Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee - FBI Oversight, Terrorism and Other Topics

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: FBI OVERSIGHT, TERRORISM AND OTHER TOPICS

CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT)

WITNESS: ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

LOCATION: 226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director Mueller, thank you. And I admire you and the great work you're doing at the FBI. Of course, the debate we're having here now is one that we've had since the beginning of this country, the proper balance between security and liberty. And I think it's good that we have the debate. This is the right place to have it. But you shouldn't have a debate in the FBI about executing the laws that are passed by Congress. And I appreciate the diligence with which the FBI is executing those laws and making us safer.

But I do take a different view than Senator Feingold expressed. I admire his sincerity and his conviction and his consistency, but I simply disagree. I think I, for one, will support an effort to strike the sunset provision in the Patriot Act because I think it ought to be made permanent, because I agree with you that it has made America safer.

But what I worry about is not people in Congress or elsewhere making good decisions about that balance between security and liberty based on good information or the facts. I worry about the facts being misrepresented or people being scared into making emotional decisions about what the Patriot Act does or does not do.

And what I'm referring to specifically is a campaign that's resulted in-I believe it's 287 different city councils, municipal governments, who've passed resolutions opposing-maybe condemning is too strong a word, but opposing the Patriot Act, including three in my state.

And then I happened to receive a solicitation for funds from the American Civil Liberties Union-I'm not sure exactly how they got my address, but I did-and the primary thrust of that solicitation was that I needed to send the ACLU money to protect the country, protect myself against the government's use of the Patriot Act to somehow strip me of my civil liberties.

And, of course, scare tactics are common. It's a way to motivate people to act. But it's not honest. It's not appropriate. And I think the Patriot Act has made America safer.

I'm amazed that we're having this debate. But, again, the debate is good. But after the 9/11 commission hearings, where you and the attorney general and others talked about the importance of the Patriot Act's elimination, or at least bringing down the wall that separated the law enforcement intelligence-gathering agencies from information- sharing and how important that has been-and it's amazing how, if you can see the public rhetoric and the public opinion kind of turn on a dime, it was as a result of that hearing which I think educated the American people about the good things the Patriot Act has done to make us safer. And indeed, I guess the best evidence of that is we have not, thank God, had another terrorist attack on our own soil since 9/11.

Let me ask you specifically about two things. One has to do with the material support provision of the Patriot Act. As you know, the ninth circuit has upheld a (partial?) challenge to that provision of the Patriot Act. And other courts, of course, have rejected such constitutional challenges. And, of course, this material support provision of the Patriot Act actually precedes the Patriot Act and had been applied and criticized since the Clinton administration.

But could you tell us the importance of retaining that provision or something very close to it in terms of the FBI's efforts to combat terrorism?

MR. MUELLER: The material support statute is-I wouldn't say instrumental, but exceptionally necessary in order to prevent terrorist attacks. And the reason is because you cannot always hope to catch the terrorists with the dynamite in their hands going to the place where they want to undertake the attack.

And you can't wait until the person has the device together and wants to use it. You have to address terrorism by looking at the financing. You have to address terrorism by looking at the recruiting. You have to address terrorism by looking at the organization. You have to address terrorism by looking at the travel.

And if you find persons who are supporting in one way acts of terrorism, then you need a mechanism to address that and to arrest them and charge them; give them their full rights under the Constitution, but address it.

One of the great problems in addressing terrorism is you'd say it's somewhat of an inchoate crime. It's someplace between somebody thinking up a terrorist act and actually accomplishing it. And it's between the thinking up of a terrorist act and having somebody accomplish it where we have to gather the intelligence to identify that person or persons and we have to make certain that they do not accomplish that terrorist act.

The other point about material support is that when one person commits a crime, it's like the conspiracy statute. If one person commits a crime, the crime does not have the full force and effect as if you have a number of persons conspiring together to commit that crime.

And in order to be effective on 9/11, the persons who undertook that had to be financed. They had to have travel documents. They had to have persons helping them in order to commit that final act on September 11th. And the material support statutes enable us to address that type of participant substantially before that terrorist act is on its way to completion. So it's very important.

SEN. CORNYN: Not just the person that detonates the bomb, but people who made that possible.

MR. MUELLER: Who financed it, who may have provided false identities, any number of ways that one can support a terrorist act.

SEN. CORNYN: I have just one other question or area that I'm just curious about. I know Senator Specter and others have talked-there have been proposals for a director of national intelligence. But I must say that in our effort to promote information-sharing, particularly not just at the federal level but at the state and local levels-and I do appreciate your emphasis on that in your opening statement, because I do think that's critical-I worry that our intelligence community is sort of like the layers of an onion, it seems like.

And I really don't understand-and maybe there are people who are smarter than I am who can explain it to me-why we would just want to add another layer to that onion when it comes to the intelligence community, how that would actually promote information- sharing in a way that would make us safer. Would you just comment on your views on that generally?

MR. MUELLER: Well, I know-and again, I'm not-I'm director of the FBI, not director of CIA. But there's a belief-and George Tenet would articulate it-that in order to be effective, you have to be close to those who are doing the analysis, those who are doing the collection of the intelligence. And to the extent that you have someone that is divorced from that, you lose that effectiveness.

We have put into place mechanisms to enhance our analytical capability across all of our organization when it comes to terrorism. We have another mechanism-we have two mechanisms. One is National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council. So to the extent that one needs operational coordination in any area, either the National Security Council or the Homeland Security Council does that coordination.

What I am less familiar with, do not understand fully is the budget process in the intelligence community, and how better coordination of that budget process might enhance the coordination of our intelligence across the government. And there I just don't feel that I have sufficient information to provide much input.

SEN. CORNYN: Let me just-in quick follow-up, we of course have become familiar with the concept of jointness, and when it comes to fighting wars, joint training, joint operations, we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq between the various military branches. Is it too simplistic to think that perhaps the intelligence gathering and analysis and dissemination we could conceive of the intelligence community's job is to act jointly? Is that the goal?

MR. MUELLER: We've got to, regardless of (whether it's DNI ?). And it will only be effective if we're working in a coordinated way between the federal agencies-whether it be FBI, Department of Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, DOD, DIA. In order to be effective we have to have that intersection of intelligence with state and local law enforcement. In order to be effective we have to work with our counterparts overseas, whether they be law enforcement or intelligence counterparts. And there has to be a sharing of information amongst all of these various players in ways that we have not in the past.

SEN. CORNYN: Thank you, Director Mueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.