Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Department of Justice Oversight Hearing
Attorney General Eric Holder
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Chairman Leahy, thank you for calling this hearing today on oversight of the Department of Justice. I look forward to an open dialogue between the department and the committee. I also appreciate Attorney General Holder appearing today to answer questions. This hearing is especially timely given a number of important matters that have occurred over the last week. I look forward to his testimony and his responses to questions on pressing national security issues, especially his decision to move dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to U.S. soil to face trial in civilian courts. This is an unprecedented decision and one that many, if not most, Americans object to. I have serious concerns about what this means for our national security, how classified information will be handled, how much the trials and security will cost taxpayers, what we do with these dangerous individuals, and how we protect the surrounding communities, both during and following civilian criminal trials.
First and foremost, I want to follow-up publicly on an ongoing exchange that the chairman and I have been having with the Attorney General regarding access to information and responsiveness to the committee’s inquiries. Last month the chairman and I wrote to Attorney General Holder regarding a list of outstanding requests from both the committee as a whole and me individually. I appreciate the Attorney General’s response to our letter that we received late last week and his willingness to work with us on outstanding requests. However, I am concerned with some statements contained in that letter.
Specifically, I disagree with a statement that Attorney General Holder made about “whether it makes sense for the Department to defer responding to these pre-2009 QFRs in light of our efforts to keep pace with the numerous letters and QFRs that we have received this year about the policies of the current administration.” The Attorney General has an obligation to answer questions posed by members of the committee, regardless of what administration was in power when those questions were asked. Simply ignoring previously unanswered questions would allow the bureaucracy of the department to never answer any questions from Congress. This is an unacceptable option and I plan to ask the Attorney General why he wrote this.
Second, I plan to ask the Attorney General about potential conflicts of interest within the department related to political appointees working on detainee issues. Media reports have highlighted certain political appointees at the department and their prior advocacy on detainee issues. I would like to know more about these appointees and the work they are currently doing at the department. Any prior representation on the other side of these issues could raise potential conflicts of interest that should be fully disclosed as part of basic transparency and accountability at the department.
I also want to discuss a topic that relates to responsiveness on the part of the Attorney General. As part of this committee’s last Department of Justice oversight hearing in June, I asked a series of questions for the record regarding the department’s involvement in the termination of Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). I asked a series of twenty-four questions to that Attorney General regarding the role the department played, including the involvement of the acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California. I was disappointed to see the response provided by the Attorney General to my questions because he failed to answer the questions. Instead, he simply restated five paragraphs of public facts. I intend to ask the Attorney General some of these same questions to get more detailed answers about the department’s involvement in the termination and the policies at the department with regard to filing formal complaints against inspectors general. I believe this is important in light of the fact that President Obama relied upon this complaint in terminating Inspector General Walpin, despite the fact that the Integrity Committee recently determined the complaints lodged against Inspector General Walpin were unfounded.
I would also like to discuss the recent tragedy at Fort Hood with the Attorney General. I understand that this criminal investigation is ongoing by both the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice so we need to be careful in what we ask so as not to hinder the case. However, I believe this committee has a significant oversight role to play in this matter and that some serious questions about what the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) knew, when they knew it, what they did with that information, and perhaps most importantly, who they shared that information with. I have no desire to jump to conclusions and potentially hinder the ongoing investigation, but we need to know that the Attorney General understands our concerns.
I was critical of the FBI and the unnecessary walls that were erected hindering information sharing prior to 9/11. I want to ensure that information was properly shared in this case. Further, I want to know how serious investigators took the leads that were brought to their attention. Most notably, I am concerned with the FBI’s preliminary statement that investigators knew of the communications between Major Hasan and a suspect in a terrorism investigation, but that they determined “that the content of those communications was consistent with research being conducted by Major Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center.” I want to know what this statement means and how the communications between the suspect and Major Hasan were consistent with his duties as a military officer.
Time permitting, I would ask the Attorney General about his role in policing a long running dispute between the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). I have been asking questions on this important topic for years and a recently released report from the Department of Justice Inspector General highlights continued problems between these two agencies on the front line in explosives investigations. The ongoing conflicts represent a serious problem for these agencies. I’ve raised this issue with FBI Director Mueller and now I want to ask the Attorney General what he plans to do to fix this problem and when we can expect some results. It is completely unacceptable that turf battles continue in agencies and I hope the Attorney General can provide some leadership on this important issue.
The Attorney General needs to answer all of our questions accurately and in a timely manner. I hope he is able to provide answers to these important questions and work to provide the committee with the outstanding document and information requests. Thank you.
-30-