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

65–188 PDF 2012

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 16, 2011 

Serial No. 112–85 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM REED, New York 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 16, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3 

WITNESS 

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

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

III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation ................................................... 57 

(1) 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Lamar Smith (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Gallegly, 

Chabot, Pence, King, Franks, Gohmert, Poe, Reed, Griffin, Marino, 

Gowdy, Ross, Adams, Quayle, Conyers, Scott, Watt, Jackson Lee, 

Waters, Quigley, Chu, Deutch, and Wasserman Schultz. 

Staff present: (Majority) Sean McLaughlin, Chief of Staff and 

General Counsel; Allison Halataei, Deputy Chief of Staff/Parliamentarian; Crystal Jezierski, Counsel; Arthur Radford Baker, 

Counsel; (Minority) Perry Appelbaum, Staff Director and Chief 

Counsel; and Sam Sokol, Counsel. 

Mr. SMITH. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

And we welcome everyone here today, Members, and particularly 

the Director of the FBI, Director Mueller, and we appreciate his 

willingness to testify today. 

I am going to recognize myself for an opening statement, then 

recognize the Ranking Member for an opening statement. 

Welcome, Director Mueller. I very much appreciate your being 

here today. Apparently this will be your last appearance before the 

House Judiciary Committee as FBI Director. We all thank you for 

your almost 10 years of dedicated public service. 

Director Mueller began his tenure as FBI Director only days before the September 11th terrorist attacks. Since then, he has led 

the bureau through an ever-changing threat environment requiring 

a historic transformation of the agency. 

Under his leadership, the FBI has successfully thwarted numerous terrorist plots, including plots to bomb New York’s subway system, to destroy skyscrapers in Texas and Illinois, and to kill dozens 

of innocent Americans at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon last December. 

Terrorists remain intent on carrying out their plots to destroy 

America. Just last month, a 20-year-old student from Saudi Arabia 

was arrested in my home State of Texas for attempting to use 

weapons of mass destruction. 

2 

The terrorist threat may have changed, but it has not diminished. Our counter-terrorism laws must keep pace with the evolving threats. 

It is imperative that Congress reauthorize the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Section 206 roving authority, section 

215 business records, and the lone wolf definition are critical to apprehending terrorists before they strike. 

Unfortunately, the myths surrounding the PATRIOT Act often 

overshadow the truth. As Congress considers the reauthorization of 

these provisions, we must set aside fiction and focus on the facts. 

These are key investigative tools of the FBI. The most recent example may be that section 215 business records authority was used 

to thwart last month’s plot in Texas. 

In the last decade, dramatic advances in technology have provided Americans with a wide variety of communication and research devices, but these new technologies have also enabled terrorists, spies, and criminals to operate with greater anonymity and 

less chance of detection. 

As a result, our law enforcement agencies may increasingly find 

themselves in the dark. Simply put, the technical capability of law 

enforcement agencies needs to keep pace with new technologies. 

Congress initially addressed this growing gap in 1994 when it 

passed legislation enabling law enforcement agents to conduct 

court-approved electronic surveillance. Since then, technology has 

continued to progress and we have new communication devices, 

new services, and new modes of communication. Yet, Federal law 

has not kept pace and does not address the contemporary challenge 

that law enforcement agencies face when attempting to intercept 

electronic communications. 

‘‘Going dark’’ is not about expanding the legal authority to conduct surveillance. It is about the inability to collect information 

that a judge has already authorized. 

Congress must develop a solution that balances privacy interests, 

ensures continued innovation, and secures networks from unauthorized interceptions. 

Technology also has facilitated a dramatic increase in the proliferation and exchange of child pornography. Child pornography 

was almost eradicated in America by the 1980’s. Unfortunately, the 

Internet has reversed this accomplishment. Today pedophiles can 

purchase, view, or exchange this disturbing material with near impunity. In the last 12 years, electronic service providers have reported almost 8 million images and videos of sexually exploited 

children. Child pornography on the Internet may be our fastest 

growing crime, increasing an average of 150 percent a year. That 

must stop. Better data retention will assist law enforcement officers with the investigation of child pornography and other Internetbased crimes. 

When investigators develop leads that might save a child or apprehend a pornographer, their efforts should not be frustrated because vital record were destroyed. Every piece of discarded information could be the footprint of a child predator. 

I look forward to hearing from Director Mueller today on these 

and other issues of importance to the FBI and the country. 

That concludes my opening statement. 

3 

And the gentleman from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the 

Judiciary Committee, is recognized for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Of course, top of the morning to our soon-to-be-departing-thisyear Director Mueller. 

We almost need a closed door session because some of the things 

we would like to talk about—well, maybe we might want to have 

one before you leave. It is not until September anyway. 

The things that are uppermost in my mind are these. I would 

like to talk with you about your experiences here nearly a decade, 

and actually longer, in the FBI but as its leader nearly a decade. 

I am interested in how we can reduce gun violence in this country. 

I am deeply concerned about how we can more effectively control 

the drug epidemic in this country. And I am very interested in how 

we can improve and continue to improve our relations with the 

Muslim citizens in this country. 

And so I look forward to your presentation and your review. 

We have had a good relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation under your leadership. You have been available to us. 

We have been candid in our discussions across the years. Well, I 

guess it was a predecessor of yours that required that we put term 

limits on your job, but I join the Chairman in welcoming you here 

and I am sure all of the Members of the Judiciary Committee do 

as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

We are pleased to welcome today’s witness, Robert S. Mueller, 

III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Director 

Mueller was nominated by President George W. Bush and began 

his term as the sixth director of the FBI on September 4, 2001. 

Director Mueller has a long and distinguished record of public 

service. Early in his career he served for 12 years as a prosecutor 

in the United States Attorney offices. After serving as a partner at 

the Boston law firm of Hill and Barlow, Director Mueller returned 

to the Justice Department in 1989, serving first as an assistant to 

the Attorney General. The following year, he took charge of its 

Criminal Division. 

In 1998, Director Mueller was named United States Attorney in 

San Francisco, and he held that position until 2001. 

Director Mueller is a graduate of Princeton University, earned 

his Master’s degree at New York University and his law degree 

from the University of Virginia School of law. 

He is also a decorated Marine, having received the Bronze Star, 

two Navy commendation medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. 

The witness’s written statement will be made a part of the record 

in its entirety, and Director Mueller, once again, we welcome you 

today and look forward to your statement. 

4 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, 

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Mr. MUELLER. Good morning to you, Chairman Smith, Ranking 

Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee. And I thank you 

for the opportunity to appear here today before you. 

Today the Bureau faces unprecedented and increasingly complex 

challenges. We must identify and stop terrorists before they launch 

attacks against our citizens. We must protect our Government, 

businesses, and critical infrastructure from espionage and from the 

potentially devastating impact of cyber-based attacks. We must 

root out public corruption by white-collar crime, organized crime, 

stop child predators, and protect civil rights. We must also ensure 

that we are building a structure that will carry the FBI into the 

future by continuing to enhance our intelligence capabilities, improve our business practices and training, and develop the next 

generation of Bureau leaders. We must do all of this while respecting the authority given to us under the Constitution, upholding 

civil liberties and the rule of law. 

The challenges of carrying out this mission have never been 

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

extraordinary range of threats from terrorism, espionage, cyber attacks, and traditional crime. Let me discuss just a few examples. 

Last October, there were the attempted bombings on air cargo 

flights bound for the United States from Yemen, directed by alQaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. And last May there was the attempted car bombing in Times Square, aided by TTP in Pakistan. 

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

In addition, there were a number of serious terrorist plots by 

lone offenders. Their targets ranged from a Martin Luther King 

Day march in Spokane, Washington to a Christmas tree lighting 

ceremony in Portland, Oregon to subway stations in Washington, 

D.C., and motives and methods of these plots, although varied, 

make these some of the most difficult threats to combat. 

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

the arrests of 10 Russian spies known as illegals who secretly 

blended into American society in order to clandestinely gather information for Russia. 

And we continue to make significant arrests for economic espionage as foreign interests seek to steal controlled technologies. The 

cyber intrusion at Google last year highlighted the potential danger 

from a sophisticated Internet attack. Along with the countless 

other cyber incidents, these attacks threatened to undermine the 

integrity of the Internet and to victimize the businesses and people 

who rely on it. 

In our criminal investigations, we continue to uncover billion dollar corporate and mortgage frauds that weaken the financial system and victimize investors, homeowners, and ultimately taxpayers. 

We also exposed health care scams involving false billings and 

fake treatments that endangered patients and fleeced Government 

health care programs. 

5 

The extreme violence across our southwest border continues to 

impact the United States, as we saw the murders last March of 

American consulate workers in Juarez, Mexico and the shooting 

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

agents in Mexico. 

And throughout the year, there were numerous corruption cases 

that undermined the public trust and countless violent gang cases 

that continue to take innocent lives and endanger our communities. 

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

American people has never been broader and demands on the FBI 

have never been greater. And to carry out these responsibilities, we 

need Congress’ continued support more than ever. 

Let me briefly discuss two areas where Congress could help the 

FBI with its mission. 

First, we do encourage Congress to reauthorize the three FISA 

tools that are due to expire later this spring. The roving intercept 

authority is necessary for our national security mission and provides us with tools similar to what we use in criminal cases already. The business records authority permits us to obtain key documents and data in our national security cases, including our most 

serious terrorism matters. And the lone wolf provision is important 

to combat the growing threat from lone offenders and homegrown 

radicalization. These authorities, all of which are conducted with 

full court review and approval, are critical to our national security. 

Second, the FBI and other Government agencies, as the Chairman alluded to, are now facing a growing gap in our ability to execute court-approved intercepts of certain modern communications 

technologies. We call this the problem of ‘‘going dark.’’ With the acceleration of new Internet-based technologies, we are increasingly 

unable to collect valuable information and evidence in cases ranging from child exploitation and pornography to organized crime and 

drug trafficking to terrorism and espionage. Let me emphasize that 

collecting this evidence has been approved by a court. But because 

the laws have not kept pace with changes in technology, we often 

cannot obtain the information responsive to the court order. And 

we look forward to working on this issue with this Committee and 

with Congress in the future months. 

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

budget resolutions on the FBI and our workforce. 

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

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

must continue to hire, train, and develop the best, brightest agents, 

analysts, and staff to meet the complex threats we face now and 

in the future. Under the current levels in the continuing resolution, 

the Bureau will have to absorb over $200 million in cuts, and without any changes, the current CR will leave us with over 1,100 vacant positions by the end of the year. And put simply, these cuts 

would undermine our efforts to transform the FBI and potentially 

to carry out our mission. 

I appreciate the opportunity to review the FBI’s recent work in 

responding to the far-reaching threats we face today, and I also 

want to thank the Committee for your continued support on behalf 

of the men and women at the FBI. And of course, I will be happy 

6 

to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mueller follows:] 


Mueller-1.eps
7 


Mueller-2.eps
8 


Mueller-3.eps
9 


Mueller-4.eps
10 


Mueller-5.eps
11 


Mueller-6.eps
12 


Mueller-7.eps
13 


Mueller-8.eps
14 


Mueller-9.eps
15 


Mueller-10.eps
16 


Mueller-11.eps
17 


Mueller-12.eps
18 


Mueller-13.eps
19 


Mueller-14.eps
20 


Mueller-15.eps
21 


Mueller-16.eps
22 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Director Mueller. 

I will recognize myself for initial questions. 

My first one, Director Mueller, goes to the need and importance 

of data retention by Internet service providers. There are a large 

number of Internet-based crimes today, particularly child pornography. I think probably the fastest growing crimes in America 


Mueller-17.eps
23 

today are identity theft and child pornography which, as I mentioned in my opening statement, is increasing at about 150 percent 

a year, as it has been for the last 15 years. 

Would you let us know how you think better and perhaps longer 

data retention might be helpful to addressing some of those kinds 

of crimes? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, a number of years ago, for instance, when 

it comes to communications, telephone companies were the only 

means of communications. Records were kept by the telephone 

companies principally for billing purposes, and they were readily 

accessible in response to court orders requesting those records. 

With all the electronic communications in this day and age and 

companies that provide services that are not primarily communications providers, we have difficulty often in obtaining records from 

these particular companies. States in Europe, others, have a 

records retention statute that requires the retention of records for 

a period of time. We find in our investigations historical records 

are often, not in every case but I would say, historical records are 

important to our ability to develop an investigation to the point 

where we can arrest, indict, and hopefully convict that individuals 

who are responsible for the activity. 

Mr. SMITH. Great. 

Mr. MUELLER. I have talked about records retention in the past 

and am supportive of that form of legislation today. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you and that is helpful. 

I would also like to ask you about the PATRIOT Act. You have 

told us why it is important, and I don’t want to paint too bleak of 

a picture here, but what would happen if the three provisions that 

are due to expire, I think May 27th, are not made permanent? How 

would it hamper your investigations if we did not have those three 

provisions? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me start with the three provisions at issue. I 

will start with the business records provision. This enables us to 

go to the FISA Court, when we have a showing of relevance to an 

investigation, to obtain basic records that are necessary to provide 

predication for further investigation that are more intrusive, for instance, records from a WalMart, or in the case of Azazi where an 

individual is seeking to obtain hydrogen peroxide for an explosive 

device, we would want to get the records of those purchases. A person who goes to WalMart to buy components of an IED. We would 

want to get those records from WalMart. 

Today we get those records in an international terrorism investigation by going to the FISA Court and with the 215 provision 

having the ability for the court to order the production of those 

records. 

And it is not just those records I have identified. There are travel 

records. There are records relating to rental cars. All of these types 

of records are not covered by national security letters or covered by 

215. We have used that provision over 380 times since 2001, and 

so it is an important provision. 

The second one relates to roving wiretaps. Where we are able to 

show that an individual—it may be a foreign intelligence officer— 

is seeking to evade surveillance by buying throw-away cell phones 

in order to change cell phone activity on a daily basis, we are able 

24 

to go to the court under the current provisions and have the FISA 

Court direct that we are able to focus on that individual regardless 

of the particular cell phone that individual is using at a particular 

time. Otherwise, we have to go back to the court daily or weekly 

to get a re-up of those orders, and consequently, it is a great deal 

of additional manpower that would be required were we not to 

have the roving wiretap provision. 

The other point I would say is on the criminal side of the house, 

we have had this for any number of years where we have the roving wiretap capability, and we have used it successfully on the 

criminal side and it makes no sense in my mind to have it on the 

criminal side but not on the national security side. 

Lastly, the lone wolf provision was put into place to respond to 

the issue relating to Moussaoui, the individual who we believe back 

in advance of September 11 may have been here to be one of the 

pilots who was arrested by immigration services. The statute required that we show that he was affiliated with a particular terrorist group. We could not make that showing. We could not get 

the FISA order to look at his laptop. This provision was passed to 

address that particular incident. It is directed at non-U.S. citizens. 

It allows us to get a FISA warrant on an individual who is a terrorist but we cannot prove is affiliated with any particular group. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Director Mueller. I am going to squeeze 

in one more question. Maybe you can answer it very briefly. 

Considering that we are in an unclassified setting, real quickly 

what do you think are the most urgent terrorist threats we face in 

America today? Is there a one, two, three? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say the top two are probably threats out 

of the FATA, out of Pakistan-Afghanistan border area from alQaeda. Shahzad, the Times Square bomber—and there have been 

a number of other individuals coming out of training in that particular area that have posed a threat and continue to pose a threat. 

Secondly, and almost equal, is the threat from al-Qaeda in the 

Arabian Peninsula where you have seen the Christmas Day bombing of the year-plus ago, the attempt to come into Detroit and blow 

up the plane, as well as the two printers that were picked up in 

Dubai and in the UK recently. They were on their way to the 

United States and, if they had not been intercepted, would have 

blown up those planes. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. MUELLER. The last two I would say are Al-Shabaab in Somalia and what is a substantial concern is a radicalization over the 

Internet of persons, lone wolves, in the United States. That is the 

full view of that threat picture. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Director Mueller. 

The gentleman from Michigan, the most recent Chairman emeritus of the Committee, is recognized for his questions. 

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

In our area in Detroit, we are very concerned about improving 

the relationship of the Muslims, the Arab community with law enforcement. And we are still reeling over that October 2009 shooting 

where an FBI agent killed a person with 21 bullets. There was an 

undercover informant involved. And there is a continuing swell, undercurrent of criticism about some of the undercover informants of 

25 

the FBI stirring up trouble in the Arab American community, almost as provocateurs. That is a very disturbing situation that I 

hope is not going on in other communities across the country. 

Your comments? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me start by saying since September 11th, 

every one of our field offices, 56 field offices, has had extensive outreach to the Muslim American, Arab American, Sikh American 

communities with direction from headquarters to do everything you 

can to develop relationships for individuals and entities associated 

with those communities. And across the country, I think those relationships are very, very good. 

I am familiar with the incident to which you refer in Detroit. I 

think everyone who has looked at that incident believed that the 

response was appropriate under the circumstances. 

And lastly, with regard to the use of undercover operations, we 

have used these for probably the 100 years of our existence in 

terms of undercover operations when it comes to public corruption, 

on narcotics trafficking, traffic in child pornography. And so the 

use of undercover operations we do across the board day in and day 

out. Undercover operations in terrorist cases are not much different 

than undercover operations that we do across the board. 

Secondly, I would say and point out that they are subject to substantial review at headquarters and are monitored as they go forward not only by headquarters but also monitored by the U.S. Attorney’s offices in which the undercover operations are taking place 

to assure that we are not entrapping individuals but there is a predisposition of those individuals to undertake that criminal activity. 

And finally, I would say if you look at the number of terrorist 

threats that were thwarted where individuals were arrested and 

those individuals would assert the entrapment defense, I am not 

familiar with a jury that has found in favor of a defendant on the 

entrapment defense in the many cases that have gone to trial since 

September 11th. 

Mr. CONYERS. We have a recession, a depression in many places, 

and it stemmed from the subprime mortgage scandal, the bundling 

up of derivatives and sending them into financial markets all over 

the world. Wall Street has been thoroughly embarrassed by some 

of the activity that has been determined. We are passing all kinds 

of laws trying to put sunlight on some of these activities that are 

going on. 

Not one person has been imprisoned yet. Nobody has gone to jail. 

Nobody has been punished. The Department of Justice can’t come 

up with any kind of strategy to really use the criminal justice system as it is used for everything else. Could that be because the FBI 

hasn’t done enough work in getting a case built up, the evidence 

brought in that would result in indictments? 

Mr. MUELLER. I strongly disagree with that portrayal of our efforts, Congressman. There have been any number of indictments. 

We have had takedowns just about every 6 months of persons arrested for mortgage fraud, securities fraud, corporate fraud. There 

are ongoing trials today in that arena. If you look at mortgage 

fraud alone, we have over 3,000 cases that we have been investigating. We have got 94 task forces. I have got 340 agents that are 

directed just to mortgage fraud. 

26 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, but it is not Wall Street. 

Mr. MUELLER. With regard to corporate fraud, we have 667 

cases, over 55 related to the subprime mortgage industry. Most of 

these cases are of Wall Street. We have 110 agents that are looking 

at corporate fraud. When it comes to securities fraud, we got 1,700 

cases. I have got 233 agents that are working on securities fraud, 

and out of those particular initiatives, there have been any number 

of indictments and convictions. And I would be happy to give you 

a listing of those indictments and convictions. 

And one last point. If you look at the newspapers today and yesterday and the day before, you will see that there are cases that 

are taking place in New York as we speak with regard to corruption in Wall Street. 

Mr. CONYERS. I feel a little better now. [Laughter.] 

And I will start reading the papers more carefully. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

Considering the gentleman from Wisconsin’s role in developing 

the PATRIOT Act, he is recognized for a very full 5 minutes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Director Mueller, let me say that I am going to truly 

regret your term expiring in September. I was the Chairman of the 

Committee at the time 9/11 took place. The cooperation between 

you personally and me personally, as well as the FBI and the Committee, helped us develop I think some very useful legislation, and 

it was not just the PATRIOT Act, but it was other laws as well 

that has made Americans safer. 

I think on September 12th, 2001, if anybody would have predicted that we would have avoided a major terrorist attack for over 

9 years, they would have been accused of smoking something that 

they shouldn’t be smoking. That is a result of the FBI utilizing the 

tools that the Congress gave them and you directing the agents of 

the FBI in a manner where there have not been any proven civil 

rights violations as a result of the expanded provisions given to law 

enforcement as a result of the PATRIOT Act. 

And I would agree with the Chairman of the Committee that 

there has been an awful lot of hype about the PATRIOT Act that 

is not actually founded in the 16, subsequently expanded to 17, expanded tools that were given to law enforcement by that act. 

Now, all of that being said, we are in the process of fighting over 

reauthorization. I want to ask you to make some comments about 

the bill that is pending in the other body since we can’t ask the 

authors of that. So you have got the field to yourself. 

The Senate version of the extension sunsets the national security 

letter standard established under the act at the end of 2013. Do 

you support reverting back to the pre-9/11 standard for national security letters? And if not, why not? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do not. Let me say that the reauthorization that 

is up does not address national security letters. In other words, the 

three provisions that are being up for reauthorization do not relate 

to national security letters. But the national security letters are the 

building blocks of any case which enable us to collect information, 

and based on that information, we then can make a further showing to the FISA Court for more intrusive investigative activity such 

as monitoring conversations or doing searches. Changing the standVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:07 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\031611\65188.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
27 

ard or sunsetting national security letters would adversely impact 

us if it were sunsetted undercutting our ability to undertake the 

kinds of investigations that have led to the disruptions in the last 

9 years. 

Also, having a sunset provision contributes a degree of uncertainty in the months going up to when that provision is to be reauthorized that is unsettling and disturbing in the sense that you 

don’t know where your investigations will be at a particular time 

when it comes up for Congress’ reauthorization. And consequently, 

quite obviously we prefer not to have that uncertainty, not to have 

that question about what will be our powers down the road. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Now, on another issue, I am fully aware 

that there are only three provisions of the PATRIOT Act that were 

sunsetted. I did the hearings 5 years ago, 6 years ago where the 

other 14—there was really no controversy, and they were made 

permanent. But there are those that wish to beat the drum and 

open them up again. And one of those is the delayed notification 

search warrants where the Senate bill proposes to shorten the time 

from 30 days to 7 days. 

A couple of questions. Has the 30-day notification delay been 

held unconstitutional or improper? What operational advantages 

result from shortening the 30 days to the 7 days? And will investigators have an easier time investigating terrorist threats or a 

more difficult time? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think the 30-day time frame works well. It gives 

you an opportunity to develop the investigation without having to, 

every week, go back to the court with an additional filing. Every 

one of these filings are fairly substantial. Every one of these filings—you have to put manpower into it, whether it is from the investigative point of view or from the prosecutorial point of view. I 

see no advantage to drawing it back to 7 days. It means additional 

work. 

The other thing I would say is that the 30-day time limit is set 

by the court. So the court is reviewing this periodically, and if the 

court believes that there is some problem with the 30-day period, 

the court can go ahead and require a further report shorter if that 

particular judge who is monitoring this feels that 30 days is inadequate. 

So I would be against the change from 30 days—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The final question is, does shortening the 

delayed notice warrant do anything to assist the target of the investigation to evade surveillance? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to think about that and get back to 

you on that particular question. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, is recognized for 

her questions. 

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

I would like to say to our FBI Director, Mr. Mueller, I thank you 

for your 10 years or more of service, and I appreciate the way that 

you have always been responsive to the Members when we have 

sought you out for information or clarification. And we are going 

to miss you. 

28 

But before you go, I have to tell you that some of us have been 

focused on the financial crisis, and just as Mr. Conyers started to 

talk about what role the FBI have played in bringing to justice 

some of those who have committed mortgage fraud, for example— 

it seems that we know some things and we have learned through 

WikiLeaks and those who received some of the WikiLeaks information about Bank of America and Bank of America is involved with 

the Balboa organization, insurance organization, and one of their 

ex-employees who have exposed some information about fraud. 

Without going into that specific case, I appreciate the fact that 

you have indicated that you have all of these investigations going 

on and you have these agents and the special task force. But this 

has been going on since 2004. Nobody has gone to jail. Nobody has 

been identified as a major player in all of this. Meanwhile, people 

are losing their homes and we find that the servicers who are supposed to do the loan modifications uncover fraud but they do nothing about it because they are not charged with doing anything 

about it. 

What is the FBI doing? Who have you sent to jail? When are we 

going to get some justice in this area? 

Mr. MUELLER. Excuse me just 1 second. 

I wish I had brought today the statistics of the persons we have 

arrested, indicted, and successfully convicted and sent to jail. There 

are hundreds. And I would be happy, as I told Congressman Conyers, to get those statistics to you. 

What I have relayed in response to the question from Congressman Conyers is the efforts that we have made in the last 2 or 3, 

4 years to address exactly what you are saying is the problem. And 

we have been very successful in those efforts. We have had a comprehensive approach, coordinated with the Department of Justice, 

and through task forces around the country, as well as in New 

York in the financial arena in New York to address exactly what 

you pointed out in terms of those factors that contribute to where 

we are in terms of the economy. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Director, let me just ask you this. Most of the 

mortgages are being initiated through the Big Five. You have got 

Bank of America. You have got Wells Fargo, Chase Manhattan. 

And they are servicers. They own these servicing operations. This 

is where the problems are. We don’t hear anything about what is 

being done about fraud from the big servicers who are so-called 

managing these loan modifications that ignore the fraud, who 

maybe even participate in it. What has been done on the big operations? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me say that I am familiar with the allegations 

relating to services. We do have fraud or illegal activity with regard to the services and servicing of mortgages, and we do have 

open investigations there. I could not in open session discuss with 

you more specific parameters of our investigations other than to 

say that to the extent that we have allegations with regard to 

fraud, we do investigate and are investigating. 

Ms. WATERS. Let me just say it starts with the loan initiators, 

some of whom we discovered, for example, with Countrywide in 

California who put these loan initiators out on the street without 

a lot of training and not a lot of background checks. They actually 

29 

committed fraud in some cases where they signed the name of the 

homeowner to mortgages that they did not understand or know 

about. It starts there, and then from the loan initiators, it goes on 

to—you know, we have to say that some of those responsible for the 

secondary market have some responsibility in that. By the time it 

gets to the servicer, the servicers again are committing crimes. So 

we have homeowners who have been exposed at three levels by an 

industry that simply ripped us off. What is going to be done about 

it? 

Mr. MUELLER. They just handed me some of the statistics we 

have. Back in 2010, we had 217 indictments and informations in 

the corporate fraud arena, and as of this year, we have had 89. 

As an example of a case, in February, last month, Michael 

McGrath, the former president of U.S. Mortgage, a privately held 

mortgage company, was sentenced to a jail term of 168 months for 

his role in orchestrating a $136 million corporate fraud scheme related to the subprime mortgage industry. 

Ms. WATERS. What happened with Ameriquest? Did you do anything with Ameriquest, the big one? 

Mr. SMITH. The gentlewoman’s time has expired, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross, is recognized for his questions. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mueller, again, I want to echo the sentiments of the Members of this Committee and congratulate you on your service. It is 

very distinguished and it has been at a time when this country has 

needed your type of leadership. So I thank you. 

Specifically with regard to the PATRIOT Act and the roving 

wiretaps, this is something that I find absolutely useful if we are 

going to continue the type of surveillance necessary to prevent any 

further attacks. And I guess my question to you is in these roving 

wiretaps, if it is not reauthorized, what is your recourse in terms 

of delays. 

Mr. MUELLER. Our only recourse in that event is to keep going 

back to the court as we receive new information that the person 

has thrown away the first cell phone that they had on day 1 and 

bought another one for day 2, and we can anticipate another one 

for day 3. 

Mr. ROSS. And how long would that take? 

Mr. MUELLER. It takes a good long time, and there is a delay in 

terms of getting the re-upped order. And so you may well miss conversations as you attempt to draft the application with the affidavit 

and the proposed order, get it to a court so it can be reviewed and 

issued. So the consequence is the delay that it takes to get the 

order and what you may lose in the time frame that it takes you 

to get that order where you do not have coverage on that particular 

phone or phones. 

Mr. ROSS. And it makes us significantly more vulnerable. 

Mr. MUELLER. It can. It can, yes, sir. 

Mr. ROSS. With regard to the national security letters, when 

those have been issued, how have they been received by some of 

the communications providers? Have you seen any resistance? 

30 

Mr. MUELLER. There have been pockets of concern where we 

have had to use the 215 business records to back up national security letters. 

Mr. ROSS. So in other words, they wouldn’t give you the substance of the communication. They would just give you the fact 

that a communication—— 

Mr. MUELLER. They may give us some information, but not the 

information to which we believe we are entitled under national security letters which requires us then to go to 215 proviso to obtain 

the records. 

Mr. ROSS. And that too is a delay then. 

Mr. MUELLER. That is a delay. 

Mr. ROSS. Is there anything we can do to help you there? 

Mr. MUELLER. It is a delay. 

Mr. ROSS. With regard to the Espionage Act, do you think it 

should apply to foreign defendants outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think I know to what you are alluding in terms 

of ongoing investigations. I unfortunately would have to stay away 

from opining on the application of the Espionage Act. 

Mr. ROSS. I understand. 

With regard to gangs, what efforts are being made to investigate 

and to curtail the growth and involvement of gangs? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, from the perspective of—— 

Mr. ROSS. I know you have a task force. 

Mr. MUELLER. We have over 100 violent gang crime task forces. 

We have what we call Safe Trails task forces for Indian Country, 

and we have 41 prostitution task forces or working groups across 

the country. We have over 1,300 agents who are working gangs 

throughout the United States. 

Mr. ROSS. How is it going? Have you seen an increase, gang activity increase, stabilize, or decline? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to say that gang activity is increasing not perhaps at the rate it did maybe 4 or 5 years ago, but still, 

nonetheless, is increasing. I do believe that our work on these gang 

task forces principally with State and local law enforcement have 

made a dent in many communities. Our admonition to the task 

forces to identify a particular sector of the city which has levels of 

violent crime, address that violent crime and at the end of it, I 

want to see what impact there has been in reducing the violent 

crime in that area of the community. And as we focus on that, we 

do it with our State and local counterparts, and I think we have 

been effective in utilizing that task force concept in addressing 

gangs. 

Mr. ROSS. And you found good cooperation with the State and 

local law enforcement? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, although I continue to urge—when Congress 

appropriates funds for State and local law enforcement or even for 

us, there are areas in which there is a great incentive to—as you 

give an incentive to a State and local law enforcement to cooperate 

with the Federal authorities, it enhances that cooperation. And 

consequently our success in the Bureau is dependent on our relationships with State and local law enforcement. And to the extent 

that Congress in its activity can encourage that, I am supportive. 

31 

Mr. ROSS. One last question. What advice would you publicly 

give to your successor? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say that the Bureau is its people, its 

agents, its analysts, and its staff. You will never find a greater 

group of dedicated professionals across the country. Rely on them. 

They do the job day in and day out, tremendously dedicated. And 

to the extent that we are successful, it is these individuals. But as 

I said before, it is also so important to understand that our success 

is dependent on working with our State and local law enforcement, 

as well as our counterparts overseas. 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Ross. 

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

questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mueller, it is good to see you today. 

Talking about Medicare fraud, there have been reports that billions of dollars are being siphoned off by criminal activity. 60 Minutes and other exposes have shown it is widespread and easily 

done. When you have FBI agents chasing after Medicare fraud, do 

they produce more in savings than they cost? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you but I absolutely 

believe that is the case. 

Mr. SCOTT. Say again? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely, I believe that to be the case. I would 

have to give a close look at it, but I do believe that is the case. 

Mr. SCOTT. And in the mortgage fraud, you have been back and 

forth on that. The fraud was so widespread. Are you seeking civil 

fines from a lot of people that got illegal profits? 

Mr. MUELLER. I know the Department of Justice—and we are 

helping the Department of Justice in certain instances in seeking 

civil fines, but we also, whenever we can, would seek outright forfeiture of any ill-gotten gains. And we have been successful in 

doing that. 

Mr. SCOTT. You have agencies where just the whole company 

profited through corrupt practices. Is there any widespread effort 

to get—I mean, if you go through, there are billions, trillions of dollars of illegal profits that ended up with the total collapse of our 

economy. Is there any effort to recover those illegal profits—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. On a widespread basis? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. Initially we will look at it for criminal 

forfeiture to the extent we can identify the ill-gotten gains and tie 

it into the fraudulent scheme. Secondly, we would go after it, and 

by we I mean the Department of Justice civilly. And thirdly, you 

have private actors that we would go after and seek the ill-gotten 

gains. Perhaps the Madoff case is the most notorious example of 

that kind of attempt to recoup the losses to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. And you are doing that on other cases too? 

Mr. MUELLER. Pardon? 

Mr. SCOTT. You are doing that on other cases too? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. There are two areas, organized retail theft and ID 

theft, where a lot of crimes could be solved if you had the manVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:07 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\031611\65188.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
32 

power to actually do the legwork because there is usually a paper 

trail. Do you have enough agents working on organized retail theft 

and ID theft to be an effective deterrent? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me just talk about organized retail theft. We 

will, in particular areas of the country where there is a need for 

us to assist State and local law enforcement in addressing it or 

there is some sort of organized criminal activity that cuts across jurisdictional lines, allocate the personnel to address it, generally in 

the task force paradigm. 

ID theft. Again, we will work with our State and local counterparts. There are a number of task forces and working groups to address ID theft, but I will tell you that it is so prevalent. It is very 

difficult to comprehensively address that, and our resources are relatively thin, particularly when it comes to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But if you had more resources, you could do more 

work on ID theft. 

Mr. MUELLER. More resources, we could do more in terms of ID 

theft and a number of other areas. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there any loopholes in gun laws that need to be 

closed? 

Mr. MUELLER. That is a very broad subject. I would have to look 

at a particular piece of legislation to opine on where we should be 

in that area. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you could get back to us with recommendations, that would be helpful. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. My time is running out. If you could comment generally for the record on any problems that the FBI lab has, any 

challenges they have. If you could just get back to me on if there 

are any challenges, things we need to look at. 

There is a disconnect around here about cutting a budget and 

what will not get done. If you could provide examples of what 

would not get done if some of these proposed budget cuts are 

passed, that would be helpful. 

Finally, you indicated on the criminal side as opposed to national 

security you needed the lone wolf provision, and the lone wolf provision requires a determination of terrorism. How do you get those 

without the same information that would allow you to get a title 

III warrant? Or why do you need the PATRIOT Act provisions 

rather than—because if you have evidence that he is a terrorist, 

that should be enough evidence to get a title III warrant, and the 

same with some of the other provisions. 

Mr. MUELLER. That is not necessarily true. On the title III and 

the criminal side, you are looking for a person who has committed 

or is in the process of committing a crime. On the national security 

side, you are trying to prevent that terrorist act and identify that 

person as a terrorist. The glitch is that you have to show without 

this statute that the person is an agent of a foreign power in order 

to get that warrant on the FISA side, which if it is a terrorist 

group, as we saw in the Moussaoui case, may be difficult to do. 

There is another aspect to it and that is often on the counter-terrorism side and since September 11th, we integrate information 

from the CIA, NSA, and other intelligence entities. There are provisions on the national security side to protect that information, the 

33 

sources and the methods that you do not have on the criminal side. 

And consequently, the mechanisms we have on the FISA Court and 

the FISA statute allow us to do often that which cannot be done 

on the criminal side and where the focus is an agent of a foreign 

power, the agent of a foreign power in this case being a terrorist. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, is recognized. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, I want to commend you for your service not just with 

the Bureau but also as a Federal prosecutor. I had the privilege of 

meeting you in South Carolina many years ago when you came 

down to our State Law Enforcement Division, also known as SLED, 

for a computer. And I also want to take this opportunity to compliment your agents in the upstate of South Carolina, specifically 

Spartanburg and Greenville. They worked, along with the DEA, a 

public corruption case which saw a magistrate judge and an elected 

clerk of court go to prison for selling evidence, selling drugs out of 

the evidence locker. And to the extent you are going to be in South 

Carolina before your term expires, if you would tell Special Agents 

Mike Kelly, Brian Bryan, and Jim Lannamann how grateful all of 

us are for their hard and excellent work. They really are a credit 

to the Bureau. 

Mr. MUELLER. I will pass that on, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. They have been wonderful. I got to work with them 

for 16 years as a prosecutor and there are days I miss that job. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MUELLER. So do I. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GOWDY. Maybe we can go back together and be on the side 

of the angels and prosecute again. 

I wanted to ask you about mortgage fraud and health care fraud. 

You have already addressed those. I would ask you specifically 

with respect to health care fraud, I don’t know whether this statistic is correct or not. I suspect it probably is: 48 different agencies 

or sub-entities that have jurisdiction with respect to investigating 

health care fraud. Is there a more streamlined approach and therefore more effective approach that you could recommend? Does the 

Bureau ever bump into other agencies when you are investigating 

health care fraud? Is there a better way than the way we are doing 

it? 

Mr. MUELLER. Having been a prosecutor, you know we do bump 

into other agencies, and when we bump into other agencies, we try 

to incorporate them in a task force. If you look in Florida and 

Texas and around the country, the major successes have been undertaken in utilizing the task force concept where many of those 

60-odd agencies that you mentioned are participants. And it is not 

just the Federal. It is not just HHS and the IG or the FBI or the 

Postal Service. It also is State and local attorney general offices, 

local district attorney offices that participate in these task forces, 

and you find you are able to triage the cases. The more substantial 

ones will go to Federal court. The ones that can be addressed in 

State court are then triaged and addressed in State court. What 

you try to do is identify the universe of cases and then make certain that every one of them is addressed in one way or another. 

Again, the task force concept is the way to go, and we have any 

34 

number of task forces and working groups around the country addressing health care fraud. 

Mr. GOWDY. Using both your law enforcement hat and your prosecutorial hat, are there any categories of declinations that the Bureau is receiving from U.S. Attorney’s offices that you find troubling? Are you working a certain category of cases and just not 

having them indicted or prosecuted? And I am not trying to put 

you on the spot with U.S. Attorneys. But are there any categories 

of cases that your folks could use some help with in terms of maybe 

a disproportionate number of declinations? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. I don’t think the issue is declinations, but 

having been a U.S. Attorney and now an investigator, the one 

thing I do say is that we have to together address white-collar 

criminal cases swiftly, effectively, and move on to the next. One 

can get bogged down in the paperwork and the intricacies and the 

desire for a number of counts and where we have a large backlog 

of cases, as we do, for instance, in the mortgage fraud area, we 

have to go through and push those through both from the investigative side as well as from the prosecutor’s side. And I have found 

that prosecutors around the country understand that and are giving us the support that we need to continue to investigate and 

prosecute these cases. 

Mr. GOWDY. My time is almost up, so I will ask you one more 

question and then finish with one quick comment. 

Any changes that you would like to see in the sentencing guidelines? 

Mr. MUELLER. Not offhand. I would have to get back to you on 

that. I really have not given that much thought recently. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I will close by the same way I started, thanking you for your service in law enforcement and also as a prosecutor. 

Mr. MUELLER. I will see you back in the courtroom. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Gowdy. 

The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Director Mueller, thank you, first of all, for 

your service. We have had the mutual privilege, I would claim, at 

this point to see each other on a number of occasions over the 

years, and I know that we have gone through some enormously 

tough times. 

I want to focus on what I think is a rising but certainly a crisis 

that our combined law enforcement have really tried to counter and 

that is the drug violence on the Texas border or on the southern 

border. I would like to get your assessment. We know that President Calderon is coming to the end of his term. We know that 

there have been 35,000 deaths plus. We know that two teenagers 

left El Paso and didn’t make it back from the other side of the border. We know that the mayor of Laredo has been here pleading for 

a focus. 

My question is obviously we have the Border Patrol, but the FBI, 

as I understand it, are in a number of drug task forces, gun-running task forces. I would like to know what progress we have 

made. What can we claim as victories with the task force structure 

35 

that we have used to try and get our hands around this question? 

That is number one. 

What is the level of gun-running that you have assessed specifically out of Houston, Texas or coming from the United States into 

Mexico? 

Number three, I do believe you could be a vital advocate. Some 

of us said that we tire of seeing fallen law enforcement officers, just 

recently a U.S. marshal, certainly Mr. Zapata in Mexico, though he 

was, as we understand it, under those laws unarmed, but fallen 

law enforcement officers in the line of duty. We honor them every 

May 15. 

Speak specifically to the question of clips being sold randomly 

over the counter, if you will, ammunition clips, and speak specifically to a background check for private sellers and how that would 

be helpful and not harmful. What harm could that do? 

And I might say, Mr. Mueller, that what is not left to the Federal 

Government certainly is the States, but in this instance I consider 

the lack of reasoning gun regulatory process and unfunded mandate to the States and the cities dealing with the fallen, whether 

it is our law enforcement officers or the bloody Friday and Saturday nights that come about through local gang warfare, methamphetamine fights, cocaine fights, whatever fights you are having. That is an unfunded mandate that this Federal Government 

is not answering. 

So if you would for a moment give us the real impact of $133 million in cuts or more as we make our way through this budgeting 

process. Mr. Mueller? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me go back and start on the first question I 

think related to Mexico and what we see on the border and what 

successes there might be down there. I do believe President 

Calderon has undertaken an unprecedented attack on the cartels 

and violence in Mexico. Unfortunately, it has not been as successful 

as he or anybody else would like, given the murder rate and the 

atrocities that occur south of the border. 

I do believe one of the—and I am not certain I would call it a 

success. I would say at this point in time we have not seen wholesale violence north of the border. We have the incidents of law enforcement shootings, the ICE agents in Mexico and then customs 

enforcement agents in the United States. We have had in several 

of our cities over the past several years kidnappings where individuals who have businesses or family in Mexico but they are living 

in the United States will be kidnapped. We put together task forces 

to address that, and I do believe that those incidents have been reduced as a result of that. 

We also in the FBI particularly focus on corruption at the border. 

We have got a number of task forces that address corruption. They 

have been successful in rooting out corruption north of the border. 

And lastly I would say we contribute with our border offices as 

well as our legal attache office in Mexico to a unified intelligence 

task force operating out of El Paso that is, I believe, a substantial 

advance in providing intelligence, not just individuals, our counterparts in Mexico, but also to those who are operating along the border to prevent that violence from coming north of the border. 

36 

We recently addressed one of our concerns which is the gang, 

Barrio Azteca, which has grown over a number of years both in 

Mexico as well as in the United States. We had a takedown and 

arrest of a number of the principal players in Barrio Azteca several 

weeks ago. That also was an important step. 

You asked about the extent of guns going from Houston, if I am 

not mistaken, down south. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And if you could include in that the clips. Just 

answer specifically clips legislation and background checks. 

Mr. MUELLER. Neither on the guns nor the clips do I really have 

an understanding of the extent of the gun-running from north of 

the border to south of the border. I would have to get back to you 

on that. 

As to the gun laws and modifications to the gun laws, I don’t 

think there is a person in law enforcement who isn’t tremendously 

disturbed when any law enforcement agent in whatever entity loses 

his or her life. And there have been a spate of those killings recently, unfortunately, and the number of law enforcement that died 

in the course of duty last year was up from the year before. And 

without getting into specifics, there is not a one of us who wouldn’t 

like to see some sort of capability to address automatic, semi-automatic and large clip weapons. When it gets to the specifics, I will 

leave that up to others, but all of us in law enforcement are concerned whenever any particular law enforcement agent goes down. 

Unfortunately, it is not getting better, it is getting worse. 

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a question to 

you, please? 

Mr. SMITH. Of course. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And Mr. Mueller could hear the question. 

Two questions. One, I think it would be appropriate for a classified briefing on the drug violence and drug task force in particular. 

Some of the information is classified and I would just encourage 

the Ranking Member and the Chairman to consider such a briefing. 

And then to Mr. Mueller, I would like to engage with the task 

force in Houston and would ask the FBI to cooperate. I will be 

seeking to engage with a meeting and just getting the sort of overall briefing as to what is occurring. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want you to know there is gun-running in 

Houston, and it is challenging. But I appreciate the fact that if we 

could have a briefing, you could consider that. 

Mr. SMITH. We will certainly consider that. Thank you for the 

suggestion. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Adams, is recognized for her 

questions. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. Thank you for your service. As someone 

who has worked in an undercover capacity on a task force with the 

FBI in a previous life as a deputy sheriff, I understand the intricacies involved when you are doing investigations. And while a lot of 

people want it to hurry up and get to the fruition, sometimes it is 

not that easy. And if you do want a conviction, you want to make 

sure that you have every ‘‘I’’ dotted, every ‘‘T’’ crossed, and ensure 

that when you bring that information to the courts, that the courts 

37 

will be able to go forward with that conviction. So I want to thank 

you for your service. 

I want to get back to the roving wiretaps because I have heard 

a lot about it in Committee meetings and everything, and I have 

heard some people say that you don’t have your target identified. 

Now, as someone who has been involved in these type of investigations, I know that you have to have a target identified before you 

can get this type of tap. Correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. Correct. 

Ms. ADAMS. It may not be you have the accurate name. They 

may have 20 names associated with the same person, but you have 

your target identified. 

Mr. MUELLER. Exactly. You have it exactly right. We have to go 

to the judge with sufficient information to identify this individual 

from all other individuals. We may not have an accurate name, as 

you indicate, on the individual, but nonetheless, we may have been 

surveiling him for a period of time. We may have information on 

somebody. The name is affixed to this particular person, but we 

don’t know the true name. But we, in order to get the warrant, 

have to have sufficient specificity to identify this individual from 

all others. 

Ms. ADAMS. I have been in those situations when I have been 

trying to obtain a warrant myself. 

Let me get back to the PATRIOT Act, and I want to ask you 

what unique challenges to investigations and to terrorism prevention efforts are posed by the self-radicalized jihadist? 

Mr. MUELLER. Having been in law enforcement yourself, one 

knows that it is somewhat easier to make a case when there are 

a number of individuals who are conspiring together. One will 

crack. You will get communications. There will be some telltales 

that will enable you to pursue the investigation. If you have a person who is self-radicalized, for instance, on the Internet, and his 

association is with the Internet and with other persons who are 

anonymous on the Internet, and that person watches videos and 

that person continuously educates him or herself in terms of getting to the point where they are willing to undertake terrorist attacks, they are very, very difficult to discover because there is no 

outreach to others. There is no communication. You can’t identify 

a person lower in the chain or up the ladder that will identify him. 

And so it is a real challenge for us in law enforcement to be able 

to identify those persons before they undertake a terrorist attack. 

Ms. ADAMS. I listened to the last questioning and I heard your 

answers. I too am concerned about what appears to be targeting of 

our law enforcement personnel across our Nation and those working outside, as what happened in Mexico. I have a husband who 

is on the wall at Judiciary Square, along with a lot of my friends. 

So I have a true understanding of this issue. 

I am concerned, however, that we send men and women across 

the border and they aren’t armed. So I know that wasn’t your agency, but it does concern me enough that I want that on the record 

that we need to do more to give our men and women the tools they 

need when we are TDYing them or sending them into such an 

area. 

38 

Now, the lone wolf provision and how it works. We have heard 

so much here about the PATRIOT Act and that it is going to target 

American personnel. And that is not what it does. Is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. This is for a non-U.S. citizen. That specific provision is applicable only to a non-U.S. citizen. And that is perhaps 

unique to that particular provision, but it is in that provision. The 

fact that it applies only to a non-U.S. citizen is in that particular 

provision of the statute. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

Well, again, thank you for your service. I want to thank your 

men and women. I have worked with them before on task forces. 

They are very professional and I appreciate all that you do. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Adams. 

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

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller—I always have trouble with the name, but I 

think I got it right this time. 

When you have been before the Committee before, I have asked 

you about a whole range of different issues. But I am going to put 

on my Ranking Member hat of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee this time and try to focus attention on some issues 

there. 

We recently, in fact yesterday, had hearings on proliferation of 

counterfeit goods in both the domestic and international marketplace and examined the issue of piracy of copyrighted items such 

as movies and luxury items on rogue sites based in foreign countries. One of the things that we found was that clearly reacting to 

this is going to require a coordinated response between multiple 

law enforcement agencies, the FBI, Department of Justice, Homeland Security, ICE, and the Patent and Trademark Office, if we are 

going to effectively be able to address the problem. 

I am interested in your assessment of the extent to which those 

different agencies are coordinating their efforts, whether you feel 

like you have crafted a coordinated effort in this area, and if so, 

discuss how this has worked in practice and whether jurisdictional 

and oversight challenges that we have here in Congress even between the agencies have arisen. 

It has never really even been clear to me whether ICE is under 

Homeland Security, whether it is under the Department of Justice, 

whether it is under the FBI. I don’t know where it is. Maybe you 

can clarify that for me in the process of responding to that question. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. Let me start off by saying that ICE is in 

the Department of Homeland Security. 

Going to the issue of how we address intellectual property, we 

obtained, I think, an additional 20 slots for agents specifically to 

focus on intellectual property last year, 2010. I believe we are still 

in the process of allocating those resources, but allocating those resources so they would maximize the impact. Not doing one in an 

office here, one in an office there, but looking at where we can most 

effectively align those agents to have the maximum impact on what 

is a huge, huge problem. 

39 

I will tell you that our focus to date has been on intellectual 

property as it relates to health and safety. An example is an investigation we had some time ago into counterfeit aircraft parts where 

it goes beyond just the loss of money but could adversely impact 

the life of persons. 

And so when it comes to intellectual property, we do have additional resources. We are trying to allocate those additional resources to address the problems, and I would say we would do it 

again in the context of task forces with ICE agents, with agents 

who also have jurisdiction so we can together maximize the impact. 

Mr. WATT. So you feel like you are coordinating effectively in this 

area? Because there still seem to be yesterday just a crying out of 

almost a helpless feeling on the part of the people in industry 

about the extent of piracy and rogue sites that are selling pirated 

goods or whatever. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to get back to you on the extent and 

whether there are any issues with regard to that coordination. 

Mr. WATT. Get back to me on that and also on the question of 

whether you feel like—you said you got 20 additional personnel, 

but specifically whether you are adequately resourced to investigate and prosecute these cases because, as I said at the hearing 

yesterday, the extent of the problem far, far exceeds bank robberies 

in the old-fashioned way. In fact, most bank robberies now are taking place through technological advances also. Nobody is walking 

into a bank with a gun anymore. 

Mr. MUELLER. We still have those. 

Mr. WATT. Yes, I know you do, but everything I have heard suggests that a lot more money is being stolen from banks electronically—— 

Mr. MUELLER. I would agree with that. 

Mr. WATT [continuing]. Than in the old-fashioned with a gun 

way. 

I think I may be out of time. I had one other question, but I don’t 

want to abuse the privilege and I will yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER [presiding]. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, good to see you. In my other life, I was a judge in Houston and I used to tell the FBI to bring me some business, but we 

don’t do that anymore. So it is good that you are here and appreciate your work. 

I want to talk about Brian Terry. Are you all taking the lead role 

in the investigation of his murder? The border agent. 

Mr. MUELLER. Oh, yes, we are absolutely. 

Mr. POE. I understand the investigation is going on, but I have 

heard through media reports that Brian Terry was armed at first 

with a bean bag gun and had to fire that first before he could use— 

to fire back at those drug cartel members that were using AK-47’s. 

I don’t know if you can comment on that or not. If you cannot, I 

understand. But can you say anything about that? 

Mr. MUELLER. I cannot say anything about that, but I do know 

that Janet Napolitano has addressed that particular issue in her 

testimony before another panel. 

40 

Mr. POE. Do you see a trend of those drug cartel members that 

come in the United States becoming more aggressive and violent? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think over the last year, certainly we have 

seen extremes in violence south of the border. I do not believe that 

those extremes in violence have crossed the border into the United 

States so far, but we have to be wary of that and work together 

and by ourselves with ICE, Customs, and Border Patrol and others 

who are responsible for law enforcement on the border. 

Mr. POE. Let me address a specific concern on the Texas border. 

16 border counties in Texas consider themselves border counties, 

and they have a tremendous problem with cross-border crime. I 

don’t want to use the term ‘‘violent crime.’’ I just want to use the 

term ‘‘crime.’’ And periodically I will call the sheriffs of those 16 

counties and say how many people are in your jail who belong to 

some other country. It doesn’t make any difference to me whether 

they are here legally or illegally. And at any given time, on an inexact percentage, it is anywhere from 37 to about 45 percent of the 

people in their jailhouse belong to some other country. They are in 

the U.S. They are not charged with immigration violations. They 

are charged with cross-border crime. 

I personally think that that is a tremendous amount of folks that 

are housed in our local jails from foreign countries that are committing crimes in the United States. Can you address that? I mean, 

do you see that as a problem?21Mr. MUELLER. Well, that gets into 

an issue that is somewhat removed from the FBI in terms of immigration and the like. And so I prefer to just stay away from that. 

Mr. POE. Well, it is not an immigration issue. It is a crime issue. 

People that cross the border from foreign countries—it doesn’t 

make any difference whether they are here legally or illegally, and 

a lot of them are in our border jails charged with crimes. Now, I 

know State and local crimes aren’t an issue of the Federal Government and the FBI, but I take a little issue with the fact that there 

is not crime on the border because the sheriffs are overwhelmed 

with cross-border crime. And I would think that the FBI should be 

concerned about that and should help out when they are needed to 

help out. 

Mr. MUELLER. I can tell you that we do help out. We understand, 

particularly when it comes to violent crime. In particular, to the extent that we can assist State and local law enforcement, we want 

to be able to do that and we do. 

Mr. POE. The cooperation—candidly tell me what you believe the 

cooperation with the Mexican law enforcement is in the investigation of homicides of Americans in Mexico. I understand there were 

65 Americans killed last year in Mexico. To my knowledge, none 

of those cases have been solved. What is the level of cooperation 

by them with the FBI in solving those crimes? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think it fair to say that it depends on the particular case and the individuals with whom you may have a relationship across the border. We have border liaison agents and officers that spend a great deal of time developing those relationships 

with our counterparts south of the border. And in many cases, we 

have a very good relationship and they will do a very competent 

job and we will work a case well together. There are other cases 

that do not work out so well. 

41 

Mr. POE. Well, not solving 65 murders doesn’t sound like a very 

good clearance rate to me, and I would hope that you would help 

us to determine how we can get the Mexican Government more involved in helping you in solving these crimes of Americans that are 

murdered. 

My last question is this. The Los Zetas, one of the most violent 

of all the criminal gangs—do you have an opinion or give some insight on what you think we could do as Members of Congress? 

Should we try to make them a member—or put them on the foreign 

terrorist organization list so we could prosecute them better when 

they commit the crimes in the U.S.? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain that that would assist us. Again, 

as I indicated before, I believe the answer to many of these threats 

that we face today is the cooperative efforts of State and local law 

enforcement working with the Federal law enforcement, not only 

because of the skills and capabilities that are brought to the table 

by these various entities, but also by the use of both State laws as 

well as Federal laws to address the activity. And so I would go 

back to, as opposed to designating a group as a terrorist group 

where it may not fit that particular category, one focuses on developing incentives for us to work together, particularly financial incentives to work together on task forces to address these. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Director. I appreciate it, Mr. Mueller. 

Mr. SMITH [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Poe. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, is recognized. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Director. Again, thank you for your service. 

I guess I can’t get off that issue. Again, talking about the border 

issues, Secretary of State Clinton said that the vast majority of the 

guns being used are coming from the United States. I can’t help 

but want to ask you a little bit more about how those purchases 

are taking place, the straw purchasers and the difficulties there, 

but just across the country in tracking weapons used because of 

limitations imposed by the laws. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I would have to defer to my counterparts in 

ATF who are much more knowledgeable in terms of the flow of 

guns to Mexico from the United States. From our perspective, 

whenever we have a case that may involve guns that have been 

purchased through straw purchasers or there may be other indicia 

implicating wrongdoing in the purchase of that particular weapon, 

we coordinate with ATF. We make use of the ATF databases, and 

our agents are alert to the fact that this is a substantial issue. We 

have to prohibit the guns, prevent the guns going south of the border, and we do that in coordination with the ATF. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. But you have no problems tracking weapons used 

in crimes across the country. There is no limitations that you can 

speak of today? 

Mr. MUELLER. In terms of tracking weapons—— 

Mr. QUIGLEY. From their original purchases. 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Again, I cannot think of limitations 

in terms of our ability to do it, but of course—— 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Language that was passed before limiting access 

and serial numbers and use of purchase—through purchasers. 

42 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not familiar with the intricacies of that discussion. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. At least perhaps gun shows, the fact that there is 

no background check required in a gun show. 

Mr. MUELLER. I know that is a subject of discussion in Congress, 

yes. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Wouldn’t it be a subject of concern for you and 

your agents? 

Mr. MUELLER. To the extent that we can track weapons back to 

individuals and trace weapons, it is beneficial to us in doing our 

job. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. All right. Well, we will shift gears here. 

The Supreme Court struck down the honest services law that 

helped your agency deal with public corruption. How much of a gap 

do you see this having left in the laws you need? Do you have any 

suggestions as to specific aspects? The Court said it needed to be 

less vague, but specific issues there that you feel should be included in any new legislation? 

Mr. MUELLER. I have not looked at this issue in a while. I know 

there was discussion about additional legislation that may partially 

fill the gap or be responsive to the concerns of the Supreme Court. 

We, along with the Department of Justice, have gone back and 

looked at every case that has been affected by the decision, and for 

the most part, the individuals were prosecuted on mail fraud or 

other charges as well and most of the convictions have stood up. 

So in terms of impact on past cases, I think it has had a relatively 

marginal impact on past cases. And I would have to get back to you 

on whether or not we need some additional legislative fix to fill 

that hole. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Earlier the lone wolf provisions were brought up, 

the PATRIOT Act. From my perspective, many of the lone wolf 

issues have been not foreigners but American citizens. You probably heard about the fake bomb put near Wrigley Field just this 

last year, a block from my house. So it is near and dear to home. 

Do you feel that you have enough tools to deal with the lone wolves 

who are just American citizens that pose the same threat? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain it is a question of additional resources. We are focused very intently on lone wolves, domestic lone 

wolves, and have been certainly ever since 1995 and McVeigh who 

was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing. And we utilized 

all of our techniques to try to identify the lone wolves, but it is 

very, very difficult. I am not certain I could say to you today that 

we need additional resources that I would put here which would 

improve our ability to identify the lone wolf. We are going to have 

to adapt additional capabilities and techniques to identify the 

mechanisms of radicalization so that we then can identify the persons who are the lone wolves. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, is recognized. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Director, on your left wing over here. 

Mr. MUELLER. Sorry, sir. 

43 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I am not in the middle of the action here, 

but I am connected to what is going on. 

I appreciate your service to this country and your testimony here 

today and your responses to your questions. 

I would like to take you to a question that deals with Khalid AliM Aldawsari. I see you recognize his name even though I might not 

have pronounced it right. It is my understanding that he arrived 

here on a student visa, but he is under a charge of attempted use 

of a weapons of mass destruction. In his journal he wrote, the need 

to obtain forged U.S. birth certificates, multiple driver’s licenses, 

and U.S. passports. And it is my understanding he planned to use 

those driver’s licenses to rent several cars and to do so with a different license so he could have a different name on each one in 

order to confuse law enforcement authorities. 

Are the driver’s licenses and passports and fraudulent—are they 

a useful tool for terrorists? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, let me start by saying that there is a gag 

order in that case that has been issued by the judge in al-Dawsari. 

So I cannot specifically speak to that case. 

But speaking more generally, apart from that case, the use of 

driver’s licenses as what we call a seed document that builds a separate identification, yes, that is a problem, has long been a problem, and one that we are knowledgeable about and in every case 

look to see whether that has been the case that a person’s identification has been developed as a result of a seed document such as 

a driver’s license. 

Mr. KING. I remember that language now. I hadn’t brought it up 

in some years, but the seed documents from low standards for 

issuing driver’s licenses or false identification that might result in 

a passport turns into a useful tool for terrorists in this scenario 

that is generally speaking that you have spoken to. 

Mr. MUELLER. True. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Director. 

I would go on to something maybe a little bit easier and that 

wasn’t actually hard. These are just a series of questions, but is it 

common for local law enforcement to work closely with the FBI? 

And yes. And I grew up in a law enforcement family and I respect 

that relationship that is there. 

And do local law enforcement routinely conduct investigations 

that result in indictments under Federal charges? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And do they have the authority to do so? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And so I take this to this point which is that includes 

immigration law. 

Mr. MUELLER. I guess I don’t understand the question. 

Mr. KING. The question would be then local law enforcement routinely works with the FBI. They routinely do investigations that result in indictments under Federal charges. So they do so with Federal law and they do so routinely with Federal immigration law as 

well. And the follow-up question to that is, is it your position that 

local law enforcement has the authority to investigate and cooperate in the enforcement of Federal immigration law? 

44 

Mr. MUELLER. I think that is an issue we would have to get back 

to you on. It is a little bit removed from the usual issue that we 

deal with day in and day out when we are looking at a narcotics 

trafficker and the like. Again, I am not sufficiently well versed in 

that aspect of the law. We would have to get back to you. 

Mr. KING. I would ask you to do that and then I would ask you 

also to review a couple of circuit court cases, Tenth Circuit. They 

both happen to be U.S. v. Santana Garcia and the other one is U.S. 

v. Vasquez Alvarez that I believe are on point for that. And I think 

it is useful for us to understand that relationship and the cooperative effort between Federal and local law enforcement. 

Another subject matter that I am curious about is that there are 

estimates out that there are roughly 1,200 mosques in the United 

States, and we are seeing homegrown terrorists emerge, people 

that have American citizenship by birth that turn against their 

country. I believe that there is jihad being preached in some of 

those mosques. Can you tell me is the FBI restrained from investigations in a public setting like that? Can they go into the mosque, 

listen, report, record? Are you constrained in any way from that 

type of activities? It might give us a better sense of how the homegrown terrorists are being radicalized. 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain about the figures that you use, 

but I will say that we are not constrained in undertaking investigations, but we are exceptionally sensitive to the fact that the First 

Amendment does protect speech and association. And so we are not 

constrained in following a predication of an individual regardless of 

where they may be; who may be contemplating involvement or engagement in supporting terrorism or a terrorism act. 

Mr. KING. Does it require a warrant for an FBI agent to sit in 

a mosque with a tape recorder in a public setting? 

Mr. MUELLER. It depends on the circumstances, but generally I 

would say no. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. That helps me a lot. 

Mr. MUELLER. In the same breath, I would say that there has to 

be predication for utilizing that particular technique. 

Mr. KING. And just one brief question, if the Chairman would indulge. 

Mr. SMITH. Please be brief. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And that is, Director, do you know of even a single case where 

an individual had their rights to privacy usurped under the PATRIOT Act that has any potential of being successfully litigated on 

constitutional principles? 

Mr. MUELLER. I don’t believe so. I am not aware of one. 

Mr. KING. And I don’t either. Thank you, Director. I appreciate 

it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. King. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu, is recognized for her 

questions. 

Ms. CHU. Director Mueller, I have similar questions but from a 

different perspective. 

I believe that you have stated that protecting America requires 

the cooperation and the understanding of the public. You have also 

45 

emphasized that since 9/11, the FBI has developed an extensive 

outreach program to Muslims, South Asian, and Sikh communities 

to develop trust, address concerns, and dispel myths in those communities about the FBI and the U.S. Government. And as part of 

this effort, in 2009 the FBI established the Specialized Community 

Outreach Team, composed of special agents, analysts, community 

outreach specialists, and personnel with language or other specialized skills. 

Now, as you know, last week the House Homeland Security Committee held a controversial hearing on the extent of radicalization 

in the Muslim community focusing only on one community. I am 

deeply concerned about the attempts to marginalize an entire minority group in this country, and the reason I am sensitive to it is 

that I know that targeting like this can result in great tragedy. For 

instance, the words ‘‘national security’’ were used to send 120,000 

Japanese Americans to prison camps throughout America during 

World War II, making them lose everything that they had, and in 

the end, not a single act of espionage was proven. 

So considering the efforts to be concerned about improving national security, I would like to ask you if you agree with Congressman King’s assessment that American Muslims are not cooperating 

with law enforcement, especially since Sheriff Lee Baca stated in 

that hearing that Muslim Americans helped foil 7 of the 10 plots 

that were launched by al-Qaeda in the U.S. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I would prefer not to comment on the representations of others. But if the question is to what extent has the 

Muslim community cooperated with the FBI since 2001, I can say 

in a number of cases the Muslim community has either initiated 

or cooperated with the investigation throughout the course of the 

investigation leading up to a successful disruption of the terrorist 

plot, often with consequent arrest and prosecution. 

Ms. CHU. And is it true, as Sheriff Lee Baca said, that Muslim 

Americans helped foil 7 of the 10 plots that were launched by alQaeda in the U.S.? 

Mr. MUELLER. Again, I am not certain of the statistics. I will say 

that the Muslim community has helped in a number of cases that 

we have addressed since September 11th. 

Ms. CHU. Well, according to a study by the Triangle Center on 

Terrorism and Homeland Security, the number of Muslim Americans involved in terrorist acts against the U.S. dropped by more 

than half in 2010 compared to 2009, which seemed to indicate that 

perhaps we are going in the opposite direction with regard to Muslim Americans being radicalized, as was alleged in the hearing. 20 

Muslim Americans were arrested for terrorism crimes last year, 

which is down from 47 the previous year, and more non-Muslim 

Americans were involved in terrorist plots last year than Muslim 

Americans, according to the study. 

I would like to have your comments on the findings of this study. 

Mr. MUELLER. I have not had an opportunity to review the study, 

so it would be difficult for me to comment on it. 

Ms. CHU. Well, then could you comment on how you think the 

relationship between the FBI and the Muslim community might be 

improved? 

46 

Mr. MUELLER. I think we continuously have to work at outreach. 

The FBI certainly does, and I think we have made substantial efforts and they have been successful since September 11th, but it 

is an ongoing process. Actions of the FBI could be misinterpreted. 

We use every opportunity we have to explain what we do and why 

we have done it. Occasionally it is shrouded in secrecy because either the subject matter or the techniques are classified. But to the 

extent that we can be transparent and point out why we undertake 

certain actions, the results of those actions, then we find that 

whether it is members of the South Asian or Muslim or Sikh or 

Arab American community, there is understanding and we develop, 

I would say, a very good relationship. We have, I believe, very good 

relationships with the Muslim community around the country. 

I will say, as I have said before often in testimony, that the vast, 

vast majority of Muslim Americans are no different than any other 

American sitting in this room or as patriotic and express that in 

ways that are appropriate in terms of assisting us in our investigations. And we continue to develop the relationships. 

One other thing I do believe is the worse thing that could happen 

to the Muslim community is to have another terrorist attack, and 

members of the Muslim community understand that, respond to it, 

and for the most part, are cooperative. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Chu. 

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Quayle, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Director, both for your service and for being 

here today. 

Now, we have the PATRIOT Act reauthorization for a certain 

number of provisions. I just have one question regarding the roving 

wiretaps. 

Now, when an order authorizing the roving or multi-point wiretaps, what type of reporting to the court is required when a new 

communications facility is actually identified? 

Mr. MUELLER. Would you excuse me just a second? 

Mr. QUAYLE. Yes. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. I wasn’t familiar with the details, but apparently we make a return within 10 days of the new phone number. 

So there is a responsibility to get back to the court and alert the 

court as to the fact that there was a new number. 

Mr. QUAYLE. And this is after they have already gone to court 

to get the initial authorization. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Thank you. 

And moving on to a different topic, cyber security is going to be 

a potent threat going forward. It already is now, but going into the 

future, it is going to be even more dangerous. What is the FBI’s 

role in assessing and investigating various cyber threats? 

Mr. MUELLER. One of the difficulties with a cyber intrusion is the 

immediate attribution. You do not know whether it is another government who is seeking to exfiltrate information from the national 

services or from the military or what have you. You don’t know 

whether there is a group of individuals that have come together, 

47 

maybe a terrorist group, or a high school student across the street 

that is responsible for it. 

We established several years ago the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force in which we, along with other members of the 

intelligence community, law enforcement community, have this 

task force in a separate place where we take each intrusion and 

immediately try to determine how best to investigate it, utilizing 

the capabilities of both the intelligence community, as well as the 

law enforcement community, and then investigate it either as a 

criminal threat or a counter-intelligence threat. So we are at the 

hub of the attribution and investigation side. 

The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for alerting 

and protecting the private side of the Internet, and quite obviously, 

NSA and the new Cyber Command are responsible for protecting 

the Government entities, particularly when it comes to the military. 

Mr. QUAYLE. So when you assess a threat and you determine 

whether it is criminal or whether it is more counter-intelligence, 

then criminal goes toward the FBI and counter-intelligence goes 

to—— 

Mr. MUELLER. It may well be but there may be—— 

Mr. QUAYLE. Some overlap? 

Mr. MUELLER [continuing]. Expertise in any one agency. In other 

words, there may be expertise in the NSA. Ultimately it may turn 

out to be a criminal threat and we may want to go to court which 

requires different treatment. On the other hand, we may have expertise here that is helpful to the military. Or what happens more 

often than not in this day and again, it is cross-jurisdictional. The 

victims may be in the United States, the actors outside; or the actors in the United States and the victims outside. And consequently, the cyber threat, more than any other, because of the 

difficulty of attribution at the outset, requires us to work together 

in the task force concept to make certain that we gather all the information we can and then make a determination how best to address the threat whether it be through prosecution or through some 

sort of activity on the part of the intelligence community. 

Mr. QUAYLE. When you were talking with Mr. Watt earlier, you 

were talking about IP theft that is pretty much rampant right now 

on the Internet, and you mentioned that the FBI had gotten increased funding in, I think it was, fiscal year 2009 and 2010 for 

specific agents that were specifically tasked with going into IP 

theft. There are reports out that there haven’t been any increased 

investigations related to IP theft. And I would just want to know 

is it just because you are ramping up, or what is the reason that 

there is not increased investigations when more allocated resources 

have been given to the FBI? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, actually, we have over 460 investigations ongoing in intellectual property at this point in time. Some of them 

probably predated the addition of the 20 agents. And I would have 

to get back to you as to where they are and what particular investigations they are undertaking. But in the last year or so, we have 

undertaken a review to better allocate our resources to maximize 

the impact. But as I say, we have over 460 ongoing investigations. 

That is probably not enough given the extent of the crime out 

48 

there, but we have to prioritize and we do the best we can in terms 

of prioritizing. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Okay, great. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Quayle. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, is recognized. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, thank you for your service. I will be sorry to 

see you go this fall. 

I want to get back to an exchange you had earlier with Mr. Conyers. Last year, the FBI had identified mortgage fraud as its most 

significant white-collar crime issue and noted that the number of 

investigations of mortgage fraud against financial institutions had 

been rising annually, and in fact, earlier this morning, you recited 

some statistics about the number of ongoing investigations. 

Could you describe the results of those investigations thus far? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think they have been very successful. I don’t believe there is a month or 2 months that goes by without a substantial takedown of individuals who were involved in some sort of 

scheme relating to mortgage fraud. But I would have to get those 

statistics for you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. MUELLER. I think we have been quite successful and actually 

we have had a number of press conferences when we have taken 

down a number of particular cases around the country. So I will 

get you that information, sir. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate that. 

Does the FBI have sufficient resources to combat financial fraud 

and mortgage fraud? 

Mr. MUELLER. We have over 3,000 mortgage fraud cases. We 

again do have to look at them through the working groups and the 

task forces that we have around the country. We try to make certain that we address each one either at the Federal level or at the 

State level. We have periodic reviews with each of our field offices 

at least twice a year in which I am asking about their mortgage 

fraud caseload and how they are addressing the mortgage fraud 

caseload and where the cases are in the course of investigation and 

prosecution, and if we can’t do it, who is doing it. So I believe that 

has been successful in addressing this particular issue. 

Mr. DEUTCH. As you do that analysis and make the determination that if you can’t do it, who is doing it, what is the answer to 

that question that will satisfy you when you try to determine who 

else is doing—— 

Mr. MUELLER. If it is being addressed either by a local district 

attorney’s office or in many cases the attorney general’s office. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Which then leads in to my next question. Beginning 

in the fall of last year when reports started to surface that certain 

mortgage services were submitting false, improper, or fraudulent 

court documents in support of foreclosure actions, there were reports that raised concern that the mortgage lending industry may 

have pursued—there may have been thousands of foreclosures unlawfully. At that time, the Justice Department indicated it was 

considering an investigation into whether there may have been 

criminal violations concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers. 

49 

If you could speak to the role of the FBI in the ongoing settlement talks and prosecutions, investigations surrounding the mortgage servicing industry specifically your interaction with, as you 

just pointed out, the State attorneys general in particular. 

Mr. MUELLER. Our role would be to investigate allegations, accusations of illegal criminal activity in the mortgage services industry. I do believe we have ongoing investigations, but to the extent 

that there is discussion about settlements, it would be outside our 

realm. It would be the U.S. Attorney’s office, the State attorney 

general, or other regulators. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And just a change in direction, again this being 

your last time up here before the Committee. You touched briefly 

in your exchange with Mr. Quayle on some cyber issues. The Director of National Intelligence told the House Intelligence Committee 

last month that the cyber environment provides unprecedented opportunities for adversaries to target the U.S. due to our reliance on 

information systems. 

If you could just speak to, one, whether you share Director Clapper’s concern that the cyber environment presents these unprecedented opportunities for our adversaries and, two, whether you believe security of the system should be enhanced? Again, that is 

based on the investigations that the FBI may have been conducting 

addressing specifically the cyber security issues. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I do agree with General Clapper. I think he 

is absolutely right in that the opportunities for intrusions and illegal cyber activity are growing exponentially as technology grows 

and that every one of us has an obligation to address security within their particular institutions or even within one’s particular 

household. The Government as a whole, I know, is working. The 

Administration is working to continue to address this. 

Our role, as I indicated before, is generally to investigate the intrusions and determine attribution, and then if it is someone over 

whom we have jurisdiction, to arrest, indict, and convict. We actually have had cases where we have had extradited from other countries persons who have undertaken illegal cyber activity and the 

victims are here in the United States. So not only is it a growing 

problem, it is a growing international problem where we cannot be 

content to reside in our own jurisdictions and just address what is 

happening in our jurisdiction because often the players, the actors 

are not in our jurisdiction but the victims may well be. So it will 

be a huge challenge in the future. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Director. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Deutch. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Gallegly, is recognized. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director Mueller, it is great to see you here this morning. You 

know, after just completing 8 years on Intel and seeing the diversity and the complexities of what you have to deal with every day, 

I have incredible respect for you and the job you have done. I have 

to say that I miss being on Intelligence, but there is an 8-year term 

limit. So we will find other challenges. 

I know, as I was coming in this morning—and I was a few minutes late. But I know that there was some discussion as it relates 

to health care fraud. I recently had a group of folks from Los AngeVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:07 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\031611\65188.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
50 

les County’s law enforcement agencies, county sheriffs, former 

DA’s, and so on that had been working Medicare fraud in the 

greater Los Angeles area and in and around that regionally. It is 

mind-boggling to me the information that they passed on to me as 

it relates to Russian gangs, identity theft, and particularly with 

doctors, identity being taken and false claims being paid to doctors 

through these clinics that were using other doctors’ names, and 

then these doctors not knowing about it until they get a letter from 

the IRS about not paying their income tax. I mean, it is a very 

complicated situation. 

However, it gets beyond that. I would just like to maybe hear 

from you what your understanding of the depth of this problem is. 

I have had numbers that seem to be from credible sources that the 

fraud amounts on Medicare alone could be as much as $60 billion 

a year, which plays a major role in the success and the challenges 

of Medicare. Issues like women that are preyed on, particularly illegal immigrants, that are paid $25-$30 to go in and take mammograms two-three times a week and the concern, of course, on their 

health is an issue. Pharmacies that are selling three and four times 

as many drugs each week as they actually buy. So it is a revolving 

door where they are working in conjunction with some of these 

clinics that are nothing more than a computer front. 

I just would like to know if you have some comments about how 

you are working with the identity theft and particularly the impact 

that it is having on Medicare. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would hope that you had a briefing from a task 

force who is addressing it because in Los Angeles, as well as elsewhere, we address Medicare fraud, health care fraud together with 

State and local law enforcement. 

One of the things you do point out which we have found recently 

is the intersection of organized crime with health care fraud. I 

would say there has been a substantial growth in the last 4 to 5 

years of organized crime recognizing that health care fraud is a fertile field for activity. We had a series of arrests about a month, 

month and a half ago which laid out, at least, one substantial organized crime group that has spent substantial time and received 

substantial monies from Medicare fraud. So being aware of the 

intersection with organized crime is one aspect. 

Another aspect is what you will find is if there is a scheme that 

has found a home in Tampa, which we identify and we prosecute 

and take down in Tampa, inevitably it will show up in Texas or Arizona or elsewhere. And so we have used the intelligence capabilities that we have developed frankly to address terrorism to make 

certain that we anticipate the schemes and prevent them from taking root elsewhere. 

And so a combination of understanding the intersection with organized crime, the ability to try to get ahead of the scheme as it 

tries to take root elsewhere in the country, and lastly again I would 

go back to we cannot do this alone. It takes the combination of 

local district attorneys, State attorney general offices, as well as 

our agents and agents from the Postal Service, HHS, a number of 

the other agencies to work cooperatively in the task force or working group concept to address this particular threat. 

51 

Mr. GALLEGLY. One thing I asked, Director Mueller, was that it 

was represented to me that a major problem, at least in the greater 

Los Angeles area, are groups that are referred to as Russian gangs 

and there are other gangs. But is it your understanding that that 

is clearly a problem where a lot of the money is going offshore as 

they are getting it through these fraudulent ways here in the U.S.? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me just clarify one thing. 

I would say more generally Eastern European, not just limited 

to Russia. Certainly Russian organized crime has been a player 

over the years, but the recent takedown, if I am not mistaken, was 

not Russia. It was an Eastern European country. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And a lot of that is going back. Money is going 

offshore. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes, absolutely. 

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

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Gallegly. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, now 

serving as Ranking Member, is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Nothing like going from last to first, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Director Mueller, it is good to see you again. Over the years, it 

has been a pleasure to work with you on the implementation of the 

Protect Our Children Act of 2008. I want to touch briefly on some 

of the issues surrounding that. 

And I know Chairman Smith mentioned his concerns about data 

retention earlier in his questions. I share those concerns. And I 

want to make sure that we get some answers from you just to shed 

some light on the challenges that you face at the FBI and then 

within the larger Department of Justice. But I look forward to 

working with Chairman Smith on advancing a bipartisan bill that 

will help make sure that law enforcement can connect the dots 

when we are dealing with child exploitation investigations. 

So the issue is that too many of these child exploitation investigations will go cold because of the lack of connectivity logs that 

link anonymous IP addresses to specific individuals that are often 

deleted by the time a criminal investigation ensues and the request 

is made. And it ranges from as small and as short as 7 days to as 

long as 90 days, but really that is an inadequate amount of time 

if the crime isn’t discovered before that point. 

So you had mentioned previously when I have asked you this before, but do you still favor giving law enforcement this additional 

tool to allow them to get access to those connectivity logs within 

a reasonable period of time? 

Mr. MUELLER. Absolutely. It goes to the larger issue of records 

retention which is essential to our ability to conduct the types of 

investigations—— 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

And are you aware of cases that ran cold or that law enforcement 

ran up against dead ends because they couldn’t get access to 

connectivity logs? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The law now has sort of a standard. 

Why is the preservation scheme under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act not strong enough currently? 

52 

Mr. MUELLER. It goes back to what you indicate. The 

connectivity logs would be an essential part of it, but email addresses, use of email address, past emails, past attachments that 

have crossed the Internet—that is the kind of records that would 

give us the capability to successfully conduct an investigation on an 

individual who is using every effort he or she can to avoid scrutiny 

by the authorities. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now, I have a very strong record on 

privacy going all the way back to Terry Schiavo. So it is hard to 

be second to me on the importance of privacy. But this is such a 

critical issue because for literally—I mean, we could say thousands 

of cases potentially go cold because of the lack of that access. 

Wouldn’t it certainly be preferable for the industry to come up with 

their own uniform reasonable standard? 

Mr. MUELLER. It would. In my mind there ought to be a dialogue 

with Congress with the private sector. You come up with a rational 

records retention policy. It used to be that storage was a problem, 

but with the advances in technology, I have not heard recently a 

company avert to storage as being a problem. But it is the privacy 

and the privacy interests in my mind can be protected adequately 

with a records retention policy that gives us the tools we need to 

conduct successful investigations. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And the Chairman had the hearing 

with the industry here in which we indicated and urged them to 

please press forward on a voluntary standard. I am for making 

them do it if they don’t do that. 

But just last but not least, because I know we are pressing up 

against votes, how is the lack of predictable data retention by service providers a significant hindrance and even an obstacle in certain investigations? And can you give us some specific examples of 

cases that have gone cold because of the lack of access to that data? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I can get back to you with cases where they 

have gone cold, but anybody that looks at it and compare it where 

we were when telephone toll records were readily available for 

years and years and years and you compare to—because the billing 

is so different at this juncture, there is no incentive for companies 

to keep these records. There has to be some mechanism that either 

voluntarily or mandatorily requires them to keep them. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just in closing, Mr. Chairman, I 

mean, we are literally jeopardizing children’s lives by not having 

adequate access to this information, and I really look forward to 

working with you on making sure that we can get it. 

Mr. SMITH. I agree. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Shultz. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, is recognized. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon, Director. It is good to see you. 

I think, as you know, I was a district attorney and a United 

States attorney, and I had the pleasure of working with the Bureau 

in many cases, and it was a distinct honor. And I want to compliment you and the Bureau because you certainly have significantly increased the effectiveness and efficiency and the prestige of 

the Bureau, and thank you for your work. 

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you. 

53 

Mr. MARINO. Sir, I want to revert back a little bit here to the 

PATRIOT Act, the Senate’s version that is coming up. The Senate 

bill requires a showing of specific facts for NSL’s, national security 

letters, and 215 orders other than library and bookseller records. 

Has the term ‘‘specific fact’’ been defined by the FISA Court or by 

the Bureau? 

Mr. MUELLER. No, I don’t believe it has. You can read into it 

what you want. Again, my preference would be that the PATRIOT 

Act, as it sits, be reauthorized as it is now without the modifications or the insertion of, I would say, a somewhat confusing phrase 

to which you allude. 

Mr. MARINO. Do you think that if the FBI is required to include 

a statement of specific facts, does it open up for interpretation by 

the Inspector General whether a particular set of facts was specific 

enough, and what problems would this cause the Bureau? 

Mr. MUELLER. I think that is a possibility, although we work 

very closely with the Inspector General. I see what you are alluding to. I do think that is a possibility. 

Mr. MARINO. Well, you have no reservations that something like 

that could be worked out, given the relationship that you have? 

Mr. MUELLER. We would work through it if it were passed into 

law. Again, my preference would be that we have worked with 

these three provisions, and reauthorization of those three provisions would be appropriate in my mind. Adding additional provisions relating to the NSL’s or something else would put it into different ball park. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Marino. 

We will now go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 

his questions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Director. Nice to see you back. 

You had mentioned earlier that—and it is in your written statement—the FBI has developed extensive outreach to Muslim communities. In an answer to an earlier question, I had understood 

you to say that Muslim communities were like all other communities. So I am curious, as a result of the extensive outreach program the FBI has had to the Muslim community, how has your 

outreach program gone with the Baptists and the Catholics. 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not certain of necessarily the thrust of that 

question. I would say that our outreach to all segments of a particular city or county or society is good. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, do you have a particular program of outreach to Hindus, Buddhists, Jewish community, agnostics, or is it 

just an extensive outreach program to—— 

Mr. MUELLER. We have outreach to every one of those communities. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And how do you do that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Every one of those communities can be affected by 

facts or circumstances—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I have looked extensively and I haven’t seen anywhere in anyone from the FBI’s letters, information that there has 

been an extensive outreach program to any other community trying 

to develop trust in this kind of relationship. And it makes me wonVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:07 Apr 16, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\031611\65188.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
54 

der if there is an issue of trust or some problem like that that the 

FBI has seen in that particular community. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say if you look at—one of our more effective tools are what we call ‘‘citizens academies’’ where we bring in 

individuals from a variety of segments of the territory in which the 

office operates and if—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Well, Director, I have only got 5 minutes 

and so I need your answers to be very quick. 

Mr. MUELLER. Look at the citizens academies, the persons there. 

They are a cross section of the community. They can be Muslim. 

They can be Indian. They can be Baptists. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, but no specific programs to any of those. 

You have extensive outreach to the Muslim community and then 

you have a program of outreach to communities in general is what 

it sounds like. 

But let me ask you, are you aware of the evidence in the Holy 

Land Foundation case that linked the Council on American-Islamic 

Relations, CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, and the 

North America Islamic Trust to the Holy Land Foundation? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am not going to speak to specific information in 

a particular case. I would tell you, on the other hand, that we do 

not have formal—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Are you aware of the case? 

Mr. MUELLER. We do not have any formal relationship with 

CAIR because of concerns—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I have got the letter from the Assistant Director Richard Powers that says in light of the evidence, talking 

about during the trial evidence was introduced to demonstrate a relationship among CAIR, individual CAIR founders, including its 

current president emeritus and executive director and the Palestine 

Committee. Evidence was also introduced that demonstrated a relationship between the Palestine Committee and Hamas which was 

designated as a terrorist organization in 1995. In light of that evidence, he says the FBI suspended all formal contacts between 

CAIR and the FBI. 

Well, now it was my understanding—and I have got documentation and I hope you have seen this kind of documentation before. 

It is a public record. And also the memo order from the judge is 

turning down a request that the unindicted co-conspirators be 

eliminated from the list. And he says the FBI’s information is clear. 

There is a tie here and I am not going to grant the deletion of these 

particular parties as unindicted co-conspirators. 

So I am a little surprised that you are reluctant to discuss something that has already been set out in an order, that has already 

been in a letter saying we cut ties in light of the evidence at this 

trial. I am just surprised it took the evidence that the FBI had 

being introduced at the trial in order to sever the relationships 

with CAIR that it had that showed, going back to a 1993 meeting 

in Philadelphia, was tied to a terrorist organization. So I welcome 

your comments about that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, as I told you before, we have no formal relationship with CAIR because of concerns with regard to the national 

leadership. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. 

55 

And are you familiar with the evidence from the Holy Land 

Foundation trial that showed that the founders of CAIR, Omar 

Ahmad and Nihad Awad, attended a mosque meeting in Philadelphia in 1993? 

Mr. MUELLER. I am generally familiar with that case, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Well, thank you. I see my time has run 

out. 

One last question, though. Are you going to miss having to come 

testify at these Committees? [Laughter.] 

Mr. MUELLER. That is the one question I will give a ‘‘no comment’’ to. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. 

Director Mueller, thank you for your testimony today. Thank you 

for your 10 years of service as FBI Director and also for your many 

years of public service before that, including service in the military 

and your very distinguished career there as well. We very much 

appreciate it. We wish you well in your future endeavors too and 

appreciate all you have done. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witness and any additional materials for the record. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

57 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


65188A-2.eps
58 


65188A-3.eps
59 


65188A-4.eps
60 


65188A-5.eps
61 


65188A-6.eps
62 


65188A-7.eps
63 


65188A-8.eps
64 


65188A-9.eps
65 


65188A-10.eps
66 


65188A-11.eps
67 


65188A-12.eps
68 

Æ 


65188A-13.eps