[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 93 (Friday, June 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6654-S6657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                FILEGATE

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I want to express a concern about the 
recent discussion, both publicly and in Congress, concerning what has 
become to be called Filegate--that is, the questions regarding the use 
of FBI files and the secret, confidential material contained therein.
  I am deeply troubled. I am troubled because it appears that the 
reaction of the White House is not to be forthcoming with regard to 
this crisis. My belief is that the appropriate responses is for the 
White House to, frankly and directly, respond to the issues, spell out 
what they did, indicate their corrective action, and put this question 
behind us. It is not one that should occupy a lot of time with regard 
to the congressional inquiries. It is not one that should occupy a lot 
of time with regard to public concerns. It ought to be dealt with and 
put out of the way.

[[Page S6655]]

  To that end, Senator Hatch, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
addressed a letter involving pertinent questions to the White House and 
to the Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta. That was on June 13. It had 
included in it what I thought were fair questions, ones reasonably 
raised by the questions that are involved and asked for the appropriate 
information.
  That letter was answered on the 19th, 6 days later. But Chief of 
Staff Panetta did not choose to respond. Instead, he delegated that to 
one of the counsel, Jack Quinn.
  Mr. President, I think that is unfortunate. This is an important 
matter, and while it can be dealt with quickly, I think it does deserve 
the attention of the Chief of Staff. I think it is unfortunate that he 
choose not to address it. Jack Quinn answers the letter.
  I want to express my concern about the answers. Frankly, Mr. 
President, what happened in those answers was simply to stonewall the 
questions. I know that is a harsh and strong judgment, and I invite 
Members to make their own decisions about whether or not it is 
accurate. But I want to share with the Members--just for the questions 
that I felt were relevant questions that were reasonable to ask under 
the circumstances--the answers. Members can make up their own minds.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the response letter from Jack 
Quinn of the White House, be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 13, 1996.
     Hon. Leon Panetta,
     Chief of Staff to the President, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Panetta: I have several questions concerning the 
     White House's acquisition of various FBI files, such as those 
     of Billy Dale, as well as at least 330 other individuals, 
     including persons who worked at the White House under 
     Republican Administrations who no longer had access to the 
     White House. I would appreciate your prompt response to these 
     questions:
       1. Please list the names and titles of those persons who 
     had the authority, in December 1993, to send a memorandum 
     under Bernard Nussbaum's name to the FBI requesting the FBI 
     to send its background files to the White House.
       2. Please provide a copy of the December 20, 1993 
     memorandum on White House stationary to the FBI requesting 
     background files on Mr. Billy Dale.
       3. A. Who caused this memorandum to be sent to the FBI and 
     for what purpose(s)?
       B. Did anyone direct, request, or otherwise cause such 
     individual to send the memorandum to the FBI, and if so, 
     please identify any such person by name and title.
       C. Who is the person referenced in paragraph 4 of the June 
     9, 1996 declaration of Anthony Marceca (enclosed)?
       4. A. When were the FBI files on Mr. Dale received by the 
     White House?
       B. Who at the White House received the FBI files on Mr. 
     Dale?
       C. Where have the FBI files on Mr. Dale been stored since 
     their arrival at the White House?
       D. Who had access to the FBI files on Mr. Dale at the White 
     House since their arrival at the White House?
       E. Did everyone who had access to the FBI files on Mr. Dale 
     have to ``sign out'' the files when viewing them?
       F. Did anyone at the White House review the FBI files on 
     Mr. Dale, and, if so, please identify any such person by name 
     and title.
       G. Did any such person provide information from these files 
     to other persons, and, if so, please identify any such other 
     person by name and title.
       5. A. Please identify by name and title any person(s) who 
     directed the initiation of ``Project Update,'' referenced in 
     paragraph 3 of the June 9, 1996, declaration of Anthony 
     Marceca, and identify by name and title all persons who 
     participated in ``Project Update.''
       B. Did Mr. Marceca request files from the FBI on 
     individuals not included in ``Project Update?''
       6. In updating security files at the White House for 
     purposes of continuing to grant access to the White House, is 
     it routine for the White House to request all of the FBI 
     files on each individual, regardless of how far back in time 
     the date of the file?
       7. With respect to the requests for the FBI files for at 
     least 330 individuals based on, according to news accounts, 
     outdated lists of White House pass holders provided by the 
     Secret Service:
       A. Please provide a copy of the lists upon which these 
     requests were made.
       B. Please identify by name and title the person or persons 
     who sent the requests for FBI files, based on these lists, 
     from the White House to the FBI.
       C. Please identify by name and title those persons in the 
     chain of custody who provided the lists to the person(s) who 
     sent the requests for files to the FBI.
       D. Please identify by name and title anyone who reviewed 
     any of these FBI files after their delivery to the White 
     House, and the date of such review.
       E. Please identify by name and title anyone who was 
     provided information based on any of these FBI files, and the 
     name and title of anyone who provided such information to 
     such individual(s).
       F. Please identify by name and title the person(s) who 
     discovered the error of relying on the lists from which these 
     requests to the FBI were made.
       G. On what date was the error of relying on these lists 
     discovered?
       H. Upon discovery of the error, what action(s) were taken 
     and on what date(s)?
       I. Upon discovery of the error, why weren't the files 
     immediately returned to the FBI?
       J. Please identify by name and title the individual who 
     halted the requests for FBI background files based upon the 
     list reportedly provided by the Secret Service.
       7. A. Why did Ms. Beth Nolan, of the White House Counsel's 
     office, send a memorandum dated August 19, 1993 to the 
     Department of Justice inquiring as to whether the White House 
     Counsel could release information from FBI background checks 
     on the seven White House Travel Office employees fired on May 
     19, 1993?
       B. Did the White House receive any oral or written response 
     to this memorandum? If so, please identify by name and title 
     anyone who provided such a response, the date of such 
     response, and any written record of such response.
       C. Was any information from FBI files on these seven 
     employees disseminated by anyone in the White House?
       8. Has the White House requested FBI files on any member of 
     Congress or any person employed by Congress, other than in 
     connection with an employment related security clearance 
     check or a background review for purposes of possible 
     employment within the Executive Branch, or appointment to the 
     Judicial Branch?
       9. Please provide a copy of all White House Counsel 
     policies or guidelines on contacts between the White House 
     and the FBI.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____



                                              The White House,

                                    Washington, DC, June 19, 1996.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hatch: This letter is in response to your 
     letter of June 13, 1996 to Leon Panetta.
       As you know, the investigation of the FBI files matter has 
     been handled by both the Office of the Independent Counsel 
     and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The White House has 
     been cooperating fully with these investigations. As a 
     result, we are not undertaking our own investigation or 
     conducting file searches. However, we will provide the 
     information we have available that bears on your inquiries.
       1. We have not undertaken to determine the identity of all 
     persons with authority to request background files from the 
     FBI in December 1993. In December 1993, the Office of 
     Personnel Security's Director was Craig Livingstone, the 
     Executive Assistant was Mary Anderson, and the staff 
     assistant was Lisa Wetzl. Also detailed to that Office was 
     Anthony Marceca. Mr. Livingstone reported to Mr. William 
     Kennedy, Associate Counsel to the President, who in turn 
     reported to Mr. Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to the President.
       2. We are not aware of any memorandum on White House 
     stationery regarding Billy Dale that was sent on December 20, 
     1993. However, the request to the FBI for copies of Mr. 
     Dale's previous reports is attached.
       3. With respect to your questions about the request for Mr. 
     Dale's file, please see the attached declaration of Anthony 
     Marceca. We believe that the person referred to in paragraph 
     4 of Mr. Marceca's declaration is Nancy Gemmell.
       4. Regarding the receipt and maintenance of Mr. Dale's 
     file, please see the attached statement of Jane Sherburne.
       5. Regarding your questions about ``Project Update,'' in 
     addition Mr. Marceca, we understand that Lisa Wetzl, 
     Executive Assistant to the Director of Personnel Security, 
     also worked on the Update Project.
       6. With respect to whether it is routine for the White 
     House to request prior FBI reports for all holdover 
     employees, we understand from the recently completed FBI 
     Report that it is indeed routine to request all prior FBI 
     reports.
       7. To the extent we have information responsive to your 
     questions about the requests for and chain of custody of any 
     of the mistakenly obtained FBI reports, please see the 
     Sherburne statement, the Marceca Declaration and the attached 
     Declaration of D. Craig Livingstone. Further, we understand 
     that Lisa Wetzl is the person who identified Mr. Marceca's 
     mistake.
       8. The memorandum that Ms. Nolan wrote to Walter Dellinger 
     at the Department of Justice did not request advice on the 
     release of FBI background information. Instead, as part of 
     its investigation into the Travel Office matter, the General 
     Accounting Office had requested the personnel files (which do 
     not include FBI reports) of the seven fired individuals. Ms. 
     Nolan was seeking advice as to whether fulfilling that 
     request would be

[[Page S6656]]

     appropriate. Copies of relevant documents, which have been 
     provided to the House Government Oversight and Reform 
     Committee, are attached for your information. We are not 
     aware of a written reply.
       9. We have no information responsive to your question about 
     requests for FBI reports on Members of Congress or their 
     staffs.
       10. Enclosed is a statement released by then-White House 
     Counsel Bernard Nussbaum which governs contacts between the 
     White House and the FBI in the event of a potential 
     investigation. We will provide other materials that may be 
     helpful to you under separate cover as soon as possible.
       In addition to responding to your questions, I believe it 
     would also be helpful if I explained to you the measures 
     taken by the White House in the wake of the mistaken and 
     inappropriate request for FBI background investigation 
     information in late 1993 and early 1994.
       As indicated above, the White House has requested and 
     received background investigation reports from the FBI for 
     many years. The information is sought and used to assist the 
     White House in making determinations about the suitability 
     of individuals for access to the White House for 
     employment or other official purposes.
       Plainly, the requests for background investigation 
     information that are the subject of your hearing were wrong. 
     Based on representations made to us to date, it appears that 
     the requests were the product of innocent errors. Obviously, 
     if we learn otherwise with respect to White House staff, we 
     will act swiftly and decisively.
       After learning of this situation last week, President 
     Clinton informed me in the clearest terms that he wanted (1) 
     the American people to know the truth about what happened in 
     this matter, (2) disciplinary action to be taken, as 
     appropriate, and (3) policies and procedures to be initiated 
     that would guarantee to the American people that this mistake 
     could not happen again.
       I will address each of these points in turn.
       First, we have made clear that the White House not only 
     welcomes but also encourages a complete and vigorous 
     investigation into the matter by the appropriate law 
     enforcement office. As you know, the Attorney General has 
     directed the FBI to conduct a prompt and thorough 
     investigation. I have said publicly and I say here again that 
     the White House welcomes that investigation, and we will work 
     cooperatively with the FBI to facilitate the prompt 
     completion of its investigation.
       Second, the President's directive that any appropriate 
     disciplinary action be taken will be implemented based upon 
     the facts developed in the upcoming review by the FBI. 
     Earlier this week, Craig Livingston, who headed the personnel 
     security office, asked to be placed on paid administrative 
     leave, and we agreed that that was appropriate. Mr. 
     Livingstone will not return to the White House unless and 
     until this matter is clarified to the satisfaction of the 
     Chief of Staff. If he does return to a position in the 
     Administration, it will be to one that is appropriate and not 
     to the White House Office of Personnel Security, which, as 
     described below, has been absorbed into the Executive Office 
     of the President (EOP) Security Office.
       Third, at the direction of the President, I have instituted 
     new policies and procedures to prevent any recurrence of the 
     events in question. We are confident that these reforms will 
     help restore public confidence in the integrity of the 
     personnel security system. These new procedures, which are as 
     rigorous as they are unprecedented, include requirements 
     that:
       Control of the White House background investigation process 
     be placed in the hands of a personnel specialist who is a 
     career, non-political employee;
       Current, express, written consent of an individual be 
     obtained before the White House seeks his or her background 
     investigation information from the FBI;
       The Counsel to the President or a specifically designated 
     Counsel's Office attorney approve each White House request to 
     the FBI for background information;
       The security or vetting officer who initiates the request 
     certify that the request is made for official purposes only; 
     and
       Access to background investigation information is 
     authorized only to those White House employees designated in 
     writing by the Chief of Staff and the Counsel to the 
     President.
       No prior Administration had in place policies and 
     procedures designed so effectively to prevent the type of 
     mistake that occurred in this matter. The Report of the FBI 
     General Counsel, dated June 14, 1996, found that the 
     procedure by which the FBI provided background investigation 
     information to the White House ``has changed remarkably 
     little over the intervening three decades'' since the Johnson 
     Administration. I am confident that our reforms will more 
     effectively safeguard the privacy of the individuals whose 
     background files are sought and obtained by the White House.
       Below, I elaborate on some of the key changes in our 
     policies and procedures:
       On June 14, 1996, I initiated a series of reforms focusing 
     on the process by which the White House requests background 
     investigation information from the FBI. We will now require 
     that White House requests to the FBI background information 
     be made only with the express written consent of the 
     individual who is the subject of the investigation. The 
     individual's consent must be signed within thirty days of, 
     and must accompany, the White House request to the FBI. No 
     information may be obtained without the individual's consent 
     except in extraordinary circumstances set forth in a letter 
     of justification to the FBI from the Counsel to the President 
     concurred in by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney 
     General.
       Each request to the FBI must also be approved and signed by 
     the Counsel to the President or a specificially designated 
     Counsel's Office attorney whose regular duties require the 
     review of such information. In addition, each request must be 
     signed by the Counsel to the President or a specifically 
     designated Counsel's Office attorney whose regular duties 
     require the review of such information. In addition, each 
     request must be signed by the security or vetting officer who 
     initiates the request, and that person must certify that the 
     request is made for official purposes only. These new reforms 
     also require identification of the specific reason why the 
     information is being requested.
       Today, I also recommended a restructuring of the personnel 
     security functions at the White House to further accomplish 
     the President's objective of ensuring that the mistake will 
     not happen again. I suggested--and Chief of Staff Leon 
     Panetta and the President agreed--that the administrative 
     personnel security functions currently performed by the White 
     House Office of Personnel Security be incorporated into the 
     EOP Security Office. This change will be implemented 
     immediately.
       The EOP Security Office currently conducts personnel 
     security functions for all EOP offices except for the White 
     House Office, the Office of the Vice President, the Office of 
     Policy Development, the National Security Council, and the 
     Executive Residence. The restructuring announced today will 
     bring the administrative personnel security functions for 
     those offices within the purview of the EOP Security Office 
     so that the EOP Security Office will have unified authority 
     over all EOP personnel security functions.
       The EOP Security Office is currently supervised by Charles 
     ``Chuck'' Easley, a career employee who has served for ten 
     years as the EOP Security Officer since joining the office in 
     the Reagan Administration. Before coming to his current job, 
     Mr. Easley had a twenty-year career in the U.S. Army, 
     including eight years as the Technical Security Advisor to 
     the Security Officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. Easley 
     heads a career staff at the EOP Security Office and reports 
     to the Associate Director for Human Resources Management of 
     the Office of Administration, a career personnel specialist.
       The EOP Security Office will perform its work on White 
     House personnel in accordance with the procedures announced 
     last Friday and described above. In addition, access to the 
     background investigation information will be limited to those 
     EOP and White House employees so authorized in writing by the 
     Chief of Staff and the Counsel to the President whose 
     assigned duties require the review or processing of such 
     information.
       I believe that the reforms we have now instituted will 
     restore the public's confidence in the integrity of the 
     process by which the White House decides who appropriately 
     may have access to the White House complex.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Jack Quinn,
                                         Counsel to the President.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the first question that I thought was quite 
clear and, perhaps, most appropriate was this: Basically, who had 
authority to request the FBI files?
  That is a reasonable question and one that I think is important in 
order to understand the issues that came about.
  What did the White House answer in response to that question? Let me 
read it:

       We have not undertaken to determine the identity of all 
     persons with authority to request background files from the 
     FBI in December 1993.

  Then they go on to explain they have statements from some of the 
people involved.
  Mr. President, that is not an answer. A reasonable, direct question 
was asked, and it was absolutely stonewalled in the White House 
response. Mr. President, that is not adequate. The American people 
understand mistakes can be made, but they do not understand a stonewall 
from the White House with regard to those questions that arise.
  The second question dealt with the chain of custody of the list. They 
are referring to the list that was put together that requested files 
from the FBI, the custody and who had that list. That is a reasonable 
question, and it is my belief that that is an appropriate one to try to 
identify and get answers to.
  Here is the White House response:

       To the extent we have information responsive to your 
     questions about the requests for and chain of custody of any 
     of the mistakenly obtained FBI reports, please see--

  And they list statements by people. When you look at those 
statements, they are not responsive to this question at all. Some of 
the statements do

[[Page S6657]]

not even deal with the question or even relate to the question. What 
the White House has done to a reasonable question for the chain of 
custody, who had the list, is simply stonewalled. Mr. President, that 
is not adequate. Nor do I think it is in the interest of the White 
House to simply stonewall reasonable questions.
  The third question: Were the FBI files' information disseminated by 
White House employees?
  Mr. President, that is a reasonable question. Did they--which is 
really a violation of the law--disseminate the highly confidential 
information included in those files outside the White House?
  How did the White House choose to answer that? Well, the fact is, 
they answered it in the same style they used in the last question, in 
No. 7 of their response. They refer you to statements that are not 
responsive. It is a reasonable question, and it is relevant to 
potential criminal activity, and it is totally stonewalled by the White 
House.
  The Hatch letter asks: Has the White House requested FBI files on any 
Members of Congress or employees of Congress?
  That is a reasonable question, and here is the answer:

       We have no information responsive to your question about 
     requests for FBI reports on Members of Congress or their 
     staffs.

  What does that mean? Mr. President, that is a stonewall. That is a 
total refusal to deal with the questions that are reasonably asked and 
raised by this inquiry.
  Those are four specifics, but there are others.
  I note that on CNN news this morning it was reported that a source 
close to Mr. Livingstone told CNN that Livingstone said the White House 
has another list that contains the names of top key Republicans whose 
FBI files they want or may have requested. But the White House has 
chosen not to share this list with the press.
  Mr. President, I have no idea if that is accurate. I assume in due 
course we will understand. But it comes back and relates to the fact 
that the committee asked. Had they requested White House files, FBI 
files, on Members of Congress, or its employees? The White House 
absolutely stonewalled the question. My sense is this, Mr. President: 
It is in the interest of this Nation--both Democrats and Republicans--
to get this issue behind us, and the White House ought to respond to 
the questions, get the facts out, solve the problem and move on. But, 
if they continue to follow the course of totally stonewalling this 
inquiry, it will not inure to their benefit, and it will not be taken 
as an appropriate action by the American people.
  Mr. President, my own sense is, just as in Watergate, that a dose of 
honesty and candor is absolutely the best thing that the White House 
can do.
  I mention the following things because I am concerned that the White 
House has chosen not to follow that path of honesty and candor.
  That is a serious charge. Let me be specific, because I think it 
merits specifics.
  In response to the questions about this issue about Travelgate, the 
White House on June 6 came back and said, ``Yes. Files were requested, 
but the GAO did it.'' This is on Billy Dale. They blamed the requesting 
of the files on the GAO. The facts turn out that the GAO denied it. And 
it turns out that the GAO did not do it at all. The White House 
statement was inaccurate.
  On June 6 the White House indicated that they had requested 338 
files. Mr. President, that was inaccurate. On June 13 the same White 
House admitted that they had really requested 132 more for a total of 
470 files. Mr. President, that statement was inaccurate.
  On June 15, the FBI Director indicates that the White House had 
requested 481 files. Now the reports are that that may be too low as 
well.
  Is the point how many files they requested? Well, it is relevant. We 
ought to know it. But I think it is much more important that the White 
House has chosen not to be forthcoming and give us accurate answers on 
these questions.
  On June 10 the White House said that this whole incident was an 
accident because the Secret Service had given them an outdated list. 
That is, the request had gone in and included names that were 
inappropriate because the Secret Service had given them the wrong list. 
But on June 13 the Secret Service responded, and indicated and pointed 
out that their system is incapable of providing a list that the White 
House used to request files. The statement of the White House on June 
10 appears to be inaccurate. It appears to have been impossible for the 
Secret Service files to produce the list that the White House said that 
they got because of inaccurate action on the part of the Secret 
Service. Moreover, it appears that their suggestion that they could not 
have a current list from the Secret Service was inaccurate; the Secret 
Service had produced a number of lists updated that could not have 
possibly included any of those names.

  Finally, Mr. President, the White House has said this was a low-level 
bureaucratic mistake. That is the White House explanation--a ``low-
level bureaucratic mistake.''
  Mr. President, I will leave it up to Members and their own judgment. 
Mr. Livingstone's position was head of White House personnel security. 
That is not a low-level bureaucrat. Head of security at the White House 
is not a low--level bureaucrat. He was paid $65,000 a year, or 
thereabouts, at least from the indications we have gotten from the 
committee. I do not believe--Members can make their own judgment--that 
someone paid $65,000 a year is appropriately called a low-level 
bureaucrat.
  Mr. President, the point is not just that the White House has made 
inaccurate statements, or the White House has refused to answer 
questions.
  The point is this: Where do we go from here? My hope is that the 
White House will do a couple of things: Get the facts out, be honest, 
and let us get this issue behind us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________