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

41–904 PDF 2008

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (PART II) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 23, 2008 

Serial No. 110–99 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 23, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 1 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 2 

The Honorable Robert C. (Bobby) Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .................... 3 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........................................ 5 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .............................. 7 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Robert S. Mueller, 

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC ........................... 87 

(1) 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

(PART II) 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John Conyers, 

Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson 

Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Wexler, Cohen, Johnson, Sherman, Baldwin, Weiner, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, Ellison, Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Chabot, Lungren, Keller, Issa, 

Pence, Forbes, King, Franks, and Gohmert. 

Staff present: Robert Reed, Majority Counsel; Perry Apelbaum, 

Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; and Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and 

General Counsel. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good morning. The Committee on the Judiciary 

will come to order. We are delighted to have the director of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Robert Mueller, before us. 

And we begin with some observations from our Members of the 

Committee, myself, Ranking Member Smith, Crime Subcommittee 

Chairman Scott and Judge Gohmert. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation is the critical cog in our Nation’s 

Federal law enforcement efforts. The Bureau has important powers 

that include the ability to combat crime, conduct surveillance on 

our citizens and initiate investigations. 

These powers have grown exponentially since the tragedies of 

September 11, and the question is how wisely is the Bureau using 

its vast resources and how appropriately are they being employed. 

With that in mind, the areas of my most concern deal with the 

use and misuse of National Security Letters. It is widely known 

that the Bureau has on numerous occasions issued National Security Letters without proper certification or approval memoranda 

and have improperly uploaded and retained information on private 

citizens. How do we deal with that? 

It is also no secret that the Members of this Committee, on a bipartisan basis, have expressed serious concerns about the FBI 

wiretapping of Members of Congress, particularly in connection 

with the investigation of Member Renzi. 

The surveillance of this nature raises serious constitutional questions that involve the speech and debate clause, and we should 

have a discussion about it. 

2 

There are similar questions presented in the case of the search 

of Representative Jefferson of Louisiana’s office, and the circuit 

court was forced to intervene and overrule the department in that 

regard. 

Whether the phone that is being tapped is public or private— 

whether it is or isn’t, it behooves the department and the FBI to 

take constitutional issues seriously and develop protocols and procedures with the legislative branch that protect the interests of all 

sides. 

I would also like to discuss here this morning the subject of several inmates held in solitary confinement in the maximum security 

Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola for 36 years. And I have 

asked as a result that the FBI file on this matter be revealed—released to this Committee immediately. 

And then, of course, we are still grappling with this question of 

the redaction of the notes related to the infamous Ashcroft hospital 

visit and the warrantless wiretapping program. 

We got records, but they were so redacted that they make no 

sense coming or going. It seems to me that we can get a more understandable version without trying to go into the conversations between the President and the Attorney General or anybody else. 

And so I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Texas, 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Lamar Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, like 

you, I welcome the director of the FBI to today’s hearing. 

For the last 7 years, the FBI has faced the task of balancing its 

expanding national security and counterterrorism responsibilities 

with its traditional law enforcement duties. 

And although this task has presented challenges to the FBI, the 

success of the dedicated men and women of the Bureau is evident 

from one simple fact. The United States has not suffered another 

terrorist attack. 

It is easy to assume that the terrorist threat has lessened or 

even disappeared because we have not had an attack since September 11, 2001. 

It is easy to become complacent about the need for vigilant intelligence gathering because we rarely read in the paper or hear on 

the news about the number of terrorist plots that have been 

thwarted by the FBI and other law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies. 

But the threat remains. And it is important that Congress ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are given 

the tools and the resources they need to protect us all. It is also 

important that Congress ensure that these are used properly. 

One powerful tool is our ability to gather intelligence to learn 

what our enemies are planning before it is too late. The Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, provides the framework for 

gathering foreign intelligence. But as we learned a year ago, it is 

outdated. 

Last August, Congress passed the Protect America Act to modernize FISA. In February, that law expired. And in August, so, too, 

will the surveillance authorized under the Act. 

3 

Congress has no greater or more urgent responsibility than to 

enact long-term common-sense legislation to modernize FISA and 

ensure that our Nation is safe from future attacks. 

Our national security relies on other information-gathering tools 

as well, including National Security Letters. National Security Letters allow the FBI to request the production of records held by 

third parties and are generally used to obtain telephone billing 

records, credit reports or financial information. 

Last year, the Department of Justice Inspector General issued a 

report citing significant problems with the FBI’s use of National 

Security Letter authority from 2003 to 2005. Recently, the Inspector General has released a follow up to its March 2007 report. 

According to this report, the FBI has made significant progress 

implementing the Inspector General’s recommendations and in 

adopting other corrective actions to its national security authority. 

The recent report is encouraging and shows that the FBI has 

taken strong action to ensure that its investigative efforts do not 

infringe on the privacy of individual Americans. 

Despite the FBI’s demanding counterterrorism efforts, we cannot 

lose sight of its traditional crime-fighting responsibilities. After a 

dramatic rise in violent crime that peaked in the early and mid 

1990’s, the most recent data reveals that the Nation’s crime rates 

are decreasing. 

Though violent crime is slightly down nationwide, trends in 

crime are changing. In the 1990’s, gang violence was traditionally 

found in urban communities of major cities like Los Angeles and 

New York City. But now we are seeing a rise of gang violence in 

suburban communities. 

The methods for committing a crime also are changing. The 

Internet has transformed traditional brick-and-mortar crimes into 

virtual crimes committed by faceless criminals with no borders or 

boundaries. 

Identity theft, child pornography, organized retail crime, theft of 

intellectual property and even drug trafficking can now be committed with a few computer strokes. 

Last year, I joined Chairman Conyers in introducing H.R. 4175, 

the Privacy and Cybercrime Enforcement Act of 2007. Our Nation 

has become increasingly vulnerable to cyberattacks as the U.S. 

economy and critical infrastructures grow more and more reliant 

on interdependent computer networks and the Internet. 

Large-scale computer attacks on our critical infrastructure and 

economy could have devastating results. Personal data security 

breaches are being reported with increasing regularity. During 

2006 alone, personal records for approximately 73 million people 

were lost or stolen. 

I look forward to hearing from Director Mueller today about improvements in Bureau operation, the continuing need to pursue 

counterterrorism and traditional law enforcement, and the FBI’s efforts to investigate the growing threat of cybercrime. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Lamar Smith. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, the Chairman 

of the Crime Committee, Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4 

And I want to thank the FBI director for appearing with us 

today. 

Like you, Mr. Chairman, I believe that while the FBI should be 

able to get whatever information is necessary for the fight against 

terrorism, there also needs to be meaningful oversight. 

First, we need traditional oversight over the Bureau’s NSL powers. At last year’s oversight hearing, we heard about the Inspector 

General’s findings of illegal and improper use of National Security 

Letters to obtain phone and financial records and that required reports to Congress were inaccurate. 

Last month, the Inspector General released another report which 

noted the Bureau’s own reviews confirmed numerous deficiencies in 

the process, including an almost 10 percent rate of unlawful violations which the Bureau should have reported to the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board. 

The next question, of course, is where is the oversight in this 

process. We have learned from the recent I.G. report that the Bureau has implemented internal policies and procedures, but it turns 

out that the checks and balances are presumably within the Bureau itself. 

Checking with subordinates is not a check and balance. Some of 

us think that check and balance means that you check with another branch of government. 

We always have to think about what would happen if such 

power, such as obtaining information pursuant to an NSL, is subject to political whims, and that concern is not just hypothetical. 

Republican-appointed officials have accused this Administration 

of firing U.S. attorneys because they did not indict Democrats in 

time to affect an upcoming election. We have been unable to ascertain the truth of the allegation for several reasons. 

First, high-ranking Administration officials questioned the credibility of the Attorney General’s original response to the allegation. 

Another high-ranking Justice Department official quit. Another 

pleaded the fifth. And White House officials have refused to respond to subpoenas. 

Second, we need to determine the necessity behind the broad 

NSL power itself. Some 140,000 NSL requests over the 3-year period may not have been necessary—140,000 requests. And all of 

these requests related to terrorism. 

At last year’s oversight hearing, the director testified that traditional FISA warrants would be too burdensome to acquire the information gained from an NSL. But are we bypassing traditional 

court oversight to engage in over-collection of information? 

We now understand that the Defense Department may be using 

FBI NSL power to access records that ordinarily it could not be 

permitted to obtain. 

And finally, we have been told that while the Bureau is asking 

to continue its broad power to fight against terrorism, it is losing 

critical information under the traditional powers it has. 

The Inspector General found, for example, that some intercepted 

information acquired by FISA order was lost due to the failure of 

the FBI to pay its phone bill. 

Finally, we have to determine how the Bureau is using the resources it has. If additional resources are needed to combat terVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\042308\41904.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41904
5 

rorism, we should be coming up with new resources rather than 

transferring powers, sacrificing the fight against white-collar crime 

and violent crime. 

We also need to make sure that other critical priorities and responsibilities are not left behind. 

So I look forward to seeing what the Bureau is doing in the fight 

against consumer identity theft, the investigation of shootings of 

innocent civilians and the assault and rape allegations of Americans serving our country in Iraq. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the Bureau’s responses. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the Crime Committee, Judge Louie Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your 

holding this important hearing. 

The question I found myself asking back during my days as a 

district trial judge, when there were allegations of impropriety by 

a State of Texas law enforcement officer with whom the FBI had 

been working—who investigates the investigators when the FBI is 

involved and recuses itself? 

We have heard stories of Attorney General Robert Kennedy authorizing wiretaps of Martin Luther King, Junior, which raises an 

issue of if there were probable cause to believe that the FBI were 

illegally wiretapping, then who can wiretap the FBI to find out? 

Frankly, I don’t know. 

We have learned in the recent past that when the FBI, as part 

of the executive branch, had concerns about someone in the legislative branch, the FBI believed it was appropriate to make an intrusion into a congressional office for the first time in over 200 years. 

Speaking hypothetically, if there were probable cause to believe 

the FBI had violated some law which made an intrusion into an 

FBI office in Washington necessary, who would be in a position to 

do that? 

These hypothetical questions should point out just how critical it 

is that our FBI get things right. It seems that since the judiciary 

branch and the legislative branches do not have trained undercover 

agents in them, it is very difficult to adequately bring a wayward 

FBI into line if we were to ever have that occur. 

I am fortunate to have known and worked with so many FBI 

agents over the years with the different hats I have worn, and I 

have known them well enough to know that I would have no hesitancy whatsoever in putting my life in their hands. I trust them 

that much. 

We also know that we have before us here testifying today the 

current FBI director, who is a Marine, a decorated Vietnam war 

hero, as well as a brilliant attorney and prosecutor. 

We can learn an important lesson from the biblical account of 

King David, who was the only man ever said in the Bible to have 

had a heart after God’s own. The lesson is this. Even the greatest 

people in the world, if left without adequate accountability, can 

give in to the temptation to abuse power. 

That recognition was part of the brilliance of our Constitution, 

which tried to address the problem of accountability by creating the 

6 

three separate but supposedly somewhat equal branches, to help 

keep the other branches in check. 

That is how we got this hearing to have the director of an independent agency over here testifying about what has gone right and 

what has gone wrong on some of these issues. 

Former Attorney General Gonzales had testified, and during his 

testimony here on Capitol Hill last year, he had said that there 

were no known abuses of the dramatic investigative tool called the 

National Security Letter as far as he was not aware—because he 

was not aware of the Inspector General’s report. 

That I.G. report indicated that there had been basically some significant problems of abuse with the NSLs. I recall Director Mueller 

saying, back when the abuses of this very invasive tool were 

brought to light, that he would have to take full responsibility for 

the inadequate supervision and training that had led to such 

abuses. 

To most Americans, the power of an FBI agent to simply send 

a letter without any court authority or warrant demanding private 

records in the possession of such person or entity pertaining to another individual is almost judicial in scope and probably was not 

anticipated by our constitutional forefathers under normal circumstances. 

It is a bit frightening to most people to have such a demanding 

letter also state within the letter that that person in the letter’s address would commit a Federal crime if he were to disclose that he 

even received the letter, the only exception being that he could discuss it with his attorney. 

That is why such oppressive power must be used sparingly, with 

great discretion and oversight. 

But we have also heard previously that the personnel policy that 

this director instituted includes a 5-year up-or-out policy. 

Essentially, that program prevents agents in a supervisory capacity with many years of experience and training from using their 

experience and training in that capacity for more than 5 years, 

after which they must either move to Washington, D.C., retire or 

take a demotion from their position. 

As I understand it, that policy has forced the loss of the FBI— 

of centuries of experience by those who simply would not move to 

Washington but chose to take their vast and valuable experience 

into the private sector or even be demoted. 

In the last hearing with the director, I had understood him to 

say that because of that policy, though, he has been thanked by 

junior or younger agents who were made supervisors who never 

thought that they would have had a chance to move up so soon, 

and I have no doubt that that thanks is abounding by those younger agents. 

I also note that if that policy of a 5-year limit on supervisory personnel were imposed on the director, it would mean the director 

would have retired as director back—September 4th of 2006, yet 

here we are. 

In any event, last week we had a hearing in this very room. The 

director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation testified. That is 

Vernon M. Keenan. 

7 

And I couldn’t help but ask him about their experience with moving people around, and he said the following, ‘‘I have discussed 

with FBI officials before my belief that they would be much more 

effective if they left their supervisors in duty stations longer to 

build those relations. Law enforcement is based around personal 

relationships and partnerships, and you have to have a stabilized 

workforce to build those relationships. The FBI is a wonderful law 

enforcement agency. Our agents to be a GBI agent is the same requirements to be an FBI agent. We have found out over the years 

that our most productive agents, most effective agents, are those 

that live and work in a community that have an opportunity to 

build public trust and work with their counterparts, and that is relationships.’’ 

Some others have noted that perhaps the 5-year up-or-out policy 

should have been scrapped in 2005 along with the multimillion-dollar computer system called the Virtual Case File, or VCF. 

The Justice Department’s Inspector General, in a February 2005 

audit, blamed the Virtual Case File’s program’s meltdown on poor 

management and oversight, design modifications during the project 

and bad I.T. investment practices. 

The I.G. also apparently reported that rapid turnover in important senior positions have hurt the FBI’s ability to manage I.T. effectively. 

In any event, Director, you will now talk about my concerns in 

this area, but we are pleased to have a hero such as yourself, a 

true patriotic American, here testifying before us, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Does any other Member wish to bring a welcome to the director 

before we begin this morning? 

Yes, sir—oh, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentlelady is recognized. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me again welcome the director, and it is good to see you, and 

we thank the FBI for its service in particular, and I always want 

to make note of the Houston office. We have had a series of great 

special agents in charge, and we are obviously benefitting from 

that leadership again. 

One of the principles of the FBI mandate or mission is to protect 

the civil rights of all Americans. And so in the course of this morning, and hopefully in the opportunity I may have to question, let 

me just make mention that I think we have had a series of harsh 

circumstances. I think we still have rising hate crimes in America. 

I think one of the sadder tales of justice was Jena 6, and I would 

be interested in how quickly the FBI became involved when the actions were taken by the high school students who happened to be 

White and provoked the situation. And there seemed to be no intervention at that time. 

And whether or not the relationship between the U.S. attorney 

and the FBI is the horse before the cart or otherwise, the FBI engaged in the investigation—if so, I think there was a great failure 

in that community. 

8 

I think the other question, of course, is how do we assess or how 

do we protect even persons who experience abuse in an incarcerated situation where their civil rights have been violated—prison 

abuse, for example. 

It is notorious in the State of Texas. We have previously been 

under a Federal court order some many years ago. But we face a 

situation where there is either abuse or inadequacy, and my question is the collaboration or the interaction with the FBI or special 

agent in charge. 

So I welcome you. I wanted to make note that my State in particular faces a number of, I think, serious issues that its youth 

commission—sexual abuse on children inside the juvenile system 

and, as well, the prison system, the State prison system. 

I believe that the FBI is a better organization when they are out 

front fighting for the civil rights of all Americans. And I hope that 

we will have a chance to have that discussion. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Witness Robert Mueller III, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has held this post since September 4, 2001. 

He has a long and distinguished career in public service between 

Princeton and the University of Virginia Law School. He served as 

an officer in the Marines and was heavily decorated for his duties 

there. He has been an assistant United States attorney in San 

Francisco, in Boston and in Washington, D.C. 

He served as assistant Attorney General for the criminal division 

in the early 1990’s, returned to San Francisco in 1998 as the 

United States attorney, has served two stints in private practice as 

a partner in two prominent Boston firms, was called back to Washington early in 2001 to be acting deputy Attorney General, where 

he served until assuming his current post. 

Director Mueller, we all welcome you. We will look forward to 

your comments. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. MUELLER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MUELLER. Good morning, and thank you for having me. 

Chairman Conyers, Representative Smith, Members of the Committee, it is an honor to be here. 

I have submitted a written statement for the record, and I ask 

that it be made a part of the record. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection. 

Mr. MUELLER. Sir, as you are aware, the FBI’s top three priorities are counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cybersecurity. 

These priorities are critical to our national security and to the 

FBI’s vital work as a committed member of the intelligence community. 

But important also are our efforts to protect our communities 

from the very real threat of crime, especially violent crime. 

In the counterterrorism arena, al-Qaida and related groups continue to present a critical threat to the homeland. But so, too, do 

self-radicalized homegrown extremists. They are difficult to detect, 

often using the Internet to train and operate. 

9 

But here at home our domestic joint terrorism task forces and 

abroad through our legal attaches and our international partners, 

we together share real-time intelligence to fight terrorists and their 

supporters. 

With regard to the counterintelligence threat, protecting our Nation’s most sensitive secrets from hostile intelligence services or 

others who would do us harm is also at the core of the FBI mission. 

In furtherance of this, we reach out to businesses and universities. 

We join forces with our intelligence community partners. And we 

work closely with the military to help safeguard our country’s secrets. 

Cyberthreats to our national security and the intersection between cybercrime, terrorism and counterintelligence is increasingly 

evident. Today, the FBI’s cyberinvestigators focus on these threats 

as we partner with others in government and industry. 

One way we do this is through our sponsorship of a program 

called InfraGard, an alliance of more than 23,000 individual and 

corporate members who help identify and prevent cyber attacks. 

I am mindful of your ongoing interest in the FBI’s progress in 

building an intelligence program while combating these threats, 

and the FBI has made a number of changes in the last several 

years to enhance our capabilities. 

Among them, today intelligence is woven throughout every FBI 

program and every operation, and then utilizing this intelligence 

we have successfully broken up terrorist plots across the country, 

from Portland, Oregon; Lackawanna, New York; Torrance, California; Chicago, Illinois; to the more recent Fort Dix and JFK plots. 

We have increased and enhanced working relationships with our 

international partners, sharing critical intelligence to identify terrorist networks and disrupt planned attacks around the globe. 

We have doubled the number of intelligence analysts on board 

and tripled the number of linguists. We have tripled the number 

of joint terrorism task forces from 33 in September of 2001 to over 

100 now. 

And these task forces combine the resources and expertise of the 

FBI, the intelligence community, military and State, local and tribal law enforcement. 

And another critical and important part of the FBI’s traditional 

mission is quite clearly our work against criminal elements in our 

communities, very often and most useful in task forces with our 

Federal, State and local and tribal partners. 

I will say that public corruption remains the FBI’s top criminal 

investigative priority. In the past 2 years alone, we have convicted 

over 1,800 Federal, State and local officials for abusing their public 

trust. 

Similarly, our work to protect the civil rights guaranteed by our 

Constitution is a priority which includes fighting human trafficking 

as well as our focus on the Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative. 

Gangs and violent crime continue to be as much a concern for the 

FBI as it is for the rest of the country. The FBI’s 143 Safe Streets 

Violent Gang Task Forces leverage the unique knowledge of State 

and local police officers with Federal investigative resources. 

10 

We also sponsor 52 additional violent crime and interstate theft 

task forces as well as 16 safe trails task forces targeting crime in 

Indian Country. 

The FBI combats transnational organized crime in part by linking the efforts of our Nation’s 800,000 State and local police officers 

with international partners through the FBI’s legal attache offices, 

of which we have currently over 60 all over the world. 

And finally, major white-collar crime, from corporate fraud to 

fraud in the mortgage industry, clearly continues to be an economic 

threat to the country. 

For example, in recent years, the number of FBI pending cases 

focusing on mortgage fraud, including those associated with 

subprime lending, has grown nearly 50 percent to over 1,300 cases. 

Roughly half of these have losses of over $1 million and several 

have losses over $10 million. 

We will continue our work to identify large-scale industry insiders and criminal enterprises engaged in systemic economic fraud. 

We recognize that for the past 100 years of the FBI’s history our 

greatest asset has been our people, and we are building on that 

history with a comprehensive restructuring of our approach to intelligence training for both our professional intelligence analytical 

core as well as for new FBI agents coming out of Quantico. 

We have and we will continue to streamline our recruiting and 

hiring processes to attract persons having the critical skills needed 

for continued success. 

I also remain committed to ensuring our employees have the information technology infrastructure they need to do their jobs. This 

includes the continuing successful development of the Sentinel case 

management system as well as other I.T. upgrades. 

I am very well aware of your concerns that we always use legal 

tools given to the FBI fully but also appropriately. After the Department of Justice reviewed the use of National Security Letters, 

we instituted additional internal oversight mechanisms to ensure 

that we as an organization minimize the chance of future lapses. 

Among the reforms was the creation of a new Office of Integrity 

of Compliance within the Bureau to identify and mitigate such potential risks. 

In closing, the FBI recognizes that it is, in some sense, a national 

security service responsible not only for collecting, analyzing and 

disseminating intelligence, but most particularly for taking timely 

action to neutralize threats to this country, either threats from a 

terrorist, from a foreign spy or from a criminal. 

And in doing so, we also recognize that we must properly balance 

civil liberties with public safety in pursuing our efforts, and we will 

continually strive to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, Representative Smith, Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this morning, and I do look forward to answering your questions. Thank you, 

sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mueller follows:] 

11 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. MUELLER


RSM-1.eps
12 


RSM-2.eps
13 


RSM-3.eps
14 


RSM-4.eps
15 


RSM-5.eps
16 


RSM-6.eps
17 


RSM-7.eps
18 


RSM-8.eps
19 


RSM-9.eps
20 


RSM-10.eps
21 


RSM-11.eps
22 


RSM-12.eps
23 


RSM-13.eps
24 


RSM-14.eps
25 


RSM-15.eps
26 


RSM-16.eps
27 


RSM-17.eps
28 


RSM-18.eps
29 


RSM-19.eps
30 


RSM-20.eps
31 


RSM-21.eps
32 


RSM-22.eps
33 


RSM-23.eps
34 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Director Mueller. 

The thing that bothers many of us most is the National Security 

Letters, a very large embarrassment to all of us. 

What can we do to ensure that the field office directors share a 

commitment to rectifying the problems pertaining to the abuse of 

National Security Letters when it seems like at the top we always 

seem to work out agreements but they don’t seem to drift down to 

the men and women in the field? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me review, if I could, what steps we have 

been taking since the first report came out a year, 11⁄2 years ago. 

As I mentioned in my remarks, we established an Office of Integrity and Compliance. 

We had procedures in place for addressing National Security Letters, but there were lapses throughout the country in those procedures. 

We now have an Office of Integrity of Compliance that looks not 

just at NSLs but other requirements under the law, that red-teams 

it to assure that we identify the risks and find and identify and fix 

those risks before it gets—before somebody else, such as the Inspector General, comes and looks at it, so that we can identify our 

vulnerabilities and address them early on. 

We have created new database and software for accurate reporting to Congress on the numbers of NSLs and the types of NSLs. 

All of our National Security Letters are now reviewed by the 

counsel in each one of our offices. 

We have barred the use of exigent letters, which created the 

problem that was found by the Inspector General. 

And we have provided comprehensive guidance and training to 

our field offices in the last year. 

I believe that in the testimony that was given before a Subcommittee of this Committee a week or so ago—and I will quote 

from the testimony given by Glenn Fine. 

He says that, ‘‘We believe the FBI has evidenced a commitment 

to correcting the serious problems we found in our first report on 

National Security Letters and has made significant progress in addressing the need to improve compliance in the FBI’s use of the 

NSLs.’’ 

Now, I will be quick to say he also said that the department’s 

measures are not yet fully implemented—we are in the process of 

implementing all of those that I described—and that the I.G. will 

be looking to assure full implementation of those measures. 

So in this case, I think we have taken the steps that are necessary to assure that this will not happen again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. What about the Congressman Renzi, Congressman 

Jefferson intrusions, wiretap of Renzi’s phone with other Members 

of Congress’ conversations, and Congressman Jefferson’s office 

being broken into? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I would start with Congressman Jefferson’s 

office. The search that was conducted of his office was done pursuant to a court order. The full facts were exposed to the district 

court judge. The judge issued the search warrant understanding all 

of the facts, and the search was done pursuant to that court order. 

35 

Now, that was reviewed by the circuit court, who in its opinion 

indicated that the protocols we followed were not adequate to preserve the privilege. 

And so we are, with the Department of Justice, looking at protocols, and my understanding is the department is discussing with 

elements of the Congress appropriate protocols. 

Mr. CONYERS. I see. Well, can every Member of the Congress and 

the United States Senate assume that we could still get broken 

into like Jefferson until this is resolved? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I do not 

agree with the characterization as ‘‘broken into.’’ This was a validly 

issued search warrant from a court, so it was the execution of a 

search warrant. 

And in the future—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, okay. So your answer is yes, we can expect 

that we could get busted, too. 

Mr. MUELLER. We understand that there has been an intervening circuit court opinion that requires us to follow protocols, although it is not clear what those protocols are, but we are very sensitive to not only the debate clause but also to the circuit court 

opinion that said that we did not have the adequate protocols in 

place. 

Now, what those protocols will be is a subject of discussion between, my understanding, Congress and the department. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I am glad you are sensitive. We are, too. 

Mr. MUELLER. Also, with regard to the other question you asked 

in terms of the wire interception of a phone with regard to a recent 

investigation, this was an interception that was approved by a 

court, and it was an interception on a phone that was registered 

to a company in Phoenix, Arizona. 

And while not being able to speak specifically about an ongoing 

investigation, an ongoing prosecution, I can say that that phone 

was a phone that was registered to a corporation in Phoenix, Arizona. 

And that in order for us to intercept, we, again, have to go to a 

court, make a probable cause showing, and that any interception 

that is maintained by us is reviewed by the court generally every 

10 days or 15 days, and there are minimization procedures that 

are—— 

Mr. CONYERS. What about the other congressmen, if there were 

any others, whose conversations were intercepted? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, when one does a wiretap, there is a statutory obligation to inform persons who may have been overheard. 

Although they may not be the target of the interception, there is 

an obligation that you notify those persons that they were overheard. 

Mr. CONYERS. And has that occurred? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could you make me sleep more comfortably tonight by saying that also the conversations were redacted, were 

taken out, since the speech and debate clause, I presume, operates 

on personal telephones as well as government telephones? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I am not certain what minimization procedures were in place, and I am not sure how they were applied in 

36 

that particular case. And even if I did know, because it is currently 

in litigation, I probably would not be able to discuss it in this 

forum. 

Mr. CONYERS. But it is the obligation of the FBI to know. I mean, 

where do—do you have someplace else we can go to find out the 

answer to this question? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Lamar Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Director Mueller, I would like to congratulate you 

and other law enforcement agencies and other information-gathering agencies as well for what you have done to prevent another 

terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. 

It looks like to me that you all are batting 1,000, having prevented any other terrorist attack, and I hope that that can continue 

as well. 

My first question goes to a recent report by Fox News, and I 

would like to read you the beginning of the report and ask you to 

comment to the extent that you can. ‘‘The FBI has narrowed its 

focus to about four suspects in the 61⁄2-year investigation of the 

deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects 

are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort 

Detrick in Maryland.’’ 

Now, that is an ongoing investigation, so I know you can’t go into 

any detail, but can you tell us, for example, when that investigation might be concluded, whether it might be this year or not, or 

anything else you can tell us about it? 

Mr. MUELLER. What I can say, and all I can say, about it—it is 

an ongoing investigation. We have a number of agents and postal 

inspectors assigned to it, as we have since the incident occurred 

back in 2001 and 2002. And we continue to push the investigation 

hard. 

I cannot give you a time frame, however. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I understand. Let me go to the subject of violent crime, which, as you know, has decreased slightly in 2007. I 

think violent crime is down 1.8 percent. 

You mentioned in your testimony a few minutes ago that one of 

those reasons are the task forces that have been created. Usually 

in a slow economy, violent crime increases. To what do you attribute the slight decrease in violent crime that we see across the 

country? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think what we have seen over the last year is 

some spikes in some cities, some decrease in other cities. 

I do believe one of the most effective tools in addressing violent 

crime is having Federal, State and local task forces, and support 

of Congress of those task forces and of the participation of State 

and local law enforcement on those task forces. 

We currently have a total of 182 violent gang crime task forces 

around the country, and I think to a one they are perceived to be 

effective not only by the Bureau and our other Federal partners, 

but also by State and local law enforcement. 

And to the extent that funding has come through from the Federal side of the house, I am tremendously supportive of those funds 

37 

going to State and local law enforcement on condition that they be 

utilized in the task force arena, because I do believe we are most 

effective when we sit shoulder to shoulder and address these areas 

together, whether it be on joint terrorism task forces or on violent 

crime task forces. 

I might also add, there are a number of factors that go into the 

rise or fall of violent crime in a particular region or a particular 

city. The extent of incarceration is one of those factors—drug abuse 

or usage, the prevalence of gangs. 

There are a number of various factors that may result in a rise 

of violent crime in one community, whereas a community several 

miles down the road does not see the same type of spike. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Director. 

One type of crime that unfortunately is on the rise is Internet 

child pornography, and we have passed a number of laws to address that, and I wonder if you have any suggestions for us as to 

any other legislation that might be helpful to you in order to prosecute the Internet child pornography. 

Mr. MUELLER. A couple things about our capabilities in that regard. We currently have approximately 270 agents who are working what we call Innocent Images. We have a task force operating 

out of Maryland which is an international task force in which we 

have had agents from some 21 countries who are participating on 

this task force. 

We recently had a takedown several months ago of almost 60 individuals who, over a period of 15 years, had over 400,000 images, 

pornographic images, child pornography, that they had encrypted 

and thought they were safe from the authorities. 

And I think close to 60 persons were arrested in the United 

Kingdom, in Australia, in Germany and the United States as we 

busted that up. 

I know the question that you asked at the end is what do you 

need or what will we need to be more—— 

Mr. SMITH. Are current laws adequate, or do we need to do more, 

correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. And in each of these cases it is important that we 

have access to the records, and records retention by ISPs would be 

tremendously helpful in giving us the historical basis to make a 

case in a number of these child predators who utilize the Internet 

to either push their pornography or to lure persons in order to met 

them. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Director. That is helpful. I think 

a number of us may well follow up on that suggestion. The ability 

to retain those records sounds to me like it is crucial. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to Director Mueller for being with us today. At 

our last meeting, we discussed the needs of the FBI in the area of 

linguistics, and you mentioned that you can get a breakdown of the 

needs of the FBI in this area—linguistics, languages. 

And I do not think I formally asked for the breakdown, but could 

you give us some information on which languages you may have 

shortfalls in? 

38 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we still have a shortfall—— 

Mr. SCOTT. And if you don’t have it with you—— 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. In terms of Middle Eastern languages 

and Asian languages. I would say in those two areas—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I serve on the Education and Labor Committee, so if 

we could get a breakdown of that, and also the diversity numbers 

for all of your employees—I would appreciate it if you could provide 

that for us. 

Mr. MUELLER. Happy to do that. Happy to do that. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. What is being done with the allegations of sexual assault committed by persons working for contractors in Iraq. 

Are allegations of sexual assault by persons working as contractors 

in Iraq being investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted? 

Mr. MUELLER. I know we have a number of investigations going 

with regard to activities in Iraq. Ultimately, we are constrained in 

two areas. 

The first area is by conducting investigations in an area where 

you can’t assure the safety of our persons, you can’t go out and 

interview witnesses as you would on the streets of the United 

States—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, let me just ask a shorter question. Are we doing 

the best we can to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute those 

allegations? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. In the area of torture—I know these questions 

may require—you may not be able to answer in open session, and 

if that is the case, that is just the case. 

Have you authorized torture by any FBI agents? 

Mr. MUELLER. Can I or have I was the question? 

Mr. SCOTT. Have you? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. It has been our policy—it has been the protocol of the FBI traditionally not to use coercion in interrogating 

individuals or questioning individuals, and we have adhered to that 

protocol. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now, apparently your agents have been 

trained appropriately along those lines, but to your knowledge, 

have FBI agents warned other Administration employees that 

those employees may be breaking the law by torturing people? 

Mr. MUELLER. There have, over the years, been occasions where 

our employees have informed employees of other agencies that they 

believed their conduct was not appropriate. 

Mr. SCOTT. Have any FBI arrests of U.S. citizens been made for 

torturing people? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you. I do believe that 

there have been investigations, formal investigations, of torture by 

either contractors or members of another organization in which we 

are the investigating body. 

And my belief is that in at least one case that has been brought 

back and the person successfully prosecuted here. I think it was in 

North Carolina. It may have been South Carolina. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. On I.D. theft, one of the problems when 

you have these major breaches in security and subsequent loss of 

identifying information is the fact that I.D. theft seems to be a 

crime that is rarely investigated and prosecuted. 

39 

What can we do to ensure that even run-of-the-mill I.D. thieves 

will be pursued? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we pursue the larger breaches. The ability 

of hackers to steal information has grown exponentially over the 

last several years. 

The Department of Justice has a task force concept in which we 

participate in which most, if not all, of the U.S. attorneys have 

come together with State and local law enforcement as well as ourselves participating to address identity theft. 

But it is a substantial problem, a huge problem, and it takes tremendous resources—it would take tremendous resources to address 

every one of them. We have picked those that are the large intrusions, where there are substantial numbers and names that are 

stolen, and pursued those. That we do. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you could get us some estimates of resources that 

would be needed to pursue even more cases, we would appreciate 

it. 

Public reports reveal that the FBI had some phones cut off because of failure to pay phone bills. Is that true? And if so, what 

happened? 

Mr. MUELLER. We did not have a financial system that assured 

throughout our 56 field offices, 400 resident agencies, that the 

phone bills were paid on time. There were five instances going back 

to 2002 in which apparently—where we had an interception. It was 

for a period of time disrupted until the bill had been paid. 

We have focused on two. I think they were in 2002. Absolutely 

no harm came to the investigations, so that is as a result of the 

I.G. report that we—which identified five instances in which that 

may have happened. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. I would 

like to pose another question that I could get an answer in writing, 

since my time has expired, if that would be appropriate. 

And the question is what is the FBI doing to combat human trafficking? You mentioned that in your opening statement—especially 

whether or not you are using our new legislation, which removed 

the necessity to prove force, fraud and coercion in the cases. 

I know my time has expired. If you could get that information 

to us, we would appreciate it. 

Mr. MUELLER. We will do it, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee emeritus, Jim Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Current Chairman. 

During my 6 years as Chairman, Mr. Director, the FBI continuously frustrated the Committee’s attempt to get to the bottom of 

the fiasco of the Virtual Case File. 

How much money was wasted in that before you gave up on it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, sir, we had tried to be fully transparent at 

what happened there. I had to make the decision to cut that loose 

because it was not going to be successful, and I believe we provided 

thorough briefings throughout the time that you were the Chair. I 

certainly tried to. 

40 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I want to know how much money was 

wasted. 

Mr. MUELLER. There was, I believe, a lot of—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. There was a lot of briefings but no figure. 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe that there was $197 million that was put 

into that program, of which we could recover somewhere under 

$100 million of that, so at least $97 million, probably more, more 

likely $100 million. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Has that money been recovered yet? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Why not? 

Mr. MUELLER. There are a number of intervening entities that 

were, in part, responsible for that. And the advice of counsel is that 

we would not be successful if we attempted to go to court and recover it. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Now, this goes to an endemic management problem. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, referred 

to the fact that there were phones shut off because the phone bill 

wasn’t paid on time. 

You know, now we hear about the fact that almost $200 million 

appears to have been lost in an unsuccessful attempt at the Virtual 

Case File. You and I both know that that was not the first attempt 

to provide the best information to agents available. 

And we are now in the middle of implementing the Sentinel program, which I believe is the fourth attempt to do this. What is 

there that you can tell us that the fourth attempt is going to be 

more successful than the previous three? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I am not familiar with the first two. I am 

very familiar with Virtual Case File, because that contract was entered in, I think, 2000, and it had a three-prong approach. It had 

the hardware. It also had the networks. And it had the software 

package. 

Two of those prongs were very successful, the networks and the 

hardware. But the software package was not successful. When we 

decided that we could not effectively bring online Virtual Case File, 

we decided to cut our losses and start Sentinel. 

The first phase of Sentinel was put in place June of last year. 

It was successful. It was on time, on budget. We are in the second 

phase. And my expectation is that that will be on time and on 

budget. 

We have gone to a spiral development in which we have pieces 

that are pulled together and put in place as opposed to going phase 

by phase by phase, so we are advancing the capabilities in the 

course of administering this contract. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, what management techniques have 

you learned from the fact that the Virtual Case File effort went off 

the cliff and the taxpayers got stuck with a pretty significant bill 

that you are applying to make sure that this doesn’t happen with 

Sentinel? 

Mr. MUELLER. There are probably three things, I would say. One 

is you need a chief intelligence officer infrastructure. You need an 

architecture. You need the persons capable of managing contracts 

such as this. You need the expertise. We had none of that in 2001. 

41 

We have built a substantial chief intelligence officer capability 

and contract management capability. 

Secondly, one of the lessons I learned is that you cannot just 

turn to the experts in technology and say, ‘‘Build something.’’ 

What you need is a combination of those who are familiar with 

the business practices to be integrated with the technicians to assure that what you are going to build will actually work and actually will move the organization ahead. 

And you have to do it in a combination of setting down firm requirements so that both you and the contractors know what you 

are going to build to—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And are those requirements in place? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And how often do you personally review 

whether things are on track? 

Mr. MUELLER. Every week, generally. Now, I will miss a week 

or two, but I generally meet on Sentinel with all of the players once 

a week. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. That sounds good, and I wish you 

good luck. And I hope that we don’t see you back here with a report 

like the Virtual Case File reports that we got during my chairmanship. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mel Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Director, would you agree that it is a violation of international law to render any person to a secret detention without a 

trial? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to—I have not looked at international law and have not had an opportunity to apply the law to 

any particular set of facts. 

Mr. WATT. Well, I am not asking you to apply it to any set of 

facts. I am just asking you to acknowledge that the rendition of a 

person to secret detention without a trial is a violation of the 

United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights, the International Convention of Civil and Political 

Rights, the Geneva Convention? 

So I mean, that is not a trick question. I am just asking—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I am not familiar with—— 

Mr. WATT [continuing]. Do you acknowledge that that is a violation of international law? 

Mr. MUELLER. It may well be. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Do you acknowledge that if the captives were 

tortured that it would be a violation of Federal law, 18 USC section 

2340? 

Mr. MUELLER. It may well be. 

Mr. WATT. And if you had a contractor in North Carolina, for example, assisting with transporting people, rendering people, out of 

the country, what would the FBI be doing about that if they knew 

about it? 

42 

Mr. MUELLER. Sir, if there were an allegation of a violation of the 

Federal law, we presumably would be participating in that investigation. 

Mr. WATT. Are you aware that the North Carolina Attorney General has referred such a matter to you about a company called Aero 

Contractors in North Carolina? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not. I would have to get back to you about 

that investigation. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Well, what I would like to know is what you 

all know about—what the FBI’s involvement with this investigation is. The Attorney General of North Carolina has notified 22 

State legislators that the matter was referred to the FBI. 

And apparently a public prosecutor in Munich, Germany has 

issued arrest warrants for three of the company’s employees, all of 

whom are residents of North Carolina. I would like to know what 

the FBI is doing in this investigation, whether it is doing anything, 

and I would be happy to have it in writing. 

In fact, it would be better to have it in writing. We maybe don’t 

need to discuss it in a public venue. But I would like to know what 

is going on with that investigation, if there is an investigation, 

what the status of it is, whatever you can legitimately tell me without violating whatever constraints you have. 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not personally familiar with the investigation. I will have to get back to you on the—— 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Will you do that? 

Mr. MUELLER. We will do so, yes, sir. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Aero, A-E-R-O, Contractors, Johnston County, 

operating out of the Johnston County Airport near Smithfield, 

North Carolina. 

Mr. MUELLER. Okay. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Now, there was an allegation that—actually, I 

guess you all have acknowledged that a National Security Letter 

was inappropriately issued with reference to a North Carolina state 

university student. Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. It was inappropriately issued. 

Mr. WATT. Tell me what happened and why it happened. 

Mr. MUELLER. What I understand is that an agent believed that 

NSL was the appropriate vehicle and served an NSL on the particular university. I can’t remember which one it was. 

The counsel for the university indicated that it was inappropriately issued, and I believe a grand jury subpoena followed up. 

Mr. WATT. So that was one of how many cases where NSLs were 

inappropriately issued? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain. I would have to get back to you 

on that. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Can you specifically get back to us on that, too? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. We did a 10 percent audit of our offices. Ten 

percent of the NSLs had been issued during a period of time after 

this came to light, and I can, I believe, get you the facts on how 

many NSLs may have been inappropriately issued in that same 

category. 

Mr. WATT. How soon do you think we might expect the specific 

responses to both of those issues, the Aero—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Within a week. 

43 

Mr. WATT. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The distinguished Ranking Member of the Intellectual Property 

Subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina, Howard Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, good to have you on the Hill today, and thank 

you for your service. I would like to talk to you, Director, about 

mortgage fraud and intellectual property. 

I feel strongly that the growing crisis in subprime mortgages is 

a result of a predatory lending epidemic which seems to have 

reached about every portion of the country. 

What is the FBI’s role in investigating mortgage fraud? And do 

you all have the resources and support from other law enforcement 

agencies to effectively pursue these cases as they continue to 

emerge? 

Mr. MUELLER. As I indicated in my remarks, we have more than 

1,300 cases that have grown substantially over the last couple of 

years involving mortgages. We have 246 agents that are working 

on this. 

Approximately 160 are looking at brokers, appraisers, buyers, 

lenders and the like. We have another almost 90 that are looking 

at larger corporations, the possibility of misstatements and the 

like. We have 19 relatively large cases in this category. 

We are participating in 33 task forces. And last year, we had 

over 370 indictments in this class of white-collar crime. 

But it is fair to say that as these mortgage cases grow, as the 

investigations proceed, that we are going to need additional resources to address this problem and to bring to justice those who 

are responsible for fraudulent activities in the subprime mortgage 

arena. 

Mr. COBLE. And you know, Director, lenders and borrowers, 

probably both, are at fault in this case. If a borrower knows that 

he or she is not going to be able to comply, perhaps backing off 

would be in order, and then the same thing would apply to the 

lenders, I would say. Do you concur with that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, all the way up the chain there have been— 

may well have been misrepresentations or allowable misrepresentations, and we would investigate through it. 

We have to pick, quite obviously, those cases that have the most 

impact and bringing to justice those most responsible for the defalcations that may have occurred in this—— 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Mueller, put on your intellectual property hat, 

if you will. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Given the extent of I.P. criminal activity and the 

FBI’s own acknowledgment that no FBI field special agents are assigned full-time to the investigation and pursuit of intellectual 

property rights matters, do you concur that we need more agents 

dedicated to anticounterfeiting and piracy investigations, A? 

And B, are our international field offices adequately equipped to 

assist in these investigations? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, worldwide, with the advance of technology, 

the ability of persons to counterfeit, whether it be CD-ROMs, or 

44 

software packages, or music CDs, or pull it off the Internet, it is 

a burgeoning problem, and no one agency has the resources to address it. 

Now, we address it when they are relatively large cases. I am 

sure you are familiar with a case that we brought down several 

months ago involving a joint operation with China, People’s Republic of China. 

But we take the largest cases, but quite obviously, with more resources, we could do more. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. Mueller. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

The distinguished gentlelady from California, Maxine Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Mueller, for being here today. I want to follow 

up on the questions about the mortgage subprime crisis that we 

have now. 

This has been going on for quite some time, and it appears, just 

looking, that less than 10 fair lending cases have been filed between 2002 and 2007. Could you tell us exactly what you are doing 

now? How many cases do you have under active investigation? 

Mr. MUELLER. Over 1,300. In fact, the latest total, to be specific, 

is 1,337. 

Ms. WATERS. Have you identified any of the institutions that 

have been involved in serious fraud? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have investigations into 19 large institutions. 

We have had a number of indictments, as I said. Last year, we had 

320 (sic) indictments or informations in this arena. 

Ms. WATERS. You had how many indictments? 

Mr. MUELLER. Three hundred and seventy. 

Ms. WATERS. For mortgage fraud? 

Mr. MUELLER. For mortgage fraud. 

Ms. WATERS. Could we get more information on that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, you can. We will get that to you. 

Ms. WATERS. Go ahead. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, as I said, we have over 1,300 cases. We have 

a total of almost—we have got 246 agents working on mortgage 

fraud around the country. We participate in 33 task forces with the 

Securities and Exchange Commission, with other Federal, State 

and local entities. 

The Department of Justice has a coordinating committee that is 

specifically addressed to issues relating to the subprime mortgage 

arena. And so a great deal is being done there, but I will say that 

the cases are growing each year. 

Ms. WATERS. Have you made the indictments public? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Is that public information? 

Mr. MUELLER. It should be, yes. There may be one or two in 

there that are still sealed, but I would venture to say that most of 

them are public. We can get you a list of them. 

Ms. WATERS. Would you please get me a list of those? Because 

we have not seen—I have not seen that, and the public is, you 

know, very, very upset about the fact that we don’t appear to be 

45 

doing anything to deal with this massive fraud that has taken 

place in this country, so we need to understand exactly what you 

are doing. 

Having said that, let me go on to gang violence. You have all of 

these task forces. This gang problem has been going on for many, 

many years. I know you have only been here for so many years. 

But it doesn’t appear that you are successful in breaking up 

gangs and stopping violence in the greater Los Angeles area. It is 

rampant. 

What are you going to do about gang violence? And how are you 

going to tackle this issue to get some real success? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think if you talked to Bill Bratton and others in 

Los Angeles, you will see that we have a very close partnership 

with their office and—— 

Ms. WATERS. No, no, no. I don’t have to talk to Mr. Bratton. I 

am witnessing the drive-by shootings and the killings that are 

going on. I know what Bratton is doing. I don’t have to talk to him. 

I want to know what you are doing. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we are working very closely with Bratton, 

Bill Bratton, and the LAPD, and the sheriff’s office on task forces. 

Also, given the prevalence of the 18th Street Gang, the MS-13, we 

have entities not only in Los Angeles but in El Salvador. 

We have a task force down in El Salvador. We have LAPD officers that are working on it. We are bringing El Salvador officers 

up to Los Angeles. 

We have in the countries that—where you have MS-13 prevalent, 

whether it be Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, we are 

working with them to put in place fingerprint efforts so that we 

can identify gang members who come in and out of the country and 

utilize those countries outside the United States as safe havens. 

We are complementing Bill Bratton and the sheriff’s office in 

terms of addressing MS-13, the 18th Street Gangs and the other 

gangs that you have in Los Angeles. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, let me just say that I am not satisfied. Most 

of the elected officials are not satisfied. I would like to know if you 

would be willing to come to Los Angeles and be a part of a meeting 

with Chief Bratton, Chief Baca, all of the elected officials in the affected area, and talk about what you are doing now, what can be 

done better, and how can we depend on your task forces to solve 

some of these problems. 

We cannot continue to witness the murders, the drive-by shootings and the devastation to our communities any longer. Would you 

be willing to do that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, ma’am. Six months ago I went and stood on 

the street corner with Mayor Villaraigosa, with Bill Bratton, with 

the sheriff, and did exactly that, and I followed up with each of 

those individuals with more personnel, with contributions to the 

task force. And of course I would be willing to do that again. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, this is something that I will follow up on. It 

is not necessarily stand on the street corners, but it will be to sit 

down with the elected officials and the police officers in that greater Los Angeles area so that we can talk about the devastation to 

our community and see if we cannot figure out, with you, how we 

46 

are going to address this issue with a combination of law enforcement and social services. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair recognizes Steve Chabot, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, as you know, cybercrime is a rapidly growing 

problem in this country, and you referred to it as one of the top 

priorities that you are dealing with, and it costs as much as $100 

billion a year. 

In a speech that you gave last week, you were reported as saying, ‘‘The simple truth is we do not protect cyberspace to the same 

degree we protect our physical space. We have, in large part, left 

the doors open to our business practices, our sensitive data and our 

intellectual property.’’ 

Your chief of the computer intrusion section went on to say, in 

the same article, ‘‘We, the FBI, do not have the right amount of resources or training in place.’’ 

What additional resources does the FBI need to close those doors 

that you mentioned remain, unfortunately, too wide open? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, part of it is not—I would say before I get 

to FBI resources, part of it is the open doors are by reason of the 

Internet. One of the items I indicated in that speech is that we 

don’t look at the Internet in the same way we look at our physical 

security, where we have a door we can shut. 

The fact of the matter is that people are utilizing the Internet, 

and with inadequate security a person could lodge on your machine 

an entity that can—to take down the strokes and push it out, and 

push the information out. And people don’t think of that in the 

same way. 

Part of it is giving adequate security to the nets, whether it be 

.gov, .net and the like. 

The other aspect of it—in terms of what we are doing in addressing cybersecurity—we have, and started last year, a National 

Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, which includes persons from 

the FBI and other Federal players—DOD, NSA and the like. 

And that we have stood up along with other entities to address— 

whether it be individual hackers, government hackers, those who 

want to utilize the Internet to disrupt facilities and the like. 

We have put in—back to your last question in terms of resources. 

In our 2009 request, we are requesting an additional 211 positions 

and $39 million. I testified to that before the Appropriations Committee, I guess Senate and House Appropriations Committee, in 

the last several weeks. 

So that will enhance our capabilities if we were able to get those 

211 positions and that $39 million. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Also, Director Mueller—and my colleague Mr. Coble referred to this issue already, but I am going to 

come at it a little differently—and that is relative to the subprime 

mortgage crisis and the predatory lending aspects of that. 

The State that I happen to represent, Ohio, ranks sixth in the 

number of homes that have been the subject of foreclosure, with 

only—well, with one in every 58 homes being foreclosed upon. 

47 

The city of Cincinnati that I represent witnessed an increase in 

the number of foreclosures in 2007 placing it among the top 30 cities in the Nation with a foreclosure problem. 

And a primary reason for the foreclosure fallout, as Mr. Coble 

mentioned, is predatory and lending practices. There are other 

things as well, but that has certainly been a part of it. 

And many of those things were occurring up until late 2006. 

Could you describe what assistance with State and local law enforcement investigations that the FBI is involved in? 

You don’t have to go into specifics, obviously, for obvious reasons, 

but how do you cooperate with the local entities when it comes to 

these investigations? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, to the extent that either the State or the 

local entities or local jurisdictions have an entity that is addressing 

this, we try to work in task forces. 

We have white-collar crime squads. This is a substantial element 

of most of our white-collar crime squads around the country at this 

point. And they reach out to the insurance or the property departments of either the State or the locality to both gather information 

and conduct joint investigations. 

To the extent that there is expertise, accounting expertise, financial, analytical expertise, in these entities, again, we will work together in task forces. 

As I say, we have 33 formalistic or formalized working groups or 

task forces around the country, and my expectation is those will expand as we find more of these issues. 

I think we had something like several thousand suspicious activity reports from banks in the last several years, and that is going 

up to tens of thousands of suspicious activity reports reported by 

banks of activities that perhaps should be investigated. 

So this problem is growing bigger, not smaller, and as it grows 

bigger we are going to have to enlist the resources of State and 

local law enforcement if we are to jointly be successful. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, Zoe 

Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to talk a little bit about the interface between the FBI 

and the Department of Homeland Security as it relates to the FBI’s 

role in name checks. 

When you appeared before this Committee last fall, I asked you 

where we were on that, and you indicated, according to the transcript, that we were bringing the Sentinel system online. 

However, subsequent to that, we have had a hearing in the Immigration Subcommittee with the Department of Homeland Security on this issue, and they are reporting that although in a 90-day 

period for permanent residence applications, if they don’t hear from 

the FBI, they simply proceed, they are not doing that when it 

comes to naturalizations. 

I don’t quarrel with that judgment, but there are still many cases 

where apparently the name check function takes many, many 

months—I mean, even years. And I am wondering where we are 

on that. 

48 

I mean, we actually had one of the Members—he is not here 

today—but Howard Berman explained that one of his constituents 

popped up on a name check because he had gotten a security clearance, and somehow they could never get—I mean, he was good 

enough to get a security clearance, but they could never clear it 

through the FBI. 

Where are you on that whole venture? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, the problem in the backlog that we had is 

attributable to—it goes back to 2002 when, in the wake of September 11, USCIS resubmitted 2.7 million names which got us behind the eight ball. 

Nonetheless, in the past, they have completed 70 percent of them 

within 30 days, but that left the other 40 percent that was taking 

substantially longer. 

We have recognized this. We have taken a number of steps. We 

have raised the fees. We have revised the criteria to eliminate certain categories of records that have to be researched. We have 

prioritized the workload. We have built a central records complex. 

And most importantly, we have hired over 200 contractors to work 

along with 40 FBI employees. 

As a result of that, our expectation is by July of this year we will 

have eliminated the backlog beyond 2 years. And by November of 

this year, we will have eliminated the backlog beyond 1 year. 

And by June of next year, 98 percent of the record checks will 

be done within 30 days. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, if I may, most of the name checks are done 

instantaneously because of—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. The computer, so that is nothing new. 

I mean, right now, we have got—according to the information I 

have received from DHS, 46,000 cases are pending for more than 

2 years. 

Mr. MUELLER. It may be. I am not certain. I am not certain of 

those statistics, but it may be. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So you think by June the 2 years will be cleared 

out? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And we had 130,000 that had been pending for 

more than 6 months. Will those be cleared out by June as well? 

Mr. MUELLER. Those who have been pending for more than 1 

year will have been cleared out by November of this year. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask you, in terms of your computer efforts—I know Mr. Sensenbrenner also explored this. But it seems 

to me that until we move into this century, we are really never 

going to get ahead of this whole game—not only the computer system, but digitizing your existing records. 

Can you tell us where you are in implementation on that, on 

Sentinel? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. Let me just explain for—a records check—in 

most cases, you can come back and—and you get a records request 

from customs or State or what have you, and a check—and a computer check will show you—it shows up in one file or no files at 

all, and you can get it back. 

49 

What happened back in 2002—it was determined that whenever 

a name shows up in a file, you have to go find that file. Our files, 

paper files, for years and years and years, are resident in the various 56 field offices around the country. 

And if your name pops up as a witness, or somebody who was 

called to a grand jury, or somebody—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, I understand that. When are we going to 

digitize those records? 

Mr. MUELLER. We cannot. It is inefficient to go ahead and 

digitize all of those. Whenever we have a record check that requires us to pull out a file, we are digitizing it and putting it into 

the computer database. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So you are just doing it as you go along? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, no, we have got, I think, records from 10 

years forward. We are doing it in particular offices. We are doing 

the backlog. I would have to get you the exact records retention 

digitization—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I would like a report on that, Mr. Director, 

because obviously digitizing a 30-year-old record doesn’t have the 

same priority or urgency, but it seems to me if Google can digitize, 

you know, Stanford University’s library in a few months, the FBI 

should be able to digitize its current records in an equivalent time 

if it were a priority. 

Mr. MUELLER. We have prioritized it. It is really a function of 

personnel and capability. And for the last 5 years, we have 

prioritized and gone throughout our country and digitized as many 

records as we could, given the personnel. 

And what will be tremendously important is the records retention facility that we are currently completing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, it seems to me—and I know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman—this is a force multiplier. I mean, if you 

digitize these records, you are going to actually enhance the ability 

of your agents to perform—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. And therefore it is worth an investment to enhance the capability of your entire workforce to be more 

effective. And so I would like—I don’t know if you have done a costbenefit analysis, but it seems to me clear that if you move into the 

modern age, your agents are going to be optimized in terms of their 

performance. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think that is right, and I will give you an example of prioritization. We have digitized every counterterrorism, 

every terrorism file, every terrorism record. 

We do a lot of civil work, though, and there are—civil files that 

are, you know, very big, as you would understand, that go back for 

a number of years that are on sort of the back end of when it will 

get digitized. 

So we have prioritized. We have put emphasis on it particularly 

in those areas where we need to have access to those records 

digitally immediately. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired, but 

I would hope that we could get a full report on where we are on 

the computer system and on digitizing these records, what remains 

50 

to be done, and, if it is not a priority, why. You know, I would just 

like to know more than I currently do. 

Mr. MUELLER. Happy to do that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The able gentleman from California, Mr. Dan Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, thank you for being here and your service. Let 

me go back to the National Security Letters for a moment, if I 

might. 

Believe it or not, at one of my last town hall meetings, I had people who were concerned about the Federal Government spying on 

them, and they mentioned the Patriot Act, and I had no problem 

defending that and defending our efforts in the area of FISA. 

When they start talking about National Security Letters, I had 

to admit to them that we had some problems, the FBI had some 

problems there, that there were, as a result of the Inspector General’s report, instances of the failure of the FBI to act properly, to 

have its supervisors understand what they were supposed to do, 

have the agents understand what they were supposed to do. 

And so subsequent to your last appearance before us, we have 

had the I.G. report that covered the year 2006, as required by legislation passed by this body and started by this Committee. That latest report showed that the mismanagement of the National Security Letters continued into 2006. 

You have talked about the various things you have done to try 

and change this. The I.G. report said that there was a lack of understanding the NSL legal requirements in the field. How have you 

specifically addressed that? And have you made any training mandatory for all employees who are involved with NSLs? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me start by saying yes, the latest I.G. report 

covered a period up to 2006 because it was not included in the previous report. It was terminated at some point in time. So it reflects 

that point in time before we put into place these new practices. 

Once the new practices were put into place, and we changed the 

procedures—as I indicated, our chief division counsel has to review 

every NSL. We provided training across the board. Let me make 

certain—let me just check on one thing. 

We have instituted mandatory training—I wanted to make certain that it was mandatory; it was mandatory—in the meantime 

for anybody who handles National Security Letters. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The reason this is so important is that I believe 

the National Security Letters play an indispensable part in the 

area of protecting us against terrorism. 

At the same time, we have legislation introduced by a distinguished Member of this panel that I believe would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for you to use in terrorist cases in a timely 

fashion—that is why it is so important that we are able to give a 

statement of confidence to the American people that the FBI has 

reformed itself and that we will carry this out. 

And one of the questions I have is accountability. If these mistakes have been made in the past, has anybody been held accountable, number one? 

51 

And number two, the I.G. report says that your Office of Integrity and Compliance, which you referred to earlier in your answer, 

needs more staff to carry out its oversight role. 

Do you agree that more oversight staff may be needed? And do 

you have the right, again, computer systems to improve the way 

you issue and track NSLs so that you don’t have to come up here 

next year—or your successor, if you decide to return to the private 

sector where you don’t have to answer to us, has to answer these 

same questions? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me start on the computer systems. Yes, 

we have the computer software package that is requisite for 

issuance of a National Security Letter. That will go a long ways to 

shaping and ensuring that the particular protocols are followed in 

the issuance of a National Security Letter. 

I am comfortable and confident that what we have put into place 

will address this issue. I agree with you that it is tremendously important that we maintain the capability of issuing National Security Letters with the current standard, because I will point out at 

the outset it does not request content. 

It does not get content. It gets information relating to records, 

most often toll records—— 

Mr. LUNGREN. Which allows you time to get the probable cause 

so that you can go on to get content if appropriate, is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely essential to provide the foundation for 

getting probable cause to get content down the road. And absent 

that, we would be severely hampered. 

I do have a disagreement—I think it is really a minor disagreement—with the Inspector General. We have put into place the compliance office. My expectation is that it will grow. But I believe that 

the people I put in charge and the people that are currently working in that office are sufficient to the task right now. 

And as we look at different areas of vulnerability, it will shape 

the growth of the office. He believes we should have made a more 

substantial initial investment in personnel in the office. I believe 

we can grow to where he expects us to be. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Would you give up NSLs for broader administrative subpoena authority? Would that be a tradeoff that would be 

better for the FBI? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to consider that, depending on what 

that administrative authority would be. There would be some substantial benefit in the sense that it would simplify the process. The 

NSL capability come through four different statutes. 

If there were one statute that would focus on it and be fairly 

clear in terms of the standards, then it might be a benefit. 

What I would not want to have tampered with, however, is the 

standard for issuance of the NSL, which is akin to the standard for 

the issuance of a grand jury subpoena in a criminal matter. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. The able gentleman from Florida, Robert Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Director, in January of 2006, the New York Times reported 

that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program had produced thouVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\042308\41904.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41904
52 

sands of leads each month that the FBI had to track down but that 

no al-Qaida networks were discovered. 

During a July 17, 2007, briefing, FBI Deputy Director John Pistole indicated that the FBI was not aware of any al-Qaida sleeper 

cells operating in the United States. 

In August of 2007, Congress passed the Protect America Act giving the intelligence community greater access to electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. 

I have two questions in this regard. Has the FBI found any 

sleeper cells yet, one? Two, has the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping 

programs, either before the Protect America Act or after, led to the 

prosecution and conviction of any terrorist in the United States? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, as to your first question as to whether we 

have found affiliates or, as you would call them, cells of al-Qaida 

in the United States, yes, we have. 

Again, I cannot get into it in public session, but I would say yes, 

we have. 

With regard to the relationship of a particular case or individual 

to the terrorist surveillance program, again, that is something that 

would have to be covered in a closed session. 

Mr. WEXLER. All right. 

Mr. Director, an L.A. Times article from October 2007 quotes one 

senior Federal enforcement official as saying, ‘‘The CIA determined 

they were going to torture people and we made the decision not to 

be involved.’’ 

The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you 

and that you, ‘‘pulled many of the agent back from playing even a 

supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to 

legal jeopardy.’’ 

My question, Mr. Director—I congratulate you for pulling the 

FBI agents back. But why did you not take more substantial steps 

to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were 

telling you were illegal? 

Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your 

agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques? 

And rather than just simply pulling your agents out of these interrogations, shouldn’t you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place? 

Mr. MUELLER. I can go so far, sir, as to tell you that our protocol 

in the FBI is not to have been—not to use coercion in any of our 

interrogations or our questioning, and we have abided by our protocol. 

Mr. WEXLER. I appreciate that. What does the protocol say when 

the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol 

say in that circumstance? 

Mr. MUELLER. We would bring it up to appropriate authorities 

and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal. 

Mr. WEXLER. Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities? 

Mr. MUELLER. All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols. 

Mr. WEXLER. So you can’t tell us whether you brought—when 

your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing someVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\042308\41904.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41904
53 

thing illegal, which caused you to say, ‘‘Don’t you get involved,’’ you 

can’t tell us whether you then went to whatever authorities—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I will tell you that we followed our own protocols. 

Mr. WEXLER. And what was the result? 

Mr. MUELLER. We followed our own protocols. We followed our 

protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any 

instance where coercion was used, to my knowledge. 

Mr. WEXLER. Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal? 

Mr. MUELLER. I can’t comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may 

have taken actions. 

Mr. WEXLER. Why can’t you comment on the actions of another 

agency? 

Mr. MUELLER. I leave that up to the other agency to answer 

questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the 

legal authorities that may apply to them. 

Mr. WEXLER. Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in 

the United States? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am head of the—I am the director of the FBI. 

Mr. WEXLER. And you do not have authority with respect to any 

other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you 

are saying? 

Mr. MUELLER. When the authority is given to me to investigate, 

yes, we do. 

Mr. WEXLER. Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA? 

Mr. MUELLER. Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell 

you what our protocol was and how we followed that protocol. 

Mr. WEXLER. Did anybody take away the authority with respect 

to the Department of Defense? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain what you mean. 

Mr. WEXLER. Your authority to investigate an illegal torture—— 

Mr. MUELLER. There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, 

and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of 

Justice. Any interpretations of law is given to us by the Department of Justice, generally the OLC. 

Mr. WEXLER. But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense 

were illegal, so much so that you authorized—ordered your agents 

not to participate. But that is it. 

Mr. MUELLER. I have told you what our protocol was. And I have 

indicated that we have adhered to our protocol throughout. 

Mr. WEXLER. My time is up. Thank you very much, Mr. Director. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Florida, 

Ric Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Director Mueller, I want to limit my questions to two subject areas—the FBI’s efforts to capture online predators and also 

results from the safe streets task force to go after violent crime. 

The bottom line in my area of Orlando, Florida is that the results 

of the FBI’s task force in going after online child predators have 

been spectacular. The results from the other task force dealing 

54 

with violent crime have been less than spectacular. And I just want 

to walk through both. 

First, with respect to online child predators, one out of seven 

children in this country are sexually solicited online. My home 

state of Florida ranks fourth in the volume of solicitations and 

child pornography. 

It is so bad that an FBI agent logged on in central Florida into 

a chat room as a 13-year-old girl and, within 1 minute, he received 

15 sexual solicitations. And within 5 minutes, a man turned a 

video camera on himself and performed an explicit sexual act that 

I can’t describe in public. 

Fortunately, we have a local agent, FBI agent, named Nick Savage, who heads up the Innocent Images task force, and he has really been wonderful in addressing this. 

I am so concerned I have had five town hall meetings across my 

district to let parents know some of the tips they can do to protect 

their children against online child predators, and he has been right 

there with me to educate them. 

The convictions of his task force are up 25 percent, and he and 

other FBI agents work very well with our local and State authorities. 

In response to a question from Lamar Smith, you said that if 

there is one thing we could do with respect to helping you go after 

cybercrime and child pornographers, it is to work with the ISPs on 

access to records. That is correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. KELLER. Is the challenge them not cooperating or them not 

keeping their records long enough? 

Mr. MUELLER. It is a question of having a standard against 

which you retain the records. The European Union has a standard 

now for ISPs that generally can go up to 2 years. And some of the 

concerns are the storage. Some of the concerns are developing the 

software that would allow you to keep the requisite records. 

But from the perspective of an investigator, having that backlog 

of records would be tremendously important if somebody comes up 

on your screen now and you want to know and make the case as 

to the past activity of that individual. 

If those records are only kept 15 days or 30 days, you may lose 

the information you need to be able to bring the person to justice. 

Mr. KELLER. Are you suggesting a 2-year guideline comparable 

to other countries? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe that would be helpful, yes. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. 

Next, let me turn to the issue of the Safe Streets task force. 

Orlando’s murder rate went up 123 percent in 2006, the third largest increase in the country. 

I then went in early 2007 to meet with Attorney General 

Gonzales and said, ‘‘We need help. I know crime is mostly a local 

problem, but we need help from Federal crime-fighting teams. We 

need technology. We need more cops.’’ 

And he responded. On June 1st of 2007, he announced that there 

would be a violent crime impact team sent down from ATF as well 

as a new Safe Streets team to tackle violent crime and gang violence in Orlando. 

55 

ATF then promptly surged an additional five agents. They 

worked very closely with local law enforcement and have got the 

worst of the worst off the streets. 

The FBI folks, I learned from local law enforcement, didn’t add 

any new agents whatsoever. And I ride around with the police at 

night, and so I know that to be true. 

I then went and met with the local head of the FBI named Chris 

Davis in the Orlando office. I couldn’t be more impressed with him. 

I am super respectful of him. I hope he gets promoted. But he confirmed to me that there is no new agents. 

And it is my view, at minimum, that the FBI should have sent 

in at least five new agents for at least a surge of 90 days like the 

ATF did. And I just want to ask you why no new agents to the city 

that has the third biggest increase in violent crime. 

If you have got 180 task forces out there, surely the number 

three worst problem should get some more agents. And what, if 

anything, can we do to get you to send more folks to an area like 

Orlando? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, the first answer is I am not certain what the 

circumstances were that we did not participate and at least put 

agents on for a surge, and I would have to talk to the special agent 

in charge down there to see what the circumstances are. 

And the second answer is resources. Resources. And we have a 

number of programs. Mortgage fraud is burgeoning now, and it is, 

to a certain extent, a zero-sum game. I think in the 2009 budget 

we have a request in for additional resources on the violent crime 

side. 

But the fact of the matter is with our national security responsibilities, I have had to move agents from the criminal side of the 

house to the national security side of the house, almost 2,000 

agents since 2001. So it is really a function of additional resources 

generally. 

Mr. KELLER. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, if you would indulge me just as a follow up, I 

know you can’t know the details of every particular special agent’s 

task force and how many folks they have. 

But I would just ask respectfully that you would chat with a special agent there, because your folks are well respected, and when 

you put a Federal charge on the worst of the worst, we never see 

them again and would love your help if you would follow up with 

that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The able gentleman from Tennessee, Steve Cohen? 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, Mr. Wexler was asking you about some illegal 

tactics that the FBI did not engage in, and you said you followed 

the protocol. Does the protocol include informing other agencies 

that you believe what they were doing was illegal? 

Mr. MUELLER. Excuse me just a second. 

Mr. COHEN. Can this time not be counted against me? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am sorry, go ahead. I am sorry. What was the 

question again, sir? 

Mr. COHEN. Stop the clock. 

56 

You say you wouldn’t engage in torture, but when you find out 

that other agencies may be engaged in torture that you believe is 

illegal, does your protocol include informing those agencies that you 

believe their actions are illegal? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. COHEN. Who did you inform in that situation? 

Mr. MUELLER. At points in time, we had reached out to DOD and 

DOJ in terms of activity that we were concerned might not be appropriate—let me put it that way. 

Mr. COHEN. And you informed both the Department of Defense 

and the Department of Justice? 

Mr. MUELLER. During the period of time in question, after 2000, 

say, to 2002, there have been times when we have done that, yes. 

Mr. COHEN. And can you supply us with copies of those letters 

or memoranda? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. COHEN. We would appreciate it if you would. I would like to 

request you to do that. 

And what was their response to you? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, I am not certain to what extent this is classified. I would have to get back to you on that in any event. 

Mr. COHEN. Well, if you could give us a response to this as well, 

I would like to know which agencies did not listen to you, Director, 

and engaged in torture. I think that would be very important for 

this Committee to know, if there are departments—of defense or 

justice or any—or CIA that don’t listen to the director of the FBI. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, another factor that I think is important to 

recognize in this—what constitutes appropriate behavior under circumstances for other agencies is subject to legal opinions from the 

Department of Justice. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir, I understand that. I agree with you. 

Mr. MUELLER. And so we would over a period of time say, ‘‘Look, 

we have noticed behavior that may be questionable,’’ and report it 

to the agency. That particular agency may be governed by legal 

opinions that are not applicable to us. 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. But I would listen to your opinion first. 

You have a great agent in Memphis, My Harrison, and she has 

done a phenomenal job. She has convicted or brought prosecutions 

and juries and judges found guilty many public officials, many of 

whom were African American. 

You say 1,800 officials have been prosecuted over a period of 

time. 

Mr. MUELLER. Two years. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you have statistics to show that there is not a 

racial bias? 

Mr. MUELLER. Do not. 

Mr. COHEN. Do you have a racial breakdown—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain we keep that—I would be surprised if we kept any such statistic. 

Mr. COHEN. Is there any statistic that shows how many were 

Democrats and Republicans, to show there is no political bias? 

Mr. MUELLER. We don’t keep that. We are non-political. I think 

if you are fair and look across, you will see that regardless of politVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\042308\41904.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41904
57 

ical affiliation, you have any number from various parties in that 

1,800 figure. 

Mr. COHEN. Agent Harrison was able, through very outstanding 

work, to have an indictment brought against a man in Tennessee 

who had killed a Shelby County codes enforcement officer named 

Mickey Wright. 

The circumstances of his death were such—and the proof—that 

the Attorney General pled to a second-degree murder or manslaughter, 15 years, and that was not sufficient for taking this 

man’s life. 

Through her diligent work, she was able to charge a hate crime, 

because he was a government official. But if he weren’t a government official, she couldn’t have gotten the U.S. attorney to present 

to the grand jury and for them to return an indictment of a hate 

crime, where there is the possibility of additional punishment for 

this man’s murdering Mickey Wright. 

Are you a supporter of the hate crime legislation that went 

through that would give you more power to enforce hate crimes? 

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

before I give an opinion as to whether we could support it or not. 

Mr. COHEN. It is the one that has already passed the House. 

Mr. MUELLER. Pardon? 

Mr. COHEN. It is the one that has already passed the House, 

gave more power to the Federal Government to go after hate 

crimes. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to specifically look at it before I 

could render an opinion. 

Mr. COHEN. Okay. If a person takes a corpse across State lines 

to avoid prosecution or avoid discovery of the crime, and the facts 

otherwise don’t constitute a Federal crime as they wouldn’t here, 

except for My Harrison’s work, would it be helpful to the FBI to 

have a Federal law to make it illegal to transport a corpse across 

State lines for the purpose of avoiding detection of the crime? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to look at the circumstances and see 

whether there wasn’t a Federal jurisdictional—— 

Mr. COHEN. Let’s assume there isn’t. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Angle to start with, and then—— 

Mr. COHEN. Well, let’s assume there isn’t, and a person took a 

body from, you know, New York to Giants Stadium, or they took 

it from Memphis to Arkansas. Wouldn’t it be helpful? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, that is something I would have to look at. 

Off the top of my head, I would really like to think about it before 

I render an opinion on that as well. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you for that. 

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman from Tennessee yield briefly—— 

Mr. COHEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. To the gentleman behind you? I just 

want to point out for the record that while many of us today have 

used the word ‘‘torture’’—I think most of us have used it—that you, 

Director, have never said that the FBI ever engaged in torture. You 

have used the word coercion, which is far different. 

58 

And I just don’t want the imputation to be allowed to stand that 

the FBI has ever engaged in torture, even though I and others 

have used the word today. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. It is not my time. 

Mr. COHEN. I will yield once removed. 

Mr. SCOTT. I thought it was clear that the FBI made it clear that 

they do not torture, although some other agencies may not be able 

to answer the question the same way. 

Mr. MUELLER. What I have said throughout is we do not engage 

in coercion in any form, and my saying that meaning, quite obviously, do not engage in torture, but coercion in any form in the 

course of our interrogations. 

Our protocol and our policy is to generally develop rapport as the 

mechanism of obtaining the information we need in the course of 

an investigation, and I will say it has served us well. 

We operate in the United States. We operate within the court 

framework of the United States with the expectation that if we find 

a crime, develop the evidence, that it will then have to be presented in the courtroom. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The able gentleman from Virginia, Bob Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Director, welcome. We are glad to have you with us today. 

I want to ask you about the problem we are having, and very serious growing problem in this country, with gangs and gang violence. 

We see it in virtually every corner of the country—in my congressional district, which is smaller cities and rural areas in western 

Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley and the Roanoke Valley. We see 

increasing numbers of gangs and increasing problems with local 

law enforcement dealing with them. 

And I would like to ask how the FBI is dedicating resources to 

fighting street gangs. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, as I have indicated in my remarks, we have 

a number of—well over 100 task forces that are spread throughout 

the United States in which we work with Federal, State and local 

counterparts to address the gang violence. 

We participate in the National Gang Intelligence Center here in 

D.C., which we lead, with a number of contributing agencies. We 

have a separate MS-13 gang task force headed here in Washington. 

And across the probably more than 40 States now that have an 

MS-13 problem, we have a coordination function. And we are working very hard in Los Angeles, in that area, which is basically the 

headquarters of a number of the gangs, MS-13 being one of them, 

but Crips and Bloods and others. 

In Chicago and elsewhere in the northeast we address the Latin 

Kings. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me interrupt you, sir. 

Mr. MUELLER. So looking at the panoply of gangs that you have, 

we have adapted structures to address those gangs both here in the 

United States as well as overseas. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Have you seen any changes in the nature of this 

threat? 

59 

Mr. MUELLER. I think the biggest change is the acquisition by 

certain gangs in certain places of automatic weapons, and the 

growth of the threats to law enforcement, particularly local law enforcement, by the acquisition of this heavy weaponry. 

I know, in talking to my counterparts around the country, particularly in places like Miami, this has become a substantial concern. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And do you need additional resources to fight 

these gangs? 

Mr. MUELLER. We can always use resources, additional resources, and so could State and local law enforcement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And I understand that—you may have just encompassed this under a different name, but I understand that you 

have an antigang coordinating committee working, and how is that 

working? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we have the National Gang Intelligence 

Center, and that works exceptionally well, and DOJ I know has 

structures that coordinate the placement of resources, whether it 

be our resources, ATF, Marshals Service and the like in a coordinated fashion around the country, and that may be the coordinating mechanism to which you advert. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. 

Let me switch gears and ask you some questions about Internet 

gambling, which is also a serious problem, but we have made some 

headway in this area in recent times, thanks in part to work by 

the FBI. 

Are you still dedicated to vigorously enforcing our Nation’s laws 

against illegal online gambling transactions? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And do you still believe online gambling is used 

as a method for money laundering by criminal enterprises? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And have you found—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. Evidence to support that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And do you agree with the now, I think, approximately 45 State attorneys general who oppose Federal legislation to legalize currently illegal online gambling transactions? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not familiar with that legislation, so I really 

can’t opine on it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Are you familiar with the concern that a number of State attorneys general have with the problem of online 

gambling in general? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And you share their concern about that? 

Mr. MUELLER. I share a concern about online gambling and the 

uses to which it can be put, yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Great. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, 

Sheila Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

60 

Thank you, Director Mueller, for again your service. I wanted to 

pursue the line of questioning that I had raised early in my opening remarks and then briefly try to address questions that may require you and staff to come back on, because they are specific to 

my State and my congressional district. 

I would like to hear from you your assessment of the FBI’s work 

in hate crimes. I know that there are statistics that the DOJ likes 

to offer regarding the increasing amount of hate crimes, but I am 

very interested in whether or not there is a targeted unit that focuses on those crimes. 

I think expertise is important, because there is a question of 

knowing when to move in and to make the appropriate intervention 

that may not always result in an arrest. 

And I bring to our attention again the facts of Jena 6 that you 

know generated an enormous outpouring, response, emotion, and 

realistically so. Young men, six of them, who happened to be African Americans, were penalized for what has been interpreted as a 

schoolyard fight for some and others a brutal attack. 

We know that the gentleman who was attacked—we don’t condone those actions—but was released the same day and was functioning. 

We also know that White students at a high school were alleged 

to have hung a noose or provoked students at that school. 

And we know that parents came to the school, African American 

parents, and asked for intervention, which I think would have been 

the stopgap for what ultimately generated into that issue. 

We know that a gun was pulled on Black students at a store. As 

we said, we knew that hanging nooses came about. And frankly, I 

don’t know anything that a hanging noose represents other than a 

hateful act. 

That is the first question. So I would like to know the energy behind prosecuting hate crimes or the FBI intervening either in local 

law enforcement to be able to be a stopgap, even though I know 

that your job is prevention. But when I look at the civil rights 

issues, those are civil rights. 

The other one is we have two issues in the State of Texas where 

allegations have been proven where there has been abuse in a juvenile system detention facility. 

We have found in the Harris County Jail 120 deaths over 10 

years, the denial of medicine and legal services, and religious leaders in the Harris County Jail have been denied entrance not to 

proselytize but to interact with their members and constituents. 

So let me just stop for a moment for those two questions. And 

I know that my time is short, and I do have one or two others. 

Thank you, Mr. Director. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, as to the first incident to which you refer, 

as soon as we were notified of that incident we had agents who responded along with the locals and monitored the situation. 

We had discussions, I know, with you as well as with the Department of Justice to determine what, if any, investigation was warranted on our part, and that is typical of the process that we follow. 

61 

Whenever there is an allegation of a hate crime or a civil rights 

abuse, we immediately do what is called a preliminary investigation to determine whether further investigation is necessary. 

In the civil rights arena, that is coordinated with the Department 

of Justice and a determination is made what, if any, additional investigation is warranted by the Department of Justice or the FBI, 

and we follow that procedure. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And, Director, my time is short. Can I get a 

chronology in writing so I won’t have to pursue it any further here 

on just what happened and how that intervention—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe that is possible. We have to get back to 

you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I appreciate it. 

Mr. MUELLER. In terms of Harris County and what happened—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. With the jails or juvenile facilities, 

again, if there are allegations, we write up the allegations. We look 

at the report. And we coordinate with the Department of Justice 

to determine what additional investigation we should conduct to 

determine whether or not there are Federal charges that should be 

brought. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I am going to engage your office. I know 

that it is a DOJ partnership, but let me say that I think more work 

needs to be done. 

I want to quickly move to—you, I think, have come in in 2001, 

I believe, to this position. And I was wondering whether you were 

aware, quickly, of your deputy general counsel at the FBI as relates to the Guantanamo Bay, who brought to the attention the 

questions of abusive interrogation and whether or not anything 

was done when your own person on the ground offered that point. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I will look forward to getting that question answered in writing. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you can answer the—you can finish the 

question and receive an answer. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. We received allegations from our people, if we received allegations from our people, it was then, over a 

period of time, passed on to the authorities responsible for the investigation of such allegations, which at Guantanamo would have 

been DOD. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

The able gentleman from California, Darrell Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Chairman. 

Director, there isn’t enough time in 5 minutes to open and close 

the subject of the cyber initiative, but this Committee is going to, 

in my opinion, be the lead Committee on the actual effectiveness 

of that initiative. 

As we both know, it is compartmented, highly classified, but I 

would like to concentrate just on what laws or changes that you 

would need from this Committee if you were to do the following— 

and I will set out a scenario. 

If you go into a place and there is a crime actively being committed—we will say there is a bookie joint and there is tens of 

62 

thousands of illegal transactions going on every minute. And you 

know that, and you have proof of that. You don’t question your 

ability to go in and to harvest the fruit of all the activities in there. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. Correct, you know, with a search warrant, quite 

obviously. 

Mr. ISSA. With a search warrant. Today, every ISP is being maliciously attacked—and this goes beyond the .mils and .govs, but I 

think that is the important reason that we approach it today. 

Every ISP is being attacked maliciously both from in the United 

States and out of the United States by those who both want to invade people’s privacy but, more importantly, they want to take control of computers. They want to hack them. They want to steal information. 

This is also true of the .mils and .govs. Every one of our congressional offices every day is under attack. 

Every portal leading out of the United States—some of them 

going in and out of the United States, but talking only about your 

jurisdiction in the United States—every portal coming into this 

country is being attacked by those who would harvest information, 

both national security secrets and just the common information of 

private companies and private individuals. 

That crime is going on every day on a single entity known as the 

Internet. What authorities do you need in order to monitor, looking 

for those illegal activities, and then act on those both defensively 

and either yourself or certainly other agencies offensively in order 

to shut down a crime in process? 

Now, I am a civil libertarian. I was with Bob Barr arguing some 

of the elements of the Patriot Act that we still don’t agree should 

have been there. 

But when I set up that crime scenario, how is it that you are 

going to get the right to react when today, people would say that 

if they—if you are addressing an action from an American person, 

you don’t have that right? 

How are you going to do it, and how can we help you do it appropriately and constitutionally? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think legislation has to be developed that balances, on the one hand, the privacy rights of the individuals who 

are receiving the information but, on the other hand, given the 

technology, the necessity of having some omnibus search capability 

utilizing filters that would identify the illegal activity as it comes 

through and give us the ability to preempt that illegal activity 

where it comes through a choke point, as opposed to the point 

where it is diffused on the Internet. 

And it is a question of the legislation catching up to the technology, understanding these crimes are being committed every moment, but then identifying the ability—identifying our ability to 

focus on the particular criminal elements as it is coming through 

and preempt that criminal element, whether it be .mil, .gov, .com, 

whichever network you are talking about. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. And one follow-up question, because I—or two 

follow-up questions. I know we are not going to get it all resolved 

today. 

63 

One, can you have somebody on your staff designated to work 

with Members of Congress on trying to craft that legislation? I 

would appreciate being able to work with that person. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. And secondly—and this goes to a legal opinion you may 

or may not be able to help us with today, but I would like you to 

try to work on it—if ISPs or other private entities—a Lockheed 

Martin on one hand and my old company, Directed Electrons, on 

the other—if they consented to participation voluntarily in being, 

in fact, defended in a cyber initiative—and that includes ISPs who 

hypothetically got consents from every single person that signed up 

to operate under their auspices—if that consent were granted, do 

you believe the current laws either can or reasonably easily could 

be made to protect them? 

In other words, a voluntary program that would begin allowing 

Federal agencies to counterattack and to defend on behalf of those 

who waive current possible restrictions in that sense? And that is 

probably my most important question to try to get this Committee 

to think of. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think that is going to require some thought, because an individual company can say, ‘‘Okay, I consent to have 

somebody protect me,’’ but if the filter is inappropriately placed, 

just protecting that particular company, you may have to be one or 

two or three institutions or ISPs off, and that is where you would 

have a problem. 

And whether it be—I forget which company you mentioned— 

Lockheed Martin saying, ‘‘Okay, I am willing for somebody to protect me,’’ but the protection may be two or three companies off, and 

Lockheed Martin has no mechanism in order to affect the company 

that is two or three off, if you see what I am getting at. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully 163.33.33.0 will be protected if they ask to be, whoever they are. 

Mr. CONYERS. As you wish, Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that when we look at the 

cyber initiative we view ourselves as the primary Committee that 

has to clear the way for appropriate action on behalf of our government, all branches. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair is now pleased to recognize the able 

gentleman from Georgia, Hank Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, it is good to have you here today. Jose Padilla, 

a United States citizen, was seized in Chicago on a material witness warrant and moved to the Navy brig in South Carolina where 

he was held in solitary confinement, denied access to an attorney 

and subjected to a host of harsh interrogation techniques, including 

days of sleep deprivation, during which time the Department of 

Justice defended his detention before various courts. 

He has also alleged that he was subjected to mind-altering drugs. 

Now, the FBI did participate in the interrogation of Mr. Padilla, 

did it not? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you were kept informed about the nature and 

the results of the interrogation, is that correct? 

64 

Mr. MUELLER. Me personally? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. No, not specifically. I mean, I may have been, 

upon occasion, informed that he was being interrogated. I don’t 

think I was informed of what information had come out of him. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Did you know that he was being subjected to days 

on end of sleep and sensory deprivation? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, and I am not certain that I understand the 

question, but by answering the question I am not—I don’t mean to 

affirm that that is exactly what happened. I am not certain 

that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me restate the question. Now, you have 

testified that you were aware that the FBI participated in his interrogation and that while you were not directly informed about 

the nature and the results of the interrogation, that you may have 

had some discussions about it. Is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. I know he was at a brig in South Carolina. I knew 

that he was probably being interrogated. The specifics of it I did 

not know. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You did not know anything about the sleep deprivation—you were not informed about that? 

Mr. MUELLER. I did not know. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You were not informed of any use of mind-altering 

drugs? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. And again, Congressman, I am not certain 

that that is accurate. I know Mr. Padilla was charged and convicted in court in Florida, if I am not mistaken, and many of the 

assertions and allegations were raised in the course of that prosecution. 

But I do believe he was successfully prosecuted and was recently 

sentenced. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am aware. Did you ever express any disagreement with the policies surrounding the detention and interrogation 

of Mr. Padilla? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, but again, I go back to I did—the specifics in 

which you allude I was not aware of. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

In your Senate testimony, sir, you admitted that the FBI is no 

longer vigorously fighting white-collar crime and drug cases. For 

example, you mentioned that 800 agents have been shifted off of 

fighting white-collar crime and 10,000 cases are not being done as 

a result. 

And you also mentioned that 900 agents were shifted off of drug 

cases. With violent crimes on the rise, what else besides money do 

you need to pump up our internal crime-fighting capability? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me clarify one thing. What I said was that we 

shifted 800 agents, I believe it was, from smaller white-collar criminal cases, and generally those are cases under a certain dollar 

amount which we could not handle. 

We quite clearly have addressed the Enrons, the Worldcoms, the 

HealthSouth—the larger white-collar criminal cases—as we are addressing the subprime mortgage cases, but we have to prioritize. 

We did shift 900 agents from doing narcotics cases over to national 

security. 

65 

To backfill, we would quite obviously need the agents, almost 

2,000 agents, to backfill those that have been moved over. 

But it also takes the infrastructure, the training facilities, the information technology, the associated intelligence analysts that go 

with building up that capacity on the criminal side of the house. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So have those potential capabilities been requested, those assets? 

Mr. MUELLER. Over the years, we have requested additional resources. And in many cases, we have gotten those resources, but 

generally they have been—they have been accorded on the national 

security side of the house. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What performance measures does the FBI have to 

assess its progress in implementing its counterterrorism policy and 

the effects of this priority on its traditional law enforcement crimefighting mission? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, in terms of—we look at a number of metrics 

when it comes to counterterrorism. The most obvious metric is the 

stopping of any terrorist attacks. 

But also, the number of individuals that are under investigation; 

the number of cells that may have been disrupted, although it may 

not be public; the number of agents and analysts and the caseload 

they have. 

Most importantly is our work with our counterparts on the joint 

terrorism task forces, how those joint terrorism task forces are 

doing and the contributions of State and local to those task forces 

as well as overseas, our relationships with our overseas counterparts, whether it be in Denmark, or Germany, or the U.K., or 

Spain, or places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, all of which contribute to our ability to protect the country from additional terrorist attacks. 

We look at the number of IIRs, intelligence information reports, 

that we disseminate on a daily, weekly, monthly basis to the rest 

of the intelligence community. Our participation in the National 

Counterterrorism Center, to the extent that we have analysts participating in that. 

Those are just to mention a few of the metrics that we look at 

in terms of our war against terrorism. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Director Mueller. 

And my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Randy Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Director, thank you for being here. I want to first compliment your good judgment going as far as back as your selection 

of a law school to attend. 

I also want to go back to September 11, 2001. I was the newest 

Member of Congress, and I still remember us gathering in the command headquarters in D.C., and Members of Congress coming in 

there, and you walking in. You had only been on the job for 1 week, 

as I recall, at that particular point in time. 

I remember the looks on Members of Congress’ faces, many of 

them sitting on this panel today, and we were looking outside, and 

we saw smoke coming up from the Pentagon, jets flying over D.C., 

streets vacant except for people with guns for security there. 

66 

And I remember us looking at you then and saying, ‘‘Mr. Director, do what you have to do to keep our country safe and protect 

our citizens from terrorists.’’ 

And for almost 7 years, you have done an incredibly good job at 

doing that, and we just want to thank you for that. You only had 

to blink one time. You only had to miss one, and I couldn’t say 

that, but we can today. 

The other thing I want to tell you is, as you can hear from testimony here today, no good deed goes unpunished. And based on the 

success we have had there, we seem to have turned our attacks inwardly. 

And one of the concerns I have today, if you listen to the press, 

if you listen to a lot of law enforcement across the country, if you 

listen to some members of the public, they have developed this 

kind of ‘‘gotcha’’ mentality toward elected officials, business leaders, religious leaders, where it is almost as if there is a view that 

all of them are corrupt or at least corruptible. 

And my questions for you today are these. First of all, what do 

you do as director to make sure all of the stuff that you hear, all 

this ‘‘gotcha’’ stuff, you know, that is going on doesn’t permeate 

your agents, and so we don’t have hunts to get the bad guys, but 

we have instead investigations to determine who the bad guys are, 

if they are? 

And the other question I have for you is regarding something 

that I think is far greater concern to the country, and that is the 

issue of Chinese espionage. And I know some of that is classified, 

but much of it is open source. 

How significant is that problem today? What is the extent of the 

threat? And what can we do to stop it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me start by saying that to the extent that the 

country has been protected from terrorist attacks over the last 61⁄2

years—because of the men and women in the FBI, but most particularly men and women who work in the—the 800,000 State and 

local law enforcement officers around the country, many of whom— 

I should say, actually, many of their agencies work on joint terrorism task forces. 

It also is attributable to the relationships with our counterparts 

overseas. 

With regard to what you call the ‘‘gotcha’’ mentality, it is discouraging for the men and women of the FBI to—who every morning 

wake up with one goal in mind—that is, what do we do—how do 

we do the right thing to protect the American public, whether it be 

from crime, from terrorism, from counterespionage, to have persons 

not necessarily understand that we are human, we do make mistakes? When we make mistakes, we admit to them and move on. 

But the reputation of the Bureau, whether it is in the United 

States or outside the United States, I think is very good. We have 

a 100-year track record of capability. And I do believe that that is 

acknowledged. 

Turning to the second question you had with regard to the espionage or efforts by the PRC to gather our secrets, most of what I 

could say could not be said in open session. 

What is public is a series of successful prosecutions recently in 

which individuals had worked with particular companies or, in a 

67 

recent case, in a university, and there have been a number of cases 

in which the evidence has shown that they were stealing secrets 

with the expectation of that information going back to the PRC. 

So there is a public track record indicating—where it has been 

proven that the PRC has individuals in the United States who are 

looking to steal some of the Nation’s most sensitive secrets. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair is pleased to recognize the able gentlelady from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Director Mueller, for your time today. Hopefully 

I will have time to get to two distinct lines of questioning, both regarding issues of great interest to my constituents in my home 

State of Wisconsin. 

As you know, our Committee has spent considerable time looking 

into the termination of the nine U.S. attorneys and the question of 

politically motivated prosecutions. 

One such prosecution occurred in the State of Wisconsin, and I 

assume that you are aware that a public servant, Ms. Georgia 

Thompson, was wrongfully sent to a Federal prison amidst serious 

allegations that political considerations may have influenced the 

exercise of prosecutorial power. 

As you recall, when Ms. Thompson’s conviction was overturned, 

the appeals court released her immediately upon ruling on the 

case, calling the evidence beyond thin. And the State of Wisconsin 

is taking the very unusual move of repaying all of her legal fees 

and expenses. 

Now, we know that the FBI was involved in investigating the 

Georgia Thompson case, because Special Agent Terry Sparacino 

testified during her trial that he had found—and I quote, he had 

‘‘found no evidence during his investigation to support the prosecution’s contention of wrongdoing.’’ 

Now, did the FBI agents who were involved in the investigation 

of this case ever consult you directly or indirectly via superiors to 

discuss their concerns about the investigation or the prosecution, 

despite what they were uncovering or not uncovering during their 

investigation? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am familiar with the facts that you indicate, but 

no, I was not consulted in the—— 

Ms. BALDWIN. You were never involved in—— 

Mr. MUELLER. No. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. Thank you. The other line of questioning I 

want to pursue relates to some concerns that have been raised in 

my district by constituents. 

I have a very politically active district. People vote in high numbers, communicate with their elected officials and sometimes protest or demonstrate when they are unhappy with governmental 

policies—sit-ins, marchings and demonstrations. 

Recent news reports that antiwar protesters have been added to 

the watch list and have been denied entry into Canada, for example, have—these news reports have been read and discussed among 

folks in my constituency. 

68 

And I am hearing concerns about how decisions are made, so I 

thought I would just ask you a series of questions about the terrorist screening database and the watch list. 

First of all, can you tell me anything about what the criteria are 

for the FBI nominating somebody to that list? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, there are a number of criteria. We would 

have to get that to you. But I will say that we are very careful not 

to focus on individuals who are exercising their first amendment 

rights as a protester, to in any way inhibit that or utilize that as 

a reason to open an investigation. We are very careful about that. 

We understand the sensitivity of that. 

Where that crosses a line in terms of damage or violence and the 

like, then we have, quite obviously, a responsibility to follow up. 

But we are very sensitive to that line. 

And in my mind, none of the criteria applicable to the terrorist 

screening center would allow a person to be put on that list purely 

for exercising their first amendment right to protest. 

Ms. BALDWIN. If I understand the news reports, the individuals 

who were denied entry into Canada, for example, for being on the 

watch list had been convicted of misdemeanors but in completely 

nonviolent contexts—for example, sit-in and not leaving someplace 

voluntarily and so being arrested as they were leaving. 

Is there a way that a person can inquire whether they are on a 

list and appeal their presence on the list if they feel that there has 

been an improper placement on the list? 

Mr. MUELLER. There is an office where you can make the request. They may or may not—they probably will not tell you if you 

are on the list, and I am not certain what response they give, but 

you can—it will be pursued. 

I might also say it may not be the terrorist watch list that they 

are on. There may be some other reason they have been barred 

from going to Canada. 

Ms. BALDWIN. The news reports we heard was specifically that 

they were on the watch list. How many people are on the watch 

list? 

Mr. MUELLER. That is something I can’t give in open session. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. It also differs, I might say, because there are a 

number of names, different records, as opposed to individuals. I 

mean, one individual can have five, 10 or 15 different aliases and 

identifiers, so—but it is not something I can give in open session. 

Ms. BALDWIN. And the watch list is shared with foreign governments? 

Mr. MUELLER. Upon occasion, yes, pursuant to agreements. 

Ms. BALDWIN. Okay. Do we know how many such agreements 

exist—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Ms. BALDWIN [continuing]. In terms of—— 

Mr. MUELLER. That is, again, something that is not—I can’t 

speak to in open session. 

Ms. BALDWIN. All right. Well, we will have to pursue this in a 

time that we can exchange information more readily. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

69 

The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Iowa, 

Steve King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, esteemed Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be recognized. 

And, Director Mueller, I much appreciate your service to this 

country over these very difficult years. And I think history will 

record this as a very effective directorship that you have conducted 

here over these years. 

The first question I have is do you detect, as we approach an upcoming presidential election, and everything gets more and more 

politicized—and we may have noticed that actually here today. 

Do you detect, as the gentlelady from Wisconsin mentioned, politically motivated prosecutions? Do you detect any reluctance on 

the part of justice to bring indictments that might be construed as 

politically motivated as we approach this election? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. 

Mr. KING. If you did, what would you consider your duty to be? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would raise it with the Attorney General. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I appreciate that very concise and direct 

answer. 

Now, there was also the issue raised by the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, about gang problems, particularly in L.A., but 

across this country, especially in our inner cities. 

And we have had testimony from that table before the Immigration Subcommittee of this full Judiciary Committee about the percentages of gang membership that are illegals. And, in some cases, 

75 percent to 100 percent of some of these gangs, being people that 

are unlawfully present in the United States, MS-13 would be in 

particular. 

If by some stroke of the magic wand all of the folks that are in 

the United States unlawfully woke up in a country that they lawfully could be in, how much might that reduce the problem of addressing gang activity in the United States? 

Mr. MUELLER. That is difficult to give an answer to. I do believe 

that certain gangs have probably higher percentages of persons illegally in this country. But it is, I would say, somewhat difficult 

to ascertain. 

Mr. KING. Would you concede that if we controlled our borders, 

stopped the bleeding there, so to speak, that that would be a great 

step in the right direction to help alleviate the pressure that is on 

you to control gang activity in the United States? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, certainly some of the gangs, one of which 

you have alluded to, MS-13, that is known, quite obviously, as having very close ties to El Salvador and individuals who move back 

and forth between El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, and 

the like, and certainly to the extent that we can identify in coming 

through the border would assist us, in terms of addressing that 

particular challenge. 

Mr. KING. I thank you. And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott, asked you for a report on the diversity numbers within your 

department. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And so that brings for me the question of, if you have 

to choose between diversity and merit when it comes to hiring emVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\042308\41904.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41904
70 

ployees and building out the personnel that you manage, how do 

you make that decision? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think you can do both. 

Mr. KING. And if you have to come down between the two, is it 

merit or diversity that prevails? 

Mr. MUELLER. Merit and diversity prevail. 

Mr. KING. Okay, Director—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not going to—— 

Mr. KING. Let me take another—— 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Both, so I see no reason to—— 

Mr. KING. You know, I could ask you a hypothetical that would 

describe otherwise, but I think I will move on to something that 

this Congress will want to review, as well, and that is that you use 

part of your resources in foreign countries. And we recognize that. 

And as the testimony that has come out here on FISA, as the 

final part of FISA expires, and the director of national intelligence 

has testified a significant percentage of our access to intel goes 

away, has gone away, and will go away, as we move forward with 

FISA, doesn’t that put the responsibility back on you and your department to be the last line of defense against terrorists here on 

the homeland and the United States? 

And if it does, then are you at some point, if we don’t renew 

FISA, going to need to come back to Congress and ask for a lot 

more resources to protect Americans? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think everyone, ourselves included, want 

the resolution to the impasse with regard to FISA and the bill that 

was passed last August. 

It is important that we have clarity. It is important that the communication carriers have clarity as to what the law is. And to the 

extent that that could be done swiftly, I think it is in all of our interests to do so. 

Regardless of what happens there, we maintain our vigilance 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week. And we will use to the fullest all the 

tools that Congress has given to us. 

And we cannot do it alone. We have to do it with our counterparts in the intelligence community, as well as our counterparts 

overseas. And consequently, our hope is that there will be a FISA 

bill soon and it will benefit both us, as well as the intelligence community. 

Mr. KING. Director, if Congress fails to act on FISA, do you believe that you will need more resources domestically to protect the 

American people? 

Mr. MUELLER. Perhaps, but it would be very difficult, if we go 

to August, and the bill and the certifications that are already in 

place are allowed to lapse. Quite clearly, steps will have to be 

taken in a number of agencies to fill that gap, and presumably 

ours, as well. 

Mr. KING. I thank you, Director. Appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair is pleased to recognize the able gentleman from Alabama, himself a former assistant U.S. attorney, Artur Davis. 

71 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I ask permission to 

trade my time with Ms. Wasserman Schultz, who has to Chair a 

Subcommittee hearing? 

Mr. CONYERS. This is highly usual, but yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. It is, indeed. If I didn’t love her so much, I wouldn’t 

do it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman and the Chairman for his indulgence. 

Director Mueller, I just have a couple of things that I wanted to 

go over with you, a lot of which is what I talked to you about last 

year at the hearing on online child predators. 

But I did want to make you aware that overnight there was a 

fire that is suspected arson in the Chabad synagogue, the Chabad 

shul on Miami Beach. And it is being investigated as arson as we 

speak. 

It is the second suspected arson in a synagogue in Miami Beach 

in 6 months. And there were—obviously, we are in the middle of 

Passover, which is a sacred Jewish holiday, so it makes it all the 

more disconcerting and tragic. 

And I would hope—and if you would, at my request, if you would 

look into whether or not the FBI could investigate this as a potential hate crime, I would very much appreciate it. 

Mr. MUELLER. We will do that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. ATF is on the 

scene, as well, but obviously it is starting to be more than troubling. 

I do want to acknowledge the presence of Ed Smart, who is with 

the Surviving Parents Coalition, here today and who has been the 

champion for advocating on behalf of children and who have been 

victims of online sexual predators and children who have been victims, period. 

And I want to differ with my colleague from Florida, my good 

friend, Mr. Keller, because, with all due respect, I don’t think that 

the FBI is doing enough to pursue online child predators. I mean, 

it was clear in October when we had our hearing here that we 

are—there are about 500,000 known online child pornographers, 

people trading these images—these are depictions of sexual acts 

that are actually happening, crime scene photographs. 

And you do acknowledge that, even though I know you said in 

your testimony that you are investigating—that you have convicted 

more than 6,800 since 1996, which is 12 years, that is still less 

than 2 percent of what we know is out there, correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain of those figures. I would defer to 

you on that. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, the testimony of James Finch, 

the assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division, who wrote a letter 

in response to Senator Biden, he indicated in that letter that the 

FBI’s Innocent Images Unit had a total of just one unit chief, 13 

special agents, 10 analysts, and nine support staff. I mean, there 

are Internet blog sites that have larger staffs than that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I will say that we have almost 270 agents 

working nationwide, but I am not going to tell you that that is sufficient to address this. As I have indicated to you before, it is treVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\042308\41904.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41904
72 

mendously important. It is an issue that is deserving of more resources. 

We put in a request for and did receive additional resources in 2008. We got an additional $2.4 million and 14 positions. But that 

is, I will tell you, a drop in the bucket. It is a huge, huge issue. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you still have more than 2,000 investigators for white-collar crime, as compared to a couple of hundred for child exploitation? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain on the white-collar crimes. But 

certainly on violent crimes, for instance, I know we have something 

like 2,200. And white-collar crimes, it may be that high. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Last year, when we had testimony 

from your staff, they did testify that there were more than 2,300 

investigators dedicated to white-collar crime and only about 232 

dedicated to investigating child exploitation. Why is there such a 

disproportion in commitment, if you verbally are saying that you 

are committed to trying to ferret out child exploitation? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, because we are facing, have faced, and continue to face substantial white-collar criminal issues. We have got 

a—as I testified before, the subprime mortgage challenge. We have 

over 1,300 cases that have come to us. 

In the past, we have had Enron, HealthSouth, Qwest, any number of large, white-collar criminal cases. The white-collar criminal 

program also encompasses civil rights. It encompasses public corruption. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. But you couldn’t possibly compare the harming and sexual exploitation of children and the rape 

of children being more important, that white-collar crime would be 

more important than that? I mean, you are certainly demonstrating 

that it seems to be by the disparate commitment and the commitment of staff. 

Mr. MUELLER. Congresswoman, we agree. This is a huge problem. It is a question of resources. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So if you agree—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I have put in requests and I have gotten additional resources. But—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But you know what? The testimony 

that we had in October was that you were actually diverting resources from the Innocent Images program to other priorities. Can 

you at least commit that you will stop diverting funding from the 

Innocent Images program to other priorities in the Department of 

Justice? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well—I will continue to look at our resources and 

try to adjust the priorities as I think—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So you won’t even commit that you 

will stop diverting funding from the Innocent Images program? 

Mr. MUELLER. I will look at our resources over a period of time 

and do what I can on this priority. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What specific FBI resources and personnel do you believe are worth diverting from their current use to 

rescuing children from child exploitation? Is there something you 

can identify? 

Can you commit to identifying other things that maybe aren’t as 

high a priority, moving those resources to the hundreds of thouVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\042308\41904.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41904
73 

sands of children that are being victimized online today? I mean, 

actions speak louder than words, Mr. Director. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think if you look at our actions in the cases we 

have made, we have made substantial cases. I had referred earlier 

to the case that we made back in the fall, where we—or, actually, 

it was several months ago, where we took off 60 individuals who 

had, for a period of 15 years, been passing child pornography in an 

encrypted state. We did with our counterparts in the U.K. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Director, my time has expired, 

and children need more than words. They need action. These are 

children that need to be rescued. We have the ability to rescue 

them if we ask for and pursue and get commitment from our leaders. &&& 

Mr. MUELLER. I am happy to work together with you to get the 

resources we need, Congresswoman. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And you said that last year, and it is 

still the same. 

Mr. MUELLER. And I am still saying it. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, now, if we could back it 

up with action, that would be great. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the Constitution 

Subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Trent Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Director Mueller. 

Director Mueller, you have had a pretty challenging day here already, but I want you to know that I certainly laud your commitment to protecting this country and to trying to do everything that 

you can. 

And it is always astonishing to me when we have people like you 

come forward, and we can’t get our act together on FISA, which 

puts a double challenge upon you. 

And so I want to start out by saying how much I appreciate your 

service to the country, and that is certainly heartfelt. Now, you 

know when someone compliments you like that that they have a 

rather negative follow up sometimes, don’t you? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. I am waiting for the other foot. 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, and I, quite honestly, had these questions before I heard the last questioner, so I want you to know that. But 

I am going to have to follow up here, because I used to be the director of the Governor’s Office for Children there when I was in Children’s Department and wrote most of Arizona’s child pornography 

legislation. So it is something that I continue to be very concerned 

about. 

And with that in mind, I guess the first thing I want to give you 

is the chance to answer the question: Do you think the FBI is making it a priority to investigate Internet child pornography and child 

exploitation? In your mind, are they making that a priority? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, it is. But it is not amongst the 10 top priorities in this juncture. It is a priority in our cyber arena, and cyber 

is number three. But in cyber, we include intrusions, we include 

hackers, as well as the Innocent Images project. 

74 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, is it true that you have really got the manpower right now to investigate about 1 percent of the leads that 

you discover? Is that an accurate thing? Or is that something—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I will have to get back to you on that. I am not 

certain that is accurate. 

Mr. FRANKS. Are you able to—I know sometimes companies overseas are the biggest challenge. Are you able to partner with other 

countries to try to triangulate and zero in on these companies that 

do this from, ‘‘safe harbor’’ from other countries? 

Mr. MUELLER. Since October of 2004, we have had an international task force operating out of Maryland. Over that period of 

time, we have had 47 investigators from 21 different countries that 

have participated in that task force. 

But the spread of child pornography on the Internet is not limited to any one State. It is not limited to any one country. It is 

worldwide. 

And in order to be effective, we have to do it internationally and 

do it in an international task force. And this task force has been 

exceptionally effective, not only in bringing cases, but also educating and training others to cooperate with us when they go back 

to their home countries. 

Mr. FRANKS. Do you think we are winning or losing that battle? 

Mr. MUELLER. We are losing. 

Mr. FRANKS. We are losing? 

Mr. MUELLER. We are losing. It is growing on the Internet. Exponentially is probably too strong a term, but just about every crime 

there is has gravitated to the Internet and, in certain cases, the 

Internet has provided the vehicle for expansion that otherwise 

would not be there, and that is certainly true with child pornography. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, let me just say I know that you are very concerned about it, as well. But I will tell you, you know, sometimes 

in times when I used to give speeches on this subject I would remind people, as the poet did, that there comes a time in every 

child’s life when the door to childhood quietly closes forever. And 

after that, no mortal power on Earth can ever open it again. 

And I would just—I guess my final question here to you, along 

those things, is that this is something that is profoundly important. 

What can we do with you to help you, number one, with the legal 

mechanisms? 

And in some States, you know, they don’t have the statute that 

is necessary to prevail. Ancillary evidence rules, all kinds of things 

make it difficult for us to actually win in court. What legislative 

mechanisms do you need to make this a priority so that we can go 

from losing to winning? And what funding needs do you have so 

we can help you make this happen? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do think that this is not something for just one 

agency to undertake. My own view, and, again, it relates to task 

forces, the necessity—we have ICAC task forces around the country, but they need to be funded, State and local law enforcement— 

focus initially on violent crime, need to develop the expertise, the 

resources to participate on these task forces. 

We need to grow the task forces within the United States and 

develop the relationships with similar task forces overseas. I menVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:31 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\042308\41904.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41904
75 

tioned that investigative mechanisms that will enable us to obtain 

the records that are necessary from ISPs, from credit card companies—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Do you need additional legislation to that effect? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, again, it goes to records retention. I do believe that records retention would be of assistance in terms of addressing these problems. 

It is not just one agency. It is a number of Federal agencies, the 

State and local law enforcement, all to be integrated in addressing 

what is an increasing problem. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe the gentleman would 

supply this Committee with some ideas as to what we might do in 

that regard. From his perspective, as an investigator, as leading to 

prosecutions, and let’s try to work together in a bipartisan area, because if child pornography is not bipartisan, then I think maybe it 

is time for us all to walk out of here. 

Mr. CONYERS. That would be most welcome. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Director. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, himself a 

former assistant United States attorney, Artur Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mueller, I have a couple of questions or two sets of questions 

on the national security front. Let me turn to Mr. King’s questions 

and the questions of some other Members regarding FISA. 

In your last set of comments regarding FISA, you indicated the 

importance of Congress reauthorizing the Act or coming to some 

kind of an agreement around the Act by August. And I assume that 

was a very deliberate choice of words on your part. 

As you know, there has been some controversy over the impact 

of the Protect America Act expiring back in February. So let me 

ask you directly: Has the expiration of the Protect America Act imperiled any efforts by the Bureau to conduct intercepts since its expiration? 

Mr. MUELLER. I cannot speak to a specific case. I can say that 

there is uncertainty in the legal counsel’s office of communications 

carriers as to the current State. And it—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Is there any—— 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Affects our ability to get information 

as fast and as quickly as we would want. 

Mr. DAVIS. Is there any instance when you or the Bureau has attempted to put an intercept in place since the expiration of the Protect America Act and you have been denied because of the expiration? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe there has been a delay attributed to it, 

yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Has there been a single instance when the Bureau’s 

request to conduct an intercept has been denied because of the expiration of the Protect America Act? 

Mr. MUELLER. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. DAVIS. The President of the United States conducted a press 

conference shortly after the expiration of the Protect America Act, 

and the President made the representation that lives were being 

threatened, that lives could be lost. Do you, Mr. Director, know of 

76 

a single life that has been compromised or threatened in the interim between the expiration of the Act and today? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not familiar with those comments, but—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Would they be accurate? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do not know the basis upon which a statement 

was made, if, indeed, it was made. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you know of a factual basis that would permit the 

President to make that statement? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not myself personally familiar with that 

statement or the basis for which the statement was made. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you know of any factual basis that would permit 

that statement to be truthfully made? 

Mr. MUELLER. I will say that my great concern is the uncertainty 

that we currently have in terms of—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you know of any factual basis—— 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. In terms of—— 

Mr. DAVIS. You have made that point, yes. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Communications carriers—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, you have made that point, and I accept it. I will 

leave the topic if you will just give me a yes or no. Do you know 

of any factual basis for the President or anyone saying that lives 

have been threatened or compromised or lost because of the expiration of the Act? 

Mr. MUELLER. And I think I answered it, saying I am not certain 

of the statement, but I personally am not aware of the basis upon 

which it was made. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. I will take that as you know of no factual 

basis and move on to my next area. 

During the very beginning of your tenure, Mr. Mueller, during 

the first years of your tenure, after we adopted the color-coded terror alert system, with some regularity the Administration would 

raise the terror alert level. When is the last time the terror alert 

level has been raised? 

Mr. MUELLER. I can’t recall. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, can you turn to your staff and just give me a 

ballpark as to the last time it has been raised? Because there is 

an objective answer to that. I know it has been so long we have 

been at one color. 

Mr. MUELLER. Probably a couple of years ago. That is the best 

we can come up with. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. It has been a while. 

Mr. MUELLER. It has. 

Mr. DAVIS. So I guess we can conclude one of two things from 

that, that we have not faced a level of threat that arise or level of 

imminent threat that would cause the alert system to be raised or 

that the alert system has been abandoned as a practical matter. 

Which of those is accurate? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me say, I can’t remember—in August of 

2006, where there were individuals in the U.K. who contemplated 

bringing liquid explosives on as many as 8 to 10 planes and blowing them up across the Atlantic. 

Mr. DAVIS. We remember that. 

Mr. MUELLER. That was certainly an area where we—— 

Mr. DAVIS. So that would be—— 

77 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Substantial threat. I am not certain 

whether we raised the level then. 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think what happened is we raised the level at 

airports—— 

Mr. DAVIS. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. But not across the country. 

Mr. DAVIS. Let me—because my time is limited—I don’t actually 

believe that we raised the alert then. I think there was some discussion about it. I think—and since no one contradicts me, I will 

speak to my memory—I don’t think that, frankly, we have raised 

the alert level since 2004. 

And I am happy to accept contradiction if anyone in the room 

wishes to provide it, but I believe it was 2004. 

So I would ask you, going forward—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. There will be a new President, one of 

three individuals, and you will serve for some period of time under 

that President, I believe. Will it be your recommendation to the 

next President that we continue the color-coded system? 

Mr. MUELLER. I haven’t given some thought to that. Again, my 

recollection is, is that we may have—selective raising of the alert 

level during that period of time, but not a countrywide—we will 

have to get back to you on that, though. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I would just end, if I can, on this observation, 

Mr. Mueller, is I think you get the point that I am driving at. In 

some circles, there is a belief that the Administration was quick to 

raise it during the run-up to the 2004 presidential elections. That 

political imperative, having been secured, it has not been raised 

since then. 

That is something that does bother some of us, because it does 

raise a practical question, which of two things happened? Is it that 

we pretty much abandoned the system since the 2004 election and 

you all haven’t bothered to tell us? Or is it that we have not had 

a level of threat rise to the level of imminence that would justify 

the alert level going up? 

Either one of those things would strike me as being relevant to 

this Committee from a policymaking standpoint. 

Mr. MUELLER. I know there is a belief out there that Administration officials would raise the concerns at a particular point of time 

for political reasons. I personally have never seen that. 

In each case in which there has been information put out, it has 

been based on viable information that had caused us—— 

Mr. DAVIS. And understand I am in no way questioning your integrity. I am simply making a point that it is a fact that it has not 

happened since the 2004 election cycle and it does raise questions 

going forward as to whether it has been abandoned or whether we 

just haven’t had an imminent threat in 4 years. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say, again, that the contradictory fact on 

that is the fact, in summer of 2006, in August of 2006, where we 

had that—again, I am not certain where the level was raised, but 

I can tell you that the—I remember being in a press conference 

with Michael Chertoff and the rest, so the country became very 

much aware of that threat—— 

78 

Mr. DAVIS. Certainly. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Whether the level was raised or not. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, but my whole question went to the viability and 

the reasonableness of our continuing to have the color-coded system. And, frankly, I think you made my point. 

If a threat that you believe wasn’t an important one, did not justify, or for whatever reason didn’t militate on the level being 

raised, it may tell us something about the lack of viability of the 

color-coded system. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Committee recognizes the Ranking Member from Texas, 

Judge Louie Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Director, I want to follow up on the FISA issue 

some. Is it the FBI that is the primary agency that would do wiretapping of foreign terrorists on foreign soil? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Who would that be? 

Mr. MUELLER. NSA. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. So that obviously would be a different 

agency? 

Mr. MUELLER. Correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is not one you control and are here to testify 

about, correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. That is correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Now, I am intrigued, though. Here we have not 

renewed FISA. We have cut the ability of our intelligence community to gather information about what terrorists are doing on foreign soil. 

Then we bring the FBI director in here and want to know from 

him, since you are no longer able to gather this intelligence in the 

same way you did before, what have you missed? Well, if you are 

not gathering the intelligence, how would you know what you have 

missed? That is my point. 

You had said a while ago that the FBI, one of your three missions was counterintelligence. But the longer I am here in Congress, the more I think maybe that is the number-one mission in 

Congress, is to act counter to intelligence. 

But, anyway, I want to ask you about Ramos and Compean case, 

though. Is there any post-conviction investigation that is going into 

the facts of that case that might help the President to determine 

whether or not to give a pardon? 

Mr. MUELLER. Not to my knowledge. But I don’t know—that was 

a Department of Homeland Security case, so I am not certain 

what—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So the FBI didn’t work that case? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do not believe so. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, thank you. 

And let me go to the NSL letters. There had been a lot of discussion about that. You had mentioned earlier about the concerns, the 

abuses of the exigent letters. 

Has the FBI terminated use of exigent letters or are those still 

being used? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, they are not being used. 

79 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I think my friend, Mr. Lungren, had alluded 

to it, but would you—or one of my colleagues. How would the 

tradeoff of the NSLs for broader administrative subpoena authority 

be better for the FBI? I really don’t—I am curious. 

Mr. MUELLER. The only one area that I could see that would be 

beneficial would be putting in one statute, combining in one statute 

the authorities which would eliminate some of the confusion and 

eliminate some of the complexity of knowing the appropriate basis 

and use of particular NSL. That would be one benefit from it. 

But I would hate to have lose—again, have the standard change 

to back what it was before September 10 or September 11, before 

September 11, in the course of devising a new mechanism for 

issuing of that paper. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I think you have got the impression that we are 

all extremely concerned about potential abuses there, so whatever 

we can do to help diminish that possibility. 

When you were here before, last year, we have gotten into this 

some, but with regard to Representative Jefferson’s case—I know 

it is an ongoing case, and obviously you can’t discuss anything that 

might compromise that—but I had previously understood Deputy 

Attorney General Paul McNulty to say he was aware that there 

were secured copies of the documents in Jefferson’s office that 

could be made available to him, but he wanted the originals, not 

the copies. 

Are you aware of the existence of copies at the time of the raid 

on his office? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Let me ask you about the terrorist surveillance 

program. What is the status of that and its operation under FISA? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, I would defer to my counterparts in other 

agencies on that. And, also, it is classified, so I couldn’t speak to 

it here. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, let me ask you, though, because I am wondering if the FBI has a role in investigating the leak of the TSP? 

Mr. MUELLER. To the extent that—yes. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The I.G. recently reported that the terrorist watch 

list contains unacceptable errors and that the FBI is delayed in reporting names to the terrorist watch list by up to 4 months. Why 

the delay there? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think what the I.G.’s report showed that, 

in the nominations process for the terrorist screening center, we 

had appropriate criteria and quality controls, but we did not update the list as often as we should. As well, field offices had submitted incomplete and occasionally inaccurate information. 

There were 18 recommendations made by the Inspector General. 

Four have been closed. Twelve of those recommendations are 

awaiting closure, which leaves only two. So we have taken the 

I.G.’s report and followed up on each of the recommendations and 

believe that we are well on the way to solving those. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, thank you. 

I see my time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

80 

The Chair recognizes the able gentleman from Minnesota, Keith 

Ellison. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And, also, I want to thank you, as well, Mr. Mueller. You have 

been patient and tried to answer the questions. Mortgage fraud, 

online sexual abuse, terrorism, NSLs, FISA, TSP, we have asked 

you about all those things. How does this affect Indian country? 

I mean, we are talking about a region of our country that really 

does depend upon the FBI for law enforcement services, and yet we 

have seen high rates of violent crime and record rates. How does 

all of this impact Indian country? And how could we get some law 

enforcement resources there? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have tried to maintain our personnel in addressing crimes on Indian country. We focus on those crimes where 

we really can make a difference, the violent crime and the like. 

Our hope is that other agencies can grow to fulfill or fill some 

of that mission. But in the meantime, to the extent that we are 

necessary, I want to keep our persons there. 

I think I indicated we have something like 16 Safe Trails task 

forces, which are task forces relating to Indian country that we operate along with State and local law enforcement. Given the various responsibilities that we have, it is one that I think is important. 

And personally, I believe if there is anything that a Federal entity can do to reduce the level of violence in our communities, including communities on Indian country, we will try to do so, understanding that we have to prioritize and we are under financial and 

personnel constraints. 

Mr. ELLISON. Has there been a decline in the number of law enforcement personnel, Federal law enforcement personnel in Indian 

country since, say, 2001? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to check. I have tried to maintain 

the safe staffing, but I haven’t checked on it in a year or so. So I 

would have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. ELLISON. Maybe somebody with your staff knows? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think we would have to get back to you. I really 

haven’t addressed the question in a year or so, so I think we would 

have to get back to you. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, let me tell you. I have got a lot of constituents who are very concerned about this. And I would count on you 

to get back with me on it. 

Mr. MUELLER. We will. 

Mr. ELLISON. Also, you know, in the Muslim community, America 

has a great Muslim community, several million people. And the 

post-9/11 world, there has been greater attention on this community. I am sure you wouldn’t dispute that. 

My question is, how important are outreach efforts in the Muslim community, given that the overwhelming number of Muslims 

condemn, are opposed to terrorism, or would be happy to report on 

somebody who was committing, plotting terrorism? How important 

are outreach efforts into the Muslim community for the FBI? 

Mr. MUELLER. Tremendously important. We have, since September 11, in every one of our offices, every one of our field offices, 

81 

we have had substantial outreach efforts. I am sure you are familiar with them in your community. 

We continue to have them both on the national, as well as in the 

State and the local level. 

And every opportunity I have, I re-affirm the fact that 99.9 percent of Muslim-Americans or Sikh-Americans, Arab-Americans are 

every bit as patriotic as anybody else in this room, and that many 

of our cases are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community in the United States. 

One of the worst things that could happen in the Muslim community is we have another attack such as September 11. Nobody 

wants it, whether it be ourselves in the FBI or those members of 

the Muslim community. 

Mr. ELLISON. So thank you. 

So let me just ask this. I mean, I know you are well aware that, 

in May 2007, prosecutors down in Dallas named about 306 individuals and groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the so-called HLF 

case. 

To my knowledge, no one was convicted. And many people came 

within like 11 to 1 to get acquitted. And I am sure you know the 

history of the case, am I right? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe that case is still in litigation. 

Mr. ELLISON. It is still on litigation, but you know that there 

was—the jury came back hung and that many of the verdicts were 

11 to 1 to acquit. You know that? Not all the verdicts; many did. 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not—I understood it was hung. I am not certain that I am familiar with the breakdown of the jury on any particular defendant. 

Mr. ELLISON. But I don’t want to get stuck in the weeds on the 

point. The fact is, 12 Americans sat in judgment of this case, listened to all the evidence, and didn’t convict. You would agree with 

that? 

Mr. MUELLER. There was a hung jury. 

Mr. ELLISON. That means there was no conviction. Come on, Mr. 

Mueller. 

Mr. MUELLER. There was no—there was no conviction. 

Mr. ELLISON. That allows me to go on and ask my question. By 

naming all these 306 individuals and organizations as unindicted 

co-conspirators, naming them explicitly, what impact did that have 

on your effort to build better relations in the Muslim-American 

community? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain it had any impact. 

Mr. ELLISON. I mean, do you—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I have not heard about an adverse impact as a result of that particular case. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. I mean, there are 

groups on—the groups that were named in there, there was no verdict against them, because they were unindicted, right? 

I mean, do you think—what kind of effect do you think—message 

it sends to them, in terms of your ability to reach out to the community, gain cooperation, gain trust? Don’t you think it might have 

a deleterious effect? Doesn’t your common sense tell you that? 

Mr. MUELLER. I understand what you are saying. I take your 

point. 

82 

Mr. ELLISON. And could you elaborate on what we do about this, 

given that it is arguable that these unindicted co-conspirators that 

were explicitly named, not kept under seal, but explicitly identified 

could well be in violation of DOJ policy, which I know you don’t 

control? What would you—do you think there is a better way to do 

this kind of thing? 

Mr. MUELLER. All I can tell you, sir, is it is in litigation. And I 

am precluded from discussing it because it is in litigation. 

Mr. ELLISON. Am I done? 

Mr. CONYERS. Your time is up, but you can talk some more, if 

you would like. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay, thank you. 

You know, one of the questions that Representative Baldwin pursued was getting a tighter handle on this watch list process. I can’t 

tell you how many people, most of whom are Muslim or have Arabic names, come to me, saying, ‘‘Wow, you know, I got humiliated, 

delayed, and it is often and it is common. I have never done anything other than try to be a good citizen.’’ 

What recommendations do you have for us that would help us, 

one, protect America and, two, tailor this watch list in a way that 

doesn’t sweep up all these people who have done nothing wrong, 

other than just try to be good Americans? 

Mr. MUELLER. Each agency has a redress officer and a redress 

office. So the recommendation is to file the application with the redress office. 

Mr. ELLISON. But, Mr. Mueller, you would agree with me that 

that is pretty cold comfort to somebody who has been delayed for 

3 hours from their flight and everything they had to go do. We 

need a better process than just call the redress office. 

And I guess I was hoping, given that your commitment to outreach and all, that you would be a little bit more willing to explicitly talk about things we could do to offer legislation to tailor a 

watch list. Are you telling me just go to the office and that is it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we have set up a redress process. I am always open to suggestions on how it can be improved. But it seems 

to me that you definitely need a redress process. 

I am not disagreeing about the frustration of being held up for 

3 hours. 

Mr. ELLISON. But you have heard it. 

Mr. MUELLER. I agree with you. But we have put in place a redress process, and I am always open to suggestions as to how to 

make that redress process better. 

Mr. ELLISON. How would it compromise national security to be 

able to have people ask if they are on it and, if they are, to have 

some kind of process to set forth evidence to demonstrate that they 

should be off of it? 

Mr. MUELLER. And that is part of the redress process, as I understand it. 

Mr. ELLISON. But am I wrong? I could be wrong. I thought if you 

asked if you were on it, you might not even be told whether you 

are on it or not. 

Mr. MUELLER. You may not be. But there is a redress process. 

Mr. ELLISON. How many people have been taken off the watch 

list since 2001? 

83 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe—I am not certain. I would have to get 

back to you. 

Mr. ELLISON. You know, is there a chance that what we have 

here is government workers who are like, ‘‘Look, I am going to err 

on the side of just putting everybody on it because I don’t want to 

be the one who didn’t put somebody on it who maybe I should 

have, so I am going to have a very, very low bar to put somebody 

on this list,’’ which they practically can never really get off of, notwithstanding the redress process? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, I think there is a technical basis for going on 

the terrorist screening center watch list. And you have to meet certain criteria. 

Mr. ELLISON. Is that published? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain it is. I don’t believe it is. 

Mr. ELLISON. Could I—— 

Mr. MUELLER. But there is a criteria. 

Mr. ELLISON [continuing]. Published? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay, so you don’t know what the criteria is, right, 

right now? 

Mr. MUELLER. Right offhand, I don’t know all the criteria. I 

can’t—— 

Mr. ELLISON. What are a few of the big ones? 

Mr. MUELLER. Pardon? 

Mr. ELLISON. What are a few of the big ones? 

Mr. MUELLER. It is based on the evidence that you have in our 

files to determine whether or not there has been an association 

with terrorism. 

Mr. ELLISON. Does the person who has been watch-listed have an 

opportunity to challenge those things? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain. I don’t believe so, because you 

would not be exposed to the information we have. 

Mr. ELLISON. Right. So if you are on the list, then you say, 

‘‘Look, I shouldn’t be on this list,’’ but you are not told why you are 

on the list, so you can’t really rebut why you are on the list. 

Wouldn’t you call that defect in the redress process? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, again, I would be happy to have the persons 

responsible for the watch list sit down with you and explain in 

more detail how we handle the watch list. 

Often, it happens that the name is similar to another name. And 

through the redress process, we get identifiers and identify you as 

being an individual who may have the same name as somebody on 

the watch list, but because of the identifiers, your particular name 

is no longer associated with the name on the watch list. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Mueller, I want to work with you to narrow 

and tailor this watch list process. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. And we want everybody who is supposed to be 

there should stay on. But a lot of the people who shouldn’t be, I 

am hoping we can get them off. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thank you very much. 

84 

Does the gentleman from Texas, the Ranking Member, have any 

closing comment? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, no official closing comments. 

I do want to thank the director for appearing. I think we have 

had a good hearing today, and I think he has been very responsive 

to all the questions that have been directed toward him. 

As I understand, Director Mueller, your appointment, you became director of the FBI 1 week after 9/11? 

Mr. MUELLER. One before, 1 week before 9/11. 

Mr. SMITH. I mean 1 week before. That may give rise to a new 

definition of on-the-job training. I had forgotten that it was that 

close. 

So appreciate all that you have been through and appreciate 

your good record. And as I said earlier, you and other law enforcement agencies and intelligence-gathering agencies, as well, have 

obviously done an outstanding job, since we haven’t had another 

attack. 

Should we endure another attack, that is not necessarily a reflection on you, because I think—frankly, I think most Americans have 

been surprised there hasn’t been another attack. If you were to ask 

anybody a few weeks after 9/11 if we were going to be attacked 

again, I suspect a high percentage of the American people would 

have thought that by now that would have occurred. 

I am grateful that it has not, and I think that is largely do to 

the good service that you have performed, as well as other agencies 

have performed. So I thank you for that. 

I don’t have any other comments, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Does the gentleman from California, Dan Lungren, have any 

closing comments? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to say, in that last exchange you had with the gentleman from Minnesota, one of the concerns we have had as we 

looked at it in the Homeland Security Committee of people on the 

watch list is that, because of concerns of privacy, we don’t have the 

list of identifiers that allow us to take people off. 

DHS got in a little bit of trouble because they had a list with information of people that they tried to run it against. And one of the 

concerns we have in the Homeland Security is, can we create a system where we query files that are available in the private sector— 

therefore, we don’t retain that information—to get people off? 

The only other thing I was going to say, Mr. Mueller, is that, 

when you were asked about the failure of the Congress to re-enact 

the Protect America Act, I would just remind my colleagues that, 

in testimony before this Committee, it was Admiral McConnell, the 

DNI, who said that, prior to the enactment of the Protect America 

Act, which has now expired—these are his words—‘‘We were not 

collecting somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of the foreign intelligence information that would have been collected.’’ 

That scenario still prevails today for new investigations, not 

those that you referred to that started before last August and continued last August. 

Mr. MUELLER. That is correct. 

85 

Mr. LUNGREN. So that is the concern I think that we are attempting to address, those of us who raise this, is the new targets 

that are out there. And presumably we are missing between onehalf and two-thirds, if the DNI is correct. 

And I thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from California. 

Thank you, Director Mueller. We have had a very meaningful 

hearing today that started somewhere shortly after 10:15 this 

morning. 

Serious problems concerning the National Security Letters’ abuse 

still continue, including the collection of private information on innocent people who are not relevant to any authorized investigation. 

And although the Federal Bureau of Investigation has taken 

some positive steps, action at the FBI field office level is needed, 

along with legislative reform, such as measures that have been proposed by Members of this Committee. 

The FBI action in the Renzi and Jefferson cases raises in my 

mind serious concerns about the protecting of constitutional privileges of the Members of Congress, as the court has already found 

in the Jefferson case. The FBI must act promptly to set up procedures in this area. 

And it is shocking to me that FBI standards on interrogation 

have not apparently been followed by the Department of Defense 

or the CIA. 

Now, the FBI deserves credit for establishing these standards, 

but the fact that they are not followed by all Federal agencies is 

a problem that we need in this Committee to examine far more 

closely and carefully than we have up until now. 

And so we thank you, again, and your staff for appearing here 

this morning and afternoon for a very important session. Thank 

you. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Committee stands adjourned. 

Members will have 5 days to add their comments in the record. 

The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

87 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

RESPONSES TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. 

MUELLER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, WASHINGTON, DC 


A-1.eps
88 


A-2.eps
89 


A-3.eps
90 


A-4.eps
91 


A-5.eps
92 


A-6.eps
93 


A-7.eps
94 


A-8.eps
95 


A-9.eps
96 


A-10.eps
97 


A-11.eps
98 


A-12.eps
99 

Æ 


A-13.eps