[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13739-13741]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2001

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, I ask what the pending business is 
in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, up to 15 minutes is 
allotted to the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that the managers of the 
pending bill graciously agreed to include one of two of the amendments 
I had proposed to offer in the managers' package that will be adopted 
later today. I extend my thanks to Senator Biden and Senator Helms.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is true; we 
have accepted it. It is a very good amendment and we are delighted to 
do that.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Let me briefly describe 
what that amendment is, and then I am also going to propose a second 
amendment, which, again, the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member are familiar with. My intent is not to force a vote on that 
amendment but to raise the issue included in the amendment. The 
amendment that will be adopted later today would direct the Office of 
the Inspector General of the Department of State ``to make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that each person named in a report of 
investigation by that office be afforded an opportunity to refute 
allegations or assertions that may be contained in such report about 
him or her.''
  In the interest of accuracy and thoroughness, the amendment would 
also require the inspector general to include exculpatory information 
about an individual that is discovered in the course of the 
investigation to be included in the final report produced by the 
inspector general.
  I am not going to take a great deal of the Senate's time on the 
specific details of this amendment because I know the managers very 
much wish to complete action on this bill. But it seems what I have 
said about this amendment is common sense. One would assume that what I 
have said would be the case already. If allegations involving a 
criminal matter would be raised about any citizen of this country, 
under due process that citizen would have the right to know about those 
allegations and an opportunity to respond to those allegations, and any 
exculpatory information would be included in the determination of 
whether or not to go forward. We would assume that to be the case.
  Candidly, I must tell you, when investigations are done by the 
inspector general at the State Department--and, regrettably, other 
agencies--that is not the case. So this amendment on this bill is 
designed to correct the problem at the State Department. It doesn't go 
any further than that.
  I want to thank Senator Helms and Senator Biden for their assistance 
with this amendment and mention, in particular, that Senator Helms and 
I will be including a colloquy for the Record that clarifies technical 
matters with respect to the intent and scope of this amendment. I have 
proposed this amendment because I truly believe that it will improve 
the functioning and work product of the Office of the Inspector General 
in carrying out her investigations.
  I also have another motive as well. It is a matter of fundamental 
fairness, in my view.
  Many of the investigations that the IG deals with in the course of 
her duties would be improved, in my view, were the individuals involved 
given an opportunity to comment about the information developed in the 
course of the investigation as it relates to those individuals. Sadly, 
this is not the general practice of the inspector general, although it 
does happen in some cases at the discretion of the inspector general. 
In most cases, a report gets finalized from the inspector general, and 
the individual never gets a chance to correct what may be factual 
inaccuracies before a decision is taken to refer the matter to the 
Justice Department, or to the Director General of the State Department 
for possible criminal prosecution or for disciplinary action.
  I think it is only fair to allow an individual to be provided that 
information prior to some disciplinary action being recommended, 
because, frankly, even though there is a grievance process, there is a 
tendency in the Congress to assume that the inspector general has 
accurately stated the case and the individual's promotion prospects are 
put into jeopardy.
  The chairman and ranking member know that I propose this amendment in 
part because I know firsthand that had the inspector general checked 
out some of the information her investigators erroneously included in 
one of their reports related to this Senator, that information would 
never have been part of the report.
  In fact, I ask unanimous consent at this point to have printed in the 
Record some correspondence between myself and the inspector general.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 6, 1996.
     Hon. Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers,
     Inspector General, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers: I am writing to you with 
     respect to a report produced by your office late last year 
     concerning an investigation conducted about matters related 
     to the U.S. Embassy in Dublin and the U.S. Ambassador Jean 
     Kennedy Smith--``Special Inquiry, Embassy Dublin, Republic of 
     Ireland, Jean Kennedy Smith, Ambassador, Dennis A. Sandberg, 
     Deputy Chief of Mission, December 29, 1995.''
       I am shocked and angered by the cavalier manner in which 
     your office saw fit to include my name in this report eight 
     times, purporting to represent my conversations, comments or 
     intentions with respect to individuals employed at the U.S. 
     Embassy in Dublin, without ever making any effort to contact 
     me or my office for comment. Had you done so, I would have 
     told you in the strongest terms that there was absolutely no 
     truth to the suggestion made in the report that I took or 
     sought to take retribution against individuals in the Embassy 
     because of some policy or personality differences that they 
     may have with Ambassador Smith.
       I am certain anyone who reads this report will be shocked 
     to discover that never once was I contacted by your 
     ``investigators.'' It would seem to me that a very basic 
     element of any credible and professional investigation is 
     that anyone who might be able to be shed light on the matter 
     under investigation be contacted, particularly when you 
     intend to include that individual's name in the final report. 
     I wonder how many other individuals whose names are mentioned 
     in this report were never contacted or interviewed by your 
     office? Frankly, the clear misrepresentations contained in 
     the report as it relates to me seriously call into question 
     the quality and integrity of the report in its entirety.
       I believe that simple fairness and professionalism dictate 
     that I receive an apology from your office for such 
     unprofessional behavior.
           Sincerely yours,
                                              Christopher J. Dodd,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                              Department of State,


                                        The Inspector General,

                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 1996.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: I am writing in response to your letter 
     of March 6, 1996, and as

[[Page 13740]]

     a followup to our telephone conversation last night 
     concerning our December 29, 1995, Special Inquiry of Embassy 
     Dublin.
       Let me begin by stating emphatically that this office is in 
     possession of no information whatever which would suggest 
     that you ``took or sought to take retribution against 
     individuals in the Embassy because of some policy or 
     personality differences they may have had with Ambassador 
     Smith.'' Our intention in the Dublin report was merely to 
     convey the fear that was engendered in the minds of career 
     employees by the clear misuse of your name and position by an 
     individual who purported to speak for the Ambassador. Indeed, 
     while Ambassador Smith confirmed that she told you about the 
     dissent cable, she emphatically denied that she provided you 
     or anyone else with the names of the dissenters. We have no 
     reason to believe that she did. Moreover, Ambassador Smith 
     herself never suggested to us that you made the critical 
     comments attributed to you by her assistant and, again, we 
     have no reason to believe that you did. Because we believed 
     that your name and title was bandied about without your 
     knowledge or authorization in what amounted to a brazen fear 
     campaign, we never attempted to interview you concerning the 
     matter. That was a clear mistake on our part.
       In retrospect, at a minimum, we should have made it 
     absolutely clear in our report that we had no reason to 
     believe the assertions made about you, either with respect to 
     your purported reaction upon being told of the conduct of the 
     Dublin dissenter or with regard to your alleged intention to 
     personally discuss the matter with the affected employees. 
     While we repeatedly used modifiers such as ``reportedly'' 
     when discussing anything relating to what you were alleged to 
     have said, I now realize that we should have provided you 
     with an opportunity to comment. The Boston Herald article of 
     March 5, 1996, clearly demonstrated how mischief could be 
     made of your name in this matter. I apologize for not being 
     more sensitive to how our language could be misconstrued. I 
     intend to use this error constructively to ensure that such a 
     problem does not recur.
       The Privacy Act compels us in the normal circumstances to 
     redact names, titles, and identifying information from 
     sensitive reports prior to their public release. Had this 
     report been requested through the Freedom of Information Act 
     or the Privacy Act, we most certainly would have redacted 
     your name and title from the report. We are required, 
     however, to provide, unredacted reports to relevant oversight 
     committees at the Chairman's request.
       In accordance with the mandate of the Inspector General Act 
     to keep the Congress fully informed of matters within its 
     jurisdiction, I provided, upon request, copies of the 
     unredacted Dublin Special Inquiry to the Senate Foreign 
     Relations Committee on Wednesday, February 28, 1996. My 
     transmittal letter reiterated that this report had not been 
     reviewed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act or 
     the Privacy Act for release to the public and that any 
     improper release of information from this report would 
     seriously undermine my statutory responsibilities in the 
     Department.
       While I am certain that this is of little consolation to 
     you, I firmly believe that the reason we did not attempt to 
     interview you is that we felt that you had done nothing 
     wrong. I recognize that our subjective judgment in that 
     regard is not necessarily clear from an objective reading of 
     the report. Again, for that I apologize.
           Sincerely,
                                   Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was never asked about the allegations, nor 
apparently was anyone else in this report conducted by the inspector 
general. The report alleged that I had tried to punish or to harm in 
some way two State Department employees for using the dissent channel 
by blocking their promotions internally. When I questioned the IG about 
the matter, she admitted that her investigators had not done a very 
professional job. There was not a shred of evidence within the 
Department to indicate that I had done anything with regard to this 
matter. I didn't even know who these people were, nor did anyone on my 
staff.
  Had I been given access to those portions of the report as they 
related to me, I think this mistake would have been caught and it would 
never have been included in the final report. The inspector general did 
subsequently apologize to me both personally and in writing. I am 
grateful to her for that; however, I am not sure that ordinary Foreign 
Service officers or political appointees would have been given similar 
treatment, and the damage to their careers and reputations would have 
already occurred in any event.
  That is why I believe this amendment is very important. I thank again 
Senator Helms and Senator Biden and their staffs for helping put this 
matter together. This way it would at least allow for people who are 
charged with these matters to have an opportunity to respond, to know 
what they are being charged with so that corrections can be made.
  Again, I emphasize that if you are not a well-known individual, you 
might not get the kind of apology and the corrections that I think 
ought to be made. That is why I believe this amendment is important.
  Let me turn, if I can, to a second amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment 
before he turns to the second amendment, I can't emphasize how 
important I think the change is that the Senator suggests and the 
enthusiasm with which we accept the amendment.
  I happen to like the Senator's second amendment that he is going to 
withdraw. I hope that will happen in the remainder of this year. If we 
can't get it done this year, I hope we can next year. I hope the 
committee will take a look at the entire functioning of the inspector 
general's office. Quite frankly, a similar thing came up in my other 
committee, the Judiciary Committee.
  Quite frankly, I think we initiated reforms that were needed a decade 
or more ago to provide for these inspector generals, and they are 
throughout the Government, which is a good thing. It is not a bad 
thing. But what we haven't done, in my opinion, is we haven't given the 
same kind of scrutiny and oversight into how the offices function as we 
have, for example, the Attorney General's office, or the overall 
functioning of the State Department.
  I hope this is the beginning of not any kind of witch hunt but just a 
serious, thoughtful oversight about whether or not the inspector 
general's authority puts it in a position where it has sort of 
incrementally involved itself in a way that the rights of individuals 
who are being looked at or who are caught up in a net are, quite 
frankly, not treated the way we would expect, for example, the U.S. 
Attorney's Office to proceed.
  I thank the Senator. As I said, I like the second amendment which he 
is going to be withdrawing. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity, 
with his leadership, to revisit that on another piece of legislation, 
or on the floor independently.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 690

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 690.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 690.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section--

     SEC.   . TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS 
                   FROM STATE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL TO 
                   DIPLOMATIC SECURITY SERVICE.

       (a) Section 37(a)(1) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2709(a)(1)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) conduct investigations--
       ``(A) concerning illegal passport or visa issuance or use; 
     and
       ``(B) concerning potential violations of Federal criminal 
     law by employees of the Department of State or the 
     Broadcasting Board of Governors.''
       (b) Section 209(c)(3) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 
     (22 U.S.C. 3929(c)(3) is amended by adding the following--
       ``In such cases, the Inspector General shall immediately 
     notify the Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, who, 
     unless otherwise directed by the Attorney General, shall 
     assume the responsibility for the investigation.''
       (b) The amendment made by this section shall take effect 
     October 1, 2000.
       (c) Not later than February 1, 2000, the Secretary of State 
     and the State Department Inspector General shall report to 
     the appropriate congressional committees on--
       (1) the budget transfer required from the Inspector General 
     to the Diplomatic Security Service to carry out the 
     provisions of this section;
       (2) other budgetary resources necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section;
       (3) any other matters relevant to the implementation of 
     this section.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment would transfer the authority 
for criminal investigations from

[[Page 13741]]

the State Department Office of Inspector General to the Office of 
Diplomatic Security in cases of passport fraud and to the Attorney 
General in cases of other potential criminal offenses.
  Let me say at the very outset that I realize this is a very 
controversial amendment. But I would like to take this opportunity to 
explain to my colleagues why I have decided to discuss this matter 
today.
  Based upon a number of inspector general investigations I have 
reviewed, I question whether the inspector general, who is not a 
lawyer, should be supervising criminal investigations at all. The 
original mission of the inspector general was to perform routine audits 
both to examine financial records and to review the operations of 
various programs.
  The inspector general also is charged with inspecting overseas 
diplomatic missions and domestic bureaus to ensure that the State 
Department is performing with maximum efficiency and using resources 
appropriately. Certainly the inspector general can, and should, 
continue to concentrate in these areas. But criminal investigations are 
far more complex and sensitive than routine audits and inspections.
  I think many of my colleagues would be surprised at the type and 
scope of investigations that the State Department inspector general 
undertakes, and, frankly, at the number of matters that get referred to 
the Justice Department for further action which the Justice Department 
declines to take up.
  The inspector general currently decides when and who to investigate. 
There are virtually no checks--none--on the office once it has 
commenced a criminal investigation.
  While the State Department inspector general's office is supposed to 
be a neutral finder of fact, experience shows that historically that 
office has acted in a highly adversarial manner trying to establish 
cases that can be referred to the Justice Department.
  I happen to believe, as an aside, that the inspector general's 
handling of matters relating to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke 
unnecessarily delayed the consideration of his nomination to the Senate 
and at additional taxpayer cost.
  Let me, however, commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee for the very thorough but expeditious manner in which he has 
guided the Foreign Relations Committee deliberations of that particular 
nomination.
  I would also like to call to the attention of the Members the final 
report of the independent counsel appointed to investigate the so-
called ``Clinton passport matter,'' which arose in the course of the 
1992 Presidential elections. Joseph diGenova, the independent counsel 
in that case, took the State Department Office of the Inspector General 
to task for the sloppiness and lack of professionalism with which it 
conducted the initial investigation of this matter. He concluded by 
saying that this matter should never have been referred for criminal 
prosecution, nor should an independent counsel have been appointed.
  It is not my intention to push this amendment to a final vote. I know 
the managers of the bill and the members of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee have some questions about this amendment as it is currently 
drafted. I respect their judgment tremendously. At the very least, 
however, I believe there is a need for an independent agency, the 
General Accounting Office, to take a long and hard and serious look at 
the practices of the inspector general's office with respect to 
criminal investigations and assess whether these offices are the 
appropriate places for criminal matters to be looked at.
  These offices were set up to conduct and perform certain valuable and 
important functions. In my view, as with so many other offices, once 
they get started they go off into areas they lack expertise in and 
conduct investigations which are questionable, at best. This has 
happened, with little or no checks and balances.
  Even under the independent counsel law, I point out, a person is 
entitled to know what they are charged with and given a chance to 
respond to the allegations raised. Under the Inspector General's 
investigations, a person is not given those rights.
  Fundamental due process would seem to insist everyone be given the 
opportunity to respond to charges leveled against them.
  I think this is a serious matter. I am hopeful the matter can be 
corrected without having to go through a legislative route. I think it 
can be done administratively. I urge the State Department, the 
Secretary of State, and others to make these corrections. If not, I 
will come back with this amendment next year. I will offer it in 
committee and I will offer it on the floor to legislatively deal with 
this issue.
  I am anxious to hear other thoughts and ideas on how to correct this 
problem. I take it seriously when the careers of individuals can be 
ruined and destroyed by opening up one of these investigations without 
providing that individual with an opportunity to respond to those 
charges.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment I offered a few 
moments ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________