Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Grassley of Iowa
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
FBI Oversight Hearing
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this oversight hearing today. I welcome Director Mueller back for another oversight hearing to discuss matters at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This will likely be Director Mueller’s last hearing before the Committee given his extended term ends this coming September.
Over the past 12 years, Director Mueller has done a good job of transforming the FBI from a law enforcement agency into a national security agency. The wall between intelligence and criminal cases has come down and the integration of law enforcement and intelligence has worked.
These fundamental changes have made the FBI stronger and more successful in stopping terrorist attacks before they occur. They have also helped strengthen the FBI when tragic events like the Boston bombing occur.
Cooperation between the FBI, federal agency partners, and state and local law enforcement has improved. However, there are still problems with the FBI that need to be addressed, such as retaliation against those who speak out or blow the whistle on internal problems.
That said, I thank Director Mueller for his service and I am sure he is looking forward to some much deserved time off when his term expires in September.
Unfortunately, we still do not know who will be replacing Director Mueller when he leaves. This is very concerning and raises questions about the upcoming transition. For starters, the President hasn’t submitted a nominee to the Senate to fill the upcoming vacancy.
There have been media reports that the President intends to nominate James Comey, the former Deputy Attorney General from the Bush Administration, but no official nomination has been received by the Senate. It is unclear what intention the White House has with the release of Mr. Comey’s possible nomination.
Whatever the motivation, it doesn’t change the fact that the President has not formally nominated anyone to be the next FBI Director. The President needs to send a nomination to the Senate in short order.
Otherwise, we won’t have enough time to properly vet the nominee and ensure that the new Director is in place prior to Director Mueller’s departure. Given the FBI’s role in counter-terrorism, counter-intelligence, and criminal law enforcement, any delay in appointing a Director means a vast bureaucracy will be left to an acting director.
I’m interested in hearing from Director Mueller about the transition planning, how he intends to hand things over to the next director, and what contingency plans are in place in the event an acting director is necessary given the President has yet to nominate anyone.
There are a number of other matters to discuss. First, there has been a lot of news following the classified leaks of two national security programs operated by the National Security Agency (NSA) and utilized by the Intelligence Community.
The leak of classified information related to the 215 Business Records program and the 702 Foreign Surveillance program has started a debate about whether these programs strike the proper balance between civil liberties and national security.
As a result of the release of information, the Administration chose to release additional details explaining how the programs operate, including the facts surrounding successes in thwarting terrorist attacks. More importantly, the information details the various safeguards and programmatic oversight built into the programs. I am always of the opinion that more oversight is needed of the federal government and given the classified nature of these programs, Congress needs to be extra vigilant in conducting oversight of these programs.
Yesterday’s public hearing held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was a good opportunity for Congress and the Administration to show the American people that these programs can be discussed in an open manner. More hearings should be held so people better understand how the 702 program and section 215 work. This includes the necessary declassification of information to assist Congress in determining whether the law was followed. Absent some level of transparency the American people won’t understand how their government works.
There is a lot of distrust in the government these days and it is entirely understandable given the scandal at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the secrecy surrounding the Administration’s use of drones, subpoenas seeking reporters’ emails and telephone calls, along with efforts to legislate in spite of constitutional protections and civil liberties. An open and transparent discussion of these programs is the only way the American people will start to trust what their government is doing.
I continue to believe that a major problem causing the leaking of classified information is the lack of whistleblower protections for members of the Intelligence Community. The final version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act that was signed into law last year failed to include protections for the Intelligence Community that I authored.
These provisions were originally included in the Senate passed version, but did not pass the House. Specifically, it would have provided a protected method for employees to report concerns through a protected channel within the Intelligence Community.
I believe the existence of such a channel would help stop would-be leakers from releasing classified information. I would like to hear from Director Mueller about whether he would support such a provision to help cut down on damaging leaks.
Another critical national security issue to address is Cybersecurity. The House has passed four separate bills addressing cybersecurity. The Senate continues to address the topic in various committees.
All the proposals recognize the need to strengthen the nation’s cybersecurity defenses. Where they differ is in how to do it. The FBI plays a frontline role in addressing and investigating cybersecurity so I want to ask the Director about what barriers exist and are preventing efforts to combat cyber-attacks against American computer systems.
Regarding traditional criminal matters at the FBI, I remain concerned about the number of cases where individuals may have been convicted based upon faulty FBI Crime Lab reports.
Chairman Leahy and I have sent a number of letters regarding the unpublished results of a 1996 review of the FBI crime lab. To date we have not received a briefing on this request. The Department of Justice continues to focus only on a prospective review of criminal cases and not provide answers to the Committee as to what happened during this previous review. I’d like to hear from Director Mueller about this matter and what has been done to bring justice to defendants that may be innocent as a result of FBI crime lab failures.
I also want to ask the Director about the FBI’s plans for using unmanned aerial systems, or drones. At the last oversight hearing with Attorney General Holder, I asked about the Department’s use of drones and in written responses, the Attorney General indicated that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) had purchased drones and were exploring their use in law enforcement activities.
Absent from this response was an indication of how the FBI was using or is seeking to utilize drone technology. I’d like to know from Director Mueller whether the FBI has purchased or is considering purchasing drones, what limitations and policies the FBI has put in place or is considering, and how the FBI is using or plans to use drone technology.
Another matter I’m interested in is the FBI’s investigation into Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder. It’s now been two and a half years since the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The FBI has cited the ongoing investigation as a reason for not providing any information. However, at some point the FBI will have to answer questions about this matter, and I intend to ask about it today.
Finally, I remain concerned that whistleblowers at the FBI continue to face retaliation and delays in clearing their name. I would also like to hear from Director Mueller about the final outcome of two whistleblower cases brought by employees at the FBI I have tracked for years.
The first is that of Special Agent Jane Turner who blew the whistle on FBI employees removing evidence from the World Trade Center site following the 9/11 attacks. The second is FBI employee Robert Kobus who blew the whistle on time and attendance fraud at the New York City field office of the FBI.
It is my understanding that the Deputy Attorney General found that Special Agent Turner was subjected to adverse personnel action. I want to know why the FBI appealed and fought Special Agent Turner’s case for nearly a decade and what action was taken against those persons who participated in the retaliation against Ms. Turner.
Regarding the Kobus case, I want to know what the current status of Mr. Kobus' case is, and if there has been a ruling, why has my office not been provided a copy?
I look forward to addressing these topics with the Director. Thank you.