[Senate Report 112-23] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] Calendar No. 76 112th Congress Report SENATE 1st Session 112-23 ====================================================================== A BILL TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE INCUMBENT DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION _______ June 21 (legislative day, June 16), 2011.--Ordered to be printed _______ Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following R E P O R T [To accompany S. 1103] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill (S. 1103), to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, with an amendment, and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. CONTENTS Page I. Background and Purpose of the Bill...............................1 II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration.................11 III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill..........................12 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................13 V. Regulatory Impact Evaluation....................................13 VI. Conclusion......................................................14 VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........14 VIII.Appendix........................................................16 I. Background and Purpose of the Bill On May 12, 2011, the President announced that he was seeking a two-year extension of the term of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III. The President requested that Congress provide a limited exception to the statutory limit of 10 years on the service of the FBI Director. A. BACKGROUND 1. Director Mueller's Initial Nomination Process Robert Mueller was nominated by President George W. Bush on July 18, 2001. The Judiciary Committee received Mr. Mueller's paperwork on July 24, 2001. The Committee held a hearing and favorably reported the nomination to the Senate on August 2, 2001. The Senate confirmed him that same day by a vote of 98-0. President Bush signed his appointment to a 10-year term on August 4, 2001. Director Mueller was well qualified for the position of FBI Director at the time he was first nominated. Director Mueller served as the United States Attorney in both Massachusetts and Northern California. In all, he spent 12 years in United States Attorney's Offices. In his capacity as a Federal prosecutor, he handled cases on major financial fraud, terrorism, public corruption, narcotics conspiracies, and international money laundering. Director Mueller also served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Justice Department, and as the acting Deputy Attorney General at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration. Director Mueller served for three years in the United States Marine Corps. He led a rifle platoon in Vietnam and earned a Bronze Star, two Navy Commendation Medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. Director Mueller graduated from Princeton University, earned a master's degree in International Relations at New York University, and a law degree from the University of Virginia Law School. After a medical procedure in August 2001, Director Mueller assumed leadership of the FBI in early September 2001. A week later, the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001. Director Mueller has served our nation for the 10 years following 9/11 and has helped trasnform the agency into an effective counterterrorism organization. 2. Legislative History of the Ten-Year Term Limit of the FBI Director The FBI was formed in 1908 as a Bureau within the Department of Justice. The leader of the FBI has been titled ``Director'' since 1919, and has answered directly to the Attorney General since the 1920s. In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover was selected as FBI Director not by the President, but by Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone. Born in 1895, Mr. Hoover served as Director until his death in 1972, at the age of 77, a total of 48 years. The Senate twice passed bills to require a presidential appointment of the FBI Director,\1\ but those bills did not pass in the House of Representatives. In 1968, as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Act and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Congress finally mandated that the FBI Director be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\S. 603, 88th Cong., 1st Session (1963); and S. 313, 89th Cong., 1st Session (1965). \2\Omnibus Crime Control Act and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-3351 (Jun. 19, 1968). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a 1974 report on a bill to provide for a 10-year term of the Director, the Senate Judiciary Committee discussed the need for the FBI Director to maintain a proper balance between responsiveness to the Executive Branch and independence from any unreasonable requests made by superior officials.\3\ The report continued: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\``Ten-Year Term for the FBI Director,'' U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. Rep. No. 93-1213 (93rd Cong., 2nd Session), at 2. No institutional arrangement can guarantee with certainty that any official will exercise governmental authority with integrity and good judgment. Nevertheless, there are especially sensitive positions which require the greatest care on the part of Congress in creating an environment for the responsive use of power. It is the great value of the FBI as a criminal investigative agency, as well as its dangerous potential for infringing individual rights and serving partisan or personal ambitions, that makes the office of the FBI Director unique.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\Id., at 2-3. In 1976, Congress passed a law limiting the service of an FBI Director to a single term of 10 years.\5\ Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was the lead sponsor of this legislation. He had initially proposed a 10-year term with the possibility of re-appointment for a second 10-year term. After considering possible alternatives, including a 10-year term with the possibility of a five-year renewal term, Senator Byrd ultimately decided that 10 years was sufficient. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\Pub. L. No. 94-503; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 532 note (Oct. 15, 1976). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The President's Request for a Two-Year Extension President Obama explained in a May 12, 2011, statement: ``Given the ongoing threats facing the United States, as well as the leadership transitions at other agencies like the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, I believe continuity and stability at the FBI is critical at this time.''\6\ The President asked Congress ``to join together in extending that leadership for the sake of our nation's safety and security.''\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\Statement of the White House, ``President Obama Proposes Extending Term for FBI Director Robert Mueller,'' May 12, 2011, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/12/ president-obama-proposes-extending-term-fbi-director-robert-mueller. \7\Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The President's request was made at a time of considerable change in leadership in key national security positions of the U.S. Government. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announced his retirement, and Leon Panetta, who was then the Director of Central Intelligence, was nominated to replace him. General David Petraeus was nominated to succeed Mr. Panetta as the Director of Central Intelligence. On May 30, 2011, the President nominated Army Gen. Martin Dempsey to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael E. Leiter, announced his intention to step down in July 2011. In addition, the nominations of two critical nominees to the Department of Justice with national security responsibilities remain pending: James Cole, nominated to serve as Deputy Attorney General, and Lisa Monaco, nominated to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. 4. The Current Threat Environment and Need for Continuity in Leadership of the FBI On May 12, 2011, the President stated: Bob [Mueller] transformed the FBI after September 11, 2001 into a pre-eminent counterterrorism agency, he has shown extraordinary leadership and effectiveness at protecting our country every day since. He has impeccable law enforcement and national security credentials, a relentless commitment to the rule of law, unquestionable integrity and independence, and a steady hand that has guided the Bureau as it confronts our most serious threats. I am grateful for his leadership, and ask Democrats and Republicans in Congress to join together in extending that leadership for the sake of our nation's safety and security. The threats against the United States are expected to increase around the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Indeed, evidence collected at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that served as bin Laden's hideout demonstrated that al Qaeda was planning to make attempts on American soil in connection with the tenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Accordingly, anxiety has heightened in light of the successful operation against Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, and recent threats of retaliation against the United States. The Committee heard testimony about these threats from Director Mueller and others. In the June 8, 2011, hearing on the requested extension of his term, Director Mueller testified: The FBI has never faced a more complex threat environment than it does today. Over the past year, we have seen an extraordinary array of national security and criminal threats from terrorism, espionage, cyber attacks, and traditional crimes. These threats have ranged from attempts by al Qa'ida and its affiliates to place bombs on airplanes bound for the United States to lone actors seeking to detonate [improvised explosive devices] in public squares and subways intent on mass murder.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\The President's Request to Extend the Service of Director Mueller of the FBI until 2013: Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (June 8, 2011) (statement of Robert S. Mueller, III, Director of the FBI, at 1). Director Mueller also spoke of the threat posed by radical ``adversaries, like Anwar Alaqui, who are engaged in efforts to radicalize people in the United States to commit acts of terrorism.''\9\ In addition to terrorist threats, Director Mueller testified to threats from organized crime, drug cartels, fraud, and a host of others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\Id. at 1-2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the same hearing, former Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey echoed Director Mueller's assessment. Mr. Comey stated that, ``the combination of the successful raid on Bin Laden's compound and the approaching 10th anniversary of 9/11 creates an unusual threat environment.''\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\The President's Request to Extend the Service of Director Mueller of the FBI until 2013: Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (June 8, 2011) (statement of James B. Comey, former Deputy Attorney General, at 2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Comey also discussed the value in keeping Director Mueller in place as Director at this particularly challenging moment in time. He stated: There is never a great time to change Directors. Something is always lost in a transition, as a new leader comes to know the threats, and understand the capabilities of those around him. But there are bad, and even potentially dangerous, times to change Directors, and this is one of them.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\Id. at 1. While the exact plans of al Qaeda have not been revealed, intervening events suggest that the threat from the terrorist group has not subsided. On June 15, 2011, the general command of al Qaeda, announced that Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri would take control of the leadership of the organization. Al-Zawahiri was indicted in the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa and has called for attacks on American targets.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\New York Times, ``Bin Laden's No. 2, Zawahiri, Takes Control of Al Qaeda,'' June 15, 2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. PURPOSE 1. Congressional Response to the President's Request The Senate responded to the President's request to extend the term of Director Mueller on May 26, 2011, by introducing a narrowly drafted bipartisan bill, S. 1103, that would authorize an extension of the 10-year term of the FBI Director. The bill was cosponsored by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) have both publicly expressed support for President Obama's decision to extend Director Mueller's term for an additional two years. Senator Grassley, the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member, requested a full Committee hearing on the matter on behalf of certain members of the minority of the Judiciary Committee, and the Chairman scheduled such a hearing on June 8, 2011. 2. The Reported Bill Does Not Represent any Intent to Affect the President's Plenary Removal Authority In response to some concerns voiced in that hearing, Chairman Leahy prepared a substitute amendment that emphasized in Findings that the bill was a direct response to the President's request, which the Congress found to be appropriate in light of the need for continuity and stability at the FBI in the face of ongoing threats to the United States. The substitute was adopted by the Judiciary Committee and reported favorably to the Senate. The bill reported by the Judiciary Committee does not diminish in any manner the President's authority to remove a Director of the FBI. The bill makes clear that the incumbent FBI Director may continue to serve only at the request of the President. Current law and policy on that matter will in no way be affected if S. 1103 is enacted into law. The sitting FBI Director agrees. In the June 8, 2011, hearing, Senator Grassley asked Director Mueller, ``As director of the FBI with a fixed term, under what circumstances can the president remove you?'' Director Mueller responded, ``I think I serve at the pleasure of the president.''\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\The President's Request to Extend the Service of Director Mueller of the FBI until 2013: Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (June 8, 2011) (testimony of Robert S. Mueller, III). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The Reported Bill Represents a One-Time Exception to the Ten-Year Statutory Term Limit The substitute makes clear in the Findings that the President has requested only a one-time exception to the 10- year term limit, and that such an extension is based upon the exceptional circumstances facing the Nation at this time. The findings state explicitly that the bill is not intended to create a precedent. That intent has also been stated by the bill's sponsors. By allowing the term of the Director to be extended this once, from 10 years to 12, the bill would have no effect on the nature of the fixed term appointment. 4. The Reported Bill Is Not Intended to Assert Any Congressional Power to Appoint Executive Officers In this bill, Congress asserts no authority to appoint officials in violation of the President's appointment authority. The findings and the operative text of the bill both state clearly that the extension of the Director's term is authorized by Congress at the request of the President. The bill also makes clear that such authorization is directly linked to the President's request and the justifications provided for that request. It is effective in authorizing an extended term, but implemented as the President determines. C. CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS RAISED During the course of the Committee's consideration of this bill, some raised concerns that the legislation could be vulnerable to constitutional challenges and protracted litigation. The notion that enactment of this legislation would somehow impinge upon the authority of the President under the Appointments Clause to choose his own nominee to be Director of the FBI is incorrect. Given that this legislation was expressly requested by the President in order that the President's choice for FBI Director--Robert S. Mueller III--could continue in office, and that it does nothing to diminish the President's authority to remove the FBI Director at will, such concerns lack merit. 1. Constitutional and Legal Framework The Appointments Clause states that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.''\14\ Accordingly, the Supreme Court has held that the Appointments Clause prohibits Congress from independently exercising the power to appoint ``Officers of the United States.''\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\U.S. Const., art II, Sec. 2. \15\See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126 (1976). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Appointments Clause is not offended, however, when Congress merely acts to extend the term of service of an executive branch officer who serves at the pleasure of the President, particularly when Congress acts at the specific request of the President. This basic principle has been reaffirmed on several occasions by the Department of Justice through legal opinions dating back six decades.\16\ In 1951, for example, the Attorney General's office issued an opinion affirming the constitutionality of an amendment that extended the terms of members of the Displaced Persons Commission, which Congress had created through statute in 1948.\17\ Writing in response to an inquiry by the President whether the amendment constituted ``an infringement on the President's constitutional power of appointment,'' the opinion concluded that the legislation presented ``no constitutional difficulties,'' and instead was ``an example of the Congress and the Executive acting in cooperation.''\18\ Central to this conclusion was the fact that nothing in the legislation required the President to continue the incumbent commissioners in office. Accordingly, the opinion affirmed ``the power of the Congress to extend the terms of offices which it has created, subject, of course, to the President's constitutional power of appointment and removal.''\19\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\See Attorney General and Office of Legal Counsel opinions in Appendix. \17\See 41 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 88 (1951). \18\Id. at 90 (internal citations omitted). \19\Id. The opinion continued by citing several precedents of this type of ``joint action by the Executive and the Congress.'' 41 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 88, 90 (1951). These precedents included the legislative extensions of the terms of office for five Commissioners of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1948, as well as the 1948 extension of the terms of office for directors of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Id. at 91. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice issued a similar opinion in 1994, this time assessing the constitutionality of a legislative extension of the terms of members of the United States Parole Commission.\20\ In its opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel acknowledged the potential tension that arises when Congress extends the term of an office and seeks to apply the extension to an incumbent officeholder.\21\ The opinion noted that a law extending the tenure of an officer whom the President may remove only ``for cause'' was a ``classic example'' of legislation that runs afoul of the Appointments Clause.\22\ Conversely, when Congress passes legislation ``that extends the term of an office, including its incumbent, the holder of which is removable at will,'' the opinion noted the longstanding position of the Office of Legal Counsel and the Department of Justice that ``there is no violation of the Appointments Clause, for here the President remains free to remove the officer and embark on the process of appointing a successor--the only impediment being the constitutionally sanctioned one of Senate confirmation.''\23\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\See Constitutionality of Legislation Extending the Terms of Office of United States Parole Commissioners, 18 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 166 (1994). \21\Id. at 168. \22\Id. (emphasis added). \23\Id. (emphasis added). The 1994 OLC opinion expressly rejected and withdrew a prior 1987 opinion that reached a different conclusion regarding the constitutionality of similar legislative extensions. Citing the 1987 opinion's lack of credible reasoning and the fact that the 1987 opinion ran counter to a long-standing OLC position, the 1994 OLC opinion deemed the 1987 opinion as ``irredeemably unpersuasive.'' 18 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 166 note 3 (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This conclusion was reiterated by the Office of Legal Counsel in a 1996 memorandum providing an overview of constitutional separation of powers issues.\24\ In the 1996 memorandum, the Office of Legal Counsel reaffirmed the approach taken in its 1951 opinion regarding members of the Displaced Persons Commission, stating that ``the extension of tenure of officers serving at will raises no Appointments Clause problem.''\25\ Indeed, the OLC memorandum labeled as ``constitutionally harmless'' legislation that extends the term of an officer who is subject to removal at will.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\See The Constitutional Separation of Powers Between the President and Congress, 20 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 124 (1996). \25\Id. \26\Id. Even when dealing with legislative extensions of the tenures of officers removable only for cause, the 1996 OLC memorandum urged a ``functional analysis'' that assessed whether the legislation had ``the practical effect of frustrating the President's appointing authority or amount[ed] to a congressional appointment.'' 20 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 124 (1996). Referencing a 1994 OLC opinion concerning the extension of terms of members of the United States Sentencing Commission, the 1996 OLC memorandum noted that even where a statute extends the terms of officers removable only for cause, the statute might still not function to violate the President's appointment power. Id. (citing Whether Members of the Sentencing Commission Who Were Appointed Prior to the Enactment of a Holdover Statute May Exercise Holdover Rights Pursuant to the Statute, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 33 (1994)). Notably, the 1994 OLC opinion regarding the Sentencing Commission noted that the effect of that legislation could actually have been to augment the President's power by giving him ``the option of retaining the holdover officer until he chooses to nominate a successor.'' 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 33 (1994) (emphasis added). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On June 20, 2011, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum opinion expressly reaffirming the ``longstanding'' view that ``Congress, by extending an incumbent officer's term, does not displace and take over the President's appointment authority, as long as the President remains free to remove the officer at will and make another appointment.''\27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\Constitutionality of Legislation Extending the Term of the FBI Director, __ U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel __, 2-3 (June 20, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Much of this constitutional analysis and historical precedent has been summarized by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in a report titled FBI Directorship: History and Congressional Action, included in the Appendix to this report.\28\ The CRS report details the historical ``precedent of not formally re-appointing an individual whose term of office is to be extended.''\29\ In addition, the CRS report notes that ``[c]onstitutional analysis of an extension of [an officer's] term depends on how the extension reads and whether the President would retain the plenary authority to remove [that officer].''\30\ Significantly, in its review of relevant case law and other legal authorities, CRS was apparently unable to identify a single case, opinion, or other legal authority to support the notion that a legislative extension such as S. 1103 might violate the Appointments Clause. On the other hand, CRS identified the case of In re Benny, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded: ``Congress may prospectively alter terms of office without running afoul of the Appointments Clause,'' adding that this power to extend terms of office ``can be implied from its power to add to the duties that are germane to its original duties.''\31\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\Congressional Research Service, FBI Directorship: History and Congressional Action, CRS Report R41850, June 7, 2011, (hereinafter ``CRS Report''). \29\Id., at 5-6, 11. \30\Id., at 7. \31\In re Benny, 812 F.2d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 1987). Some have cited to Judge Norris's concurring opinion in In re Benny as support for the argument that legislation like S. 1103 violates the Appointments Clause. The facts of In re Benny are distinguishable from the instant case in important respects. First, in the case of the bankruptcy judges at issue in In re Benny, the President did not--as he has with Director Mueller--specifically request that the judges continue serving. Second, Judge Norris himself noted that bankruptcy judges under the relevant statute could only be removed for ``incompetence, misconduct, neglect of duty or physical or mental disability.'' 812 F.2d 1133, 1143 note 5. Accordingly, given that the FBI Director is unquestionably serving the President at will, reliance on Judge Norris's concurring opinion is misplaced. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taking into account the various opinions from the Department of Justice spanning 60 years, the operative constitutional and legal premise remains clear: ``Legislation extending the term of an officer who serves at will does not violate the Appointments Clause.''\32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\Constitutionality of Legislation Extending the Terms of Office of United States Parole Commissioners, 18 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 166, 171 (1994). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Constitutionality of S. 1103--No Appointments Clause Concern The bill to extend the term of the incumbent FBI Director by two years, S. 1103, is constitutionally sound and an example of the type of ``joint action by the Executive and the Congress'' deemed legitimate by the Office of Legal Counsel on a number of prior occasions.\33\ The President has expressly requested that Congress enact legislation enabling the incumbent FBI Director to serve an additional two years, and the bill does just that without impinging in any way on the President's plenary authority to remove the FBI Director at will. In light of the legal opinions from the Department of Justice dating back six decades, as well as the relevant case law, the constitutionality of the bill cannot seriously be questioned. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\See, e.g., 41 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 88, 90 (1951). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As an initial matter, the bill makes clear that the incumbent FBI Director may continue to serve only at the request of the President, and does nothing to diminish in any way the President's removal authority under the Constitution. As Director Mueller himself testified at the June 8, 2011, hearing, his service as FBI Director continues only ``at the pleasure of the President.''\34\ That will remain true after enactment of this legislation. The CRS Report referenced above also concluded that ``the President may remove the Director of the FBI at will,'' and cited the firing of FBI Director William Sessions in July 1993 by President Clinton as an example.\35\ The Office of Legal Counsel recently reaffirmed this conclusion unequivocally, noting that ``the FBI Director is removable at the will of the President.''\36\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\Oral testimony of Robert S. Mueller, III, June 8, 2011, Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. \35\CRS Report at 9. \36\Constitutionality of Legislation Extending the Term of the FBI Director, __ U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel __, 3 (June 20, 2011) (internal citation omitted). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps most instructive on this point is the legislative history of the statute establishing the 10-year term limit on the FBI Director. In a 1974 committee report on the FBI Director term limit bill pending at the time (S. 2106), the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded: ``The bill does not place any limit on the formal power of the President to remove the FBI Director from office,'' and that the ``Director would be subject to dismissal by the President, as are all purely executive officers.''\37\ Moreover, since enactment of the 10- year term limit on the FBI Director in 1976, there have been no laws enacted or cases decided imposing any type of removal restrictions on the President with regard to the FBI Director, such that the functional analysis described in Morrison v. Olson, would be required. Put simply, the President can decide to replace the FBI Director at any time, for any reason. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\``Ten-Year Term for the FBI Director,'' U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. Rep. No. 93-1213 (93rd Cong., 2nd Session), at 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In light of the President's plenary authority to remove the incumbent FBI Director, no credible argument can be made that Congress, through this legislation, might somehow infringe upon the President's constitutional appointment power. To the contrary, this bill responds directly to the President's request for legislation that would allow him to continue exercising his appointment power; in other words, to keep as FBI Director the individual that the President wants to serve in that position. Common sense and a plain reading of the relevant legal precedents demonstrates that an Appointments Clause problem arises when Congress acts in a way that imposes its will upon the Executive, installing or keeping in office an individual whom the President did not choose and cannot remove. That is not the case here. The President has chosen Director Mueller to lead the FBI for the next two years, but the President can also decide to remove him at any time. The removal authority is a prerogative of the Executive, and nothing in this bill changes that. Through enactment of S. 1103, Congress would simply provide the statutory exemption needed for Director Mueller to continue his public service as head of the FBI.\38\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \38\See Constitutionality of Legislation Extending the Term of the FBI Director, __ U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel __, 4 (June 20, 2011) (``Director Mueller holds an office, and if his term is extended by Congress, he will continue to hold that office by virtue of an appointment by President Bush, with the advice and consent of the Senate, in strict conformity with the requirements of the Appointments Clause.'') --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As specifically set forth in the text of S. 1103, Congress cannot by itself cause Director Mueller to begin another two years as head of the FBI, just as Congress cannot in any way guarantee that Director Mueller will remain in office for the entire two years. Instead, Section 2(a) of S. 1103 provides that the incumbent FBI Director may continue in office, but only at the request of the President. Similarly, the bill imposes no limit on the authority of the President to remove the current incumbent FBI Director at any time. Thus, while Congress may provide the statutory mechanism that allows Director Mueller to continue serving past August 3, 2011, his continued service is contingent upon a request by the President, as well as his prerogative to choose a successor at any time. As such, the provisions of this bill do not in any way usurp the President's appointing authority.\39\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\The testimony of Professor John Harrison fails to account for these facts or considerations, nor does Professor Harrison affirmatively cite a single authority supporting his views. The President's Request to Extend the Service of Director Mueller of the FBI until 2013: Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (June 8, 2011) (statement of John Harrison, Professor of Law, University of Virginia). Indeed, the June 20, 2011 memorandum opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel specifically addresses and rejects the arguments made by Professor Harrison. See Constitutionality of Legislation Extending the Term of the FBI Director, __ U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel __, 4-6 (June 20, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Unfounded Fears of Litigation Without citation to a single court opinion that has found legislation similar to S. 1103 to be of any constitutional concern, opponents of the bill argue that enactment of the bill would give rise to a spate of litigation that could mire the FBI in protracted lawsuits and cast uncertainty on the legitimacy of the FBI Director's actions during his extended term. These concerns are unfounded. Congress should not pursue legislation that would unduly hamper the law enforcement, counterterrorism, and intelligence functions of the FBI. During the June 8, 2011 hearing, however, when Director Mueller was asked by Senator Coburn to comment on the possible risk of constitutional challenges as a result of this bill, he responded as follows: I have heard nothing in my discussions with the Department [of Justice] or otherwise of a constitutional issue that would make that a problem down the road. If that were a substantial problem, quite obviously, then I would be concerned. But I have not heard that to be the case.\40\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \40\The President's Request to Extend the Service of Director Mueller of the FBI until 2013: Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (June 8, 2011) (testimony of Robert S. Mueller, III). Aside from speculation based on unfounded constitutional arguments, there has been nothing presented to the Committee that would suggest any operational concerns with the bill. The FBI has presented no operational concerns. The lack of any real litigation risk is underscored by the fact that the Director of the FBI has only limited direct involvement with the routine investigatory and surveillance functions of the Bureau. Those functions are typically carried out by Special Agents who perform their duties in their own capacity as duly sworn law enforcement agents with arrest authority. Accordingly, the risk of litigation from defendants in criminal cases and targets of national security investigations is virtually nonexistent, given that the Director is not typically the affiant on search warrants, wiretap applications, or criminal complaints, nor does he typically provide supervisory authorization for routine investigatory techniques. Similarly, unlike Federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Offices or elsewhere in the Department of Justice, the FBI Director does not have any direct involvement with the prosecution of defendants. Thus, concerns about possible litigation and the effect on the ability of the FBI to function are purely speculative and unfounded. II. History of the Bill and Committee Consideration A. INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL A bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, S. 1103, was introduced on May 26, 2011, by Chairman Leahy, Senator Grassley, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Chambliss. B. HEARING On June 8, 2011, the Committee convened a hearing titled ``The President's Request to Extend the Service of Director Mueller of the FBI until 2013.'' Director Mueller testified on the first panel, describing threats to the United States and his efforts over the past 10 years to reform the FBI. A second panel of witnesses included James B. Comey, former Deputy Attorney General, now with Bridgewater Associates, who spoke of the need for continuity of leadership at the FBI in light of the continuing threats facing the United States. Mr. Comey also praised Director Mueller's leadership of the agency and his achievements in transforming the FBI from a domestic criminal investigative agency into one that is equally devoted to intelligence and the prevention of terrorist attacks. The second panel also included testimony from William Van Alstyne, Lee Professor of Law at the Marshall-Wythe Law School, who stated that the bill, S. 1103, is ``clearly constitutionally sufficient.''\41\ Finally, the Committee heard testimony from John C. Harrison, Professor of Law, at the University of Virginia. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \41\The President's Request to Extend the Service of Director Mueller of the FBI until 2013: Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (June 8, 2011) (statement of William Van Alstyne, Lee Professor of Law, Marshall-Wythe Law School, at 1). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. LETTERS OF SUPPORT The Committee received letters in support of the extension of Director Mueller's term from the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. See Appendix. D. EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING The bill, S. 1103, was placed on the agenda for an Executive Business Meeting on June 9, 2011, but was held over for one week. It was considered by the Committee on June 16, 2011. Chairman Leahy offered a substitute amendment to S. 1103, which contained findings and an extension of the incumbent Director's term from 10 years to 12 years. The amendment was accepted. Senator Coburn offered a substitute amendment that would have authorized an extension of two years of the 10-year term, but would have required the Director to be nominated to serve the additional two years. The Coburn amendment was cosponsored by Senators Hatch, Graham, Cornyn, and Lee. After debate, Chairman Leahy moved to table the Coburn amendment. The motion to table was accepted by a rollcall vote. The vote record is as follows: Tally: 11 Yeas, 7 Nays Yeas (11): Kohl (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D- MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Grassley (R-IA), Leahy (D-VT). Nays (7): Hatch (R-UT), Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R- SC), Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Coburn (R-OK). The Committee then voted to report favorably S. 1103. The vote record is as follows: Tally: 11 Yeas, 7 Nays Yeas (11): Kohl (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Schumer (D-NY), Durbin (D-IL), Whitehouse (D-RI), Klobuchar (D-MN), Franken (D- MN), Coons (D-DE), Blumenthal (D-CT), Grassley (R-IA), Leahy (D-VT). Nays (7): Hatch (R-UT), Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), Graham (R- SC), Cornyn (R-TX), Lee (R-UT), Coburn (R-OK). III. Section-by-Section Summary of the Bill Section 1. Findings This section finds that the President requested that Congress extend the term of the FBI Director to maintain continuity of leadership at the FBI during a time of extraordinary threat to the United States. This section also finds that Congress intends the extension to be a one-time exception to the 10-year statutory limit on the term of his position. Section 2. Extension of the Term of the Incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation This section modifies the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (28 U.S.C. 532 note) to allow a one-time statutory extension of the 10-year term of the current Director of the FBI at the date of enactment at the request of the President. The change would allow the incumbent Director of the FBI to serve an additional two years until August 3, 2013. IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate The Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, S. 1103, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: June 17, 2011. Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1103, a bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. Sincerely, Douglas W. Elmendorf. Enclosure. S. 1103--A bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation S. 1103 would extend the term of the current director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by two years. Under current law, the term of the director will expire in August. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would have no significant cost to the federal government. Enacting S. 1103 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. S. 1103 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. V. Regulatory Impact Statement In compliance with rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee finds that under S. 1103, as reported, no substantial regulatory impact will be incurred by implementing the provisions of this legislation. VI. Conclusion A bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, S. 1103, was reported favorably to the Senate from the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill provides, at the request of the President, a one-time exception to the statutory limit on the 10-year term of the FBI Director. The bill will allow the incumbent Director to serve an additional two years, until 2013, and is not intended to create a precedent. Because of leadership transitions of critical national security positions at Federal agencies and the need for stability and continuity at the FBI, the Committee recommends swift action on S. 1103 as reported. VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 1103, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE * * * * * * * PART II--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE * * * * * * * SECTION 532. DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. The Attorney General may appoint a Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Note: Confirmation and Compensation of Director; Term of Service (a) Effective as of the day following the date on which the present incumbent in the office of Director ceases to serve as such, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at the rate prescribed for level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule [section 5313 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees]. (b) Effective with respect to any individual appointment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, after June 1, 1973, the term of service of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be ten years. A Director may not serve more than one ten-year term. The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of section 8335 of title 5, United States Code [section 8335(a) through (c) of Title 5], shall apply to any individual appointed under this section. (c) With respect to the individual who is the incumbent in the office of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the date of enactment of this subsection, subsection (b) shall be applied-- (1) in the first sentence, by substituting ``12 years'' for ``ten years''; and (2) in the second sentence, by substituting ``12-year term'' for ``ten-year term''.![]()