[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 46 (Wednesday, April 12, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2617-S2618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2404. A bill to amend chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, 
to provide that any Federal law enforcement officer who is convicted of 
a felony shall be terminated from employment; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


legislation regarding the removal of law enforcement officers convicted 
                              of felonies

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on removing 
federal law enforcement officers convicted of felonies.
  Under my bill, any federal law enforcement officer, who is convicted 
of a felony, would have to be removed from his or her position 
immediately.
  Mr. President, my colleagues must be wondering why the Senator from 
Iowa is offering this legislation. Law enforcement officers convicted 
of felonies are removed immediately. That's just common sense. Right?
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, common sense does not always prevail in 
the federal bureaucracy.
  Common sense is in short supply at one very important place in the 
Pentagon--the office of the Inspector General or DOD IG.
  In October 1999, the Majority Staff on my Subcommittee on 
Administrative Oversight and the Courts issued a report on the DOD IG.
  I placed the Majority Staff Report in the Record on November 2, 1999.
  The Majority Staff Report substantiated allegations of misconduct by 
senior officials at the Defense Criminal Investigative Service--or 
DCIS--between 1993 and 1996.
  DCIS is the criminal investigative branch in the DOD IG's office.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that Mr. Donald Mancuso was the 
Director of DCIS between 1988 and 1997. Today, Mr. Mancuso is the 
Deputy DOD IG. He may be a candidate for nomination as the next DOD IG.
  Some of the allegations examined in the Majority Staff Report 
concerned one of Mr. Mancuso's top deputies--an agent by the name of 
Mr. Larry J. Hollingsworth.
  The Hollingsworth case is the driving force behind my bill.
  Mr. Hollingsworth was the Director of Internal Affairs at DCIS from 
April 1991 until his retirement in September 1996.
  In July 1995, after a fellow agent recognized Mr. Hollingsworth's 
photo in a law enforcement crime bulletin, Mr. Hollingsworth was 
apprehended. His home was searched, and he confessed to filing a 
fraudulent passport application.
  Mr. Hollingsworth was convicted of a felony in U.S. District Court in 
March 1996.
  The authorities who investigated Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes believe 
that he committed about 12 overt acts of fraud between 1992 and 1994.
  Mr. President, can you imagine that?
  While he was hammering rank and file agents for minor administrative 
offenses as head of the Internal Affairs unit, Mr. Hollingsworth was 
deeply involved in a criminal enterprise of his own.
  The State Department agents who investigated the case were troubled 
by Mr. Hollingsworth's actions. From past experience, they know 
passport fraud is usually committed in furtherance of a more serious 
crime. But that crime was never discovered.
  While the full extent of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes remain a mystery, 
this case has helped to shed a whole lot of light on Deputy IG Mancuso.
  Mr. Mancuso personally approved a series of administrative actions 
that kept a convicted felon in an employed status at DCIS for 6 months.
  Mr. Hollingsworth confessed to passport fraud in July 1995. He was 
convicted in March 1996 and then confined in jail. All this time--for 
14 months, Mr. Mancuso kept Mr. Hollingsworth in an employed status at 
DCIS until September 19,1996.
  Mr. President, September 19, 1996 was the magic day. That was Mr. 
Hollingsworth's 50th birthday.
  That was the very first day he was eligible to retire. On that day, 
he retired with full law enforcement benefits and Mr. Mancuso's 
blessing.
  Mr. Mancuso's generosity will eventually cost the taxpayers a big 
chunk of money.
  The Office of Personnel Management--OPM--estimated Mr. 
Hollingsworth's annuity will cost the taxpayers at least $750,000.00 
through the year 2008.
  This is money Mr. Hollingsworth should never collect had Mr. Mancuso 
exercised sound judgment under the law.
  Mr. Mancuso could have removed Mr. Hollingsworth in March 1996 after 
conviction or maybe even sooner.
  Instead, Mr. Mancuso chose to personally protect Mr. Hollingsworth 
until he reached his 50th birthday and could retire.
  Mr Mancuso shielded Mr. Hollingsworth from the law for at least 6 
months.
  Under the law--5 U.S.C. 7513(b), Mr. Mancuso was authorized to remove 
Mr. Hollingsworth after conviction--if not sooner.
  Mr. President, I underscore the words authorized. DCIS was authorized 
but not required to remove him.
  Under the law, DCIS was granted discretionary authority to decide 
when--or if--to remove him.
  Mr. President, too much discretionary authority in a place so short 
on common sense can lead to mistakes. The Hollingsworth case was a big 
mistake.
  If my bill had been in effect in 1996, Mr. Hollingsworth would have 
been removed within 30 days of conviction.
  My staff has consulted with OPM on this legislation.
  OPM offered some constructive comments on how to strengthen it. Those 
ideas are now in the bill.
  OPM was unaware of any other instance where a federal law enforcement 
agency had kept a convicted felon in an employed status for 6 months 
after conviction.
  However, OPM could not guarantee that this would never happen again.
  The intent of my legislation should be crystal clear: To ensure that 
personnel management decisions--like those taken by Mr. Mancuso in the 
Hollingsworth case--are never repeated again.
  Over the past 10 months, my staff has spoken with many rank and file 
law enforcement officers about the special treatment given to Mr. 
Hollingsworth.
  Rank and file agents are universally disgusted by what happened.
  They feel--as I do--that law enforcement officers, who are convicted 
of felonies--should be removed from their posts immediately.
  They don't want their badges tarnished by having one of their own, 
who committed a felony, remain on the job--as Mr. Hollingsworth was 
allowed to do.
  That undermines morale in the ranks.
  In closing, I would like to quote from a letter Mr. Mancuso wrote--on 
official DOD stationery--to Judge Ellis on April 29, 1996.
  Judge Ellis was preparing to sentence the convicted felon, Mr. 
Hollingsworth.
  Mr. Mancuso's statements to Judge Ellis were absurd. They were 
outrageous.
  This letter shows that Mr. Mancuso was totally blind to the 
seriousness of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes.
  In the letter, Mr. Mancuso asked the judge to consider extenuating 
circumstances. He told the judge that Mr. Hollingsworth had taken a 
half day's leave to file the fraudulent passport application. Mr. 
Mancuso praised the convicted felon for this unselfish act. Can you 
believe that?
  This is what Mr. Mancuso said to Judge Ellis, and I quote: ``Mr. 
Hollingsworth could have come and gone as he pleased,'' but he ``took 
leave to commit a felony.''
  In Mr. Mancuso's mind, the use of personal leave to commit a felony 
was a sign of moral excellence.
  Mr. Mancuso concluded with this telling remark:


[[Page S2618]]


       To this day, there is no evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth 
     has ever done anything improper relating to his duties and 
     responsibilities as a DCIS agent and manager.

  Mr. Mancuso's statement to Judge Ellis was misguided for two reasons:
  First, incredible as it may seem, Mr. Mancuso--a sworn law 
enforcement officer and current Deputy DOD IG--feels that it is OK for 
law enforcement officers to commit crimes so long as the agents are off 
duty.
  Second, Mr. Mancuso's assertion about ``no evidence'' is flat wrong. 
It's inaccurate.
  On February 1, 2000, my staff discovered a DCIS file containing 
information that refuted Mr. Mancuso's assertions to Judge Ellis about 
no evidence. It shows that in August 1995, both DCIS and the State 
Department did, in fact, have evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth had 
engaged in criminal activity at his desk in DCIS headquarters.
  How could the Pentagon's top criminal investigator be so blind to 
evidence?
  This file also contains other important revelations about Mr. 
Mancuso's misconduct in the Hollingsworth case.
  It contains documents that indicate Mr. Mancuso was communicating 
with defense attorneys during the criminal court proceedings against 
Mr. Hollingsworth.
  For example, it contains a FAX transmittal memo addressed personally 
to Mr. Mancuso from the defense attorney. Attached was a motion to 
dismiss charges against Mr. Hollingsworth. But there was no court date 
stamp or attorney signature on the document. And there were handwritten 
notes on it. This was a rough draft.
  Mr. President, this really bothers me.
  Mr. Mancuso--the director of a federal law enforcement agency--was 
furnished with a rough draft of a motion to dismiss felony charges that 
the U.S. Attorney was attempting to prosecute.
  That is unethical conduct.
  The file contains other damaging documents.
  They suggest that the current Director of DCIS, Mr. John Keenan, 
returned 11 confiscated handguns to the convicted felon--Mr. 
Hollingsworth--in direct contravention of a federal court judgment and 
statutory law.
  DCIS allegedly returned the guns to Mr. Hollingsworth on September 
23, 1997, while he was still on supervised probation. This reckless act 
could have put a probation officer in harm's way.
  We also learned that Mr. Hollingsworth was under investigation by the 
IRS in November 1983 for perjury. That very same month--November 1983, 
he was hired by DCIS to be the agent in charge of the Chicago Field 
Office.
  The IRS concluded Mr. Hollingsworth had ``committed perjury during 
rebuttal testimony.'' On December 5, 1983, the IRS referred the matter 
to the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans for prosecution.
  Mr. President, how could DCIS hire Mr. Hollingsworth under such 
questionable circumstances?
  I don't understand it.
  Mr. President, Mr. Mancuso went to extraordinary lengths to protect a 
convicted felon.
  By doing what he did, Mr. Mancuso violated a trust that goes with the 
high office he occupies. He violated the trust that goes with the badge 
and gun he carries. In our democracy, when those sacred trusts are 
violated, our only protection is the law.
  In this case, the law provides too much discretionary authority. It 
leaves the door wide open to abuse by irresponsible bureaucrats. We 
need to close that door.
  My bill will close the loophole that Mr. Mancuso exploited in such a 
crafty way.
  Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important piece of legislation.
                                 ______