[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 117 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4929-S4930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  FBI

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as we all know, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation is a component of the Department of Justice. It is 
frequently described as the premier law enforcement agency in the 
country. The FBI's investigative authority has only grown--and grown 
tremendously--since its creation almost 100 years ago.
  The Bureau now covers everything from kidnapping to 
counterintelligence, public corruption to bank robbery, and maybe a lot 
of things in between. Its power is very substantial, and its 
jurisdiction is far-reaching. It is a very important agency. Because of 
that, the FBI is subject to a lot of scrutiny.
  Lately, we have had a lot of folks around here who seem to be 
mistaking the word ``scrutiny'' of the Bureau with the word ``attacks'' 
on the Bureau. Oversight of the FBI is not new, and it is a 
constitutional responsibility of the Congress at least to do oversight 
of every agency, and the FBI can't be an exception.
  Far from being out of bounds, it is essential for the people's 
elected representatives in the Congress to put the FBI under a 
microscope. That is doubly true when the FBI gets involved in election 
controversies. The more power and the more secrecy the FBI claims in 
order to carry out its responsibilities, the more closely it ought to 
be watched.
  Under our government, where the public's business ought to be public, 
that statement I just made ought to be common sense to everybody.
  In its criminal work, the FBI is held accountable primarily by the 
court system. When the FBI secretly gathers information for 
intelligence purposes, the risk of impropriety skyrockets. If the 
information is never going to be presented in the courts, as in a 
criminal matter, who is going to be watching to make sure that the 
power to gather and use it is not being abused?
  That is why we need vigorous congressional oversight and strong 
inspector general scrutiny. Lots of people say that the FBI should be 
independent. I disagree. The FBI needs to be objective and nonpartisan. 
It should be insulated from undue political pressure.
  If you want to call that independence, then I will use that word. It 
cannot be independent of accountability to the people's elected 
leaders. Civilian control of the military has always been a key 
safeguard to liberty for the same reason.
  Freedom is at risk if the FBI can become a domestic intelligence 
service with free rein to weaponize information in secret. We have seen 
the risks of that in the text messages of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. 
Their contempt for both the people of this country and, particularly, 
their elected leaders should disturb everyone.
  Abuses of power at the FBI are why we have a term limit for the 
Director of the FBI. That term limit is not there to protect the FBI's 
independence; it is there to protect the people from the abuses that J. 
Edgar Hoover committed because he became too independent. He was 
accountable to no one. J. Edgar Hoover was feared by Presidents, 
Senators, and Congressmen. While the Director originally was selected 
by the Attorney General, in 1968, Congress made the position subject to 
Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. In 1976, the Congress 
established a nonrenewable 10-year term limit for the Director. The 
Senate Judiciary Committee published a committee report on that bill 
that limited the 10-year term in 1974. It took a couple of years for 
the bill to pass the House.

  In quoting from that report:

       The purpose of the bill is to achieve two complementary 
     objectives. The first is to insulate the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation from undue pressure being 
     exerted upon him from superiors in the Executive Branch. The 
     second is to protect against an FBI Director becoming too 
     independent and unresponsive.

  At the time, Congress was grappling with the fallout of Watergate and 
the decades of corruption and civil liberties abuses by that first 
Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover--hence, the legislation. Congress 
knew the FBI had to be able to operate free of partisan interference 
but still be accountable to the duly elected leadership of the country, 
including all Members of Congress in their constitutional roles of 
oversight.
  Certainly, the FBI Director can't be a politician's stooge, but 
history tells us that the bigger risk is in the other direction. Hoover 
abused his power to intimidate politicians and other political leaders. 
In a democracy, all of our leaders are ultimately accountable to the 
people. Access to information about what agencies like the FBI are 
doing is essential to holding them accountable. Transparency brings 
accountability. Abuses multiply in secret. That is why congressional 
oversight--Congress's responsibility under the Constitution--is key. 
The recent report by the Department of Justice's inspector general is a 
very good example. It describes behavior having taken place in secret 
at the FBI that simply cannot be defended when having been brought to 
light.
  First, the inspector general's report identified unacceptable 
messages that were sent on FBI mobile devices and computer systems by 5 
of the 15 FBI employees on the Clinton email investigation. Those 
messages reeked with political bias. The report found that through such 
messages, these employees ``brought discredit to themselves, sowed 
doubt about the FBI's handling of the Midyear investigation, and 
impacted the reputation of the FBI.'' One message explicitly suggested 
a willingness to take official investigative steps for partisan reasons 
where there should be no partisanship. That message vowed to stop the 
election of Donald Trump.
  Can you imagine an FBI employee in an official capacity, on official 
devices, taking that approach and then claiming not to be biased?
  Because of that message, the IG was unable to conclude that the FBI's 
inaction on the Clinton email matter, for nearly a month prior to the 
election, was free from partisan bias.
  The IG referred to the Bureau all five employees who had expressed 
partisan bias in order for the FBI to consider potential disciplinary 
action. Those messages showed a bureau plagued by arrogance, disrespect 
for policy and norms, and disgust of democratic accountability.
  The report found that Director Comey's actions usurped the 
Department's authority. It called his decision of publicly announcing 
that Secretary Clinton would not be prosecuted as ``extraordinary'' and 
``insubordinate.'' Director Comey acted as if he were accountable to no 
one except himself.
  His subordinates also appeared content to ignore Bureau and 
Department policy and guidance--some, apparently, for their own 
personal interests.
  The inspector general also recently concluded that the FBI's former 
Deputy, Andrew McCabe, authorized the disclosure of information to a 
reporter. That information confirmed the existence of an ongoing 
investigation. The IG report faulted McCabe for violating longstanding 
Department and Bureau policy. There is a public interest exception to 
that policy, but the inspector general found that McCabe authorized the 
disclosure of the information to make himself, McCabe, look good. Now 
McCabe claims Comey knew about it, but the FBI will not release 
information that supposedly supports that claim.
  The FBI did little to nothing to address what now appears to be a 
culture of unauthorized contact with the media. Yet, somehow, every 
day, you read in the newspapers of the FBI's stiff-arming congressional 
oversight at every turn. Going to the newspapers is OK. When Congress 
wants the same information, no.

[[Page S4930]]

  On the one hand, for example, the FBI stonewalls legitimate requests 
from the people's elected representatives, whom they ``hate,'' in the 
words of Agent Strzok. On the other hand, FBI employees are accepting 
meals, sports tickets, and golf outings from reporters.
  Now the Department and the FBI are refusing to comply with 
congressional subpoenas while lecturing Congress about the need to 
control access to sensitive information. While FBI agents are breaking 
the rules by talking to reporters left and right, the Bureau goes after 
legitimate whistleblowers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse, according 
to law.
  The level of hypocrisy is staggering. The Bureau was investigating 
Secretary Clinton for her use of private communications to transact 
public business, but the employees in the Bureau who were handling that 
very investigation, including the Director, did exactly the same thing. 
Of course, these employees were not exclusively using a private server 
that was highly vulnerable to outside attacks. There truly is a 
difference in the order of magnitude, but the FBI's employees' behavior 
could help explain their apparent lack of enthusiasm for investigating 
Clinton's clear alienation of the Federal records. After all, how could 
they accuse her of violating the Federal Records Act when it appears 
they may also have been violating the very same law?
  These are only some of the examples in the inspector general's latest 
report that we had a hearing on before my Judiciary Committee a couple 
of weeks ago.
  Former Director Comey said his people ``didn't give a rip about 
politics.'' We can see clearly now that that is just not true, at least 
not for five top individuals involved in this very high-profile, very 
important investigation. They now need to be held accountable for their 
actions. There is no place in the FBI for the kind of arrogance 
displayed in those text messages.
  There is no place in the FBI for the kind of political timing and 
calculations made by the former Director. His subordinates openly 
discussed the enormous pressure they were under to close the Clinton 
email investigation before the political conventions. That was 
completely improper. Decisions at the FBI need to be made on merit, not 
on a political calendar.
  The FBI needs to stay out of politics. It needs to submit to 
oversight. It needs to focus on doing its job to regain its reputation 
for objectivity. No one in this country is above the law. No one should 
be independent of accountability, especially not the FBI.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.