>> thank you. this has been a very informative hearing. is it fair to say that we did not have the legal infrastructure in place to deal with the cyber threats that we face that congress needs to give you better legislative support? >> yes. >> is it fair to say that of all the things that we should be concerned about, cyber attacks from foreign governments and terrorists is a growing threat by the day? >> yes. >> okay. would you consider a cyber attack generated from the people's liberation army of china against our national security infrastructure? should that be considered a hostile act? >> you're in an area somewhat beyond my purview, but the way you would describe absolutely would be a hostile act. i don't know about the connotations of hostile act. >> see, i don't know either but i think we need to come to grips with that because you've got a law enforcement model against cyber attacks.

>> yes. >> where people engage in economic espionage. they may try to shut down, you know, a power plant or the grid. when is it a crime and when is it a national security hostile act done to the law of war? i think that's what we need to consider among ourselves. and i would argue -- let's say that these websites generated by al qaeda, if an al qaeda backed organization tried to commit a cyber attack, would you consider that an attack on the united states? >> yes. >> so if we captured somebody involved in a cyber attack that was affiliated with al qaeda, they would be treated differently than a common criminal, is that correct? >> it depends on the circumstances. i see where you're going in terms of the -- >> you could use one or two models. >> you could. and if i may, what you point to is one of the difficulties in the cyber arena, because at the point of time of the intrusion, you don't know whether it's going be a country, a terrorist, or the 18-year-old kid down the

block. >> right. and the best way to find that out, i believe, is to hold someone that you suspect of being involved in terrorism and gather the information in an orderly fashion. and i do believe the law enforcement model has deficiencies in that regard. the people at guantanamo bay, there are some people being held there for multiple years, is that correct? >> yes. >> has the fbi interviewed the population of guantanamo bay. >> yes. >> have we gathered good information over time from that population without using waterboarding? >> yes. >> don't you agree that the best way to interrogate someone is not to torture them but to use traditional military law enforcement techniques? >> that's somewhat of a loaded question. >> if you say -- >> i would say we follow our rules -- >> you don't torture people in the fbi, do you? >> pardon? >> you don't torture people. >> no, sir. >> and you get good information. >> yes. >> i totally agree. what i would suggest to the

committee is the questions about see confess trags, if this is not a wake upcall for the congress, what would be? you just heard the fbi director i think is doing a marvelous job and all his agents tell us if we do what we're planning to do, we're going to devastate one of the front line agencies in the war on terror. ten years ago, what was the fbi's budget when it came to national security issues? what percentage of your budget? before 9/11. >> i would say one-fifth of the budget back in 2001 was national security and i would say the principal percentage of that was addressed to espionage in the counterintelligence division. >> so before 9/11 what percentage of your budget? >> i would say no more than a quarter. a fifth or a quarter. >> so if your budget has gone up from a fifth to a quarter, it's now 60% dealing with national security issues, something's got to give.

has your budget gone up -- how much has your budget gone up in the last three years? >> last three years i'd say maybe $2 billion. i'd have to check. >> what percentage of increase is that? >> i could tell you since 2001, our budget in 2001, which i'm much more familiar with, it's 3.1, now $8.1 billion. so it's almost tripled over that period of time. >> so these resources have been needed? >> yes. >> do you see -- do you have enough money to do all the jobs that you have told us that you do? >> in the -- >> and if you don't, tell us. >> yeah. i mean it is a prioritization. we have to prioritize. we have, as you saw the threats that we face are substantial. >> mr. director, it's one thing to prioritize. everybody does it at home and in their businesses and the other is to have do it on the cheap. are we giving you enough money to do it -- not only to prioritize but to fully and robustly deal with the threats the united states faces?

and if you think you need more money, now is the time to tell us. >> i would say that my concern in the immediate future is having sufficient funds to build up the capabilities to address cyber in the same way we had -- and were afforded the funds to address counterterrorism. whether it's 2013, 2014, 2015, i think that is an issue that's going to require additional funds down the road. >> could you give us some estimate privately or whatever's appropriate about how to build up the cyber account because not only do we need new laws to deal with the cyber threat, we probably need to fund you more robustly. so thank you. >> thank you. >> will you be able to come to our classified -- >> yes, ma'am, if i can get back from my press conference about medicare, i will be here. and if we can save money on maed care, we'll give some of it to him. >> senator graham, thank you very much, and we'll look forward to you in the classified

hearing. your considerable expertise in the armed services and, again, you're a j.a.g. officer, your exchange was very informative. i want to comment on this side. senator alexander is absent because of a family illness. he sends his regards but we wanted to let you know his absence was due to a very compelling family reason. >> thanks, madam chairman and thanks director mueller for the wonderful work that the fbi has done, the diligence and the competence that your people operate with. and hats off to you for your leadership there. it's quite incredible when we hear a review of what has happened budgetarily for these years, and i'm reminded that on

9/11 the loss of lives and the restructuring of our society took place in a way that is not yet fully understood. on d-day at normandy, on pearl harbor day, we didn't lose as many americans as we did on 9/11. and what we find, the proliferation of guns -- and i'm not doing a second amendment review here. we're talking about guns in the wrong hands. we're not talking about people who apply and go through the rigors of testing as they do now. one of the questions that i'm really anxious to review, and that is we now understood -- understand that people from the new york police department were

doing surveillance in the state of new jersey, across the river into our sovereignty. and last week the special agent in charge of the fbi newark office criticized the new york police department's surveillance of new jersey communities and universities saying, and i quote, it makes our job much, much harder. mr. director, how do you feel about that? >> let me start off by saying that we have a very good relationship with nypd, and the work that the nypd has done since september 11th to protect new york and the surrounding communities is first rate. and there has not been a successful attack on new york in large part attributable to the

work that's been done by the new york police department along with the joint terrorism task force, which has been whereon going for many years in new york and joint terrorism task forces in new jersey and elsewhere. often there are issues in how you go about doing your work that arises over a period of time where there are bumps in the road in terms of cooperation. and my expectation is that whatever bumps in the road there have been in the past in terms of alerting people to actions that are taken will not take place in the future, but it should not interfere with the work being done and done exceptionally well with the joint terrorism task forces in new jersey as well as in -- as well as in new york. >> yeah. i agree with that, director. but the fact of the matter is there ought to at least be some privilege given to the law enforcement structure in our state and for them to be alert.

why should there not be that information available? what about cross-currents and bumping into one another? i'm not going to press you further on this. >> no. i'll tell you to be as -- as everybody knows you, you often have jurisdictional issues between the fbi and state and local law enforcement, between sheriffs and police chiefs and the like. it is not unusual to have that. and my belief is you sit down, you talk about it in private, you get it resolved, and you move on. that's what has happened over a period of time, whether it be new york or philadelphia or washington, d.c., san francisco, los angeles or what have you. and so i -- as was pointed out by the s.a.c. in his remarks, he has a good and they have a good relationship with nypd in new jersey. >> that's true. i want to ask you a question about people on the terror watch

lists. they're able to legally purchase a gun or explosives. in addition the gun show loophole allows anyone to walk into a gun show, purchase a gun, no questions asked. and when you look at the statistics of murders in our country compared to other advanced societies and our numbers dwarf anything that comes from other places, england, germany, australia, you name it, canada. isn't it time to close that terror gap and the gun show loophole? >> as we've discussed before in each hearing that we've had, i'd defer to the department of justice in terms of particularized legislation, but needless to say, anything that can keep the hands -- or the guns out of the hands of criminals or terrorists or the like is something that is beneficial in terms of reducing the extent of -- i believe the

extent of violence in our society. >> madam chairman, may i continue with one more question, even though the gun may go off? cruise lines are required to inform the fbi about serious crimes and the number of crimes is supposed to be made public. however, according to fbi data that i obtained, the number of crimes posted online is lower than that reported by the industry. we're planning to change the law to address this discrepancy. in the meantime, what steps can the fbi take to publicly disclose the actual number of serious crimes on cruise ships? and i don't want to -- i'm not interested in hurting the industry, but i am also not willing to permit crimes to be developed and not -- not give public -- the true facts about what's taking place. >> well, i think you raise two issues. one is the extent of reporting

and compliance with the law which requires reporting. certainly we can educate cruise line companies in terms of the necessity of doing that and assuring to the extent possible that they comply with the statute. secondly, in terms of making public those figures i have to go and get back to you. i am not certain to what extent they are publicized and if not why they would not be publicized. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> before i turn to senator feinstein, i just want to comment. you have a long history on defending people on cruise ships. do you remember, there were some terrible incidents many years ago. >> absolutely. >> and you're to be congratulated. we need to protect the people who sail on the seas from pirates or other despicable behavior and we look forward to hearing more from you. >> thank you. >> senator hutchison who is

going to be next yields to you so then we'll go to murkowski and hutchison that way. okay? >> well, thank you. >> thank you very much. i wanted to take up where senator graham left off. and there has been an effort emanating out of the armed services committee to change the defense authorization bill to essentially put this country's detention policy under the laws of war. and under the laws of war, an individual can be held without charge or trial until the end of hostilities. the point made that america is a battlefield and i think that's the point that some have been trying to make. i'd like to ask your view of this. i am strongly opposed to it. i also know what you said during the worldwide threat hearing, that the fbi has interrupted or

arrested some 20 terrorist plots in this country over the past year. you have the high value interrogation group, which you testified to the house committee has done 14 interrogations and i gather with some success. i would like to ask you to comment on whether you believe that permanently detaining americans without trial or charge is appropriate? >> i would have to start with nbaa legislation that has recently been passed which addresses that particular issue, and as i think you and others are aware, i had some concerns at the outset in two areas. the continuation of our authorities during this possible

transfer to, not transfer, detention initially into military custody here in the united states and secondly, whether or not there could be clarity in terms of -- either the statute or presidential directives that would clarify the process in which a person's deemed to be not an american, non-american citizen, but a person who is an al qaeda affiliate engaged in a terrorist plot who is not an american citizen, to what extent would there be immediate military detention. with both the statute as well as the president's directives i'm comfortable that -- that the capabilities of the bureau and coupled with the capabilities of d.o.d. will be maintained in that rather unique situation where you have a foreigner, not a u.s. citizen, who undertakes a terrorist attack affiliated with al qaeda in the united states. i'm looking at that discreet

issue and am comfortable that we have preserved what we needed to preserve in terms of our role in that process. >> but -- >> the broader question that you have -- >> the broader question is that the law is very cloudy and this is a problem. and the court has had some holdings that can you not detain a person indefinitely regardless of whether they are a citizen or not in this country without charge or trial. >> well, the supreme court has occasion to opine on various aspects of that. and i am -- what i have wrestled with is particular pieces of legislation that would impact that process whereby a person is det detaped in the united states, a u.s. citizen, nonu.s. citizens and it's the president's prerogative to determine whether

or not ultimately a person is tried or you proceed against that person in an article 3 court, which we operate, or in a military tribunal, which has also been upheld by the supreme court. and so with the ndaa legislation, i believe that the issues have been fleshed out to the extent that i'm comfortable with that, but i really hesitate to comment on other issues which have either not been the subject of legislation or are unique to a particular circumstance, where you really don't know the facts and not knowing the facts, it's very hard to apply the law. >> right. i appreciate that and i appreciate the need for executive flexibility in whether it's military or whether it's federal court. having said that, senator mikulski and i serve and fisa is

up for reauthorization and must be reauthorized by the end of the year. do you view that authorization as important? do you view it as valuable and if so, why? >> i would go beyond, use the word "critical." because the world in which we live today is -- tom friedman talks about a flat world with technology, criminals, terrorists, cyber terrorists, cut across borders at will in seconds. and it is absolutely essential that the intelligence community, when it be domestic, but most particularly foreign, has the flexibility and capability of obtaining communications by these individuals as quickly as possible in order to prevent attacks. whether those attacks in the future be a terrorist attack on the infrastructure, on the financial structure, or attacks

by al qaeda and like in cyberspace. it's absolutely essential that we have those tools. >> would you intelligence surveillance act is critical tool of counter terrorism in the country? >> yes. and also it will be a critical tool as well in the cyber arena. >> yes. thank you very much. thank you, madame chairman. >> senator, feinstein, i hope you can join us shortly as well. senator mckowski. >> thank you, chairman nice to have you here. this this morning in the case against senator ted stevens was released. it was, i guess, precipitated, that the brady violations came

about, but it was not until five months after that trial was completed that we learned of these violations, and it came about because of the complaint that was filed by an fbi agent that alleged the prosecutorial and other law enforcement misconduct in that case. in my opinion, that was exceptional good work by that fbi agent. and judge sullivan suggested were it not for the complaint of that agent, that, in fact, we might not have learned of the misconduct. i'm joined this morning, or this afternoon, with many of my colleagues, including senator hutchison in filing legislation to address some of the laws that are in place that allowed for

this horrid situation to move forward. i would certainly hope that individual has been recognized for his persistence, standing up for the constitution. i hope the recognition has been given by the fbi. the case is still under review by opr. both justice department as well as as our own opr. the agent who came forward and did that was doing so in tradition of the fbi. it is the legacy to adhere to

the constitution. when you see something, to bring that to the attention of others. and that's what we teach in our new agent's training as they come through. there's no case more important than abiding by the constitution, the applicable statutes and the attorney guidelines. >> i appreciate that. you mentioned the report under way. i asked them to conduct this forl investigation. and i am hoping that the fbi will work with opr as they look into the issues behind the stevens matter. in particular. the fbi has works very, very close by with the anchorage police department in this case that involved bill allen, who was the key witness in the case against senator stevens. and it was alleged that he

transported a young native alaskan woman across state lines justices higher up scuttled. the question that i would have to have is to what extent was the fbi involved in that investigation and did that include a reason for the prosecution not to go forward? this has really stunned people back in alaska. they cannot understand why the department of justice has dropped this. do you know any reason that based on the investigation that the prosecution should not have gone forward? >> i do not.

i would assume this is the opr investigation. and that particular allegation would be addressed in that arena. am not familiar with the court's report that was issued earlier today, and i do not know whether that was a subject of that particular investigation. >> and i would ask you, because this is a matter that has really gone far beyond what most could have even imagined that you not only look at the report that is issued today, but also do some follow up in terms of that the fbi investigation and where we are with office professional responsibility. the concern that so many of us have is that the allegations are unfortunately not isolated in

alaska. we've had a great concern of sex trafficking in the states with native women. the government's failure to prosecute sends an awful message to other predators out there. if you are a young native woman, you don't stand a chance when you've been victimized by a person of political influence and financial means. and if an individual doesn't feel there's recourse out there, it makes the situation pretty tough.

i know you have good folks in the fbi that are working the issue. but this is something that needs further attention to detail. if yo can give my your assurance to look into it, i would appreciate it. >> we have gone back in terms of our workforce in making certain that everyone understands the the environments. secondly, when it comes to human trafficking in alaska, we have persons that are working hard on that with state local law enforcement believe it is a priority. any young woman or man that can be saved to address this, we want to be a participant and driver of that.

>> thank you, madame chairman. >> thank you, madame chairman. just to add one more question to lisa's line, and i think she has taken the lead on this and properly so, but i do commend the fbi agent who came forward, who just couldn't sit back and let a person be accused, go through a trial, lose an election and then all based on very bad misconduct on the part of the agencies that we look to for complete integrity, which would be the department of justice, the prosecutors and the fbi. there were others that were implicated with the fbi in some of the alleged misconduct, and my question to you is, what are

you doing to deal with the allegations which i assume will come out in a report or the opr report, if the agents are found to still be in the fbi, and have been actually to your satisfaction part of the scheme that was put together in convict senator stephens? >> well, at the outset, justice department opr led the investigation. we participated and contributed to that investigation to the extent that individuals within the bureau were implicated, we, along with justice, investigated that. there is at least one individual who is still going through the opr process, let me just put it that way, and i cannot certainly openly but -- i can you that that process is monitored but it goes through our process when a person has an opportunity to respond to the charges and the