[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7621-S7623]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FBI'S 100-YEAR ANNIVERSARY

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the FBI turned 100 years old on June 26, 
2008, and so I want to offer some remarks to mark the occasion. This 
anniversary is the perfect opportunity to look at the FBI's 
accomplishments and failures over the past 100 years and its challenges 
for the future.
  During the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, seven U.S. Secret 
Service operatives moved to the new Department of Justice Bureau of 
Investigation to start a new mission. Thus, the FBI was born. The FBI 
has had countless successes in its first centennial. In particular, the 
Bureau developed a talented corps of professional agents and staff who 
pioneered new investigative tools that set most of the standards of 
modern law enforcement.
  The FBI had early successes with the arrests of Al Capone and 
Gangster ``Machine Gun'' Kelly in the 1930s. Bonnie and Clyde were also 
permanently put out of business thanks to some local cops and the FBI. 
The Bureau later went after the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and 1950s. It 
targeted the New York mafia in the 1980s and 1990s, which led to the 
decline of the Gambino crime family and its infamous leader, John 
Gotti.
  However, the FBI also has had its share of failures. From its own 
civil rights abuses in unauthorized wiretapping of civil rights 
leaders, to the tragedies at Ruby Ridge and Waco, to the internal 
betrayal by special agent Robert Hansen, there have been many dark days 
in the history of the Bureau. Still, I am confident that if the FBI is 
willing to honestly examine its own shortcomings, it can learn the 
lessons necessary to improve and become more effective at keeping 
Americans safe and free.
  I celebrate with all FBI employees, active and retired, whose 
difficult and courageous work keeps the rest of us secure.
  I also recognize and honor agents who have paid the ultimate price to 
protect our country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. These 
heroes deserve praise for their hard work and sacrifice.
  The protection of the United States is the FBI's main mission. The 
FBI is tasked to keep us safe from terrorist attacks, foreign spies, 
public corruption, infringements on civil rights, organized crime, and 
major white-collar and violent crime. To serve its mission, the Bureau 
maintains a worldwide presence in over 400 cities in the United States 
and 60 countries worldwide.
  Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the FBI has 
focused its efforts on antiterrorism. Its intelligence and diligence 
have protected our Nation from countless threats to our safety. FBI 
employees have stepped up in these treacherous times, and we count on 
them every day. They put their lives on the line for our freedom.
  We know they are fulfilling their mission when nothing happens to 
harm us, when we have another day, week, and year free from a terrorist 
attack and violent crime.
  Like any anniversary, this is a good opportunity for us to look at 
the FBI's failures so it can learn and grow from its mistakes. For 
years, I have been a watchdog of the FBI's propensity to retaliate 
against whistleblowers, the Bureau's unwillingness to cooperate with 
other agencies, and its inability to update its technology system. I 
hope on its 100-year anniversary, the FBI will turn a new leaf and 
correct these problems to create a better, safer century ahead.
  Parts of the FBI's internal culture hamper its ability to effectively 
identify and neutralize threats to national safety. For instance, the 
Bureau has what I have called a ``Pac-Man'' mentality, because it tries 
to gobble up whatever it can of other agencies' jurisdiction, evidence, 
and cases. At times, it has acted like a lunch-stealing bully on the 
playground.
  Our safety would be much better preserved if the FBI would play nice 
and share jurisdiction and resources with the other agencies. The FBI 
should concentrate on its primary mission--fighting terrorism--and let 
other agencies take the lead on investigations in which they have 
specialized expertise. For example, often, drug and bombing cases 
should be handled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, and the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, ATF, respectively.
  This Pac-Man mentality is evident by the way the FBI demands access 
to

[[Page S7622]]

other law enforcement groups' intelligence, informants, evidence, and 
resources, and yet it rarely shares its own information and resources--
even after 9/11. For instance, in 2006, Houston Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, ICE, agent Joe Webber testified before a House Committee 
that the FBI purposely delayed a wiretap request in an ICE-headed 
terrorism financing case, simply because it was an ICE-originated case, 
rather than an FBI case.
  The result of this Pac-Man attitude by the FBI was a missed 
opportunity to hunt down the perpetrators of terrorist financing in 
that case.
  The FBI has also engaged in jurisdiction grabbing with the ATF over 
bombing cases and with the DEA over drug cases. Turf wars don't help 
keep our streets safe, because our limited resources are wasted when 
programs and investigations are duplicated. Instead of concentrating 
its resources on antiterrorism, the FBI has tried to take over 
investigations in which other agencies have jurisdiction and expertise.
  Similarly, the FBI has not always cooperated with other agencies in 
information-sharing efforts. This reluctance to cooperate is epitomized 
in FBI agents' turf wars with ATF agents. The Washington Post reported 
that FBI agents sold counterfeit cigarettes to ATF agents because the 
two agencies were running twin tobacco smuggling stings.
  At crime scenes, the Washington Post reported, agents from each 
agency threatened to arrest each other over jurisdiction and evidence 
squabbles. The agencies acted like two dogs fighting over one bone. The 
problem is that there are plenty of bones out there, and the agencies 
can each get more if they work together.
  Another problem area exists in deciding which agency should 
investigate domestic bombing incidents. Until recently, the FBI and ATF 
have been operating under a 1973 memorandum of understanding, which 
predated and did not anticipate the ATF's 2002 move to the Justice 
Department from the Treasury. This old agreement failed to take into 
account the post-9/11 emphasis on searching for terrorism links in 
bombing cases. With a 35-year-old agreement, it doesn't surprise me 
that there was so much confusion and squabbling between the two 
agencies.
  I have recently learned that the Attorney General issued a new MOU 
that will now be the controlling authority between the ATF and FBI in 
bombing cases.
  I am curious to see this new MOU and sincerely hope the FBI and ATF 
have come up with a better way to resolve disputes regarding which 
agency takes the lead on domestic bombing cases.
  Unfortunately, there is reason to be skeptical that this new MOU will 
have an impact. A 2004 memo from former Attorney General Ashcroft 
directed the FBI and ATF to combine their bomb databases under the 
ATF's direction, because of the ATF's expertise in bombing cases. 
However, 4 years after the Attorney General issued that directive, the 
FBI still has not transferred its bomb database to ATF's management.
  Without the ATF's and FBI's cooperation in this area, agents are more 
likely to be missing key information. I don't blame the agents on the 
street for this problem. The problem is the direct result of 
jurisdictional greed and indecision by top bureaucrats at FBI 
Headquarters. It is imperative that the two agencies work together so 
that they can keep the country safe.
  Notwithstanding these issues, there have been instances of effective 
cooperation. In 2007, the ATF and FBI cooperated with other law 
enforcement agencies, and their efforts resulted in the largest 
prosecution of environmental extremists in U.S. history. Ten 
ecoterrorists were convicted for politically motivated arson that 
caused $40 million in damage. We need to see more of these types of 
successes, and if the FBI and other agencies can replicate this kind of 
cooperation in the next 100 years, Federal law enforcement will end up 
better fighting criminals and terrorists together, rather than fighting 
against each other.
  I have also done oversight of the culture within the FBI which 
encourages retaliation against whistleblowers. There have been too many 
cases of continued retaliation against FBI whistleblowers. Any FBI 
employee who has the courage to come forward to expose corruption or 
wasted resources in the FBI should be applauded, rather than punished. 
Not only are these courageous individuals safeguarding our tax dollars, 
they are also diverting resources from waste to use in the fight 
against terrorism and crime.
  Whistleblowers can spur the FBI to correct its problems. For 
instance, FBI agent Coleen Rowley went public with insights about the 
FBI's conduct in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 
Rowley wrote a letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller in May 2002, 
outlining how her Minneapolis field office pushed to search Zacharias 
Moussaoui's home and laptop following French intelligence reports on 
his connections and activities. But FBI headquarters downplayed the 
need to get a FISA wiretap and search his home and computer and 
ultimately denied the Minneapolis field office's request. This was 
after the FBI got reports that Moussaoui tried to take flight lessons 
and a Phoenix field agent reported suspicions about Middle Eastern men 
enrolled in flight school.
  After the attacks, Rowley wrote her concerns in a letter to Director 
Mueller about how FBI headquarters ``downplayed, glossed over, and/or 
mischaracterized'' their investigation of Moussaoui. We don't know what 
could have been prevented if the Minneapolis office had been able to 
pursue Moussaoui when it had the chance.
  What we know is that whistleblowers play an important role in 
improving our agencies. On its 100-year anniversary, the FBI should 
recognize that it needs to listen to those courageous agents who alert 
them to a problem, rather than retaliate against the messenger.
  There continue to be high-profile cases involving discrimination 
against FBI whistleblowers. For instance, just over a month ago, FBI 
agent Bassem Yousseff came forward and testified before Congress about 
staffing deficiencies in the counterterrorism program of the FBI. 
Without his testimony, Congress would not have known that the FBI is 
having trouble filling those critical positions. Yet, just 2 days after 
testifying, agent Youseff was accused of violating FBI regulations. The 
FBI dropped its allegations, but I am not willing to drop the subject. 
I sent a letter, along with House Judiciary Committee and subcommittee 
chairmen, demanding the FBI turn over its records to determine what 
happened. The FBI has not responded. The FBI should have a system that 
encourages concerned agents to come forward and identify problems that 
can then be solved, rather than swept under the rug. It should not use 
whistleblowers as ``canaries in coal mines,'' to be sacrificed as soon 
as they alert us to a problem.
  Another problem the FBI must correct is the different standard of 
punishments it sets for agents versus their supervisors. While a 
supervisor may get a slap on the wrist for misconduct, an agent may be 
heavily reprimanded. For example, agent Cecilia Woods reported that her 
supervisor engaged in illicit sexual activities with a paid informant. 
Her courage and honesty in reporting this improper activity were 
rewarded with two investigations into her own conduct, suspensions, and 
a transfer.
  Meanwhile, senior level FBI agents are treated differently for their 
misconduct. For instance, acting special agent in charge in Baltimore, 
Jennifer Smith-Love, was investigated, along with two agents acting 
under her direction, for conducting an unauthorized search of another 
agent's computer.
  However, Smith-Love's investigation was classified as a performance 
issue, rather than a misconduct issue. While the investigation was 
still ongoing, she got a promotion. The disparate treatment of agent 
Cecelia Woods and special agent in charge Jennifer Smith-Love 
illustrates how the FBI reprimands its agents much more harshly than it 
reprimands supervisors.
  This unequal treatment of agents and senior management is unfair and 
creates an appearance of double standards at the agency. Double 
standards in discipline devastate morale among the dedicated, 
hardworking FBI agents who are just trying to do their job. The FBI 
should set more uniform guidelines for punishments for both agents and 
supervisors.

[[Page S7623]]

  Another area the FBI needs to improve is its implementation of 
information technology upgrades. For years, the FBI has been charged 
with the task of bringing its computer systems up to date. However, 
despite spurts of progress, this effort has been hobbled by 
embarrassment and setback.
  The FBI had to scrap a $170 million case management system called 
Virtual Case File in 2005. The Virtual Case File system was scrapped 
because it failed before it ever got rolling. VCF was poorly designed 
and poorly managed, and to make matters worse, the FBI placed little 
internal controls on the oversight of the project. To date, the FBI 
still has not completed a new version of the system, now known as 
Sentinel. Information technology needs to be a top priority for the FBI 
if it wants to effectively hunt down and disrupt terrorist cells around 
the globe. The situation could not be more urgent, and the FBI needs to 
step up and get the job done, on time and on budget.
  It is also important to note that the FBI's budget has tripled since 
1999. Last year, Congress appropriated almost $7 billion dollars to the 
Bureau. We should not tolerate the FBI's continued mismanagement of 
public funds on programs that don't work. The American taxpayers can 
not afford another Virtual Case File.
  Technological advances are important tools to keep up with dangerous 
terrorists and criminals. As terrorists and criminals use more advanced 
technology to evade detection, the FBI needs to stay ahead of them with 
new technologies to fight them without delays or setbacks. Americans 
are counting on a system that works to help prevent the next terrorist 
attack.
  Congress plays an important oversight role over the FBI and other 
agencies. I take this role very seriously, as it is crucial to our 
system of checks and balances. At this 100-year juncture, I encourage 
the FBI to step up to the plate to make positive changes in its agency.
  Congress also has a role to play in the future of the FBI. In the 
107th and 108th Congresses, legislation was introduced to reform the 
FBI to protect whistleblowers and provide true accountability. 
Unfortunately, these reforms were never fully enacted into law. We 
should revisit these efforts to help the Bureau be the best it can be.
  I also believe that Congress needs to continue to examine the FBI's 
counterterrorism mission and look at the calls some have made to split 
the FBI's law enforcement and domestic intelligence functions along the 
lines of the British MI-5. Now some may see my statement as a call to 
dismantle the FBI, that is not what I am saying. What I do believe is 
that our constitutional duty to conduct oversight includes a soup-to-
nuts review of our law enforcement policies, including whether or not 
those at the FBI are achieving their primary mission. I think there is 
merit to arguments on both sides and believe we should spend some of 
our time looking into this. To summarize, I thank FBI employees, past 
and present, for their collective past 100 years of service. I also 
challenge the FBI's management to grab ahold of the reins to build a 
stronger, more accountable, transparent, and effective FBI. I challenge 
the FBI's leadership to recognize and correct the problems it currently 
has so the Bureau can be the top notch law enforcement agency it can 
be.
  Now is an ideal time for the agency to look back on what it has done 
right and wrong and work to do a lot better in the future.

                          ____________________