Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee: FBI Oversight

Statement

Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee: FBI Oversight

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And, Director Mueller, it's good to see you again.

I want to get back to a topic that I have raised, I think, every time you have appeared before the committee, and that has to do with the FBI name checks for immigration purposes. Specifically, I know there have been changes made in the processing of legal permanent residents' requests -- that USCIS made, to expedite. But, certainly they have not, nor would I suggest that they make any changes when it relates to citizenship applications.

So the question is: Where are we? A year ago -- actually, a little over a year ago, you indicated that we were on the verge of taking a great leap forward on the FBI name checks. And then again in April of this year you indicated that we would have -- the leap had not yet occurred, but that we were going to get all of the FBI name checks down to a 30-day period.

However, this June the inspector general indicated that the name- check program is using outdated technology, and that the staff is poorly trained, that the supervisors are overworked, and that they're falling behind. So, I want to know, where are we? Are we 90 days current? Are we 30 days current?

MR. MUELLER: I'm ready for you, Congresswoman. I know --

REP. LOFGREN: I knew that you know I would ask this.

MR. MUELLER: Since we first discussed this, we have -- we've done a number of things to address it. We raised the fees, revised criteria, prioritized the workload. We're building a central records complex and we hired over 200 contractors to address this. As a result, in July of this year we eliminated the back-log where we had cases pending longer than two years.

By November this year, we will have eliminated the backlog of any case that is pending longer than one year. And by June of 2009 we hope to have 98 percent done within 30 days.

REP. LOFGREN: Well, if I may, right now, in the 90s (percent) are done within a few minutes because they -- of the mechanization.

MR. MUELLER: Yes. Yes.

REP. LOFGREN: It's the problem when that doesn't work that we have these big delays.

So when are we going to get to the 30-day goal that USCIS --

REP. LOFGREN: Do you have information of the name checks that were in this process, what percentage of individuals were found problematic and ineligible as a consequence of the search?

MR. MUELLER: I think I heard at one point it was very low, but I'd have to get back to you with that statistic.

REP. LOFGREN: Could you get that information, if you have it?

MR. MUELLER: Yes, I could. Yes.

REP. LOFGREN: I mean, if you don't have it, I wouldn't want you to put a huge amount of personnel into finding it, but I would like -- I'm interested in knowing that.

MR. MUELLER: I will make one point, if I could. Even if it is low, and I expect it to be fairly low, you don't know whether that one person -- whether that person's --

REP. LOFGREN: As you -- I've not suggested that this be -- as I opened, that this be abbreviated in any way. But I am interested in the statistics.

MR. MUELLER: Yes, ma'am.

REP. LOFGREN: I just express a concern.

And I know that you did address your interest in technology in your testimony in talking about deployable biometric tools. But those goals, which I think are useful ones and important ones, seem to be at odds with the intensive, by-hand search of paper files that you just described for the name check.

Can you rectify your statement about the new technology and where we are on this name check?

MR. MUELLER: Well, the -- it's time, personnel, and money to digitize every file the Bureau has.

REP. LOFGREN: Well, certainly some files are closed. Some files everybody's dead. I mean, you don't want to do that.

REP. LOFGREN: I know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, but I'm very interested in -- I don't know that -- whether you want to do it here in a public forum or at a more discreet forum, but we have --

As we digitize information, I do have a concern about what security we have in place to keep that database secure from intruders. And -- I don't want to talk about thte FBI, but the federal government as an entity does not have a great track record of maintaining security of its databases, so I'm very, very interested in what you have deployed in that area.

And whether you address that now or at a later day, I would defer to you.

Source