Grassley has conducted extensive FBI oversight since the mid-1990s and in recent years has expressed concern about "a management culture at the FBI that worries more about public relations and headlines than the fundamentals of investigation." Grassley has often said that the FBI must focus on what the FBI does best - seeking the truth - instead of placing its image on a pedestal.
As a long-time advocate of FBI reform, Grassley was asked to contribute his views on the restructuring. A copy of Grassley's letter to Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson follows here.
January 10, 2002
The Honorable Larry D. Thompson
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Thompson:
Thank you for your letter of November 16, inviting me to contribute my views to the ongoing review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As you know, I have been a long-time advocate of FBI reform, and I have a number of recommendations I believe are essential in order for the Bureau to regain the trust and confidence of the American people.
First, let me commend Director Mueller for moving forward with the reform efforts at a time when his attentions are in such great demand. But, I would caution those who would rush to claim victory as a result of the latest organizational changes. I have been around long enough to see plans come and go, yet at the core remains an organization with deeply rooted cultural problems.
I am gratified that there now appears to be a consensus building around many of the same reform issues that I have been advocating for years. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the FBI reform effort should be structured around the issues of jurisdiction, organization, and accountability. I will address each of these in turn below.
Jurisdiction
?The FBI investigates over 300 different classifications of federal crime, each of which fall within one of the following general headings: violent crime, white collar crime, organized crime, drugs, national security, and civil rights. Contained within these areas are numerous instances of concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction with other federal law enforcement agencies. Despite having what many would describe as an already overburdened array of jurisdiction, the FBI has established a campaign of jurisdictional encroachment, impeding many of the essential investigations of several other federal agencies. This pattern not only seems unnecessary and duplicative, but also tends to erode key partnerships within the federal law enforcement community. The attacks of September 11th have crystalized in others a fact that I have been arguing for years: that the FBI has spread itself too thin by encroaching upon jurisdictions properly belonging to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The broadening of the FBI's investigative responsibilities has weakened its effectiveness in the agency's primary roles of fighting terrorism and organized crime.
I am pleased that Director Mueller has stated his intention to limit the FBI's investigatory scope, but I am anxious to see his plan. I believe this will be an issue of surprising complexity, and just as Congress has been complicit in the FBI's expansion, we will need to be involved in the divestiture. This issue is further complicated by the status of many of the affected agencies, who are also in the process of reassessing their resources in the wake of the September 11th attacks. Questions regarding prioritization, statutory authority, interagency memorandums of understanding (MOUs), and methods of transition, will all need to be answered prior to implementation.
As I stated in an October 23rd letter to Director Mueller - to which I have not as of yet received a response - it is my hope that by scaling back on certain FBI investigative activities, the FBI will send a positive signal in dealing with their counterparts in state, local, and federal government. This reorganization should go hand in hand with a comprehensive plan to coordinate the efforts of each of these partners.
Organization
?I have been among those who have advocated a tighter reign of control and coordination by FBI headquarters over its field office operations. The FBI continues to allow Field Office Special Agents in Charge (SAC) far too much autonomy. The result has been an uncoordinated and uneven application of the FBI's mission throughout the country. The creation of an additional layer to an already bloated headquarters bureaucracy, as was recently accomplished through the establishment of the Executive Assistant Directorships, does not appear to solve this problem. I will be examining Phase II of the reorganization process to make sure that FBI Headquarters will exert a more consistent control of field office operations.
?There has been a startling disparity in the adjudication of punishment for like offenses between FBI senior officials and the rank and file. Yesterday, I sent a letter to Director Mueller and the Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine concerning this double standard within the FBI, specifically as it has been demonstrated by the disparate adjudication of misconduct in the Pottsgate scandal. The 1999 position paper, "FBI SES Accountability, a Higher Standard or a Double Standard", prepared by the FBI Law Enforcement Ethics Unit, also provides a number of examples of this imbalance. While it is true that the publication of this report prompted former Director Freeh to institute necessary changes, these changes do not address the underlying cultural structures that allowed this disparity to exist.
The effect of the enhanced powers of the DOJ/IG in this area still remains to be seen. The existence of this imbalance has given rise to an "us vs. them" mentality within the rank and file and a predictable degradation of morale. An internal FBI survey found that less than 5% of agents sampled were interested in promotion to FBI Headquarters and less than 6% of those agents who have already been assigned to Headquarters believed the experience was a positive one. Perhaps one of the reasons for these results is that an agent will typically need to relocate several times during his or her career before becoming eligible for a headquarters assignment. Until career-track and quality of life issues are addressed in a comprehensive manner, this problem will continue to plague the morale of this agency.
?Retaliation against agents who "break the code of silence" within the Bureau is contrary to the principles of good government. This retaliation is oftentimes subtle and inconspicuous, but no less devastating to an agent's career. Employees must be able to report waste, fraud, and abuse in an atmosphere that is free from the fear of retaliation. Recent administrative enhancements to whistleblower protections for FBI personnel who come forward with protected disclosures are a step in the right direction, but still fall short of providing adequate protection. I intend to introduce legislation with Senator Leahy to enhance protections afforded FBI whistleblowers.
?Perhaps the area that I feel most connected to falls under the heading of Information Sharing. The manner in which the FBI has approached its relationships with its partners in state, local and federal government has earned the Bureau the enmity of the very entities that should be its greatest resource. I am confident that the technological barriers to information sharing will be dismantled far sooner than the institutional barriers that the Bureau has built which prevent the establishment of open and effective partnerships with its counterparts in state, local and federal government.
The establishment of a position with the responsibilities of overseeing interagency cooperation is a step in the right direction. Part of this new responsibility should be to review the manner in which the FBI's various task force initiatives are organized. While the FBI promotes task forces such as its Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) as models of interagency cooperation, it is not acceptable to equate success with mere participation. The information within these task forces flows predominantly in one direction, and the leadership positions are devoid of representatives from outside the Bureau.
Further, FBI managers should be held accountable in their efforts to build bridges of cooperation with their counterparts. I suggest that this area be made part of the performance evaluations of FBI management throughout the country. This area should also be made part of the routine three-year inspection process, with particular emphasis on the solicitation of comments from executives (i.e., U.S. Attorney, Police Chief) within each region. I also suggest the development and distribution of a "Customer Satisfaction Survey" throughout select regions of the country. This survey should be designed to solicit constructive data from target stakeholders on regional FBI performance, and FBI Headquarters should follow up with recommendations based on this survey.
Accountability
?I called for the expansion of authority for the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, and this was accomplished through the Attorney General's Order in November. I will be introducing legislation with Senator Leahy that will codify these important changes by amending the IG Act. Without this legislation, the relationship between the Inspector General and the FBI could revert to the confusion that reigned prior to the Attorney General's Order.
?I called for the establishment of a Senate subcommittee with permanent jurisdiction and oversight of the Bureau. The recent formation of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, chaired by Senator Biden, would provide a logical forum for this oversight. As ranking member of this subcommittee, it would be refreshing to see a proactive effort on the part of the FBI's leadership to establish a continual line of communication with this subcommittee.
?It would be equally refreshing to witness a change in the Bureau's penchant for denying legitimate access to FBI documents and witnesses. The FBI's history in this regard has only served to exacerbate the already strained relationships the Bureau has within all three branches of our government. In denying, delaying, or providing incomplete access to records, the FBI shows contempt for any public or private entity that dares to question its motives or performance.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my views on this important subject. I look forward to meeting with you and the members of the Strategic Management Council to further discuss this issue and your progress. Please direct any questions regarding this correspondence to Chad Groover with the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs at 224-4200.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Ranking Republican Member
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs