to that information if there is an immediate threat. 

Senator COONS. That is very helpful. Thank you. 

One other area I have worked on in collaboration with our Attorney General is DNA testing. We have only one State lab, our Office 

of Medical Examiner, which, oddly, comes under our State Health 

and Human Services Department, is understaffed, overworked, has 

a significant backlog. This is a challenge in many different States 

staying on top of the developing technology. Now that everyone 

watches it on TV, every defense lawyer believes they are entitled 

to, you know, top-level DNA testing, and there are a significant 

number of convicted offender samples—thousands in our case—that 

have not been reviewed as well. 

One possible solution to this backlog that was suggested to us 

was to allow private labs to do some of the backlog testing, but 

there is an FBI standard—I believe it is Standard 17—that requires that there be a full—essentially a public lab double-check for 

any work that is being done by a private lab before the FBI will 

accept the results. I just would be interested in whether you are 

doing anything to ensure that FBI regulations are not resulting in 

needless inefficiencies. Our Office of Medical Examiner identified 

that standard as one challenge that essentially made it not worth 

their time to engage with private labs to have them, at reduced 

cost and better speed, help them with their significant backlog. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, there is a quality control process, a technological review process that you are adverting to that is required 

that one go through before it is ingested into the data base. Over 

the last year this has been an issue. We know those who are pressing to avoid this, and it may be in certain circumstances a bottleneck. 

To the extent that it has been, we are trying to reduce that and 

put into place more efficient capabilities to assure that that quality 

control can be done without slowing the ingestion of the new samples into the data base. But most people agree that there needs to 

be a quality control before the samples do go in the data base. So 

what we are trying to do and will continue to do is make that process more efficient to remove the time lags and make certain that— 

and all of us want to get it in as soon as possible, make certain 

that is done as efficiently as possible. 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you. I appreciate your testimony 

about these questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Senator Coons. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MUELLER. Good to see you, sir. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to join in thanking you for your 

service over the years where I have had the privilege of working 

with you as Attorney General of the State of Connecticut. And I 

know that the Attorneys General of the United States appreciate 

your working so closely with them and really in a very close partVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:09 Jan 05, 2012 Jkt 071557 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\71557.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
31 

nership, and I particularly want to thank you for training and attracting the great men and women of the FBI who serve us so well 

day in and day out. And on that note, I just want to come back to 

the questions you answered about your budget. 

The inability to fill those 1,100 slots in my view would be really 

a disservice to the FBI and severely disadvantage this great organization, and I hope you agree with me in that. 

Mr. MUELLER. It would set us back. It is a setback, and we have 

been moving forward with the help of Congress and the Committee 

and the appropriators, and this would stall the progress that has 

been made. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. You know, I want to commend 

the FBI for its focus on an area that I think is extremely important—anabolic steroids. Recently in Danbury there was a major set 

of arrests involving breaking a drug ring that was selling steroids 

to high school users in the Danbury area, selling 70 bottles each 

month of these steroids to so-called individual users. And I know 

that very often we focus on street drugs, and the DEA has a responsibility in this area. But I want to commend the FBI for its 

focus on the steroid problem, which sometimes receives too little attention or awareness. And I wonder if the FBI is planning additional efforts to combat the spread and use of steroids, particularly 

among young users, high school and college users around the country. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say this generally is not an area that we 

would, particularly in this time of budget constraints, spend a lot 

of effort on, particularly when the primary agency with the jurisdiction is DEA. 

Now, we have become involved in investigations with DEA when 

steroids are coming from outside the United States with the Customs and Border Patrol, and we will contribute and participate in 

those investigations when we can provide something unique to further that investigation. 

But beyond that, I would have to go back and see what we are 

doing and get back to you on that, but I cannot say that given the 

challenges that we have and the threats that we have that this 

would be as high a priority as all of us would like. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I know that you have enormous 

challenges, and some of them we have heard today. But I would be 

interested in your additional information and also increased participation and support for other agencies that may have a primary 

role in this area, because I do think that the spread of these 

steroids, indeed an epidemic of their use, and an acceptance of 

their legitimacy is one of the great threats to our young people 

today, and I appreciate your willingness to cooperate in that effort. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. On a subject that others have asked you 

about, the mortgage foreclosure issue, I have to confess that I am 

unhappy and frustrated with the most recent efforts by the administration to send a message in this area—the robo-signers, which 

are a subject of ongoing investigation by the State Attorneys General, which I helped to initiate. So far we have seen virtually no 

major actions by the task force that the President has appointed. 

In the face of blatant fraud on the court involving the robo-signers, 

32 

false affidavits, clearly in my view criminal violations that are a 

fraud on our justice system, and I wonder if you could respond, 

please. 

Mr. MUELLER. Sure. I share that concern and belief that there 

is fraud out there, and I can tell you we have ongoing investigations. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I hope that we will see prosecutions 

soon. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but if you share 

my frustration, I hope that you also share my belief that we ought 

to have action soon. 

Mr. MUELLER. I do not disagree with that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

On the issue of missing children—and you have covered it a little 

bit—as you may know, the FBI was very constructively involved in 

a recent highly publicized search in the New Haven area for a 

missing 13-year-old, Isabella Oleschuk, who fortunately was found 

after 3 days. She appeared—in fact, left her own home on her own 

initiative, so she was not actually abducted or taken. But as you 

know, this problem is pervasive around the country. In Connecticut 

alone, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a 

great organization that does wonderful work, received 67 reports of 

missing children in Connecticut last year, and 19 are still missing. 

And I know that the FBI has extraordinarily important other 

tasks, but I wonder whether this has taken increased—has come 

to be seen as a subject of increased priority in the FBI. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say it has always been a priority. When 

a child is lost, every special agent in charge wants to work with 

State and local law enforcement to find that child, and we will participate in the investigation so long as there is a Federal basis. And 

generally that is the thought being the person may well have been 

taken, abducted across State lines. There are occasions where we 

have to withdraw from investigations where the child has been 

found, and yet there is some investigative work to be done, but we 

have lost the Federal jurisdictional basis for it. 

But I can tell you, when a child is lost, we as well as every other 

law enforcement entity around bring whatever we can to make certain that we find that child. We have experts—actually we have expert teams that are set up specifically to go to and address that circumstance when a child is lost. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I welcome that response, and I would note 

that it marks a departure from many years ago when missing children were thought to be exclusively a local or State issue, and particularly now that many missing children are likely to be taken 

across State lines either by parents or others, I think that is a very 

commendable approach. 

Mr. MUELLER. I can tell you that while not all missing children 

find their way to my BlackBerry, many of them do and we monitor 

that all the way up to the top. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I thank you very much, and, again, 

thank you for your extraordinary service to this Nation, and I 

think since I am the last questioner, I may enable you to leave this 

hearing unscathed and unwounded. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

33 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, and my only concern is we have 

CALEA, the Communications Assistance Law Enforcement Act, 

which I helped draft back in the 1990’s. We worked closely with the 

Bureau and everybody else because, as I recall, part of it I drafted 

in my hideaway office with others around. I hear concerns that it 

may go dark, and I just urge you and your office to work with me 

and others who do not want that to happen, to make sure that we 

can keep this going. May I have that assurance? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Okay. Well, I thank you very much. I appreciate you being here. 

I appreciate Attorney General Blumenthal wrapping it up, and 

thank you. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

34 


71557.001
35 


71557.002
36 


71557.003
37 


71557.004
38 


71557.005
39 


71557.006
40 


71557.007
41 


71557.008
42 


71557.009
43 


71557.010
44 


71557.011
45 


71557.012
46 


71557.013
47 


71557.014
48 


71557.015
49 


71557.016
50 


71557.017
51 


71557.018
52 


71557.019
53 


71557.020
54 


71557.021
55 


71557.022
56 


71557.023
57 


71557.024
58 


71557.025
59 


71557.026
60 


71557.027
61 


71557.028
62 


71557.029
63 


71557.030
64 


71557.031
65 


71557.032
66 


71557.033
67 


71557.034
68 


71557.035
69 


71557.036
70 


71557.037
71 


71557.038
72 


71557.039
73 


71557.040
74 


71557.041
75 


71557.042
76 


71557.043
77 


71557.044
78 


71557.045
79 


71557.046
80 


71557.047
81 


71557.048
82 


71557.049
83 


71557.050
84 


71557.051
85 


71557.052
86 


71557.053
87 


71557.054
88 


71557.055
89 


71557.056
90 


71557.057
91 


71557.058
92 


71557.059
93 


71557.060
94 


71557.061
95 


71557.062
96 


71557.063
97 


71557.064
98 


71557.065
99 


71557.066
100 


71557.067
101 


71557.068
102 


71557.069
103 

Æ 


71557.070