Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on FBI Oversight
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. As the FBI continues its transformation into a domestic intelligence agency in addition to its law enforcement function, its number one priority of combating terrorism will inevitably be in competition for resources with the mortgage and other financial fraud cases I look forward to hearing how Director Mueller intends to deal with these challenges. Our last FBI oversight hearing was in September 2008 and unfortunately, we were put in the same situation then as we are now. We had to prepare for this hearing without the benefit of answers to questions from the previous hearing. In fact we still have not received all the answers to questions from the March 2008 hearing. A number of my questions remain outstanding from that hearing on topics such as (1) the misuse of exigent letters, (2) discipline for FBI employees responsible for retaliating against whistleblower Michael German (3) access of the FBI press office to draft Inspector General reports, (4) the verdict in the case of whistleblower Jane Turner, (5) gag order “agreements” in violation of Congressional appropriations provisions, and (6) the FBI foreign language program. Whether the hold-up is the FBI or Department of Justice sitting on the responses as part of the “clearance” process, not having answers from a previous hearing that was six months ago is unacceptable.
Moreover, I just recently received two replies to letters to the Bureau that have been pending for many months. Many of the questions I asked in those letters remain unanswered. I provided a collection of my correspondence with the FBI and the Justice Department to Attorney General Holder prior to his confirmation. I have received a reply to my binder of outstanding documents last week. I had hoped the new Administration would have started out on better footing. They should want to clean up the outstanding responses, but it appears it is business as usual at the Justice Department when it comes to responding to Congress.
The President has pledged to institute a new era of openness and transparency in government. I hope that applies to the FBI as much as to any other government agency. Obviously, in the area of national security for example, there are some secrets the government legitimately needs to keep. However, the FBI’s refusal to answer questions is, often times, based not on legitimate national security concerns, but rather on a desire to hide its own mistakes and shortcomings from public scrutiny and accountability.
For example, we've been promised an independent review of the scientific evidence that the FBI relied on in its decision to close the Anthrax Investigation. I'm anxious to hear from Director Mueller how much progress has been made on that review. The Justice Department confirmed earlier this month that the FBI knew for at least two years that Dr. Stephen Hatfill could not have perpetrated the Anthrax attacks before telling him he was no longer a suspect. Despite having branded Dr. Hatfill as a "person of interest" and ordering his federally funded employer to fire him back in 2002, the government apparently felt no duty to let Dr. Hatfill know in 2006 that it had determined conclusively that he was not involved. Instead, the government continued to litigate with Dr. Hatfill, waiting until after it agreed to pay him nearly $6 million to let him know he was off the hook. I'd like to know from Director Mueller whether he believes that was appropriate and what role, if any, he may have played in that two-year delay.
I also want to discuss the continuous stream of complaints I receive from current FBI agents and former FBI agents, that the FBI's process of internal discipline still produces inconsistent and unfair results. Perhaps a more telling sign is that these agents would like to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by FBI supervisors and officials—another ongoing problem I continue to hear about. Although there have been significant reforms and progress, it is unsettling to continue to hear about problems with the Office of Professional Responsibility all these years after the Bell-Colwell commission made its recommendations. One particular case that I have been able to ask about in detail involves Elizabeth Morris. Former Special Agent Morris was terminated from the FBI after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint and after making a good faith report concerning the misuse of subpoenas by another FBI agent. Local prosecutors in
New York were so concerned about the quality and fairness of the internal FBI inquiry leading to her termination that they wrote to the Office of Professional Responsibility on her behalf. These prosecutors were witnesses to the facts in dispute regarding her termination, but had not been interviewed by investigators prior to writing to the FBI. Nevertheless, OPR disregarded their concerns and recommended her termination. However, it appears that no effort was made to investigate Agent Morris's allegation about the misuse of subpoenas.
I also want to ask Director Mueller some questions about the ongoing technology upgrades at the FBI. The FBI has a history of failed technology initiatives, most notably the spectacular failure that was the Virtual Case File system. American taxpayers spent $170 million and walked away with nothing. Out of the ashes of Virtual Case File rose the Sentinel system, a web-based case management system. Director Mueller’s written testimony states that the Phase II implementation now has a targeted completion date of fall 2009. Director Mueller’s testimony from last September stated that Phase II would continue through summer 2009, but did not include a definitive completion date. While these statements are only slightly different, I’d like to know whether this difference indicates a slip in the implementation schedule.
Previous briefings to Judiciary Committee staff in 2007 outlined an estimated completion date of December 2009, yet today’s testimony indicates we’re now looking at delivery in December 2010. I appreciate the FBI’s willingness to keep us apprised of the progress on Sentinel, but based upon the 2007 projections it appears the final delivery has slipped by one full year and another $26 million. I want to hear from Director Mueller if we can expect further delays in the Sentinel system. I don’t want taxpayers left holding another bill for a computer system with nothing to show for it.
Finally, I’d like to ask Director Mueller a few questions about mortgage fraud and white collar criminal investigations. FBI Deputy Director Pistole provided testimony before this Committee last month and a House Committee just last week. An examination of his testimony reveals that in the intervening month, the number of mortgage fraud cases has increased by 200 and the number of new corporate fraud investigations has increased by 36. I believe that criminals who ripped off honest homeowners and other investors need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, like any complex fraud these investigations can be labor and resource intensive spanning multiple federal agencies. I want to ask Director Mueller about efforts to coordinate investigations with the Secret Service, the Postal Inspection Service, the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and many others.
These complex investigations cannot be handled in the typical silo fashion. We need information and intelligence sharing among all our enforcement agencies to make sure these criminals don’t evade detection and prosecution. I want to know what the FBI is doing to work in good faith with these agencies and not simply fall back on the Pac Man mentality and gobble up other agencies’ jurisdiction. We need to balance our resources effectively and efficiently to make sure taxpayer dollars are maximized. I think that a coordinated effort to bring these criminals to justice will help bring some confidence back to both the financial and housing markets. Thank you.
-30-