Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee - Oversight Hearing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Interview
Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee - Oversight Hearing on the Federal Bureau of Investigation
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. KEITH ELLISON (D-MN): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And also I want to thank you as well, Mr. Mueller. You've been patient and tried to answer the questions. You know, mortgage fraud, online sexual abuse, terrorism, NSLs, FISA, TSP -- we've asked you about all those things.
How does this affect Indian country? I mean, we're talking about a region of our country that really does depend upon the FBI for law enforcement services, and yet we've seen high rates of violent crime and record rape rates. How does all of this impact Indian country, and how can we get some law enforcement resources there?
MR. MUELLER: We have tried to maintain our personnel in addressing crimes on Indian country. We focus on those crimes where we really can make a difference on the violent crime and the like. Our hope is that other agencies can grow to fulfill or fill some of that mission, but in the meantime, to the extent that we're necessary, I want to keep our persons there.
I think I indicated we have something like 16 Safe Trails task forces, which are task forces relating to Indian country that we operate along with state and local law enforcement. Given the various responsibilities we have, it's one that I think is important. I personally believe if there's anything that a federal entity can do to reduce the level of violence in our communities, including communities in Indian country, we'll try to do so, understanding that we have to prioritize and we are under financial and personnel constraints.
REP. ELLISON: Has there been a decline in the number of law enforcement personnel -- federal law enforcement personnel in Indian country since, say, 2001?
MR. MUELLER: I would have to check. I have tried to maintain the same staffing, but I haven't checked on it in a year or so, so I'd have to get back to you on that.
REP. ELLISON: Maybe somebody -- your staff knows.
MR. MUELLER: I think we'd have to get back to you. I really haven't addressed the question in a year or so, so I think we'd have to get back to you.
REP. ELLISON: Okay. Well, let me tell you, I got a lot of constituents who are very concerned about this, and I would count on you to get back with me on it.
MR. MUELLER: We will.
REP. ELLISON: Also, in the Muslim community -- America has a great Muslim community, several million people. In the post-9/11 world there's been greater attention on this community; I'm sure you wouldn't dispute that. My question is, how important are outreach efforts in the Muslim community, given that the overwhelming number of Muslims condemn, are opposed to terrorism and would be happy to report on somebody who was committing, plotting terrorism.
How important are outreach efforts into the Muslim community --
MR. MUELLER: Tremendously important. We have since September 11th in every one of our offices, every one of our field offices, we've had substantial outreach efforts; I'm sure you're familiar with them in your community. And we continue to have them both on the national as well as the state and the local level.
And every opportunity I have, I reaffirm the fact that 99.9 percent of Muslim-Americans or Sikh-Americans, Arab-Americans are every bit as patriotic as anybody else in this room, and that many of our cases are a result of the cooperation from the Muslim community in the United States.
One of the worst things that could happen in the Muslim community is we had another attack such as September 11th -- nobody wants it, whether it be ourselves in the FBI or those members of the Muslim community.
REP. ELLISON: So thank you.
So let me just ask you this: I mean, I know you're well aware of that in May 2007, prosecutors down in Dallas named about 306 individuals and groups as unindicted co-conspirators in the so-called HLF case. To my knowledge no one was convicted, and many people came within, like, 11 to one to get acquitted. And I'm sure you know the history of the case, am I right?
MR. MUELLER: I believe that case is still in litigation.
REP. ELLISON: It's still in litigation, but you know that there was a -- the jury came back hung and that many of the verdicts were 11 to one to acquit. You know that -- not all the verdicts, many of them.
MR. MUELLER: I'm not -- I understood it was hung. I'm not certain that I'm familiar with the breakdown of the jury on that particular defendant.
REP. ELLISON: But you -- but I don't want to get stuck in the weeds on the point. The fact is, 12 Americans sat in judgment of this case, listened to all the evidence and couldn't -- and didn't convict; you'd agree with that.
MR. MUELLER: There was a hung jury.
REP. ELLISON: That means there was no conviction. Come on, Mr. Mueller.
MR. MUELLER: There was no conviction. (Inaudible) -- my understanding is --
REP. ELLISON: Thank you. So that allows me to go on and ask the question. By naming all these 306 individuals and organizations as unindicted co-conspirators, naming them explicitly, what impact did that have on your effort to build better relations in the Muslim- American community?
MR. MUELLER: I'm not certain it had any impact.
REP. ELLISON: Have you -- I mean, do you --
MR. MUELLER: I have not heard about an adverse impact as a result of that particular case.
REP. ELLISON: Okay. Well, let me ask you this: I mean, there are groups -- the groups that were named in there, there was no verdict against them, because they were un-indicted. Right? I mean, do you think that -- what kind of effect do you think it -- message it sends to them, in terms of your ability to reach out to the community, gain cooperation, gain trust? Don't you think it might have a deleterious effect? Doesn't your common sense tell you that?
MR. MUELLER: I understand what you're saying. I take your point.
REP. ELLISON: And could you elaborate on how we -- what we do about this, given that, you know, it's arguable that these unindicted co-conspirators that were explicitly named -- not kept under seal but explicitly identified -- could well, you know, be in violation of DOJ policy, which I know you don't control.
What would you -- do you think there is a better way to do this kind of thing?
MR. MUELLER: Yeah, all I can tell you, sir, is it's in litigation, and I am precluded from discussing it because it is in litigation.
REP. ELLISON: Am I done?
REP. CONYERS: Your time's up, but you can talk some more, if you would like. (Laughter.)
REP. ELLISON: Okay, thank you.
You know, one of the questions that Representative Baldwin pursued was getting a tighter handle on this watch list process. I can't tell you how many people, most of whom are Muslim or have Arabic names, come to me saying wow, you know, I got humiliated, delayed, and it's often and it's common; I've never done anything other than try to be a good citizen.
What recommendations do you have for us that would help us, one, protect America and, two, tailor this watch list in a way that doesn't sweep up all these people who have done nothing wrong other than just try to be good Americans?
MR. MUELLER: Each agency has a redress officer and a redress office. So the recommendation is to file the application with the redress office.
REP. ELLISON: But Mr. Mueller, you would agree with me that this is a -- that's pretty cold comfort to somebody who's been delayed for three hours from their flight and everything they had to go do. We need a better process than just call the redress office. And I guess I was hoping, given that your commitment to outreach and all, that you'd be a little bit more willing to explicitly talk about things we could do to offer legislation to tailor a watch list.
Are you telling me just go to the office and that's it?
MR. MUELLER: Well, we have set up a redress process. I'm always open to suggestions on how it can be improved, but it seems to me that you definitely need a redress process. I'm not disagreeing about the frustration of being held up for three hours.
REP. ELLISON: You heard it.
MR. MUELLER: I agree with you. But we put in place a redress process; I'm always open to suggestions as to how to make that redress process better.
REP. ELLISON: How would it compromise national security to be able to have people ask if they're on it, and if they are to have some kind of process to set forth evidence to demonstrate that they should be off of it?
MR. MUELLER: And that's part of the redress process, as I understand it.
REP. ELLISON: But am I wrong? I could be wrong. I thought if you asked if you were on it, you might not even be told whether you're on it or not.
MR. MUELLER: You may not be. But there is a redress process.
REP. ELLISON: How many people have been taken off that watch list since '01?
MR. MUELLER: I believe -- I'm not certain, I'd have to get back to you.
REP. ELLISON: You know, is there a chance that what we have here is government workers who are like look, I'm going to err on the side of just putting everybody on it, because I don't want to be the one who didn't put somebody on it who maybe I should have, so I'm going to have a very, very low bar to put somebody on this list, which they practically can never really get off of, notwithstanding the redress process?
MR. MUELLER: No, I think there is an articulable basis for going on the terrorist screening center watch list, and you have to meet certain criteria.
REP. ELLISON: Is that published? Is that published?
MR. MUELLER: I'm not certain it is. I don't believe it is. But there is a criteria
REP. ELLISON: Could I -- (inaudible) -- published?
MR. MUELLER: I would have to get back to you on that.
REP. ELLISON: Okay, so you don't know what the criteria is, but you -- right? Right now.
MR. MUELLER: Right, offhand I don't know all the criteria. I can't --
REP. ELLISON: What are a few of the big ones?
MR. MUELLER: Pardon?
REP. ELLISON: What are a few of the big ones?
MR. MUELLER: It's based on the evidence that you have in our files to determine whether or not there has been an association with terrorism.
REP. ELLISON: Does the person who's been watch-listed have an opportunity to challenge those things?
MR. MUELLER: I'm not certain.
I don't believe so, because you would not be exposed to the information we have.
REP. ELLISON: Right, so if you're on the list and you say look, I shouldn't be on this list but you're not told why you're on the list so you can't really rebut why you're on the list, wouldn't you call that a defect in the redress process?
MR. MUELLER: Again, I'd be happy to have the persons responsible for the watch list sit down with you and explain in more detail how we handle the watch list. Often it happens that the name is similar to another name, and through the redress process we get identifiers and identify you as being an individual who may have the same name as somebody on the watch list, but because of the identifiers, your particular name is no longer associated with a name on the watch list.
REP. ELLISON: Mr. Mueller, I want to work with you to narrow and tailor this watch list process, and we want every -- everybody who's supposed to be in there should stay on, but a lot of people who shouldn't be, I'm hoping we can get them off.
MR. MUELLER: Thank you, sir.
REP. ELLISON: Thank you. I yield back.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source