round that. it depends on a commendation of active and reserve forces that we decide to use, and that's why the number varies. >> how would you publish that if you had to get rid of another hundred thousand troops? would you accelerate some of the processes you plan over the next four years with boards and ris we met. >> sequestration will require us to do so. yes, we will have to force many more out than we are now. we will be able to do 65 to 70% reductions right now through natural attrition. that is why sequestration is disastrous for us. ..

as we come forward with the specific force mix. but we still need a combination of all these capabilities as we look to the future. without being abducted in afghanistan. i believe is supposed to come in for another update. do you meet with them. or army leadership? >> i met with them last time when they came in.

if and talked with them. it if you want to meet again i will. >> do you know -- >> i think you need to ask to them. that's their requirement. we look at it there's lots of work being done. we never give up. there's lots of analysises to continue to find where we can. i can tell you we never stop. i do get updates on it. >> move forward with the model what is your plan for rotational or deployment availability versus required -- >> two to one is what we shoot for. in fact, by the way, for the first time last month we finally had a two to one. first time we've reached it. with reduced requirement in iraq and continued reduction in afghanistan. we'll have to see. i think we won't have that

problem, initially, i think there won't be as many rotational forces. i believe we have rotational forces as we don't develop the requirements. we'll have the requirements some in u con. and we'll continue to work that when we come back as we move forward. >> go back to your question very briefly. in your clarification you mentioned rangers qfed. as opposed the entry into the rager units themselves. >> i'm not sure understand your question. 90% of the -- >> of inif i try officers. >> of infantry officers are ranger qualified. what we have to look at is so you know, what i'm looking for is if we decide sometime to put females in there, we have to make sure they have qualifications to be competitive in the branch.

so we have to look at that all of that. what i've asked them to do. we have to a holistic look at this and see what would it look like. that's what we're doing now. >> i believe the secretary asked for recommendations by -- >> i think we'll make a decision. there's several interrations of the and so you know, they're starting to look at it now. so we'll get some initial results we'll continue to look at. the final ruts will be sometime in november. >> rejected the idea at least for now. what happeneds for the army. do you pull the troops back and lead them to building. or does it change the whole -- >> i think for the army. for black. we have to do something things about the fridges of federal government. bract. and so with the reductions we have now. most of them were coming out major incitylations it won't be

the closure of any installations so i think we'll be okay. but we are very supportive of iraq and fifteen. there are some things we still have to look at. specifically in our reserve and national guard. they do not benefit as much with the last bract. we like to do some things how we might be able to do a better job of consolidating for them and there are some other. for the most part on terms of reductions most of that will happen on -- >> thanks. listed of military families listed retirement benefits with, health benefits and pay for top concerns. where do you stand on changes as far as those areas are concerned? >> it's a complex question. i mean here's the bottom line is the rate of increase and pay of benefits we can cannot sustain the rate of increase. i'm not saying we reduce benefits.

what i'm saying is we can't sustain the rate of increase in the benefits. since 2000 the benefits have doubled until today. if that continued, we're not going to be able to afford the end strength what we have. it's a trade off between end strength and paying gifts. we have to slow the rate and we're trying to find out what's the best whey to do that. you have to do a who'llistic review of the benefits that are available. that's what we're trying to look as we move forward. we want to honor the servicemembers and make sure they are properly -- fur the sacrifice. it's in the back of our minds. it it's a complex calculation that has to be done. that's something we have to continue to looked at we move forward. >> with women being able to you know researching whether women can, you know be in the infranty.

how is this research going to be conducted? >> are they going to be allowed to train as infantry. >> that's part forted recommendations how we get back. we'll get a mover forwards it. okay. it's how we do. that what do we have to do to make some assessments. and that's what we're going to have to do as we move forward. >> yes decided how -- >> what i've asked look at it and come back and give us the layout for how we want to do that. that should happen here over the next several months. >> thank you. >> the had. thank you very much. have a great day. thank you.

in a few moments senate debate on next year bucket. in about forty minutes fbi director testifies on capitol hill. after that a med tal of honor ceremony at the white house for a soldier killed in the vietnam war. and later we'll reair the pentagon news preifing with the u.s. army chief of staff. blanker blank on tomorrow's washington journal, the conversation with iowa congressman steve king on the republican's agenda in the houses and this year's elections. then democratic congress will talk about the economy, budget priorities, and the federal debt ceiling. later, the "cq" roll qawl on the facebook's pending stock options and the lobbying on capitol hill. it begins 8:00 a.m. eastern with

the phone calls e-mails and tweets. ♪ ♪ this memorial day weekend on c-span we'll take you to colleges and universities an the country to hear commencement addresses from members of congress and the. president's cabinet state and local leaders and business executives. we want to hear from you about your commencement experience. did you graduate from college this year or attend a ceremony open or maybe something about past commencement sticks with you. call us and tell us your story 020-643-3011. we may use your stories on-air. the senate considered five federal budget proposals on wednesday, all offered by republicans. none of the five received the necessary votes to advance. the days debate began with the evacuator and ranking member of the budget committee.

this is forty minutes. this is a consequential discussion today.se it really is a question of thestioof future economic policy of the united states. un that's what we're talking aboutre here today. tay i just. heard the republican leader say there is no budget. i really -- i don't know how to say this.es sometimes i wonder if colleagues pay attention to what they're here. voting on here. last in here in august we didn't pass a budget resolution pass a budget resolution. instead, we passed in a resolution is purely a congressional it never goes toresident the president for his signature

has to pass both bodies and be signed by the president. last year, instead of a budget resolution, we did a budget law called the budget control act. the budget control act set the budget for the next two years for this year and next. more than that, it set ten years of spending caps, saving $900 billion. madam president in addition, the budget control act gave a special committee the authority to reform the tax system and the entitlement system of the country and it said if you come to an agreement special committee, your action cannot be filibustered. you have to go right to the floor for a vote. and if you don't agree, there will be an additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts put in place. now, madam president the special committee didn't agree

and so that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is now the law. in addition to the $900 billion of spending cuts. that's a total spending cut package of more than $2 trillion. that is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the united states. and for our colleagues to say well, there are no spending limits in place well, what is the budget control act then? it's a law passed overwhelmingly in the senate passed in the house, signed by the president of the united states. madam president why are they engaged in this diversion? well i think i know why. because the last time our colleagues on the other side were in control when they had it all the house the senate, the white house from 2001-2006

they had both houses of congress. until 2008, they had the white house. so, of course, nothing could be changed in terms of the policies they put in place until we had a new president. and what happened? what happened when they had total control? their policies were in place. madam president republican policies led the united states to the brink of financial collapse. that's what happened. and do you know what they want to do now? they want to go back to those failed policies and do it all over again. madam president we can't let them do that. that would be a disaster for this country. it would be a disaster for the world's economy. madam president i don't want -- i don't know what could be more clear than when their policies

were in place they brought this nation to the brink of financial collapse. i remember those days. i remember being called to a special meeting in this building with the leaders of the house and the senate and the head of the treasury department under president bush, and the chairman of the federal reserve who told us if they didn't take certain actions the next day this would be a financial collapse in the united states within days. madam president, i was in the room when the rescue for the major financial institutions in this country was designed, and we were told late on a saturday night if we didn't reach agreement by the next day the asian markets would open sunday night and they would collapse and our markets would open the next monday and they would collapse. barack obama was not the

president. george w. bush was the president. the republican policies, economic policies had been put in place in 2001, in 2002 and 2003 and those policies were still in place when we came close to financial collapse. we don't forget. madam president let's go back to what happened with the private sector jobs picture. at the end of the bush administration, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. now we're gaining 130,000 in the last month. the months before that, immediately preceding we were gaining about 200,000 jobs a month. we have had a gain now that the economy has started to turn around under this president of four million jobs created in the

private sector. there it is. the red line is the results of the last time the republicans controlled the policy here. job losses every month. and finally under this president, things have begun to turn around. instead of losing jobs, we're gaining jobs. and the same is true on economic growth. an economic growth record is very clear. in the last quarter of the bush administration the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9%. you can see it there. that long red bar. the economy in the last quarter of the bush administration shrinking at a rate of almost 9%. but that, too has turned around under this new president and we're now averaging economic growth of about 3%. a dramatic improvement. but our republican friends

aren't satisfied. they want to take us back. they want to take us back to those failed policies that had the economy shrinking at a rate of 9%, had us losing 800,000 jobs a month. now, madam president we're not going to support that. we're going to oppose that. one thing the republican leader got right is we're going to be voting against going back to those failed policies that put this economy in the ditch that put us on the brink of financial collapse. he is absolutely right. we're going to oppose that. and our policies have begun to turn things in the right direction. here are the positive signs for the u.s. economy. 26 consecutive months of private sector job growth. 11 consecutive quarters of real g.d.p. growth.

unemployment rate down. manufacturing has expanded for 33 consecutive months. consumer confidence is showing signs of improvement. in fact, the last consumer confidence reading is at a four-year high. u.s. auto manufacturers that were on the brink of bankruptcy under the bush administration policies the republican policies are now returning to frostability. and state revenues are showing signs of improvement. madam president one way we can reality test is how is our economy doing compared to our major competitors? how are we doing to the europeans? how are we doing compared to japan? how are we doing compared to the united kingdom? on every one of those tests the united states comes out on top. our economy is performing better

than the european zone. all the european countries combined. we are doing better than japan. we are doing better than the united kingdom. and this chart shows the story. our economic growth is the best compared to our major competitors. madam president if there is any doubt that republican policies had us on the brink of financial collapse we can just look to the study that was done by alan blinder, former chairman of the federal reserve and mark zandi who advised the mccain campaign on economic policy. the two of them did an analysis of the federal actions taken to deal with the fiscal crisis and the financial crisis, and here's what they concluded. "we find that its effects on real g.d.p., jobs and inflation are huge and probably averted

what could have been called great depression 2.0." so when our friends attack the president and say he didn't lead really? he averted a depression. he averted a depression. he prevented a finan that's exactly where we were headed when the republicans were in control. zandi and blinder went on to say -- "when all is said and done the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policymakers had not acted at all. if the comprehensive policy responses saved the economy from another depression, as we estimate they were well worth their cost." madam president that's exactly right. but what do our colleagues on the other side want to do? they want to take us to extreme

austerity. they want to slam on the brakes, even while this economy is in a fragile recovery. madam president we don't have to wonder what would happen if we adopted the policies that they are presenting here on the floor of the senate today. we don't have to imagine. we can just look across to europe because they are pursuing the policies that our colleagues on the other side advocate here today. and what's happening? we have got a -- kind of an experiment going on, because what our republican friends are pushing for is being done in europe, and what are they experiencing? here is a col -- here a column from the former german chancellor gerhard schroeder: austerity is

strangling europe. the direction of european financial policy must change away from pure austerity toward growth. greece ireland portugal, italy, spain have made substantial progress in stabilizing their finances but the economic and political situation in these countries shows that austerity alone is not the way to resolve the crisis. madam president, do we have a problem with that? absolutely. do we need to deal with it? absolutely. i was part of the bowles-simpson commission, i was part of the gang of six. i spent hundreds of hours negotiating with colleagues on both sides to get a result. but the answer is not extreme austerity right now. almost every economic analyst says if you do that, you'll slam this country right back into recession. and again we don't have to look very far to find out if that's true. because great britain has tried that approach.

and what have they experienced? well here's from the "wall street journal" on april 26: "u.k. slips back into recession." that is exactly the formula that is being presented by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today. let's slam on the brakes. we're going to put this thing right back in recession. hey, they had their chance. they ran the economic policy of this country for eight years under the bush administration, and sure enough, they had this country on the brink of financial collapse. now they want to return to those same failed policies. madam president, what a mistake that would be. now, you've heard the republican leader say here there's no budget. we have no budget. as i indicated in the beginning of my remarks we do have a

budget law was passed last year. it's called the budget control act. we could put that slide up. let me read from the budget control act because maybe my colleagues missed it when they were voting on it. here's what it says in two places. "the allocations aggregates and levels -- referring to spending levels -- set in the subsection shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012." is that confusing? it says "in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012." the identical language is repeated for 2013.

"the allocations aggregates and levels set in the subsection shall apply in the senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013." that's about as clear as it can be. and i might add the budget control act as i indicated earlier, stronger than any resolution because a resolution is purely a congressional document. it never goes to the president for his signature. so the budget control act that set the budget for 2012 and 2013 has the force of law unlike a budget resolution that is not signed by the president. the budget control act also set spending limits not just for two years, but for ten years. it capped spending for ten years, saving $988 -- $900

billion. it included a deeming resolution that allowed budget points of order to be enforced for the appropriations bills that come in 2012 and 2013. and the budget control act did something else. it created a super committee a reconciliation-like procedure to address entitlement reform and tax reform backed up by a $1.2 trillion so-called sequester. a sequester is just a fancy word for more spending cuts. the budget control act that is the law said if the special committee didn't reform the tax system didn't reform the entitlement system, that there would be another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts imposed on top of the $900 billion. now we all know the special committee didn't reach an

agreement. and so, that additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts is in place. madam president, that's a total of $2 trillion of spending cuts. that's the biggest spending cut package in the history of the united states. for our friends on the other side to say there are no spending limits in place here, it's just wrong. it's just wrong. madam president, we do have a problem. we've got a big problem. and this chart that talks about the spending and revenue of the country over the last 60 years tells us why we've got a problem. the red line shows the spending of the united states over that period. the green line shows the revenues. and you see a big gap between the spending and the revenue. that's why we have deficits. our friends on the other side just like to refer to one part

of the equation. they just like to talk about spending. but the reality is deficits are created by the gap between the revenue and the spending. and you can see on this chart that we are at or near a 60-year high on spending. we've come off a little bit now off of the 60-year high. and we are at or near a 60-year low on revenue. so madam president we've got to work both sides of the equation. again, we are at or near a 60-year high on spending. we are at or near a 60-year low on revenue. so what is to be done about it? the public says we ought to have a balanced plan. they say the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit is a combination of additional revenue and spending cuts, 62% say that's what we ought to do.

8% say just increase taxes. 17% say just cut programs. madam president, i was part of the so-called bowles-simpson commission and that commission, there were 18 of us, 11 of the 18 supported the conclusions that called for that kind of approach. additional revenue but also additional spending cuts. and, madam president that's what the american people say we ought to do. but that's not what our friends on the other side are proposing here. they propose actually additional tax cuts. dig a hole deeper before you start filling it in. and then they say well, in addition to that, we will have really draconian spending cuts because you're going to have more tax cuts that primarily go to the wealthiest among us.

and you're trying to reduce the deficit. that means you've got to have even more spending cuts. just say that our republican friends, the budgets they're going to be offering here today they have something in common. every one of them ends medicare as we know it. every republican budget offered today ends medicare as we know it. madam president, on social security, one of the republican budgets being offered here today cuts social sec 39%. that's their answer. if you're going to have more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us who already many of them aren't paying their fair share of taxes, if you're going to give them additional tax cuts, trillions of dollars in some cases in these budgets they are presenting today then how are you going to make it up? their answer is end medicare as we know it.

that's in every one of their budgets. one of them has gone so far as to say well, let's cut social security benefits 39%. madam president, we'll be voting on that later today and we'll see who stands behind that proposal. every republican budget cuts taxes for millionaires by at least $150,000 a year. are you listening? every republican budget being offered here today cuts taxes for millionaires by at least $150,000 a year on average. madam president, every republican budget being offered here today protects offshore tax havens. what are offshore tax havens? let's go to that next slide that shows my favorite picture of a building down in the cayman

islands. ug land house. little five-story building in the cayman islands lovely building. that building claims to be the home of 18,857 companies. they all say they're doing business out of that little building down in the cayman islands. 18,857 companies. now, they're not doing business out of that building. they're doing monkey business out of that building. the monkey business they're doing is to avoid the taxes that they owe in the united states. madam president, every republican budget protects those offshore tax havens. madam president, the house republican budget plan, the first one that we will be voting on today is totally unbalanced.

no revenue. in fact, it's a lot more tax cuts. $1 trillion of additional tax cuts for the wealthiest in our country. but they do cut some things other than taxes. they cut health care almost $3 trillion. they shift medicare to a voucher system ending medicare as we know it. they block grant medicaid, going right after the most vulnerable in our society: children, disabled those that have the least. they cut the safety net for seniors, children, the disabled, increasing the number of uninsured by more than 30 million. and they have large cuts to education, energy, and infrastructure. madam president, cutting education doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. you talk about eating your seed

corn that's it. after our house republican colleagues put out their budget, the catholic bishops said this. the catholic bishops as this headline saeuz in "the washington post," said the house republican budget authored by mr. ryan fails the moral test. madam president, certainly it does. let's go to the next slide. this plan cuts discretionary spending $1 trillion beyond what the budget control act did. madam president, if you look at priorities it kind of leaps out at you. health care cut by almost $3 trillion from $12.7 trillion to $9.9 trillion. and when you go to the question of education, where the united

states is already lagging -- in fact the united states ranks 25th out of 34 oecd countries in math. we're 25th in math. let's go to the next. in science we're 17th out of 34. so we're 25th out of 34 in math. we're 17th out of 34 in science. and our republican colleagues, the budget from house republicans say cut education by 25%. cut it from $77 billion to $58 billion. that is a 25% cut in education under the house republican plan. madam president, gasoline, we've all seen gasoline prices rising. now we're thankful that they have been easing back in recent days. but nonetheless on may 14, average $3.75 a gallon.

and what is the republican answer to rising gasoline prices? well let's cut those energy programs that are designed to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. let's cut them 60%. that's what the house republican plan does. it cuts programs to reduce our dependence on foreign energy from $4.7 billion a year to $2 billion. 60% cut in programs to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. and, madam president if anybody's driven on the highways of america we all know we've got work to do there. if we look at infrastructure spending in our country versus our major competitors, we can see china is spending 9% of their g.d.p. on infrastructure: roads, bridges airports, rail. europe 5%. the united states, 2.4%.

madam president we have to do better than that. so what's the republican answer? on transportation funding they cut it 34%. they cut it 34%. madam president i think we understand the direction that our republican colleagues want to take this country and it's full speed in reverse. back to the failed policies which put this country on the brink of financial collapse the last time they were in charge. madam president we'll hear our colleagues on the republican side say you can't raise any revenue. you can't raise any revenue even though revenue is at or near a 60-year low right now. if we look historically at what it's taken to balance the budget the last five times we balanced the budget, revenue was at 19.5% to 20.6% of g.d.p.

under the republican plan, it never gets above 18.7%. so i don't think they are very serious about balancing the budget. former senate budget committee chairman judd gregg said this about the need for more revenue -- "we know revenues are going to have to go up. if you're going to maintain a stable economy and a productive economy, because of the simple fact that you're going to have to have this huge generation that has to be paid for." that's the baby boom generation. former senate budget committee chairman domenici, another republican, also said we need more revenue. he said -- "a complete deficit reduction plan, one that can gain support from democrats and republicans, will need to combine comprehensive spending cuts with structural entitlement reform and new revenues. additional revenues will be needed if we're serious about controlling our debt." madam president one of the

issues that has become more and more clear in recent months is that income disparity is widening in america. this shows since 1979 what's happened to the top 1% in terms of their income and what's happened to the middle quintile and the lowest quintile. everybody else has been pretty much stagnant since 1979. the top 1% has gone up like a rocket. madam president i got nothing to be critical about in terms of people doing well. we want everyone to succeed but not just part of the population. madam president the hard reality is since 1992 -- since 1995 the effective tax rate for the wealthiest 400 taxpayers in

this country has been cut from about 30% to 18%. madam president that's not fair. the republican plan is to give them more tax cuts, give them more tax cuts. in fact, the house republican plan on revenue provides an additional trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, gives millionaires an average tax cut of more than $150,000 a year. it does not contribute one dime of revenue to deficit reduction. madam president i want to end where i began. the last time our colleagues on the other side were in charge, when they controlled everything here from 2001-2006 and the white house until 2008, their policies republican policies, led the united states to the brink of financial collapse. and now the proposals they are

making here today are to take us right back, right back to those failed policies. madam president we shouldn't let them do that. that would be a mistake for our country. it would be a mistake for the world. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: the fundamental question we as a nation have to ask is what are we going to do now? what are we going to do for the future? what is our plan for the future? and the problem we have in this senate is that the democratic majority refuses steadfastly adamantly, to produce and lay out their vision for the future while investing a considerable amount of time and effort in attacking anybody who does. they even vote down their own president's budget, as bad as it

is the most irresponsible budget ever submitted here, in my opinion. so this is a really odd situation that we're in, and i would just say that our country has never been in more danger financially. erskine bowles and alan simpson senator conrad served on their committee, came before the budget committee of which i am the ranking member, and told us this nation, both of them, a signed statement from them, this nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis. in other words the course we are on today is unsustainable. they told us that. they told us it could happen as soon as within two years and that was over a year ago that they made that testimony. we are in the danger zone financially, and i know a lot of people would like to say it's not so, but it is so. look at this chart. this chart shows the total debt

of the euro zone, including the u.k. britain and the united states. our debt exceeds that of the euro zone. we had a larger debt than they do and president bush, who my good friend, senator conrad, who is such a fine person, noted presided over a period in which our debt increased and it did increase. the largest debt president bush ever had was $480 billion in one year which was too large. president obama has never had a budget that's less than $1,200,000,000,000 des. never had a deficit. next year will be over 1,000 billion dollars.

our $15.5 trillion for the united states is greater than the eurozone and the eurozone has a larger population than we do. and let's look at this chart that just drives that number home again in case anybody is worried about it. i am. it shows the average debt per person per capita in the countries that we have been reading about that are in financial trouble and it hits them sometimes surprisingly and you never know quite how it's going to hit. but look at this. the debt in spain, which is an iraqi financial cotion as we know is $18,000 per person, portugal $19,000 france $33,000. greece $38,000. greece's debt per person, $38,000. whereas the united states is $44,000. yes, we have a little larger economy, but this is the danger zone.

people were saying we could have a financial problem of very few people in 2007 as a result of the bubble in housing. they warned that might happen. oh no, not this time. it's different. we got it under control and we had a financial crisis that we haven't recovered from yet. so i would say, madam president we do need to take action and we do not have a budget. we do not have a budget. if we had a budget, why did president clinton -- obama comply with the united states code and submit a budget over here this year? if we have a budget, why did the house pass a budget? if we had a budget, why did four different democratic congressmen and groups of congressmen submit budgets in the house? so if we had a budget, why did senator conrad seek to have a

budget markup in the committee? he basically said well, we may not bring it up on the floor but the law says we have a budget. i'm going to bring one up in committee, and the day before the committee met the democrats met in conference and told him not to do it. so we were expecting to have an twawl markup of a budget -- an actual markup of the budget presented by the democratic leadership and we didn't get it. why? senator reid said it would be foolish to have a budget, foolish. what did he mean by that? well, with the democratic leader attacking republicans this morning, why would he say it is foolish for us to produce a budget? well, he said that because he meant it would be foolish politically. it would be not smart politically because the democratic leadership in the senate would have to lay out a vision for the future, and the vision they wanted to sell or they could agree on was one that the american people wouldn't like.

it wouldn't be smart. they would reject it. we would add the numbers up, see how much taxes they actually want to increase, how much debt they are going to increase, how much spending is going to increase. and those are the kind of things that are disappointing. and so that's not leadership. it's an utter failure of leadership whereas the republican house they produced a budget that changes the debt course of america puts us on a sound financial path. you can agree with it or disagree with it. you will have other budgets offered today from the republican side that will have substantial support that would change the debt course we are on balance the budget in a certain number of years put us on a sound financial path. and i expect every one of those budgets to be opposed by every member on the other side of the aisle, and it appears again that they will unanimously vote down president obama's budget and not

offer one of their own directly contrary to the law. and i know the majority leader this morning said well, filibusters are a problem but you can't filibuster a budget process. this budget control act is designed to ensure that a budget could be passed. the budget control act does not allow a filibuster. simply 50, -- 51 votes is needed to pass a budget. so why isn't it being brought forth? because they prefer to hide under the table not stand up and be counted not address the greatest trouble this nation senate all offered by republicans. none of the fifa received the necessary votes to advance. thursday's agenda in the senate include consideration of two nominations to the federal reserve board of governorrings.

-- governors. in a few moments fbi director robert mueller testifies on capitol hill. in a little more than two hours it's middle med tal honor ceremony for the white house for the soldier killed in l vamplet war. after the pentagon news briefing with the chief of staff. and later we'll reair the senate debate on next year's budget. tomorrow morning senator commerce sub committee will look at the government's response to debris created by 2011 japanese tsunami. that's live on c-span 3 at 10:30 eastern. >> when people are saying to him, don't take the vice president sei.

right now you are the most -- you are powerful majority leader. don't take the vice presidenty. you won't have any power. johnson says power is where power goes. meaning i can make power in any situation. his whole life i said nothing in his life previously makes that scene like he is -- because that's exactly what he had done. all his life. >> sunday night the conclusion of our conversation with robert car row on the passage of power. volume four in the years of lyndon johnson president biography of the 36th president. sunday night on c-span. fbi director robert mueller con officialed that the bureau is investigating who leaked information about the iraq bomb squad. the director told the senate judiciary committee that such leaks during ongoing law enforcement officers damage u.s.

relationship with foreign partners. this oversight hearings is a little more than two hours. >> the the director these photographers are all good people. i've been told by my son-in-law who used to work with them i have a certain ament of jells sei, because they have the job they really wanted to except that they're a lot better at it than i'd be so. i had to take the senate as a second choice.

so senator grassily -- here we begin it appropriate we welcome robert mueller back to the committee during national police week. he and i were the national peace officers memorial service with president obama at the capitol yesterday. and one of the things we talked about before several of us did every year we're losing too many fine law enforcement officers in the line of duty. as a matter that is a great concern to me. it'd be one thing if they were being targeted by a particular organization. that doesn't seem to be the thing that these are disconnected happening in all

parts of the country, but we're losing for a too many police officers. and i know directer molar is keen lay ware of the sacrifices. folks, it's not best to protect those people who protect us. i do thank him about hard working men and women of the fbi work every day to keep us safe. just as i make it a point thank the police officers here on capitol hill who keep us safe. but i worry about their safety too. in the years since september 11th, the fbi played an increasingly important role in the national counterterrorism intelligence efforts. together with prosecutors the intention community, the fbi often obtained hundreds of terrorism convictions in the federal courts. earlier this month a federal jury in new york handed down a

guilty verdict in one of the most serious terrorism plots which carried out bombings in the new york subway in 2009. i might say contrary to the predictses of some this major terrorist on trial proceeded without a hit in a federal court in the heart of new york city. there is hardly any disruption the lives and new yorkers who live and work near the courthouse. they were convicted. served without the indefinite knit deattention in guantanamo base or elsewhere. it's going to be sentenced later this year. he faces life imprisonment. it's the latest example? are many of them of federal law enforcement prosecutors and criminal courts successfully investigating and trying terrorism cases. and recent years, the christmas

day bomber the times square bomber convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. after the fbi used the expertise and experience and obtain statements and give the my rather d.a. warnings. they received all that without resorting to tourture. some of which we can't go into in open session. they also got convictions. in contrast the military -- they are beginning at guantanamo bay. an we know there's going to be lengthy investigation concerning torture and mistreatment. the trial itself won't start until sometime next year unlike the trials already been completed and people are being sentenced. more over as director pointed out last year during the debate on the defense authorization bill mandating military -- situations hampers the fbi's act

to react swiftly and gather the intelligence and eved. one of the reasons why i've joined senator mark udall in the amendment a act which is repealed mandatory military retention requirement. also reported to speak with the districter about the administrations asked for re-- certainly appreciate the importance of providing the intelligence community to the help protect our country against terrorist threats. we have to be sure we're conducting sufficient oversight to be sure we protect the privacy rights of law-abiding americans. i true to do we authorize certain provisions in the u.s. patriot act. common sense bipartisan priew.s ultimately not enacted. congress considers the administration's request to reauthorize the amendment act. look at whether we should strain the accountability or privacy or

liberty of protections and various parts ever it. with a daunting national security challenges director molar is sure that the fbi maintain the historic focus on fighting crime. at the time of economic crisis and shrinking state and local enforcement budgets many expected violent crimes to skyrocket, instead crime rates across the country continue to he client. along with the commitment of the president and congress to continue federal state and local law enforcement. the dedicated service played an important role to keep the crime rates low and keep americans safe. the fbi and justice department worked hand and hand with us to make great strides forward more effective law enforcement. both republican and democratic senators. to craft and pass and forcement

and recovery act the most expanse for the legislation actually more than a decade. we enacted the abet fraud provisions as well as the affordable care act. and i must say director i'm plowed to see the fbi greatly increase the number of people investigating fraud. the advantage of recovery money but also has to have a great deterrent effect. these new law new agents in law have lead to record recovery and increased arrest and qirkses. i commend them to combat corruption. we should pass common sense bipartisanship. and the public corruption prosecution act to give you more

tools to fight this crime. director, my voice is still working well the pollens in the air, i will yield to senator grassily now. >> chairman, thank you. thank you director mueller for coming. the chairman great tribe butte to police week. i won't repeat the words. but i certainly agree with everyone that the chairman said. it's been six months since our last hearing. on the housekeeping matter the fbi has been improving response time if our request for information. but there's still too long of wait for some written responses and yesterday an we received some answers so questions for the record from six months ago when the districter testified. i want to know what efforts the fbi has undertaken to investigate the serious around

the operation in yemen president they debten sensitive sources and methods and danger life and complicate relationships with our allies. so i hope to hear from the director what the fbi doing is investigate that leak and bring people to justice. next there are couple pressing national ..

>> this needs to be addressed in a correct manner. there's a lot of misinformation on the issue floating around and the sooner we have a proposal, the sooner we can work to fix the misconceptions. for starters, it's not a plan for the government to take over the interpret or other mediums but requires court orders. simply it's about ensuring that when a court issues an order law enforcement can obtain the information the court authorizes. i want a status on the proposal when the administration plans to tend to something up to the hill. another critical national security issue to address is cybersecurity.

the house passed four separate bills in this area and there's a number of bills pending before the senate. there's focus between the bill, and there's much many common. they recognize the need to strengthen the dmaition's cybersecurity defenses. where they differ is how to do it. i hope the director can fill us in on proposals that create new brock sighs that deal with -- bureaucracies that deal with cybersecurity. i'll ask the director of the danger of agency and whether such efforts lead to reconstituting the wall between national security and criminal matters. aside from national security, the fbi continues to handle a significant case load of traditional criminal matters. one matter of concern is a

recent report in the "washington post" about a number of individuals who may have been convicted based on faulty fbi crime lab reports. this issue dates back to the 1990s when i conducted oversight work on the fbi crime lab when they spent a million dollars to settle with the whistle-blower build a new lab and what's concerning me is the recent reports indicates the justice department reviewed the cases and may have been incomplete and defendants in cases may not have been notify about the problem. it's troubling however, what is more troubling is that it appear that is the justice department never made public the findings of the report and appears the findings were reported to congress. given the high profile problems with disclosing the evidence and serious misconduct by the fbi

and doj officials in the prosecution and senator stevens this report raised a number of questions. i want to hear from the director what he has done as part of this review and what is being done to address these cases. time permitting there's a number of other topics. i remain concerned at whistle blowers that the fbi face retaliation, delays in clearing their names. just yesterday, we received written responses from the director of the last appearance where he addressed the long running whistle blower cases. these cases have languished at the justice department for many years despite clear findings of retaliation for protected whistle blowing nearly ten years in one case and four for colbis. i'm disappointed in the written answers that fail to answer the

basic questions about when the matters will come to an end and chalk full of legalese. they do nothing to bring closure to the manners which i consider a black eye for the bureau. in fact one response states that the director cannot answer because of ongoing litigation so no, the litigation is only ongoing into's the fbi continues to field the case? at some point, the fbi needs to own up to the retaliation and end the cases. that's something within the director's power something he could and should do immediately. finally, i want to thank the director for his candor in answering one of my written questions about the fbi's attempt to over classify a meme renne -- memorandum written to us. the fbi erroneously stamped a memo to the congress as quote-on-quote" sensitive security information" at first glance, the stamp appeared to

limit disclosure of the memo, however, a closer look revealed the fbi was attempting to classify the memo using the authority reserve for the administrator of tsa and secretary of transportation. while we in congress understand the need to classify certain information, this was an example of the overreach that's made us cynical about over classification materials and so i'm very happy that the fbi owned up to this erroneous classification but worry it could signal a greater problem. i look forward to discussing these topics. thank you very much. >> go ahead. >> good morning and thank you, chairman and ranking member grassley and the members of the committee. allen, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today and thank you for the continued support for the men and women of the fbi. as you have pointed out the bureau has undergone unprecedented change in recent years.

since the attacks of 9/11, we refocused efforts to prevent emerging security threats more diverse than they were 10 years ago. we face increasingly complex threat to our nation's cybersecurity, as nation state actors organize criminal groups, and hackers for hire steal trade secrets and available research from america's colleges companies, and our agencies. we have to combat finance fraud health care fraud, and mortgage fraud that victimized investors, homeowners and taxpayers. while crime is down nationwide as you pointed out, mr. chairman, gang violence plagues far too many neighborhoods. to combat the threats we, in the bureau rely on law enforcement and private sector partners more than ever. throughout the efforts the fbi is committed to carrying out the

mission while protecting the civil liberties of the citizens we serve. talking about terrorism which does and still remains our top priority. al-qaeda is decentralized but the group is committed to high profile attacks against the west as we confirmed from the documents seized from bin laden a year ago. meanwhile, al-qaeda affiliates and especially al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula represent the top terrorist threat to the nation. aqap attempted several attacks on the united states in 2009 and 2010, and we are exploiting an ied seized overseas similar to explosive devices used by aqap in the past. we also remain concerned about the threat from home grown violent extremists. these individuals have no typical profile: their experiences and motives are

distinct making them difficult to find and difficult to stop. let me turn next to counter intelligence. we still con front traditional espionage. today's spies are also students, researchers, business people operators, or companies. they take state secrets trade secrets, intellectual property insider information from government businesses, and american universities. we're also seeing a growing insider threat. that is when employees use their legitimate access to steal secrets for the benefit of another company or another country. of course the counter intelligence threat is merging with the cyberthreat. today, so much sensitive data is stored on computer networks, our adversaries fient it as effective or more effective to steal secrets through cyber intrusions. we, in the fbi, built up a substantial expertise to address

the cyberthreat here at home, and abroad. we have cyber squad in each of the 55 field offices with more than 1,000 specially trained agents operators and forensic experts. they travel the globe to also assist in addressing this threat. finally, the international cyber investigative joint task force brings together 20 law enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies to stop current and protect future cyberattacks. next i'll address efforts to combat financial crimes. the fbi and its partners continue to focus on the financial executives who committed securities and other frauds. in 2009 to 2011 there's been more than 254 executives charged with corporate fraud. last year alone, fbi investigations led to more than 1100 convictions for mortgage fraud. in addition, over the past four

years, we've nearly tripled the number of special agents investigating mortgage fraud and other white collar frauds. amongst them is health care fraud. health care spending currently makes up about 18% of our nation's total economy which presents an attractive target to criminals, so much so that we lose tens of billions of dollars each year to health care fraud. as announced two weeks ago, the fbi, hhs and the justice department continue to bring numbers -- a record number of cases involving hundreds of millions of dollars in medical fraud. since their inception in march 2007, health care fraud strike force operations in nine locations charged more than 1300 defendants who collectively falsely billed the medicare programs for more than $9 billion. it remains a threat to our

overall threat as terrorism, espionage, or cybercrime. a recent uniform crime report does indicate violent crime continues to fall, but as we all know, this does not represent every community. some cities and towns across the nation, violence crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a real problem. we also continue to confront organized crime. today's organized crime operates only national multibillion dollar schemes. everything from human trafficking to health care fraud and from computer intrusions to intellectual property theft. the fbi remains vigilant with efforts to keep children safe and find and stop child predators. through child abduction rapid deployment team the innocence loss national initiative, office of victim assistance and numerous outreach programs the fbi and its partners are working to make the burled #* --

world a safer place for our children. chairman lehey and grassley, thank you for letting me discuss, this and it would not have been possible without your support. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> before we came in here, you and i discussed the question of forensics, and you know the

"washington post" recently reported the review of potential errors in hair and fiber analysis by fbi forensic experts, review hups of cases in the 1980s and 1990s but it was not disclosed to the people or the defense attorneys. the post reported the review was very narrow, and the evidence in the case with regard tested despite questions about techniques and lab personnel. now, there's a lot of attention in this committee over the years and both parties about this. the predecessor says these problems have been corrected but what actions have been taken? do you have a way to ensure that all questionable evidence is retested? do -- are there ways to making

sure that notifications are made so nobody remains in jail based on faulty evidence? >> mr. chairman, there was review done previously back that culminated in 2004 that covered the -- the lab headed by the justice department and, of course we participated and cooperated in that review. of the 13 examiners, subject to the review, only one was a hair and fiber analyst, and upon indications that some of those who -- those examiners who examed hair may have, with the justice department and ourselves contributing, going back to look at what persons may have been covered by the examiners, which cases may have had occasions where the examiners testified and did overstate the importance

of their examinations, and then to do whatever notifications are appropriate given that review. at the -- at this point in time, we're not certain what the university will be but we're working to determine that it makes certain we go back and identify those cases that need further review. the only other thing i would add is in 1996, prior to 1996, we did not have dna, but in 1996 we developed the dna examination which thereafter was done in conjunction with any hair and fiber examination that we conducted. >> it's not just the dna, and i realize we get new techniques coming up all the time. i just wanted to make sure we're doing the best possible way because if federal probation

reports or state probation reports are relying op something from the fbi in testimony, and the courts are, we don't want to come back later on and have the same agreement that this just didn't work because that's going to put in doubt prosecutions and everything else every else so i introduced criminal of justice and forensic format nationwide forensic formats including research and standards, would that be something that might help? >> i know that there is discussion about standardization of forensics. we have some substantial role in that now. my expectation is whatever the administration comes out with, and i know it is looking at certain proposals my expectation is we would continue to play a substantial role in contributing to the standards when it comes to forensics work.

>> i -- i'm sure you would -- i'm sure you agree -- i'm sure you agree with me that we want when the government has experts testifying that that testimony especially on things that are of a scientific nature the testimony is the best possible. >> absolutely. >> the questions of eyewitness, the things it subjective, but there's certain things that should be objective, and we shouldn't have to go back after it and say does that really work that way. i'm sure you agree with that. >> i do agree with that and to the extent that new forensics texts like dna when it comes on is far more specific and accurate. we immediately adopt it. in this particular case we need to go back and look at the cases that predated the use of the dna

and determine whether there's notifications that need to be made. >> please keep this committee posted as you go through that review. >> yes, sir. >> you and i talked yesterday and before that the national police officers memorial service about the number of people, the number of police officers who have been killed. nationwide 122 in 2009 154 in 2010 and 163 in 2011. 24 is a very troubling trend. i continue to work at the bullet proof vest brand program, and i've been told from people all over the country that saved a lot of lives. i hope this committee reauthorizes it tomorrow. also, i understand the domestic violence situation are posing special risks to officers. we voted to reauthorize violence

against women act here in the senate. the house is now working on it. can you think of things we could be doing here that might help? >> let me just add to the things that are done too. >> you certainly agree -- >> absolutely. >> with the bullet proof vest program. >> absolutely. that program saved innumerable lives. i had discussions about making officers wear them. i think that discussion is at an end given the benefits that everybody sees from the use of those vests. for additional things we're undertaking is we have changed our new firearms training for our own agents to reflect the confrontations are now closer than they were in the past and often state and local law enforcement follow our lead when it comes to firearms practices. secondly, we have what we call violence offender alert system

with ncic when an agent or an officer stops somebody, when they look to determine their history, there'll be an indication that that individual, that suspect, or that person they have detained has a violent history, and so it puts on the detaining officer or agent on alert that this is something special that you have to be aware of. >> i'll accept your invie cation to come down and -- invitation to come down and see the new firearms training, and lastly you testified before for the law enforcement to keep pace with developments in technology and communications and so on. we have communication systems to law enforcement act i drafted back in the 1990s, and some suggest updating it, but in

press reports the fbi is seeking to expand it to require internet service providers and other online service providers to make available surveillance and there's been recent published reports about draft legislative proposals. secondly although the administration's not sitting up here. can i be expecting a specific legislative proposal from the fbi or administration in the near future? >> i believe you would, but i do believe that characterization is a distortion of what our needs are. as was pointed out by ranking member grassley we will get -- go to court, make appropriate showing, a probable cause there's a need to capture communications of a particular individual. the judge will issue an order. what we are seeking is the ability to enforce that order

and be able to obtain those communications, and what we're looking at is some form of legislation that will assure that when we get the appropriate court order, that those individuals, individual companies served with that order, do have the capability and the capacity to respond to that order. >> i think it would clear up a lot of confusion about what might be said if we can see a proposal from the administration. i'd urge the administration to get that before us. senator grassley? >> yeah. i had a lead in to my first question. i'm going to skip, but it goes back to exactly the first question that the chairman asked. do you know why the justice department did not notify defense council in each case of the task force's findings? >> i'm not certain -- i'm not certain exactly what specificity the notifications were back in

2004. i have to get back to you on that who was notified and who was not notified under the circumstances in which the decision was made. >> did the justice department share records about what notifications went to the prosecutor? >> i have to check on that i'm not certain. >> okay. i hope there's one area we can all agree would be on this one that defense council ought to be notified or the person that's in jail ought to be notified there's other information that might bear on the case and charm leahy, i'd like to work with you to bring public accountability to the process as you and i worked together on the army crime lab issue awhile ago. my next question deals with the airplane but not your university of the airplane. it's a sensitive issue with you, so it's not about you. >> yes, sir. >> the "associated press" reported that defense secretary panetta incurred 870,000 of

personal travel using government planes in accordance with omb policy and reimbursed the department for the flights but at a significant discounted market rate. it's my understanding 245 the attorney general utilized fbi aircraft for official and personal travel and i understand the fbi is charged for these trips along with other trips the attorney general takes on non-fbi aircrafts like dod and faa planes. does the attorney general use fbi aircraft for both business and personal travel? >> he is required to use fbi -- not necessarily fbi, but is required to use government aircraft to maintain contact. >> do they charge the use of the fbi plane against its own budget or attorney general's own travel budget?

>> i think it goes against our budget, but i have to check on that. the intracay sighs of the billing between the department of justice and ourselves and attorney general general, i have to get back to you on that. >> why would the fbi be paying for that? >> i have to look at that. it may be historical. it may be we are responsible for the security wherever he is, whatever transportation he uses and how that's billed, i will have to go and check on. >> okay. it's my understanding according to my friend to the left here that this may have been a policy going back prior to this administration of the if so, i still would like this information. then you won't be ail to answer this but i'm interested in the cost so include that in your answer to me, and according to information provided to me, the fbi may have had to lease a

private plane because the fbi jet was reserved for senior department justice officials would that -- >> we are -- myself, attorney general, department of justice we understand these planes are first for investigative work. they are used for counter terrorism on criminal cases and any travel of the principles is secretary to the use of the plane for the investigative work of the fbi. >> i look forward to your responses to that. thank you. now on national security leaks, the fbi reported the open investigation into leaks about the recent underwear bomb operation. it's my understanding that the information that was leaked may have compromised the ability of cia and our partners to use same sources and meths for similar operations in the future. i'm concerned that the operation tactics were leaked for political gain as we've seen in

the past but the authorized leaks from the white house about the operation that killed osama bin laden. do you agree with me that this leak was damaging to our national security to fight terrorism? >> well, let me start by saying that we have initiating an investigation into this leak, and also affirm as i think you indicated before that leaks such as this threaten ongoing operations puts at risk the lives of sources, makes it much more difficult to recruit sources, and damages our relationships with foreign partner, and consequencely leaks like this are taken seriously, and we will investigate internally. >> okay. i guess you've answered my question there, but the last point that you made was a point i wanted you to make so i guess i would, regardless of political consequences, i hope you get to the bottom of it. our international partners have been weary of cooperating with

us in the wake of the wikileaks affair in which the confidence of us to cape the trust has been damaged. what affect do you think this has on our ability with working with our allies and combating terrorism? >> my hope is it has minimal impact and i know there are discussions that are going on with partners overseas to make certain that -- whatever impact there is is minimized, and precautions are put into place so that in the future it does not happen again. >> director mueller you identified fighting terrorism as one of the main priorities, and in the written statement for the hearing you had amendments as proof as heart and personally encouraged the reauthorization of the faa and your colleagues in the administration, dni clapper, and attorney general holder sent letters and

legislateive proposals to accomplish. i support with you the tools and support the authorization of faa. can you please describe exactly why the faa is so valuable? what authority does it provide that other statutes don't? >> well provides the authority for intelligence agencies to, i gather collect information on conversations overseas between persons overseas, non-u.s. citizens and that intelligence is tremendously important to our ability to analyze and predict threats against the united states' citizens overseas, but also against the united states homeland itself and absent that, we would be in the dark when it comes to identifying individuals and threats from

numerous countries overseas that harbor willingly or unwillingly person to want to do us harm. one example i could give is the nigeer case described by the chairman as recently concluded in convictions in new york. that's a case that benefited dramatically from the benefits of the faa. many of the other benefits would have to be discussed in a closed session. >> all right. can i have one short follow-up? a two-part follow up. is it critical we reauthorize faa this year and is there sufficient oversight checks and balances to ensure the rights of u.s. citizens are protected? >> yes. it needs to be done this year so we are not in limbo as we have been in the past waiting on legislation and hopefully not

having to be carried for a month or so but absolutely. it's important we get it and get can quickly. what was the second question? >> sufficient oversight checkses and balances to ensure the rights of the citizens are protected? >> yes, i believe there is. i know the attorney general offices are active in this, and also the intelligence committees as well as this committee in terms of giving oversight to this particular program, and to assure that to the extent that one can that it is focused on those individuals who are communicating overseas and who are not u.s. citizens. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. chairman. directer mueller, before i turn to my questions, i'd like to

thank you for your work. the work at the wisconsin office, and as you know is slated for closure. this decision allows the fbi to do a better job of protecting western winsconsin and continue the partnership there. i appreciate your willingness to be attentive to my interest on this issue. director mueller as we all know, this is national police week and yesterday we honored officers who made the ultimate sacrifice included in the dozens of names to be added to the national law enforcement memorial this year is officer craig bushing of the police department, and as we remember the sacrifices of the brave men and women, we have to ensure that law enforcement officers have the federal support and resources they need to keep our community safe. directer mueller, last week at a house hearing you said because of the realignment and

priorities of counter terrorism and limited resources the fbi will have to, quote, "prioritize in other areas and particularly in the criminal area, they will suffer." could you elaborate a bit on that comment? >> i actually think that the question was directed on the impact of sequestering on the bureau. i think the question was something along the lines of what impact would sequestering have on the bureau? to which -- and how you handle it -- to which my response was that cuts across all of our programs. it actually will have to take 7% to 8% cut across the boards, and when we do that, we have to prioritize, and the priorities we have on counter terrorism counterintelligence, espionage and cyber and you cannot,

particularly in the cyber realm cut there. you have to look for coverage or cuts in the criminal programs, and where we would end up doing it, i do not know, but one has to prior advertise. we will lose something in the neighborhood of 1500 in personnel, several of hundreds of agents, about a thousand analysts, and 900 professional staff. it will be a very hard hit. my answer was in response to a question about what would happen if service providers -- sequestering follows. >> how hard a hit will it be in your judgment with respect to your ability to do the job that the fbi is required to do? >> well, there's gaps in what we are going to do. we will probably have to ratchet back in the white collar criminal program. we have thousands of agents now by looking at health care fraud mortgage fraud securities

fraud, corporate fraud. we will in terms of addressing gang violence around the country, we probably will have to cut back in terms of our task forces. our belief since september 11th is we maximize our capabilities when we work in the context of task forces so we have hundreds of establish -- established hundreds of safe task forces where we have one or two or three agents but we leverage our capabilities with state and local law.. we'll have to cut back in these areas, and that will have an impact on those communities that do not have the capabilities of the bureau leveraged with the state and local law enforcement to address violence crime on our streets. >> director mueller, last month al-qaeda recruited one to blow up an airplane with a

sophisticated explosive device, but fortunately, it was an in informat. this is a tremendous victory for the united states' intelligence able to unravel a major plot and recover a new weapon and obtain valuable intelligence. there appears to be a question whether this device would have been detected by our current airport security screens. even if more efficient scanners detected, only some international airports with u.s. inbound flights use them. what are common terrorism officials, including fbi doing to ensure these devices will make it on to airplanes 1234 >> they start by saying i have 20, in this session, i can't affirm the question. i understand the question with regard to the device. what we're doing is working with

tsa, in particular to assure any information we have which would bear on tsa and department of homeland security's ability to pick up the devices is in their hands so we can make certain that we have the capability of alerting on these devices should another one appear. >> director mueller, while congress here remains as you said your number one priority, they play a central role in protecting american innovation and businesses from the serious threat of trade secret theft and espionage which you indicated costs businesses billions of dollars every year and please the that the fbi and relevant divisions within the justice department increased the number of investigations by some 29% in the last year. this big jump in the number of investigations suggests the problem may have been greater than previously thought. given the increase of investigations and the ever-growing threat to american businesses jobs and our

economy, do you have the needed resources to continue to keep the stepped up enforcement of economic espionage and trade secret theft? can we expect to see an increase in these investigations and prosecutions? >> well, they -- the increase in investigations and prosecutions follows increase in personnel. we have now over 50 individuals who are focused solely on these particular cases. we in our -- we quite obviously have to prioritize the cases. one of the major ones last year was uploads the take down as i think you're familiar with with individuals in new zeal land but we are focusing them on the most egregious cases we find and particularly the cases that could result in harm to persons if there are false or up adequately manufactured products

that are being sold. the -- by going back to your point is this is a huge area. i can't purport to say we're making a huge impact on it. it would take adecisional resources, but we have to prioritize and engage others in the same activity. >> thank you. senator hatch? >> thank you. directer, i personally appreciate your service over all of these years. you were nominated by president bush for a 10-year term, and in 2001 you were subsequently confirmed by the senate in september of 2001, your term was set to expire and september 4th, 2011, it was extended for an additional two years. i think that was a good thing to do.

if i had my way we'd keep you right where you are. [laughter] >> my wife's not hearing this. >> it expires next september, and if you have discussions about president obama about your potential successor? >> sorry, sir? >> have you had any discussions with president obama about your potential successor. >> i have in the past but i have not recently. >> do you have a transition plan in place? >> yes, we have put a plan in place so that we would be prepared for the new individual when that individual comes on board, and we are preparing for 2013 when we would expect new individual to take the helm. >> i figured you would. a great deal of attentions have focused on the case, the field commander with ties to iran. now, this terrorist orchestrated a brazen kidnapping attempt in

iraq in 2007 which led to the death of five uniformed u.s. military personnel. that nuke was in the hands of the u.s. military in iraq from 2007 to september 2011 when he was given to the custody of the iraqi government. a "new york times" report from may 7 2012 indicates an iraqi court demanded the release with evidence to prosecute him him. he's been charged with war crimes including murder, terrorist, and espionage before a u.s. military commission. does the fbi actively engage with the appropriate military officials with a plan to provide on this the necessary support and documents that would be needed for the prosecution before a military complition?

-- commission? >> well, yes not only would we be willing and able to cooperate with a military commission if he was -- if we obtain custody, but in the meantime however, we cooperated with the iraqi authorities in providing intelligence and information for their proceedings in iraq with some of our agents testifying by exhibits in those proceedings. we have tried to provide that information that we have to the iraqi authorities in support of the iraqi charges against him. >> okay. you're going to follow up on that? >> we will. >> okay. your agency is conducts the investigation into the death of the border patrol agent brian terry on september 14th 2010. it's been a year and a half since this investigation began and in october 2011, ranking member senator grassley and house oversight and government reform committee chairman

darrell issa wrote to you inquiring about the status of that investigation, the weapons at the scene of the murder and ballistic tests performed on the weapons recovered at the scene of the crime. your agency did not respond until may 4th, 2012, and the fbi's response only indicated that press reports of a third weapon were inaccurate. there was no response to the other questions to include the status of the investigation, and i ask what is the status of that investigation? >> i can tell you it's an ongoing, very active investigation, and we, because of the serious of the offense and loss of the agent brian terry, any personnel that are needed it gets top priority. because it's an ongoing investigation, i can't get into the details. we have, when there's been a misperception out there of the facts of the case, tried to right them in the sense that there was a belief that there may have been a third weapon at the crime scene, and indeed

there was not. there were two weapons recovered at the crime scene, but at this point in time, the investigation is ongoing and it would be difficult to get into further details in this forul. >> would you be will willing to tell us if the department of justice is responsible for overviewing that particular situation? >> is the department of justice? we're -- in terms of prosecution, yes, it's the department of justice. >> who actually participated there? >> in? >> in coming up with the idea and following through and giving these weapons to these -- >> now that's the details of the investigation which i can't get into that, sir. >> okay. can't tell us who at the department of justice was in charge? >> i'm not certain of the particular. it's the united states attorney in charge, and i'm quite certain the criminal division would be in charge, but i know this invie gages is a high priority for all

levels of department of justice and the fbi. >> the fbi has done great work in community outreach particularly relating to fostering a relationship based on sharedded security goals, and given the federal government intruded into many aspects of our lives over the years, it's imperative the federal government implicates the fbi is there to protect them and not police them for unlawful conduct. i want to bring to your attention a series of fliers from joint terrorism task forces. one of the fliers, which has received a great deal of attention, lists potential indicators of terrorism activities related to surplus stores. according to the flier customers considered suspicious include those who manned identity priefty, insist on paying with cash, make bulk purchases of meals ready to eat, and purchase weather proof ammunition. needless to say there's many

americans who this could apply to but nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, and they are rightfully concerned with this government decree. on the bottom of the flier it reads "each indicator is a lawful conduct and may constitute the rights by the u.s. constitution." i think that disclaimer should have been prominent and not hidden at the bottom of the page, and i think this flier and others like it send mixed messages and raised alarm among citizens. can you concern the fbi is not looking at people who undertake such normal activities, and will you take an active role in the future by removing similar documents from fbi entities before they are released 1234 >> i will. we will, but i do want to put it in context. we do have what we call trip fliers out there. i, for instance, farm supply stores aammonia nitrate, if they

buy an amount far too sufficient for your gardens, that's what we want to know about. >> right. >> chemical companies where persons are making purchases that are highly uncurb. there's a circumstance where an individual down in texas who was in the midst of constructing an ied purchased chemicals from a company i believe that was in -- it was in georgia or south carolina by the company that came to us saying this is unusual, and as a result of the tip, we were able to disrupt a substantial plot. we have a process out there clearly that having nitrate and camping gear in and of itself is not a crime but just getting back to the question, go and review -- have a panel review these to make certain that they are done appropriately. >> thank you, mr. chairman

director. i appreciate your service, and you've given a lot and been very generous to the country. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. director mueller, as senator hatch pointed out you've served in a republican and democratic administration. i watched you carefully. you have never disappointed and i think that's very impressive. i don't know whether this is going to be your last appearance before this committee in the form of an overieght hearing -- oversight hearing or not, but i did want to say that to you directly. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. as you know title 7 of fisa, the foreign intelligence surveillance act, expires december 31st of this year. this particular title allows for electronic surveillance to target outside the united states. the senate intelligence committee as well as this committee has done extensive

oversite of the government's use of the sur valance authority -- surveillance authority and we look forward to working with you to reauthorize this fias act well before the end of this year. we have to look no further than the aqap bomb plot to know the threat is still out there as you said. it is very real, and there is no question that they will attack this country if they can. for the benefit of members and so that the american people can hear directly from you about this intelligence collection activity can you please explain the need to reauthorize title 7 of the foreign intelligence surveillance agent? >> if we learned one thing on september 11th and one thing only it's the need to share intelligence and gather intelligence and to identify persons who would kill american citizens whether it's here domestically or overseas. the shock of september 11th

attributable in part that these were individuals from outside the united states who were radicalized, who plotted who then undertook the attack in the united states. we can want wait until the -- cannot wait until the attackers are on the shores of the united states like last week. we cannot wait until the person is on the plane over u.s. territory in order to try to stop that plot. we have to know what is happening in yemen. we have to know what's happening in pakistan afghanistan, and we have to know what's happening in somalia, algeria and morocco because in each of these places, there's pieces of al-qaeda operating and are seeking to attack us domestically. the key areas of insight into the activities is our ability to

intercept conversations that have a variety of media today, and with that intercepted conversations, i get a picture and idea of what plotting is occurring overseas. if you take that away from us if you take that picture away from us and take away from us the ability to gather this kind of information, then we will be defenseless until a person crosses our borders and we cannot allow that to happen. >> well, thank you very much. one of your legacies, of course is going to be that you have put in place a very large intelligence component within the fbi. i gather it's above 10,000 people now working in intelligence. what is the actual number? >> we have approximately 3,000 analysts, but all of our 14,000 agents now in the intelligence community you call them collectors agents but at the same time, they are collecting whatever they do they are collecting information and

whereas, for the most part in the past we focused is it admissible in court, but now it's is it information to fill gaps? what do we know about this particular threat to the united states, and what do we not know? how do we fill the gaps? we have 3,000 analysts that tripled since 2001, but it also, the organization as a whole understands that we address a threat. it's not just locking up people. it's not just putting people away, but it's understanding the threat and preempting the individuals who want to attack. >> do you know whether a crimes report has been filedded with the department of justice pursuant to the aqap bomb retrieval and the leak? >> i'm not certain. you describe a crimes report, there's been, i know, discussion between ourselves and other agencies as necessity for an

investigation on the leak, and as i said, we have initiated an investigation. in terms of a report we, as i think has been indicated, had the responsibility of exploiting the ied device and whatever reporting has come out of that has gone to the department of justice and other agencies. >> do you have a counter terrorism special agent working out of los angeles that has been missing for five days now. >> yes. >> what can you tells about that? >> we are still searching for that individual. the -- we've made, i guess, his wife yesterday and the offices at -- sought to widely publicize the fact he's missing. there's searches made in those areas where the individual, this agent, would often run or hike and we are still searching. >> thank you. on sunday hank krumpton who

you probably know, former head of the cia's national resources commission, was interviewed on "60 minutes," and when asked about counterintelligence, and i want to quote him this is what he said." "if you look at the threat imposed on our nation every day, some of the major nation states china in particular very sophisticated intelligence operations very aggressive operations against the united states. i would hazard to guess there's more foreign intelligence officers inside the u.s. working against u.s. interests now than even at the height of the cold war." now, i know there's a limit to what you can say before this committee, but how would you respond to that statement? >> i think it's difficult to say, but i do believe that counterintelligence threat has evolved over a period of time.

more generally, there are certain countries that use far greater dispersal of individuals, and then as i mentioned in my opening remarks, that so much of our data is kept on data bases on networks, and they may vulnerable for attacks overseas. you do not have to be in the united states to undertake an attack and obscure secrets from our networks so couldn't intelligence threat evolved in ways that were not present back during the cold war. in terms of numbers of persons i think that is less important than the ways that foreign countries are seeking to steal our secrets. not just with individuals, not just with humans as one would call the intelligence community but also with cyberattacks and cyber extractions of information. >> one quick question. sex trafficking of children. >> yes. >> a big issue large numbers, i

think all of us one way or another have one into it in our state. what more can the fbi do to be helpful with this really terrible, terrible thing? >> well, we have a program, it's one we've had for a substantial period of time focusing on this phenomena throughout the united states and we have on a number of occasions had substantial take downs of individuals involved in it. unfortunately, that does not end the problem. there's many more out there. the gratifying aspect for persons who work this is the victims we are able to save in terms of our activity. it's another area where we'd love to put more additional resources. we try to leverage what resources we have because every child saved is 5 child that -- a child that will be remembered for a good long time. >> thank you. >> senator kyl. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

just following up on the last point. you talking talked before about the need to prioritize the need of service providers -- service providers questionserring. all the responsibilities are important to many of the entire citizens. when you said our budget would take a big hit -- see if i can get the -- a very hard hit is what you just said. i recall when the secretary of defense was asked not just about the hit on the budget, but that the effect on the country on his ability to help defend the country. can i ask you to spot to the question in that way about the fbi's ability to do the important work that it has? the secretary of defense called it catastrophic. how would you characterize the effect of these sequestering across the board cuts if, in fact they are? >> like i think what i said

before is a 7% to 8% cut but i should have said it's 3500 positions opposed to 1500. 15 special agencies, 1100 analysts, and 900 professional staff. i -- i -- it's hard for me to categorize and use a word such as "catastrophic". i would say it's an important as a word, "devastates" for a variety of reasons. >> that's bad enough. >> and devastating as you point out, the impact it'll have not just in the bureau but on people that we serve. the programs that we have to save chirp, the programs we have to protect our networks from cyber attacks, the programs we have to put behind bars those persons who were responsible for white collar crimes, securities

fraud, corporate fraud, mortgage fraud, health care fraud, all of which, if you do not have the capacity to go and put the persons in jail, then there is no deterrence and it will go. it will hamper that. more particularly, what people tend to forget is the long term effects when you have a hiring freeze or you have a sequestering where the institution is impact the for years down the road. it my be rectified in 12 months, 18 months, or two years, but that freeze translated into a gap for that agency for years down the road. where we are attempting to keep up with the technology when it comes to responding to cyberattacks, we will miss a generation of individuals who have those capabilities if we are required to cut back and lose 1500 agents so not only is the impact devastating at the outset but it is devra davis

-- devastating down the road. >> thank you for that and i share my colleague's concern that we must address this before the end of the year. .. >> how would you characterize how important it is to find the source of the leak. >> i don't want to use the word devastating, but it has a huge impact on how we do business. not just on a threat to the

particular source, but the ability to recruit sources it is severely hampered. such is the relationship with your counterparts overseas. those relationships are damaged which means inhibition and willingness of others to share information is disturbed where they don't think that this information will remain secure. it has long-term effects. it is why it is so important to make sure that you bring to justice the people who are responsible for the leaks. >> sometimes there is no other lead that leads you to the results except for talking to the reporters involved. in the past, you and others in the law-enforcement law enforcement community, have indicated your concerns about legislation that would undermine abilities to protect sources and that could impede

investigations. do you think is it still your view, that it would not be a good policy for reporters to have a special privilege or a special right not to talk to fbi or other law enforcement officials if they may have the information that would lead you to the leaker at? >> that is sort of a general -- in terms of legislation, i have to leave the ultimate decision to the department of justice. but i do believe that the protocols established within the doj, can protect in the sure the media, they are adequate to accomplish that task. >> i appreciate that. the reason i asked for questions i realize that policy by the attorney general or the administration generally, which is why i asked you about -- as a general proposition, whether it is helpful or harmful to your

efforts. and you have said in the past that your fbi guidelines are sufficient. others have agreed with that. i happen to agree with that and i think that is a great policy. let me just conclude by reiterating the comments of senator kohl and senator feinstein about the importance of reauthorizing fisa for the end of the year. there is a big concern that we will kick all the big decisions down the road to after the election. even though this doesn't expire until the end of the year, i think my colleagues are saying it would be good to do this as soon as possible. just from the standpoint of knowing what you have to deal with in the future, the continuity of your training, and law enforcement efforts and so on. is it your view that the sooner we can accomplish this reauthorization of title vii of fisa, the better? >> yes with certainty he met thank you very much. >> thank you senator kyl. senator durbin? >> thank you senator feinstein.

and you for your service. you have done an extraordinary job during one of the most challenging times in our nations history. i think you personally for taking time to focus attention on my hometown of east st. louis, illinois, which sadly has one of the highest rates of violent crime per capita in the nation. there is a we've task force, multiunit task force, including fbi agents which are doing their best to change this. i think you for your willingness, even with limited resources, to participate in this. we have exchanged correspondence on the issue of training analysts. i would like to make is to be included in the record today. i'm asking that letters that we exchanged in march and april of this year, when it was disclosed in some parts of the training manuals became public, some things have been stated in the training of fbi agents, which

have been characterized as inappropriate and unfair to arabs and muslims. we have spoken about this personally. i have spoken to attorney general holder. could you tell me at this moment in time, what is the current status of training manuals in the fbi as it relates to these two groups, and what you have done to make certain we don't have the kinds of things that have troubled us in the past. >> senator, as i indicated in the letter, when this came to attention last summer, we took it exceptionally seriously. we convened a group of five individuals that we believe all of whom have advanced degrees. two were within the bureau and to work with outside the bureau. i would like to make sure that you know that a permanent review of the materials was done, and the training that we give our agents as appropriate. i have to apologize because i

believe in a conversation with you, i indicated that it was a curriculum. it was not that it was a touchstone document that these persons put together and guidance as to how to go through and treat the records we were going through. we then had up to 30 30 individuals, -- analysts and others, go through 160,000 documents -- training documents, documents that had been used over the previous 10 years, along with over 1000 slides and the like. we have them go through and pull out those particular documents that were inappropriate for whatever reason they could have been wrong, they could have been raising the specter of an individual being pointed out that should not be pointed out. for whatever reason, those

particular documents needed to come out of our training. we identified 176 of those documents that needed to be pulled out. we found the other 160 -- 160,000 documents appropriate. we then, with those -- those documents, we ran out into the field and explain why these documents, with examples, or inappropriate. we interviewed the individuals who were responsible for those documents. we did more than 100 interviews of such individuals. and we also are in the process now of going out and making certain that the materials that we are using are in accordance and appropriate. one of the things it did teach us and one of the things that comes out is that we did not have a mandatory review for

training documents such as these. we have put into place apart from this, a review of training so that anybody who is giving a training can't just go up and put together their training materials. it has to go through a screening process. we take it exceptionally seriously, as perhaps you can understand, given the personnel we put on it. but i think we have gone a long ways to resolving the issue. >> critics have said this is all about congressional meddling in political correctness did and i would like to have your position because he stated to us earlier that one of the key elements in fighting terrorism is connections, cooperation, and you have said that -- attorney general holder has said that muslim americans and arab americans have been a vital part of our nation to keep it safe. i would like to have your characterization as to whether this is an exercise? >> for me it is not an exercise

of political correctness. it is an exercise of doing what is right. given what we have seen. i believe that the five individuals we selected to have professional capabilities to guide us and take us in this way, it is essential that our agents are instructed with the best possible materials. and those materials should be in accordance with the core values. i reject any assertion that this is a result of political correctness or any such other characterization. it is what needed to be done. i will follow-up as i have before. many of the cases that we've done, i have done this. the muslim community, bringing to our attention, further individuals that need investigation. and we would not be where we are today without the support of muslim american communities in the united states. >> thank you. i only have a brief time left. i am sorry. we been through this exercise and it was unusual where all members of the senate, democrat

and republican we went through the hearing on cybersecurity, which you mentioned. there is a bill pending to truckmaker nation safer from the cybersecurity threats. i am looking at the basic liberties and values that we share. can you tell me in the brief time remaining here do you feel that the cybersecurity legislation proposed by the administration compromises any of the rights of privacy that individuals have customarily enjoyed in this country under wiretap statutes and other best i could go through specifics -- other legislation, or are we changing the standard when it comes to cybersecurity, in terms of the disclosures of any individuals e-mails individual's e-mails or text in the name of

security? >> it does not change the standards by which the government can obtain information relating to an investigation. let me just put it that way. while i am somewhat familiar with the administration's proposal i am not thoroughly familiar. i do not think, from what little i know, but it changes that dynamic at all. i will say though, the only way to prevent a cyberattack, a substantial cyberattack, is to exchange information. it is the same for preventing terrorist attacks, you need to exchange information. any successes after september 11 amah are attributed to the fact that we are working with state local law enforcement, the intelligence community, we understand that the borders no longer protect us and we have to share information. to protect against cyberattacks, we have to do the same thing.

but it will have to incorporate the private sector in ways that you could not cooperate untrimmed incorporate the private sector when we were facing the counterterrorism threat. but the cyberthreat is an old less than the counterterrorism threat. they will have to be an exchange of information and it needs to have an exchange, not just within the intelligence community, law enforcement community, but law enforcement and intelligence, dhs and the private sector. >> there will be many more questions and i thank you. >> i want to thank you for being here. yours is not an easy job. last year you express some concerns about the national defense authorization act. specifically in a letter that he wrote to senator levin last year you expressed some concerns with section 1022 of

that legislation. saying that you were worried about that provision, introducing a degree of uncertainty and potentially inhibiting the fbi's capacity to convince covered arrestees to cooperate immediately and to provide important intelligence. my concerns would be in regards to it ndaa. to some extent the president indicated that he shared some of those concerns. he indicated in his signing statement that he would not indict american citizens without trial. i believe that doing so would break our most important traditions and values as a

nation. my demonstration will interpret section 2021 with how it applies to the constitution and any other applicable law. in light of that statement i was encouraged by that statement, i think it's good, i still have some concerns that future administrations might not hold that view or that this administration might change its position at some point. in light of that concern i join with senator feinstein and in introducing s2003, the due process act ensuring that all citizens apprehended on american soil are not obtained indefinitely without trial. my first question is, do you show the president's commitment that u.s. citizens should not be detained indefinitely under s2003? >> yes, in the sense that --

yes. yes. let me just say that there is no change to our activities. our activities remain the same. how we handle things are not changed by the presidents declaration, but yes, i would assume that would happen and that would be the case. >> some people have suggested that military detention might be necessary, you know, in some of the circumstances, because fbi and other céline authorities lack the resources or the capabilities with the unique apprehension order detention of suspects. my question for you on that point, is what are the fbi's abilities in this regard? do you feel the fbi would lack the capacity to handle these circumstances to deal with the apprehension and detention of

terrorism suspects? >> no. the answer at the outset is no. but we may be talking about a different class if you're talking about covered person untrained persons, we are talking about non-us citizens, individuals who are participating in a plot with al qaeda and the like where 1022 kicks in. going back to your initial question, i had some concerns about clarity is what would happen at the time of arrest. those concerns have been put to rest by the protocol that has been established by the president. regardless of whether it is -- a person is in the united states by the fbi or could be by the military

i have no question that ourselves in the military would be able to handle and would be capable of handling the consequent investigation and search for intelligence. >> so given this protocol would developing light of the president signing statement december 31, given what you added to that, would it be fair for me to assume that the administration would not object to legislation that would put this rule in place by statute? in other words, to say that we would not use section 1021 and indefinitely to detain u.s. citizens? that would have to go to the department of justice. that is a step too far for me. >> understood. understood. in your testimony your written testimony come you stated that you support the reauthorization of the fisa amendments act. among other things, those amendments authorized the government to surveilled various categories of non-u.s. persons

abroad, outside the united states without the need for a court order for each individual target. although these amendments don't appear to allow the government intentionally to target a u.s. person or intentionally to target any person on u.s. soil it does seem that the amendments have a potential to result in warrantless surveillance of communications that involve u.s. citizens. can you explain in light of this potential what steps can be taken or might be taken in order to protect u.s. citizens? >> let me just say, we are concerned about that the provisions of the statute that minimize the possibility of this happening. that's beyond that, i would have to do that in the closed session. >> but you do share the concern that there is a potential and you share a commitment to taking

steps to protect u.s. citizens? >> yes, and my understanding is, as the statute was going through congress those concerns were raised and addressed in the statute. yes, we fully comply. and we understand the trust as well as the letter of the statute. >> okay. i see my time has expired thank you mr. chairman. thank you. >> good morning and i want to join other members of the committee in thanking you for your extraordinary service over many years, many challenging and difficult years on many challenging and difficult topics. obviously, particularly in the air area of terrorism, the fbi has taken an increasingly important role, not just in terms of apprehending and prosecuting terrorism, here in this country, but also abroad.

and in the area of white-collar crime you continue to be an extraordinarily important presence. i would like to ask, first, about the jpmorgan chase investigation. can you tell us what potential crimes could be under investigation without asking you to conclude anything or talk about the evidence? would it be false statements to the federal government or what area of criminal activity is at? >> i am hesitant to say, other than what is available under title 18 or available to the fcc, would be the focus of any ongoing investigation. >> can you talk at all about the timing of that investigation? >> all i can say is we have

opened a preliminary investigation. as you would well know, and been in this business for a long time it depends on a number of factors. >> i am not going to proceed further, but i would encourage you without your needing any encouragement i'm sure to press forward promptly and expeditiously and aggressively as possible, because i think that the public really has lost faith in many other enforcement agencies partly because of the delay and lack of results and i think that the fbi is a very constructive and important presence in this area. >> thank you. >> turning out to the violence against women act, where again the fbi has been a leading role in stopping assaults and intimidation and harassment of women, as you know the senate has reauthorized this back.

it is now being considered. with cyberstalking him less forceful and robust than the ones that we adopted and i have urged been drafted to adopt in this body, i wonder if you could talk to us about how important cyber is in the area of domestic violence and violence against women in general. >> i am not familiar with the differences between the two proposed statutes. i will say that cyberstalking can be difficult to define. but once defined it the impact is substantial on individuals and it is a growing phenomenon that does need to be addressed. >> would you say that crimes resulting in domestic violence or violence against women, involve the internet and the use

of impersonation and similar kinds of tactics? >> increasingly. and increasing with what we have. one individual was prosecuted for this, and a number of others have undertook the same activity unfortunately. >> thank you. turning to another subject, drug shortages. i don't know whether you are familiar with some of the gray market activities, the price gouging that goes on, with respect to pharmaceutical drugs that are cancer treatments, anesthesiology jobs the fbi was ordered to do defer to department of justice. any evidence of drug shortages that could involve either civil

law? >> i am not that familiar with or aware of this particular area. >> if you could get back to me on that subject if you feel you are at liberty to do so, that would be helpful. >> i will do so. >> on the ongoing investigation, i take it it is ongoing, in the state of connecticut, is there any update that you can provide. i just want to say before you answer, that both the fbi and the united states attorney's office and particularly, the united states attorney's office in connecticut, overall, as well as on this case arguing extraordinarily excellent work and i am very proud of the great job that they are doing there. i say that as one who would be critical, having been a former united states attorney. i am not one who would be less

than demanding of that office. but they are doing both the fbi and the u.s. attorney's they're doing great work. >> i cannot in open session to discuss it. >> on gasoline prices, do you know any uptick in criminal activity there with respect to price gouging or? >> i have not. that is something i will have to get back to you on. we may have seen something. i would have to go back and find out where we are on that. >> thank you. again, thank you so much for your great work. my time has expired, and i appreciate you being here. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i yield not to senator graham. i'm going to ask senator blumenthal if he's willing to take the chair. i will not be coming back. i'm going to something else as i told you earlier both publicly and privately. director mueller, i appreciate

your cooperation and some of the things that you have said will have to be in closed session so we can follow-up with follow up with you privately. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator graham them a thank you. thank you, mr. chairman for your service. i'm going to ask you a series of questions to explore what senator lee was talking about. so we don't have to use the whole seven minutes here talking about the details and what an enemy combatant is or is not. we are going to talk about things regarding cybersecurity. do you have all the resources you need to defend the nation against a cyberattack? >> within reason. >> we need additional resources. we are reprioritizing and reorganizing to address cyber. >> what is the risk to the nation of a cyberattack in the next decade? >> substantial. >> would you do me a favor and quietly and write down

appropriately the list of needs and i will spread them to my colleagues. >> i have done it and i will do it. >> i really appreciate the fbi in many ways. okay. do you believe that we are in a war against terrorism? >> is the war on terrorism an appropriate name to define the time in which we live and? >> yes. >> okay. i do too. it is not crime on terror, it is war on terror. i believe that article three has a place in terrorism do you believe that? >> yes. >> do you believe that military prosecuting has a place? >> yes. >> u.s. citizens are not eligible for military positions, do you agree for that? >> yes. >> i'm not trying to trick you. [laughter] >> i know i know. >> is the homegrown terrorist

threat growing or lessening. >> growing. >> do you consider america part of the terraced battlefield, the country itself? do they want to hit us here as much as anywhere else? >> you know, once you get into the terms of the description, i would say that we have a terrorist threat domestically and internationally. >> let's talk about the fact that i think they want to kill us everywhere, but particularly here. and i don't think it was an accident that they brought down the twin towers, and try to attack the capital. they are coming after us. you agree with that? >> yes. >> and we have a right to defend ourselves? >> yes. >> within our values? >> yes. >> you don't support waterboarding, right? >> nope. it does not comport with our guidelines. >> i agree. i appreciate you saying so. do you believe mohammed is an

enemy combatant? >> i am not going to -- i will go down the road so far but in terms of the designation i think there are a number of factors that go into that. i'm not going to say yay or nay. >> you believe that al qaeda members can be classified as enemy combatants since we have about 200 am in guantánamo's. >> i believe so. >> we are not holding people illegally there are we? >> no be back now, if you caught osama bin laden or tsm, somebody like that tomorrow, in the united states, would you suggest that the country take off the table military commission trials simply because the foreign terrorists were captured in the united states? >> i would stay away from suggesting that that would be a decision for the president. my responsibility our responsibility would be to gather whatever facts

intelligence, and order -- [talking over each other] >> i don't believe the policy of the obama administration is foreign terrorists captured in the united states cannot be tried by military commission and cannot be held as enemy combatants in the senate -- and obliquely want to send a signal to the world that if you make it to america, all of a sudden you get a better deal than if we catch you in pakistan. let's talk about your job. when we capture someone affiliated that we believe to be affiliated with al qaeda, in the united states, is that the obama's position -- obama administration's position, the fbi's position, that those individuals captured, collaborating with al qaeda in the united states, must be mirandized?

>> there is no blank a pool on miranda-- brandeis in. >> i think that is a good answer. sometimes i think maybe it is the best thing to do. sometimes i think maybe it is not. >> the policy that has been laid out, the exception to the miranda rule, dashed. >> how long can you hold someone under the case before you have to read them you have to read them their brander writes? >> i think that is an open question. >> is a today's? >> an open question. >> i would suggest that the people that we held at guantánamo bay for years as enemy combatants can only be held out long because we designated them as combatants. i don't want to bastard out the

criminal justice system. once music, i wanted to work the way it should. and i believe if you capture someone, in the united states, and you are going to charge them with a crime and article three in court, that is your intent, that your ability to hold them without aggrandizing them under court is limited, but how long can you hold someone that you want to put into the criminal justice system without presenting them to a federal court under the requirement? >> you are required to present them generally within the next 24 to 48 hours. >> you have to present them to court? >> i presume you're talking about non-us citizens. >> right. i understand they get a lawyer don't they have to have someone help them? >> it depends on the circumstance. some have and some have not. >> my point is you are taking a subset who we believe is involved in terrorism.

when you put them in the criminal justice system, you have miranda issues and resentment issues if you keep them in the system holding them as an enemy combatant. for intelligence gathering systems untrimmed purposes, you don't have these problems? >> correct. i'm not sure to what extent you can make a blanket statement. also, i think there are downsides from doing it. >> is there any requirement in the law of war to read to any prisoner their miranda rights while they are held in custody? >> i am not familiar -- i am not familiar with the military rights. it. >> i would suggest, and i don't want to belabor this, we never in a war capture an enemy predator and have them say they have a right to a lawyer. we hold together intelligence because we are trying to prevent the next attack, not prosecute. i'm going to send you a series

of questions, and i want us to understand that a nation, that we are at war. i want to treat people fairly. i believe in all of the above. but i am not going to sit on the sidelines and go back to a pre-9/11 model of where the criminal justice system is the only one available to fight this war. mr. director, you have very dedicated agents they're putting themselves at risk. when we capture one of these people, who we believe is involved with al qaeda, in a way to hurt us all i think we should have as many options as possible within our values and within the law of war and the criminal justice system to defend ourselves. i'm going to send you some questions. and i am glad to hear there is no blanket requirement by the fbi to mirandized a terror suspect upon capturing them in the united states. that is good to know. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> senator schumer. >> thank you and thank you director, for the outstanding job you and the men and women who work for you do. i admire it everyday or now, i would like to talk a little bit about relations between the fbi and the nypd. overall, it has been a great relationship. it has been a smooth relationship. it has been, i think, pointed to as an outstanding example of the joint terrorism task force of cooperation between the federal government state government and local government. over the last few months, there have been a number of things that create a growing concern that that relationship might be fraying a little bit. particularly, in regard to information sharing, which i know obviously you have to be very careful with. but these are two law enforcement agencies involved together in fighting terrorism. so i don't want to -- there have been cases where the nypd

believes it hasn't been briefed on a specific -- the specifics of terrorist plots, which is the type of information that they need because new york city being a top terrorist target. the joint terrorism task force should know information related to new york city, at the same time that the fbi knows of this information, to give our forces the best chance to combat terrorism. if it can't be known immediately, it should be shortly thereafter. we have some examples where four or five days after it was made public, they didn't get the kind of detailed information that they wanted. my question is, do you believe there is currently a problem in communications within members of the joint terrorism task force? if there is a problem what can be done about it to better facilitate mutation between the two. i have great respect for both. i have been proud of the cooperation. if there is no problem will you

commit today to keeping nypd abreast of any and all future developments related to terrorist plotscommendably work with the nypd to address the cooperation and information sharing issues, so that everybody is on the same page and can work together as well as they have in the past? >> well, let me just start by saying i think we have a very good relationship with the new york police department. particularly, on the joint terrorism task force. we have tens of nypd officers, many of them who have served for years. to the extent that the new york field office gets terrorism, goes to the joint task force. it is they are. the officers from the nypd did the information at the same time as the agents on the task force get the information. there are occasions when there is something very tightly and closely held in agencies and it may be in washington but it takes some time before there is further dissemination, which makes sense. there are always bumps in the

road. >> have increased over the last months? >> no, no no. they're always bumps in the road. every six months or so ray kelly indicted together. we discuss those bumps in the road. and we move on. i think the relationship is very good and let me just say tremendously effective. i think the joint terrorism task force is effective. i think nypd is effective in preventing attacks. whatever you have, strong-willed agencies and other agencies, you are going to have come as i say bumps in the road. >> right. >> i don't think there is any extraordinary action that needs to be taken by myself or ray kelly or others to address a current issue. >> okay. and that would apply in reference to -- i understand the difficulties as i read in the newspaper. i didn't know anything else. the information about the recent airplane bomber tweaked out

prematurely. you don't have to comment on that, but are there any problems with communication on that issue now between -- >> there shouldn't be. >> okay. because there was some talk that there was. >> i heard that talk. >> have you talked to commissioner kelly on that? >> i have not. >> would you be willing to? >> great. just a suggestion to give him a call on this. he didn't ask me to ask you to do that, i am. >> banks. >> as i told ray -- >> thanks, appreciate it very much. there was one other instance. this was not related to the joint terrorism task force. but you and i talked about this. when an fbi bureau chief in your criticize the operations that he said made it more difficult to protect the public in new jersey

-- again, i don't have a problem if the fbi -- >> i understand and i have addressed the issue. >> you understand? >> i have addressed the issue. >> everyone is happy now? to not everyone. >> i hear you. let's go on to another subject thank you. >> i am glad you have adjusted and i hope that doesn't create any future problems. because it did create bad blood for. of time on 10. >> there has been investigation comments on the trayvon martin case. but i want to get your opinion about these stand your ground lost. are they creating more violence than they are preventing? >> there is that one incident that we have there may be

others around the country. i can't give an opinion on that. >> how about your general opinion on these stand your ground lost? >> i don't know enough about them to render an opinion. >> i would ask you, you know, again, i don't put you in any jeopardy in the terms of this investigation, but if you had wanted to think about it and something you wanted to send within the timeframe that the chair is laid out, i would appreciate it. >> yes, sir. >> i tend to think these are counter productive and hurt law enforcement. okay, i have only 33 seconds left. so i will submit my final question in writing to thank you. >> thank you senator schumer. senator whitehouse, i'm sorry senator klobuchar is next. i'm going to yield the gavel to senator whitehouse. as soon as he returns. >> thank you, very much. i am the one standing with the

gavel. >> you now have the gavel. >> thank you, director, for being here. i appreciate how often you come and how we are kept abreast of everything you are doing. many of my colleagues have asked about officer safety issues with the national memorial services this week. i was just with the families and police officers over the last two days two officers that died in the line of duty in minnesota, one in fact, reported to a scene of a domestic violence case 17-year-old victim. he sacrificed his life for hers. and he leaves three young children. one of the things that came up at a previous hearing we had here, on the bulletproof vest, which is incredibly important, 72 of our law enforcement officers were killed during 2011. that is the highest number since 2007. it is up 20% from 2010. twenty-one and supplement 21 in

the midwest, and tenant in the northeast and two in puerto rico. are you aware of any factors that would explain this increase, or do you think it is a random tragic statistic or do you know how this is happening? >> i don't think anybody has a clear answer although we tried to distract those figures. i will tell you as i indicated before, the two things we are doing, trying to reduce first we changed our qualifications to understanding, based on our data, that many of the encounters that police have with persons with weapons are a short distance not at a longer distance. consequently, we have to increase our capability of responding at shorter distances, often when we change our protocols, state and local will follow as well. secondly, when an individual is stopped, and he goes to find the

record, we will put a warning in the record if the person has a warning, with a response if the person has a violent criminal history. that way we can alert that officer to beware. >> very good. thank you. i know we have discussed the bulletproof vest issue. i had known until we had a hearing with some of our police leaders, but the issue with women with bulletproof vests and how they need different bulletproof vests, which makes sense, and how sometimes they don't have those. we are seeing more and more women police officers. i wanted to note that to you. that is something we need to address. i also know the fbi works closely with state and local authorities to keep our children safe from programs like in innocence lost national initiative. next week, i am sharing a hearing on child protection or vegetables. we have a good program and

wynonna, minnesota. one of the particular areas is forensic interviewing. many times the child victim may be the only witness in these crimes. according to one fbi child interviewer, a method used in a doubt content adult cases, it would be counterproductive with child victims. i know that the fbi has been doing good work in this area. the expertise is in demand across the country. can you tell me how the training is available to fbi agents and what else can we do to help the fbi make progress on the problems of child abduction and abuse? >> we have for it to a forensic interviewers who are very qualified. they do great work. they get too much of that work unfortunately come and build up that expertise. we provide training to agents and task force officers generally the training lasts from three to four days. the statistics for 2011 is that

we trained at 650 agents. the task force officers in 2011 alone. we will continue that. to the extent that there are law enforcement agencies that would benefit from that training. i'm sure the special agents in charge, and those particular divisions, we will try to accommodate. >> thank you very much. i was thinking back when i did a case as a prosecutor it was a nonviolent minor case, and there was a 5-year-old witness. i was out having to put her on the stand. i said do you know the truth is? and she said i do. but when i was four i always told lies dream act. [laughter] >> needless to say the case didn't go very far.

metals that is a problem. lester senator hatch and i introduced a bill trying to look at some of the criminal penalties and trying to get some requirements in place when mineral dealers get proper -- copper and other things. with requirements for ids and other things in place. i just wondered if you are aware of that problem around the country with buildings blowing up another things because of stolen copper? >> yes and i won't mention the cities, but i know it is a problem in certain cities. it is such a problem that emergency services can be adversely impacted by such steps. generally, what we do, if there is a discrete group or entity that is involved then we work with the state and local government to put together a task force to address this. as we look at the budget

shortages, prioritization and the contacts are perhaps, the budget -- it's going to get worse down the road. this is one where it is difficult when the resources to put on a. >> i understand that. one thing we could do to be helpful is but requirements in place. some states have on the sale of these things. it is easier for local law enforcement to track. i wanted to put the word and because you have a lot on your plate. the best thing would be to make it easier for local to handle this. i had some questions, and i know senator kohl got into the economic espionage, which i think is critically important. we have many big companies in minnesota that owned many patterns. my favorite statistic is that three m. has in many employees as inventions. we care very much about this espionage, especially over the

internet and some of this cybercrime that is going on. i appreciate the work you're doing in this area, and the way that you are adjusting to the ever-changing technological climate with the fbi. thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator? welcome, director mueller. let me follow up on senator klobuchar's last point. on our cybervulnerability. let me preface are remarks by saying that from my viewpoint on the intelligence committee, from my viewpoint on this committee and going out and senior folks in action, from looking at some of the cases that have been put together, i am very impressed with the ability and dedication of the forces you have deployed against cyberthreats. what i am concerned about is not our ability it is adequacy.

it is the quantity, not quality i think you run some very high-quality folks, and i appreciate that. i went out on a limb about two years ago and said that i thought that the theft of american intellectual property across our cybernetworks was the biggest transport content transfer of wealth in the history of the human species to invest in piracy and we were on the losing end and were not taking enough action to defend against it. since then, general alexander has said virtually the same thing. he is the head of cybercommand and the head of nsa. private sector observers, like the latest mcafee report have again used almost the same language. so here we are, assuming that to be true on the losing end of the biggest transfer of wealth in human kind, and i want to ask your continued support for my

office's efforts to try to get a real understanding of what our fbi and doj resources are dedicated to in this problem? you have to really trouble the numbers. i cannot doj and they can say oh, there is a person dedicated in every u.s. attorney's office. and i know vertically well from having been an attorney, that person may very well need content be doing no cybercases at all. they may be the designated person who puts the conference call on mute while they are doing other work. just that number doesn't really help. so we are trying to work through who is really onto this cyber-- cybermap problem. and in the fbi other people dedicated to this? are they in the same mode they take the call even when there will workload is elsewhere? other folks who are forensic

cleanup, for when you raid a place come to grab computers and do a download. that is all important, but it is not cyberbattle. one of the things that i am concerned about is that when you look at the metrics of cases that are produced, again, i see some great cases, but i don't see a ton of them. in terms of beating down the botnets that attacker systems through server attacks, i think you guys helped take down the core flood and the botnet. those were a great deal. the botnet made a measurable dent in the amount of spam that is out there on the internet. but there is still a ton of that stuff going on and, two, it is great cases, but not a lot of cases. i am informed that if you look at it or intellectual property

theft through cyber, hacking their confidential data their formulas and secrets, xl trading that out and then using that using now, we have made zero cases that in all of those cyber-- cybercases and intellectual property theft cases, there has been a human link. we have found the guy who is downloading to disk and putting it in his pocket. my impression is that they are standing in front of a fire hose, trying to do their best to manage around an immense amount of work. from what i hear from private sector folks, they would like to

have more fbi and law enforcement support when they have been hacked. nine times out of 10, they don't even know they have been hacked. they get told they have been hacked when your folks or homeland security say you might consider looking up a spiral. but once they do know having more support from you guys i think is -- i think you're doing a great job of the resources that you have. i feel that we are at a stage where this has become a big problem, both as a national security problem are electric grid and industrial espionage problem against our competitive industries, and there's probably there is probably someone in this room right now that someone's credit card and social security numbers are on an estonian website for sale. there are all these issues. i feel that we need come in the same way that we had to move from just having from having a

couple of aircraft in the u.s. army a few years ago, that we need to be thinking about what is the next step? how should we structure this? is not enough to add incrementally that we need to go game on on this. i'd like your thoughts on that point. i know that omb is a hazard for folks when they are being asked to argue beyond your allocated budget. but i would like to ask you to participate willingly and helpfully and continue to. i have had good support so far in trying to help works of his out. we are trying to get the ability to put a structure into analyzing what our law enforcement posture should look like, how should it be resourced for the future. we have the da we have the atf and secret service. maybe we should be thinking of building something that is equivalent for cyber? what are your thoughts? >> let me start by saying that i share your concern about putting

the country and the bureau in a posture to justice. it is going to take a substantial reorientation of the bureau to address this. in terms of personnel i would put them -- one of the things we too often do is we take pockets of the cyberissue and forget about them. within the bureau, there are a number of initiatives that we have to -- that we have taken on -- that are under the cyberumbrella. also, every one of our cyberofficers are doing cyberwar. there are intrusions and

innocent images cases, quite obviously, that fall within that, but i would say, as we grow, the intrusions are more important. you say that even though you hate to say that but they require a different skill and effort. my discussions with our people is that this is -- we really have to address the cyber in the same way that we reoriented the bureau to address counterterrorism. that means beefing up our cybersquads and making them taskforces. you don't know where the cyberintrusion is going to occur, and you need to do the forensics in order to start the valuation of attribution, much less the criminal case. consequently, it has to be distributed across the country and the expertise has to be distributed across the country. it takes more of a headquarters role because inevitably in most of these, whether it be a botnet or what have you those that were started in romania or

morocco, or elsewhere, the old way of allocating responsibility to the office of origin that were getting a subpoena to the grand jury, it doesn't work in this environment. so what we are working with in the bureau is putting together a distributed -- >> i am going to interject. in those cases, you don't have a criminal case. you have a civil effort. >> right. >> you shut it off but it is hard to keep that up within the fbi's structure when there is no criminal case contemplated. >> we look at it as national security. this is one of the problems that you haven't cyber. at the time of the cyberintrusion, you do not know whether it is a state actor, you don't know whether it is organized crime or organized crime working for a state actor order an individual or group of individuals not organized but