[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2222-S2223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          SUPPORT FOR THE FBI

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to voice 
support for FBI Director Louis Freeh, who has been subject to some 
criticism in a variety of quarters, including on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. I do so as someone who is thoroughly familiar with the work of 
FBI Director Freeh and of his organization. I have worked with the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation for many, many years, going back to my 
days as an assistant district attorney of Philadelphia, when I 
prosecuted the Local 107 Teamsters and got the first conviction of 
teamsters resulting from the McClellan committee investigation. I 
worked with the FBI as an assistant counsel on the Warren Commission. I 
have seen a great deal of the FBI's work since being in the Senate and 
working as a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  I think the FBI does a good job--not a perfect job, not a job without 
substantial problems, and not a job where, on some occasions, they 
don't make mistakes, but a good job. I have seen Director Freeh's work 
in some detail, specifically, on the oversight hearings that the Senate 
Subcommittee on Terrorism conducted on Ruby Ridge, where I served as 
chairman.
  Ruby Ridge was a national tragedy. Randy Weaver did some things he 
should not have done, but he didn't deserve the armada of law 
enforcement that descended on his mountain in Idaho. That was a sad 
story, because the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms unit had 
misrepresented Weaver's record. They said he had a prior record of 
convictions, which was false. They said he was a suspect in a bank 
robbery case, which was false. That brought the hostage rescue team 
from the FBI and the killing of a U.S. Marshal, William Deacon, the 
killing of Mrs. Randy Weaver and their son, Sam Weaver, age 14.
  To the credit of FBI Director Freeh, he was willing to concede the 
errors. He changed the rules of engagement, he changed the FBI 
standards on use of deadly force, and he changed the use of the hostage 
rescue team. This was in stark contrast to what the Alcohol, Tobacco, 
and Firearms did. They would not concede their errors. The Department 
of the Treasury, which managed Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, stood by 
their conduct, even though it was palpably wrong, as disclosed in the 
extensive hearings the subcommittee had over the course of 2 months, 16 
hearings, and a long report in excess of 150 pages.
  I have seen what Director Freeh has done in combating domestic 
violence in the Oklahoma City bombing, and I have seen what the FBI has 
done in the Unabomber case. Where the FBI has made mistakes, Director 
Freeh has come forward and conceded that. Where there was unwarranted 
publicity on the Atlanta Olympics pipe bomb case, for example, when 
someone unfairly leaked information, Director Freeh conceded that a 
mistake was made.
  While I applaud his concessions on the unfair publicity, I have 
problems with our inability to properly conduct oversight on that 
Atlanta pipe bombing case. We have not been able to move that ahead. So 
that when I evaluate Director Freeh, I do so in the context of someone 
who sees problems and has been critical, as well as someone who praises 
the Bureau's overall performance.
  Director Freeh has been criticized on the so-called VANPAC case, 
which involved the murder of a Federal judge and a civil rights leader. 
Director Freeh prosecuted this case--he has had a very remarkable 
career as an assistant U.S. Attorney, a Federal judge, and he left the 
Federal bench to become Director of the FBI. He was recently criticized 
because there were alleged errors made by the FBI laboratory in 
connection with the VANPAC case. The FBI laboratory has admittedly had 
serious problems. That was one of the aspects that was investigated by 
the Senate subcommittee on Ruby Ridge, because there were problems with 
their work there, as well.

  As the prosecuting attorney in that criminal prosecution, Director 
Freeh relied on evidence from the FBI laboratory, some of which may 
have been faulty. But when Director Freeh found out that that was an 
area of concern in September of 1995, he recused himself from the 
investigation of the FBI laboratory. That means he took himself out of 
the case and did not pass judgment on it.

[[Page S2223]]

  The inspector general, who is about as independent as you can be 
within the Federal branch--has been looking into the FBI laboratory. We 
have these inspector generals in a variety of departments. My 
legislation brought the inspector general to the CIA, the only reform 
legislation coming out of the Iran-Contra affair. Inspectors general 
are not perfect because it is hard to be totally independent. But to 
the extent you can have independence, the IGs are independent. They 
report directly to Congress. They are as good a mechanism as you can 
have for that sort of an investigation, unless you have congressional 
oversight. There ought to be more of that.
  But, at any rate, Director Freeh did what was possible by recusing 
himself and referring the matter to the inspector general, who brought 
in five independent scientists. He has been out of the case, and he is 
prepared to make whatever changes are necessary within the FBI 
laboratory.
  The FBI is currently conducting a very sensitive investigation on 
campaign irregularities, which may go to the highest levels of 
Government. Not a great deal can be said about that investigation at 
this time. But from what I have observed Director Freeh has been 
independent, has been forthright, and has done his job in a 
professional way. In that kind of an investigation there are inevitable 
pressures, either express or implicit. I have some familiarity with 
what the Bureau is doing and what the Director is doing. I have 
confidence in him. I do so with some understanding of investigative 
work on grand juries and criminal matters and the kind of sensitivity 
which is involved. There are matters on which I consult with him with 
some frequency in terms of oversight.

  As of this moment, I am not yet satisfied with what has been done on 
Ruby Ridge. The Department of Justice has conducted an investigation on 
a number of the FBI agents, one of whom was the former Deputy Director, 
Larry Potts. It may well be as I said, in those hearings, that Director 
Freeh did not exercise the best judgment with respect to Deputy 
Director Potts. But at the same time I have said publicly that Deputy 
Director Potts and others are entitled to have the matter resolved, and 
that the Department of Justice has been investigating that since the 
fall of 1995--some 18-month lapse--which is unwarranted. I know that 
case thoroughly because of the hearings we had. I know investigative 
practice. That matter should have been concluded. That is not a matter 
under Director Freeh's purview. It is in the Department of Justice.
  I recently wrote to the Attorney General complaining about the delays 
and got an unresponsive response saying that the investigation will 
take several more months due to the complicated nature of this matter. 
It is not all that complicated. We have the Atlanta pipe bomber case 
where I have been trying to get an oversight hearing since October-
November. I am not delighted with what the FBI has done on that in 
terms of not being as responsive as I think they might be. They have 
internal investigations which are really very difficult and which delay 
congressional oversight. But overall my view is that Director Freeh has 
done a good job. And when you pick up some of these matters on the FBI 
laboratory, I think he has provided appropriate management and 
appropriate oversight.
  Mr. President, I think my time has probably lapsed. But in the 
absence of any other Senator on the floor, I ask unanimous consent for 
an additional 10 minutes to proceed as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________