[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.
____________________