Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee - Law Enforcement and Terrorism

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TERRORISM

CHAIRED BY: SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT)

WITNESSES: ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR; ASA HUTCHINSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

BODY:

SEN. GRASSLEY: Okay, Senator Hatch and I have arranged that I have already voted and he's going to stay over there and vote on this one, and vote on the second vote, and then he'll come back and I'll go vote on the second vote. In the meantime then, I can ask questions. I have a short statement.

First of all, I'm very glad to have an opportunity that the chairman would make for us to have exchange in oversight with each of you. And I really feel good about the meeting that we had that was kind of a private meeting last week, Director Mueller. I felt it was very productive and that I hope that the tone was right. I felt the tone was right, at least on your part.

And if you remember, at the meeting I brought up a number of examples of cultural problems within the FBI. These cultural problems are important because I think that they have some demoralizing impact upon agents. And the extent to which that's true, they diminish some trust that the public has always had in the FBI.

Ultimately these problems and I think have some impact, negative upon the FBI's effort to carry out the new and horrendous responsibilities that you have on war on terror and the prevention of things. That's quite a bit different from what the FBI's traditionally done.

FBI agents are some of the country's most honorable and hard- working federal law enforcement people. These great men and women deserve every measure of protection when they try to improve the FBI by pointing out problems. I appreciate that you address retaliation head-on by referring allegations to the Inspector General. However, the FBI would be better served if retaliation were stopped in the first place. And I don't mean to imply that you wouldn't do that. You might not know of every instance. And I think that you have to prevent this activity, not just react to it. Just like the FBI has to prevent terror attack and not just investigate afterwards.

You've taken some good steps to reform the FBI internally. And I've got some questions that I want to ask you that probably would not be unfamiliar to you. Let me make one comment before I do that. It's a follow-on of the statement I just made.

And that is that I know the FBI's a very, very big organization. And I know that you're one person in it. And I know, as I indicated, that you probably can't be on top of everything. And you're going to have somebody that's not doing exactly what you'd like to have done. But I hope that, in some way, you can take steps to get people around you that really have your attitude filter down to everybody so that you don't have these instances where people are out of step.

So I would like to give you three examples of cultural problems and ask you to address each one and do it after I finish. Overall, I also want to have you explain what you might be doing along the lines of what I just said about preventing instances like these happening.

Several FBI agents testified to this committee before your confirmation. Now this is before you came here. So this is two years ago. Agents Roberts, Perry, and Kiernan told us about problems with retaliation, FBI misconduct, cover-ups, and the double standard in discipline. Agent Roberts has had a retaliation complaint pending with the Inspector General since before your tenure. And Agents Perry and Kiernan recently were forced to join him and allege retaliation with the Inspector General.

I believe that these are patriotic agents who just want to do their job. And I'm troubled that your high standards didn't sink in with some officials in the FBI who wanted to target these individuals. Also, John Roberts' wife, Brenda, has alleged that she suffered further harassment. Direct retaliation's one thing, but going after someone's family is a very low act.

Second point that I would make would be the FBI's highest ranking Arab agent, Arab-American agent, has filed a discrimination lawsuit. This is Agent Bassem Youssef. He was our first legal attache in Saudi Arabia. He was instrumental in the Khobar Towers bombing case. And unfortunately, this agent feels that he's been subject to discrimination and that the FBI has missed out on his valuable skills. You have been aware of this case personally for some time. So why could you not act to fix this situation earlier?

Then, third and last point would be in regard to a letter that I just recently sent you about awarding contracts to former officials who were involved in serious misconduct during their careers. And I shouldn't say it implied that you awarded it. I mean to imply that they have an FBI contract. Because I think giving a contract to these people sends a terrible message to agents in the public that there's no consequences for wrong-doing, in fact, you might be rewarded for it.

Charlie Matthews, who helped cover up Ruby Ridge, got a contract to travel to Indonesia for an FBI training session. The FBI also awarded a contract to a company called MPRI, where Joseph Wolfinger and Thomas Coyle worked. That contract is to do counterintelligence training. Wolfinger organized a fake conference in the Pottsgate scandal. And Coyle was investigated for Ruby Ridge and was on the Pottsgate disciplinary board despite a major conflict of interest.

These people, in my judgment, are not model for FBI agents. So I'm concerned about this, that I entered my letter into the Congressional Record yesterday, along with a statement. I appreciate your hearing about these points of view and now I would ask you to respond.

MR. MUELLER: Well, let me start, Senator, by saying that shortly after I, you ask what we have done to tell persons within the organization that I want to hear that which we need to do better. And persons who do provide those differing views should not be retaliated against. Shortly after I came, I sent an email to everybody that explicitly indicated that I would not countenance retaliation.

I have, whenever there has been an accusation of retaliation, referred that to what I consider to be an independent investigative body, the Inspector General's Office. And I have awaited the determination of the facts because allegations can be made, but it's important that we determine whether there is substance to the allegation. And I've asked the Inspector General to do that on a number of occasions. And when I've received the report, I upon occasion have asked for recommendations. And I've acted on those recommendations.

With regard to getting the message out. I think if you went to any office that I have visited, you will hear that part of what I say to the individuals and the FBI is that the good news reaches the top, often the bad news does not. You know, what I need to know is that which is wrong in the FBI. Because only by knowing it, will I be able to fix it. And that is a message I carry wherever I go. And what I want to hear, whether it be by email or by message or otherwise, I want to learn what needs to be done to fix that which is wrong within the bureau. Otherwise it festers and it blows up down the road. And we cannot have that. So, that's a message I carry out.

With regard to the three particular incidents that you mentioned. The individuals have testified before I became aware of their allegations. Recently I understand they went to the Inspector General's Office. I know I've had recent contact with Mr. Kiernan, who made a very valuable suggestion with regard to our statement of values which I took and I adopted. And I look forward to seeing the results of the investigation by the Inspector General's Office of those concerns expressed to the Inspector General's Office and will take what action is necessary as a result of that investigation, if any.

On the second point with Mr. Bassem Youssef. Yes, I did hear about that. And I directed our EEO investigator to sit down and address his concerns, and indeed to invoke the ADR process, alternate dispute resolution process, to get to the bottom of his concerns. I just heard last Friday that he had gone and filed suit. So we did make efforts to address those concerns in the process that we have set up, to have an independent body look at the concerns expressed and try to deal with them prior to the filing of the lawsuit.

And lastly, I did receive your letter yesterday involving three individuals, one who recently retired from the FBI, Charles Matthews. Until I received the letter, I had not understood your concerns. He, during the period that he has been, or had been, the special agent in charge in Portland, Oregon, he had done a very good job. But I am taking the letter and the concerns you've expressed, and I'm looking at that contracting process.

As to the other individuals, Mr. Coyle, I don't believe I've met Mr. Wolfinger, I think I've met some time in the past, but I have no knowledge of some of the concerns that you express in that letter. But I will follow up on it.

SEN. GRASSLEY: Okay. I want to say to you that I think that those are all very, very good steps. And maybe you get tired of my asking to do more and do more. But I would just ask one additional thing. And this is not a question. It's a statement. If, somehow, you can send out another message, and maybe you can't send out enough messages, and maybe there's somebody that's never going to get the message, because every organization has somebody that doesn't want to listen, but, that all the management below you, that there should not be any further retaliation. I'm going to keep hammering on that. And I hope you can do that.

MR. MUELLER: And I will tell you, to the immediate management below me, we have discussions about it. And assure that we have to send the message, each of us, not just me, each of us out to the field that we want everybody to express their views. And we will accept those views even though we may at some point disagree, which can happen.

Another point, if I may, Senator, is to say that one talks a great deal about the culture of the FBI. But I know you agree that part of the culture and the history of the FBI is the FBI agent's commitment to excellence, the FBI agent's commitment to hard work. The hours that agents and support staff have worked since September 11th is truly extraordinary. And lastly, part of what makes the FBI agent what he or she is, as well as the support people, is the commitment to the protection of the public of the United States. And that all is part of what we can say is part of the FBI culture.

Thank you, sir.

SEN. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Mueller. Secretary Hutchinson—and it's difficult to have you before the committee without (saying ?), Asa, would you answer a question --

MR. HUTCHINSON: That'd be fine.

SEN. GRASSLEY: Anyway, you obviously have a very tough job and a very new job in a very new department to do it. And it takes an awful lot to get a new agency undergoing, I know. And that is, of course, securing and protecting our borders.

I've done a lot of oversight on border security problems. I think I've expressed in a hearing I had before my own committee, the Senate Finance Committee, that I'm worried about it. I think there's at least one area where we can help each other, and that is visa revocations and terrorism concerns.

I requested a recent General Accounting Office report that found a legal loophole in the visa process. If you get to shore here in the United States before the State Department revokes your visa on terrorism grounds, you're in a sense home free. If that happens, your department can't deport a suspected terrorist.

And obviously that doesn't meet the common-sense test, as far as I'm concerned, because if these people are a threat to our security, and just because they got a visa to get here, if we'd known that before they got the visa, they wouldn't be here in the first place. It shouldn't be difficult for them to leave the country.

The loophole that I'm talking about is in the wording of the revocation certificate. There have been two hearings on this. But the State Department will not budget. Now, I think your department has authority over visa policy and State Department is just supposed to carry it out.

So I would like to have you assure me today, if you're aware of this, that you will get the State Department moving and get the loophole closed. And if I can help you in any way, I'd like to help you do it. First of all, I hope you agree with me, and if you agree with me, that you'd do that.

MR. HUTCHINSON: I agree with you, and you have my assurance that we're going to work to fix that problem. You have correctly stated the issue. The State Department can revoke a visa on information that they have at their discretion. The individual is already in the country.

There is a more difficult process for Department of Homeland Security to go through the process to order their removal, but it would be helpful to us—and we've talked with the Department of State about this—that the revocation include that they no longer have authority to stay in this country. That would assist us in the removal process. We're in communication with the Department of State.

You're correct that under the Homeland Security Act, the visa policy is shifting to us. We have not fully implemented that transfer. We're getting close to the memorandum of understanding with the State Department. But we are ahead of the game on this and are looking at it to adopt appropriate regulations to remedy this discrepancy.

SEN. GRASSLEY: Can I further ask you, in further clarification, then what you're telling me is you do agree; you're in the process of getting it done. There's no dispute over the policy. There's just a case of working it through the bureaucracy. Is that right?

MR. HUTCHINSON: I was expressing my view with you and Secretary Ridge, who I've had a discussion with about this, and the instructions are "Get it fixed." The Department of State has, as you have indicated, appropriate concerns that they raise, and we're working through that. So I believe that we're going to be very shortly in a position to issue regulations on this matter. But that's what we're working on now, the regulations and addressing the concerns of the Department of State.

But let me illustrate this further, if I might. If a visa is revoked in this country over someone, we take them into custody or we start processing them to remove them from this country, they can still assert asylum. They can still have access to the courts. But it will make it easier if we can cover our bases with the revocation, that it removes their authority to stay in the United States. And that's what we're trying to accomplish.

SEN. GRASSLEY: Well, I thank you very much. I'm going to just recess—I don't think you can go; I think you'd better wait till Senator Hatch says you can go—and go over and vote on the second vote. I have no more questions. If I knew I had this much time, I would have had a lot more questions for you.

MR. HUTCHINSON: (Laughs.)

MR. MUELLER: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. GRASSLEY: Thank you.