and it's a growing phenomenon that does need to be addressed. >> and would you say that crimes resulting in domestic violence or violence against women do often involve the internet and the use of impercentination and those tactics? >> increasingly. you have one individual who is prosecuted for this, becomes public, and you find a number of others that would then undertake the same activity, unfortunately. >> thank you, turning to another subject, drug shortages. i don't know whether you're familiar with some of the gray market activities, some of the potential price gouging that goes on with respect to pharmaceutical drugs that are in shortages. cancer treatment, an stheesology

drugs, they were reported to report any drug shortages that can involve criminal or civil violations of law. i'm wondering if you're familiar with them? >> i am not. we may have cases that i'm not aware of relating to this particular area. >> if you could get back to me on that subject when you feel you're at liberty to do so, that would be helpful. and on the onple going investigation, i take it it's ongoing with respect to east haven in the state of connecticut, is there any update you can provide, and i want to say before you answer that both the fbi and the united states attorneys office and in particular the united states attorney in connecticut overall as well as on this case are

doing extraordinarily excellent work, and i'm very proud of the great job that they're doing there, and i say that as one who would be critical having been a former -- having been a united states attorney, i'm not one who would be less than demanding of that office, but they're doing, both the fbi and the u.s. attorney there are doing great work. >> i'm familiar with the investigation. we cannot in open session discuss it. >> on gasoline prices, do you know any uptick in criminal activity there with respect to price gouging? >> have not. have not. again, that's something i'll 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 for your great work. my time has expired and i appreciate you being there. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

we'll yield now to senator graham and i would ask senator blumenthal if he's willing to take the chair. i'm going to somebody else again, as i told you both publicly and privately, director mueller, i appreciate your cooperation in some of the things you said will have to be in closed session, we can follow up with your privately. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. >> thank you again for your service. i'm going to send you a series of questions to kind of explore further what senator lee was talking about. so we don't have to use the whole seven minutes here talking about the details of miranda and what an enemy combatant is or is not. we'll talk about cybersecurity. do you have the resources you need right now to defend the country against a cyberattack, within reason? >> we need additional resources. we're repriortizing,

reorganizing to address cyber. we have -- >> what's the risk to the nation of a cyberattack in the next decade? >> substantial. >> so would you do me a favor and just quietly and appropriately write down that list of needs and get them to me and i'll spread them to my colleagues. >> have done it, will do it. >> and appreciate the fbi in many ways. okay, do you believe that we're in a war against terrorism? is the war on terror an appropriate name to define the time in which we live in? >> yes. >> okay. i do, too. it's not the crime on terror. it's the war on terror. i believe that article three courts have a place in prosecuting terrorists. do you believe that? >> yes. >> do you believe military commissions could have a place? >> yes.

>> u.s. citizens are not eligible for mill tear commissions? >> yes. not trying to trick you. >> i'm waiting. >> i know, i know. is there home-grown terrorist threat growing or lessening? >> growing. >> do you consider america part of the terrorist battlefield, the country itself? isn't that sort of what they want to do, hit us here as much as anywhere else? >> you know, the one could get into parsing the terms of the description. i would say that we have a terrorist threat domestically. we have a terrorist threat internationally. >> let's talk about the threat i think they want to kill us everywhere but particularly here. i don't think it's an accident that they brought down the twin towers, attacked the pentagon and tried to attack the capitol. they're coming after us. do you agree with that? all over the world? >> yes. >> and we have a right to def d defendselves? >> yes. >> within our values?

you don't support waterboarding? >> no. it does not comport with our guidelines. >> i agree and i appreciate you when a time it wasn't popular saying so. do you believe khalid sheik mohammed is an enemy combatant? >> in terms of the designation, i think there are a number of factors that go into that. i'm not going to say yea or nay. >> would you believe that al qaeda members can be classified as enemy combatants since we have about 200 or so in quan tonbow mto tonmow bay. >> we're not holding people illegally there, are we? >> no. >> if you caught osama bin laden or ksm, 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 terrorist was captured in the united states? >> i would stay away from suggesting. that would be a decision for the president. my responsibility, our responsibility would be to gather whatever facts, intelligence and/or looking at -- >> i don't believe it's the policy of the obama administration that foreign terrorists captured in the united states cannot be tried by military commission and not be held as a military combatant, and i don't believe we 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 it the 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 blanket rule on mirandizing individuals. >> okay. >> of al qaeda in the united states. >> this is very important. i think that's a good answer. sometimes maybe is the best thing to do. sometimes maybe it's not. >> i think the policy that has been laid out is that intelligence comes first. >> okay. >> and an exception to the miranda rule, we have leeway. >> how long under quarles, which had to do with a domestic crime, not a terrorism case, how long can you hold someone under the quarles case before you have to read them their miranda right?

>> it's an open question depending on the circumstances. >> i would suggest that the people we have held at guantanamo bay for years as enemy combatants can only be held that long because we designated them as enemy combatants. once we use it and i want it to work the way it should, and i believe that if you capture someone in the united states and you're going to charge them with a crime in article three court, that's your intent, that your ability to hold them without mirandizing them under quarles is limited, but how long can you hold someone that you want to put in the criminal justice system without presenting them to a federal court under the presentment requirements? >> you're required to present them generally within the next 24 to 48 hours. >> okay, so you have to present them to court. >> i presume you're talking about non-u.s. vit zns.

>> yes. >> then they get a lawyer at presentment? >> depends on the circumstance. some have, some have not. >> my point is that you're taking a suspect who we believe is involved in terrorism, when you put them in the criminal justice system, you have miranda issues and presentment issues if you keep them in the law system holding them as an enemy combatant for intelligence gathering services, you don't have those problems is that correct? >> i'm not sure what extent you can make that blanket statement. and there are downsides to doing that. >> do you know any requirement in the law of war to read an enemy prisoner their miranda right or provide them a lawyer when they're held in military custody? >> i'm not familiar. i'm not familiar with the military as you are. >> i would suggest and i don't

want to belabor this. we have never in a war captured an enemy prisoner and said you have a right to a lawyer, here is your lawyer. we hold you together for intelligence because we're trying to prevent the next attack, so i'm going to send you a series of question and i want to understand as a nation we're at war. i want to treat people fairly. i believe in all of the above, but i'm not going to sit on the sidelines and go back to a pre9/11 model of where the criminal justice system is the only tool available to fight this war. mr. director, if you got really dedicated agents who are putting themselves as risk and 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 so i'm going to send you some questions and

i'm glad to hear that there is no blanket requirement by the fbi to mirandize a terrorist suspect upon capture in the united states. so that's good to know. 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 every day. now, i would like to talk a little bit about relations between the fbi and the nypd. overall, it's been a great relationship. it's been a smooth relationship. it's been, i think, pointed to as an outstanding example of the joint terrorism task force of cooperation between the federal government and state government and local government. but over the last few months, there have been a number of things that create a growing concern that that relationship may 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. i don't want to -- there have been cases where the nypd believes it has not been briefed on the specifics of terrorist plots. which is the type of information they need because of new york city being a top terror target. the joint terrorism task force should know information regarding terror plots relating to new york city at the same time the fbi knows of the information in order to give them the best chance to combat terrorism. if it cant be known immediately, it should be known shortly after. we have cases where four, five days after it was public, they didn't get the information they needed. do you believe there's currently a problem hindering

communication within members of the joint terrorism task force, if there is a problem, what can be done about it to better facilitate communication between the two. i have great respect for both and have been proud of the communication. if there's no problem, will you commit today to keeping nypd abreast of information on future terrorist plots and will you work with them to address the cooperation and sharing informations so that everybody is on the same page and can work together as well as they have in the past? >> let me start by saying as i think we have a very good relationship with new york police department, particularly on the joint terrorism task force. we have 10s of nypd officers who have served on -- many served for a number of years, to the extent that the new york field office gets terrorism information, if goes to the joint terrorism task force. it is there. the officers w s at nypd get i information at the same time the

agents get the information. there are occasions where there's something very tightly and closely held in agencies and it may be in washington that it takes some time before there is further dissemination, which makes sense. there are always bumps in the road. >> have they increased over the last few months? >> no, no. there are always bumps in the road. every six months or so, ray kelly and i get together and discuss those bumps in the road, and move on. so i think the relationship is very good. and let me say, tremendously effective. i think the joint terrorism task force is effective, i think nypd is effective at preventing attacks. whenever you have strong willed agencies and parts of agencies, you're going to have, as i say, the bumps in the road. i don't think there's an 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 leaked out prematurely, and you don't have to comment on that, but are there any problems with communication on that issue now between? >> shouldn't be. >> shouldn't be, okay. there was some talk that there was. >> i heard that talk. >> okay. you think -- and have you talked to commissioner kelly? >> i have not on this issue. >> would you be willing to? >> sure. >> just a suggestion, give him a call on this. he didn't ask me to ask you to do that. i am. thanks. >> as i told ray, he's always -- >> you have to call him, who calls who. i'm asking you to call. >> happy to do it. >> thanks. appreciate it very much. there was one other instance,

not related to the joint terrorism task force, but we talked a little about this, and i didn't follow up. when the fbi bureau chief in newark publicly criticized the nypd for conducting operations he said made it more difficult to protect the public in new jersey. i don't have a problem if the fbi things the nypd is doing something that interferes with the operation in new jersey. i was surprised me made it public. what was that about? >> i understand. i have addressed the issue. >> you have addressed the issue? >> i have addressed the issue. >> and everyone is happy now? >> not everyone. >> should i ask -- >> i have addressed the issue. >> i hear you. let's go on to another subject. thank you. glad you have addressed it, and i hope that doesn't create any future problems because it did create bad blood for a period of time. >> i understand. >> stand your ground laws. there's bib a lot of news this week about the fbi investigating hate crime charges in the trayvon martin case. i don't want you to comment on

the investigation, but i just want to get your opinion about the standard your ground laws. are they creating more violence than they're preventing? >> i really can't -- there's that one incident we have, there may be others around the country. i have not -- i can't give you an opinion on that. >> how about your general opinion on the stand your ground laws? >> don't know enough about them to render an opinion. >> i would ask you if you would, you know, again, i don't want to put you in any jeopardy in the terms of this investigation, but if you had wanted to think about it and had something in writing you wanted to send within the timeframe that the chair has laid out, i would appreciate it. i tend to think these are counter productive and hurt law enforcement. i have only 33 seconds left. so i will just submit my final question in writing. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator schumer. senator whitehouse, i'm sorry,

senator klobuchar is next. i'm going to yield to senator whitehouse when he returns. >> thank you very much. i'm 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're kept abreast of everything you're 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 reported to the skeeb of a domestic violence case. 17-year-old victim sacrificed his life for hers and he leaves three young children. and one of the things that came up at a previous hearing we had here on the bullet proof vest, which is important, is that 72

of our nation's law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty during 2011, and that's the highest number since '07. it's up 20% from 2010. by region, 29 were killed in the south, 21 in the mist, 10 in mi the west, 10 in the northeast, 2 in puerto rico. are you aware of any factors that would explain this increase or do you think it's random tragic statistics or do you know how this has happened? >> no, i don't think anybody has a clear answer. although we try to dissect those figures. i will tell you as i indicated before there are two things we're doing trying to reduce it. the first is we changed our pistol qualifications to understanding, based on our data, that many of the encounters that police have with persons with weapons are a very short distance. not a longer distance.

and consequently, we have to increase our capability of responding at shorter distances. and often when we change our protocols, state and local will follow as well. then secondly, when an individual is stopped and we go to ncic to find out the record, we will put a warning in the record if a person has a warning with a response if the person has a violent criminal history to alert that officer to beware. >> very good, thank you. and i know we've discussed the bullet proof vest issue, how important that is. and i was -- i hadn't known until we had a hearing with some of our police leaders about the issue with women, with bullet proof vests, how they need different bullet proof vests which makes sense, and how sometimes they don't have those as we're seeing more and more women as police officers. it's something we need to address. i also know the fbi works

closely with state and local authorities to keep our children safe with programs like the child abduction rapid employment teams and innocence lost national initiative. next week i'm chair an issue on training child protection officials. we have the national child protection training center in winona. one of the critical areas of training is forensic interviewing. because many times a child victim may also be the only witness in these crimes. according to one interviewer method is used in adult cases may be counterproductive with child victims. i know fbi has been doing good work in this area. could you tell me how the train is available to fbi agents and what's can we do to help the fbi make progress on the problems of child abduction and abuse? >> we have four child forensic interviewers who are very

qualified and do great work. they get too much of that work, unfortunately, and build up that expertise. we provide training to agents and task force officers around the country. generally the trainings last three to four days. statistics from 2011, we trained 650 agents. and task force officers in 2011 alone. and we'll continue that. and to the extent that there are law enforcement agencies that would benefit from that training, i'm sure our special agents in charge in those particular divisions would try to accommodate. >> thank you very much. i was just thinking back when i did a case as a prosecutor, and there was a nonviolent minor case, and there was a 5-year-old witness, and without having any of your investigative skills i put her on the stand and asked her what had happened and i said, now do you know what the truth is? she said, yes, i do. and she said, but when i was 4,

i always told lies. she was 5 years old. so i probably could have had an investigat investigator, needless to say, the case didn't go very far. metal theft is something i've been frustrated with and trying to get a bill done. we introduced one last year, senator hatch and i did, on the -- trying to look at some of the criminal penalties and trying to get some requirements in place when scrap metal dealers get copper and other things which we know sometimes can be stolen and sometimes not. with requirements for i.d.s and other things in place. and i just wonder tuesday you're aware of that problem around the country with buildings blowing and up other things because of stolen copper. >> yes. and the problem -- i won't mention the cities but i know it's a problem in certain cities. and such a problem that emergency services could be adversely impacted by such

thefts. and generally what we do is if there is a discrete group or entity that is involved, then we work with the state and locals to put together a task force to address it. as we look at the budget shortages, as we look at p prioritization and the context perhaps of budgets getting worse down the road, this is one where it's very difficult to find the resources to put on it. >> i understand that. that's yes figured one thing we could do that would be helpful is to put some requirements in place. some states have. on the sale of these things. so it's easier for local law enforcement to track. so i wanted to put the words in because you have a lot on your plate and i think the best thing would be to make it a little easier for locals to handle this. so i had some questions that i know senator cole got into the economic espionage issue which i think is critically important.

we have many big companies in minnesota that own many patents. my favorite statistic is 3m has as many employees as they have inventions. there's one invention for each employee. so we care very much about this espiona espionage, especially over the internet and some of the cyber crime that's going on. so i appreciate the work you're doing in this area. and the way that you're adjusting to the ever-changing technological climate with the fbi. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> welcome, director mooueller, good to see you. let me follow up on the cyber vulnerability. let me preface our remarks by saying that from my viewpoint on the intelligence committee, from my viewpoint on this committee, from going out, seeing your folks in action at ncijtf, from looking at some of the cases

that have been put together, i am very impressed with the ability and the dedication of the forces that you have deployed against our cyber threat. what i'm concerned about is not their ability, it's their adequacy. it's the quantity, not the quality. i think you run some very, very high-quality folks and i appreciate that. i went out on a limb about two years ago and said that i thought the theft of american intellectual property across our cyber networks was the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the human species through the theft and piracy and we were on the losing end of it and we weren't taking enough action to defend against it. and since then, general alexander has said virtually the same thing. he's the head of cyber command and the head of nsa. and private sector observers

like the latest mccaffee 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 the history of humankind. and i want to ask you with continued support of my office's efforts to try to get a understanding of what our fbi and doj resources are dedicated to this problem. you have to really drill below the numbers because i can ask doj and they can say, there's a cyber person dedicated in every u.s. attorney's office, and i know perfectly well from having been a u.s. attorney that that person may very well be doing no cyber cases at all. they may simply be the designee who puts the conference call on mute while they're doing other work. so just that number doesn't really help. so we're trying to work through who's really on to this cyber problem and how within the fbi.

are there people who are designated in your local offices who are in the same mode when there's a conference call to be had, they're the ones who take it, but their workload is really elsewhere? are there folks whose role is really sort of forensic cleanup, the people who when you raid a place, they grab the computers and they do the download? that's all important stuff but it's not really the cyber battle. and one of the things that i'm 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 bot nets that attack our systems through service attacks, you guys helped i think take down the core flood and the russ stock bot net. the russ stock bot net made a measurable dent in the amount of spam