Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on an issue that I believe is at the core of the viability of our democracy. The issue is sunshine in government. I firmly believe that openness of government has kept our country as strong as it is today. If we can see clearly what our public servants do, we in Congress can correct deficiencies and make government more effective and accountable. That is the essence of congressional oversight.
It has been my principle over 20-plus years of oversight and investigation to treat administrations the same regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in the White House. Oversight is and should be non-partisan. I think it is wise for all who do oversight to abide by this principle of impartiality.
As I said, my intimate involvement in oversight began only a year after I was elected to the United States Senate. Since that time, I have led crusades to reform Defense Department management and practices; to force the Justice Department to aggressively prosecute fraud against taxpayers; to force the Congressional Budget Office to produce honest and realistic budget numbers; to reform the FBI's culture of arrogance and its practice of putting image over product; and, to transform the IRS from a cabal of bureaucratic barons to a truly customer-friendly service.
Each of these endeavors required inside information. Each agency used vast energies to stonewall. At no time were they ultimately successful. Each time, I made the case for access to the public and to my colleagues. And each time, the public and Congress backed me up. Eventually, the information was provided. The result has been a litany of successful reforms throughout government. Without inside information, none of these corrections was possible.
Let me make clear that this stonewalling by the executive branch has happened under both Democrat and Republican administrations. So just as I've tried to treat each administration the same, unfortunately each administration has treated my oversight investigations the same as well – with deny, delay and stonewall.
That brings us to the issue before this Committee: the Joseph Salvati case. Certain key documents are being withheld from your Committee under executive privilege. The withholding of these documents is interfering with your ability to conduct oversight of a case that's over 30 years old, which involves an undeniably egregious miscarriage of justice, perpetuated by an agency - the FBI - that is undergoing major reforms designed to address the same cultural problems that led to the Salvati case. It may be a 30 year-old case, but it has present-day implications.
Nonetheless, the Justice Department says that its need to preserve the deliberative process supercedes the importance of the public's right to know why the FBI let four men be sentenced to death, and later life in prison, for a murder that the FBI knew they did not commit. The Justice Department has said it will deal with the requests for deliberative process documents on a case-by-case basis. If that is so, there is not a more compelling case than this.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, the deliberative process argument is just one arrow in the Justice Department and other agencies' quiver of excuses for blocking legitimate Congressional oversight. Over the past year, I have attempted to conduct numerous oversight investigations as a member of the Finance and Judiciary Committees. I have been blocked, to this point, not by executive privilege, but by Privacy Act restrictions; Rule 6E; and, the old on-going investigation excuse.
Let me make clear that on some occasions, these restrictions on Congressional access to information may be legitimate. I am not here arguing that the executive branch has no rights to prevent the release of certain information. All too often, we see agencies abusing the legitimate limitations on information to coverup cover-up bureaucratic snafus, foul-ups, mistakes and in the case of Mr. Salvati – gross misconduct.
Let me highlight two cases from investigations I am currently conducting. First, the John Solomon case. He's the AP reporter who had his home phone records subpoenaed and searched without his knowledge. The Justice Department is required to follow certain procedures before issuing a subpoena for phone records without a reporter's knowledge. I have been trying for months to determine if these DOJ procedures were followed. The Department has responded with a shell-game for why they won't answer. At first, it was because the case was ongoing. Then, when it was closed, they invoked grand jury secrecy and the Privacy Act. It is inconceivable to me that the law is such that Congress cannot look at the record to determine whether the Justice Department did or did not follow its own guidelines regarding the subpoena of a reporter's phone records. While the Justice Department works with me on this matter, it has taken months to get even the most basic information.
In another example, I discovered that the IRS had placed on paid administrative leave at a salary of $80,000 a year an employee was indicted, convicted and sentenced to home detention for a felony – and doing no work at the IRS. The IRS claims that because of the Privacy Act they cannot tell me, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, whether this IRS employee, Mr. Kenneth Dossey, has been fired. In addition, Treasury claims under the Privacy Act that they can't identify the IRS managers who decided to continue paying Mr. Dossey $80,000 a year while he was on home detention and not working. Again, the Treasury Department is working with me, but it has taken months for them to provide the most simple answers.
Mr. Chairman, I fear there is a widespread deliberate policy by agencies to deny or delay giving information to Congress. I think this is a dangerous policy for two reasons. First, it interferes in our Constitutional duty to oversee the executive branch and assure the public that its servants here in Washington are acting properly and ethically.
And second, an agency that stonewalls such requests inevitably risks a credibility gap with the public. Also, I find, it often means the agency has something to hide.
A prime example is the Salvati case, which involves FBI corruption at the highest levels. The FBI stood by silently, knowing that four men took the rap for a murder they didn't commit. Two of these men died while in prison. The others have been let out only recently, after 30-plus years. The same FBI cultural arrogance that allowed this miscarriage of justice to occur may very well be prevalent in today's FBI. It is that culture that is the target of five on-going investigations by the government, including a management reorganization by the Justice Department, plus soon-to-be introduced FBI reform legislation.
To prevent Congress from learning the lessons of the Salvati case and applying them to our on-going FBI oversight work would be a gross injustice to the public. There is no question, Mr. Chairman, that the details of the Salvati case are critical to fulfilling the responsibilities of this committee. And how the Justice Department cannot approve the release of these documents – on a case-by-case basis, as it says it wants to do – is beyond explanation. Getting to the bottom of the Salvati scandal and fixing the causes of this justice for outweighs any need to preserve the deliberative process.
Mr. Chairman, I conclude by urging you and the members of your committee to be firm and resolute on this issue. You must continue to make your case to the public, and in time you will be successful in the court of public opinion, which is the key to successful resolution of this impasse. I commend your fine oversight work on FBI corruption in the Boston field office, and once again thank you for the chance to share my views with the Committee.