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

74–121 PDF 2013

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 9, 2012 

Serial No. 112–151 

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 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 9, 2012 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 1 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 2 

WITNESS 

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 41 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ....... 48 

Material submitted by the Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 58 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 75 

Post-Hearing Questions submitted to the Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III, 

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation ......................................................... 91 

(1) 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Lamar Smith 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Smith, Coble, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Lungren, Chabot, King, Franks, Gohmert, Chaffetz, Gowdy, Conyers, 

Nadler, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Pierluisi, 

Quigley, Chu, and Deutch. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Travis Norton, Counsel; Holt Lackey, 

Counsel; (Minority) Danielle Brown, Counsel; and Aaron Hiller, 

Counsel. 

Mr. SMITH. The Judiciary Committee will come to order, and we 

welcome everyone, particularly the Director of the FBI, to this 

oversight hearing. 

And, Director, let me say, considering that we were voting until 

12:30 last night, this is a pretty good turnout for this morning. 

I will recognize myself for an opening statement and then the 

Ranking Member, and then we will proceed with our questions. 

Again, welcome, Director Mueller, to today’s oversight hearing of 

the FBI. 

When Director Mueller was last in front of this Committee just 

over a year ago, we all believed that it would be his last hearing 

before the House Judiciary Committee as FBI Director because his 

10-year term was set to expire on September 4, 2011. But because 

of the changes of leadership at the Department of Defense and the 

Central Intelligence Agency, the President requested and Congress 

passed a law to allow him to be renominated and serve an additional 2 years. Director Mueller received this vote of confidence because he has led the FBI with integrity and skill through some of 

the most difficult and important years in America’s history. 

Director Mueller became FBI Director only days before the September 11th terrorist attacks. As the first FBI Director of the postSeptember 11th era, Director Mueller led a historic transformation 

of the agency. He oversaw a rapid expansion of the FBI’s 

counterterrorism division and still continued its traditional focus 

on investigating Federal crimes. 

Under his leadership, the FBI has successfully stopped dozens of 

terrorist plots and remained vigilant against the threat of al-Qaeda 

and like-minded groups. This threat did not end with the death of 

2 

Osama bin Laden. Just this week we learned that al-Qaeda leaders 

in Yemen planned to detonate a bomb on a U.S.-bound jet around 

the anniversary of bin Laden’s death. Fortunately, American intelligence, in cooperation with foreign allies, prevented this attack. 

The FBI has also brought to justice inside traders, child pornographers, intellectual property thieves, doctors who defraud Medicare, and countless other criminals. 

A strong leader at the helm of the FBI is critical to our national 

security. So are strong laws that help investigators and intelligence 

officials keep our Nation safe. 

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is scheduled to expire at the 

end of this year unless Congress acts to reauthorize it. This law 

gives the intelligence community the tools it needs to determine 

who terrorists communicate with, what they say, and what they 

may be planning. FISA strikes a balance as it allows the FBI to 

acquire intelligence information about foreign terrorists abroad 

while preserving and protecting the civil liberties of American citizens, no matter where they are. I hope to hear Director Mueller’s 

views on how FISA has furthered the FBI’s mission to protect 

Americans and whether Congress should do anything to strengthen 

or improve this law. 

Again, let me conclude by saying that we appreciate Director 

Mueller’s many years of public service. He has been an outstanding 

Director of the FBI, and America is safer and better because of his 

tenure. 

That concludes my opening statement. I will recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the full Committee, 

Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I join you in declaring Director Mueller a true patriot and one committed to the rule 

of law and the Constitution, and I joined in supporting the extension of his term. 

Now, when I first came to the House Judiciary Committee, the 

Director of the FBI was J. Edgar Hoover, and I remind you of that 

to talk about and think about the transition and the changes that 

have gone on in law enforcement and in the FBI in particular so 

that we are looking at how we make the criminal justice system 

a little fairer, make it work better, and protect our citizens more. 

And so I hope that in the course of our discussions this morning 

we get to several considerations that are on my mind as we begin 

this particular hearing. 

One is overincarceration. We put more people in prison than any 

other country on the planet and with less successful results, I 

might add, and so I need to, of course, engage you in that issue. 

And of course when we talk to each other, I am also talking to my 

colleagues as well. These are subject matters that we need to examine when the head of the FBI is not our witness. 

The other problem that I have got to bring up is what effect has 

our overconcentration on counterterrorism efforts, how has that 

hindered or affected the fight against crime inside the U.S., violence, murders, other issues that do not fall into the terrorist category? 

And the other matter is the so-called Ryan budget, which calls 

for four-and-a-half thousand fewer FBI agents in 2014. That is 

3 

something that I think we ought to try to have candid public discussions about as well. And I include the diversion programs and 

treatment programs for less serious offenses as something that we 

might want to be looking at at the Federal level and at the State 

level as well. 

And then I am sorry to bring up the materials used by the FBI— 

before your tenure, I believe—I know it was—that painted Muslims 

as violent and likely to be—quote, likely to be terrorist sympathizers and followers of a, quote, cult leader, and the fact that this 

created great consternation not only in the law enforcement community and in the Muslim-American community but among all 

fair-thinking Americans as well. 

As you know, The Washington Post has detailed a series of articles about the flawed forensic work at FBI laboratories and instances where prosecutors have failed to notify defendants or their 

lawyers when they knew that the evidence was flawed, and hundreds of defendants still remain incarcerated at this moment because FBI hair and fiber experts may have, in some cases, 

misidentified them as suspects. 

These are the issues that are on my mind as we meet this morning, and I welcome your presence here today. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

Our only witness is Federal Bureau of Investigation Director 

Robert S. Mueller, III, who has held that position since September 

4th, 2001. He was first nominated by President George W. Bush 

and last year was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate for an additional 2-year term. 

Director Mueller has a long and honorable record in public service. After graduating from Princeton and receiving a master’s degree from New York University, Director Mueller enlisted as a Marine in Vietnam. He received a Bronze Star, two Navy commendation medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. After his military service, he received his law degree from 

the University of Virginia. 

Early in his legal career he served as a prosecutor in the United 

States Attorney’s offices of San Francisco and Boston. After working as a partner in the Boston law firm of Hill & Barlow, Director 

Mueller returned to the Justice Department in 1989 as an assistant to the Attorney General and later as the head of the Criminal 

Division. In 1998, Director Mueller was named United States Attorney in San Francisco, a position he held until 2001, when he 

was nominated to be Director of the FBI. 

And, Director Mueller, once again we welcome you today and 

look forward to your statement, and if you will please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, 

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, good morning and thank you, Chairman 

Smith, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee. 

I do want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 

Committee today and thank you for your continued support of the 

men and women of the FBI. 

4 

As you know and have pointed out, the Bureau has undergone 

unprecedented change in recent years. Since the attacks of September 11th, we have refocused our efforts to address and prevent 

emerging terrorist threats. The terrorist threat is more diverse 

than it was 10 years ago, but today we in the FBI are better prepared to meet that threat. 

We also face increasingly complex threats to our Nation’s cyber 

security. Nation state actors, sophisticated organized criminal 

groups, and hackers for hire are stealing trade secrets and valuable 

research from America’s companies, universities, and government 

agencies. 

And, of course, national security is not our only concern, as we 

remain committed to our criminal programs. 

In the economic arena, billion dollar investment fraud, health 

care fraud, and mortgage fraud have undermined the world’s financial system and victimized investors, homeowners, and taxpayers. 

And while crime rates may be down nationwide, gang violence still 

plagues many neighborhoods, and our communities continue to confront violent crime, crimes against children, and transnational organized crime. 

And as national security and criminal threats continue to evolve, 

so must the FBI change to counter and prevent those threats before they occur. In doing so, we in the Bureau are relying on our 

law enforcement and private-sector partners more than ever before. 

Throughout these efforts, the FBI remains firmly committed to carrying out our mission while protecting the civil liberties of the citizens we serve. 

Let me begin with the threat from terrorism, which remains our 

top priority. Al Qaeda is decentralized, but the group is committed 

to high-profile attacks against the West, as we confirmed from the 

documents seized from Osama bin Laden a year ago. Meanwhile, 

al-Qaeda affiliates, especially al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, 

represent the top counterterrorism threat to the Nation. AQAP has 

attempted several attacks on the United States, including the 

failed Christmas day airline bombing in 2009 and the attempted 

bombing of U.S.-bound cargo planes in 2010. And of course we are 

currently—we in the Bureau are currently exploiting an IED, improvised explosive device, seized overseas which is similar to the 

devices used by AQAP in the past. 

We also remain concerned about the threat from homegrown violent extremists. These individuals have no typical profile, and their 

experiences and motives are often distinct, which makes them difficult to find and difficult to stop. These cases illustrate why we 

must continue to enhance our intelligence capabilities and to share 

information to make sure that critical information gets to the right 

people before any harm is done. 

Let me turn next to counterintelligence. While we still confront 

traditional espionage, today’s spies are also students, researchers, 

business people, or operators of front companies. They seek not 

only state secrets but also trade secrets, intellectual property, and 

insider information from government, businesses, and American 

universities. We are also seeing a growing insider threat. That is 

when employees use their legitimate access to steal secrets for the 

benefit of another company or the benefit of another country. 

5 

Turning to cyber, of course, the counterintelligence threat is now 

merging with the cyber threat. Today, so much sensitive data is 

stored on computer networks our adversaries often find it as effective or even more effective to steal secrets through cyber intrusions. 

The cyber threat has evolved significantly over the past decade. 

The threat ranges from nation states who seek to exploit weaknesses in our computer networks to hackers that seek information 

for sale to the highest bidder, and there are also hackers and 

hacktivist groups intent on pioneering their own forms of digital 

anarchy. 

We in the Bureau have built up a substantial expertise to address these threats both at home and abroad. We have cyber 

squads in each of our 56 field offices, with more than a thousand 

specially trained agents, analysts, and forensic specialists. We have 

63 Legal Attache offices that cover the globe and assist in addressing the cyber threat. In addition, the National Cyber Investigative 

Joint Task Force brings together 20 law enforcement, military, and 

intelligence agencies to stop current and predict future attacks. 

With our partners at DHS, CIA, NSA, and the Secret Service, we 

are together targeting cyber threats facing our Nation. 

Next, let me address our efforts to combat financial crimes. The 

FBI and its partners continue to focus on the most egregious offenders of mortgage fraud. At the end of last year, the FBI had 

nearly 2,600 mortgage fraud investigations nationwide, and a majority of these cases included losses greater than a million dollars. 

Over the past 4 years, we have nearly tripled the number of Special Agents investigating mortgage fraud; and working with our 

Federal and State law enforcement partners, our agents and analysts are using intelligence, surveillance, computer analysis, and 

undercover operations to find the key players behind large-scale 

mortgage fraud. 

Turning to health care fraud, health care spending currently 

makes up about 18 percent of our Nation’s total economy, which 

presents an attractive target for criminals, so much so that we lose 

tens of billions of dollars each year to health care fraud. As announced last week, the FBI, HHS, and Justice Department continue to bring a record number of cases involving hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud; and since their inception in March 2007, 

Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations in nine locations have 

charged more than 1,300 defendants who collectively have falsely 

billed the Medicare program for more than $4 billion. 

And crime on our streets remains as much of a threat to our 

overall security as terrorism, espionage, or cyber crime. The most 

recent uniform crime report indicates violent crime continues to 

fall, but, as we all know, this does not represent every community. 

For some cities and towns across the Nation, violent crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a real problem. 

We also continue to confront organized crime. Today’s organized 

crime is marked by sophisticated enterprises that run multi-national, multi-billion dollar schemes, everything from human trafficking to health care fraud and from computer intrusions to intellectual property theft. The annual cost of transnational organized 

6 

crime to the U.S. economy is estimated to be in the tens of billions 

of dollars. 

Lastly, FBI remains vigilant in its efforts to keep children safe 

and to find and stop child predators. Through our partnerships 

with State, local, and international law enforcement, we are able 

to investigate crimes across legal, geographical, and jurisdictional 

boundaries. Through our Child Abduction Rapid Deployment 

Teams, the Innocence Lost National Initiative, the Office of Victim 

Assistance, and numerous community outreach programs, the FBI 

and its partners are working to make the world a safer place for 

our children. 

Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Conyers, I thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the FBI’s priorities and the state of the 

Bureau as it stands today. The transformation the FBI has 

achieved over the past 10 years would not have been possible without the support of Congress and the American people. I thank you 

for the opportunity to appear here today, and I am happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mueller follows:] 

7 


FBI-1.eps

iBeparbnent of lfustite 

STATEMENT 

OF 

ROBERT S. MUELLER, III 

DIRECTOR 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AT A HEARING ENTITLED 

"OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION" 

PRESENTED 

MAY 9,2012 
8 


FBI-2.eps

Statement for the Record 

Robert S. Mueller, III 

Director 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

May 9, 2012 

Good morning, Chainnan Smith, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today and for your 

continued support of the men and women of the FBI. 

As you know, the Bureau has undergone unprecedented transformation in recent years. 

Since the attacks of September 11 th , we have refocused our efforts to address and prevent 

emerging terrorist threats. The terrorist threat is more diverse than it was 10 years ago, but 

today, we in the FBI are better prepared to meet that threat. 

We still confront traditional espionage and work diligently to prevent foreign intelligence 

agents from gaining our nation's political, military or economic secrets. 

We also face increasingly complex threats to our nation's cyber security. Nation-state 

actors, sophisticated organized crime groups, and hackers for hire are stealing intelligence and 

national security data, as well as trade secrets and valuable research from America's companies, 

universities, and government agencies. These cyber threats are also a risk for our nation's 

critical infrastructure. 

Yet national security is not our only concern, as we remain committed to our criminal 

programs. In the economic arena, investment fraud, mortgage fraud, securities fraud and health 

care fraud have hanned the world's ±lnancial system and victimized investors, homeowners, and 

taxpayers 

And although crime rates may be down nationwide, gang violence still plagues many 

neighborhoods, and our communities continue to confront violent crime, crimes against children, 

and threats from transnational organized crime. 

As national security and criminal threats continue to evolve, so too must the FBI change 

to counter those threats. We must continue to use intelligence and investigative techniques to 

find and stop criminals and terrorists before they act. As we face greater challenges, we in the 

Bureau are relying on our law enforcement and private sector partners more than ever before. 
9 


FBI-3.eps

The FBI remains firmly committed to carrying out our mission while protecting the civil 

liberties of the citizens we serve. 

Connterterrorism 

Counterterrorism remains our top priority. 

In the past decade, Al Qaeda has become decentralized, but the group remains committed 

to high-profile attacks against the West. We confirmed this with records seized from Osama bin 

Laden's compound just over a year ago, as well as the recent conviction of an Al Qaeda 

operative plotting to conduct coordinated suicide bombings in the New York City subway 

system 

Al Qaeda affiliates and adherents, especially Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), 

currently represent the top counterterrorism threat to the nation. These groups have attempted 

several attacks in and on the United States, including the failed Christmas Day airline bombing 

in 2009, and the attempted bombing ofUS.-bound cargo planes in October of2010 

We also remain concerned about the threat from homegrown violent extremists. Over the 

last two years, we have seen increased activity among extremist individuals. These individuals 

have no typical profile; their experiences and motives are often distinct. But they are 

increasingly savvy and willing to act alone, which makes them difficult to find and to stop 

For example, in February 2012, the FBI arrested Amine EI Khalifi, a 29-year-old 

Moroccan immigrant, for allegedly attempting to detonate a bomb in a suicide attack on the US 

Capitol. According to court documents, Khalifi believed he was conducting the terrorist attack 

on behalf of al Qaeda, although he was not directly affiliated with any group. 

Another example is the case of Rezwan Ferdaus, a 26-year-old U.S. citizen and graduate 

student residing in Ashland, Massachusetts. Last fall, Ferdaus allegedly planned to use 

unmanned, remote-controlled aircraft to attack locations in Washington, D.C., including the US. 

Capitol and the Pentagon. Ferdaus was influenced by radical websites advocating violent 

extremism, among other things, and had expressed admiration for AI Qaeda's leaders, but was 

not directly affiliated with any group. He had allegedly become extremist on his own, making 

his activities much more difficult to detect. Ferdaus is currently awaiting trial in the United 

States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 

Much like every other multi-national organization, terrorist groups are using the Internet 

to grow their business and to connect with like-minded individuals. Al Qaeda uses online chat 

rooms and web sites to recruit and radicalize followers to commit acts of terrorism. AQAP has 

produced a full-color, English language online magazine. Cases such as these illustrate why we 

in the Intelligence Community must continue to enhance our intelligence capabilities and to 

share information to ensure that critical information gets to the right people - before any harm is 

done. The FISA Amendments Act (FAA), allows the Intelligence Community to collect vital 

2 
10 


FBI-4.eps

information about international terrorists and other important targets overseas while providing a 

robust protection for the civil liberties and privacy of Americans. Ijoin the Attorney General 

and the Director of National Intelligence in urging Congress to reauthorize this authority before 

it expires at the end of this year. 

The Bureau itself has established a Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Office within 

the National Security Branch (NSB) to improve our effectiveness in empowering our state, local, 

and community partners to assist in this effort. The duties and goals of this office include 

developing a better understanding of, and countering the threat of, violent extremism in the 

United States, strengthening community partnerships and providing to state and local officials 

and to community leaders unclassified briefings regarding the threat of extremism, addressing 

CVE-related operational and mission-support needs, including investigations, analysis, and 

training, and coordinating Bureau interests with regard to CVE matters with those of other 

agencies to ensure U.S. Government efforts are aligned. 

Counterintelligence 

We still confront traditional espionage - spies working under diplomatic cover, or even 

posing as ordinary citizens 

Today's spies are also students, researchers, businesspeople, or operators of "front 

companies." And they seek not only state secrets, but trade secrets, research and development, 

intellectual property, and insider information from the federal government, U.S. corporations, 

and American universities. 

Consider the recent case of Stewart David Nozette, a scientist who once worked for the 

Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, NASA, and the National Space Council. He 

was sentenced in March to 13 years in prison for attempted espionage, conspiracy to defraud the 

United States, and tax evasion after providing classified information to an undercover FBI agent 

whom he believed to be an Israeli intelligence officer. 

In another case, Hanjuan Jin, a former software engineer at Motorola, Inc., was found 

guilty in February on charges of stealing the company's trade secrets. She was stopped by U.S. 

customs oftlcials in February 2007 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport with more than 

1,000 electronic and paper proprietary documents from Motorola. She was attempting to travel 

on a one-way ticket to China. Authorities also recovered multiple classified Chinese military 

documents that described telecommunication projects for the Chinese military. 

In another case, 36-year DuPont employee, Tze Chao, pled guilty in March to providing 

trade secrets concerning DuPont's proprietary titanium dioxide manufacturing process to 

companies controlled by the Chinese government. He admitted providing information he 

understood to be secret to DuPont and not available to the public. He faces up to 15 years in 

prison and a $500,000 fine plus restitution 
11 


FBI-5.eps

These cases illustrate the growing scope of the "insider threat" - when employees use 

their legitimate access to steal secrets for the benefit of another company or country. 

Cyber 

The counterintelligence threat is quickly becoming cyber-based. So much sensitive data 

is stored on computer networks, our adversaries often find it as etTective, or even more effective, 

to steal vital strategic and economic infonnation through cyber intrusions, rather than through 

more traditional human spies. 

The cyber threat has evolved significantly over the past decade. Indeed, we anticipate 

that cyber security may become our highest priority in the future. 

Foreign cyber spies have become increasingly adept at exploiting weaknesses in our 

computer networks. Once inside, they can exfiltrate important government and military 

information, as well as valuable commercial data - information that can compromise national 

security as well as improve the competitive advantage of state-owned companies. 

Unlike state-sponsored intruders, hackers for profit do not seek information for political 

power; rather they seek information for sale to the highest bidder. Some of these once-isolated 

hackers have joined forces to create criminal syndicates. Organized crime in cyber space offers a 

higher profit with a lower probability of being identified and prosecuted 

Additionally, hackers and hacktivist groups such as Anonymous and Lulz-Sec are 

pioneering their own forms of digital anarchy. 

The end result of these developments is that we are losing data, money, ideas, and 

innovation. And as citizens, we are increasingly vulnerable to losing our personal information. 

We in the FBI have built up an expertise to address these threats, both here at home and 

abroad. 

We have approximately 70 cyber squads across our 56 field oftices, with more than 1,000 

specially trained agents, analysts, and forensic specialists. The FBI also has 63 Legal Attache 

oftices that cover the globe. Together with our international counterparts, we are sharing 

information and coordinating investigations. We have Special Agents embedded with police 

departments in Romania, Estonia, Ukraine, and the Netherlands, working to identify emerging 

trends and key players. 

Here at home, the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force brings together 20 law 

enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies to investigate current and predict future attacks. 

With our partners at DOD, DHS, CIA, and the NSA, we are targeting the cyber threats that face 

4 
12 


FBI-6.eps

our nation. The Task Force operates through Threat Focus Cells - specialized groups of agents, 

otlicers, and analysts that are focused on particular threats, such as botnets. 

Together with our intelligence community and law enforcement agency partners, we are 

making progress toward defeating the threat - through our use of human sources, technical 

surveillance, and computer science. 

Last April, with our private sector and law enforcement partners, the FBI dismantled the 

Coreflood botnet. This botnet infected an estimated two million computers with malware that 

enabled hackers to seize control of the privately owned computers to steal personal and financial 

information 

With court approval, the FBT seized domain names and re-routed the botnet to FBTcontrolled servers. The servers directed the zombie computers to stop the Coreflood software, 

preventing potential harm to hundreds of thousands of users. 

In another case, last fall we worked with NASA's Inspector General and our partners in 

Estonia, Denmark, Gennany, and the Netherlands to shut down a criminal network operated by 

an Estonian company by the name of Rove Digital. 

The investigation, called Operation Ghost Click, targeted a ring of criminals who 

manipulated Internet "click" advertising. They redirected users from legitimate advertising sites 

to their own advertisements and generated more than $14 million in illegal fees. This "click" 

scheme impacted more than 100 countries and infected four million computers, half a million of 

which were here in the United States. 

We seized and disabled rogue servers, froze the defendants' bank accounts, and replaced 

the ro~\ue servers with legitimate ones to minimize service disruptions. With our Estonian 

partners, we arrested and charged six Estonian nationals for their participation in the scheme. 

Together with our partners at DRS and the National Cyber-Forensics Training Alliance, 

we are using intelligence to create an operational picture of the cyber threat to identify patterns 

and players, to link cases and criminals. 

We must continue to share information with our partners in law enforcement, in the 

Intelligence Community, and in the private sector. 

We also must segregate mission-centric data from routine information. We must 

incorporate layers ofprotection and layers of access to critical infonnation. And when there is a 

compromise, we must limit the data that can be gleaned from it. 
13 


FBI-7.eps

Attribution is critical to determining whether an attack on a U.S. company is perpetrated 

by a state actor, an organized criminal group or a teenage hacker down the block We can use 

the ability to attribute an attack to a specific attacker to help deter future attacks. 

We cannot simply minimize vulnerabilities and deal with the consequences. 

Collectively, we can improve cyber security and lower costs with systems designed to catch 

threat actors, rather than simply to withstand them. 

Financial Crimes 

We have witnessed an increase in financial fraud in recent years, including mortgage 

fraud, health care fraud, and securities fraud 

Mortgage Fraud 

The FBI and its partners continue to pinpoint the most egregious offenders of mortgage 

fraud. At the end of last year, the FBI had nearly 2,600 mortgage fraud investigations 

nationwide - and a majority, over 70 percent, of these cases included losses greater than $1 

million dollars 

With the collapse of the housing market, we have seen an increase in schemes aimed at 

distressed homeowners, such as loan modification scams and phony foreclosure rescues. Socalled "rescue services" claim they can expose errors by lenders that might allow owners to keep 

their homes. In reality, they are just a clever way to lure nervous consumers into giving up 

sensitive personal information and paying thousands of dollars in fees for false hopes. Indeed, in 

some cases, these criminals convince homeowners to sign away the deeds to their homes. 

Other criminals preyed on investors' hopes of cashing in before the housing bubble burst 

In March, 6 I -year-old Andrew Williams, Jr., of Hollywood, Florida, was sentenced to ISO years 

in prison for his role in a $78 million mortgage fraud scheme. Through the scheme, Williams 

promised to pay off homeowners' mortgages in five to seven years following an initial 

investment of $55,000. Unfortunately for investors, this was no more than a Ponzi scheme. 

Those who paid the fee and joined the "Dream Homes Program" later found that there was no 

money left to fund their mortgage payments. 

The FBI has made mortgage fraud a top priority, because we recognize its negative 

impact on homeowners, neighborhoods, and our nation's economy 

Over the past four years, we have nearly tripled the number of Special Agents 

investigating mortgage fraud. Our agents and analysts are using intelligence, surveillance, 

computer analysis, and undercover operations to identify emerging trends and to find the key 

players behind large-scale mortgage fraud 

6 
14 


FBI-8.eps

We also work closely with the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office 

ofInspector General, U.S. Postal Inspectors, the IRS, the FDIC, SIGTARP, the U.S. Trustee 

Program, the Federal Housing Finance Agency's Office ofInspector General, the Federal Trade 

Commission, and the Secret Service, as well as with state and local law enforcement offices 

Health Care Fraud 

Health care spending currently makes up about 18 percent of our nation's total economy 

and continues to rise. These large amounts of money present an attractive target for criminals -

so much so that we lose tens of billions of dollars each year to health care fraud. 

In February, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force - a partnership between the Department of 

Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services - broke up the largest alleged home 

health care fraud scheme ever commi tted. 

Dr. Jacques Roy, the owner of Medistat Group Associates in the Dallas area, was arrested 

along with several others for allegedly billing nearly $375 million in fraudulent Medicare and 

Medicaid claims for home health care services. Between January 2006 and November 2011, 

Medistat had more purported patients than any other medical practice in the United Statesincluding more than 11,000 patients from more than 500 home health agencies. 

Since their inception in March 2007, Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations have 

charged more than 1,300 individuals who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program 

for more than $4 billion. Recently, a nationwide takedown by Medicare Fraud Strike Force 

operations in seven cities resulted in charges against 107 individuals, including doctors, nurses 

and other licensed medical professionals, for their alleged participation in Medicare fraud 

schemes involving approximately $452 million in false billing. 

Health care fraud is not a victimless crime. Every person who pays for health care 

benefits, every business that pays higher insurance costs to cover their employees, and every 

taxpayer who funds Medicare, is a victim. 

As health care spending continues to rise, the FBI will use every tool we have to ensure 

our health care dollars are used to care for the sick - not to line the pockets of criminals. 

Corporate and Securities Fralld 

Another area where our investigations have increased substantially in recent years is in 

corporate and securities fraud. Since September 2008, we have seen a 49 percent increase in 

these cases to more than 2,600 today. 

One of our largest insider trading cases centered on the Galleon Group, a $7 billion dollar 

hedge fund based in New York. Using evidence obtained through court-approved wiretaps, 

7 
15 


FBI-9.eps

attorneys and corporate insiders at several Fortune 500 companies were convicted of leaking 

proprietary information. The owner of the Galleon Group was convicted of multiple counts of 

securities fraud and sentenced in October to 11 years in prison - the longest sentence ever for 

insider trading And in March 2012, Allen Stanford, former chairman of the board of Stanford 

International Bank, was convicted on wire, mail and other fraud charges for orchestrating a $7 

billion investment fraud scheme 

As financial crimes such as these become more sophisticated, so too must the FBI. In 

addition to devoting more agents and analysts, we established a Forensic Accountant Program 

three years ago. Under this program we have hired nearly 250 forensic accountants who are 

trained to catch financial criminals. 

Three years ago, we also established the FBI's Financial Intelligence Center to strengthen 

our financial intelligence collection and analysis. The Center coordinates with FBI field offices 

to complement their resources and to identify emerging economic threats. 

In 2010, the FBI began embedding Special Agents at the SEC, which allows us to see tips 

about securities fraud as they come into the SEC's complaint center This, in turn, enables us to 

identify fraud trends more quickly and to push intelligence to our field offices so that they can 

begin criminal investigations where appropriate. 

GangsIViolent Crime 

The most recent Unifonn Crime Report (UCR) indicates violent crime continues to fall. 

However, for some cities and towns across the nation, violent crime - including gang activity -

continues to pose a real problem. 

Gangs have become more sophisticated. They have expanded their operations from street 

violence and drug tratlicking to alien smuggling, identity theft, and mortgage fraud. Our Violent 

Crime, Violent Gang/Safe Streets, and Safe Trails Task Forces target major groups operating as 

criminal enterprises - high-level groups engaged in patterns of racketeering. This allows us to 

identify senior leadership and to develop enterprise-based prosecutions. 

The FBI is also working to ensure crimes are being reported accurately. In collaboration 

with our state and local partners, the UCR program recently adopted a new, more inclusive 

detinition ofrape, which more accurately retlects current state laws defining the crime. This 

change will provide better data for our law enforcement partners in their efforts to respond to 

violent crimes. The Bureau is also beginning to look for ways to increase the accuracy and 

utility of the UCR more generally. These plans include collaborating within DOJ and the law 

enforcement community to increase the usage of the National Incident Based Reporting System 

(NIBRS) which is part of the UCR. Increased coverage of incident based reporting will lead to a 

more detailed and meaningful picture of crime in America. 
16 


FBI-10.eps

Transnational Organized Crime 

We also continue to confront organized crime. Crime syndicates run multi-national, 

multi -billion-dollar schemes - from human trat1icking to health care fraud, and from computer 

intrusions to intellectual property theft. 

These sophisticated enterprises operate both overseas and in the United States, and 

include Russian, Asian, Italian, Balkan, Middle Eastern, and African syndicates as well as 

Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs. 

In the fall of 201 0, an investigation by the FBI and its partners led to the indictment and 

arrest of more than 70 members and associates of an Armenian organized crime ring for their 

role in nearly $170 million in fraudulent Medicare billings. This case included more than 160 

phony medical clinics. Some of the subjects opened bank accounts to receive Medicare funds 

and submitted applications to Medicare to become Medicare providers. 

The annual cost of transnational organized crime to the U.S. economy is estimated to be 

in the tens of billions of dollars. The etIects of these schemes tilter down to everyday 

Americans, who pay more for gas, health care, mortgages, clothes and food, not to mention the 

economic and social harm that such criminal activity costs our nation as a whole. 

But organized crime does more than just impact our economy. These groups have the 

potential to infiltrate our businesses, and provide support to hostile foreign powers. 

The FBI has squads dedicated to Eurasian Organized Crime investigations, including in 

New York, San Francisco, Miami, Philadelphia, Newark, and Chicago. Over the past decade, 

Asian criminal enterprises have evolved into transnational and decentralized networks that focus 

on low-risk and high-profit crimes. Chinese and Korean criminal networks across the United 

States obtain, sell, and use fraudulent U.S. identitlcation documents to conduct a variety of 

tinancial crimes. The FBI is currently expanding its focus to include West African and Southeast 

Asian organized crime groups. The Bureau continues to share intelligence about criminal groups 

with our federal and international partners, and to combine resources and expertise to gain a full 

understanding of each group. In furtherance of these etIorts, the FBI participates in the 

International Organized Crime Intelligence Operations Center. This center is responsible for 

coordinating the efforts of nine federal law enforcement agencies in combating non-drug 

transnational organized crime networks. The FBI is also enhancing its ability to address 

transnational criminal enterprises that operate along the Southwest Border and the Caribbean 

We have developed Hybrid Squads to target these groups, which linked to U.S.-based gangs, 

cross-border drug trat1icking, public corruption, money laundering, and violent crime. 

No one department, agency, or country can tight organized crime on its own - we must 

work with our partners to end this predatory environment. We will continue to use all of our 

investigative tools, intelligence from our sources, and the strength of our partnerships to stop 

organized crime in the United States. 

9 
17 


FBI-11.eps

Crimes Against Children 

The FBI remains vigilant in its efforts to keep children safe and to find and stop child 

predators. Through our partnerships with state, local, tribal, and international law enforcement, 

we are able to investigate crimes that cross geographical and jurisdictional boundaries. We are 

also able to share intelligence, resources, and specialized skills to prevent child abductions. 

Through our Child Abduction Rapid Deployment Teams, the Innocence Lost National 

Initiative, the Office of Victim Assistance, and numerous community outreach programs, the FBI 

and its partners are working to make the world a safer place for our children. 

Last month we added accused child pornographer Eric Justin Toth to the FBI's Ten Most 

Wanted Fugitive list. Toth, who also goes by the name David Bussone, is a fonner privateschool teacher and camp counselor who taught here in Washington, D.C. He has been on the run 

since 2008, after an FBI investigation revealed pornographic images on a camera in his 

possession while at the D.C. private school. There is a reward of up to $100,000 for infonnation 

leading directly to Toth's arrest 

Since its creation in 1950, the Top Ten list has been invaluable to the FBI, helping us to 

capture some of the nation's most dangerous criminals. Of the 495 fugitives named to the list, 

465 have been apprehended or located. That level of success would not have been possible 

without the strong support of the public, which has helped capture 153 of the Top Ten fugitives 

Indian Country 

The FBI also maintains primary federal law enforcement authority to investigate felony 

crimes on more than 200 Indian reservations nationwide. Last year, the FBI handled 

approximately 2,900 Indian Country investigations. 

Sexual assault and child sexual assault are two of the FBI's investigative priorities in 

Indian Country. Statistics indicate that American Indians and Alaska natives suffer violent crime 

at greater rates than other Americans. Approximately 75 percent of al1 FBI Indian Country 

investigations concern homicide, crimes against children, or felony assaults. To address these 

threats, the FBI is deploying six new investigators to Indian Country as part of the Department of 

Justice's broader effort to fight crime in tribal communities 

The FBI continues to work with tribes through the Tribal Law & Order Act to help tribal 

governments better address the unique public safety challenges and disproportionately high rates 

of violence and victimization in tribal communities. The Act encourages the hiring of additional 

law enforcement officers for Indian lands, enhances tribal authority to prosecute and punish 

criminals, and provides the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal police officers with greater access 

to law enforcement databases. 

10 
18 


FBI-12.eps

The gang threat on Indian reservations also poses a concern for the FBI. Currentiy, the 

FBI has 15 Safe Trails Task Forces focused on drugs, gangs, and violent crimes in Indian 

Country. In addition, the FBI continues its efforts to address the emerging threat from fraud and 

other white-collar crimes committed against tribal gaming facilities. 

Technology 

As criminal and terrorist threats become more diverse and dangerous, the role of 

technology becomes increasingly important to our efforts. 

We are using technology to improve the way we collect, analyze, and share information. 

In 2011, we debuted new technology for the FBI's Next Generation Identification System, which 

enables us to process fingerprint transactions much faster and with increased accuracy. We are 

also integrating isolated data sets throughout the Bureau, so that we can search multiple 

databases more etlicientiy, and, in turn, pass along relevant information to our partners. 

Sentinel, the FBI's new information and case management program, will replace the 

outdated Automated Case Support System. Sentinel is transfonning the way the FBI does 

business by moving the Bureau from a primarily paper-based case management system to an 

electronic workflow-based management system of records. The system's indexing ability will 

allow users to extract names, dates, vehicles, addresses, and other details, and to more etliciently 

share data with our law enforcement partners. 

We expect that Sentinel will be deployed to the field by the end of this fiscal year, 

encompass all of its original design concept functionality and come in at budget or below 

Going Dark 

As technology advances, both at the FBI and throughout the nation, we must ensure that 

our ability to obtain communications pursuant to court order is not eroded. The increasingly 

mobile, complex, and varied nature of communication has created a growing challenge to our 

ability to conduct court-ordered electronic surveillance of criminals and terrorists. Many 

communications providers are not required to build or maintain intercept capabilities in their 

ever-changing networks. As a result, they are too often not equipped to respond to information 

sought pursuant to a lawful court order 

Because of this gap between technology and the law, law enforcement is increasingly 

challenged in accessing the information it needs to protect public safety and the evidence it needs 

to bring criminals to justice. It is only by working together - within the law enforcement and 

intelligence communities, and with our private sector partners - that we will find a long-term 

solution to this growing problem. We must ensure that the laws by which we operate keep pace 

with new threats and new technology. 

II 
19 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Director Mueller. 

Let me recognize myself for some initial questions. 

I mentioned in my opening statement, Director Mueller, the fact 

that the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is going to expire at the 

end of this year. Just quickly, how important is it that we continue 


FBI-13.eps
20 

those FISA amendments, and should we seek to improve them or 

improve that Act in any way? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have seen over the last 

several days, particularly with regard to the IED that was recently 

recovered, that terrorism should be—is and should be and continues to be our number one priority and the number one priority 

of a number of our intelligence agencies. The amendments that are 

up for passage again, reenactment at the end of this year, are absolutely essential in our efforts to address this threat. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. It gives not only us, the FBI, the access to information that enables us to identify persons both within the United 

States but also without the United States that would hurt us but 

also our intelligence agencies to operate overseas to pull in this information under the supervision of the FISA court so that we can 

put together the information we need to prevent attacks. It has 

been essential and remains essential. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, appreciate that. If you can think of any way 

we can improve it and get that information to us in the next couple 

months, that would be helpful as well. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think you will have our support and the support 

of the department. 

Mr. SMITH. Appreciate that, thanks. 

Let me go to the next subject, which is the drug trafficking crisis 

that we have along our southern border. And I know you are as 

much aware of that as anyone, but, just as an example, last week 

over one night there were 23 people killed in Nuevo Laredo, directly across the border from Laredo, Texas. To say these people 

were killed is probably a euphemism. Most of them were mutilated 

and tortured before they died. 

The problem, if anything, I think, is perhaps getting worse, but 

I just wanted to get your feeling about what more we could do in 

this country to address the drug trafficking problem that we have 

along our southern border and what more the FBI might be doing. 

Mr. MUELLER. Our focus along the southern border is in several 

areas. 

First of all, public corruption. We have a number of squads, task 

forces that address public corruption on our side of the border as 

a result of the amounts of monies that are generated through drug 

trafficking occurring south of the border. 

Secondly, we have task forces addressing kidnappings across the 

border, task forces with other Federal authorities and our State 

and local law enforcement to address that particular phenomenon, 

which has, I would say, decreased somewhat in the last couple of 

years. 

And, lastly, and the most important part of it, is the accumulation of intelligence that can help our partners south of the border. 

We have a relatively large Legal Attache office in Mexico City. We 

have a number of our offices along the border. We have a focus 

back at Headquarters. Our efforts had been to consolidate that intelligence, make it available, and integrate it with the intelligence 

developed by others and then, in appropriate circumstances, pass 

that intelligence on to our counterparts south of the border. 

21 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Director Mueller, one of the fastest-growing 

crimes in America, and it may well be the fastest-growing crime, 

is child pornography on the Internet, which has been increasing at 

about 150 percent a year for each of the last 10 years. What more 

can the FBI do to address this particularly horrible crime which, 

of course, points to the least innocent among us as being the primary victims? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have numbers of agents that work both with 

themselves but also—by themselves, in particular undercover operations on the Internet but also in task forces around the country 

with State and local law enforcement. We also have a task force 

in Maryland, International Task Force where we rotate individuals 

from various countries in to help us address the purveyors of child 

pornography on the Internet wherever they may be in the world. 

On the one hand, the growth of child pornography is as you have 

set out, but also we are developing new tools that enable us to 

more quickly identify the persons who are putting this stuff on the 

Internet and making our investigations more—far more effective 

coupled with the growth of intersection with our counterparts overseas. Because this is a worldwide phenomenon, not just a U.S.— 

United States phenomenon, and to have any impact whatsoever we 

have to have a global reach. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, thank you, Director Mueller. 

My time is up, and the gentleman from Michigan is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith. 

We have at least three points that I made in my opening statement that I would like to review with you. They are the overcriminalization that has become a custom inside the criminal justice system in America in which we put away more of our citizens 

than any other country on earth and for longer periods of time. 

The second thing is the prejudicial Muslim materials that were 

pulled from FBI training that were so slanderous, and the third 

issue is the flawed FBI lab forensic work that sent a lot of people 

to prison, many of whom are still there. 

Could you take your time and let’s go through these together. 

Mr. MUELLER. The first one is the point you make, Congressman, 

about overincarceration. I do believe any discussion of that warrants looking at the particular crimes that—for which there is incarceration. It is very difficult to generalize or to reach some sort 

of understanding or make progress with that generalization. 

I will say there is some areas in which there needs to be, in my 

mind, harsher penalties. We are going into the cyber arena in the 

next number of years, and there should be substantial penalties for 

those persons who abuse their capabilities in the cyber arena. 

Let me talk, if I could, for a second about the counterterrorism 

training issue that you raised. Last summer, it came to our attention that there were materials in certain of our training materials 

that were being used that were in some ways inappropriate, in bad 

taste. It may have also depicted stereotypes. It was brought to our 

attention internally and also externally. 

We put together a panel of experts from within the Bureau and 

also from other agencies, three from other agencies in the government, persons with substantial credentials from places like Yale, 

22 

Princeton, Johns Hopkins, to review materials and put together a 

touchstone document of what should be taught. We then, understanding that we needed a closer review of this, we pulled together 

30 personnel, agents and others, to go through the training materials we had used in this arena since 2001. Went through 160,000 

documents and over a thousand videos of the training and found 

that there are 876 documents that were inappropriate, and we 

have removed those from our training. 

But what it also showed us is that we had to put in place a 

screening mechanism to assure that our agents, our analysts, our 

personnel receive the best possible training in addressing a subject 

such as the terrorists in the various—whether it be a domestic terrorist or an international terrorist, we need to give our persons topflight training. And it showed us that we did have to put into place 

not only in this area but in other areas a system of review of that 

training to assure that it comports with what we expect. 

Going to the last subject, and this was the hair analysis. As you 

pointed out, I think, back in—there was a report done in 2004 following a study of certain examiners at the laboratory. One of those 

was a hair and a fiber examiner. The other examiners, though, who 

may have conducted those examinations prior to 1996 were not 

part of that review. 

In 1996, we started using mitochondrial DNA along with hair 

and fiber analysis, and that changed the ball game, so to speak. 

But we are talking now with the Department of Justice in terms 

of how we go back, the universe of cases that we wish to review 

to determine whether or not examiners in cases probably prior to 

1996 may have overstated the import, the impact of their hair 

analysis. As I say, we are working with the Department of Justice 

to see what kind of review should be undertaken. 

Mr. CONYERS. And, as you know, there are some people that are, 

I think, still incarcerated on the basis of some of those flawed reports. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we have seen in the—the government has 

and the District of Columbia has at least a couple of cases where 

it looks like the DNA indicated that the analysis that was done on 

hair and fiber was wrong, and we want to make certain that we 

follow up on that class of cases to the extent that we can. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, is recognized. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to associate myself with the 

words of compliments you and the Ranking Member spoke on behalf of Director Mueller. Mr. Mueller, you have indeed been an outstanding Director of the FBI. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Good to have you in the field today. 

In your recent testimony on the FBI’s fiscal year 2013 budget request, you made reference to several criminal threats that will receive heightened focus, ranging from white-collar crime and health 

care fraud to organized crime and gang violence. Part of that 

heightened focus requires putting more special agents onto these 

cases. Help me, Mr. Mueller, if you will, reconcile the need for more 

23 

agents to address these important criminal threats on the one hand 

with Federal employee pay and hiring freezes on the other. Have 

you, Mr. Mueller, considered asking on behalf of the FBI—considered asking Congress to exempt Federal law enforcement officers 

from these actions, much like the President did with the military? 

Mr. MUELLER. There are two areas on which I guess I should 

focus. The first is on the 2013 budget that has gone through Congress, at least the initial stages in Congress at this point, and with 

that budget we do not face those kinds of losses that you are contemplating. If sequestration occurs, then it is a different ball game, 

and we would be seeking to put ourselves in the same stature or 

status as the military. 

I do believe that when it comes to the work that we do in the 

national security arena, whether it be counterterrorism, counterintelligence, espionage, or the cyber arena, the work that we do in 

contributing to the national security, not to mention the other 

crimes that you alluded to, organized crime, health care fraud, and 

the like, the Nation can ill afford for us to lose a substantial number of agents. 

We have had to, since September 11th, prioritize and make certain that all of our persons focus on the most important priorities, 

and that has meant we do not do some things we did prior to September 11th, but it is absolutely essential to make certain that we 

do prioritize in order to stop terrorist attacks, stop spies, stop cyber 

intruders, lock up organized criminals, child predators, and the 

like. And, as I say, my hope would be that we would do as well 

if not better than the military when it comes to the budget review. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that, Mr. Mueller. 

The bipartisan Senate report on the Fort Hood massacre, the, 

quote, worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, close quote, since 9/11, 

found that political correctness inhibited Hasan’s superiors from 

taking actions that may have stopped or at least delayed that attack. Can you see why, given that report, why some of us may be 

concerned, even worried that ‘‘materials purge’’ may be another 

issue or instance of a governmental agency compromising national 

security under the pressure of political correctness? And do you— 

what can you say, Director Mueller, to assure us that you appreciate how pressures for political correctness can harm and may 

have harmed our national security efforts? 

Mr. MUELLER. I can say absolutely and with certainty that political correctness played no role in the efforts we—I undertook to 

make certain that we give the best training to our personnel. It 

does us no good to have personnel who are trained with inadequate 

materials or misguided materials. We have made those 876 pages 

available with an explanation as to why we thought they should 

be—should not be used in further training. But by the same token 

I should say we went through 160,000 pages, and out of those 

160,000 we only found far less than 1 percent that were at all questionable. And so political correctness had nothing to do with it. It 

was the appropriate thing to do, and it was done because we want 

the best possible training for our personnel. 

Mr. COBLE. Sir, I didn’t mean to imply that it did, but at least 

it is exposed. That was my point. 

24 

Mr. Chairman, I see that red light is about to illuminate, so I 

yield back my time. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Coble. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I would like to follow up a bit sort of on what the gentleman from 

North Carolina was asking. The House is now considering on the 

floor today the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill for 

the next fiscal year, and this includes the FBI. Some Republicans 

believe we should not be abiding by the appropriations figures 

agreed to in the Budget Control Act last year and that spending 

should be much lower. What would happen if, as some want, there 

was a drastic across-the-board cut in government funding, including the FBI, of, let’s say, 5 or 10 percent? How would you handle 

that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, we would have to prioritize. In my opening 

statement, the lengthier statement that I provided to the Committee, you can see the various threats that we are facing. We 

would have to cut down. We would have to find some area amongst 

those priorities where we would have to reduce personnel. But it 

is very hard to pick when you are reducing personnel on gang violence, reducing personnel to address the cyber threat, reducing personnel in addressing the threat of child pornography on the Internet. Every one of those priorities we have is a—every one of those 

priorities is a substantial priority to the American public and the 

security of the United States. But we would have to prioritize. That 

is what we had to do after September 11th. We would have to cut 

it again. 

Mr. NADLER. And if the sequestration that was mandated by the 

Budget Control Act were allowed to go into effect January 1, how 

many agents would have to be let go? How many investigations—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you. Several hundreds, 

if not over a thousand. I would have to get back to you on that figure. 

Mr. NADLER. How many agents do you have now? 

Mr. MUELLER. Approximately 14,000. 

Mr. NADLER. So you are talking 8, 9 percent maybe? 

Mr. MUELLER. Maybe something a little bit less. But, yes, it 

would be a substantial, substantial cut. 

Mr. NADLER. Let me switch subjects a moment. 

Under the February 2012, Presidential Policy Directive which 

implements Section 1022 of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the FBI is given lead authority in all cases 

where terror suspects are captured or taken into custody by law enforcement. Can you tell us how this policy directive was developed 

and will it help or hurt the FBI in its counterterrorism mission? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am sorry. I could hear part of the question but 

not the last part of the question. How the directive was developed? 

Mr. NADLER. Was developed, and will this directive, as it was developed, in your opinion help or hurt the FBI in its 

counterterrorism mission? 

Mr. MUELLER. I had some initial concerns about NDAA in two 

areas. The first area was with regard to our continuing authorities, 

and the final passage of the NDAA resolved that concern. The secVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:19 Jan 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\050912\74121.000 HJUD1 PsN: 74121
25 

ond concern is what would happen at the time of an arrest where 

events are fast moving, and would there be confusion with regard 

to who does what when. And the directive, in my mind, resolves 

those issues. And it makes it relatively clear that if we had a terrorism case that fell within the parameters of NDAA, we would 

continue to work that case in conjunction with the Department of 

Defense. So I was satisfied with the bill as well as the directive as 

assuring us that we would be able to do our job effectively, given 

both the directive and the statute—changes in the statute, I should 

say. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And would you recommend any changes in 

the statute when it comes up again this year? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to look at it and see what was proposed. You asked about the development of the—— 

Mr. NADLER. Policy directive. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Procedures, the policies. That was 

done in a number of working groups, with the Justice Department, 

Department of Defense, DHS, and the like. That is how it was developed. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. My last question. Last month, we passed a 

couple of—we, the House, not the Senate, passed some legislation 

regarding cyber legislation, the CISPA. From the FBI’s perspective, 

do these bills go far enough, too far in assisting you in what you 

need to deal with, in the powers that you need to deal with the 

cyber security threat? 

Mr. MUELLER. There are a variety of issues with regard to how 

you address the cyber threat. The bills address one aspect of it, I 

think, and that is how you protect the infrastructure and who was 

going to be involved in that, how they are going to be involved. 

There are two areas that we will have continuous concern. The 

first area is, not necessarily addressed in the bills, is the mandatory reporting of substantial cyber incidents, which we believe 

should be part of the statute at some point in time; and the second 

is the sharing of intelligence. We saw that we—in the days leading 

up to September 11th, we saw how we were disadvantaged by the 

inability in some cases and cultural insensitivity in other cases to 

sharing intelligence. It is absolutely essential in the cyber arena, 

as you had in the counterterrorism arena, that intelligence be 

shared. 

Somewhat different, though, is the importance of sharing information that is obtained from the private sector, because often the 

victims are the private sector. And so to the extent that those bills 

address the sharing of intelligence particularly with us, we are supportive. 

Those are the two issues that we are concerned about in any 

cyber legislation, whether that which has recently been passed or 

otherwise. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I see my time has expired. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, is recognized. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, welcome. 

Director, do you agree that no United States citizen arrested in 

the United States should be indefinitely detained without all the 

26 

rights of due process? What is your interpretation of Section 1021 

of the National Defense Authorization Act? 

Mr. MUELLER. Could you repeat the question again, if you 

wouldn’t mind? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sure. The question is whether or not you agree 

that no United States citizen apprehended, seized, captured, arrested in the United States should be indefinitely detained without 

all the rights of due process provided by our Constitution? 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe that should be the case. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So do you have concern over the language that 

is in the National Defense Authorization Act called Section 1021 

which does not clarify the status of U.S. citizens in that regard? 

Mr. MUELLER. I haven’t focused on that aspect of the Act as 

much as I had focused on the other aspects of the Act, but I do believe it gives—affirms the President’s authority to make what decisions the President believes are necessary to thwart a terrorist attack. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But that might include seizing a U.S. citizen in 

their home in Chicago, Illinois, and then detaining them indefinitely without charges. 

Mr. MUELLER. I have not—I am not certain that is the case, but 

I have not read the OLC opinions, and I have not followed the debate on it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sure. Well, we would look forward to the opportunity to work with you to make sure it is clear that U.S. citizens 

have that protection, and we are in the process of working through 

that here in the Congress. 

Let me ask you another question. Last week, the FBI arrested 

five men in Cleveland, Ohio, who were involved in a terrorist plot 

to bomb a bridge. Some of these men were members of the Occupy 

Cleveland movement. Has the FBI seen an increase in this type of 

left wing extremist terrorist activity and is the Occupy movement 

a breeding ground for this type of extremism? And if those within 

the Occupy movement perceive that their demands are not being 

met, what is the likelihood that we will see them resorting to more 

of this type of violence? 

Mr. MUELLER. As to the last aspect of your question I can’t speculate. I will tell you that, because it is individuals who were arrested last week, I am limited to, and I direct you if I could, to the 

complaint that was filed and the facts that are laid out in the complaint which focus on their conduct, not necessarily the conduct of 

others. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And how about my first question which was 

have you seen an increase in this type of left wing extremist terrorist activity? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I wouldn’t—I would say—I wouldn’t necessarily go with the predicate left wing terrorist attack. I would say 

persons who have violated the laws in this particular way. We have 

not seen necessarily an increase. It is episodic. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And how about if it is ideologically driven without characterizing the particular ideology? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, these individuals violated the law. That is 

why they were arrested. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

27 

In recent years, we have seen many reports of confidential and 

secret government information leaking out and being posted on the 

Internet. The WikiLeaks cases are perhaps the most prominent example. But an FBI report last year also drew attention to the growing problem of foreign students and professors engaging in espionage and intellectual property theft on campuses. When millions of 

secret documents can be walked out of a government building or 

a lab on a thumb drive in a back pocket, the risks of espionage, 

leaks, and theft increase. Does the FBI have the tools that it needs 

to protect confidential information and the records that contain 

much private information about individual citizens and corporate 

secrets and confidential government secured information? Do you 

have the tools that you need in the Internet era to protect against 

that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me speak—I will speak to the protection 

of information within the databases of the FBI. Yes, I will say, yes, 

we have quite obviously concern not only about insiders but also 

hackers from outside, and I believe we have state-of-the-art capabilities to protect our databases. That does not mean it cannot be 

done. It is a continuous worry for anybody who heads up any department. 

But we have taken—and I do believe it is the best you have out 

there to assure the protection of our data. When it goes—as you 

point out, often, data is contained in universities or colleges or elsewhere, and to the extent that we have—we as an entity have—are 

working with those institutions, we of course seek to assure that 

those institutions have up-to-date security to protect whatever they 

may have on our—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. My time has expired. But with regard to my first question, I would also call to your attention legislation that was just signed into law by Governor McDonnell of my 

State—it was House Bill 1160—which basically, in addressing this 

concern about unlawful seizures of citizens in their homes, directs 

that no State agency in Virginia can cooperate with any Federal 

agency for the enforcement of that provision in the NDAA. So if 

you could look at that further and respond to the Committee with 

your thoughts about how we can correct this problem and protect 

our citizens here at the Federal level, we would very much welcome 

it. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mueller, there is not a lot we agree on around here, but your 

reconfirmation was one of them, and so I appreciate your service. 

A few years ago, according to published accounts, the United 

States participated in waterboarding, a practice for which there is 

an international consensus that it constitutes torture. What was 

the FBI participation in that practice? 

Mr. MUELLER. None. 

Mr. SCOTT. And why was the FBI not participating? 

Mr. MUELLER. We—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that because you told—— 

28 

Mr. MUELLER. Our guidelines, the guidelines we adopted some 

years ago, preclude our participation. 

Mr. SCOTT. And did you issue an order for them not to participate in what is generally perceived to be torture? 

Mr. MUELLER. The guidance was, make certain that we follow 

our guidelines when it comes to interrogation of persons in our custody or in the custody of others. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so your conscience prevented the FBI from participating in torture; is that right? 

Mr. MUELLER. I don’t want to characterize our action. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I can tell you that our guidelines precluded it, and 

our guidance was you follow our guidelines. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, let me tell you, that is why you have universal 

support. Because that practice, had the FBI not participated because it didn’t follow the guidelines, was a breath of fresh air. 

One of the problems that we noticed in the early—right after 9/ 

11 was that the personnel in the FBI and CIA may not have reflected the ethnic representation that we needed to appropriately 

fight terrorism. Could you make a brief comment on where you are 

now or for the record submit an ethnic breakdown of the staff at 

the FBI? 

Mr. MUELLER. I can, I think, give you some larger figures. Fortythree percent of our workforce now are women and a full 25 percent are representatives of various minority groups. 

For a greater breakdown, I would have to get you additional figures. I will tell you—— 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. For the record. 

Mr. MUELLER. We still have work to do, but we continuously 

strive to have our workforce reflect the communities in which we 

serve and operate. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

My colleague from New York talked about the budget and talked 

about numbers of agents. Can you translate that into how it would 

affect your ability to get the job done? 

Mr. MUELLER. As I pointed out, we would have to prioritize, and 

it would be a question of which of the priorities that are listed either in my opening oral comments or in my more lengthy submission to the Committee. We will have to cut back. Now—and cutting 

back in an age where crime is global in ways that it was not 10 

years ago, and by that I mean whether it be organized crime, 

whether it be cyber crime, white-collar crime, gangs, MS-13 and 

the like, they are globalized, and consequently that entity that has 

the best chance for addressing globalized criminal activity is the 

FBI. And, consequently, if you cut us from doing it at a point in 

time where much of the crime is globalized, it is a double hit in 

some sense. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned organized crime. One organized strategy is what is called organized retail theft where groups go in and 

pretty much clean shelves of hotly desirable—very desirable items 

and have them sold on eBay or other Internet. Can you say what 

you are doing about organized retail theft and whether or not more 

agents would be helpful? 

29 

Mr. MUELLER. To be blunt, we would work with State and local 

law enforcement entities in a particularly egregious situation. But 

organized retail thefts are not a priority, and even with additional 

agents I can think of other higher priorities. But I will tell you that 

the guidance is that there is an egregious series of crimes, persons 

are hurt, injured, amounts are substantial, then we would make an 

exception to our usual prioritization to try to help out State and 

locals to address that problem. 

Mr. SCOTT. We have the same problem with consumer ID theft 

where you can solve those crimes, but it is labor intensive, and I 

think if we had more agents on it, not cutting agents but increasing agents, we could be more effective in dealing with organized retail theft and identity theft. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, if I may say what we have tried to do over 

the last several years with the scarcer resources, develop task 

forces where we will have an agent or two agents but the task 

forces will be augmented by State and local law enforcement. So 

you have access not just to State laws but also Federal laws and 

we are much more effective in utilizing our personnel, and this is 

an area in which in certain cities around the country where there 

is rampant crime in these areas where a task force would be our 

approach. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized for questions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Director, welcome back. Last we spoke, we 

weren’t expecting to see each other in this setting again, and, as 

the Chairman pointed out, you got an additional 2 years. There 

was no objection to your having 2 years because they presented it 

at a time when nobody knew they were going to be bringing up 

your extension of 2 years, so there was nobody else on the floor. 

And it went rather smoothly since nobody knew they were bringing 

it up. 

There are some of us that are still concerned about the thousands and thousands of years of experience we have lost due to 

your former 5-year up-or-out policy, but I want to get to the concerns about the purging of material, of training material. Now, we 

have a document here that points out in the 9/11 Commission report there were 322 references to Islam. In the current FBI 

counterterrorism lexicon there are zero references to Islam, to zero 

references to jihad. And when we talk about—we will hear about 

the outreach programs that the FBI had to the Muslim community. 

We have done some looking, and apparently in June of 2002 you 

had given a speech to the American Muslim Council that your 

spokesman said was, quote, the most mainstream Muslim group in 

the United States, that is the American Muslim Council, and the 

head of the AMC was a guy named Alamoudi. That same year, the 

AMC board adviser, former acting president, Jamil Al-Amin, was 

arrested for murdering a Georgia police officer. Alamoudi was arrested himself in 2003 in a Libyan assassination plot targeting the 

Saudi Crown Prince, later identified by the U.S. Treasury as one 

of al-Qaeda’s top fund-raisers in the U.S. 

Then there is the 2003—October 2003, just days before a ceremony honoring Detroit Muslim leader Imam Hamad. The story on 

30 

him, your own Director’s award for exceptional public service. The 

FBI contacted Hamad to tell him he wasn’t going to receive the 

award, and later, when your spokesman said that there was unflattering information about Hamad that had been made public during 

the deportation proceedings of one of his close associates, and the 

INS had fought for two decades to deport this guy that was about 

to get the award. He was suspected in supporting the popular front 

of the liberation of Palestine or Palestine, and that is a designated 

terrorist organization. 

And, again, the reason I am bringing these things up is because 

we have got people, we know there are three subject matter experts 

that your office has refused to identify who have gone through and 

purged these materials. We were not even told whether they were 

U.S. citizens, whether they are one of these people that would have 

gotten the award, that didn’t get the award that had all these other 

suspected problems. 

We know that Al-Arian, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader, 

had meetings and conversations with high-ranking officials at DOJ 

and the Department of Homeland Security, and that was despite 

him being the subject of a FISA wiretap warrant since the early 

1990’s, and his home was raided in 19 95. 

We know that in 2008 you had handed one of your Director’s 

Community Leadership Awards to Imam Yahya Hendi, who testified during Al-Arian’s trial as a defense witness, and Hendi then 

served as a moderator during a 2000 fundraiser for the Benevolence International Foundation, which was shut down in 2002 because they were a designated terrorist organization supporting alQaeda, of all groups. 

This just goes on and on, and I am very concerned that since 

there are people, potentially of terrorist organizations, terrorist 

ties, as we have seen, that the FBI has made these types of mistakes before in trying to judge character, we would like to know 

who these subject matter experts are that are going through the 

FBI material and purging that of reference to jihad and Islam and 

these types of things. 

Would you identify those people for us? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, there was quite a bit in that question, again. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, some of it is background that I hope that 

you are aware of. 

Mr. MUELLER. I cannot address all of what is said there. I will 

say at the outset that we make every effort to make certain that 

in our outreach, that we—outreach to that segment of the Muslim 

community that is supportive of America. And the vast, vast majority of the Muslim-American community has been exceptionally supportive. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You know you are not answering my question, Director. 

Mr. MUELLER. If I may, if I may. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It was very pointed. Are you going to identify the 

subject matter experts? That is the question. 

Mr. MUELLER. If I may finish my answer. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But are you going to answer that question? 

Mr. SMITH. Let the Director respond to the question. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I will when he answers the question. 

31 

Mr. MUELLER. As I was saying, outreach is very important to us. 

We make every effort to make certain that we have appropriate 

persons. 

With regard to the individuals who are reviewing the individuals, 

there are 5 individuals, not three, and we are happy to give you 

their backgrounds and consider giving the names if you find it important. We would hope there would be some confidentiality in 

doing that, but we have nothing to hide in this regard. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So you are going to identify those. 

Mr. MUELLER. We will discuss the circumstances under which we 

would identify those individuals, yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, and could we also get the documents 

you produced to the terrorists that were convicted in the Holy Land 

Foundation trial? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have invited Congress to come and look at 

these documents. A number of Congress persons have come and 

looked at the documents. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. I wasn’t aware of that. I will be there to 

look. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Director Mueller, for being here. You may have 

noticed that I was here for your testimony and then left because 

we have a hearing going on in Financial Services, on which I also 

serve. 

I want to spend some time talking about what is going on in the 

mortgage fraud area. During the time that we were working in Financial Services on what turned out to be the Dodd-Frank legislation, I had a lot of constituents who were saying to me, when are 

some of these people going to be put in jail? 

And my response always was, look, my primary focus at this 

point is to try to make sure that we don’t have the same kind of 

things that led to this financial and economic meltdown occur 

again, so my priority is really not trying to deal with people who 

have done—who got us here but trying to figure out how not to be 

there a second and third and fourth time. 

But since we have done Dodd-Frank, and I have continued to get 

a number of inquiries from people who are saying, when is somebody going to go to jail for all of these things. Now, you indicated 

that there were—you had nearly 2,600 mortgage fraud investigations. I guess the question I am asking and that my constituents 

are asking me has to do with, what have those investigations led 

to? And there seems to still to be a of the lack of prosecutions and 

accountability resulting from those investigations. 

Now, I understand that you are not on the prosecution side; you 

are on the investigating side and the building of the case side. But 

can you give us any information about what those 2,600 investigations have led to in terms of prosecutions, convictions, or how many 

of them are still in the prosecution process, what we might expect 

going forward on that front? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me—I actually thought I had the figures, but 

I don’t have the figures here today. I will have to get you the figures in terms of prosecutions, but there have been literally thouVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:19 Jan 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\050912\74121.000 HJUD1 PsN: 74121
32 

sands of prosecutions in many multi-million dollar scams that have 

been successfully prosecuted with individuals going to jail for tens 

of years. 

I was recently in Florida, and I talked to a group down there and 

pointed out that several prosecutions where there were groups of 

individuals and particularly, in particular, housing complexes 

who—and they rolled over houses fraudulently for a number of 

years. And if I am not mistaken, one of the principals was going 

to jail for something like 30 years. I will have to get you the facts 

on that. 

Mr. WATT. That would be very helpful, because to somebody who 

serves on the Financial Services Committee in particular, we get 

a lot of inquiries. I guess we see periodically in local communities 

that somebody has been prosecuted, going to jail, but if we could 

get an overall picture of what has happened, a number of prosecutions, da-da-da-da-da on a nationwide basis, it would allow us to 

respond more effectively to people who are saying, I haven’t seen 

anybody prosecuted or going to jail as a result of this. 

The second part of that is the higher ups in the hierarchy, the 

more visible national prosecutions, how many of those have there 

been, and how successful have they been to get to some of the people at the higher corporate levels who may have been involved in 

bringing down substantial financial institutions ultimately and resulted in massive housing loss, foreclosure loss of various kinds? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me, there have been a number of prosecutions, 

particularly in New York, that have dominated the newspapers 

over the last year, particularly when it comes to insider trading, 

and the first use of Title 3 wire intercepts and that kind of whitecollar crime. 

We have also had a number of securities fraud, you know, prosecutions and corporate institutional fraud. In fact, our investigations, I believe, in the securities arena, are up some 55 percent, 50, 

55 percent over 2008, and also up almost 40 percent in the corporate fraud arena. 

Again, I will have to give you have a breakdown of the cases and 

give you some sense of what we are doing in that regard. 

Mr. WATT. My time has expired, but I think it would be very 

helpful if we could get a broader picture of this statistical picture, 

not only of your part of it, the investigatory part, but the prosecution and conviction side of it, for those of us who are facing constituents who still are going through substantial foreclosures and 

have lost their homes. They want to see some results, and I think 

there are results, so I appreciate your agreeing to follow up after 

the hearing on that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Watt. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, is recognized. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, and Director, thank you for your service and thank you for being here. I am going to try to touch on 

three subjects. I need to move fairly quickly. 

On the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, was there 

a specific and/or credible threat of terrorism upon the United 

States of America? 

33 

Mr. MUELLER. We did not believe so, and you are referring no 

doubt to the fact that—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. There was an arrest. 

Mr. MUELLER. The IED that had come up, and I think it is fair 

to say that that plot had been thwarted at the time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let me move quickly to Fast and Furious, have 

you ever spoken with Attorney General Holder or Secretary 

Napolitano about the Fast and Furious case? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to think, certainly not Secretary 

Napolitano. Unless you are talking about the killing of Brian Terry. 

If that is part of the question, then, quite obviously, yes, because 

we are conducting that investigation and both are concerned about 

how that investigation is going and get periodic updates. 

With regard to the wider Fast and Furious examination, I don’t 

believe I have. I will tell you, our people have talked to the Department of Justice because we had to produce documents and the like, 

but I do not recall having a particular discussion with the Attorney 

General. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The Attorneys General’s Office has called Fast 

and Furious itself, even though they ran it and operated, quote-unquote, fundamentally flawed. There are literally close to 2,000 

weapons that have been released. 

Other than the two guns that were found at the scene of Brian 

Terry, have you or the agency come across any guns that were purposefully released by our government under Fast and Furious? 

Have they shown up at any crime scenes? Have you come across 

any of these guns in anything that has happened here in the 

United States? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to check on that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If you could get back to me on that, I would certainly appreciate it. I would also appreciate it, Director, if we could 

get a clarification as to whether there were two guns or three guns 

that were found at that gun—at that scene. And even the letter we 

got most recently back to Chairman Issa, I think, was not as crystal clear as we would like it to be. I am not asking you to respond 

to that, but other, to just follow up with this afterwards. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would be happy to respond to it, two guns. Two 

guns, I replied to that previously. There were two guns. There was 

some, I think, misinterpretation of information on the evidence control sheet that seemed to indicate the potential or possibility of a 

third gun. But only two guns were recovered. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay, thank you. I want to move now to the more 

recent Jones case that came before the Supreme Court that had to 

go with GPS devices put on cars so that they could be tracked. 

There is some concern, I would guess, in law enforcement that this 

ruling 9-0 by the Supreme Court would change the way law enforcement is able to track. 

I just want to get your thoughts and perspective on that quickly, 

get a sense of how many GPS devices were being inserted onto cars 

and how this would affect what you are doing at the FBI. 

Mr. SMITH. Director Mueller, would you pull your mike just a little bit closer to us. 

Mr. MUELLER. Is that better? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

34 

Mr. MUELLER. Okay. You know, first of all, I would say, several 

hundred, there were 200 investigations were impacted by the Jones 

decision, somewhat over 200. And one impact it has is the need for 

additional surveillances. When you have the use of GPS devices, 

you do not have to have teams of surveillance agents because you 

know where the individual may be at any particular point in time. 

And in certain investigations, that is going to mean that we are 

going to use very precious, valuable surveillance resources, where 

before we had the electronic capability to monitor individuals. 

I am aware of efforts, I believe your bill, to address the issue, 

and I would say this, my looking at—initial just quick review, indicates that the definition of that kind of information that would be 

protected and require a warrant, would expand the things such as 

telephone toll records, which we have traditionally gotten with subpoenas and the like, because a toll record may have a geographical 

indicator in it in the area code. 

And so as one thinks of legislation in this arena, I would try to 

keep in mind the impact it would have on our ability to do much 

of the work we do, particularly since the information we get from 

GPS devices and the like contributes to the probable cause that is 

necessary to conduct the investigation, the further investigation, 

using enhanced investigative techniques. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And the intent of the legislation is not to preclude 

those, when you have probable cause, what it is concerned about 

is just the ever expanding use of GPS to track and follow, not just 

by law enforcement but individuals who surreptitiously want to follow somebody else. And my time has expired, but I appreciate 

being able to work with you. 

I hope you do find that there is a need to clarify the law based 

on what Justice Alito, Mr. Weinstein and Weissman have also said 

about this and the need for Congress to further define the parameters of what would be needed so that there is clarity for the FBI 

and other law enforcement moving forward. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chaffetz. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Director, for being here. You have served 

your country with tremendous distinction, and we are honored by 

your presence here today. 

I want to talk about technology. I remember visiting with you 

and looking at your plans for your new computer systems many 

years ago, and I want to know where we are on that. It started in 

2000 for me with the Virtual Case File. We spent a lot of money. 

That was abandoned in January of 2005. 

In 2006, the FBI planned this new Sentinel system, we spent a lot of money, over $425 million. That was, I guess, kind of rescoped 

in 2008 with an additional $26 million, but it wasn’t finished by 

the target date. In 2009, it was extended again. In July of 2010, 

the second phase had more problems, and in September of 2010, 

the agency announced a plan to have the agile methodology with 

the new target completion date of September, which was not met. 

And then, in October, there was a, I understand, a bureau-wide 

test exercise, which showed problems, insufficient hardware capacity. 

35 

And the IG gave a report in December that the FBI was still trying to determine the costs of the additional hardware and had delayed its planned deployment until May. Well, it is May now. 

Where are we on this much awaited and extremely expensive 

system? 

Mr. MUELLER. Unfortunately, I am very aware of that history, 

and I can tell you that it has been one of the most difficult challenges. 

But as it comes to a couple of things that—points along the way 

that were important. First of all was when we first received, we received the first phase, received from the contractor the second 

phase. The second phase did not work, and we rescoped, as you 

said, the contract, brought much of it in-house and saved a heck 

of a lot of money in the agile development applications that we 

were using. 

In September of last year, we had the test, and we had anticipated as a result of the test that we would put it in place, but what 

we found is we had to replace certain of the architecture, the infrastructure, in order to support it. We have done that now. We are 

in the final testing phases, and my expectation is this summer, we 

will transfer our databases over or transfer our investigations over 

to the new Sentinel—so we think it is a go. 

Ms. LOFGREN. We are going to hit on it this summer. 

Mr. MUELLER. I always knock on wood. And I would expect—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Maybe what I would do is come over and visit with 

you again and spend a number of years just to look at the system, 

if that would be a possibility. 

Mr. MUELLER. We would be happy to—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I want to talk about another technology issue. In 

your testimony, you, under going dark, I think you talked about 

the concern that the communications providers are not required to 

maintain intercept capabilities in their networks. And especially 

given the not-wonderful experience with your own technology development, I think that raises a few concerns. First, the technological capability, direct private sector technology firms. 

Secondarily, whether it is your view that the Federal Government ought to be dictating to private sector communications firms, 

including Internet providers, what their technology ought to be. 

And, finally, a question, as you can, I guess, guess by my questions, I have a deep concern—I think the American public would 

have a concern about the American public building in back doors 

to the Internet, because although we want to get the bad guys, we 

also value the privacy rights of Americans online—if you have considered or are aware of the apparent plans of Russia and China to 

take over the governance of the Internet from ICANN, which has 

been engineer-driven, multinational but apolitical, since we entered 

a contract with ICANN in the mid-1990’s. There is a meeting in 

mid-October for the U.N. To take it over with perhaps a more politicized agenda and certainly likely less collaboration with Western 

law enforcement. Have you considered that, and have you had a 

role in formulating Administration policy on that? Two questions. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me focus on the issue of where I think 

there has to be an accommodation. We go to court. We make a 

showing to a court that these individuals are engaged in crime— 

36 

it could be terrorism; it could be espionage; it could be distribution 

of child pornography and that we need the communications— 

whether it be through an ISP or a large corporation, and the court 

finds the probable cause and directs that corporation to be responsive to that court order requirement. 

And yet these, many of these companies are very wealthy, have 

not considered at the outset how they should need to be responsive 

to a court order. And so what we are seeking is responsiveness to 

a court order and in many of these companies they can afford to 

do it, and many of these companies that can afford to do it, particularly at the outset, at the outset, to understand that they have an 

obligation to be responsive to court orders when there is a court 

order that directs it. 

And so the accommodation we are looking for is the corporations 

in their own way put themselves in a place, in a position to be responsive to a court order that they know, can anticipate, is coming 

down the road. 

Now, how we do that is probably the issue that is at the heart 

of this. But I think it is a very valid objective, particularly in this 

day where communications are not done by the telecommunications 

companies necessarily; they are done by a number of other companies, many of whom are in your district, and we have to have accommodations, an accommodation so that we get that information 

we need or else we will be behind the eight-ball when it comes to 

terrorists, to child pornography, espionage and the like. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I noted that Mr. Gohmert had an 

extended period. I wonder if Mr. Mueller—— 

Mr. SMITH. Let me make something clear, because I am a little 

bit put off by that. The Chairman does initially and occasionally 

give Members a few extra seconds. 

I don’t want that to necessarily to set a precedent. And in this 

case, your time has far exceeded that of Mr. Gohmert, so I would 

like to stay within the schedule if we could. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, if we could ask then Mr. Mueller 

off schedule, I think it is an enormously important issue for the 

country that Russia and China are seeking to take over governance 

of the Internet, and I think it is something that the FBI might 

wish to comment on. Perhaps—— 

Mr. SMITH. That might be for another time. I also notice that you 

and the director have agreed to have a personal meeting and follow 

up on some of the issues you have raised, which were certainly legitimate issues. And I am hoping that you will take advantage of 

that opportunity, too. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Franks, is recognized. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Director, I am glad that you are here, sir. 

And with that, unceremoniously, I am going to yield my time to 

my colleague from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. I appreciate my friend from Arizona. 

I have a blast that was emailed out from the Islamic Society of 

North America director on February 14, 2012, which they were baVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:19 Jan 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\050912\74121.000 HJUD1 PsN: 74121
37 

sically sounded like they were spiking the football. They had had 

the meeting again with you, and they said the director has also informed participants that to date, nearly all related FBI training 

materials, including more than 1,600 pages—or 160,000 pages of 

documents, were reviewed by subject matter experts multiple 

times. 

They also said material was pulled from the curriculum if even 

one component was deemed to, one, include factual errors; two, be 

in poor taste; three, be stereotypical and; for, four, lack precision. 

And then we had also gotten—one of the lines that had been 

purged simply says in training, other self-described jihadist groups 

can differ with al-Qaeda and like-minded groups in targeting tactical preference and their ultimate political goals, although many 

jihadist groups overlap in terms of target tactics and goals. And apparently that was found to be offensive to say that there were some 

jihadist groups that overlap in terms of target because apparently 

that fits the criteria of being stereotypical. 

And I want to go back to the subject matter experts. You have 

mentioned, as we have been told, there were five subject matter experts that were doing this purge and that two of them were interagency. But three of them were outside the agency, and we know 

Imam Magid, the president of the named co-conspirator in the Holy 

Land Foundation trial, for which there was plenty of evidence, as 

the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said, to substantiate that they 

were supporting terrorism, even though the Attorney General decided he did not want to pursue them, or his office—he didn’t take 

credit for that decision, but—and, in fact, he left that to an acting 

U.S. Attorney to say that there wasn’t evidence when, actually, he 

was on the record before the district court and the Fifth Circuit 

saying there was plenty of evidence there. 

But the concern still goes back to who are these subject matter 

experts? You were ready to give a couple of awards to people for 

their civic leadership and assistance that ended up not being worthy of being recognized. There are people that have access to you 

directly, like most Americans would not have, who have ties that 

are certainly questionable. And so I think it is worth, when my 

friends across the aisle pointed out, America knowing who are 

these people that are purging our documents? And why is it so offensive to say that many jihadist groups overlap in terms of targets 

and tactics and goals? 

Do you have a comment on that? You had said that you may talk 

about their backgrounds, but who in the world gets to know who 

these people were? Most of us have very secure classifications even 

though we find out that people like Elibihari, that is on the Homeland Security Advisory Group, got a secret classification from Secretary Napolitano. And from the evidence, it is very clear that man 

could never have been vetted, could never have gotten a security 

clearance, unless the Secretary bypassed all the laws and requirements to give him that. 

So I just keep coming back to the importance of knowing who it 

is that is actually cleaning out the FBI training materials. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me say that I addressed the issue of the 

way forward on the individuals. We will try to accommodate the 

Committee on that. 

38 

With regard to the meeting with members of the American Muslim, American Arab, Sikh communities, I have periodically, as do 

our Special Agents in Charge of each of our offices, have meetings 

with members and representatives of the Muslim community. 

The meeting to which you refer was one that I stopped in at, and 

I gave exactly the same review of what—the process we had undertaken to review these materials that I have given today and in previous testimony. And so I think we have done, appropriately addressed the issues with regard to the training. 

Again, I finish, as I did before, and welcome you down to review 

those materials yourself and to hear the explanations as to why we 

thought that these particular pages were inappropriate. And I, 

again, would point out that we had 160,000-plus pages that were 

appropriate in terms of training. So it is not as if we have purged 

a substantial amount of our training materials. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. 

The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. Mueller, I am over here. Good morning, how are you? Thank 

you again for your service. 

It looks like we have traveled this journey for a number of years. 

And, again, I thank you for your work and the work that you have 

done, even in my State of Texas. 

I just want to make one statement. Our special agents in charge 

are very important, and I think you have heard me to say this 

again, I continue to encourage them to interface with the community. Obviously, their work is work that relates to their duties, but 

that is just a public statement I want to make. And I think you 

joined in with me in times past for them to engage, even as they 

engage in local law enforcement. 

I, too, have a series of questions, but I would make one statement and not to join with my colleagues but thank you for your 

graciousness and would like to have an opportunity to meet with 

you. Today I will be discussing the national epidemic of bullying, 

which we have seen. Obviously I am not asking you to intrude in 

local jurisdictions, but cyberbullying, cyberbullying has become an 

epidemic as well, and it crosses State lines, and it tracks, if you 

will, national security issues in terms of its depth and breadth. 

And so I would like to meet with you on that issue. I will not pose 

that question as we speak, but I know that we can find ways to 

address that because it deals with children. 

I do want to raise a series of questions, as I indicated, and I 

want to go right to the National Defense Authorization Act in your 

testimony that mentioned that you had a quarrel or questions 

about the FBI and the military showing up. There was provision 

to the legislation to weaken that, if you will, depth of coverage of 

the military. Can you just quickly say, does that work through your 

issues with respect to that separation, and I think that is enormously important, including the prosecution of terrorists in civilian 

courts? 

Is that where we stand today? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Does that help the FBI? 

39 

Mr. MUELLER. It does. The statute directed the President to develop procedures that would assure continuity of investigation, continuity of the interrogation in like circumstances. And that directive issued by the President does resolve those issues. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And does it move you closer to both the idea 

of what your work is supposed to do but also the respect for civil 

liberties, as you look at it as a lawyer and former judge. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you very much for the lab that 

many utilize, DNA lab that many law enforcement submit their requests through. 

Can you tell me what your timeframe is? As you well know, 

there is a huge backlog of rape kits across America. It is almost 

tragic that women are waiting. 

What is the involvement of the FBI lab? Are you getting these 

labs? I know—excuse me, are you getting these kits? Do you get 

them on particular cases? Do you get them on more heinous cases? 

Can you just answer that question and how we could be of greater help for that backlog? 

Mr. MUELLER. The first step for us was to reduce our own backlog. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. 

Mr. MUELLER. And to do backlogs, we had the backlog in terms 

of ingestion in the samples given, changes in the statutes around— 

federally and in the country. We reduced that backlog 2 years ago, 

and last year, we reduced to almost nothing the backlog of nuclear 

DNA examinations. And so—and that was by dint of additional 

personnel given to us by Congress, as well as developing a new— 

more mechanical techniques that enabled us to expedite those examinations. 

That does not necessarily help jurisdictions around the country 

who have backlogs of samples that need—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. We do not have the funding or capability federally 

to step in and assist State and local. 

I don’t think there is one of us who wouldn’t like to have the 

ability to make certain that all those tests, samples, are sitting on 

the shelves of a police department, somebody went through the 

DNA protocol. 

But, again, it is a matter of funding and particular police departments or in State agencies. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me ask these two questions, and I appreciate the Chairman’s indulgence for you to be able to answer. I will 

add the rape kits to our discussion in office. 

But let me just, in your answer, indicate what an impact the sequestration would have in terms of staffing. But I would like to go 

straight to two points. 

The Stand Your Ground laws have taken up—their major stand 

across America, and they have, in essence, created a quandary. 

One of them, of course, is Mr. Zimmerman’s case, which you have 

been involved in investigating. 

I raise the question as to what is the FBI involvement in some 

of these cases that come in extreme results? 

40 

And, lastly, I have heard my colleague talk a lot about Muslims. 

What kind of team does the FBI have on domestic terrorism, particularly what I call wilderness groups, as well as this article from 

Reuters, ‘‘Florida Nabs White Supremacists Planning ‘‘Race War.’’’ 

This happened today. 

Do you have a separate sector? How do you relate to that kind 

of terrorism, and how do we have the investigative component that 

matches or complements State authorities? 

Mr. Mueller, thank you. 

Mr. MUELLER. With regard to domestic terrorism, ever since 

1995 and the bombing of Oklahoma City, we have been aware that 

we cannot take our eye off domestic terrorists who have the capability and maybe the will to undertake such terrorists attacks. 

We have had a number of cases over the years. The most recent 

one was in Spokane where an individual undertook to develop an 

IED to set it off on the birthday of Martin Luther King. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. If you will recall, the persons who were cleaning 

the area beforehand found the IED, and we were able to identify 

the individual. He has been sent away for a good long time. So we 

have separate domestic terrorism entities that are every bit as effective and efficient as we hope we are in the counter, international 

terrorism arena. 

And as to the—I didn’t pick up the first part of the question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The impact on sequestration or loss of employees through major cuts. 

Mr. MUELLER. We will, again, as I say, have to prioritize. We 

would not, we would not take people away from counterterrorism, 

whether it be domestic terrorism, international terrorism. We will 

not take them away from the espionage cases. We will not take 

them away from the important cybercases. And we will have to 

prioritize, and other areas, particularly in the criminal arena, will 

suffer. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And Stand Your Ground? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

The gentleman from California. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I put something in the 

record, please? 

Mr. SMITH. What would you like to put into the record? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, first of all, thank you, Mr. Mueller. We 

will speak afterwards. 

But in any event, I would like to put in the article from Reuters, 

‘‘Florida Nabs White Supremacists Planning a ‘‘Race War.’’’ I ask 

unanimous consent to place this in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

41 


74121B-1.eps

DusiMu &. Financial NeW$, Breaking US &. In\CmllUoI\III Newt I Rauel'$.wm Paj!(' I on 

.

__ 

n.

-_ .... ,....,_, .... __ ..., ~ __ "" ...... IIr_Iot~. __ • __ ....... .. .......,.._. ' .... ""'of..,.._ot _ ___ Cot" 

Florida nabs white s;upremacists planning "race 

war" 

" ' Z/JoOlDT 

I, IIMtIot1o L-. 

rmq OI'II.NfOO _OMnoo_OOInoy_"".'"rIa,w"- ~) T"''''_ ... aI._. ___ __ ", _ ~._ 

"'_ roo ___ _OI_.. __ _MOd • ... ___ T-" ..... __ .. .- =.:r---..... MIoricoo f ..... ' ;· __ --*010 ... _ 

M

""T>oo_"_~io.,_,Mj4t<t_-'_--'_ ~_io __ • __ --'· " __ 

_ ... .ologod_ ........ _F_ ... __ ~_ 

.... .,Iot_N_"' ....... __ w ... ___ .,. _ .d.-, .......... _ .... __ .. ~ ___ .-..,._~_ ... _Iot ... ., ..... _ ~lnll.ao..I I'_"""' ... W .. OW" __ _ 

~"' ... -..... 110001"".-"",,.., ~pIoOIinv •• _ .. or..-Clf, tIooiI_.oonIr ........ ~1n0l._ .....w-...., In __ n ... obkl 100*'* 0I0dI0_. "'" .... __ .~_ .... _u .... ...._..aI ... ~ ... ,_ ridn. 

""" ___ .... ". __ of"'.AF ...... ..-.oI .... _'_.·"" __ ,-.g...,F _ __ "" __ "'w.",",*_t .. __ )'U'O_ .. 

.. ", __ • 

F_·.~ _""~ __ "",,,"",-O!Id_""*'II"''' ___ _ 

' __ --"""""jIiI"""ik>go,.-----~- "" .. ofNO ___ ... '_Iioe ____ ..... _..... loIOOf.i.ID N'TVt ~TI5H 0fI0UP ,. __ -.........,.-__ .. --. .......... -...,.-..f""" """,.. __ 

--f __ ""...,.. --__ .. --eodo.....,.._~ .................... .......... -----'-'" -.g_ .. . 

~".....,. .... _aI 

roo_.__ ~---. ... w ... __ -.~"'.-- ",. ... ,I'lII'I_t_t ... ... f ..... ...-.- __ ... _____ . " ____ .... _10 ___ ... ___ ..,.."'_""".._ ....... ,-. ..... 

. _F - ____ ~O ....... v .aI_&ar, __ . n . al5tC_:1(.o__..2Z. 

aI 51. CIoua. _ f_ 311. of 51. c_ ........... _ .... 25. of Cocoo. _. _ ,.79. of Coooo. Oiono s_.}t. "'_, " .... _ .2$. ofSl CIaud._ 0u0U0 "-f, ZI. of_. "'_ 

_ ...... _"""""-__ 6-. ......... "' ___ ' ... 01._",..-"""'"_.-..;10 

,......."..fotF_II!d 

..... ,- ___ Io<IIOv..cMo~""' ... _,.._~""'M_ .... P_ F_. __ onMMd""F .... Y."_ .... OO\' _ .... _ ... _ ~ lSOO.OOO"", roo_FIond.-.or_. __ OtII_. _____ ........... __ .... ,-. 

""""",-,,_01 __ -.,T, __ 

~-_ ... _al....., ... ,,-~---- ........ oI09MI ..... ~_f..,... ... -~-- .2II05_V ...... ..... _ ,.,.- ... . ... .,....,.,~. W 

_ 

__ 01 __ ..,.,..'''''ooo.-,z-.. ·.-..., __ .... _.....,.., _ 

~ 

... ,-- 1vo __ al .... ""Y ..... JIh<*oal __ ","cooooJ 

lEOlWot .. f .... __ t_[~ 
42 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, is recognized for 

his questions. 

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


74121B-2.eps

Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News I Reuters,com Page 2 of2 
43 

I, in the interest of time, I want to welcome you, first of all, Director Mueller. I miss our regular meetings in the 8 years I served 

on the Intelligence Committee, and it is great to see you back. 

What I would like to do, with the Committee’s concurrence, is I 

have four or five issues. I would like to ask you a brief question. 

Perhaps you could give me a very short answer. And with unanimous consent, you could provide us with a follow up, maybe a couple of paragraphs or something that could maybe fill in some of the 

blanks. 

The first question I had has to do with al-Qaeda, and there are 

actually two questions I will put into and try to make one out of 

it. First of all, as it relates to our Southwest border, do you see any 

growing evidence of al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization 

working to exploit our border with the attempt of launching another terrorist attack on our own soil? That would be first part of 

that question. 

The other is having to do with al-Qaeda and the continuing concern about, particularly in Yemen, the focus on targeting U.S. airplanes. Of course, it is becoming more and more unsettling to 

American travelers, as you well know. 

And if you see any added support that you might be able to get 

from Congress, who could help you in doing that job, maybe you 

could briefly answer that, and then I will move on to a couple of 

other issues. 

Mr. MUELLER. As to the Southwest border and al-Qaeda, we have 

not seen an increase of effort by al-Qaeda to come across the Southwest border. 

On the other hand, when you open the question up to other terrorist groups, I would say that we have a continuing concern about 

Iranian influence, actors, and Hezbollah. 

I would say the indication of this, most recently, was the arrest 

of Arbabsiar, the Iranian individual who thought he was dealing 

with a cartel associate in the expectation of killing the Saudi Arabian ambassador here in Washington, which is indicative of efforts 

of Iran and others to operate south of the border with the impact 

to north of the border. 

Well, and the IED—the second question, I am sorry, the second 

question with regard to Yemen, having obtained the most recent 

explosive device from Yemen, it again reinforces the necessity to 

address—and those who were responsible for the production of 

those devices in Yemen. And the intelligence communities, law enforcement communities, need the full support of Congress to make 

that happen. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Director Mueller, regarding smuggling and 

human trafficking that we have on our southern border, I know 

this continues to be an ongoing issue. 

One thing that I would like to get your assessment on, particularly as it relates to the smuggling of drugs, do you see the weakening of laws in, for instance, in the California State legislature, 

weakening our drug laws, some to the point that many legislators 

believe that drug use is a victimless crime, do you see this as having any strengthening effect on the drug cartels, particularly from 

Mexico? 

44 

Mr. MUELLER. I really would not be in a position to comment on 

that, most because I am not that familiar with—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I didn’t expect that you would, but I tried. 

There is another issue that we have discussed in the past, having 

to do with activities within our Federal penitentiaries. This isn’t 

limited to Federal penitentiaries, but since you are a Federal representative, probably you could speak more directly to the Federal 

penitentiaries, rather than the State prisons and even local jails. 

I have a growing concern for the infiltration of certain people operating under the guise of being clerics to indoctrinate very vulnerable people that are already filled with hate. I know that we have 

a way of vetting who comes in to counsel and to—so on and so 

forth. 

Can you give us a brief statement on the process of vetting and/ 

or surveillance to make sure that our vetting is correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, early on, after September 11th, we worked 

closely with the department, the Federal department of prisons, to 

assure that the appropriate teaching, again, the appropriate teaching was being conducted within the Federal Department of Prisons 

and so that has been an ongoing process since probably 2002. 

At the same time, we have over 100 Joint Terrorism Task Forces 

around the country. And one of the mandates of that Joint Terrorism Task Force is to see and develop intelligence as to what 

threats there may be within the prison system. 

You know, on many of the State and local prison systems, on 

many, I will tell you, some, maybe many, the task forces, you will 

have personnel assigned on the State and local prison authorities, 

corrections authorities, to work closely with the Joint Terrorism 

Task Force to address that concern. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, the red light is on. If I could just 

ask that the director respond to us—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Happy to do so. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And/or follow up on a couple of other issues. One 

being you mentioned the issue of health care fraud. We discussed 

this before in this hearing, in this meeting, venue, I think, last 

time, about Medicare fraud and principally Eastern European involvement. If you could bring us up to date on that, also on the 

gang issues in some of our metropolitan areas, particularly where 

illegal immigrants are the predominant population in specific 

gangs. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, with unanimous consent, I would ask 

that he, the gentleman answer those for the sake of the Committee 

and be placed in the record of the hearing, and I would I yield 

back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, is recognized. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Mueller, I want to 

thank you for being here. 

You have a tough job and sometimes we don’t make it any easier 

for you, but I am pleased that you are here. I have two areas that 

I am very interested in. 

I have been tracking your diversity with your special agents, 

and, as you know, this question has come up many times. It appears that you still only have about 4 percent African Americans 

45 

in your special agents, and I want to know why you haven’t been 

able to do better in recruitment and hiring of African Americans 

in the FBI. 

In addition to that, I am really concerned about some information that I just learned. I attended a briefing yesterday that was 

organized by the Washington Bureau of the American Civil Liberties Union, and they shared with me some very troubling information that I want to talk about because it reminds me of 

COINTELPRO, the most controversial FBI program, I think, under 

the J. Edgar Hoover that caused a lot of concern in this community. 

The FBI’s current Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide 

permit FBI agents to track racial and ethnic facilities and certain 

racial and ethnic behavior. The FBI documents recently obtained 

through Freedom of Information Act requests by the ACLU demonstrate how the FBI is identifying and mapping American communities by race, ethnicity and national origin all over the country 

through a program that you have called Domain Management. 

The documents show that FBI analysts across the country are associating criminal behaviors with certain racial and ethnic groups 

and then using U.S. Census data and other demographic information to map where those communities are located to investigate 

them. 

For instance, in 2009, the Atlanta FBI field office published an 

intelligence note from your Domain Management that purports to 

examine the so-called Black separatist threat in part by documenting the growth of the Black population in Georgia over the 

preceding years. 

I want to know how does the size of the Black population in 

Georgia have any bearing on the number of Black separatists in a 

given area or the threat that they pose? Did the FBI map Black 

communities in Georgia in its examination of the Black separatist 

threat? 

The other thing that I am concerned about is the Atlanta FBI 

field office intelligence, no documents that members of the New 

Black Panther Party were at former Congresswoman Cynthia 

McKinney’s side during the elections, and they appeared at events 

protesting police violence in the community. We also have the information that indicates that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney 

has been under surveillance and has been tracked for quite some 

time now. 

Does the FBI feel that participation in the political process or 

protesting police violence constitutes a threat of any kind? Do you 

think it is appropriate for the FBI to track Americans’ First 

Amendment protected activity in this way? 

Does the FBI list of major terrorism cases, past and present, a 

more comprehensive list of terrorist attacks going back to 1930, detailed in an FBI report, entitled ‘‘Terrorism 2002 to 2005,’’ include 

any terrorist acts committed by anyone who could fairly be described as a member of a Black separatist group? So that is a lot 

that I have asked, but I am really interested. 

Do you have a program called Domain Management that is similar to the old COINTELPRO program. 

46 

Mr. MUELLER. We have, yes, we have domain managers. We 

have a program that requires our intelligence analysts to identify 

a threat in a particular area. 

And an aspect of that program may depend on the threat information we got from a source, either inside the United States or 

outside the United States. 

But let me start by saying that we do not investigate individuals 

or groups solely on the basis of ethnicity or race. 

There may be occasions where we know a particular entity—it 

can be a gang, it could be a terrorist group, it can be organized 

crime—preys on certain groups and communities. And in those situations, where there may be victims or what have you, the data 

in terms of those communities may bear on that intelligence analysis. But we do not have anything regarding—— 

Ms. WATERS. But Domain Management, is that directed toward—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Pardon. 

Ms. WATERS. Domain Management program, is that directed toward certain communities? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. It is the threats. I mean, what is your mortgage fraud in that community in Los Angeles? Where is the mortgage fraud? Domain management means look at your particular division or your district and identify the threats and the existence of 

those threats and how you are going to address that threat. That 

is domain management. That is identifying the threats and how 

you are going to allocate the resources to address the threats. 

Ms. WATERS. And what is mapping? 

Mr. SMITH. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. WATERS. I ask unanimous consent for at least 1 more 

minute. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, mapping—— 

Mr. SMITH. Let me say to the gentlewoman, without objection, 

she will be recognized for an additional 30 seconds in order to allow 

the Director to answer the last question. 

Ms. WATERS. Is Cynthia McKinney under surveillance and has 

been tracked by your—this report. 

Mr. MUELLER. I don’t know where that comes from. I do not 

think it has any validity whatsoever. 

Ms. WATERS. It is in your report. 

Mr. MUELLER. Then I would appreciate seeing it. I am not familiar with what you are looking at. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Waters. 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, is recognized. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, on your left, I appreciate your testimony here today and 

I will start with low-key material. 

I am looking at our report here, a DOJ victims report, a typical 

crime victims report and that has on it the categories of age, educational attainment, school, et cetera, race, ethnicity, all the categories that I think we should be tracking as far as crime is concerned for the victims report, that is fine. 

The next one I look at is a hate crime incident report. It has 

similar categories, maybe not exactly identical, but it has catVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:19 Jan 04, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\050912\74121.000 HJUD1 PsN: 74121
47 

egories for race and ethnicity as well in the hate crime incident report. 

Then when I go to the uniform crime report, the older report, and 

that is module E-3, for the record. It has categories there for race, 

but no category for ethnicity. It says White, Black, American Indian or Alaskan native or Asian or Pacific Islander. Neither does 

it have a category, as the other two forms do, for mixed race. And 

I would just ask if that perhaps is an oversight? Is it something 

you would consider bringing up to date so that our typical crime 

report would include the broader definitions of mixed race and ethnicity? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, I am not certain why that is. I know—well, 

I assume that what we try to do is take that information, where 

that information is relevant to a particular violation of law, but I 

would look at that. I am not familiar with that distinction, but we 

will get back to you on that. 

Mr. KING. And I appreciate that, and I would just state that I 

am interested in it because there are a lot of numbers thrown 

around about actual crime perpetrators and the victims. And this 

Congress is going far more toward looking at race and ethnicity of 

the victims of the crimes. And the George Zimmerman case in Florida is one that comes to mind that caused me to think about it. 

So I will be very interested in that response. And then also I 

would ask you with regard to voter fraud, there has been much 

more publicity about voter fraud in the path few months, something I have been interested in at least a decade or a little more 

since the 2000 elections in Florida. What are you finding in voter 

fraud? Do you anticipate prosecutions coming forward? Has anything happened under your tenure that should be pointed out to me 

that I might have missed as far as voter fraud investigations? 

Mr. MUELLER. I again would have to get back to you. Let met 

get back to you, but obviously, the allegations of voter fraud spike 

in or about elections. We would have to go back and look at what 

has been done. Yes, we have done cases. I am not personally familiar and cannot tell you right now what those cases might be. 

Mr. KING. Did you get a call when the young man presented himself to pick up Attorney General Eric Holder’s ballot here a couple 

of months ago? Was that something that was brought to your attention? I know that film, the video of that, came before this Committee about a month ago. 

And a young White male in his early twenties stepped into the 

voting location in, I believe it was Arlington, Virginia, and presented himself as Eric Holder, a 61-year-old African American 

male, a young Caucasian male in his early twenties, and they were 

ready to present him a ballot. Would that kind of thing be of interest to the FBI? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not—this is the first I have heard about that 

incident. 

Mr. KING. I am quite surprised at that. I guess maybe the Attorney General wasn’t alarmed either that his vote might have been 

disenfranchised so easily. 

But I will go on to something that I am perhaps more concerned 

about, and that is the publicity that has unfolded here just this 

week, and I would cite and ask unanimous consent to enter into 

48 

the record a Newsweek article, dated May 14, 2012, entitled, ‘‘Why 

Can’t Obama Bring Wall Street to Justice,’’ and a Forbes magazine 

article, dated May 7, 2012, entitled ‘‘Obama’s DOJ and Wall Street: 

Too big for Jail.’’ 

These are subjects—— 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, those articles will be made a part 

of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


74121C1-1.eps
49 


74121C1-2.eps

----:::':;"::::- -- 1 ---

--~ 

74121C1-3.eps

r ---

I kl'I"'flH1H' lliW 

! If I jll"!IIII-',1 ! I I . .! 1 I \:j!111("li"t1 ;! II, I Illillf!il!llll'lljll;lli 

I - .11'1",Ejltl Jillj i I ifllllllll!,ll liJlill1 

I I 1'1!!"'!'lj'!"I!!1 

It 

Ilj!llUmmlll,lil!j:iI(!fl 

I

-lilt i'-I. III J Ij; Iliill,f!!I:l!!!l!IIJ!i 

 'I:' 1IIIllll"I!!j! Jli'l!l;I-','!:llil ! 11

1 ' II"J H 'II . j 1I'IIlI11"'! I 1" ! I'll_ )llllllillijll:i II!ill!'l! Il!!=!llllll!llll!lllllJ·a 

! • 

uiililfi!i!iHflin:nlfiHinilliiiiliiilli!liiH!iilfilii 

I 
51 


74121C1-4.eps

-_ ..... _- THELACKOF 

PROSECUTIONS 

IS 'PERPLEXING 

AT BEST, 

IT'S DEEPLY 

TROUBLING 

AT WORST: ... vsl'lliJ Atll:"u ...... 

ofr"" FhKl,,<1111 Cr1n"-... "'l~ r'll c",,,,,,rssr,m. 

*t:""' ____ _ 

...... a... ...... __ .70<11 

e.o_t..--J ."-"'" "'*"""'_ .. _""","_"" .. - ,jo,.fII>I<IOIl>iI.f ""-""'~-'~"""'" __ '_ 

____ .......... _,1.00 01 """'._""'- ..... ~u ..... __ la· "....._>007 

..o., ..... _~ .... ""'_"" ........... 

""',,-~"'---

_---... . ..... ''''' ...... ''''''w_ ... .. "":1«1." .... __ ,.,..,.-. 111 •• __ ........ _ 

1l1_ ....... _ .. 16lD."'" 

:It<"'_o<><!~~ ""' .... .-",..~-- .", ....... -..!Ir..-..._ __ 

...... ...t_ "",,"su::._t-.o~ .. ..........,.."'" tMllII .... ""'_,,,. ...... -. 

~-- ~.,. .. _.'" ..... >Ot\. 1hr _ 

.... _-""_ . ""'''_I!!' I)ntooaIo CuI ~ fl· 

.... _.)0>' ...... "'_.""'"""" -' Oo!_, .... -,--- __ <1001"""'''''''~ 

.. ,,-_ ... -.,.... ... ......... -'>!< ...... Tht..-. "", ... _. __ .. ""' ... """"""t..dI<I It>e-...l-.,.w 00" _ c.:.m._ ""' ........ .... 1...-1 ..... 1 ...... _-

.... ..., ..... --"""""'''''''''''-- ~""""""'Iot-."'" fIn,,...,,,,,,, ........... .mrn.u.,.I_ 

__ ----.....,..... _. !)huno".""""" 0pmlI00 ... WdI_"'_ ... ..,.~~ .. """~~ 

,... _ .. .... __ _......,..""'d..- ........ ,I>r_ !· .... ". .... _ ... ,--.I<>IIIItc_ .... """.......r~ __ .... 

.... k~..- .. 'I'"_tiono .. a. ...... .,."",..""" .... "' __ _ .. d ........... m.-""' .. ' ... _ '''''--''''' .. _''>.'''''. """""""'1'111-. s.. ........... ""·_ .. d ___ "",,,,,, 

[)lI;"", . __ Jar 111<"'" ,~...,. 

_ b ___ .... ,--- ... "",,,_~d. 

..,00.1_11><_,"_'" 

.............. _otpolll"" .. ... -. ... ,r.._.,...... ...... ... , ...... " ... _ _ .. 

... 

_ ,.-""", ... 01>0 ... .. --., _, ..... ,." , ,. 

-_ -"""'---... " 

__ 

.. _ """" .. _-... Iot; 

" ........... -"'--~ .... _I"ItIuI_,..,.._ .. __ .. ~""''''''"""Jor~_ . 

.-, _ ..... ............ _ .... _ -...... ....... -... _"._ ... 01-.- t.I~ .. ".., .. , ........ _ 

_" .... d ... _ ..... _ 

""" .. ......-_"'-.. <011 .... 

""""·'lhIok'·' 

-~-__ .... ,.... _ ... '._-.. ..... "'kltlW .... .... n_kJ ... ....,.,.....-......... -.... _""'_,.,..." ..... --"""_ .............. . "1'OIW ........ .. 

"' .... XII~ ....... ....-_1t;<1JC -_. -....~IJj""-- __ .... -.... "'*--" ..... -_ ..... ~_"" ............ lI>r_"'" ... ' ... .-d ... ""' ..... _ ....... _ 01 C«<h>oo. _ ......... '" """', ...... _ .. _ ...... _"''''_I'''_poM", 

........u- .. --.I1I>.I_ .. ,.,.. •• IIr."."" .... -..._ 

_",,,-." .... ...,,ort<!l"'" --.----- .......... .. _-_ -~-... _ ... -.. '" . 

"",,,,"- -~-.. ,,,",u._~t_ .. - ... _"' ... Rod ..... ·w.- ... """_"",*"",d_ « ......... "' ......... _-__ ... Wlli -_ __ ...... ..

"" ..... _ ..... ..., .... wlIod> 

..... ~_"" ............ lOI. """""""'_ ... "" ............. .... ,....._---."""'. 

"'" .. f<I>n"'1 .. ..,....... \IoIwtdtJl ..01""'_ __ 

_ 

"",,""'fIam<W"""_ ..... _""'''''''''0(,''' ...t_~ _ ..... _ _ ..... _tJfl!>\t _ 

.-..,,_ 

-~---""'I''''' .... ,,-- ........,,,,.,.... ...... '' ... 1.Il0>0> 

0f«<l> __ .... )<Or. ........... """""'" ,..-.:\01_ '-on .. 

---. """,.",.... .. <>JIOOd .... """"" __ ..... - ""'Y_, -""' ..... ""'_ ... Io;f"" ... _", ... _ -........... , "'-.1 ............ _ ..... __ ......... -

74121C1-5.eps

lit! It!!Il8 it'll tllll"t'!lll i'i 

llil;!!lj!ll illjl!i!!iiii !\! 

jill 11Ill,II'11! 1-llll"I'II'I, 1'1 

!iiliill!l!Iifllll

llliilsill:ilj ill! 

l!'l!jj if;;l'!!;l :!I!I 

.. J" it Ii - -i Ii'" s: 

, ,l fri ,,! " Ie ill ;' H'I "I'; 11,11 ,HJ iJlhmll!iHHli!;lntltimn!HH 

-

Ilflilt!lil!1 lil!li1fj:,:!iii\!'illiJitl I 1"lt'jII' . "I! j')"II' 

I'l'il'f'l IiI I tl!llll; li!-I,!'jl: I tjll I!l tiil!11lli/,I! 
53 


74121C2-1.eps

,., 

Forbes 

Obama's DOJ And Wall Street: 

Too Big For Jail? 

-rIW_.""""", ~-- ,, ... .-...-. .. ,..Io/Io~/Io 

"" __ o/ja"", 

..... .."yIIttI/sfj(.;IiIo""'''''' .. 

_.o(joH .... ;J..-... " ... 

"'_ .. INdo .... • -iJo3ooI a.a.r, '9I. 

0...-"'_'_--' 

~ 

Iloo IIf.lullD loa r;w -

ol-...,._",.-"'" .............. - ............ --""'~ - ..... ~_"'l\:IIlJImI 

-_ .. -.. ----- ... - twn._ ..... Ioo1r ......... ro._ ...... I.' .. ""'ft __ 

O"'IIl ..... IIoIotawo_II' .. II' ..... _of""'~ .......... _1OfI 

l)QJ ""'doll lul11 

I~II""""" __ 0II00Iu0 .... bI/ .......... 1II>oncl .. JIno.d 

__ ,..,_' .... t..<IaI'""'_I ...... _ ...... .....a 1'oaoa<iaI_ ",-...,.Go-nIJd<:JW!It(. _..-ol .... r .... 

___ 

_ ............. _ "IbioTalll"""'.·._ .. _j-.. .. _ ....................... 1001_--...~" 

____ ~w • ..w ... _"' _ _ ..-"' __ ...-. ....................... 1_ ......... .. 

.............. ~.pproprio!< ..... "' .... 1 __ ......... _ 

-..------ _"'lI>oIhoppelOl'<l. 1boTWYonoIl",Uh,, ' """ .... Ioo'ic .. _'h_ )'U ........ 10.1 iIo loI.hH" ....... _ .... L .. _ ..... _· ...... ~"'Y Anwicono ...., ..... 1IA<l "'" __ .. u ...... f:n1QIJ/Id • 

..... 

~~_.\lII:Icd~~TJIII. · .....,.,..,..Ia ~---.:: ..... ",,",,_II>_IID' 

__ ~-,-

............... __ _IIoIiaod ...... _ ... 

_ ..... __ ."" ........ ,.. .... ol __ •.... 
54 


74121C2-2.eps

Obuma's DOJ And Wall S~Teet: roo Big for Jili!? Farres tttp:llwww.forbes.CClris ite~/re31spinj20 12/05/0 7 lobamas-doj-and-""",., 

200 

OCE' fedf'ral agent. 

Ten r-eor,Lt..illJ..<.'l..<; V('~W have been criminally chargd with ronspiracy to 

commi.t mail and ""ire fm.ud in r.. "sch('.mc to fnmdulentlycontrol" 

C()ndominill;Jl Hor:1C Owners AssociatIons. They have pled guilty nnd face up 

to 30 years in prir,on 

~.ru.t>.tir ... L!2~J2<lttJl1!:Ilt 3...u_es Pdn~tQll.R~iew fO..I.~J.ming :R€lmlmrsemeJ]Um: 

I!-lt::~ljN).;;el}:i.~...§1lli!fLNot Proy:d.' ,- The educanonal !l1Jblisher apparent1y 

billed tht' federBl government for rdmb'lrs('ments in conrwction "With a 

federally-funded program for lmdel1'rlvileged chHdl'('n . 

.Ern:ecl.ns...IJ.[f.'~{\!J.Jdinn~.'· Steven Cox will get one year in pri80n because he and 

",ornt' fTiends agreed not to bid against carh other at public; auctions and then 

hold a second se~re;: auction '.vito t,l"Je proPCrti2S they putdVIsec1. This meaut 

thm they 'artifkially ~uppresseJ. pfices .. ,[ andJ homeowners and othf'TS with a 

legal interest in rigg(;'d foreclosure properties receive le!i~ than 1he 

competitive price for the properties,·' reads the Tnsk ... E.QI~preqs rE'Jease. 

People In 'leveral oaK'r stak~ have been si.milarly charg<:d. 

"f(lt111!,:JJ~<'i~J ISfij~l,t~."WnrahJ.;.r.~~111~P.Cev. in WJ\!,ih3W;lPl}; J!:.c;. t,q, 6[i ~\l(.r!.1t lw 

...l1,-P!1.!l.Q}J.fQr: ... j,-"Ior!:gQg.~Er.a@~ A property appraiser goes to jail for 

fraudulently rmmipula!ing mortgage applicatiol1s while mopi.ng real t'state 

pl"Operlies. Tbl': fraud scheme cost m0l1g.'lg<' lenders $2.:1 millioll. A Flm'iili! 

Plan was ~n...t&nccd tQ..MLJ]lOnths in feder~lmi'>....op far obc1tructing al~ SEC 

'investigatiun. 

CATtainly [here have been cpporbmities to aggressively .investigate criminal 

<let::; oft':raud involving the largest banks and nrvestment hQusf's. The SEC 

has allegeu ihat half 8. dwen banks "kl1owingly" passed fraudulent 

information along to government agendes and investors, The same ~harges 

hnve heen leveled against seW'ral of the largest investment houses us it 

n~lates to subprimc mort:sa~es. 

·loe SEC has accused a tllenbcr of banks including JP Morgan, Wacho"Via 

Securities, JJBS., and Bank..cl...Alllmic ... u, of "fraudulently" l-igging municipal 

bond auctions by "entering into secret arrangements v,r)th bidding Rgents to 

get an illegal 'bst:.look' at competitors· bjds." And theyv,'::Jn bid:;; be'~<1.use 

"the biddillg agent deliberately obtained. non-wioning bids from other 

prevides, and it facih~ated hid:,; rig;ged !OI' others to v.'"ln by deliberntely 

suhmitting nQ!H~nning~~~~:~!1~~ ~~:~~~~~:E~~~~l,~~!~i~~~: !~Cr:~i~:tlal 

Why these nyo h~yels ofjnstice? Cou1d this disp<mty simply be a case that the 

big banks ..,Yin figh'.: cholges more aggressively, thus making criminal 

proseCUTIons more dilflrult? Maybe. But it also t:ndoubtedly IJ::ls s0;)1(>1hing 

to do with lhe factihat the top leadersh;p at DOJ is drawn almost exclm:ivcly 

from Whtte_Ccll\lr CrimjfmJJ)efel1:iQ "Fm{'ticf's at large tlrms that r('pre~eL1t 

the "ery firm,., tInt .Justice is Sllpposed [0 be inn>stigating. Covington and 

Burling, the firm from which both AUorney General Eric Holder and. 

AssoC'.iate At~omey General and head of thf' crllninal divislon Lanny Breuer 

hail, hJ1S as its current clients Gold;nan Sacbs, Bank of i\meic<l . .JP Morgan, 

:XVells fJI[gQ, f,iJigJ:9..l1P, Dellt'icilLl3.,.w, lNG, Morgftn S:anlcy, UBS. and Mr 

Global ::lI"J' ... Oi:g others. Other top .J1J.stlce offkia~s have similar connectIons 

through their fi.rms. 

5/9/201210:36 AM 
55 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

These articles point out that Attorney General Holder and his 

lieutenants, at least its published in the documents, a history of 

bundling funds, as much of a half a million or more dollars for the 

campaign of the President, coming from Covington, a number of 

them, who have clients that might have been those clients that 

were under investigation because of the Wall Street meltdown in 

2008. 

I would point out that in 2009, the President established the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. That task force has 


74121C2-3.eps
56 

brought some prosecutions, small, little, I think, petty crimes by 

comparison. And one example, the case that we have would be of 

Goldman Sachs settling for a $550 million settlement to the SEC, 

no criminal prosecution. 

So, in the pattern of the financial history since 2008, can you 

point out any criminal investigations for the alleged perpetrators 

that brought about or might have accelerated this Wall Street 

meltdown that we saw in 2008? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. I will get you those. There have been 

a number of prosecutions up in New York and a number around 

the country. I will get you those, and I will say that we have had 

full support from the Department of Justice in any white-collar 

criminal case we had, whether it be corporate fraud or securities 

fraud. 

Mr. KING. And in closing, Director—and I mean closing, Mr. 

Chairman—very short, the words of Lloyd Cutler, who was underneath Jimmy Carter, he said: ‘‘The appearance of conflict is dangerous to public confidence in the administration of justice as true 

conflict itself. Justice must not only be done; justice must also be 

seen to be done.’’ 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you Mr. King. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, like my colleagues, I want to thank you for 

your service. You have one of the most challenging jobs in our government, and you perform it with great skill, so thank you. 

Director, I would like to talk to you about the drug-related violence that we are seeing in the U.S. jurisdictions of Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands and to express my respectful but 

strong belief that the FBI and all Federal law enforcement agencies 

need to do far more to deal with this problem. 

Let me briefly summarize the situation for you. While violent 

crime has decreased nationally, violent crime in Puerto Rico and 

the U.S.V.I. has been on the rise for over a decade now. 

The homicide rate in each territory is about six times the national average and almost three times higher than any State. Puerto Rico has nearly the same number of murders each year that 

Texas does, even though Texas is home to 25 million people, and 

Puerto Rico’s population doesn’t reach 4 million. 

According to estimates, three-quarters of the homicides in Puerto 

Rico are linked to the international drug trade. As the U.S. Government has increased resources in the Southwest border, what is 

happening is this is like a moving target. The drug traffickers are 

changing routes and are hitting the Caribbean once again. This is 

a problem of national scope. 

About three-quarters of the cocaine that enters Puerto Rico is 

then transported to the U.S. mainland because Puerto Rico is part 

of the U.S. This is not a foreign country. Once the drugs enter the 

islands, they are easily delivered to the States. There is no Customs, no heightened scrutiny. 

In order to reduce drug-related violence in Puerto Rico and to 

make the island a less attractive trans-shipment point for these 

trafficking organizations, both the Governor of Puerto Rico and I 

57 

have requested that the Administration establish a Caribbean Border Initiative along the lines of the Southwest Border Initiative, 

and now we have a Northern Border Initiative. 

What is happening is that there is no initiative, no stretch, no 

comprehensive multi, cross-agency counter-drug strategy for the 

Caribbean, and the consequences are crystal clear: The violent 

deaths of tens of thousands of my constituents, and I can, and I 

will have to say that if this were happening in the States, it would 

be an outrage, it would be a national emergency. 

I am not the only one, though, who believes that the Federal 

Government has yet to dedicate the resources and personnel necessary to address this problem. 

The CJS appropriations bill that the House would approve this 

week includes the following language. I quote, ‘‘the committee is 

aware that efforts by Federal law enforcement to reduce drug trafficking and associated violence in the Southwest border region have 

affected trafficking routes and crime rates in the Caribbean. The 

committee expects the Attorney General to address these trends by 

allocating necessary resources to areas substantially affected by 

drug-related violence and reporting such actions to the committee,’’ 

end quote. 

I know, I am the first one who realizes that we have fiscal constraints, but this is a matter of prioritizing limited resources and 

responding to problems in relation to their severity. Your agents on 

the ground in Puerto Rico are doing terrific work. In fact, I met 

with your SAC just recently. But I don’t believe they are doing— 

you have enough of them down there and that you have the necessary resources, not only the FBI but the other agencies within 

DOJ and DHS. So all I am asking is that we need to deal with this 

with a sense of urgency, and I would like to hear from you at least 

briefly on this. It is serious, Director. 

Mr. MUELLER. There are maybe three aspects of it that we need 

to address. One is the drug trafficking. That is principally the responsibility of DEA, but we work closely with DEA. Secondly is the 

homicide rate and the deaths there which, you are absolutely right, 

are horrendous. In any other city it would be the principal focus. 

And the third is public corruption. 

And our efforts have been in the violence. Some of the violence 

is tied in to the drug trafficking, but often with the gangs in Puerto 

Rico it is turf and it is not necessarily associated with the drug 

trafficking but is an issue all of its own. And our efforts are directed at addressing the homicide rate and the gangs and developing intelligence to take them out, but you have got hundreds, as 

you well know better than I, and then secondly public corruption. 

We had Operation Guard Shack which you are familiar with in 

which we literally arrested I think it was over a hundred police officers who were involved in covering for the narcotics trade. And 

so we prioritize Puerto Rico, our efforts, in these particular areas: 

additional resources, more persons behind bars. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent—— 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pierluisi. 

The gentlewoman from California is recognized for a unanimous 

consent request. 

58 

Ms. WATERS. I would like to have inserted into the record the intelligence note from Domain Management Intelligence related to 

the Black separatist threat FBI Atlanta. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


74121D-1.eps
59 


74121D-2.eps

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONt Y 

• (U/FODO) The Atlmta Domain Team "''',e, with moderate confideru:e the [-_._---------- ~ 

Background: 

(UIIFOUO) The Atlanta Divi,ion eno<Jltlposses the Stat< of Georgi. and is home to over 

cine million diverse residents. The chart below depicts the population increases among 

the whil. Bud black/African Anll:rie,n populations ill Ge_i_ from 2000 to 2005·2007, 

according to Us CensLlS dr.Lta; it also include.s. e-stimated pl:JPwauon ~rceot8ges for 2015.1 

Historically) black se]J8nltist groups have maintained it. presence within Atlanta's area of 

responsibility (AOR)o Prom 1998 to 2001, Khalid Ab<!u1 Mul:!ammad, a fanner leader 

vvithin N Btion of Islam, operated in Atlanta snd was 't."'1e nationa11eader of the: New Black 

rl'tln~tl~wr~I'::;~N~B~P~!'~I~ ... ~di~· ~i.~d~na~m~o~"'~'~Oedi~'~Cal~~n~d~p~o~ten~tiall~'f~m~\[:. ~e 'V1~'~Ol~_.~nt direction. b6 ~ Georgi. ble NBPP members luwe been 8..r,"ld oontiD:ue to be active in the NEFF orgp...-uization,'l. 

not.lIs, 

(U) Th.lmown black ,eparatist ",!!=ist groups operating "ithin AtlOllfa'S AOR are the 

New mack Panther Party (NBPP) and the Nation ofls!run (Nol)o In addition to these 

i (JJ) Hil!;b Ctlufidenee generally indicates tlmtjudgments Ilnl ba.~ed on hlgh..quali.ty infonn8tion tiorn 

mUltiple SQ1l[CGS Or from a single highly reliable S1:roroe, BndJor !:hat the ootu1e oftbe issue makes it pw:ible 

to render a soIidjudgment (U) Medltun Confidenee gl!!!leral1y ml!larn that lhe information ill.oredJ."'bly .soun::ed and pli!,Wlible, but eM 

b" interpreted l.n YariQUS ways, or is not of'sufficicnt quilit;r' or CDIT-obmatro .sulficleDd.yto warmnt.1! bigher 

levelofcoofidenc6. 

(U) Low CoDftden.~ generally O1ea.'5 thS the infuIJlltition's c.redibilit1 and/or plfl1J9ibU.~ Is questiO{!!lblc, 

the infurmatiac. is. too fragm~ OJ poorly {;!iIJ'Obonu:ed to mllko solid IL-mlyL1cIrJermc:es. or t:hattbe FBI 

bu sigDfficant eoo.oonu; or problems with the $OW'Qe3 • 

... Tnl.r /Statement can be In a text box (W iff a/OQtiu)t(l. 

UNCLASSIF1EDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ACLURMOl1455 
60 


74121D-3.eps

UNCLASSIFlEDllFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

groups~ there is also tbe pote!ltial for an individual with similar ideology to conduct 

extremist activity within Atlanh:l)s AOR. 

(U) N(m Black P"",h" Parly (NEFP) 

(U) Th.AtJantaDomainTeam",ses~~modemte~~cnce~-· ~ 

(TJ) AUgllSta: Altho" 

RAxe otti 

• (U) In 1uly 2006, NEFP members were noted at funnel: Congresswoman Cynthia 

McKinney's side during the election,. There wore 0100 reports from !he ,,""IS 

UNCLASSlPIEDllFOR O<"FICIAI, USE ONLY 

ACLTJRMOl1456 

bb 

t7C 

b7A 

h6 

b'/C 

b7E 

hf 

b7C 

b'IE 

bG 
61 


74121D-4.eps

'Dr 

c 

UNCLASSlFlEDJIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

mOOla Umt individuals dtessod In NBPP 1ll1ifuullS """,oiled reporler. when they 

"llProached MC1Gnnoy fur '''UlJl1''''ls. ~ In addition, in Novnubor 20U6, NflPP 

hullated "l''''t'''~ ""d,.;uy full owing Ilm ,1looling oem by Atl.wa polic~ u£1l=:s 

of.an elderly AfHClffi American w.otna.ll; whio;f! Wi!~ ~~vc{¢d by the media.~ 

Nation ajlslam (No1)/Frult of Islam (Fa!) 

Do nmn Te.-:nn SCS$ < with low tldc lsliser:= 

UNCLASSlFlED/lFOR OFFICIAl. USE ONLY 

ACLURMOl1457 

b" 

b6 

b7(' 

bn 

b6 

b7C 

b7E 
62 


74121D-5.eps

UNCLASSlFWllFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

,---

indications that black ~eparatl$L extremiSl gr0!'I: members ~ :' j c= __ -__ _ • (U) In December 20OlC]indk.atB<l there is. strong alliance between tile 

Crip' ond NBPP ill Atlanta?' 

UNCLASSlFIEDllFOR OFFICIAL USE om y 

ACLURM01l458 

b7il. 

b7C 

b'1F; 

b7E 

b6 

\070 

b7A 

b6 

b7:;:: 

b7E 
63 


74121D-6.eps

UNCLA~S!FIED1IFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Oullook' 

Source CovrVnge; 

UNCLASSlFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ACLUR\1011459 

~ 

k7E 

biD 

WE 

..... 
64 


74121D-7.eps

UNCLASSIFIED/iFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

rnt~m.gel1ce Gaps: 

RecommecndatiGIlS: 

b7E 

[_~_. ___ J UNCLASSlFIED/lllOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ACLURMO 11 460 
65 


74121D-8.eps

i 

~ .a 

. I .Ii 

I ~ 

J I 

I ~ 

I 

~ 

" 

I 

I 

~ :s 

~ 

I ~ 

I 

t_ 

UNCLASSIFIED/IFOR OFFICIAL USE om y 

~.1!l!..endi:x A: Threat Ju;tification Matrix 

(U) Black Seporatist Tllrea! Ass"'me"t Tab!. ________ , 

Confidence Description 

Physical 

Meansf'irools 

Knowledge 

Sophistica~on 

Association 

Activity 

Risk 

Violence 

Economic 

Impaot 

National 

Security 

Public Trust 

Target 

Ridln.", 

Dow.1l$e 

Aoces8 

TbrC$t Lev,:1 Level 

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFlCIAL USE ONLY 

ACLURMOll461 

biE 
66 


74121D-9.eps

UNCLASSrFlEDilFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(U) Domain IVlanagement Threat AssC$Smen.t l\fethodology 

.bill(, Low Memrun Higb 

H .. lh. ability to 

eanstToQls Has identified tools readily obtain Possesses requisite 

and/or needs materiels 01 already rrd..erinls and tools PhysicalM 

has some materials 

Actors occasionally Actors routinely Actors rarely exhibit exhibit a specialized exhibit a specialized 

ledge • specialized skUl skill set but are skill set and !l.(,.1ively set and do .not seek actively seelcing seek tntining related lrilIDIDg training related to to skill set that skill sot 

Know 

Sophi 

Actors occasionally Acto", routinely 

Actors have tittle or employ high:y employ highly 

no orgal1iz!ltionaI structll!'cd~ long struct~ed~ longstructure, exhibit a tenn plans, rarely term pians, regularly 

stication limited if not absent exhibit an abH:i"o/ to exhibiting IIIl ability 

ability to adapt to adapt, modiJY 

and/or: modify their adapt ""dlOT modifi' their techniques as 

techniques their teehniquO$ as appropriate and appropriate avoid detection 

Actollihave Actors .have 

Acto1'3 have 00 connections to "ulitipl. 

CQn:nections t.o persons of concern connectiOO5 to 

, dons peIS0D.3 of concern 11) tho FBI or persons of concern 

to th.FBlor JntelHgence to theFBl or 

Intelligenoe lntel!igonce 

CommtlDity Community within Community within Domain and outside domain 

ASSOCla 

I 

j 

j, 

Intent --.....--~L.w 

Actorn have 

MedlUlli ~-- Aotorshave Actors have ma.de vocalized desires occasionally taken continuous and Actlvity but has token little some action to dedicated .etions ro or 110 action to echlevc goal aohleve goa! echlove goa! 

Acceptan~ of Risk AVoidslU,k Willingnes, to Willing to ""<Opt 

aeeept mlnlma! risk substantial risk 1----.-, 

UNCLASSIFIEDIIFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

AC'LURMOl1462 
67 


74121D-10.eps

UNCLASSIFIEDilFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

~~ Low_ 

Aggression 

Medium 

and ~-

Aggression and violent ootions 

Aggression and typically result in violent aoool:s 

violent actions moderate loas oflifu typicEllly reoull in 

Violence rarely result in death or bodily harm or is substantial Jo," of 

lifo or severe bodily or psychological expected to result in honn and often trauma severe includ.e collateral psychologicEll damage 11auma 

ActorC.) po, .. to Actor(,) pose, to ActorC') poses 10 

exact millions to ex.ct hundreds of 

Economic Impact exact thousands of tens of millions of millions to billions dollars ill loses 10 

US.nnti .. dollors in losses to of dollars in lo~ 

US entitie, to US entities 

Actor(.) specifically ActclI\S) specifically ActorC') specificBlly tw:geI. US entiti .. , 

potentially resulting targots US entities, targets US entities, 

potonlially reoulting polenticlly ,esulung in damage to US ln serious damage to in grave damage to National Seourity national seourl'ty~ US natioDO! security US natioDO! security regional ortlleIDltion1

s or the nation's infrastructure or the crilical critical .natiOD~!j critical infrastructure infrnstructure infrastructure 

ActiOIlll affect local Actions affect Action. affect 

Public Tru.t levels of public trust regionoll"""l. of Dationallevol, of 

only public trust only publictru.1 

r--~ 

Low --- Vulnerability Medium ~--~,- T",ditionEll type pf Non-traditional 

Traditional ,ingular targets, mlIIlY Target Richness target. tars-I but many potential targets :n them in domain domcln 

Simple security that 

We.il-prolecled ond requires threat to No defenses. t!ll'get 

Defense. difficult 10 exploit heve a plan and es£ily _eked 0' basic ]"".l of IildJI comprarIUsed 

toove.rcome 

Actor(.) have 

Aotor(.) do not heve indired access or Aeror(s) have direct A"""ss thepulOlltiai to access to target obtain direct access access to target 

to taxget "' 

UNCLASSIFIBDlfFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ACLURMOll463 
68 


74121D-11.eps

IF 

UNCLASSIFlEDllFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

(UIFOIJO) TheAll",,!. Domain Team p,cxluced. COPcOlnparins thoi I 

All demQnstrated by the COl' 

-

I Office ofPlaTl1l.wg :md Budget: Policy, P~ing, and Technical Support, IIGeOfgla 201 S Populatlc..1. 

PrQjC'.;:tio~," cUed 200$ 

:tFBl dceuawnts, 100A~WF~23240S, seria121:5, dated 04 J:moary 2006. end lOOA~AT~94658, serial 269, 

~23 'N'ovemller10(}4; 

r~ ~== ':::=?;====L., is. FBlsourureportl,ngtIOOls collabontive scuroe wi'tll good a;oce.ql'lE _,_3; 

OOMa),2009. 24mr documents, s"OlF~ATnl01762.Sl!:!i317'5. daied 26 Mm 2001, IWd801E-AT~1017(1), serial.9, 

dated 1 

"FBI 

Ui FBI 1 A~ ,,23240:'5, s 2.15, dated 041a.nuary 2006. 

%'l FBI LHM, 1 {lOA-AT --94658, serial], dlllted 27 Septe:mber 2002. 

UNCLASSIFlED!IFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

ACLURMOl1464 

lO'A 

b7E 

b7E 

blA 
69 

Mr. SMITH. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, is 

recognized. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because of his long-serving service to this Committee and because of his exemplary service 

as the Attorney General from California, I am going to let Mr. Lungren go before me, and I will go last. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, 

is deferred to. 

Mr. LUNGREN. What a nice fellow. I sure appreciate that. 


74121D-12.eps
70 

I was recalling when I was a kid growing up and listening to 

Notre Dame football games, one of the stars of Notre Dame was a 

halfback, Aubrey Lewis, one of the most highly recruited players at 

that time. I think he had over 200 scholarship offers. He was in 

the first class of FBI agents which included Blacks. He was an African-American, one of the very first agents and served, died about 

11 years ago, but I always remember that. So I guess the FBI can 

do better, as was suggested, but, as a kid, I remember him being 

a hero who went to the FBI, and it was kind of exciting to see that 

happen. 

Mr. Director, let me ask you this: I am concerned always about 

the proper relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch, deeply aware of the tremendous job the FBI does 

and the Department of Justice does in looking at public corruption. 

But I also think it ought to be done in the proper way, and I think 

the Ted Stevens case was a black mark on the department. And 

the conduct of the lead FBI agent in the investigation in prosecution of former Senator now deceased Ted Stevens has been called 

into question. 

Among the improper conduct, the agent failed to write post-interview memos, including the government’s key witness—when the 

government’s key witness provided information favorable to the defense. Allegedly, the agent also participated in an intentional effort 

to conceal Brady and other material from the attorneys for Senator 

Stevens, which are required under law. Those are disturbing. 

And I have always thought that when you find improper conduct 

by officials that action needs to be taken, not only because it is a 

matter of justice but also to make it very, very clear to others in 

the department that such action will not be tolerated and that, in 

fact, direct and specific and immediate recourse will be taken. Can 

you tell us what has happened in that case? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. We had actually two agents involved. One of 

them—one of the agents brought to the attention of the court the 

issues that were disclosed, and another agent is the one to whom 

you are referring is going through our OPR process at this point. 

We are taking into account the most recent report from the person 

appointed by the court; and, as I say, that person is going through 

the OPR process at this juncture. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate that. But, you know, Ted Stevens has 

been—died in a plane accident sometime ago. He was defeated in 

his election in part because of the actions that were taken against 

him officially by the Department of Justice, including actions by 

the FBI agent. It is little solace to people who I believe are attempting to serve this country well in positions of authority that 

an agency required to uphold the law and being a coequal branch 

of government had at least that alleged improper activity. It must 

have been some improper activity, because the court seemed to 

think it was. And yet here we are after this passage of time, and 

nothing has taken place. I know you want to be fair about it, but 

is there going to be a resolution of that any time in the future? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. There has been an investigation and findings; 

and, as I say, it is going through the process. The individual has 

a right to present—— 

71 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes, he does. But Members of Congress and elected officials and appointed officials have a right to be treated fairly 

by the executive branch. I know you take this very seriously. I 

know your history. 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely, absolutely. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I took it very seriously as Attorney General of 

California. We investigated and prosecuted all sort of people. I put 

them in prison. 

Mr. MUELLER. And occasionally we did it together. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes. But the point is, on the other side of it, I 

think you have an obligation—your institution has an obligation to 

be absolutely fair. Because if, in fact, you make an error, you have 

not only done an injustice to the individuals but you have done an 

injustice to their constituents whose decision to elect someone in office is reversed or individuals in the voting booth have made decisions based on improper information. 

So I would just hope that that could be—I don’t know if the word 

is accelerated, but certainly there needs to be some posture to suggest that at least publicly it is taken seriously, that consequences 

flow from it, and that people should understand that you take it 

as seriously as I know you do. But in the absence of completed action, I am not sure that message is out there. 

I have a whole lot of other questions, but my time is up. I thank 

the gentleman from South Carolina for being so generous. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lungren. 

The gentleman from South Carolina has been very patient and 

very gracious, and he is now recognized. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, I want to start by thanking you for your service to our 

country as a Federal prosecutor and now as the Director of the Bureau. And, again, as I did last time you were here, I want to compliment the Bureau agents in the State of South Carolina, 

Spartanburg and Greenville. They are always extremely well prepared. They are professional. They are a credit to the Bureau. And 

if you ever have a chance to tell them, I know a word from someone 

they respect as much as you would mean a lot to them, so—— 

My first question really isn’t a question. It is more a therapeutic 

rant. 

With the trial going on with KSM, you know, Director, to have 

a female prosecutor suggest or female defense attorney suggest 

what female prosecutors ought to have on, to have a defendant 

take his shirt off in trial, and to have defendants claim that their 

religion will not allow them to look at women who are dressed a 

certain way, but that same religion does not prevent them from 

stoning rape victims and burning women with jet fuel is just outrageous to me, and I don’t expect you to comment unless you want 

to, but the notion that we ever were going to try this case in the 

media center of the world to give an even bigger platform to these 

defendants—I will tell you, I had judges come down a lot harder 

on me because I poured water in a cup too loud than this judge is 

coming down on these defendants and these attorneys. And I doubt 

there is a thing in the world you can do about it, but when I read 

about it and when I juxtapose that with the way American defendants and American prosecutors and defense attorneys are treated 

72 

in ordinary court, it just strikes me that we are contorting ourselves like an Olympic gymnast to want the world to think that we 

are fair with animals. 

So, with that, Mr. Watt and Elijah Cummings from Maryland 

and I don’t ever vote the same way, I don’t think. If we have, it 

has been by accident. But we do agree on this. 

There is a notion that when poor people steal they go to jail and 

when rich people steal sometimes they get invited to Senate or 

House congressional Committee hearings, like the former Governor 

of New Jersey. And I don’t have any idea whether or not that constitutes a crime, but it sure looks like it does. And you have the 

statistics. I don’t challenge them. 

I would just encourage you to let the public know that there are 

prosecutions and convictions and sentences being meted out with 

respect to the financial fraud. Because the notion that poor people 

go to jail and rich people don’t is ultimately going to destroy our 

judicial system. 

So I will give you a chance to comment. I know you say there 

are prosecutions going on. I believe you when you say that. I would 

just ask maybe for your press shop to get the word out or U.S. Attorney’s office, who always have very active press shops, to get the 

word out so the public sees that there are consequences for this. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think you make a valid point there. With each 

prosecution, successful prosecution, there will be an article in the 

paper, but we can do a better job of pushing together the full portrait of what we have done across the country and the sentences 

we are achieving in the white-collar arena, and that is a good suggestion we will follow up with. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Director. 

The other suggestion that I would have—and, again, I preface 

again I think you have had a remarkable career, and it just seems 

like we always focus on the two or three things where there can 

be improvement instead of the 98 that you do a great job on. 

Some of my constituents—and I know NSLs are not part of the 

Patriot Act, but, nonetheless, they get blended together sometimes—and some of my constituents have asked me, is there any 

way we can see how often NSLs are used or how often or how pervasive in certain parts of the country? I just think, again, the more 

information we can give to folks to kind of demystify this notion 

that the Bureau was walking through people’s homes at night—I 

mean, I never knew a Bureau agent to do that, but I wish we were 

more aggressive in allaying the fears that people have that we are 

striking the balance too much in favor of government intervention 

and not enough in favor of privacy. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, we do file reports with Congress. I would 

have to check and see which parts are public in terms of what we 

do with regard to the FISA Act and the FISA statute as well as 

national security letters. But the fact of the matter is, there are 

very few—we have very few agents around the country. People 

think that we are far more prevalent, I think, than we actually are. 

And if you look around to your right and your left and you see is 

there somebody who has been anything other than helped by the 

FBI, then I want that brought to my attention. 

73 

But the fact of the matter is we have been successful in addressing over the years organized criminals, terrorists, and that is what 

we do, and we hope the public recognizes that and in the absence 

of any other activity such as you describe would understand that 

their FBI agent is their neighbor, their friend, their supporter, and 

a defender of the community. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Director. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Gowdy. 

Director Mueller, thank you for being here today. Our hearing 

has been concluded, and we appreciate your testimony. Several 

Members have asked to follow up with you, and I am sure that 

that will be able to be accomplished as well, and we will continue 

to be in touch. Again, thank you for your service. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative 

days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(75) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

I join the Chairman in welcoming FBI Director Mueller to the Committee today. 

Over the years, I have not supported every action taken by the FBI. But during 

his tenure, I have learned that Director Mueller is a true patriot—a man firmly 

committed to the rule of law and the constitution. In his many appearances before 

this Committee and in our meetings, I have been impressed with his openness and 

his frankness. 

That is why I was proud to support the extension of Director Mueller’s term for 

another two years. The nation needs, now as much as at any time in our history, 

an FBI that is capable of a multifaceted mission—both solving crimes and preventing them—and that capability has been proven under the Director’s leadership. 

The Director’s extended term also means that we will have more opportunities to 

invite him here before the Judiciary Committee—and, on matters of substance, I 

look forward to hearing Director Mueller’s views on several critical issues: 

Criminal Justice: Any discussion of law enforcement in this nation requires us to 

ask serious questions about our criminal justice system. Even Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, through his work with the American Bar Association, has 

challenged us as lawyers and lawmakers to address these issues. 

Why are more than 2 million people in state or federal prison? Why is more than 

60% of that population made up of persons of color? Why are recidivism rates so 

high? Do mandatory minimum sentences serve any purpose other than limiting judicial discretion where justice might be better served with leniency? 

A series of articles in the Washington Post last month raises another set of questions. The Justice Department began its review of flawed forensic work at FBI laboratories nearly twenty years ago. Why have dozens of wrongly incarcerated persons 

not yet been notified of the exculpatory findings of that review? Why were FBI experts pressured to give improper testimony in court, ‘‘asserting the remote odds of 

a false match or invoking bogus statistics in the absence of data?’’ Why was the Justice Department’s review of this matter conducted in secret, without publishing its 

findings and without the participation of the defense bar? 

The FBI is seen as the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency. We would 

expect that the FBI would not only be at the forefront of investigating criminals, 

but also at the forefront of efforts to make our system as a whole more just and 

fair. The Director has always been fair-minded, and I wonder what his thoughts are 

on these matters. 

Relationship with the Muslim Community: Late last year, we learned that many 

of the materials used to train FBI agents contained wildly inaccurate information— 

painting the American Muslim community as violent, and perpetuating other dangerous and harmful stereotypes. 

There is no place for such misinformation in official training materials. Gross insensitivity aside, these flatly inaccurate portrayals distract federal agents from real 

threats, and serve to isolate American Muslims when we ought to be building trust 

with that community. 

I understand that the FBI has undertaken a review of its training materials and 

excised the errors from its database. I also understand that the FBI has issued guidance to its agents that requires supervisors to play a more active role in vetting instructors. I look forward to hearing from the Director about this review, and about 

76 

the steps he has taken to prevent further damage to the relationship between the 

federal government and the American Muslim community. 

Mortgage fraud: Home foreclosures and delinquencies have surged in recent 

years—as have schemes to defraud distressed homeowners. One common type of 

fraud now involves scammers claiming that they can negotiate a loan modification 

with the bank, demanding large fees up front, and failing to deliver any service to 

the homeowner. 

We ought to be doing more to keep people in their homes. Part of that mission 

is catching the crooks who would prey on homeowners at their most vulnerable moments. I hope the Director can share with us the efforts of the FBI to stop these 

crimes. 

Budget: I would also like to know where the Director stands on proposals to cut 

the FBI’s budget. Under the proposal passed by the majority, we would lose at least 

4,500 federal agents at the Department of Justice by 2014, and prosecute 160,000 

fewer criminal cases over the next decade. 

These losses would appear to have a devastating impact on the FBI’s mission, and 

in particular on the FBI’s ability to conduct counterterrorism investigations. I would 

like the Director to elaborate on the effects of this proposal. 

I look forward to today’s testimony on this and other issues. 

77 

ATTACHMENTS 


74121A-1.eps

Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page I of 10 

Back to previous page 

Sign up today for free 

registration and 30 minutes 

of free driving time. 

Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic 

flaws found by Justice Dept. 

By Spencer S. Hsu, Published: April 16 

Justice Department officials have known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the 

convictions of potentially innocent people, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys 

even in many cases they knew were troubled. 

Officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI 

lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead of releasing those findings, they 

made them available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents and 

interviews with dozens of officials. 

In addition, the Justice Department reviewed only a limited number of cases and focused on the work of 

one scientist at the FBI lab, despite warnings that problems were far more widespread and could affect 

potentially thousands of cases in federal, state and local courts. 

As a result, hundreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit 

exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have 

misidentified them as suspects. 

In one Texas case, Benjamin Herbert Boyle was executed in 1997, more than a year after the Justice 

Department began its review. Boyle would not have been eligible for the death penalty without the 

FBI's flawed work, according to a prosecutor's memo. 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/crime/convicted-defendants-Ieft-uninformed-of-fore... 4117/2012 
78 


74121A-2.eps

Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page 2 of 10 

The case ofa Maryland man serving a life sentence for a 1981 double killing is another in which federal 

and local law enforcement officials knew of forensic problems but never told the defendant. Attorneys 

for the man, John Norman Huffington, say they learned of potentially exculpatory Justice Department 

findings from The Washington Post. They are seeking a new trial. 

Justice Department officials said that they met their legal and constitutional obligations when they 

learned of specific errors, that they alerted prosecutors and were not required to inform defendants 

directly. 

The review was performed by a task force created during an inspector general's investigation of 

misconduct at the FBI crime lab in the 1990s. The inquiry took nine years, ending in 2004, records 

show, but the findings were never made public. 

In the discipline of hair and fiber analysis, only the work of FBI Special Agent Michael P. Malone was 

questioned. Even though Justice Department and FBI officials knew that the discipline had weaknesses 

and that the lab lacked protocols - and learned that examiners' "matches" were often wrong - they 

kept their reviews limited to Malone. 

But two cases in D.C. Superior Court show the inadequacy of the government's response. 

Santae A. Tribble, now 51, was convicted of killing a taxi driver in 1978, and Kirk L. Odom, now 49, 

was convicted of a sexual assault in 1981. 

Key evidence at each of their trials came from separate FBI experts - not Malone - who swore that 

their scientific analysis proved with near certainty that Tribble's and Odom's hair was at the respective 

crime scenes. 

But DNA testing this year on the hair and on other old evidence virtually eliminates Tribble as a suspect 

and completely clears Odom. Both men have completed their sentences and are on lifelong parole. They 

are now seeking exoneration in the courts in the hopes of getting on with their lives. 

Neither case was part of the Justice Department task force's review. 

A third D.C. case shows how the lack of Justice Department notification has forced people to stay in 

prison longer than they should have. 

Donald E. Gates, 60, served 28 years for the rape and murder of a Georgetown University student based 

on Malone's testimony that his hair was found on the victim's body. He was exonerated by DNA testing 

in 2009. But for 12 years before that, prosecutors never told him about the inspector general's report 

about Malone, that Malone's work was key to his conviction or that Malone's findings were flawed, 

leaving him in prison the entire time. 

After The Post contacted him about the forensic issues, U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr. of the 

District said his office would try to review all convictions that used hair analysis. 

Seeking to learn whether others shared Gates's fate, The Post worked with the nonprofit National 

Whistleblowers Center, which·had obtained dozens of boxes of task force documents through a yearslong Freedom ofInformation Act fight. 

Task force documents identifying the scientific reviews of problem cases generally did not contain the 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/crime/convicted -defendants-left -uninformed-of-fore... 4117/2012 
79 


74121A-3.eps

Convicted defendants left uninfonned offorensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page 3 of 10 

names of the defendants. Piecing together case numbers and other bits of infonnation from more than 

10,000 pages of documents, The Post found more than 250 cases in which a scientific review was 

completed. Available records did not allow the identification of defendants in roughly 100 of those 

cases. Records of an unknown number of other questioned cases handled by federal prosecutors have yet 

to be released by the govermnent. 

The Post found that while many prosecutors made swift and full disclosures, many others did so 

incompletely, years late or not at all. The effort was stymied at times by lack of cooperation from some 

prosecutors and declining interest and resources as time went on. 

Overall, calls to defense lawyers indicate and records documented that prosecutors disclosed the 

reviews' results to defendants in fewer than half of the 250-plus questioned cases. 

Michael R. Bromwich, a fonner federal prosecutor and the inspector general who investigated the FBI 

lab, said in a statement that even if more defense lawyers were notified of the initial review, "that 

doesn't absolve, the task force from ensuring that every single defense lawyer in one of these cases was 

notified." 

He added: "It is deeply troubling that after going 10 so much time and trouble 10 identify problematic 

conduct by FBI forensic analysts the DOJ Task Force apparently failed to follow through and ensure that 

defense counsel were notified in every single case." 

Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said the federal review was an "exhaustive effort" and 

met legal requirements, and she referred questions about hair analysis to the FBI. The FBI said it would 

evaluate whether a nationwide review is needed. 

"In cases where microscopic hair exams conducted by the FBI resulted in a conviction, the FBI is 

evaluating whether additional review is warranted," spokeswoman Ann Todd said in a statement. "The 

FBI has undertaken comprehensive reviews in the past, and will not hesitate to do so again if necessary." 

Santae Tribble and Kirk Odom 

John McConnick had just finished the night shift driving a taxi for Diamond Cab on July 26, 1978. 

McConnick, 63, reached the doorstep of his home in Southeast Washington about 3 a.m., when he was 

robbed and fatally shot by a man in a stocking mask, according 10 his widow, who caught a glimpse of 

the attack from inside the house. 

Police soon focused on Santae Tribble as a suspect. A police infonnant said Tribble told her he was with 

his childhood friend, Cleveland Wright, when Wright shot McConnick. 

After a three-day trial, jurors deliberated two hours before asking about a stocking found a block away at 

the end of an alley on 28th Street SE. It had been recovered by a police dog, and it contained a single 

hair that the FBI traced to Tribble. Forty minutes later, the jury found Tribble guilty of murder. He was 

sentenced in January 1980 to 20 years to life in prison. 

Tribble, 17 at the time, his brother, his girlfriend and a house guest all testified that they were together 

preparing to celebrate the guest's birthday the night McConnick was killed. All four said Tribble and his 

girlfriend were asleep between 2 and 4:30 a.m. in Seat Pleasant. 

Tribble took the stand in his own defense, saying what he had said all along - that he had nothing to do 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/crime/ convicted-defendants-left -uninfonned-of-fore... 4/17/2012 
80 


74121A-4.eps

Convicted defendants left uninformed of forensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page 4 of 10 

with McCormick's killing. 

The prosecution began its closing argument by citing the FBI's testimony about the hair from the 

stocking. 

This January, after a year-long effort to have DNA evidence retested, Tribble's public defender 

succeeded and turned over the results from a private lab to prosecutors. None of the 13 hairs recovered 

from the stocking - including the one that the FBI said matched Tribble's - shared Tribble's or 

Wright's genetic profile, conclusively ruling them out as sources, according to mitochondrial DNA 

analyst Terry Melton of the private lab. 

"The government's entire theory of prosecution - that Mr. Tribble and Mr. Wright acted together to kill 

Mr. McCormick - is demolished," wrote Sandra K. Levick, chief of special litigation for the D.C. 

Public Defender Service and the lawyer who represents Gates, Tribble and Odom. In a motion to D.C. 

Superior Court Judge Laura Cordero seeking Tribble's exoneration Levick wrote: "He has waited 

thirty-three years for the truth to set him free. He should have to wait no longer." 

In an interview, Tribble, who served 28 years in prison, said that whether the court grants his request or 

not, he sees it as a final chan~e to assert his innocence. 

"Ms. Levick has been like an angel," Tribble added, " ... and I thank God for DNA." 

Details of the new round of hair testing illustrate how hair analysis is highly subjective. The FBI 

scientist who originally testified at Tribble's trial, Special Agent James A. Hilverda, said all the hairs he 

retrieved from the stocking were human head hairs, including the one suitable for comparison that he 

declared in court matched Tribble's "in all microscopic characteristics." 

In August, Harold Deadman, a senior hair analyst with the D.C. police who spent 15 years with the FBI 

lab, forwarded the evidence to the private lab and reported that the 13 hairs he found included head and 

limb hairs. One exhibited Caucasian characteristics, Deadman added. Tribble is black. 

But the private lab's DNA tests irrefutably showed that the 13 hairs came from three human sources, 

each of African origin, except for one - which came from a dog. 

"Such is the true state of hair microscopy," Levick wrote. "Two FBI -trained analysts, James Hilverda 

and Harold Deadman, could not even distinguish human hairs from canine hairs." 

Hilverda declined to comment. Deadman said his role was limited to describing characteristics of hairs 

he found. 

Kirk Odom's case shares similarities with Tribble's. Odom was convicted of raping, sodomizing and 

robbing a 27-year-old woman before dawn in her Capitol Hill apartment in 1981. 

The victim said she spoke with her assailant and observed him for up to two minutes in the "dim light" 

of street lamps through her windows before she was gagged, bound and blindfolded in an hour-long 

assault. 

Police put together a composite sketch of the attacker, based on the victim's description. About five 

weeks after the assault, a police officer was talking to Odom about an unrelated matter. He thought 

Odom looked like the sketch. So he retrieved a two-year-old photograph of Odom, from when he was 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocaV crime/convicted-defendants-left-uninformed-of-fore... 4117/2012 
81 


74121A-5.eps

Convicted defendants left uninformed offorensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page 5 of 10 

16, and put it in a photo array for the victim. The victim picked the image out of the array that April and 

identified Odom at a lineup in May. She identified Odom again at his trial, telling jurors her assailant 

"had left her with an image of his face etched in her mind." 

At trial, FBI Special Agent Myron T. Scholberg testified that a hair found on the victim's nightgown 

was "microscopically like" Odom's, meaning the samples were indistinguishable. Prosecutors explained 

that Scholberg had not been able to distinguish between hair samples only "eight or 10 times in the past 

10 years, while performing thousands of analyses." 

But on Jan. 18 of this year, Melton, of the same lab used in the Tribble case, Mitotyping Technologies of 

State College, Pa., reported its court-ordered DNA test results: The hair in the case could not have come 

fromOdom. . 

On Feb. 27, a second laboratory selected by prosecutors, Bode Technology of Lorton, turned over the 

results of court-ordered nuclear DNA testing of stains left by the perpetrator on a pillowcase and robe. 

Only one man left all four partial DNA profiles developed by the lab, and that man could not have been 

Odom. 

The victim "was tragically mistaken in her identification of Mr. Odom as her assailant," Levick wrote in 

a motion filed March 14 seeking his exoneration. "One man committed these heinous crimes; that man 

was not Kirk L. Odom." 

Scholberg, who retired in 1985 as head of hair and fiber analysis after 18 years at the FBI lab, said sideby-side hair comparison "was the best method we had at the time." 

Odom, who was imprisoned for 20 years, had to register as a sex offender and remains on lifelong 

parole. He says court-ordered therapists still berate him for saying he is not guilty. Over the years, his 

conviction has kept him from possible jobs, he said. 

"There was always the thought in the back of my mind ... 'One day will my name be cleared?''' Odom 

said at his home in Southeast Washington, where he lives with his wife, Harriet, a medical counselor. 

Federal prosecutors declined to comment on Tribble's and Odom's specific claims, citing pending 

litigation. 

One government official noted that Odom served an additional 16 months after his release for an 

unrelated simple assault that violated his parole. 

However, in a statement released after being contacted by The Post, Machen, the U.S. attorney in the 

District, acknowledged that DNA results "raise serious questions in my mind about these convictions." 

"If our comprehensive review shows that either man was wrongfully convicted, we will promptly join 

him in a motion to vacate his conviction, as we did with Donald Gates in 2009," Machen said. 

The trouble with hair analysis 

Popularized in fiction by Sherlock Holmes, hair comparison became an established forensic science by 

the 1950s. Before modern-day DNA testing, hair analysis could, at its best, accurately narrow the pool 

of criminal suspects to a class or group or defmitively rule out a person as a possible source. 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/crime/ convicted-defendants-left -uninformed-of-fore... 4/17/2012 
82 


74121A-6.eps

Convicted defendants left uninformed offorensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page 6 of 10 

But in practice, even before the '''CSI' effect" led jurors to expect scientific evidence at every trial, a 

claim of a hair match packed a powerful, dramatic punch in court. The testimony, usually by a respected 

scientist working at a respected federal agency, allowed prosecutors to boil down ambiguous cases for 

jurors to a single, incriminating piece of human evidence left at the scene. 

Forensic experts typically assessed the varying characteristics of a hair to determine whether the 

defendant might be a source. Some factors were visible to the naked eye, such as the length of the hair, 

its color and whether it was straight, kinky or curly. Others were visible under a microscope, such as the 

size, type and distribution of pigmentation, the alignment of scales or the thickness of layers in a given 

hair, or its diameter at various points. 

Other judgments could be made. Was the hair animal or human? From the scalp, limbs or pubic area? Of 

a discernible race? Dyed, bleached or otherwise treated? Cut, forcibly removed or shed naturally? 

But there is no consensus among hair examiners about how many of these characteristics were needed to 

declare a match. So some agents relied on six or seven traits, while others needed 20 or 30. Hilverda, the 

FBI scientist in Tribble's case, told jurors that he had performed "probably tens of thousands of 

examinations" and relied on "about 15 characteristics." 

Despite his testimony, Hilverda recorded in his lab notes that he had measured only three characteristics 

of the hair from the stocking - it was black, it was a human head hair, and it was from an African 

American. Similarly, Scholberg's notes describe the nightgown hair in Odom's case in the barest terms, 

as a black, human head hair fragment, like a sample taken from Odom. 

Hilverda acknowledged that results could rule out a person or be inconclusive. However, he told jurors 

that a "match" reflected a high likelihood that two hairs came from the same person. Hilverda added, 

"Only on very rare occasions have I seen hairs of two individuals that show the same characteristics." 

In Tribble's case, federal prosecutor David Stanley went further as he summed up the evidence. "There 

is one chance, perhaps for all we know, in 10 million that it could [be] someone else's hair," he said in 

his closing arguments, sounding the final word for the government. 

Stanley declined to comment. 

Flaws known for decades 

The Tribble and Odorn cases demonstrate problems in hair analysis that have been known for nearly 40 

years. 

In 1974, researchers acknowledged that visual comparisons are so subjective that different analysts can 

reach different conclusions about the same hair. The FBI acknowledged in 1984 that such analysis 

cannot positively determine that a hair found at a crime scene belongs to one particular person. 

In 1996, the Justice Department studied the nation's first 28 DNA exonerations and found that 20 

percent of the cases involved hair comparison. That same year, the FBI lab stopped declaring matches 

based on visual comparisons alone and began requiring DNA testing as well. 

Yet examples of FBI experts violating scientific standards and making exaggerated or erroneous claims 

emerged in 1997 at the heart of the FBI lab's worst modern scandal, when Bromwich's investigation 

found systematic problems involving 13 agents. The lab's lack of written protocols and examiners' weak 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/ crime/convicted-defendants-left-uninformed-of-fore... 411 7/2012 
83 


74121A-7.eps

Convicted defendants left uninfonned offorensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page 7 of! 0 

scientific qualifications allowed bias to influence some ofthe nation's rughest-profile criminal 

investigations, the inspector general said. 

From 1996 through 2004, a Justice Department task force set out to review about 6,000 cases handled by 

the 13 discredited agents for any potential exculpatory infonnation that should be disclosed to 

defendants. The task force identified more than 250 convictions in wruch the agents' work was 

detennined to be either critical to the conviction or so problematic - for example, because a prosecutor 

refused to cooperate or records had been lost - that it completed a fresh scientific assessment of the 

agent's work. The task force was directed to notify prosecutors of the results. 

The only real notice of what the task force found came in a 2003 Associated Press account in whlch 

unnamed government officials said they had turned over results to prosecutors and were aware that 

defendants had been notified in 100 to ISO cases. The officials left the impression that anybody whose 

case had been affected had been notified and that, in any case, no convictions had been overturned, the 

officials said. 

But since 2003, in the District alone, two of six convictions identified by The Post in wruch forensic 

work was reassessed by the task force have been vacated. That includes Gates's case, but not those of 

Tribble and Odom, who are awaiting court action and were not part of the task force review. 

The Gates exoneration also shows that prosecutors failed to turn over infonnation uncovered by the task 

force. 

In addition to Gates, the murder cases in Texas and Maryland and a trurd in Alaska reveal examples of 

shortcomings. 

All three cases, in addition to the District cases, were handled by FBI agent Malone, whose cases made 

up more than 90 percent of scientific reviews found by The Post. 

In Texas, the review of Benjamin Herbert Boyle's case got underway only after the defendant was 

executed, 16 months after the task force was fonned, despite pledges to prioritize death penalty cases. 

Boyle was executed six days after the Bromwich investigation publicly criticized Malone, the FBI agent 

who worked on his case, but the FBI had acknowledged two months earlier that it was investigating 

complaints about rum. 

The task force asked the Justice Department's capital-case review unit to look over its work, but the fact 

that it failed to prevent the execution was never publicized. 

In Maryland, John Nonnan Huffington's attorneys say they were never notified of the findings of the 

review in rus case, leaving them in a battle over the law's unsettled requirements for prosecutors to turn 

over potentially exculpatory evidence and over whether lawyers and courts can properly interpret 

scientific findings. 

In Alaska, Newton P. Lambert's defenders have been left to seek DNA testing of remaining biological 

evidence, if any exists, wrule he serves a life sentence for a 1982 murder. Prosecutors for both 

Huffmgton and Lambert claim they disclosed findings at some point to other lawyers but failed to 

document doing so. In Lambert's case, The Post found that the purported notification went to a lawyer 

who had died. 

http://www.wasrungtonpost.comllocal/crime/convicted-defendants-Ieft -uninfonned -of-fore... 4/17/2012 
84 


74121A-8.eps

Convicted defendants left uninfonned offorensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page 8 of 10 

Senior public defenders in both states say they received no such word, which they say would be highly 

unlikely if it in fact came. 

Malone, 66, said he was simply using the best science available at the time. "We did the best we could 

with what we had," he said. 

Even the harshest critics acknowledge that the Justice Department worked hard to identify potentially 

tainted convictions. Many of the cases identified by the task force involved serious crimes, and several 

defendants confessed or were guilty of related charges. Courts also have upheld several convictions even 

after agents' roles were discovered. 

Flawed agents or a flawed system? 

Because of the focus on Malone, many questionable cases were never reviewed. 

But as in the Tribble and Odom cases, thousands of defendants nationwide have been implicated by 

other FBI agents, as well as state and local hair examiners, who relied on the same flawed techniques. 

In 2002, the FBI found after it analyzed DNA in 80 selected hair cases that its agents had reported false 

matches more than 11 percent of the time. "I don't believe forensic science truly understood the 

significance of microscopic hair comparison, and it wasn't until [DNA] that we learned that II percent 

of the time, two hairs can be microscopically similar yet come from different people," said Dwight E. 

Adams, who directed the FBI lab from 2002 to 2006. 

Yet a Post review of the small fraction of cases in which an appeals court opinion describes FBI hair 

testimony shows that several FBI agents gave improper testimony, asserting the remote odds of a false 

match or invoking bogus statistics in the absence of data. 

For example, in testimony in a Minnesota bank robbery case, also in 1978, Hilverda, the agent who 

worked on Tribble's case, reiterated that he had been unable to distinguish among different people's hair 

"only on a couple of occasions" out of more than 2,000 cases he had analyzed. 

In a 1980 Indiana robbery case, an agent told jurors that he had failed to tell different people's hair apart 

just once in 1,500 cases. After a slaying in Tennessee that year, another agent testified in a capital case 

that there was only one chance out of 4,500 or 5,000 that a hair came from someone other than the 

suspect. 

"Those statements are chilling to read," Bromwich said of the exaggerated FBI claims at trial. 

Todd, the FBI spokeswoman, said bureau lab reports for more than 30 years have qualified their fmdings 

by saying that hair comparisons are not a means of absolute positive identification. She requested a list 

of cases in which agents departed from guidelines in court. The Post provided nine cases. 

Todd declined to say whether the bureau considered taking steps to determine whether other agents 

intentionally or unintentionally misled jurors. "Only Michael Malone's conduct was questioned in the 

area of hair comparisons," Todd said. 'The [inspector general] did not question the merits of 

microscopic hair comparisons as a scientific discipline." 

Experts say the difference between laboratory standards and examiners' testimony in court can be 

important, especially if no one is reading or watching what agents say. 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/crime/convicted-defendants-Ieft -uninfonned-of-fore... 411 7/2012 
85 


74121A-9.eps

Convicted defendants left uninformed offorensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The Was ... Page 9 of! 0 

"It seemingly has never been routine for crime labs to do supervision based on trial testimony," said 

University of Virginia School of Law professor Brandon L. Garrett. "You can have cautious standards, 

but if no one is supervising their implementation, it's pre<lictable that analysts may cross the line." 

'Veil of secreey' 

A review of the task force documents, as well as Post interviews, found that the Justice Department 

struggled to balance its roles as a law enforcer defen<ling convictions, a minister of justice protecting the 

innocent, and a patron and practitioner of forensic science. 

By excluding defense lawyers from the process and leaving it to prosecutors to decide case by case what 

to disclose, authorities waded into a legal and ethical morass that left some prisoners locked away for 

years longer than necessary. By adopting a secret process that limited accountability, documents show, 

the task force left the scope and nature of scientific problems unreported, obscuring issues from further 

study and permitting similar breakdowns. 

"The government has hidden behind the veil of secrecy to shield these abuses despite official assurances 

that justice would be done," said David Colapinto, general counsel of the National Whistleblowers 

Center. 

The American Bar Association and others have proposed stronger ethics rules for prosecutors to act on 

information that casts doubt on convictions; opening laboratory and other files to the defense; clearer 

reporting and evidence retention; greater involvement by scientists in setting rules for testimony at 

criminal trials; and more scientific training for lawyers and judges. 

Other experts propose more oversight by standing state forensic-science commissions and funding for 

research into forensic techniques and experts for in<ligent defendants. 

A common theme among reform-minded lawyers and experts is taking the oversight of the forensic labs 

away from police and prosecutors. 

"It's human to make mistakes," said Steven D. Benjamin, president-elect of the National Association of 

Criminal Defense Lawyers. "It's wrong not to learn from them." 

More specifically, the D.C. Public Defender Service, Benjamin's group and others said justice would be 

served by retesting hair evidence in convictions nationwide from 1996 and earlier. "If microscopic hair 

analysis was a key piece of evidence in a conviction, and it was one of only a limited amount of 

evidence in a case, would it be worthwhile to retest that using mitochondrial DNA? I would say 

absolutely," said Adams, the former FBI lab director. 

The promised review by federal prosecutors of hair convictions in the District would not include cases 

before 1985, when FBI records were computerized, and would not disclose any defendant's name. That 

approach would have missed Gates, Odom and Tribble, who were convicted earlier. 

Representatives for Machen, the FBI and the Justice Department also declined to say why the review 

should be limited to D.C. cases. The Post found that 95 percent of the troubled cases identified by the 

task force were outside the District. 

Avis E. Buchanan, director ofthe D.C. Public Defender Service, said her agency must be "a full 

participant" in the review, which it has sought for two years, and that it should extend nationwide. 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/ crime/convicted-defendants-Ieft-uninformed-of-fore... 4/17/2012 
86 


74121A-10.eps

Convicted defendants left uninformed offorensic flaws found by Justice Dept. - The W... Page 10 of 10 

"Surely the District of Columbia is not the only place where such flawed evidence was used to convict 

the innocent," she said. 

Staff researcher Jennifer Jenkins and database editor Ted Mellnik contributed to this report. 

Sponsored Links 

QUAN - Hot Stock Pick 

New Investment Opportunity Could Explode, Buy Shares Now! 

www.Quantumlnnovators.com 

Master's Degree 

Further Your Education & Earn Your Master's Degree. Request More Info! 

www.Keller.edu 

Map Your Flood Risk 

Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More! 

www.floodsmart.gov 

© The Washington Post Company 

Buya link here 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocallcrime/convicted-defendants-Ieft-uninformed-of-fore... 411712012 
87 


74121A-11.eps

DOJ review of flawed FBI forensics processes lacked transparency - The Washington Post Page I of6 

Back to Previous page 

DOJ review of flawed FBI forensics processes 

lacked transparency 

By Spencer S. Hsu, Jennifer Jenkins and Ted Mellnik, Published: April 17 

The bombshell came at the most inopportune time. 

An FBI special agent was testifYing in the govenunent's high-profile terrorism trial against Omar Abdel 

Rahman, the "blind sheik" suspected of plotting the first attack on the World Trade Center. 

Frederic Whitehurst a chemist and lawver who worked in the FBI's crime lab, testified that he was told 

by his superiors to ignore [mdings that did not support the prosecution's theory of the bombing. 

"There was a great deal of pressure put upon me to bias my interpretation," Whitehurst said in U.S. 

District Court in New York in 1995. 

Even before the Internet, Whitehurst's extraordinary claim went viral. It turned out he had written or 

passed along scores of memos over the years warning of a lack of impartiality and scientific standards at 

the famed lab that did the forensic work after the World Trade Center attack and in other cases. 

With the FBI under fire for its handling of the 1993 trade center attack, the Oklahoma City bombing and 

the O.J. Simpson murder case officials had to act. 

After the Justice Department's inspector general began a review of Whitehurst's claims, Attorney 

General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis J. Freeh decided to launch a task force to dig through 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/crime/ doj -review-of-flawed-fbi-forensics-processes-... 4/18/2012 
88 


74121A-12.eps

DOJ review of flawed FBI forensics processes lacked transparency - The Washington Post Page 2 of 6 

thousands of cases involving discredited agents, to ensure that "no defendant's right to a fair trial was 

jeopardized," as one FBI official promised at a congressional hearing. 

The task force took nine years to complete its work and never publicly released its fmdings. Not the 

results of its case reviews of suspect lab work. Not the names ofthe defendants who were convicted as a 

result. And not the nature or scope of the forensic problems it found. 

Those decisions more than a decade ago remain relevant today for hundreds of people still in the U.S. 

court system, because officials never notified many defendants of the forensic flaws in their cases and 

never expanded their review to catch similar mistakes. 

A review of more than 10,000 pages of task force documents and dozens of interviews demonstrate that 

the panel operated in secret and with close oversight by FBI and Justice Department brass - including 

Reno and Freeh's top deputy - who took steps to control the information uncovered by the group. 

"It was not open," said a person who worked closely with the task force and who spoke on the condition 

of anonymity because the bureau and Justice Department maintain a strong influence in forensic science. 

"Maybe [a coverup] wasn't the intent, but it did seem to look that way .... It was too controlled by the 

FBI." 

The documents and interviews tell a story of how the Justice Department's promise to protect the rights 

of defendants became in large part an exercise in damage control that left some prisoners locked away or 

in the dark for years longer than necessary. The Justice Department continues to decline to release the 

names of defendants in the affected cases. 

A Washington Post review of the department's actions shows an agency struggling to balance its goal of 

defending convictions in court with its responsibility to protect the innocent. The Justice Department's 

decision to allow prosecutors to decide what to disclose to defendants was criticized at the time and 

allowed most of the process to remain secret. But by cloaking cases in anonymity, failing to ensure that 

defendants were notified of troubles with their cases and neglecting to publicly report problems or 

recommend solutions, the task force obscured problems from further study. 

Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said the federal review met constitutional 

requirements by allowing prosecutors in the affected cases to make the final decision whether to disclose 

potentially exculpatory information to the defendants. 

"In January 1996 the Department established a Task Force to advise prosecutors of the Office of 

Inspector General investigation of the FBI lab," Sweeney said in a statement. The task force worked 

with prosecutors and the FBI "to notify the relevant prosecutors [local, state and federal] so that they 

could determine what information needed to be disclosed to defense counsel." 

Scathing report 

If the Justice Department was secretive, the agency's independent inspector general was not. Michael R: 

Bromwich's probe culminated in a devastating 517-page report in Aprill9970n misconduct at the FBI 

lab. 

His findings stopped short of accusing agents of peljury or of fabricating results, but he concluded that 

FBI managers failed - in some cases for years - to respond to warnings about the scientific integrity 

and competence of agents. 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocallcrime/doj-review-of-flawed-fbi -forensics-processes-... 4/18/2012 
89 


74121A-13.eps

DOJ review of flawed FBI forensics processes lacked transparency - The Washington Post Page 3 of 6 

The chief of the lab's explosives unit, for example, "repeatedly reached conclusions that incriminated 

the defendants without a scientific basis" in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Bromwich wrote. The 

head of toxicology lacked judgment and credibility and overstated results in the 1994 Simpson 

investigation. After the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the key FBI witness "worked backward," 

tailoring his testimony to reach the result he wanted. Other agents "spruced up" notes for trial, altered 

reports without the author's permission or failed to document or confirtn their [mdings. 

The investigation led to wide-ranging changes, including higher laboratory standards and requirements 

for examiners. 

Meanwhile, the Justice Department set out to evaluate discredited agents' work in thousands of cases 

that had gone to trial. 

Jim Maddock, the FBI's assistant general counsel, told reporters that the goal of the new task force was 

to identify any potentially exculpatory information that had arisen in any criminal case involving agents 

criticized in the report. ' 

"We are undertaking that review," Maddock said at an April 15, 1997, news conference. "And when it is 

done, we will give a full accounting of our findings." 

Interviews and documents show that key decisions about the task force's work were made at the highest 

levels, including the decisions to exclude defense lawyers from the review and not publicly release the 

findings. 

Task force participants said Reno signed off on the decision allowing prosecutors to decide what to 

disclose, because normal legal and constitutional requirements give prosecutors that discretion. 

Justice Department officials also believed that the public release of the 1997 inspector general report 

generated enough publicity to give defense attorneys and their clients opportunities to appeal, task force 

participants said. 

"Our job was to do the scientific reviews and then to send the results to the prosecutors, and they were 

responsible for determining whether they were going to disclose or not," Lucy L. Thomson, the chief of 

the task force, said in an interview. "That was just the way Janet Reno decided to do it." 

Reno is physically ailing and was unable to comment for this article. 

Her deputy attorney general until April 1997, Jamie Gorelick, said Reno "was very, very interested in 

assuring that we weren't keeping in prison people who deserved to have their convictions reviewed." 

"I am sure she tried as hard as she could to keep the pressure on the bureau and on the criminal 

division," Gorelick said. 

Delays, omissions 

Documents show that the FBI and Justice Department set strict rules about what information would be 

disclosed as they prepared to battle defendants who challenged convictions. 

The department planned to "monitor all decisions" by federal prosecutors over whether to disclose 

information, the head of the criminal division, John C. Keeney, wrote in a memo to all U.S. attorneys on 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/crime/ doj-review-of-flawed-fbi-forensics-processes-... 4/18/2012 
90 


74121A-14.eps

DOJ review of flawed FBI forensics processes lacked transparency - The Washington Post Page 4 of 6 

Jan. 4, 1996. The division stood ready, if necessary, to "evaluate the allegations and, if appropriate rebut 

them," he wrote. 

In addition, the Justice Department and the FBI negotiated over the limit and scope of the task force 

review, the documents show. 

For example, in a June 1997 memo, Keeney told federal prosecutors that the criminal division and the 

FBI would "arrange for an independent, complete review of the Laboratory's fmdings and any related 

testimony" in all convictions in which they found there was a "reasonable probability" that work by 

discredited agents had affected the conviction or sentence. 

But two months later, the senior attorney in charge of the task force told Keeney's deputy that the FBI 

indicated that it planned to require "a cursory paper review" only and generally did not plan to 

reexamine evidence. 

That attorney in charge, Thomson, told Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin V. DiGregory in an 

Aug. 19, 1997, memo that the FBI also wanted to keep the focus off the most vulnerable cases by not 

conducting reviews if a case was still in litigation or on appeal- even though the panel's work would 

have been most relevant to a judge at those times. 

There were other hitches. One year later, in August 1998, Thomson complained to DiGregory that "no 

scientists have been retained to date" by the FBI to conduct reviews of cases in which defendants may 

have been wrongly convicted. 

Reviews were "needed as soon as possible in order to avoid possibly undercutting prosecutors' 

arguments ... and to ensure that defendants will not exhaust opportunities to file post-conviction relief 

motions," Thomson said. 

As it turned out, reviews would continue for six years, leaving defendants in jail after having been 

convicted in cases with faulty forensics. 

Keeney died last year after retiring in 2010 as the longest-serving federal prosecutor in u.s. history. 

DiGregory did not return messages left at his home and passed through an associate. 

Thomson, now a privacy expert, said that the reviews were not cursory and that she did not know 

whether any defendants had lost opportunities to appeal their convictions. 

Reduced paper trail 

As the cases became known to state and I,ocal prosecutors, many moved swiftly and made full 

disclosures. Others stymied the effort, whether intentionally or not. 

Because of the sheer passage of time, files, trial transcripts or other records often were lost or destroyed. 

Personnel turnover in prosecutors' offices often left behind no living memory of cases. Many state and 

local prosecutors worked in small offices with enormous active caseloads and had little stake in the 

Justice Department process. 

As a result, reviewers dropped plans to require that state and local prosecutors sign statements when 

they determined a discredited agent's work was pivotal to a case, or to explain in writing if they 

determined it was not, records show. 

http://www.washingtonpost.comlIocal/ crime/ doj -review-of-flawed-fbi-forensics-processes-... 4/18/2012 
91 


74121A-15.eps

DOJ review of flawed FBI forensics processes lacked transparency - The Washington Post Page 5 of6 

That reduced the paper trail. As long as the task force got the infonnation, a participant said, it did not 

matter whether it was written down. 

The task force did order reviews for multiple cases in which prosecutors refused to cooperate. For 

example, Tampa prosecutor Harry Lee Coe III, now deceased, told the department that his lawyers were 

too overworked to review questioned death penalty cases, documents show. 

In South Carolina, the task force completed a scientific review in late 2002 in the case of Roy David 

Brooks, who had been convicted of murder. But the review came after the state had destroyed records. 

And the destruction of records came days after the task force wrote to prosecutors for the third time in 

four years seeking such records. 

Even when cases were disclosed to defense counsel, it was not clear what was disclosed. 

In some cases, one-sentence notifications were sent to defendants, many of whom were indigent, still in 

prison or without attorneys. 

"Please find enclosed a copy of the Attachment to Independent Case Review Report for CDRU#6480 

Case File #95-253567, which we received, from the U.S. Department of Justice," stated the entirety of a 

letter from prosecutors in Tampa to one defendant in Apri12001. That letter came 18 years after the 

offense. 

The attached three-page report did not contain the defendant's name - only strings offour- and eightdigit FBI and Justice Department code numbers. It had nothing to indicate that it involved the particular 

defendant's case or the meaning of bland statements of scientific results. 

In other cases, records indicate that prosecutors told defendants or their attorneys early on about the 

inspector general's report but never mentioned that the task force found more-specific problems. 

The task force gradually wound down when Thomson and DiGregory departed. A new administration 

arrived months before the Sept. II, 200 I, terrorist attacks, which transformed priorities. In 2002, 

Michael Chertoff, then assistant attorney general for the criminal division, narrowed the review to speed 

its completion, dropping unspecified "small cases." 

Through a spokesman, Chertoff declined to comment. 

In addition, the criminal division stopped asking prosecutors to notify it if they turned over review 

results to defense attorneys. 

Research director Madonna Lebling and researcher Aaron Carter contributed to this report. 

http://www.washingtonpost.comllocal/crime/ doj -review-of-flawed-fbi-forensics-processes-... 4118/2012 
92 

f 


74121A-16.eps

DOl review of flawed FBI forensics processes lacked transparency - The Washington Post Page 6 of6 

Sponsored Links 

Walden University Online 

Doctoral, Master's and Bachelo~s. A Higher Degree. A Higher Purpose. 

WaldenU,edu 

A $6 Trillion Opportunity 

Learn Why This Penny Stock Could Go Stratospheric 

www.PennyStockWizard.com 

T.O. Weighs 220 Bench 660 

with the help of a new discovery made by scientists ... 

MuscleBounded.com 

© The Washington Post Company 

Buy a link here 

http://www. washingtonpostcomllocal/crime/doj -review-of-flawed-fbi -forensics-processes-., , 4118/2012 
93 

*December 18, 2012—At the time of printing, the Committee was aware that the FBI’s responses were pending with the Department of Justice. The Committee’s repeated attempts to 

retrieve this information were unsuccessful. 

Post-Hearing Questions submitted to the Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III, 

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation* 


74121E-1.eps
94 


74121E-2.eps

United States HOllse of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Questions for the Record 

Questions from ReJn't'-scl1iativc I\1ar]{ Amodel 

I am concerned about Mexican drug cartels and their involvement in human trafficking, 

particularly the trafficking of minors to the United States for sex-related activities. This is a 

major problem in Nevada, According to FBI Special Agent In-Charge Joseph Dickey, in the 

Reno Field Office, since 2003, over 1,000 children have been rescued in the Las Vegas area 

.lone, From 2002 to 20(16, one locnl organization reported serving over 3,000 trafficked minors, 

While more than 1,496 minors were pro;ecuted for pro,litution-relaled charges from 1994-2007, 

only 10 jOhllS were charged during that time. 

I had the pleasure to meet with Special Agent Dickey in the FBI's Reno office back in 

January and was informed at that time that he did not believe human trafticking, including sex 

trafficking of minors) to be a major problem. He did mention some sexual tourism instance~, 

where minors might be brought in from other states to service visitors in the Reno and Las Vega-; 

art,;;as, but otherwise indicated that there was not a trafficking issue. However) this observation is 

in direct contrast with the statistics he is previously on record as providing, as well as in c.ontmst 

with the experience of several faith-based an_d other community groups who aid victims of 

human trafficking in Nevada. 

1. \Vhat, if any, oversight have you jlTQvided or direction have you given to your stuff to pursue 

human trafl1cking investigations and enforcement? ./\.nd spe-cifically htlman trafficking of 

minors, including sex trafficking ofmlnors? What arc you doing to pursue the trafficking 

rings that are victimizing these children? \Vhat are you doing to pUl'sm~ the "johns?" Does 

yow:." offic,c interrogate child sex-trafficking victims or do you instead treat them as children 

in need of protection? 

2. What current statistics can you give me about FBI human trafficking enforcement across the 

country? And in Nevada? 

Have you broken those numbers down by type oftrafficking? By type of victim? By city? 

If so, please provide that breakdown to me. 

If you do not have any statistic~ on the problem or on the enforcement of federal trafficking 

laws, why not? 

J, What additional resources do you need and what future plans will you make (0 crack down 

on this issue? Do you have plans specific to Nevada? If so, what are they? 
95 


74121E-3.eps

4, In YOlU opinion, is additional federal legislation required to effectively combat the trafficking 

problem? if so, what would you recommend? 

M0l1gage Fraud: 

1, 1'vfortgage fraud has become a huge problem in Nevada, the State (until vcry recently) \:o..rith 

the highest foreclosure rate in tht' nation. I recently met with the Nevada Assistant Attorney 

GencnJl and the District Attorney of the largest county in my district to discuss srme-level 

efforts to deal wilh these crimes. \lv'hat steps is the FBI taking to deal with this problem, both 

in Nevada al1d across the country? 

2. You mentioned. in your testimony that you interact with other federal agencies as you 

investigate these crimes, as weB as state and local law enfi:Hcement. How does this 

interaction work? 

3. Is the FBI engaged in any targeted investigations in Nevada to deal with this problem? If so, 

can you give me a broad overview of actions you1rc taking there and tell me abDut any 

successes you1ve had with completed investigations? 

1, As you may k.."10W, this Committee just reauthorized the Violence Against \Vomen Act 

Domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault on tribal lands are epidemic. ?vlembers of tribes 

in my district have expressed frustration that federal investigators and prosecutors are not, in 

their opinion, doing enough to pursue these and other violent crimes un tribal lands, You 

mention in your testimony that the FB I is aggressively investigating such crim~s} particularly 

sexual assault and child sexual assault. 

Could you tell me about the initiatives you've latmchcd to combat violent crime and the 

successes you've had to date? Are there any specifie steps you1re taking to deal with the 

problem of domestic violence on tribal land involving non-Indian on Indian violence? \Vhat 

is the standard protocol and timeline for handling those kinds of cases? 

2, How does the referral process work between tribes and federal law enforcement? Can this 

process be strengthened, in your opinion? If so, how? 

3. What is being done to cnforce the Indian Arts atld Crafts Act of20] 0, to provide trademark 

protection to Indian art\vork against counterfeiters? 
96 


74121E-4.eps

Last October, the Wall Street Journal reported that law enforcement agencies around the 

c01.mtry have aequired and arc using specialized Stingray surveillance equipment to track the 

location of individuals without the assistance of phone companies. According to the journal. the 

FBI has a policy of deleting all data gathered using the equipment, '~mainly to keep suspects in 

the dark rrbout their capabilities," 

L rvfu:st law enforcement agencies ahvays obtain a wan'ant from a judge when using Stingray 

surveillance technology? If not, what checks and balances exist w ensure that the prival:-Y 

rights of Americans are protected? 
97 


74121E-5.eps

Questions from Representative Robert C. "Bobby" Scott 

1. \\Then discussing the issue of organized retail crime with me at the hearing, you said that the 

FBI's existing interstate theft task fCfces have the responsibility of investigating this t)1)e of 

crime. Plea:~e provide additional details about these task forcesj the frequency with which 

they investigate organized retail crimc\ and information about prosecutions that have been 

obtained during the pa~t two years based on their efforts. 

2 As discussed at the hearing, the FBI has revised variolls training materials because they 

inc luded erroneous information about Muslims. Please let me know vvhm percent3ge of the 

FBI's agents, and employees a'\ a whole, are "tv1uslim, and please lel me knmv the percentages 

of each of the other categories of ethnic backgrounds of your agents and other employees. 

4 
98 


74121E-6.eps

Question. from Representative Melvin L. Watt 

1. Since 2008, how many convictions and prosecutions have mortgage fraud investigations by 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation resulted in nation\\lide'! 

2, How many mortgage fraud investigations has the Federal13ureau of lllvestigation conducted 

since 2008? 
99 

Æ 


74121E-7.eps