[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 57 (Monday, April 20, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2265-S2266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           INSPECTORS GENERAL

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the ability of Congress to be a check on 
the actions of the executive branch is being endangered. One of the 
tools that we in Congress have created to help the government identify 
and correct its mistakes is being obstructed. That tool is the vital 
work of inspectors general.
  Inspectors general work in nearly 80 Federal agencies. They perform 
audits, conduct investigations, and issue public reports of their 
findings and recommendations. They combat waste, fraud, and abuse. 
Their work is being frustrated, and that is why I am here. To keep an 
eye on what is happening inside a government agency, the inspector 
general must be able to access the agency's records. This is exactly 
what the law calls for.
  The Inspector General Act of 1978 directs that all inspectors general 
have a right to access all records, documents, and other materials. 
``All'' is not the same as ``some.'' If the inspector general deems a 
document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over 
immediately--immediately. But

[[Page S2266]]

the clear command of that law is being ignored far too often.
  Agencies partially comply or refuse to turn over materials after a 
lengthy review and screening process by lawyers for the agency. That is 
a step not included in the IG law. The examples range from the 
Environmental Protection Agency to the FBI, and can you believe it, 
even to the Peace Corps.
  The excuses vary, but the pattern is very clear. For example, the 
Department of Justice Office of Inspector General is reviewing the 
Department's use of the material witness statute. That statute 
authorizes detaining certain witnesses for testimony before a grand 
jury.
  The inspector general was looking into allegations that the civil 
rights and the civil liberties of certain material witnesses may have 
been abused. This is just the kind of issue that Congress relies on 
inspectors general to investigate. If the problems are found, the 
inspector general helps our government identify the problem and helps 
Department leadership fix these problems.
  Naturally, the inspector general needed to review the grand jury 
testimony to decide if the value of that testimony was reasonable, 
given the burden imposed on the witnesses. Three U.S. attorneys offices 
and the Department's National Security Division provided the inspector 
general with the grand jury information concerning material witnesses, 
but the FBI refused to cooperate. The FBI claimed the grand jury 
testimony could not be shared with the inspector general.
  This FBI decision to withhold information was a brandnew practice, 
beginning sometime in 2010. The law was not changed in 2010 so the FBI 
could do it. The FBI claimed it had the right to refuse to provide the 
inspector general information in over a dozen other categories as well.
  Remember, the law says the inspector general shall have access to 
all--not some--records, documents, and other materials that they deem 
necessary to conduct their investigations. Yet the FBI says its 
attorneys will review material first and then decide what it would and 
would not release to the inspector general.
  It even gets worse. The FBI claimed it needed the approval of the 
Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General to provide the 
information to the inspector general. This is exactly upside down. 
Under the law, an inspector general must be independent. Agencies 
cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. If an inspector general 
had to ask for permission from senior leadership, he would not be truly 
independent.
  The Inspector General Act of 1978 does allow the Attorney General, 
not the FBI, to prohibit the inspector general from carrying out or 
completing an investigation but only in certain limited circumstances.
  When that extraordinary step is taken, it must be done in writing to 
the inspector general, and the inspector general must forward that 
written notice to the Congress. The FBI would have us believe that 
instead of written notice being required to block an IG investigation, 
it needs written permission to comply with an investigation. This is 
simply not how the law is designed to work.
  After this controversy took place, Congress took action. We 
essentially bolded and underlined the provision in the Inspector 
General Act that ensures access to documents. We didn't literally do 
that, but this year's Justice Department appropriation declares that no 
funds shall be used to deny the inspector general timely access to all 
records.
  The new law also directed the inspector general to report to Congress 
within 5 days whenever there was a failure to comply with this 
requirement. Since February of this year, we have already received four 
of those reports that the FBI is still refusing to comply, regardless 
of the actions Congress took on the appropriations bill last year.
  One notice said the FBI was withholding evidence in two whistleblower 
cases. I have written to the FBI twice about these notices and just 
received a reply from the FBI Wednesday. Unfortunately, the FBI ignores 
most of the questions I asked and simply reasserts their original 
position.
  That tells me the FBI thinks they are above the law. It has an 
obligation to comply not only with the Inspector General Act but also 
with restrictions Congress placed on its appropriations. That means FBI 
employees cannot legally be spending their time withholding and 
reviewing documents before providing those same documents to the 
inspector general. We must stay vigilant and we must insist all 
government agencies, including the FBI, work with the inspectors 
general, not against them.
  I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for standing 
up for inspectors general. I also urge them to follow through and help 
make sure the funding restrictions they put in place are obeyed.
  As I noted earlier, the problem is not confined to the FBI or to the 
Department of Justice, similar attempts to limit the work of an 
inspector general have occurred at the EPA and the Peace Corps. Just 
last year, 47 inspectors general signed a letter to the Congress 
warning of these problems across government. We all lose when 
inspectors general are delayed or prevented in doing their work. In 
every agency where IG's work, they help agency management become aware 
of problems and opportunities to improve government service. We must 
support the work of inspectors general and remind government agencies 
that blocking their investigations is not acceptable.

                          ____________________