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

53–361 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–910 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 5, 2008 

Serial No. J–110–78 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona, prepared statement . 94 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 3 

WITNESSES 

Mueller, Robert S. III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................... 5 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Robert S. Mueller, III, to questions submitted by Senators 

Leahy, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, and Grassley (Note: Answers to Senator Kennedy were not received at the time of printing, November 3, 

2009) ...................................................................................................................... 40 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Mueller, Robert S. III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement ............................................................ 70 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Kennedy, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, 

Cardin, Whitehouse, Specter, Hatch, Grassley, and Kyl. 

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

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Sometimes it is hard to get used to this cavernous room, but today’s hearing will continue our oversight of the 

Department of Justice. We are going to examine the effectiveness 

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in carrying out its responsibilities, and I welcome back our FBI Director. I thank him for appearing today, and I think he would probably join me in thanking 

the hard-working men and women of the FBI for their commitment 

not only here but in many other countries to keep all Americans 

safe. 

We have to look at some of the issues we raised last year and 

see where we are, what progress has been made. I talked with the 

Director yesterday, and, again, I commend him in our meetings. 

Whether personal meetings or over the phone, he has always been 

very open and very candid, whether we are talking on things of 

praise or things of criticism. 

But I told him I was astonished to learn about the FBI failure 

in an instance of paying bills that resulted in telecommunications 

companies shutting off wiretaps, including one FISA wiretap. The 

reason I mention that, I understand from him—and you will probably speak further of this about how that happened, but after the 

Bush-Cheney administration and the congressional Republicans refused to extend the Protect America Act, of course, the statute expired, but the surveillance authorized under that statute continues, 

contrary to some of the statements made by the President’s Press 

Secretary. 

Ironically, of course, the only shutdown of surveillance has been 

when the telecom companies ceased surveillance because they were 

not paid their fees. It had nothing to do with whether the Act was 

in place or not but whether the Government paid the bills. And 

that, of course, is—well, you know how I feel about that. 

2 

Then the confidence and credibility of the FBI took a hit on increasingly potent technologies. There are recent reports saying the 

FBI is engaged in a $1 billion program—a $1 billion program—to 

create a massive biometric database, compiling not just fingerprints but eye scans, palm prints, facial features, and other identifying features of millions of people. 

I worry about that in a number of areas. I want to make sure 

the FBI has mastered emerging and enhanced technologies in the 

fight against crime. We know the difficulties there were in past 

years on the file sharing and other technological problems the FBI 

had. But we also have to look at the impact that such a database 

can have on the privacy rights and civil liberties of Americans. We 

want to make sure the FBI acts in ways that protect and enhance 

the rights and values that define us as Americans, that make us 

a unique society, and not undermine them. 

We know what happened with the internal computer network. 

We know what has happened with national security letters and exigent letters, so there has to be a concern that if we are going to 

embark on anything like this, which goes so much into the privacy 

of Americans, that we know what we are doing. 

I would urge the Director to continue to work to address the 

backlog in the National Name Check Program. Delays and backlogs 

there contribute to the inaction by the Department of Homeland 

Security on citizenship applications and on applications for visas by 

those who have aided American forces in Iraq. 

Last year we talked about the FBI’s use of the national security 

letters, and what appeared to be improper use by some, and the exigent letters; the lag in hiring agents proficient in Arabic; and, of 

course, the problems with the computer systems. And then we 

talked about the Inspector General’s findings of widespread illegal 

and improper use of national security letters in obtaining Americans’ phone and financial records. 

Everybody wants to stop terrorists, but also, though, as Americans we believe in our privacy rights, and we want those protected, 

because at that time the Inspector General found that the FBI repeatedly abused national security letters and failed to report these 

violations. The same with the FBI’s use of so-called exigent letters, 

which were used to obtain Americans’ phone records, often when 

there was no emergency and never with a follow-up subpoena. 

And I discussed this with the Director. I know he shared my concern and the fact that there has to be a better chain of command 

for this. You cannot just have an FBI agent who decides he would 

like to obtain an American’s records, bank records or anything else, 

and do it just because they want to. 

We do have the information technology we have discussed with 

the FBI, and I want to know where they are on Sentinel. We need 

an update on the FBI’s efforts to hire, train, and utilize its intelligence analysts, especially those proficient in Arabic. 

Now, it is not all down by any means. As I said, imagine this 

country without the FBI and what they have been able to do for 

us. 

I discussed one issue especially with the Director yesterday when 

we met, and I want to commend him, but I also want to commend 

3 

the FBI. They, along with our military, have led on the topic of torture and the effective interrogation of detainees. 

Mr. Director, you and the FBI have consistently been a voice of 

reason on these issues, and I think you have received applause, 

and justly so, from Americans of all political stripes. It seems to me 

that the FBI has concluded that tried and true interrogation tactics, which do not use cruelty and torture, are not only more consistent with our laws and our values, but are often more effective 

in obtaining information. 

And I think just as I have commended the military in the military handbook and what they have done on this, I commend you, 

Mr. Director; but I also commend you for making it very clear how 

the people in your Bureau will work. And I commend those 

agents—some of which we cannot discuss in open session, and you 

and I have discussed more in a classified session—those agents 

who have shown their commitment to the values that you have laid 

down and the values this country has laid down on that subject. 

Also, we note that violent crime has been back on the rise in recent years. We have to make sure that there is enough FBI resources dedicated to it. You are also uniquely suited to take on 

fraud and corruption, and it is not acceptable to this Chairman 

when other agencies and organizations seek to undermine the 

FBI’s commitment in those areas. You are uniquely suited for that, 

and I want to make sure that you are able to commit and recommit 

yourself to your best traditions. And to you personally, Mr. Director, I appreciate your openness to oversight and accountability that 

has distinguished you from many others in this town today. 

Senator Specter, I yield to you for whatever amount of time you 

want. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Director Mueller. We thank you for your service, for the work 

done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some 30,000 employees, 12,568 Special Agents, and with each passing day, we seem to 

be giving you more duties without, in my judgment, a commensurate increase in resources. 

Just one word on a personal note. Years ago, I was in the Air 

Force in the Office of Special Investigations and had the opportunity to go to an 8-week training course conducted by FBI agents. 

When the Department of the Air Force was created, the Air Force 

sought a ranking FBI official, and Joseph Carroll, who came in as 

a colonel, later became a two-star general, and that training has 

stayed with me to this day. I do not know whether it has done me 

a whole lot of good, but the training was excellent. 

Director Mueller, there are many subjects which are right on the 

front burner where you agency is intimately involved. The No. 1 

subject is the war on terrorism, and there are still looming questions as to whether there is sufficient coordination. There had been 

the generalization that had there been coordination between CIA 

and FBI, 9/11 might have been prevented. We are now in the midst 

of work on reauthorization of the foreign intelligence surveillance 

4 

issue, a very hotly contested issue on Capitol Hill, now hung up on 

the issue of retroactive immunity for telephone companies. 

I have offered a substitute amendment which would enable the 

Government to continue to collect the data but not close down the 

courts. It is my judgment that Congress has been very ineffective 

in oversight on the expansion of executive power, and I believe we 

need very extensive executive power to deal with terrorism. 

My amendment failed in the Senate. I supported the legislation 

even though it granted immunity that I am opposed to. But it is 

my hope that we can work out an accommodation with the House 

of Representatives. There have been ongoing discussions, which I 

participated in personally, and there is some, I think, considerable 

sentiment on the House side for my substitute amendment. 

The issue of state secrets is one of great importance. Legislation 

has recently been introduced, where I am a cosponsor, which seeks 

to define state secrets, and I would be interested in your views on 

that when the time comes for questions and answers. 

There is a growing concern on the question of reporters’ privilege. 

The Committee has reported out a bill which seeks to provide some 

balance on that subject to protect reporters’ sources because the 

media has been instrumental in the life of our Republic in exposing 

corruption and malfeasance and wrongdoing. And a great concern 

exists that the cutdown of sources is going to be very harmful for 

the public. 

I still do not understand the Judith Miller case, why she was incarcerated for 85 days when it was well known who the source was 

of the leak in the Valerie Plame case. Richard Armitage had been 

interviewed by the Department of Justice in October when he had 

realized that he was the source. Special counsel was appointed and 

then began a long chase, which has had a devastating, chilling effect, in my opinion, on reporters in this country. 

Today we are looking at another matter on the front pages involving a Pennsylvanian, Tony Lucy, and we looked at the Hatfill 

case last year where there were eight journalists targeted, from 

ABC, CBS, NBC, Gannett, Newsweek, Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, and the L.A. Times. 

One other subject briefly, before my time expires, and that is the 

issue of how we deal with illegal aliens who have committed crimes 

of violence, who are released from jail, can be detained by the Department of Homeland Security for only 180 days, and then being 

put back on the streets. That is a problem which has received very 

little notoriety compared to the intensity of the problem. I have 

been visiting jails in Pennsylvania and looking into the details of 

this issue, but many foreign governments are refusing to take back 

their citizens, and we can only hold them for a certain length of 

time. 

I thank you for coming by yesterday for the informal discussion, 

and I am going to get into it in the Q&A. But I believe we have 

to search hard to see if there is some way to retain detention on 

those individuals consistent with due process and consistent with 

our constitutional principles. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

5 

Director Mueller, would you please stand and raise your right 

hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in 

this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Director, please go ahead, and 

then we will open it to questions. 

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

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Director MUELLER. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Senator Specter, other Senators on the Committee. I am pleased to be here 

today to discuss the FBI’s efforts to continue to keep America safe. 

Today in this short statement, I want to give you an overview of 

the threats we face today and generally outline the FBI’s efforts to 

combat those threats. 

As you are aware, the FBI’s top three priorities are counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber security. These priorities are 

critical to our national security and the FBI’s vital work as a committed member of the intelligence community. Important, too, are 

our efforts to protect our communities from the very real threat of 

crime, especially violent crime. 

In the counterterrorism arena, al Qaeda continues to present a 

critical threat to the homeland, as do groups who are not a part 

of al Qaeda’s formal structure but who are affiliates of al Qaeda or 

other organizations. A particular challenge in this arena is that 

posed by self-radicalized, homegrown extremists. They are difficult 

to detect, often using the Internet to train and operate. And here 

at home, through our domestic Joint Terrorism Task Forces and 

abroad through our legal attaches and international partners, we 

together share real-time intelligence in order to fight these terrorists and their supporters. 

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

others who would do us harm is also a core FBI mission. We reach 

out to businesses and universities, we join forces with our intelligence community partners, and we work closely with the military 

to help safeguard our country’s secrets. 

Cyber threats to our national security and the intersection between cyber crime, terrorism, and counterintelligence is becoming 

increasingly evident. Foreign adversaries and competitors can now 

remotely observe, target, acquire, and exploit our information to 

their advantage. Terrorists recruit, train, plan, and execute attacks 

on the Internet. Spies now sell intellectual property and state secrets to the highest bidder. And hackers who used to shut down 

servers around the world for bragging rights may now be linked to 

criminal or terrorist organizations. 

Today the FBI’s cyber investigators focus on these threats, and 

we partner with government and industry through our sponsorship 

of a program called ‘‘InfraGard,’’ which is an alliance of more than 

23,000 individual and corporate members, whose members help 

identify and prevent cyber attacks. 

6 

I am certainly mindful of this Committee’s abiding interest in the 

FBI’s progress in building an intelligence program while combating 

these threats, and the FBI has made a number of changes in the 

last several years to enhance our capabilities and to build a national security organization on par with our law enforcement capabilities. Among them are: 

Today, intelligence is woven throughout every FBI program and 

every operation. Utilizing this intelligence, we have successfully 

broken up terrorist plots across the country—Portland, Oregon; 

Lackawanna, New York; Torrance, California; Chicago; to the more 

recent Fort Dix and JFK plots. We have increased and enhanced 

our working relationships with our international partners, sharing 

critical intelligence to identify terrorist networks and disrupt 

planned attacks. 

We have doubled the number of intelligence analysts on board 

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

of Joint Terrorism Task Forces, going from 33 in September of 

2001 to over 100 now, combining the resources and the expertise 

of the FBI, the intelligence community, the military, and State, 

local, and tribal law enforcement. 

Another important part of our FBI mission, quite clearly, is our 

work against criminal elements in our communities, often in task 

forces with our Federal, State, local, and tribal partners. 

Public corruption remains the FBI’s top criminal investigative 

priority. Corruption erodes public confidence and undermines the 

strength of democracy. In the past 2 years alone, we have convicted 

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

trust. 

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

Constitution is a priority, which includes fighting human trafficking as well as our focus on the Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative. 

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

FBI as it is for the rest of the country. As you are only too aware, 

gangs are no longer a big-city problem, and the FBI’s 141 Safe 

Streets/Violent Gang Task Forces across the country leverage the 

knowledge of State and local police with Federal resources and contemporary investigative techniques. 

The FBI sponsors 52 additional Violent Crime and Interstate 

Theft Task Forces as well as 16 Safe Trails Task Forces targeting 

homicide, child sexual assault, rape, and drug trafficking in Indian 

country. 

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

with our international partners through the FBI’s 70-plus legal attache offices around the world. These legal attache offices cover 

more than 200 countries, and today these partnerships are absolutely essential when criminals and their enterprises easily span 

international borders. 

Because of the FBI’s unique global reach, we have passed over 

35,000 pieces of intelligence related to terrorism and other criminal 

threats, and most recently we have trained more—over the last 

several years, I should say, we have trained more than 865 foreign 

partners at our facility in Quantico. 

7 

Finally, major white-collar crime, from corporate fraud to fraud 

in the mortgage industry, clearly continues to be an economic 

threat to the country. In recent years, the number of FBI pending 

cases associated with subprime mortgage lending has grown nearly 

50 percent to over 1,200 cases. Roughly half of these have losses 

of over $1 million, and several have losses greater than $10 million. 

Currently, the FBI partners with law enforcement and regulatory 

agencies in 33 Mortgage Fraud Task Forces and working groups, 

as well as an additional 19 Corporate and Securities Fraud Task 

Forces, all in an effort to target this threat. And we will continue 

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your comments with regard to the 

personnel we have in the FBI and the hours they work and the 

good work that they do. We recognize that, and for the past 100 

years of the FBI’s history, our greatest asset is our people. We are 

building on that history with a comprehensive restructuring of our 

approach to intelligence training for both our professional intelligence analyst cadre as well as for new FBI agents coming out of 

Quantico. We have and we will continue to streamline our recruiting and hiring processes to attract persons who have the critical 

skills needed for continued success. 

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

tools given the FBI fully, but also appropriately. For example, after 

the Department of Justice IG review of the use of national security 

letters, we have instituted new procedures and internal oversight 

mechanisms to ensure that we as an organization minimize the 

chance of future lapses. 

Among the reforms we have instituted is the creation of a new 

Office of Integrity and Compliance within the Bureau, reporting to 

the Deputy Director. This office will identify and mitigate in advance areas of potential risk. We will continue our vigilance in this 

area. 

As an aside, as you may know, the Inspector General will soon 

release the audit of the FBI’s use of national security letters during 

the 2006 time period. As we discussed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, 

and as the staff has, I believe, been briefed, this report will identify 

issues similar to those in the report issued last March. This is, of 

course, because it covers a time period which pre-dates the reforms 

we now have in place. 

I look forward to keeping the Committee up to date on our 

progress and tell you we are committed to ensuring that we not 

only get this right but maintain the vital trust of the American 

people. 

In closing, let me say that the FBI recognizes that it is a national 

security service responsible not only for collecting, analyzing, and 

disseminating intelligence, but most particularly for taking timely 

action to neutralize threats to this country, be it from a terrorist, 

a foreign spy, or a criminal. And in doing so, we recognize that we 

must properly balance civil liberties with public safety in our efforts, and we will continually strive to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Specter, members of the Committee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and look forward to answering your questions. Thank you for the opportunity 

8 

to give those remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I ask that my longer 

statement be included in the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Of course, it will be, as well as any statements 

that any Senator wishes to have included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Director Mueller appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Director Mueller, I want to reiterate again 

that I appreciate your willingness to brief me and other members. 

You have asked and some things we will not discuss in this hearing 

because of a classified nature, but let me go into a couple things. 

We now know that the administration authorized and the CIA 

used the ancient and notorious technique of waterboarding on several detainees in 2002 and 2003. I have long maintained that 

waterboarding is illegal and it is torture. That is the way it has 

been defined in the past in this country, and it has been understood that way for hundreds of years and that our embrace of it 

threatens our values. 

And as many of the military people have said in testimony before 

this and other committees, it places our servicemen and women at 

risk overseas. And the administration says that may be, but it is 

necessary to obtain intelligence from key suspects. With these highlevel detainees, before they are turned over to the CIA for harsh 

treatment, they are briefly subject to interrogation by the FBI. 

They did not use these techniques. They used the kind of rapportbuilding techniques they have used with great success over the 

years. 

Some FBI officials have told the press that their techniques, the 

techniques approved by the FBI used in interrogation for decades, 

were starting to yield results by the time control of the interrogation was taken away from the FBI and turned over to the CIA. 

These officials have also said to the press that they wanted no part 

of the CIA’s method, that it violated their own rules and also believed it to be inappropriate and less effective. 

So, to the extent you can discuss this in open session, was the 

FBI beginning to achieve positive results in its interrogation of 

high-level detainees in 2002 using FBI methods which do not include cruelty or coercion? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do believe talking about any particular case in 

open session would be problematic. I will say that it has been our 

policy throughout that our policy prohibits the use of coercive techniques. And a determination was made that, to the extent that 

other techniques would be used, we would not participate in that 

type of interrogation. 

Chairman LEAHY. Do you believe that had the FBI been allowed 

to continue interrogations, based on what they had already seen, 

that they could have been successful in a number of areas using 

the non-coercive techniques the FBI uses? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, on the one hand, not getting into details of 

any particular case, on the other hand, trying also not to speculate, 

I would say that our techniques, the experts that we have, I believe 

that our techniques are effective and are sufficient and appropriate 

to our mission, and those techniques are founded on the desire to 

develop a rapport and a relationship. 

9 

Chairman LEAHY. And you have found that to be successful in 

criminal matters and other types of investigations? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. And you have a policy, as does the military in 

the military handbooks, not to use coercive techniques like 

waterboarding. Why do you have that policy? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, there are a number of reasons that probably 

contributed to the development of that policy years ago. Generally, 

our questioning has been in the past done in the United States, 

and the results of our questioning often end up in a court where, 

as you and others who have been prosecutors know, the question 

of voluntariness is at issue for the admissibility of information you 

have. And, consequently, the policy was established, I would imagine, given our particular unique mission here and the operation 

under the Constitution, the applicable statutes, and the Attorney 

General guidelines. 

It also is a result, I believe, of the analysis of our Behavioral 

Science Unit as to effective use of particular techniques where we 

believe that a rapport-building technique is particularly effective. 

Chairman LEAHY. Again, without going into classified matters we 

have discussed, not that there are—there are areas where you have 

had some very significant and positive results by using rapport 

building. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. One example that recently appeared in 

a piece on television was the use of those techniques with the interrogation of Saddam Hussein after he was captured. 

Chairman LEAHY. And that was done over a fairly long period of 

time that the agent did that in building up this level of trust and 

rapport building. Is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. It was. And I will also say that credit goes to our 

sister agency as well. Yes, we played a role, but so did our sister 

agency, and they are also to be commended for their participation 

in this particular effort. 

Chairman LEAHY. We saw, when people violated the rules in Abu 

Ghraib and the photographs, the reaction around the world. Is it 

safe to say that if they are going to show techniques around the 

world, you would be far happier to have had the FBI techniques 

shown than what was shown at Abu Ghraib? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think anybody that saw the videotapes of what 

happened at Abu Ghraib was shocked, horrified, tremendously 

upset that that could occur. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, the FBI announced last month that it 

awarded a $1 billion contract to Lockheed Martin to develop the 

next-generation identification database. I mentioned that earlier. 

That is a massive database of biometric information, not only fingerprints but palm prints, perhaps facial features, retina scans, 

other forms of identification for millions of people. 

On the one hand, we all agree the FBI has to stay at the forefront of technology. The situation is a lot different than when you 

and I began careers in law enforcement. But I also worry about the 

checks and reporting requirements, the amount of material that it 

will gain on Americans. We have not really had hearings on this 

or set up a check and balance on this. 

10 

Can you give us assurances, tell us the steps you are taking to 

guarantee that the privacy rights and liberties of Americans will be 

protected if this massive database is implemented? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me, if I could, give a little bit of background, 

Mr. Chairman. We have expanded our fingerprint capabilities dramatically, particularly since September 11th, and the system that 

we have for the comparison of fingerprints now is way overtaxed. 

And so, inevitably, we would have to build a next-generation identification database. And it is true that this would include palm 

prints, iris scans, facial images, and the like. But there are a couple of points perhaps to keep in mind. 

The first is it would not expand the categories of individuals from 

whom fingerprints and biometric data may already be collected— 

in other words, persons who were convicted of crimes and the like. 

There are various categories of persons for which we appropriately 

collect data, and it would not expand the categories of individuals. 

The second point is that we have published a system of records 

notice, as required by the Privacy Act, to let the public know what 

information is being stored, under what authority that information 

is being collected, how long that information will be used and retained, how it will be used, and to whom it is being provided. And 

that gives the public, Congress, an opportunity, quite obviously, to 

challenge any collection, storage, or use of that data. 

And, last, I would say we would be happy to brief members of 

this Committee, staff of this Committee, at any time on this contract, and the intent of the contract, the scope of the contract, the 

funding of the contract, so that there is transparency— 

Chairman LEAHY. Does that include the Privacy Impact Assessment Report? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely, and that will be public. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I will come back to this. 

Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I begin, Director Mueller, with the war on terrorism. The inference was drawn by many that, had there been coordination between the FBI and CIA, 9/11 might have been prevented. Without 

getting into the speculation on that subject, there have been considerable steps taken to change the posture of homeland security 

with the new Department, the Director of National Intelligence. 

Do we now have a system of coordination among the intelligence 

agencies in the United States which guarantees—and that is a 

strong word—an exchange of information so that we can do our utmost to stop another act of terrorism against the homeland? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir, I do. I believe that is the case, and let 

me address it, if I could, on three or four levels. 

The ODNI, Office of Director of National Intelligence, was established, I would say, in large part to assure that that happens. And 

that role has been fully utilized by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, and Mike McConnell. 

Senator SPECTER. Director Mueller, could you limit your answer 

to 2 minutes? 

Mr. MUELLER. Surely. 

Senator SPECTER. Because there are so many other subjects I 

want to move to. 

11 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me just say there that we meet every 2 weeks, 

members of the intelligence community on that level. On another 

level, you have the National Counterterrorism Center. On a third 

level, you have the Joint Terrorism Task Forces where there are 

agency representatives throughout the United States. 

And the last point I would make is that whenever we have a 

transnational threat and attack, we are sitting shoulder to shoulder with our counterparts in the intelligence agencies, dealing with 

our counterparts in foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies by videoconference and the like on a 24-hour basis. 

On all those levels, there has been dramatic change since September 11th. 

Senator SPECTER. Director Mueller, moving over to the current 

congressional activity on reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Act, as we discussed yesterday at some length in a 

private meeting, there was considerable opposition to a grant of 

retroactive immunity to telephone companies. I believe the telephone companies have been good citizens and ought to be protected. 

But I believe that it can be accomplished by having the amendment which I offered on the Senate floor—which was not passed— 

which would substitute the Government for the telephone companies as the party defendant. The Government would have the same 

defenses, no more, no less, as the telephone companies. 

Customarily, the government cannot be sued because of governmental immunity. That would not be present. But the Government 

would have the state secret defense. It is my view that it is highly 

unlikely there are going to be verdicts in any event, but I am very 

much opposed to seeing the courts closed. It is my judgment that 

the congressional oversight has been ineffective in dealing with the 

expansion of executive authority, and I believe the executive authority needs to be expanded. When my amendment failed, I supported the bill even though it gave retroactive immunity that I did 

not like. Now we have a stalemate. The bill has not been renewed. 

There are contentions that our national security is jeopardized because of the failure to reauthorize it. 

Now, wouldn’t it be a sensible accommodation to take the bill 

with the substitution so that you retain the Government’s ability 

to get all the information it gets now from the telephone companies, which still does not close the courts? 

Mr. MUELLER. As we discussed yesterday, sir, I would have to— 

I disagree, respectfully. I do believe that the telephone companies, 

the communications carriers, have been excellent citizens, particularly since September 11th. In a day of e-mail, cell phones, wire 

transfers, it is tremendously important that we have the communications carriers as partners. And I do believe that ongoing litigation is a disincentive for them to continue to partner with the Federal Government in areas where we need that information. 

Senator SPECTER. A disincentive. Okay. But do you think they 

would stop? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think it is a disincentive to that type of cooperation that we need to be effective. Where you have ongoing litigation— 

12 

Senator SPECTER. I understand the disincentive, but my question 

is: Do you think they would stop? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think it would hamper our relationships, yes. 

With ongoing litigation, with depositions, with hearings, with interrogatories, with the potential of disclosing aspects of the relationship in courtrooms around the country, I do think it would hinder 

our relationships. 

Senator SPECTER. Disincentive, hamper, hinder. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. But I do not hear you say that it would stop. 

Mr. MUELLER. I mean, I am not going to say it is going to stop, 

but— 

Senator SPECTER. Good. 

Mr. MUELLER. But I do believe that delay is detrimental to the 

safety of the country. Delay and a lack of clarity, a lack of simplicity guiding our relationships, inhibits our ability to get the information we need on a timely basis. 

Senator SPECTER. I would move on to two other subjects within 

my time limit. I asked you on December 6, 2006, in an oversight 

hearing about the leak by the FBI on a search and seizure which 

was made on the family’s residents of Congressman Curt Weldon 

immediately before the 2006 election, which virtually certainly cost 

him that election. 

When written answers were filed recently, we discovered from 

the record on January 25th of this year that the investigation was 

concluded because ‘‘investigators were unable to identify a suspect 

or substantially narrow the pool of suspects. Accordingly, the investigation was closed on October 1, 2007.’’ 

I just found out about it January 2008. Wouldn’t it have been a 

better practice to at least notify the Committee and me that the investigation had been closed? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator SPECTER. Would you give me a briefing as to what was 

done on the investigation? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to go back and look at what we did. 

I would presume that I would be free to do so. I am not sure to 

what extent there may be grand jury considerations, but to the extent that I can, we would absolutely give you a briefing as to what 

happened. 

Senator SPECTER. Let me broach one other subject, if I may, Mr. 

Chairman, in about 30 seconds, 45 seconds. 

This issue about illegal aliens who committed crimes of violence, 

sentenced in the United States, released from jail, can be detained 

only for 180 days and then are put back on the streets, thousands 

of them. We talked about this yesterday, but I want to put it on 

the public record and encourage your participation and the participation of others to see if we can find a constitutional way consistent with due process to detain these people. 

We know that people who are in detention awaiting trial, presumed to be innocent, may be detained on a showing of danger to 

the community. We know that there are mental health cases where 

a showing may be made as to danger to themselves or the community, and they can be detained. We are investigating the issue of 

13 

sexual predators as to whether there may be detention beyond the 

conclusion of a jail sentence. 

Do you have any suggestion, Director Mueller, as to what we can 

do about these thousands of violent criminals who are being released onto our streets and not being deported because the country 

of origin will not take them? 

Mr. MUELLER. The first opportunity I had to focus on this is our 

discussion yesterday, and I quite obviously share your concern and 

will do what I can to advance the discussion as to how we may address what quite clearly is a problem that faces us today and will 

face us for the foreseeable future. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Director Mueller. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, last year, the President insisted on significant 

cuts in the appropriations bills and threatened to veto anything 

that did not meet his demand. This did result in a 67-percent cut 

to the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program. As a result of the 

cuts imposed by the President, many States, but particularly my 

own State, will receive just over $1 million—that is, Wisconsin. The 

State must now determine which drug task forces and prevention 

programs to shut down entirely and how many prosecutors to lay 

off. In Milwaukee, the district attorney is now talking about reducing his staff by as much as 15 percent. 

State and local law enforcement have been under tremendous 

pressure in recent years as Federal law enforcement have focused 

more on terrorism and Federal funding at the local level has undergone big cuts. I believe that if something is not done to alleviate 

this, it will perhaps devastate our State and local efforts to combat 

crime. And yet the President’s budget again seeks significant cuts 

to the Byrne program. 

Do you recognize the value of this program? And are you concerned about the impact that these cuts will have on our ability to 

combat crime in our communities all across the country? 

Mr. MUELLER. As we have discussed before, Senator, I am a 

great believer in task forces where you have Federal, State, and 

local working together. I am a great believer in funding of State 

and local law enforcement, particularly when it is coupled with 

working together with the Federal Government. 

I am aware that there are grants that are going to Wisconsin. I believe it is in excess of $1 million to Milwaukee, as well as, I 

believe, several hundred thousand to Madison, Wisconsin, if I am 

not mistaken. But I am a great believer, as I say, in funding of 

State and local law enforcement so that it encourages participation 

on task forces that brings together the various Federal as well as 

State and local law enforcement entities. 

I might also say, if I might, I know in Milwaukee itself that 

there have been substantial issues. We participate with State and 

local law enforcement there on the HIDTA, as I am sure you are 

aware. And I have worked with Ed Flynn, the new Chief of Police 

in Milwaukee, over the years, and I look forward to working with 

him again. He is a tremendous law enforcement officer. 

14 

Senator KOHL. Director Mueller, following on that theme, State 

and local law enforcement has been looking for new ways to improve the successful model of community policing. In recent years, 

law enforcement agencies around the country have been turning to 

intelligence-led policing as a way to improve their efforts to combat 

violent crime. 

As you know, intelligence-led policing seeks to improve information sharing between law enforcement agencies and to ensure that 

this information can assist law enforcement in making the best 

possible decisions with respect to crime control strategies, allocation of resources, and strategic operations. In recent years, this administration has been investing in intelligence-led policing at the 

State and local level. 

From your experience, does intelligence-led policing enhance 

community policing and improve the effectiveness of law enforcement operations? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, and it is a—which is why, again, I am a 

strong supporter of task forces because I do believe what the FBI 

can bring to the table are the databases, the capabilities of analyzing intelligence that is derived from those who are much more 

familiar with the seats, and then prioritize—or the streets, I should 

say, and then prioritize the efforts of law enforcement on all levels 

to address the crimes that are bedeviling a particular community 

at a particular time. 

Senator KOHL. So you support intelligence-led policing? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator KOHL. Do you think we need to continue to invest in it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir, and for the Bureau, as I am wont to say, 

as I did in my opening statement, it is that intelligence now directs 

us to prioritize our resources, whatever the program, whether it be 

public corruption or violent crime or counterintelligence or counterterrorism. 

Senator KOHL. Director Mueller, as you know, the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board has full investigative powers and is responsible for conducting oversight of the intelligence community 

and assessing whether its activities are lawful. Last week, the 

President issued an Executive order assigning a number of its responsibilities to the Director of National Intelligence. 

It seems to me that taking oversight away from an independent 

board and assigning it to a member of the President’s own administration appears to be an effort to thwart real oversight over the intelligence community’s activities. This seems to be a theme with 

this administration, avoiding outside oversight and insisting that 

self-monitoring is sufficient. 

What is the reason for this shift from independent oversight to 

internal oversight? And how can it be justified? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not familiar with the details of that shift, sir. 

I will say in my years in this position, there has not been a lack 

of oversight in terms of the affairs of the FBI, whether it be Congress or the Inspector General or the GAO, a number of areas. 

And, again, I am not familiar with the details of this shift, and so 

I really cannot comment on the pluses or minuses of it, sir. 

Senator KOHL. But you would agree that the intelligence community does deserve oversight from beyond the administration? 

15 

Mr. MUELLER. I believe oversight is an important function of 

Congress. It is an important function of various elements of the 

Government. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much, Senator Kohl. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Members of the Committee, the FBI is 

stonewalling our congressional oversight efforts. I think this Committee needs to demand answers and stand up for our right to information from the executive branch. As we sit here today, it is 

nearly a year since the last FBI oversight hearing. The public cannot even obtain the official record from that hearing. It has not 

been printed yet because the FBI has failed to respond to more 

than half of the questions posed by all the members of this Committee. This ought to be completely unacceptable. The responses 

they did manage to provide do not really answer questions. 

Mr. Chairman, I have provided you and Senator Specter a letter 

detailing a series of unresolved issues that I have been working on. 

These issues are not partisan, and are not ideological. They are basically about good government and accountability. These issues 

range from the use of the FBI jet to claims by FBI whistleblowers, 

like Michael German, Bassem Youssef, Cecilia Woods, and others 

I will not go into. I am frustrated with the FBI’s refusal to provide 

us with documents on the exigent letters. So, Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to get a specific date from the Director and a commitment that he will fully comply, and no more monkeying around. 

Now I am ready to ask questions, but I would like to have you 

think about that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I would note this, and this will not be 

taken from your time. We will give extra time for this. But I would 

note that Senator Grassley has been probably one of the most vigorous people in oversight of either party. His oversight has never 

been partisan. He has been just as tough on Democratic administrations as Republican administrations. 

I will work with him because I have found him to be very open 

on these issues of oversight, and I am directing my staff to work 

with your staff, Senator Grassley, to get these answers and let us 

work at getting them. I think it is extremely important. I think he 

has asked legitimate questions. They should be answered. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you very much. 

I am going to go first, and I am going to have my staff bring 

down some questions so you will have them, because I want to ask 

a series of questions in order. Leading up to that— 

Mr. MUELLER. Senator, can I just interrupt for a second and respond to the comments that you had at the outset? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me say, sir, that I do believe in oversight, as 

I indicated in response to the last question. When we get questions 

for the record, we draft the responses as quickly as we can. We 

send them through the process, and we hope to get them up here 

as fast as possible. Whenever you have had an issue with the FBI, 

I have tried to address that issue through the staff, and to the extent that I could not address it through the staff, I would be very 

16 

happy to sit down with you to try to address it. And, in fact, I have 

in the past reached out to you to discuss some of these issues. 

Again, I reiterate, to the extent that there is a problem with our 

responsiveness, I am very happy to sit down with you and address 

those seriatim. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, it seems to me that there is a problem 

when we do not have the record from the last hearing a year ago 

being able to be printed because all the questions have not been 

answered by all the members of the Committee, not just Chuck 

Grassley. But let’s go on to specific questions. I would like to get 

to at least two. And I am going to have my staff bring these down 

to you. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the FBI recently announced a plan to postpone background checks for aliens seeking 

legal status to live in the United States. As of last April, there 

were nearly 340,000 name checks pending at the FBI. Over half of 

those were older than 6 months. Thanks to this FBI backlog, immigration officials are foregoing the name checks. Rather than kicking the can down the road, the checks need to be done now. Applications should be reviewed thoroughly and completely, not just rubber stamped. It only takes one error of national security to put our 

country at risk. 

Just look at the FBI’s experience with the former agent Nada 

Prouty. She overstayed her visa, engaged in a sham marriage to 

become a citizen, then pled guilty to unauthorized access to 

Hezbollah case information. Congress had already provided $20 

million in December to take care of the backlog. Then CIS had this 

foolish proposal that was announced without a concrete plan to 

spend the money. So these four questions: How do you plan to use the $20 million to reduce the backlog? I want to see a written spending plan for the $20 million Congress 

has provided. When will we get a copy of that? Are you at all concerned about national security being pushed to the side for the 

sake of reducing backlog? Why would the FBI agree to that policy? 

Today, there are more than 600,000 people who have defied orders to leave the United States. If a green card needs to be revoked 

after a name check is finally done, how can you possibly be sure 

that the person will be located and deported? 

Mr. MUELLER. I understand your concern and the concern of others sitting on this Committee, and throughout Congress, with regard to the necessity for clearing the name checks with the Bureau 

for those who seek to be citizens of the United States. By way of 

brief background, as I think you are aware, Senator, in the wake 

of 2001, we were requested to do a much more thorough background check on 2.7 million people, which has been the source of 

the backlog today. 

Now, we’ve worked our way through much of that, but we get, 

in any given week, 79,000 background requests that require us to 

go through our files. Upwards of 70 percent of those are resolved 

within 30 to 60 days. With regard to the backlog, we have been 

working to address that with DHS, and in particular U.S. CIS, for 

the last year. We have hired, or will have hired by the end of 

March with the monies that you have indicated, upwards of 220 

contractors to assist us in going through those. 

17 

We anticipate that the great bulk of the backlog will be done by 

July of this year and we should complete it by January of this year 

with the additional contractors that we have. In the meantime, we 

have taken steps to revise the criteria so that we could more swiftly go through this backlog, and we have also prioritized the workload so that those who have been delayed for an extensive period 

of time are the first ones out. 

Finally, we have a Central Records complex that is being built 

in Virginia that utilizes the modern technology, so that once we are 

through this backlog in the next year, my hope and expectation is 

that we will not face it again. 

Senator GRASSLEY. On another issue, last year I read into the 

record some quotes from the transcript in a Florida terrorism case 

where Michael German said the FBI dropped the ball. In the transcript, a white supremacist and an Islamic extremist talked about 

targeting Jewish reporters for assassination and the mutual admiration of Hitler. 

I was shocked by your answers to written questions for the 

record where you suggested this was not enough to open a terrorism investigation. You have got questions on this. Isn’t it true 

that a terrorism investigation was, in fact, opened on these subjects 

based on that recording? Other than this particular case, has there 

ever been a terrorism-related investigation involving either of the 

two subjects in that recording? If so, explain. 

Has there ever been an investigation related to weapons charges 

or violent crime involving either of the two subjects? And what 

punishment did the FBI official who retaliated against the FBI 

whistleblower, Michael German, receive? Isn’t this case the first 

time that any FBI official has ever been punished for whistleblower 

retaliation? 

Director MUELLER. I’d have to get back to you, Senator, on the 

specific questions you ask as to the particular case. With regard to 

an individual, yes, an individual was punished. I would be happy 

to provide that information to your staff in terms of the extent of 

the punishment of that individual. As to the question as to whether 

this is the first time that somebody has been punished for retaliation, I can’t tell you. I don’t believe that’s the case. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Well, I’ll wait for your answer in writing. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator 

Grassley. 

Senator Feinstein. 

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

Mr. Mueller, let me begin by saying I do think you do a good job 

and I want you to know it’s appreciated. I believe other members 

of this Committee think so, too. I do differ with you on some things. 

As you know, one of them is making violent crime your eighth priority. I want you to know that, according to your own statistics, 

violent crime rose by 4.1 percent between 1905 and 1907. Murder 

rates jumped almost 5 percent during the first half of 1907. Despite 

this trend, the number of FBI agents assigned to investigate criminal cases has dropped steadily. 

18 

Since September 11, 2001, the FBI has failed to replace nearly 

2,400 agents that have been transferred to counter-terrorism 

squads. Many of the agents had been assigned to violent crime and 

gang squads and have not been replaced. The number of total 

criminal cases investigated by the FBI has also steadily declined. 

I can give you those statistics; I do not want to take the time to 

do it. 

I am really concerned about this. In 2007, October, you told the 

International Association of Chiefs of Police that ‘‘We’re realizing 

that national security is as much about reducing the number of 

homicides on our streets as it is about reducing the threat of terrorism.’’ I don’t believe you can do this if violent crime is No. 8 on 

your priority list. 

I must tell you, what’s happening in the cities—and I’ll speak for 

California, and I’m going to go to your office on Monday and meet 

with some of your people in San Francisco, but it’s a big problem. 

It’s an increasing problem. With the cuts local law enforcement is 

taking, I really worry about the streets of America and what’s happening. Have you at all reconsidered making violent crime your 

eighth priority? 

Director MUELLER. Senator, as we have discussed— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. Three times now we’ve discussed this. 

Director MUELLER. I know. The national security priorities which 

come first are counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber. On 

the criminal side, it is public corruption, it is civil rights, and then 

transnational organized criminal groups, which are gangs, which is 

where we address primarily the violent crime. Now, if you look at 

where we are and what we had to do in the wake of September 

11th, I had to shift 2,000 agents—you’re absolutely right, 2,000 

agents—from the criminal side of the house over to the national security side of the house to address counter-terrorism and counterintelligence. Twelve hundred of those 2,000 went to counter-terrorism, 400 went to counterintelligence, and 400 went to intelligence. 

Now, I look at what we are not doing as a result of that shift. 

We’re not doing 800 agents that were doing white-collar crime, 

white-collar crime cases where the loss to the bank or the institution was less than $50,000, are not being done. That is almost 

10,000 cases. Eight hundred agents. We’re not doing that. Nine 

hundred agents were doing drug cases. They are no longer doing 

drug cases. We had approximately 140 additional agents who were 

doing bank robberies who are no longer doing bank robberies. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So let me stop— 

Director MUELLER. But in the meantime, I have tried to keep the 

agents doing violent crime and enhance it when I can. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. See, this is the problem. I mean, this is the 

administration. You take 2,400 agents, you put them somewhere 

else, you don’t replace them. What do I say, and others say, to 

chiefs of police when they come here and they say they are unable 

to replace the FBI’s investigative gap? We’ve got a budget that has 

proposed a $3.2 billion reduction in Federal assistance to State and 

local law enforcement in 2008, so it’s going to get hit there. I mean, 

we have to wake up and understand that we also have a responsiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:06 Nov 25, 2009 Jkt 053361 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\53361.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
19 

bility to protect the streets of America, and we’re not doing that, 

Mr. Mueller. 

Director MUELLER. We are utilizing our resources as effectively 

and efficiently as we can, and prioritizing to try to address it. 

Needless to say, additional resources would always be welcomed. 

But I will tell you, if you sit down and you talk to Bill Bradley, 

you talk to the State and local law enforcement in southern California or northern California, I think they would express appreciation for the efforts we are making. I am sure that they would say 

that we need more resources. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me ask you something. There is an article which says that you requested John Ashcroft and Alberto 

Gonzales to give you additional funding and agents to handle traditional criminal investigations. Is that correct? 

Director MUELLER. I hesitate to get into the discussions with 

them. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes or no? 

Director MUELLER. I have asked for additional resources 

throughout the years, yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Okay. Have you asked Attorney General 

Mukasey for additional resources? 

Director MUELLER. In the course of the budget process, yes. 

Every Attorney General, I’ve asked. The Attorney General, OMB, 

and Congress. Yes. Those are the steps one goes through. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now, the Seattle Post Intelligencer recently 

quotes a recently retired high-ranking FBI official as saying that 

the Bush administration is forcing the FBI to cannibalize its traditional crime-fighting units in the name of fighting terrorism. Would 

you agree with this characterization? 

Director MUELLER. I would say we have had to take resources 

from our criminal programs to address national security, yes. And 

I think you would see that with regard to the Department of Justice’s budget as well where our—the money spent on national security for the FBI is eating up money in the Department of Justice 

that could go to our criminal programs, but the criminal programs 

of DEA, ATF, as well as prosecutors. Yes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, I thank you for that. I thank you for 

being honest, because I think we’re really opening this Nation to 

great harm on our streets. You can’t take 2,400 agents, transfer 

them, and not replace them. So, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Kyl. 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, I’ll add my best wishes to all of the people who 

work with you, and suggest that while this is oversight and there 

can sometimes be tough questions, I’m sure that every one of us 

appreciate your leadership and the job that your folks do. 

Let me ask you a question about a letter that you and eleven 

other prominent members of the law enforcement and intelligence 

communities sent to Senate Leaders Reid and McConnell recently—January 23rd, actually—expressing concerns about the 

Federal media shield legislation, the so-called Free Flow of Information Act. 

20 

In that letter you suggested that those bills ‘‘will undermine our 

ability to protect intelligence sources and methods and could seriously impede national security investigations.’’ The letter also said, 

‘‘The high burden placed on the government by these bills will 

make it difficult, if not impossible, to investigate harms to the national security and only encourage others to illegally disclose the 

Nation’s sensitive secrets. 

Could you comment on whether you believe that legislation like 

this is really necessary at this time and what impact you believe 

that such a law would have on our ability to protect the Nation 

from terrorists and other threats to our national security? 

Director MUELLER. I do believe, having spent time in the Department of Justice reviewing these particular issues, and that is the 

service of subpoenas upon the media and what actions to take, as 

well as looking at it from the perspective of an investigator in the 

Bureau, that the legislation is not necessary. Because of the relatively tight controls—I would say the tight controls—that you 

have at Justice and before you ever issue a subpoena to a member 

of the media. 

I would also say, I think a follow-up letter that was sent from 

the Department of Justice in which it lists the numbers of times 

that subpoenas have been approved by the Department of Justice, 

they are minuscule, very, very few, and only in situations where we 

believed the information was necessary. 

The process now on the Federal level, which is when a subpoena 

or other order is opposed, it goes to a judge who does an appropriate balancing of the adverse impact on the national security or 

otherwise compared to the adverse impact on the exercise of the 

First Amendment by the members of the media. I do believe that 

that balancing, in the hands of a judge who looks at the specifics 

of a particular case, is appropriate to resolve those issues. 

Senator KYL. I appreciate that. 

Let me now go to a matter that Senator Feinstein alluded to, and 

also to some extent Senator Grassley talked about. That is the 

shortage of personnel to do jobs that Congress imposes on you and 

that otherwise exists. I don’t think you have to apologize at all for 

asking for, in your budget submissions, more than any administration ultimately provides. 

Your job is to try to figure out what you need to do your job, and 

if for other reasons and prioritization the administration doesn’t 

choose to make the full extent of those requests, you’ve nevertheless done your job. It’s important for us to know what you think. 

So where there is a need for additional resources, I think it’s important for you to let us know that, even though there is another 

process through which you go and you’re part of the administration. 

This has to do, as a follow-up with what Senator Grassley talked 

about, and it has to do with this backlog. I mean, there are a lot 

of different backlogs, but the one that caught my eye recently was 

an article in the Washington Post reporting that 44 percent of the 

background checks on pending immigrants have waited more than 

6 months, and according to the article—and I’d like to ask if you 

know whether this is true or not—to cope with that backlog the Department of Homeland Security intends to announce a new policy 

21 

granting lawful permanent residence to tens of thousands of foreign nationals who have not yet cleared the FBI’s National Name 

Check program. 

Is that true? Are there additional resources you need to eliminate, as you said, the bulk of—I think we’re talking about the same 

backlog, by July of this year, the bulk of it. And whether you either 

have requested additional resources or you need additional resources to accomplish that goal. 

Director MUELLER. In the past we had requested additional resources, some we have gotten, some we have not gotten. But we 

also have received funding from the Department of Homeland Security that has enabled us to build up, as I said earlier, to a staff 

of almost 220 to work through this backlog. 

To a certain extent, the delay is bringing the persons on board, 

training the persons to do the searches, as well as understanding 

that our files are spread throughout the United States, or paper 

files spread throughout the United States, as well as across the 

world. So we are doing everything we can. At this point I believe 

the money is sufficient. I would come back to you, or I’d also go 

back to Mike Chertoff and say it’s insufficient if we were not on 

a path to get this done as swiftly as we can. 

Senator KYL. But do I understand that. And you mentioned 

something in your answer to Senator Grassley’s question, that 

some of the criteria will be revised, which was kind of a red flag 

for me. 

Director MUELLER. Yes. Yes. 

Senator KYL. Can you comment on the news report that DHS 

will announce a new policy granting lawful permanent residence to 

folks who have not yet cleared the FBI’s clearance program? 

Director MUELLER. I believe that they are doing that with the expectation that if it does not clear, they would revoke that particular 

status. I will tell you that the percentage of finding derogatory information in a background check is approximately 1 percent, and 

so you have a 1-percent risk that, if you are granting this to a person, that there will be derogatory information of some sort found 

in one of our files that would require that person’s citizenship to 

be revoked, which is harder. 

Senator KYL. Indeed, a harder task. Well, one doesn’t like to see 

criteria revised because there’s insufficient personnel to do the job 

in the first place. 

There are other important background checks that you all do 

where there are also long waiting lines. Just in the last 10 seconds, 

I would ask your folks to just send us up a little memo about all 

of the different kinds of background checks you do, what the status 

of the backlog is, and what kind of resources you would need to 

clear up those backlogs within reasonable periods of time. If you 

need some help in having us identify what I’m talking about, I’m 

happy to do it. But you all know the background checks that you 

have to conduct, and perhaps it would be best if that came from 

you. 

Director MUELLER. We’d be happy to do that for you. 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much. 

Director MUELLER. I would give you just one example, is fingerprint checks. We establish—our system, I believe, is supposed to 

22 

handle something like 68,000 fingerprint checks a day, and we’re 

up to somewhere around 150,000 fingerprint checks a day. 

Senator KYL. A day? 

Director MUELLER. A day. A day. At least 150,000. It is designed 

to do something like 68,000. And consequently, in the wake of September 11th there have been substantial additional demands 

placed upon us and we are moving as quickly as possible to develop 

the capacity to respond to those demands. 

Senator KYL. Again, those are the kinds of things I think Congress will be very willing to respond to if we understood that there 

was a need for additional resources. We need to hear that from 

you. I appreciate that very much. 

Director MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Kyl. 

Senator Feingold. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Director, for being here today and for all your good work over the 

years. Also, thanks to the brave men and women who work at the 

FBI. 

The FBI’s budget proposal last year included a request for $12 

million and 59 staff to open a new National Security Analysis Center, known as NSAC. According to the FBI’s proposal, this new center would engage in pattern-based data mining, which, in the 

counter-terrorism context, is the least-proven and most intrusive 

version of data mining, the type of data mining that Americans 

have been most concerned about. It would draw on potentially billions of records. 

Representatives Brad Miller and Jim Sensenbrenner were so concerned about the proposal, that they asked the GAO to look at it. 

In their request they said, ‘‘The expanded and sweeping scope of 

the NSAC bears a striking resemblance to the Total Information 

Awareness Program which Congress terminated funding for in 

2003 because of privacy and other concerns.’’ 

Now, Mr. Director, as you know, Representative Sensenbrenner 

and I often disagree, but he is right on this one: there is a striking 

resemblance. Is the FBI continuing Total Information Awareness 

under another name? 

Director MUELLER. No. It is not a new database. It will not create new systems. It is a better understanding of information that 

we are entitled and authorized to have. Consequently, I do not consider it to be, and I would be surprised if we used in the initiative, 

the word ‘‘data mining’’. It is not a data mining initiative in the 

sense that we would be looking at broad categories of information 

that we otherwise would not be entitled to have. 

I would be happy to provide you a briefing on it so that you can 

ask the questions with regard to specifics of what we are doing. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Okay. 

Director MUELLER. But I am comfortable and confident that, as 

it will be looked at by our privacy personnel within the Department, but also outside, that it’ll pass muster and pass scrutiny. It 

is not a data mining initiative. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I do appreciate those assurances. I look forward to the opportunity to get that briefing. But let me just follow 

23 

up by pointing out that your own documents say that the FBI will 

use ‘‘predictive models and patterns of behavior to identify sleeper 

cells’’. Now, surely you can understand why Americans might be 

concerned that the FBI is planning to look at billions of records to 

try to identify patterns of suspicious behavior. 

Experts agree that this type of data mining is not appropriate in 

the counter-terrorism context. A chief scientist with IBM has argued that it will ‘‘waste taxpayers’ dollars and needlessly infringe 

on privacy and civil liberties’’. So I guess I’d like you to tell me 

what steps you’ve taken to test the effectiveness of this technology 

and to protect Americans’ privacy. 

Director MUELLER. I am not certain I am familiar with the citations that you gave me and whether they were specific to this particular program, understanding this program. I’d be surprised if 

they were. But I’d be happy to get back to you in the context of 

the citations you just gave me and explain to you what this program does. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Okay. We will follow up. You’ve always been 

responsive on these kinds of follow-ups, so I look forward to it. 

Now, under the Federal Agency Data Mining Reporting Act, 

which became law last summer, all data mining programs for 

counter-terrorism or criminal purposes have to be reported to Congress. The first set of reports were due in January. 

Mr. Director, these reports are critical to congressional oversight, 

but we have yet to receive a report from the FBI or the Justice Department. When can we expect that report, and will you make sure 

it includes detailed information about the new National Security 

Analysis Center? 

Director MUELLER. I will check where we are on the report. I’ll 

have to get back to you on that. But as I said, we will provide you 

the information you need on the NSAC. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And the time for when the reports will be received? 

Director MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Okay. 

Yesterday, I met with police chiefs from Wisconsin. Since the beginning of the year, I’ve held some 30 town meetings across the 

State in truly incredible weather, and the number of people that 

have come to me to talk about Byrne grants and the drug problem, 

which I know Senator Kohl already talked about, is really astounding. 

They confirmed that significant progress has been made in combatting methamphetamine abuse, which I was very pleased to hear, 

but they also cautioned that heroin is coming into the State and 

in many of these places taking the place of meth, including the 

more rural northern and western parts of the State. Are you seeing 

a similar replacement trend in other States, an influx of heroin replacing meth as meth use is reduced? If so, what is the FBI doing 

to address this? 

Director MUELLER. I had not heard that. I would have to go back 

and check on that. That had not come to my attention. In the wake 

of September 11th, we had to move 900 agents from drug programs 

over to national security. Before I made that move, I did sit down 

with the IACP and various representatives of State and local law 

24 

enforcement, as well as DEA, and discussed it with others at DOJ, 

so some of the slack could have been picked up. But we are at this 

juncture, as a result of what happened September 11th, not participating in addressing the drug problem in this country as we were 

prior to September 11th. We do it in the context of addressing 

gangs and violent crime. 

Senator FEINGOLD. A candid response. It’s concerning, but I just 

thought I’d alert you to what the folks in Wisconsin are telling me 

is happening. 

Director MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Government officials, as well as declassified 

documents issued in response to a FOIA request have recently confirmed that both the CIA and the Pentagon have issued national 

security letters to obtain financial records from financial institutions here in the United States. As I’m sure you are well aware, 

an executive order that has been in place since 1981 places primary responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering with the 

FBI and limits the ability of other intelligence agencies to spy domestically, and that is for good reason. 

In your view, what role should the CIA and military intelligence 

agencies play with respect to domestic intelligence-gathering operations? If other intelligence agencies need information on Americans, aren’t they usually supposed to ask for follow-up from the 

FBI, which would have the expertise and appropriate safeguards in 

place to conduct domestic operations? 

Director MUELLER. I would agree that usually that is the case. 

In most occasions, it does. I’m not certain of the authority which 

accords either the Agency or DoD to issue national security letters. 

I would imagine—and again, I’m not that familiar with it—it relates to perhaps the involvement of their own people in illegal activities, and so it’s probably a very narrow basis for the use of national security letters. I know that in almost all cases we are 

brought in early by NCIS or other agencies when there is a necessity for following up on a lengthy criminal case. I’d have to get 

back to you on that. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. Please do. Thank you for your answers, Mr. Director. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Director, thanks to you. You’ve been there quite a while and 

I think you’ve done a terrific job under very difficult circumstances 

in a very difficult time. As you know, I feel that the FISA Act is 

probably the most important Act of this particular Congress. I’m 

very concerned about the fact that it’s being held up and that the 

retroactive immunity provision seems to be the major hold-up in 

this matter. 

Now, it is true that we can do surveillance up to the time that 

the Act expired, but what do we do with regard to doing surveillance now of foreign terrorists? 

Director MUELLER. Well, Senator, I do believe it’s important to 

pass the FISA statute that was originally passed last August, for 

a couple of reasons. First of all, we need clarity. We need agility 

to utilize the technological information that is flowing across our 

borders in a variety of different ways. To the extent that we do not 

25 

have the clarity, to the extent we do not have the simplicity, we 

are hampered, hindered, in terms of being able to get the information we need as quickly as possible. 

I also, in response to a question from Senator Specter, indicated 

that I do believe we need the assistance, the partnership of the 

communications carriers in order for us to be effective and efficient. 

They are most knowledgeable on the information that are kept in 

their databases and how to utilize the software that they have developed themselves in order to be responsive to our, whether it be 

court-ordered or national security letter, requests. We need that cooperation and partnership in order to get the information we need 

swiftly so we can act on it. 

Senator HATCH. Now, in that regard there are some 40 lawsuits, 

civil lawsuits, that have been filed against telecom companies that 

are classified—or at least the companies are classified—asking for 

hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, put yourself in the shoes of the 

general counsel of any of these telecom companies, assuming we 

know who they are. The government comes to them and asks for 

unrestricted help to help protect this country. You’re the general 

counsel, and they naturally come to you. What’s going to be your 

response? 

Director MUELLER. Well, I think that it’s not just the general 

counsel, it’s the CEO and the Board of Directors that are concerned— 

Senator HATCH. Well, not always. The Board of Directors sometimes isn’t even told about it. Certainly the general counsel is consulted, the CEO, generally. But, I mean, aren’t you going to say, 

hey, I want some protection here? 

Director MUELLER. Yes. Also, I think they’d be concerned about 

publicity, the costs that would be incurred in litigating it in terms 

of depositions, interrogatories. 

Senator HATCH. Right. You’re concerned about third-party discovery. 

Director MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator HATCH. You’re concerned about interrogatories, depositions, document requests, leaking of trade secrets, confidential emails and correspondence, possible disclosure of informant information. All of these, right? 

Director MUELLER. That’s a concern, sir. 

Senator HATCH. And those are likely to be disclosed if we allow 

these lawsuits to go forward when these companies, patriotically, 

volunteer to be able to help here. 

Director MUELLER. I think that would be a concern to general 

counsel. 

Senator HATCH. Is that a fair appraisal? 

Director MUELLER. I think that’s a fair appraisal. 

Senator HATCH. I do, too. The fact of the matter is, if I was general counsel of these companies I would not want to put my foreign 

workers at risk if the company is an international company, and 

most of them are, probably. Right? 

Director MUELLER. In that, I’d have to know more about the scenario to say yes. I can understand that you would not want to put 

your workers at risk. You would not want to put the corporate 

26 

name at risk, and you’d be concerned about the amounts of money 

you’d be spending in the litigation. 

Senator HATCH. Well, and aren’t you also worried about the 

Agency or the Intelligence Committee’s sources and methods being 

disclosed? 

Director MUELLER. That’s an issue, yes. 

Senator HATCH. It’s a big issue, isn’t it? 

Director MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator HATCH. In addition, wouldn’t any verdict in the case reveal whether the government had a particular and specific relationship with the telecom and the specific details as well? 

Director MUELLER. It would unless there were precautions taken. 

I’m not certain what precautions you could take in that circumstances. 

Senator HATCH. Fine. 

Do you know of any of these companies that acted improperly or 

did they act in response to a request from the highest levels of our 

government? 

Director MUELLER. I have not seen an instance where a company 

acted irresponsibly. In the wake of September 11th, communications carriers, within the law, tried to be as helpful as they could 

be. They were responsive to legitimate court orders and requests 

from the government. 

Senator HATCH. Now, regarding the idea of government substitution relating to lawsuits against telecoms, let me just be absolutely clear. This Committee rejected that idea 13:5 in a bipartisan 

vote, and the entire Senate rejected that idea with a 68:30 bipartisan vote. That doesn’t get us away from all of these leaks and disclosures that we’ve been talking about, does it? 

Director MUELLER. No, sir. As we indicated before with Senator 

Specter, we agreed to disagree on that issue. 

Senator HATCH. Okay. 

Now, our national security is greatly dependent on cooperation of 

telecom providers. We can’t do this by ourselves. The Intelligence 

Committee just can’t do it by itself. Yet, many foreign governments 

are in quite the opposite situation, one which gives them an advantage in certain electronic interceptions. Many foreign telecoms are 

run by the respective host government, isn’t that true? 

Director MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator HATCH. Many others have government officials with controlling authority over them. Isn’t that true? 

Director MUELLER. I’m less certain about that. 

Senator HATCH. Well, we don’t have that here. Those countries 

don’t have to worry about telecom cooperation. They can simply 

force the telecoms to cooperate. Is that correct? 

Director MUELLER. That is true in certain countries where the 

telecommunications industries are basically nationalized and are a 

part of the government. 

Senator HATCH. Well, from a law enforcement perspective can 

you elaborate on law enforcement’s dependence on the voluntary 

cooperation of the telecom providers? 

Director MUELLER. As I tried to indicate, we need the active partnership of the telecommunications carriers in this day and age, and 

more perhaps than we have in the past, because of the advent of 

27 

the various means and mechanisms of communicating, whether it 

be cell phones or e-mail in addition to regular telephones. Where 

you have a profusion of carriers in a variety of fora, it is tremendously important that we work together to develop the solutions 

that will provide us the information we need pursuant to appropriate legal process. We have a number of voice-over IP, you have 

a number of other technological advances that are propounded by 

the companies that are growing day in and day out. 

In order to keep ahead with advanced technology and be able— 

and I always underline it, with appropriate legal authority—to get 

that information, we need the partnership of those that are putting 

together these new means of communications and understand how 

they are doing it and how we can best direct our inquiries to get 

the information we need to protect the American public. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Hatch wants to ask one more question 

and I’ll allow that. But I want to be very careful. We’re skirting 

awfully closely to some highly classified material. I know neither 

Senator Hatch, the Director, or anybody else wants to go into that. 

I would just put that cautionary note. 

Director MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator HATCH. I’m trying to be very careful with my questions, 

having been read into these various situations. 

Now, there have been claims that the emergency authority in 

FISA allows for ‘‘instantaneous monitoring of terrorists overseas’’. 

However, this claim falls flat when people understand that it takes 

a great deal of time for the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence to personally approve the request from the field. 

Can you explain how local agents do not have blanket authority 

to begin emergency surveillance under FISA? 

Director MUELLER. There’s a very extensive process which requires coming through Headquarters at FBI, then going to Department of Justice, and then, depending on what path is chosen, the 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 

Senator HATCH. I thank my Chairman for providing me the time. 

Chairman LEAHY. I’d just note, the question of liability of the 

telephone companies, if the telephone company gets a warrant from 

the FISA court then there’s no question of liability is there? 

Director MUELLER. No. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Mueller, and welcome. 

Director MUELLER. Sir. 

Senator KENNEDY. I’d like to give some focus and attention this 

whole issue on the naturalization of many applicants here that are 

for governmental agencies. I think in the time that I’ve been in the 

Senate and the Chairman of the Immigration Committee, one of 

the most moving conversations that I’ve had in talking to individuals who have achieved their citizenship, they talk about the two 

great moments of their life. That is when they receive and are 

sworn in as citizens, and also the first time they go to vote. Those 

are two very special moments. Dr. Martin Luther King said, ‘‘The 

most important civil right of all is the right to vote.’’ 

Now, you know what the backlog is on those individuals that are 

presently in line for naturalization? 

28 

Director MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator KENNEDY. Do you want to tell us what it is? 

Director MUELLER. We’ve got a backlog, I believe, of about 

300,000. 

Senator KENNEDY. Now, DHS, last fall, it was 1.4 million, and 

they have cleared up about 350,000. As I understand it, it’s about 

a million at the present time. That’s my information on that. 

Director MUELLER. That may be DHS figures— 

Senator KENNEDY. DHS figures. 

Director MUELLER [continuing]. On immigration as opposed to 

the Name Check backlog for which we are responsible, which I do 

believe it’s in that range. 

Senator KENNEDY. We have seen over the past—and I’m just 

showing this chart—whenever we’ve had a fee increase, going over 

the history, for naturalization, the numbers of applicants have gone 

up. Going back to 1998, the numbers increased sharply. In 2002, 

it increased sharply. April, 2004, sharply. 2008, the numbers have 

gone up sharply. The reasons for that are multiple. 

But one of the most powerful is the desire of individuals to be 

able to vote. We had an important debate on the immigration 

issues. There were groups that were out there trying to urge people 

to become citizens. But it’s the desire for the right to vote. So we 

know, predictable, because we have seen the increase in the fees 

that have been requested by the agencies, and the total numbers 

for those that wanted to become citizens have gone up, and gone 

up dramatically. 

So at the present time there’s, as I understand it, approximately 

a million that are waiting in line to become citizens, and we have 

an election that’s coming up. We have an election that’s coming up. 

We know, as you just mentioned and commented earlier, that you 

are prepared, one, that you took note that there’s very little derogatory information on those that are even applying for a green card. 

It’s my understanding, historically, that that’s a similar pattern to 

those that are going in for citizenship. 

Given the importance and the significance of the right to vote 

and given the fact that these individuals are all willing to pay the 

increased fees that are necessary, the resources that are necessary, 

why not give the assurance that these individuals are going to be 

cleared so that they will be able to participate and vote in the election? If we’re not going to be able to do it, why not extend to them 

the same kinds of rights that we’re giving to individuals with the 

green cards? 

Director MUELLER. Well, I think I can go so far as to say, we will 

do—we are doing what we can to reduce our backlog of that 300— 

I’ve been told it’s about 346,000—as soon as possible. And as I 

think I indicated before, by July of this year we will expect to have 

gone through a substantial proportion of that backlog, given the additional resources that have been provided over the last 6 months 

by the U.S. CIS, which has enabled us to bring on, as of March of 

this year, 220 cleared contractors. 

We have prioritized, in the sense that those who have been waiting in line longest are given the first priority now, and as I think 

I indicated, by July of this year we will have hopefully eliminated 

all of those who have been waiting in line for more than 2 to 3 

29 

years. It will take, given the number of contractors we have, until 

January of last year to be totally up to date. 

From our perspective, I do believe that we have to go through the 

process. We discuss with our counterparts at DHS periodically how 

we can improve it, whether it be by additional personnel or changing the criterion, but I think we’re on the appropriate path to reduce that backlog. I do not see how we could do it any sooner than 

we are projecting. I know we are going to provide a briefing to your 

staff—I believe it’s on Thursday—on this. Perhaps out of that briefing, we’ll have other ideas that we can adopt. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, your report, in terms of seeing a reduction of this by July, so what is basically the road block, then? Is 

that over the Department of Homeland Security? 

Director MUELLER. Right now it is with us. We’ve brought the 

contractors on. They’re being trained. It’s the numbers. As I think 

I indicated, we get 79,000 name check requests each week and it’s 

bringing the additional personnel on. Then the constraints are, 

we’ve got paper records throughout the country. A determination 

was made early on, in the wake of September 11th, is you didn’t 

just look to determine whether a file was opened under a particular 

name, but we’re required to go and search our files where that 

name shows up, even if that person shows up as a witness or something else. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, as you well know, up to probably 3 or 

4 months ago, even the clearance time was—the average waiting 

time was 7 months. That was the average time. Now you’ve had 

a blip because you had the increase in the cost. We have the election going up. But it was 7 months, as I understand it. 

So with the issue, the question is, there’s increased numbers, but 

whether those individuals are going to have the right and the opportunity to vote in the fall. Obviously, in the fall, for the general 

election, they’ll have to have a 30-day, at least, registration period, 

so it means that it has to be finished by early fall. So what assurances can you give to us—or can you—about those that have been 

in that particular backlog that have applied at the start of this 

year? Will their applications be considered? 

Director MUELLER. Well, we are prioritizing those applications 

that have been pending because they have some mention in our 

files someplace. We are hoping to be through the vast majority of 

that by July. The other thing I can say is, if you apply this week 

to be a citizen, you have a 70 percent chance that, within 30 to 60 

days, it’ll be approved by us. So the vast majority of persons that 

apply to be citizens, we can resolve relatively quickly. 

It’s those that we have a problem with that we have prioritized, 

we’ve brought on new contractors, and which we hope to resolve 

substantially by July, which I do believe would be, from our perspective—we then pass it back to DHS—but from our perspective 

would put it back in the hands of DHS well in anticipation of the 

election. 

Senator KENNEDY. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 

Mr. Director, for being here once again. 

30 

I have two areas of questions. The first deals with interrogation 

methods and waterboarding. As you know, there’s been an intense 

debate in the Senate and elsewhere about the propriety and effectiveness of certain interrogation techniques which many believe to 

be torture. Now, last December, the Washington Post reported this 

debate has also ranged within our most important law enforcement 

and intelligence agencies, and the L.A. Times made a similar report a few months earlier. 

Specifically, the Post revealed the following, that at least one 

high-level suspect—and that was Abu Zubayda—‘‘credibility 

dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding’’, that he ‘‘provided interrogators 

with increasingly dubious information as the CIA’s harsh treatment intensified in late 2002,’’ that ‘‘a rift swiftly developed between the FBI agents who were largely pleased with the progress 

of the questioning and CIA officers’’, that ‘‘FBI Director Robert S. 

Mueller, III,’’ I think you’ve heard of him, ‘‘eventually ordered the 

FBI team to withdraw from the interrogation’’. That was all in the 

Washington Post. Those are all quotes. The L.A. Times reported 

that several FBI agents ‘‘had begun complaining that the CIA-run 

interrogation program amounted to torture.’’ 

So that’s very disturbing stuff, Director, and I want to ask you 

these questions: one, what is your view of the effectiveness, legality, and appropriation of interrogation techniques like waterboarding? And, second, was there a rift between the FBI and CIA 

as described in the Washington Post? 

Director MUELLER. As to the first question, I can tell you that it’s 

been the policy of the FBI over the years not to use any form of 

coercion in the questioning of individuals. That policy was reaffirmed in the wake of September 11th and the direction was 

given not to participate in interrogations where other techniques 

were being used. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Director MUELLER. As to the— 

Senator SCHUMER. I just want to know, any of the quotes I gave, 

are any of them false information? 

Director MUELLER. Well, that would be very difficult for me to 

give a blanket answer because, as least to some of the quotes that 

you are seeking an answer for, is classified and I could not give in 

this forum, or respond. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. 

Well, let me ask you, was there a rift— 

Chairman LEAHY. If I could interject, Senator Schumer. 

Senator SCHUMER. Please. 

Chairman LEAHY. You had to be out of the room, but we had 

gone through all this earlier— 

Senator SCHUMER. I see. 

Chairman LEAHY [continuing]. And that this specific concern on 

the area of classification. Certainly if there are other areas— 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. 

Chairman LEAHY. And certainly feel free to do this some more. 

But if we’re going in—if we have a classified area, we can always 

arrange a time to go into a classified session. 

31 

Senator SCHUMER. You bet. Which I’d like to do. But this will not 

get into classified. 

Was there a rift between the FBI and CIA along the lines described here? 

Director MUELLER. Again, if you’re talking about particular instances, I really feel constrained not to answer in this open forum. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, I don’t see how that would violate any, 

just saying there’s a rift. I’m not asking you to describe the details. 

Director MUELLER. There periodically have been disagreements, 

generally, without any specific—referring to any specific incident. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. 

Director MUELLER. Yes, there have been disagreements as to 

handling of particular witnesses over a period— 

Senator SCHUMER. And you don’t want to answer the question, 

did you order the FBI team to withdraw from the interrogation of 

Abu Zubayda? 

Director MUELLER. Again, I cannot get into that which may— 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. 

Let’s go to the next area, which deals with voter fraud. 

Director MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. Attorney General Ashcroft announced a new 

initiative for ballot access and ballot integrity in 2001. The last 

time you were before this Committee about a year ago, I asked you 

questions about the issue of prosecutions of election fraud. You 

might remember at the time, there were significant allegations, 

never refuted in any satisfactory way, that at least two U.S. Attorneys had been summarily fired because they didn’t do the political 

heavy lifting of pursuing phantom voter fraud cases. Without a 

shred of evidence, David Iglesias, New Mexico, John McKay, I believe it was, of Washington State, were accused of not being vigorous in pursuing cases. 

Moreover, without a shred of evidence, the phantom voter fraud 

has prompted some States to require everyone to present a driver’s 

license or other ID before voting, even though that disenfranchises 

the poor, the old, and many minorities who don’t have IDs. This 

infuriates me because I think this is tampering with the wellspring of democracy for political goals. We can say, well, no, we 

just don’t want voter fraud. Let me quote for you from the political 

director of the Republican Party of Texas, George Bush’s home 

State. It’s where the primaries were yesterday. 

Here’s what he said: ‘‘Requiring photo IDs would cause enough 

of a drop-off in legitimate voting to add 3 percent to the Republican 

vote.’’ That’s an astonishing statement. I believe, it seems to me 

logical, that that’s what motivates some of this voter fraud stuff, 

it’s to prevent the poor and minorities from voting. To me, it’s despicable and it’s something I intend to pursue. 

So let me see if there’s really a problem here, because the record 

reflects no problem. I’d like to ask you about the results, if any, 

that the Justice Department has gotten in 6 years of this ballot integrity and access initiative. Particularly, I want to ask you about 

in-person voter fraud. In other words, the type of alleged fraud that 

can be cured by the requirement of a photo ID. 

When I say ‘‘in-person fraud’’ I’m talking just about individuals 

who show up at the polling place, try to impersonate a registered 

32 

voter in order to cast a ballot wrongly. In the 6 years since the initiative was launched, can you tell me how many investigations of 

in-person voter fraud has the FBI conducted? 

Director MUELLER. Sir, I’m happy to sit here and respond to 

questions, but that was not a question that was a statement that 

you made that is irrelevant to my role in terms of head of the FBI. 

Senator SCHUMER. I didn’t ask you to adopt the statement. 

Director MUELLER. I understand. 

Senator SCHUMER. I asked you— 

Director MUELLER. I’d be happy to answer questions. 

Senator SCHUMER [continuing]. How many investigations of inperson voter fraud the FBI conducted. 

Director MUELLER. I’d have to get back to you on that. 

Senator SCHUMER. Could you get back to me in writing within 

a week? 

Director MUELLER. I can get back to you, sir. Yes. I’d have to find 

out where it is and to what extent we need to research that to get 

back to you. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. 

The Brennan Center, nonpartisan, did an analysis of all 95 voter 

fraud cases that DOJ brought between 2002 and 2005. They found 

that none of these cases was a case of in-person voter fraud that 

could have been prevented by an ID requirement. Do you have any 

reason to dispute that conclusion? 

Director MUELLER. I am not at all familiar with that study. 

Senator SCHUMER. Okay. If, again, you could get me that answer. 

And I’d like it within a week, because we have another hearing on 

this subject. I think it’s really important. If this is such a big issue 

that States are busy passing voter ID, it’s a huge case before the 

Supreme Court right now that has Bush v. Gore overtones, in my 

judgment—you don’t have to agree—I think we need those answers, and we need them rather soon. So if you would get those 

to me quickly, I would very much appreciate it. 

Director MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome back, Director Mueller. It’s good to have you with us. 

Following up on some of the discussion we’ve had about the 

telecom immunity issues, should the good faith of telecoms be an 

important factor in Congress’ determination about immunity here? 

Director MUELLER. I have not given any thought to that issue. 

I’d have to think through that before I gave you an answer. 

Senator SPECTER. It’s asserted fairly broadly around this room, 

around this building, as a rationale in favor of immunity, that because they acted in good faith—you used the term, I think, earlier, 

patriotically. Is that— 

Director MUELLER. I would focus on other issues. It’s hard to 

quantify good faith, in some sense. Yes. I talk about partnerships 

and the necessity for a partnership in order to effectively address 

the threats that we have today. I would focus more on the down 

sides, substantial down sides, of not providing immunity, retroactive immunity, that I see as being the principal rationale for the 

33 

legislation that had come out of this Committee, as opposed to the 

good faith—yes, the good faith of the—I believe good faith is important, but I’m not certain where it fits in the calculus as to the rationale for going forward with litigation. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, let me ask it less from the point of view 

of going forward with the litigation, but us going forward with 

the— 

Director MUELLER. Legislation, I meant. Not litigation. 

Senator SPECTER. Then we’re together. 

If it were determined that telecoms that may have participated 

in revealing private information about Americans to the government did not act in good faith, should that affect our judgment or 

should we go ahead, irrespective of the fact that they did not act 

in good faith? 

Director MUELLER. I think the legislation should go forward, but 

I— 

Senator SPECTER. Even if they did not act in good faith? 

Director MUELLER. I don’t want to excuse the failure to act in 

good faith. If there’s some evidence or indication they did not act 

in good faith, then I do think there should be some mechanism for 

addressing it. 

Senator SPECTER. Yes. 

Director MUELLER. But I’m not certain that the mechanism 

should be the failure to produce the legislation that I think it necessary. 

Senator SPECTER. Isn’t the mechanism for determining the good 

faith of a party of litigation traditionally judicial? 

Director MUELLER. Yes. But there are other mechanisms. The Inspector Generals of various agencies can look at not only just the 

actions of the agencies, but also the actions of the private industry 

as they intersect with the Agency. So I believe there are other 

mechanisms that can be put into place to assure that there is no 

abuse of that legislation that may be passed. 

Senator SPECTER. But if you have a party in the litigation whose 

good faith is at issue, isn’t the judicial forum the traditional forum 

for that determination, not an IG someplace else? 

Director MUELLER. It is one of the fora, yes. 

Senator SPECTER. In fact, in the history of the Republic has there 

ever been an occasion that you’re aware of where Congress has 

stepped into ongoing litigation and made its own determination of 

the good faith of a litigant? 

Director MUELLER. Well, phrased in that way, I don’t know. I’ve 

not studied it and I don’t know. 

Senator SPECTER. Yes. I can’t think of one either, which is why 

I asked the question. The concern I have is compounded by the 

fact, is it not the case that the majority of Members of Congress 

have not even been allowed to see the relevant materials that 

would enable this institution, the Congress, to make an informed 

decision about whether or not telecom companies that may have 

participated in this activity did so in good faith? 

Director MUELLER. I don’t know to what extent there have been 

briefings on the Hill, although I would say that in many of the 

areas the Intelligence Committee knows about, learns about, hears 

about, result in legislation in which the various members of the 

34 

House or the Senate did not have full knowledge of all the information that led the Intelligence Committee to request particular 

pieces of legislation, apart from this particular piece of legislation. 

Senator SPECTER. Let me go to another topic and follow up a little bit on where Senator Leahy and Senator Schumer went earlier. 

I’d like to ask you to put you in a hypothetical situation. It is 8:02 

in the morning of April 19, 1995. The FBI has intercepted Timothy 

McVeigh. The FBI is aware that there is a device that will detonate 

1 hour later, 9:02, April 19, 1995. You don’t know where that device is. You have an hour. Do you waterboard Timothy McVeigh? 

Setting aside questions about voluntariness, setting aside questions 

about admissibility, you’re not trying to get legal evidence now, 

you’re on a public safety mission to prevent an explosion. Do you 

waterboard Timothy McVeigh? 

Director MUELLER. I would prefer not to answer hypotheticals. 

That’s the difficult question you ask. I am quite careful to say, I 

believe, that our techniques and our protocols are sufficient and appropriate to our mission, given our mission in the United States, 

which is somewhat different than the mission of others, whether it 

be the military or the CIA. 

Senator SPECTER. In that circumstance— 

Director MUELLER. That’s the horror that one—that’s the horror 

that one would not want to see. I would hesitate to—I would hesitate— 

Senator SPECTER. Would you waterboard? 

Director MUELLER. No. I don’t feel that I can give an answer at 

this juncture to a hypothetical like that because of what may be 

drawn from an answer from that hypothetical. 

Senator SPECTER. I am just saying— 

Director MUELLER. I am comfortable in telling us what our policies are, what I believe our policy should be given our mission, but 

I am uncomfortable in answering a hypothetical along those lines. 

Senator SPECTER. It could happen today. 

Director MUELLER. It could happen. It could happen. 

Senator SPECTER. How would you respond? 

Director MUELLER. Don’t know. 

Senator SPECTER. You don’t know how you would respond? 

Director MUELLER. I do not know how I would respond because 

there are a number of factors I’d take into account. I’m not certain 

it would be my response alone, whether the response of the President, or others. And so I hesitate to—I understand the hypothetical, but I hesitate to respond in one way or another given the 

structure of facts you’ve given. 

Senator SPECTER. So you cannot rule out that, under those circumstances, FBI agents would waterboard an American for that 

kind of information? 

Director MUELLER. I’m not going to speculate as to what would 

be done at that point in time. I can tell you that I would, in every 

instance, endeavor to utilize our protocol to get the information 

that’s necessary to save those lives. 

Senator SPECTER. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

35 

I was just going to ask another question, but Senator Cardin is 

here. 

Senator Cardin. 

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

Mr. Director, I regret I couldn’t be here for all the hearing. We 

had some conflicts. But I just wanted to spend a moment with you 

talking about two issues that I believe fall under your priorities 

under civil rights enforcement, and that is the preparations that 

you are making in regards to this coming election, in regards to potential voter fraud. We saw, in the 2006 elections, efforts made to 

try to suppress the minority vote. I have raised those issues, and 

other members of the Senate have raised these issues with the Department of Justice. 

I just really want to emphasize that, as we go into this election 

season, if Federal laws are violated in an effort to try to suppress 

participation, that the FBI will be there to assist in making sure 

that our laws are complied with. I think a signal given by your 

Agency at this point perhaps could have impact on conduct during 

this election season and could be a healthy thing for our country. 

The second area I would like you to comment on would be the 

enforcement of hate crimes laws. We saw that noose incidents have 

increased in this country, the number of episodes has increased in 

many communities, including in my home State of Maryland, and 

I would hope that the FBI would be very vigilant here in conducting investigations to make clear that such conduct will not be 

tolerated in the United States. 

I know that you’ve talked about a lot of your priorities today, but 

these are two areas that I think your Agency has a particular ability and expertise that local law enforcement cannot do on its own, 

and would ask that you be mindful of these two areas and try to 

direct the necessary resources. 

Director MUELLER. Well, with regard to the first one relating to 

the election coming up and voter fraud, whenever there is an election not only is there the FBI standing by to investigate allegations, but also the Justice Department has an Assistant U.S. Attorney in every district who has set aside time and actually has been 

designated as the person to handle those, both the agents as well 

as the—and in particular, the U.S. Attorneys have some training 

that they’ve received in order to handle appropriately allegations 

that may come in. I would expect this election to be no different 

than those that we’ve handled in the past, and we will have persons standing by to appropriately investigate allegations. 

As to— 

Senator CARDIN. On that point, just to underscore. 

Director MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. And I’m very happy to hear that. To the extent 

that that becomes well known, it can affect, I think, the conduct 

in communities. So I would just urge you to not be shy in letting 

people know that those resources are being made available, to 

make it clear that violations of Federal law will not be tolerated. 

Director MUELLER. That’s true, and we do that. But I will tell 

you, having had some experience with this, there are occasions 

where one candidate thinks that they’ll get ahead by making allegations against another candidate as to voter fraud. The one thing 

36 

you don’t want is a headline saying candidate X is being investigated as a result of the allegation that comes from the opponent. 

So we have to be—in doing our investigations we have to be—have 

credible evidence that warrants us moving forward, but we will be 

standing by and investigating it. 

Senator CARDIN. I agree with that point. But when literature is 

sent out to minority communities suggesting that they may be arrested if they try to vote with unpaid parking tickets or where information is sent out in minority communities giving them the 

wrong date of the election, I think those types of activities are not 

partisan political areas that your involvement could have an impact on the election, but are clear indications of people that have 

gone over the edge and need to be dealt with. 

Director MUELLER. And those are the type of allegations we 

would be investigating. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Now, on the second point relating to the noose instances of hate 

crime issues? 

Director MUELLER. Our number-two criminal priority is civil 

rights, and hate crimes falls within that ambit. To the extent that 

there are allegations wherever in the country, we will do a preliminary investigation and then consult with the Civil Rights Division 

of the Department of Justice to determine whether any further investigation is warranted in any of these incidents that you mentioned. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. I just really want to emphasize the point that we’ve seen an alarming increase in the use of 

a noose in communities, which of course is the iconic symbol of bigotry in our criminal justice system over a long period of time. I just 

would urge us to get ahead of this, particularly with the resources 

of your Agency, to make it clear we won’t tolerate that type of conduct for those who are violating our rights and the civil liberties 

of all the people of our country. 

Director MUELLER. We do that. We have—it’s—we have Citizens 

Academies at each of our field offices in which we bring in groups 

of citizens and have them come in for a number of weeks and learn 

the FBI, and these are areas in which we explore within Citizens 

Academies our responsibilities in this regard. We use that and 

other mechanisms to inform persons as to our responsiveness to 

such crimes. 

Senator CARDIN. And just, last, I would ask that you would keep 

the Committee informed in both of these areas as activities unfold 

so that we are informed as to what you are doing in regards to the 

rise of instances involving nooses and the hate crimes issues, as 

well as problems that may develop that look like are a pattern during this election season. 

Director MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I’ll just be brief on a couple things. I was a co-sponsor of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Act that gives the Justice Department, and the FBI, especially, long-overdue tools to solve unsolved 

murders from the civil rights era. The Till bill passed the House 

37 

of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was 

unanimously voted out of this Committee. The President and the 

White House have urged its passage. 

One Senator has put a hold on it. He expressed his belief that 

the Justice Department does not need additional money to solve 

these cases. But I understand from the press your Agency has identified over 100 civil rights cold cases that merit additional review. 

Do you share my concern that the FBI and the Department of Justice could use these extra resources on these cold cases, or old cases 

from the civil rights era? 

Director MUELLER. Yes, sir. I believe we have been canvassing 

our field offices to determine what cases might be reopened. We 

identified 95 such cases, opened on approximately half of them, and 

are now down to 26 cases that warrant further investigation. Those 

are 26 cases we will be putting our agents, analysts, and professional staff on. And it competes with other priorities, so we could 

always benefit from support in that particular area. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, we’ll continue. Both the Republicans and 

Democrats who have supported this will continue to try to get the 

Emmett Till bill passed. I’m not naive enough to think that that 

was an era long gone and will never come back. I’ve always felt 

that in these areas the fact that people know that eventually the 

law catches up with them, whether on the lynchings, the burnings, 

the murders, whatever, that that serves a deterrent factor. 

I think many of the crimes that we saw during that era were in 

a time when people thought they could act with impunity and immunity. I think we have to demonstrate, no matter who you are in 

this country, you cannot break the laws of that nature, you cannot 

do those kind of things without the long arm of the law catching 

up. I applaud you for those areas you’ve been able to work in and 

we’ll continue to try to get you the resources. 

Director MUELLER. If I might just add, that effort resulted in the 

successful prosecution of Seale last year, as you are well aware, for 

the 1965—’65—killing of Charles Moore and, I think it was, Henry 

Dee. So justice was some time in coming, but it did indeed come. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I was delighted to see that happen. 

Congress has been attempting, as you know, to update the FISA, 

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. When we ended up in negotiations on it, both the White House and the Republicans boycotted the negotiations. I state that as a matter of fact, not as a 

partisan thing. The law lapsed, even though there was an attempt 

to continue it. 

In the last few days, I’ve been willing to enter back into negotiations and I’m hoping the rhetoric will be lowered. When, on the one 

hand, the White House will say, if this lapses we lose all our surveillance, and on the other hand, we’re not willing to accept a continuation of the law. It’s Alice In Wonderland. 

But I find that surveillance that is addressed has continued. In 

fact, the only circumstance I am aware of in which wire taps were 

uncovered—you and I have discussed this—was the report by the 

Justice Department Inspector General where the FBI failed to pay 

telephone bills in foreign intelligence undercover cases. Some wire 

taps were then cut off. Bills were being paid late. There was not 

38 

an adequate system for accounting on these confidential case funds. 

We’ve discussed this a little bit already in today’s hearings. 

What’s being done to make sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen? Because aside from all the political rhetoric, you can’t have 

the same government saying, gosh, we’re afraid wire taps are being 

cut off. But it turns out the same government hasn’t paid the bill, 

so of course wire taps were cut off. 

Director MUELLER. Well, I would be the first to say we did not 

have an adequate system of assuring that the bills were paid on 

time. I think in excess of 40 of our offices had no problem whatsoever. There were several others that did have a problem. We have 

tracked down the indications where—the cases where a wire was 

cut off, supposedly as—I think as a result of a payment of a bill, 

and it results to two instances, neither of which adversely affected 

the investigation, and the lapse was fairly short. So, it should not 

have happened. We have put into place new mechanisms to assure 

that all the bills are paid on time. But the adverse impact as a result of, in these two instances, the line going down for a matter of 

days was minimal, at best. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

You and I discussed the bullet lead analysis problem, where the 

National Academy of Sciences had issued a report discrediting the 

bullet lead analysis done at the FBI lab. You then discontinued 

that. We’ve talked about the fact both of us had the privilege to 

serve as prosecutors. One of the things you never—you certainly 

want to convict the guilty, but what you want to make sure, is you 

don’t have flawed evidence that convicts the innocent. 

I understand you’re working with the Innocence Project to release cases where the FBI bullet lead analysis was done so they 

can find out whether that was flawed evidence or whether that 

brought about the conviction. Have you shared the list of cases that 

have been possibly tainted by faulty bullet lead analysis with the 

Innocence Project? 

Director MUELLER. Well, let me, if I could, say by way of background, Mr. Chairman, we did commission a study back in 2003– 

2004 to look at the bullet lead analysis. A study did come back and 

say, of the three prongs of bullet lead analysis, the analysis part 

of it, as well as the laboratory part of it, were appropriate, but it 

was the possibility in the statistical part of it that could be overstated that resulted in us determining, in 2005, that we would no 

longer use that, that particular mechanism. 

At that time we did notify the various defense counsel organizations. We notified the various law enforcement entities back 

through 1996 who had requested us to do that, and took some steps 

to—substantial steps, I would think—to alert those who might be 

affected. 

We have gone back now and are putting together a list of those 

particular cases where we did testify, trying to pull the transcripts 

to determine whether or not the FBI laboratory witness overstated 

the statistical import of the evidence, and we will work with the 

Innocence Project to assure that that information is provided to the 

appropriate person, whether it be defense counsel, prosecutor, the 

like. I cannot tell you at this juncture the numbers, but we do intend to work with the Innocence Project on that. 

39 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. If you could have your staff just 

keep my staff apprised as that goes on, I’d appreciate it. 

Director MUELLER. We will do that, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. I commend you for looking back. 

Unless you want to add something to this enjoyable morning 

you’ve had here, Director Mueller— 

Director MUELLER. No. The only thing, I do want to thank you 

and the Committee for the recognition that it’s the people of the 

FBI that, day in and day out, regardless of the challenge, whether 

it be counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, violent crime, public 

corruption, or serving the public well, I appreciate those comments 

because it is true. We are lucky to be able to work with such fine 

men and women. So, thank you for those comments. Thank you for 

your support and suggestions. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m. the Committee was recessed.] 

[Questions and answers and submission for the record follow.] 

40 


53361.001
41 


53361.002
42 


53361.003
43 


53361.004
44 


53361.005
45 


53361.006
46 


53361.007
47 


53361.008
48 


53361.009
49 


53361.010
50 


53361.011
51 


53361.012
52 


53361.013
53 


53361.014
54 


53361.015
55 


53361.016
56 


53361.017
57 


53361.018
58 


53361.019
59 


53361.020
60 


53361.021
61 


53361.022
62 


53361.023
63 


53361.024
64 


53361.025
65 


53361.026
66 


53361.027
67 


53361.028
68 


53361.029
69 


53361.030
70 


53361.031
71 


53361.032
72 


53361.033
73 


53361.034
74 


53361.035
75 


53361.036
76 


53361.037
77 


53361.038
78 


53361.039
79 


53361.040
80 


53361.041
81 


53361.042
82 


53361.043
83 


53361.044
84 


53361.045
85 


53361.046
86 


53361.047
87 


53361.048
88 


53361.049
89 


53361.050
90 


53361.051
91 


53361.052
92 


53361.053
93 


53361.054
94 


53361.055
95 

Æ 


53361.056