>> want to ask the person. >> if he could finish quickly on the lone wolf provision and roving wiretaps. >> roving wiretaps used 140 times, approximately over the same years, and, it is tremendously important. with the new technology, nothing to buy four or five cell phones at the same time and use them serially to avoid coverage. and, the roving wiretaps are used in those circumstances where you make a case that that is going to happen and have approval for it. essential given the technology and growth of technology we have had. as to the lone wolf, that has not been used yet but my belief is, it needs to be where we have an individual such as moussaoui whom we need to get a fisa warrant and cannot identify with specificity a foreign power,

that is particularly rised terrorist organization he belongs to, but the need to as they say in the lone wolf context go to the fisa court and say okay. this is a lone wolf and can't put the tie to the terrorist group but here's the reasons we need to go up with this individual and each provision is important. >> thank you for allowing him to answer. >> thank you, senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to thank you, director mueller, for the great service you have given the country after all of these years, and i have been -- you are one of the heros of the country and so are all of those fbi personnel people who really protect us throughout all of these years, and i want to say i sure appreciate you. but i was relieved when the census bureau independently chose to terminate its relationship with the

association of community organization for reform now, commonly known as acorn. and, i'm deeply troubled by the most recent controversy concerning that organization and many other controversy, too, the disturbing behavior of acorn employees was captured on video at an acorn office, offices in brooklyn, new york baltimore, washington d.c. and san bernardino, california giving guidance on criminal activity and a documentary filmmaker posing as a prostitution ringleader entered the acorn offices and received advice how to maintain his enterprise and receive tax credits to do so and the advice included among other things how to launder profits from an alleged prostitution ring that would involve under age girls. during the meeting acorn representatives were informed the girls were smuggled into the u.s. from the foreign country for the purpose of sex trafficking and acorn employees

were told by the filmmaker the reason for obtaining the residence was to establish a brothel, that would house these underage girls. consistent amongst all three acorn offices was the advise, to lie to law enforcement, and conceal the profits and ensure that any of the girls involved in the prostitution ring do not talk to law enforcement. one acorn employee said the alleged prostitution ringleader, quote, girls under 16 don't exist, unquote and, quote, make sure they keep their mouths shut, unquote. now that heinous conspiratorial criminal activity is usually carried out by organized crime families however it appears, acorn which has offices in 41 cities nationwide, has decided to engage in offering expert advice on how to get caught rung a sex slavery anything and money laundz deterring and mortgage fraud and this is not ron dom and the consistency of the

advice indicates it's systematic and widespread within acorn and the behavior of acorn employees in multiple offices offering to assist persons engaging in sex trafficking is a great disbehavior and can you tell me if you have been made aware of these issues and if the fbi field offices in washington, baltimore and new york are examining these incidents? >> i think the first time i heard of this incident to which you refer was last evening. and, i am -- beyond that, i do not know where we are, clearly, given what you have said, it is something in consultation with the department of justice we'd look at. >> that is what i have been led to believe and would sure appreciate if you would look at it and do something about it. now, last month, the white house and the attorney general announced the formation of a new working group. comprised of several law enforcement and intelligence personnel for the sole purpose of interrogating high rvalue

detainees, referred to as the hig, you are familiar. >> yes. >> according to the white house and the attorney general the hig will be housed inside the fbi and the senior fbi official will be in charged of the hiv however they stressed the hig will not be a sub unit of the fbi or doj. now that point by the administration does not shed light on who the hig will report to, either the fbi or the national security council. if the ultimate goal of the at straying is to prosecute high value detainees, in article 3 courts, the development of evidence will be key to the government's case. now, what i have reservations about, is evidence that was developed by the intelligence community, for instance, in some cases, the government may not be willing or able to produce the source of the evidence in court.

furthermore the evidence may be the fruit of information obtained from foreign intelligence or foreign investigations. now, this information could lead investigators down a line of questioning during an interrogation that they will have to explain in court. if trying these cases in federal criminal courts is the ultimate goal, what solutions does the fbi propose to address hearsay evidence exclusions? and, just one follow-up question, will the fbi implement a policy on the hig to begin each intelligence interrogation with the miranda warning? is the fbi mirandizing detainees in afghanistan, i think you have approached that, if you could answer those three questions. >> the heart of the issue is that is not the ultimate goal of every interrogation but it may be intelligence gathering but by the same token you should is not... not avoid the possibility

that you may be able to obtain evidence that would result in a prosecution. and, consequently, the effort is to look at an individual, determine what is the evidence you have on him, is the evidence admissible into a courtroom, does it come from intelligence sources where it is problematic, given the reasons you said, may have come from a source are method disclosed or a foreign country, but, tie that together and say what do we have on the individual and firstly ho does it tie together to maximize our ability to interrogate the individual and information that you need to effectively interrogate an individual, may well come from law enforcement sources or may well come from intelligence sources and the persons doing the interrogation should have that information in front of them, and, in unique cases, high value targets, as i said before, maybe somebody who has been indicted before at least has the option of giving miranda warnings in certain circumstances where it is appropriate to help the

prosecution, not to the detriment of gathering intelligence. so the root, the hig units are a combination of intelligence and law enforcement, fbi, but intelligence, in terms of cia, in terms of dia, with the combined expertise so we can more effectively do it and make shern certain we have the intelligence on the table and the other thing we have in this country, many countries do not have is a classified information procedures act. which enables us as happened to moussaoui and other cases to successfully try individuals while still protecting sources and methods and protecting information that may have come from overseas. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman my time is up and i'll submit the rest of my question. i'll submit the rest of the questions. >> we are going to be having -- >> thank you, mr. mueller. >> votes on the floor soon and i want to try and keep this going. people take turns going over the next set -- senator feingold

first and then it will be senator kaufman and senator franklin. the rest of the list here... senator feingold, and senator frank and cobo char and senator cardin, senator feingold. >> let me begin, director, good to see you, and i'd like to associate myself with the senator's comments about violent crime in wisconsin, the overall trend of violent crime is being -- decreasing is heartening but i urge you to continue to work closely with the state and local law enforcement on these issues. director, as to the patriot act, 3 provisions of the act expire as we know at e the end of the year and critical information about their implementation has not been made public, information that i think would have a significant impact on the debate. during the debate on the protect america act in the fisa amendment act in '07-'08 i felt

critical legal and factual information remained unknown to the public and members of congress, certainly relevant to the debate and might have made a difference in the way some people voted. and during the last patriot act reauthorization debate in '05 a great deal of implementation information remained classified and this time around we have to try to find a way to have an open and honest debate about the nature of these government powers while of course protecting national security secrets. i have raised this repeatedly as you know, administration officials over the past couple of years, and most recently, in june, a classified letter signed by senators leahy, durbin, widen and whitehouse and i appreciate the letter made public for the first time this week the lone wolf authority as you just confirmed, one of these three provisions has never been used, and that is a good start since this is a key fact as we consider extending that power, but there is also information about the use of section 215 orders i believe congress and

the american people deserve to know. i realize that you are not the sole person to make the decision but i'm asking you today for your commitment, to advocate for finding a way to allow some limited information to become public so we can have a real debate about this. will you make that commitment? >> i don't think i can. because, there is inevitable tension between particularly when it comes to national security, keeping the information classified, because to do -- not to do so, would harm our national security, on the other hand i understand what you are saying in terms of what you learn on the intelligence committee would be useful in the debate on the floor and there is a tension. but, i do believe that the information provided to the intelligence committee and -- in a classified setting is appropriately provide the intelligence committee in the classified setting and while there is that tension there i

cannot give you a commitment i would advocate for releasing more information, than we have in the past. >> i hope you will reconsider that. i mean, the fact is you have made public that the lone wolf provision has never been used, and that is something that perhaps other people would like to know and you have chose tone do that and obviously you are not applying it as and across-the-board rule and the number of times, section 215 orders have been issued is something but does not come close to providing the kind of information bowel the use of the authority, i think is need ford meaningful public debate. i -- >> and that may be where we disagree. >> and i just want to say that i -- feel strongly as anybody, in this body or in this country about keeping things secret that have to be kept secret. and my feeling and understanding about this, increase greatly as a member of the senate intelligence committee for the past four yards but i really do believe there is a way to do this and i hope you will work with us and consider appropriate disclosure that is not harmful to our country but allows us to

have a real debate. >> i would do that in terms of particular pieces of information, yes. >> the court of appeals for the second circuit found the gag orders violate the first amendment and has the fbi changed the procedures to address the constitutional problems identified by the decision and if so has it made the changes nationwide or are they just changed in the states of the second circuit. >> let me check one thing, if i... we made the change across the country. >> okay. good while the court's decision was specific to nsl, the implications for the gag orders associated with the section 215 orders as well, that's fbi made any changes to these procedures, as a result of the second circuit's decision? >> not in that venue. we disagree with the application

of the second circuit opinion to these other procedures. >> we'll take that up in the future then but i appreciate the answer. senator leahy mentioned last year the doj inspector general issued a second set of reports on the fbi's use of the national security letters in the section 21 of the patriot act and i wanted to follow up on a troubling incident discussed in one of these reports. the ig said the fbi issued nsls to obtain financial records in an investigation after the fisa court twice refused to approve section 215 order, in the same investigation because of first amendment problems. so, this obviously leaves me concerned about how seriously the fbi takes first amendment issues and of course -- in the course of its investigation and do you think it was, appropriate for the fbi to seek information using nsls, an investigative tool that does not require judicial approval to get around the fisa court's refusal to approve a section 215 order.

>> i'm not familiar with the incidence and the way you characterized it in terms of judge-shopping or process-shopping, i am not certain that is appropriate. but i am not familiar with the incident have to get back with you. >> the report was issued a year-and-a-half ago. >> yes. >> has the fbi taken any action to ensure it doesn't happen again? >> i have to -- there are a number of issues we looked at in the wake of the 2-3 ig reports and on this one, i just... i can't give you have a specific answer at this time. >> i look forward to hearing from you and you have been responsive to my requests and i lack forward to hearing from you as soon as possible and roving fisa wiretaps, one of the provisions of the patriot act, due to sunset and never objected to granting the authority to the fbi and my concern is with a lot of the act is adequate safeguards were not included for example in the criminal rolling wiretap statute there is a requirement before a new phone

or computer can be wiretapped that has not been approved in advance by a judge and there must be reason to presume the target of the surveillance is nearby and sometimes referred to as the asker statement requirement and helps ensure that the fbi doesn't tap the wrong phone or computer, being used by an entirely innocent american. why not include a similar requirement for the fisa roving taps? >> it is my understanding do it and again i haven't looked at it in a while, we are required to show that there is a likelihood that the individual be using many phones, in order to get the approval for that particular provision. and, it seems to me that that satisfies the due process, the constitutional requirements, and, is adequate. to prove more, would mean that we will be going back to the judges day in and day out, in the day, where cell phones arthro away cell phones and given the technology now, i think in many places, as we have

seen in the debate on fisa, the statutes do not keep up with the technology, and in drafting and adding another requirement, it will inhibit our ability to swiftly track those individuals who are seeking to avoid surveillance, counter surveillance and -- >> the consequence of the criminal rolling wiretap statute senate the criminal rule is much, i think is -- my opinion, too restrictive. >> okay. >> and too restrictive and we'd be more effective on criminals if we went back to looking at title 3 given the new technology and it has been on the books a number of years and technology has changed dramatically. >> well, i am -- go to the next senator. >> senators franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. -- director. first of all, director mueller i want to think for providing me with briefings on somali individuals from minnesota who

were returned to somalia to join islamic extremists and after the briefings i'm satisfied the fbi has done a very good job on the ground in the twin cities. obviously, these individuals are a rare exception within the somali community and -- in minnesota, which is a patriotic and hard-working and important part of our statement one of the main things that makes the country special is, we're a melting pot and have people with the cultural background and language skills that we need for these investigations, how is the fbi doing on this front, do we have enough arabic-speaking translators for example? for terror investigations. >> we -- i cannot say we're doing as well as i would like. we have almost doubled our capabilities since september 11th, but that was a small capability to begin with. and when it comes to somali speakers or pashtun or others where there are various clan dialects and the like it becomes

more problematic. we have had substantial outreach programs since september 11th, in trying to attract those who have those capabilities, both in terms of providing translating and... and -- well, translating capabilities but also as agents to be able to operate. we are not where we want to be, it is tremendously difficult but we have done everything we possibly can to encourage, recruit and bring in persons from a diverse background. >> okay. thank you. the task force has been discussed today, it is... i'm concerned about rendition. and i can see promise a release of the -- on the task force, from the department of justice, on august the, that actually, we are going -- you are calling it

transfers, or it was transfers and -- but that is renditions, isn't it. >> well, there are renditions, somebody can be rendered from another country pursuant to an extradition treaty, that is also called renditions, and somebody can be transferred from another country as a result of the other country putting the person on the plane to the united states, that is a rendition, albeit without any extradition paper. and there are other -- >> my question is, are we going to continue the policy of of rendition where we send folks, prisoners to other countries and will the fbi be handing folks over to it's cia for rendition. >> we have not done that in the past and will not do that in the future. i gave a brief description of that, yes, we have been involved

in renditions but not the ones you have been asking about. >> i just -- i just want to make sure there is not transfers of people to other countries for torture, and -- >> we certainly would not do that. when we transfer somebody to another country it is generally the marshal's service and pursuant to paper, extradition. >> okay. and you do not hand them over to the -- >> have not, will not. >> okay. the fbi has a human trafficking initiative that investigates and arrests traffickers and there is a serious problem with trafficking in native american communities in minnesota and people are trafficking native american women and in fact the indian women's resource center found 27% of clients, native american women were victims of human trafficking. as defined by minnesota law. i want to know if human trafficking is a priority at the fbi, and how many full-time

employees investigate human trafficking at the fbi, and how many man hours are spent investigating human trafficking at the fbi. >> i had not been aware prior to the mention by your staff that this question might be coming up about human trafficking of native american women and something i have to look into. >> please. >> we will. i can tell you that we have over 100 agents that work in indian country and we have maintained that since september 11th, despite the other priorities, but i would have to get back to you as well as to the number of agents and others we have that are working on human trafficking in general and i will do that. >> please get back to me on that, and on how many of your investigations center on trafficking of native women. the fbi gathers crime statistics from around the country. but, in minnesota, indian tribes actually don't participate in our state's criminal reporting

program. state law says actually, they can't. this means that the crimes on the indian reservations are underreported, in national statistics and indian tribes themselves have difficulty tracking and analyzing crime and this is a big problem. do you know how many indian tribes and reservations participate in the uniform crime reporting -- >> i don't, i might be able to get back to you but it is a voluntary reporting structure. >> okay. i have about -- little over a minute left and i'll -- you know, we hear a lot about cyber terrorism but i think a lot of folks don't have a clear idea what it is. and how it can actually harm people in the country, and, just how fighting it is crucial in our war on terror, can you tell me what cyber terrorism is, and how it can actually result in a loss of lives or do that for our

people watching. >> well, if you have a cyber -- an attack, if you have a service attack or worm or virus, quite often you don't know who is responsible for that. is it a state actor, a country someplace? is it a terrorist or a terrorist group or is it an individual? the -- whatever the activity is, you have to trace it back and attribute it to one of the three. generally, with terrorists it could be disrupting a communications network and the possibilities of shutting down an electrical grid, shutting down a stock exchange, in other words, any activity that would bring attention to the terrorist that would disrupt our capabilities would probably be called a terrorist activity. >> and again, can they do stuff

with satellites and air traffic control. >> air traffic control is one we'd be concerned about but generally is off the internet an utilizing the internet as a vehicle as opposed to statutes, you also have the more recent examples of the russians disrupting the georgian command and control capabilities, before the invasion of georgia by russia. and it is that kind of activity that either state-sponsored or terrorist-sponsored that can shut down various networks of the military, or in the private arena as well. >> and presumably we have really smart people working on this, and i remember the fbi several years ago, didn't have the best -- it was before you took office, didn't have the best computer system. >> luckily, we do have smart people. i have relied on them.

>> right. i am very reassured. thank you. thank you, mr. director. >> and if i may make one light your point, this is the wave of the future, though, for the fbi it is absolutely essential we attract and bring in these people, because the work, on the battlefields of the future will be in the cyber arena and we have to grow in the same way that nsa intelligence community and military have to grow to address those threats of the future. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> director chairman leahy has gone to the vote and will be back shortly and in the meantime it is my turn and temporary chairmanship, i guess i call on myself. [laughter]. >> do i call you mr. chairman. >> better not do that! >> first of all, welcome you here, and thank you for your continued leadership of the federal bureau of investigation, which is aing or -- an organization that americans are very proud of, and you have been given a significant new respond

with respect to the high-value detainee interrogation group, and, very reasonably, i think the end of august, when this was announced, i'm wondering what your administrative benchmarks are for the next couple of months, to keep that process moving forward, and to discharge the obligations that you have received? what do you see as your next steps? when do you think the group will be fully operational? what are the key benchmarks on the way there? >> i want to start by saying, we are in the midst right now of following up with protocols, for the -- this group. but, as important as anything else, is the leadership, the leadership from the bureau and the intelligence community and we are exploring names and options, for that. and the third area is -- area that we are -- there is outreach

to other persons, who have done research, in the area, to try to bring in early the lessons learned, and research from the defense intelligence committee and other areas who have been looking at this over the last three years and so we start with accumulated knowledge upon which we will build but in my mind the two critical issues are the -- bringing together our organizations, to work closely together, and, understand and have consensus on the goals of this structure, and, secondly, the leadership of it that should be supported by all participants. >> and could you put that into some kind of a time horizon for me? >> i would say by the first of the year, but, i tend to be impatient. i will give you a longer -- longer time horizon than i would like and i can tell you that just about every other day i'm looking at one or mower piece of it. >> very good, i shtick this

opportunity to congratulate you, for the success the fbi has had in the role in these high value interrogations, the very identity of khalid sheikh mohammed as the architect of the 9/11 horrors was something that was achieved by and fbi interrogation, fbi an cia interrogators were present but i want to take the opportunity to congratulate you -- >> can i enter something, we have participated in interrogation with the agency and the military. and there have been successes across the board. and in my mind, we are not where we are today without the activities and capabilities of the agency in terms of addressing the war on terror and the military, and while i appreciate the congratulations i must say that we do spend a lot of time in aches tricking

successes to particular areas given the policy debate, but the fact of the matter this is agency has been instrumental in bringing us the safety we -- to the extent we have it today and i wanted to make this point, as -- >> that is a very good point and i think you are wise and a administratively generous and prudent to make it. i also -- and accurate, i believe, also but i think the fbi's role has been undersung and i wanted to take the opportunity to express my appreciation for your agency's efforts. as we look towards bringing people from guantanamo bay to the u.s. for further detention, for prosecution, as criminals, for incarceration, presumably after a conviction, what is the fbi's assessment of the security risks that that props presents,

do you believe that the federal bureau of prisons for instance has any -- how big of a hazard would that detention of these folks in the custody of the federal bureau of prisons be to the united states. >> i think it depends on the circumstances. the -- depending on where the bureau of prisons puts a person, quite obviously you have been to colorado and have seen -- there is very very, low risk there and most federal prisons there is very very, little risk and county jails are somewhat different and my expectation is when you are bringing persons from overseas, who are involved in terrorism, they will be given top priority in terms of assuring that not only are they incarcerated and cannot escape but also they do not in effect other prisoners or have the

capability of affecting events outside the prison system. >> assuming appropriate prioritization for these individuals, do i need to ask about the federal bureau of prison's ability to keep them secure. >> yes. >> you do not have doubts -- >> no, i think the bureau of prisons, i don't know the circumstances or my expectation is the bureau of prisons, you know along with the marshals service will provide adequate and appropriate security. >> very good, senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, senator whitehouse. good to see you again. director mueller i wanted to talk with you a little bit about the white collar area. i know you devoted some of your testimony to that, and while i see the prosecution of the crimes and the investigation of the crimes and terrorism to be priorities of your work i also have alls ways believed it has been very difficult for local law enforcement to handle some of these complex cases, coming

from that angle my previous job before i came to the u.s. senate. one of the things we have talked about, at the previous hearings is a potential for fraud with the t.a.r.p. money and the stimulus money and i wondered if there were -- without revealing specific cases, if the fbi is prepared for that type of fraud that, we might see? >> i think in the out years, we are going to need additional resource and we have been given some and requested additional resources in the 2010 budget, and our expectation is we'll ask for more in the 2011 budget and there is no doubt in my mind that with the moneys that are flowing freely, relatively freely through the federal government we have to work closely with the igs to identify where those monies are flowing and who will take a piece of it, whether through fraud or public corruption and with those amounts out there, there is no doubt, that there will be a number of people who seek to obtain those frauds, those amounts illegally and will take

us as well, as the inspector generals, as well as new -- a -- new ways of identifying and maintaining data, that will enable us to get to the heart of a routine relatively early, and through manipulating that data or pulling in that data be able to make a prosecutorial case that much quicker. and we're working on that, at this point in time. there is nodoubt in my mind from the t.a.r.p. or the stimulus package and the like that there is going to be fraud, abuse, betrayal of the public trust. >> and you also testified about the health care fraud, and the work that is being done there, and, as we deal with cost savings from -- for health care and looking for those savings, one of the things i was most startled by were the estimates that the health care fraud cost taxpayers $60 billion a year, and potentially 20% total

medicare spending, i know when i was a prosecutor we had a number of cases involving this. that were quite shocking, some of it is technology, because people are able to get into hospital systems and start ripping things off or getting identity numbers, and things like that and then, some of it is just providers, which is actually the scariest part of people, putting patients at risk or doing multiple billings, multiple surgeries, so, could you address what the fbi is doing in that regard and i also have a bill, on this, too, to require direct depositing or electronic funds transfer for the medicare payments, because the regulations have not been uniformly enforced and to me that is a simple no-brainer we'd have direct depositing so that would also help to us prohibited some of this fraud. thank you. >> i can tell you at this point we have almost 2500 cases, this year alone, we have had 490 convictions in health care fraud cases and ten task forces around

the country and we have about 7, almost 800 persons working on health care fraud, in which 460 are special agents. that is enough to -- that is not enough to address the problem. and, as the health care debate goes on, and if indeed there is a health care bill, we would hope that there would be provisions in there that would address this particular issue, and perhaps the one that you suggested, be one, and, our people, i know are looking at what might come out and how we can at the outset put into place the records and the capability of access to the records so we can identify the fraud schemes, without waiting for somebody to walk into the door. >> exactly and i would think your input from the agency would be very important, as we go forward. i believe that this is -- has to be part of any kind of health care reform bill when looking at those kinds of numbers and we are trying to save money and, like i said, some of these

things can be really easy, we have some of it just collected social security numbers out of -- at a hospital because they happened to be in a drawer in a stack in a rubber band and obviously they changed their procedures, since then and that was just the straight identity theft scheme using the social security numbers, but, they were more complex, as you. >> on a number of occasions the generally and secretary sebelius have spoken out about this and are concerned about it and have taken the opportunity to make the point in press conferences relating to health care fraud, and where there have been successful conclusions to investigations. >> exactly and i know, again, how high-cost these investigations can be but it is -- when you look at the madoff case, you have all of those whistleblowers that called and tried to report that, and, $65 billion stolen, that the costs of the investigations may be high but the cost of not doing anything is so much higher.

so, thank you on that. last thing i want to talk to you about was we recently had a hearing on the national academy of science report on forensic science. and, as you know they released a report in february on some of the changes laid by -- recommendations and them forensic science area and we an interesting report, hearing with police chiefs and prosecutors and people from the innocence project there and we actually found some general agreement. there was clearly disputes about the language in the reports, the prosecutors did not like but there was general consensus on acredit dating some of these forensic science labs, and some certification and also, funding for more training in that area and also taking care of the backlog we have seen across the country. could you comment on the fbi's view on that? >> well, i think our view is that we absolutely believe that accredit dagens is important and

we have sought it and received it and it is essential to raising the capabilities of laboratories around the country, training quite obviously always contributes to that and the one area in which there was discussion and that is separating, the forensics laboratory from the -- >> police. >> police, in our case i think it would have a substantially detrimental effect. >> right. >> and you as a prosecutor -- >> i totally get that part of it and i'm trying to find the consensus pieces and there was a consensus on the accreditation funding, training, backlog and then to some of these certification issues. so... >> we're on that train. >> okay. good. very good. thank you very much, director. >> i think we await the return of the chairman from the vote. it should be very shortly. if you don't mind, i'll take an extra moment and follow up with

you until he gets here on the questions for the record that i asked when you appeared before the committee on march 25th having to do with issues surrounding the security clearance, background checks, the hiring process for the individuals that the fbi needs to bring on board, as it takes more and more of a national security oriented role, people with foreign experience. people with foreign language capabilities. people who have more national security backgrounds and so forth, you have i very considerable security clearance process, and i gather from the response that i have been given, that you have been able to manage quite effectively to keep the security clearance process within the 90-day timeframe that

is suggested for trying to bring people on board, and that in driving us to that standard, you feel you have also been able to meet the national security and clearance security requirements. could you comment a little bit more about what it took to get there, was that an easy step, and did it sort of fall within ordinary chains and did you have to really press matters to get that accomplished. >> impact in two areas, one, is our ability to hire any given year, we have a one year budget and often we don't get or budget because of the continued resolution, and, so we have a much truncated time in which to bring those persons on board, and our human resources division, is completely revamping its procedures and, why won't get everybody on board i have not by -- will not by september 30th, we will be by

the first of the year. certainly with agents and analysts, we actually are above our numbers, in hiring there and we are just a bit down on the professional staff. and we also have looked in the context over the overarching view, review that has been done by the office of director of national intelligence how to restructure our security checks or our people and have done that and working -- i'm not certain where we are in terms of 90 day timeframe and have to get back to you on that but i believe that we are working with the odni and the rest of the intelligence community to fix this problem. >> appreciate that. the chairman has returned. >> thank you, thank you senator whitehouse for filling in. we have checked whether senator schumer... cardin, and specter are coming back and the votes, i think they probably toiled, there is a series of votes, and

you have been here before and you know how that times works. >> yes, sir. >> we have had on our side of the aisle, we've had 11 senators that have taken part, 11 democratic senators in the and the distinguished ranking member, senator sessions and two very center members of the republican party, so -- 14 of us, shows how serious we think this -- you take the question of oversight seriously and you and i talked not just here but we talk during the weeks and months as we go along. i would note that the spring -- this spring the national academy of sciences issued a comprehensive report on the need to improve forensic sciences in the united states. the judiciary committee has held

two hearings on this already, having been disturbed by some of the things i have heard, when i was a prosecutor, i used forensic evidence all the time, and without dna, but we used everything else and i know how valuable it can be both to the prosecution and the defense but it is valuable only if it is accurate and reliable and reflect state of the art techniques. and i think we have to have total confidence. as you know, as i know, there are some cases that have no forensic evidence but when it is there, for interest of justice, it has to be accurate and something both sides can agree on. and in the 1990s i called the fbi and faced similar problems, where the fbi laboratory wasn't living up to the highest standards. ultimately, the fbi worked with

the congress, and built an entirely new f.b.i. laboratory, massive undertaking, i think about $100 million, years, and, now, the fbi's that the e fo-- the forefront of forensic science and one people see now, is the reliable dna and the standards were developed by the fbi. how do we -- what do we do with forensic programs around the country, some argue we should have one national lab and others say we -- the state labs can be good, and as you know some states have very good labs and some states don't. how do we establish standards, so if you are trying a case in

vermont or california or ohio, and forensic science is used, that there is some touchstone standard that, the national science academy, we can look at and say, okay, we know this is gooded . >> i do believe that accreditation is tremendously important and driving persons to upgrade laboratories and shaming them into seeking accreditation. and, it will require the support not just of the laboratories themselves, but, costs money to upgrade a lab, and it takes money to train the various technicians you need. >> money and time. >> money and time, and you need a -- everybody to be pushing it, and in particular, in this case it should be the judges, the prosecutor, the defense counsel and should be the technicians themselves, and, as you a-- have

pointed out the guilt or innocence of somebody is dependent on the quality that forensic evidence, even before dna and the other aspect of it is, everything else we need to work together and you indicate that we established the standards with regard to dna and we did it with a working group, of individuals from around the country, from a variety of laboratories, so that it wasn't the fbi dictating, it was law enforcement within the united states, coming together with appropriate solutions and standards, and the same thing can be said for the criminal justice information service, where we have a board which is made up mostly of state and local law enforcement, that we basically are the administrator, and that works exceptionally well. so, having the money, having the push, the accreditation, and then, having the input of a board from state and local law enforcement are the -- i would say the key components. >> and, this is something

really, that affects everybody, the criminal justice system, it affects the jumpings, defense -- judges, defense attorneys, process, and we talked about it before, the prosecutors want to be sure they have the right person and worst thing is you convicted the wrong person and the person who committed the crime is still out there, and obviously the violation of convicting the wrong person. but you have -- i call it the csi factor and go into courts and everybody says, where is the dna and a lot of cases don't have dna or where is this finger print and a lot of cases don't have finger print and where is this lif the ballistics and a lot of cases don't have it but when it is there it ought to be something where you -- the argument is, we all agree on it. i mean, agree on the findings.

otherwise, i think we are going to be in for some real difficulty, especially, with it some of the court cases, that have come down, about requiring the testimony of the person who actually did it, i -- that could be almost impossible, and i know your laboratory helps local law enforcement, all around the country. and that could created a real problem. let me ask you another thing, while the staff is checking -- the others are coming back, we saw the murder of an ecuadorean immigrant brutally killed in long island and we have seen other such crimes against latinos and immigrants, and the poverty law center shows the fbi statistics suggests a 40% rise in anti-latino hate crimes across the nation between 2000 and 2007. what is happening here? and what steps are being taken?

both of us abhor hate crimes of any sort, that are against latinos and blacks and people because of their gender or sexual identification but is there an increase in latino and immigrant hate crimes. >> i'm not aware of that. i have to go and check with that. but, whenever we get allegations with that regard, and, in consultation and conjunction with the department of justice, to determine applicability of our jurisdiction we thoroughly investigate and try and convict. i will have to go back and get back to you on that increase. i have not recognized that. >> i know we have a problem with reporting of hate crimes, because some believe it is a somewhat nebulous category, and some are unwilling to put it into that category, and our statistics, as i say, are dependent on the state and local law enforcement providing that information.

and we have in the last couple of years, focused, when we have our meetings, with regard to the information provided, focused on that particular issue in order to encourage state and local law enforcement to spend mr. tiore and have -- enable us to have more statistics in that regard. >> senator ted kennedy introduced legislation and i'm proud to be following on with that, that would increase the tools for federal investigators and also to local -- state and local law enforcement. that deals with hate crimes. we know it happens and saw the murder of a guard at the holocaust museum. and your department was involved and other areas, something all of us found as shocking, things that you might see, do you think if we pass a bill, maybe it will

help law enforcement curb this trend of crimes of ethnicity or race or sexual orientation or bias, would that help us? >> have to take a look at it. but might well. >> thank you, senator schumer, you -- yield to senator schumer. you voted, i take it? >> [inaudible]. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first let me thank you, i know you have many more questions, than you thought you would and you are a good friend, a great leader and a wonderful chairman, so thank you for doing that for me and i hope the questions, mr. director, weren't too difficult that i caused. >> no. >> anyway, i have a bunch of questions. the first relates of course to what happened in new york a few days ago. we marked the 8th anniversary of our terrorist attacks, the 9/11 attacks, last friday. and solemn ceremonies, seeing the families, still wearing the

pictures of the people they lost, and we mark this saturday with remembrance, but, also, rededication, to the country's national secure, ity as i have d and publicly, i think the fbi does a very good job and is light years better than they were on 9/10/01. and a lot of that is to your credit, mr. director. and, the men and women who work for you, the thousands and thousands who do it, in new york, we have a very good task force and my question is the recent reported put new yorkers on edge and came at a time right after 9/11 and there were all sorts of rumors flying around and i want to ask you a question and i know this is an ongoing investigation and not much can be said in the public nor should it, so that the compromise -- the investigation is not customized. however, here's the one question i have, could you assure new yorkers and the american public

that the situation is under sufficient control and there is no imminent danger to their safety? >> i can say that i do not believe there is imminent danger from that particular investigation. from what i know of that particular investigation. >> and okay, i think we'll leave it at that. i want to urge you to continue the joint terrorism task force, it is a very successful enterprise, and i would urge continued cooperation. i intend to visit it shortly, they invited me to come and i will be there. >> let me also put in... and say without any reservation, that our relationships with n.y.p.d. and this and other investigations could not be better, and that new yorkers are well benefitted by the work of n.y.p.d. and ray kelly in making the city safe, and, in situations where there are

investigations being conducted, we have a very good working relationship and we'll continue that relationship. >> glad hear it. i know it to be the case and thank you for saying it. next question. relates to the terror alerts. as you know, tom ridge, the former secretary of the department of homeland security, recently wrote a book, it was entitled "the test of our times." the book reveals how some, including former attorney general ashcroft, former secretary of defense, rumsfeld, he said, pressured him to elevate the national security threat just days before the 2004 election, in what he suspected was an effort to influence the election, that is his characterization, not mine. furthermore, he states, you were on his side against raising the terrorist level. would you please provide us with what you know happened then, is it true that you were against raising the alertsh alert level

>> i cannot speak to the particular incident that is recounted in tom ridge's book. what i can says i do believe throughout the years we have been dealing with terrorist attacks, that any person sitting at the table was interested in doing the right thing, not for political reasons. each one sitting at the table in these decisions, when these decisions were made, understands the decisions may well relate to whether a person lives or dies as a result of a terrorist attack and i did not see political considerations in those discussions. >> those specific discussions. >> throughout. >> next question relates to security of fbi databases and cybersecurity experts. the administration released a new national intelligence strategy yesterday, and designated cybersecurity as a

new top priority for the intelligence community, that makes a great deal of sense. you told the committee this morning how important this area is. and how important it is to hire appropriate experts. a report issued by a private consulting firm boose-allen, highlighted continuing problems our government has in hiring enough capable cybersecurity experts and you cannot do this work without highly qualified personnel. so, first question, does the fbi have sufficient experts to meet the nation's growing cyber security needs and, similarly, is the fbi expanding its efforts to recruit and retain such experts? >> yes, in the wake of september 11th, we changed our definition of our hiring needs, and, cyber capabilities, was one of those areas that we immediately

focused on. and since then, we have brought in any number of persons who were program analysts, software developers, all range of cyber expertise, in that particular category, are still recruiting for that category and it is a... it is a... what do i say, one of the at goers that we understand is absolutely essential to get the right people in it and one that is going to expand. the other aspect that i do believe that is tremendously important is we have a cyber task force, it is relatively large, and that includes personnel from any number of agencies, and so that we tap in not only the expertise of the fbi but also the expertise of the intelligence community and the military and otheres. >> are you having, though, difficulties in finding enough cyber security personnel. >> no. no.

>> i will ask the gao to conduct a report on the hiring of cyber security experts, not just in the fbi but other parts of the government as well. so we can comprehensively identify any systemic deficiencies and work together to keep our intelligence agencies fully and appropriately... >> is that it. >> that's it. >> director, we now, are several minutes into a ten minute roll call vote and i'll recess the hearing now and again, with thanks to you. i appreciate as i said before, you have always been available when i have had questions, and, i appreciate your testimony here today, we share a common interest in law enforcement, law enforcement we can be proud of. again, i compliment you for your speech on the anniversary on the fbi's anniversary. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we're in recess. [inaudible conversations]