Hearing Statement on the Nomination of Robert Mueller to Head the FBI
July 30, 2001
Today, the Judiciary Committee begins hearings on the nomination of Robert S.
Mueller III to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Mueller
has had an outstanding career in law enforcement, serving as a Federal
prosecutor in three different U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and in Main Justice
under both Republican and Democratic Administrations. We welcome Mr. Mueller and
his family here today.
For Mr. Mueller, for this Committee and for the Nation, this is more than a
job interview. This is a crucial juncture for the FBI. We aim to forge a
constructive partnership with the Bureau’s next director to get the FBI back
on track. Congress sometimes has followed a hands-off approach about the FBI.
Until the Bureau’s problems are solved, we will need a hands-on approach for
awhile.
Civil Liberties At Stake. The rights of all Americans are at stake in
the selection of an FBI Director. The FBI has extraordinary power to affect the
lives of ordinary Americans. By properly using its extraordinary investigative
powers, the FBI can protect the security of us all by combating sophisticated
crime, terrorism, and espionage. But unchecked, these same powers can undermine
our civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and of association, and the right
to privacy. By leaking information, the FBI can destroy the lives and
reputations of people who have not been charged or had a trial. Worse, such
leaking can be used for political intimidation and coercion. By respecting
constitutional safeguards for criminal suspects, the FBI can help ensure that
persons accused of federal crimes receive a fair trial and that justice is
served. Our paramount standard for evaluating a new Director is his demonstrated
adherence to the Constitution as the bulwark of liberty and the rule of law.
This is necessary to assure the American people that the FBI will exercise its
power effectively and fairly.
New Era With New Challenges. This is the sixth time this Committee
has held a confirmation hearing for an FBI Director since 1973, when the first
nomination was made under the 1968 law requiring Presidential appointment and
Senate confirmation of the FBI Director. That first nomination hearing, along
with enactment in 1976 of the 10-year term for the Director, were conducted
against the backdrop of Watergate. The nominee then was L. Patrick Gray, an
Assistant Attorney General who became Acting Director after the death of J.
Edgar Hoover in 1972. Gray held that position when the Watergate break-in and
cover-up occurred. At the time of his confirmation hearings in early 1973, very
little of the scandal was known beyond the reporting of the Washington Post.
Patrick Gray had met with the President’s Counsel John Dean, so this Committee
prepared to subpoena Dean and expected strong resistance in the name of
Executive privilege. Other events then took over, the Gray nomination was
withdrawn, and he later admitted personally destroying evidence. Those were dark
days for the Bureau.
Lost Confidence In The FBI Is Not Just A PR Problem. The challenges
facing the next FBI Director are different from the issues of abuse of power
three decades ago but are just as tough. The American public has lost some
confidence in the Bureau. This is not just a PR problem. This erosion of public
trust threatens the FBI’s ability to perform its mission. Citizens who
mistrust the FBI will be less likely to come forward and report information
about criminal activity. Judges and jurors will be less likely to believe the
testimony of FBI witnesses. Even innocent or minor mistakes by the FBI in future
cases may be perceived in a sinister light that is not warranted. Since FBI
agents perform forensic and other critical work for many law enforcement
agencies on the federal, state and local levels, the repercussions of this
decline in public confidence in the FBI has rippled far beyond federal criminal
cases.
Constructive Oversight Necessary. For too long, the Congress has
taken a hands-off approach to the FBI. Problems have been allowed to fester. The
Congress has a duty to the American people to conduct systematic and ongoing
oversight of the FBI to ensure it meets the highest standards of
professionalism, competence, and adherence to the law. Constructive, bipartisan
oversight of the FBI can greatly improve its effectiveness. While reviews by
Inspectors General and other outside experts are important – the ultimate test
is accountability to the people through the Congress. Therefore, I will ask the
nominee about his views on congressional oversight and, especially, his
willingness to join this partnership and provide the information this Committee
needs to oversee the Bureau on behalf of the American people.
Three principles guide our oversight of the FBI. First, our task is to
rebuild confidence in the FBI as a vital national asset, not to tear it down.
Second, when we look at mistakes, we do so as an essential first step to find
and fix their cause. The purpose is not to detract from the outstanding work of
the dedicated professional men and women of the FBI who go to work every day to
keep this nation safe. Highly publicized mistakes have created an impression
that the Bureau is unmanageable, unaccountable and unreliable. Unfortunately,
these mistakes detract from the outstanding performance of FBI Special Agents
and other employees who handle the most complex criminal, terrorist, and
counterintelligence cases day in and day out. Only by fixing those problems, and
continuously improving the organization, will the tremendous work done by so
many Agents and employees get the full credit it deserves.
Finally, our efforts will be to reach bipartisan solutions that make the FBI
better able to fulfill the weighty mission we demand of it. Working with the new
Director and the Attorney General, I am convinced we can achieve these goals.
Three Core Problems. The questions being asked about the FBI are
directed at three inter-related issues: the Bureau’s security and information
technology problems, management problems, and insular "culture." The
Committee is in the midst of examining each of these areas at oversight hearings
that began in June shortly after I became Chairman.
Serious Security Breakdowns And Information Technology Inadequacies.
In the national security field, our country depends on FBI counterintelligence
to protect the most sensitive intelligence, military, and diplomatic secrets
from foreign espionage. The espionage case of Robert Hanssen demonstrates,
however, that the FBI’s own security and the investigation of espionage in its
own ranks failed dramatically, with enormous potential consequences. What is
most disturbing is how many red flags the FBI apparently overlooked during the
many years that Hanssen was a spy.
The reviews by the Inspector General and Judge Webster will not be done for
many months, but testimony before the Committee this month shed light on how
this spy was able to operate with impunity for so long. We were told that there
were no less than 15 different areas of security at the FBI that were broken and
needed to be "bolstered, redesigned, or in some cases established for the
first time." The Committee will want to hear the nominee’s views on the
steps he will take to move forward with security improvements. For example, if
he seeks wider use of polygraph examinations for FBI employees, the Committee
will want to know what assurances he will provide to those employees about the
consistency of the polygraph administration, application and quality controls.
The FBI needs to fully join the 21st Century. This is the
information age, but the FBI’s information technology is obsolete. The
Committee has been told that the FBI’s computer systems have not been updated
for over 6 years; that more than 13,000 desktop computers are so old they cannot
run on today’s basic software; that the majority of the smaller FBI field
offices have internal networks that work more slowly than the Internet
connections many of us have at home; and that the investigative databases are so
old that FBI agents are unable to store photographs, graphical or tabular data
on them.
Hard-working, dedicated FBI agents trying to fight crime across this country
deserve better, and they should have the computer and network tools that most
businesses take for granted and many Americans enjoy at home.
To the credit of former FBI Director Louis Freeh, in the last year of his
tenure, he reached outside the Bureau for fresh management perspectives and
expert advice. He recruited two new senior FBI officials, who were not career
Agents but were brought into the FBI from IBM and the CIA to develop plans for
addressing the Bureau’s security and information technology problems. The
Committee will want to hear from the nominee whether he will continue to look
for the best advice from outside the Bureau, while at the same time identifying
leaders within the Bureau who are committed to necessary reforms. In the months
ahead the Committee will watch closely to see if the Director backs up the
proponents of reform when they face opposition from Bureau officials wedded to
the status quo.
Management Problems. The security and information technology problems
facing the FBI are not a problem of money. The Congress has poured money into
the FBI. This is a management problem and it can no longer be ignored. The
nominee has seen the FBI up close for many years – as Acting Deputy Attorney
General, as Assistant Attorney General, and in three United States Attorneys’
offices. The Committee will want to know what management objectives he brings to
this job, based on his past experience, and what other resources he will draw on
to bring about needed changes.
The management structure at the FBI may simply have become too unwieldy. When
the Bureau was smaller, its headquarters could reasonably attempt to keep track
of the activities in its field offices. In recent years, however, the Bureau has
grown tremendously with 56 field offices, plus 44 overseas Legal Attaches. It
may not be possible for headquarters to effectively monitor field activities.
The belated production of documents in the Oklahoma City bombing case happened
despite sixteen separate orders from Headquarters for pre-trial production of
those documents. Similar problems arose in the Wen Ho Lee case, where a field
office disregarded instructions from headquarters. Former New York Police
Commissioner and Customs Commissioner Ray Kelly testified that a regional
structure makes a large law enforcement organization more manageable. We need to
know whether the nominee will be open to considering all options in his review
of the FBI’s needs.
It is especially important to understand how the nominee views the FBI
Director’s relationship with the Attorney General in the overall management
structure at the Department of Justice. Too often in the past Directors have had
the final word on management of the Bureau. Of course, there are legitimate
concerns about political interference with investigations, as Watergate
demonstrated. The FBI Director is not, however, unique in having to resist such
interference. Both the FBI Director and the Attorney General have that duty, and
they should work together to ensure the integrity of both investigations and
prosecutions. The FBI Director should be part of the Justice Department’s
leadership team.
The FBI "Culture" Needs An Overhaul. We are receiving
testimony in our oversight hearings showing that, too often, the independence
that is part of the FBI’s culture has crossed the line into arrogance. Senator
Danforth expressed concern to this Committee about entrenched executives at the
FBI who have created a closed and insular culture resistant to disclosure of
mistakes and to reforms. His concern was echoed in testimony the Committee heard
from experienced FBI Special Agents, who told us of a "club" mentality
among some Bureau executives who resist criticism or change that threatens their
careers. Senator Danforth recommended that the new director should be prepared
to clean house if the extent necessary to implement needed changes.
If there is one message that a new Director should get from recent problems,
it is that FBI executives need to be more willing to admit their mistakes. Too
often their response is to protect the Bureau from embarrassment or shield
self-serving executives from criticism and needed change. As Senator Danforth
testified, the FBI helped fan the flames of conspiracy theories at Waco by
covering up evidence that it used pyrotechnic rounds, even though they had
nothing to do with starting the fire. The present FBI culture makes it easier to
cover up rather than admit a mistake. A new Director must understand that this
type of conduct risks a far greater cost in the lost of public confidence, as
compared with admitting mistakes when they occur.
Let me cite one example that occurred just this week. In its recent weekly
newsletter for FBI employees, the FBI reported on the Judiciary Committee’s
July 18 hearing. But the newsletter reported only the testimony of the two
senior FBI agents, who told us about what they were doing to fix the security
and information technology problems at the FBI. Their testimony was also the
only testimony posted on the FBI website. Yet, the testimony of the four other
FBI agents who testified about problems of a double standard in adjudicating
discipline and about retaliation within the FBI was ignored – not mentioned in
the newsletter nor posted on the website. Ignoring the testimony will not make
it disappear. This kind of attitude makes it much harder to make the changes
that need to be made. If the FBI tries to suppress information that things have
gone wrong, it will never get them fixed.
To ensure full investigation of mistakes, I support the change made by the
Attorney General to give the Justice Department’s Inspector General full
authority over the FBI. I hope the nominee will look favorably on an amendment
to the Inspector General statute that makes this regulatory change permanent.
Witnesses have expressed concern that the Inspector General will not get the
same cooperation from FBI personnel as a separate Inspector General for the
Bureau. The Director’s responsibility includes ensuring that FBI personnel
cooperate fully with the Inspector General. One former Justice Department
Inspector General testified that, when his office sought FBI personnel to work
on a review of FBI performance, experienced Agents were reluctant to participate
and declined to have their names listed in the report. Agents did not view this
work as "career-enhancing." A Director must make clear that FBI
executives should reward – not discourage – participation in Inspector
General, and other oversight, investigations of Bureau performance.
We have heard disturbing testimony about retaliation against FBI Agents who
are tasked to investigate their colleagues or who discuss issues with the
Congress, either directly or through cooperation with the General Accounting
Office, which assists in congressional oversight. It is important that a new
Director send a clear message to FBI employees that he will not tolerate
retaliation against agents who conduct internal investigations or who bring
information about wrongdoing to the Congress directly. I will want to hear from
the nominee about his ideas for ensuring that such retaliation in the workplace
and in promotions stops.
Internal investigations must also lead to fair and just discipline. Here the
recent record is troubling. A internal FBI study that we released at the
Committee’s last hearing found a double standard at work, with senior FBI
executives receiving a slap on the wrist for the same kind of conduct that would
result in serious discipline for lower level employees. The most vivid example
occurred when seven Senior Executives submitted false travel vouchers so they
could fly to Washington for the retirement dinner of a Deputy Director. They
received only letters of censure for a voucher fraud offense that could cost an
average Agent his or her career. Two of them actually received promotions and
cash awards. In another case, the argument was asserted within the Justice
Department that the FBI Director may not be disciplined because he is a
Presidential appointee and that, in any event, the FBI Director should not be
disciplined for exercising poor judgment. The Committee will be interested in
hearing from the nominee about his adherence to the basic principle that all
public officials should be held equally accountable.
The FBI has long been considered the crown jewel of law enforcement agencies.
Today, it has lost some of its earlier luster. The next FBI Director has both a
great challenge and a great opportunity to restore public confidence in the
Bureau, and this Committee stands ready to help. We need to forge a strong and
constructive oversight partnership with the leadership at the Department of
Justice and the FBI to shape the reforms and find the solutions to make the FBI
the premier law enforcement agency that the American people want and expect it
to be.
