[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11] [Senate] [Pages 16089-16090] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF THE FBI'S ACTIONS AT RUBY RIDGE Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the need to revisit an unfortunate chapter in the FBI's history: the investigation of the FBI's actions at Ruby Ridge. While there have been a number of internal investigations of the FBI's actions at Ruby Ridge, the most recent investigation, sponsored by the Justice Management Division of the Department of Justice, was completed in 1999. The results of this investigation have raised serious questions about the integrity of the previous joint investigation by the Department of Justice and the FBI, which was completed in 1993. Among these questions is whether FBI supervisors who headed that previous investigation were personal friends of some of the senior executives they were investigating. These questions, and many others, were raised in the testimony of four FBI Agents who appeared at a Judiciary Committee Hearing on FBI Oversight, chaired by Senator Leahy, last month. These exemplary Agents exposed the double standard that has existed in how rank and file FBI Agents are punished versus FBI Senior Officials. So, you might think that the Justice Management Division's report would have cleared this matter up. Well, you'd be wrong. As a matter of fact, most of us didn't even realize the existence of this report until it was brought to light by the testimony of these Agents. It was also then that we found that Justice Management sat on this report for two years before releasing it internally in January of this year. And, despite clear and convincing evidence of irregularities in how FBI officials have been punished in this matter, Justice Management division has ruled that no new discipline would be imposed against any FBI personnel. One of the FBI Agents testifying at the hearing described this decision as ``outrageous'' and ``alarming.'' Three weeks ago, I joined Chairman Leahy and Senator Specter in requesting documents relating to the Justice Management Division's report. While the Department of Justice was responsive in providing the requested materials, many of these documents were subject to protection under the privacy act and our staffs could only review them for a short period of time. Once again, Senator Specter and I have joined Chairman Leahy, along with Ranking Member Hatch, and Senator Kohl, to request that these documents be provided again, this time with appropriate redactions to comply with Privacy act concerns. I ask that this letter be made part of the Record. Less than twenty-four hours ago we confirmed the nomination of Robert Mueller to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Mueller stated, as their new Director, the FBI would be honest and forthright about mistakes. While, I understand that the mistakes of Ruby Ridge did not occur on Mr. Mueller's watch I truly believe that the FBI will never truly make a clean break with the past unless matters such as these are resolved. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, July 27, 2001. Hon. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear General Ashcroft: As you are aware, the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting oversight hearings on the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At our hearing last week, three present FBI agents and one former agent testified that there is a widespread perception among FBI agents that a ``double standard'' has been applied in FBI internal disciplinary decisions, with members of the FBI's senior executive service receiving far lighter punishment than line agents for similar infractions. As a case in point, the witnesses cited the various internal investigations that the FBI conducted into the 1992 incident at Ruby Ridge. A 1993 investigation conducted by a DOJ/FBI task force led to the imposition of discipline against 12 FBI employees in 1995. However, information that subsequently came to light has called into question the integrity of that internal investigation. It was alleged for example, that FBI supervisors who headed the internal investigation were personal friends of some of the senior executives they were investigating and that they failed to take basic investigative steps that would have uncovered significant new evidence on questions such as who had approved the FBI's rules of engagement during the Ruby Ridge siege. Based upon this new information, the Office of Professional Responsibility for the Department of Justice and a Task Force of the Justice Management Division recommended in 1999 that two FBI senior executives be suspended and that the FBI Director and one other FBI agent be censured. They also recommended that discipline imposed in 1995 on three FBI agents be rescinded because of procedural irregularities in their disciplinary proceedings as well as exculpatory evidence that had subsequently been developed. However, in January of 2001, the outgoing Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Management Division ruled that no new discipline would be imposed against any FBI agents and that no previously-imposed discipline would be rescinded. One of the agents at our hearing described this decision as ``outrageous'' and ``alarming.'' In order to evaluate these issues, we requested the production of documents relating to the Justice Management Division's disciplinary decision. The Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs provided our Committee with outstanding cooperation and managed to pull together the requested material in a short period of time. However, because the material contained information that was subject to protection under the Privacy Act, we agreed to return all of the material, with the exception of one document, at the conclusion of the hearing. We have requested, however, that the Office of Legislative Affairs provide us with copies of these documents with appropriate redactions to comply with Privacy Act concerns. Although our review of this material has necessarily been limited by time constraints, what we have seen thus far has confirmed that this material is relevant to the issues that our Committee is examining, including the Justice Management Division's January 2001 decision. It appears that the former Assistant Attorney General's decision was based entirely upon an April 17, 2000 memorandum by two Deputy Assistant Attorneys General. That memorandum contains some surprising conclusions. For example, the memorandum appears to conclude that the FBI's rules of engagement at Ruby Ridge were not contrary to any established Department of Justice policy. As you may know, the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, after conducting extensive hearings on the Ruby Ridge incident in 1995, concluded that the rules of engagement were clearly unconstitutional and contrary to the FBI's policy on the use of deadly force. Indeed, the illegality of the rules of engagement was conceded in testimony before the Subcommittee by former Deputy Attorney General Gorelick and former FBI Director Louis Freeh. Further, two FBI agents were disciplined in 1995 for their part in promulgating the rules of engagement, precisely because the rules were inconsistent with established FBI policy on the use of deadly force. It is therefore mystifying how anyone could still believe that the rules of engagement were lawful. The April 17 memorandum raises other troubling issues. For example, the authors concluded that no discipline was appropriate for senior FBI executives who conducted incomplete investigations into the Ruby Ridge matter because there was insufficient proof that their failures were the result of intentional misconduct. However, under the precedents employed by both the Department of Justice's and the FBI's OPR, intentional misconduct has, in our view, never been a prerequisite for imposing internal discipline; rather, it has been sufficient that an FBI employee acted in reckless disregard of an obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule of professional conduct, or Department regulation or policy. For example, according to other documents we have [[Page 16090]] reviewed, it appears that an FBI Inspector who prepared the Ruby Ridge shooting incident report in September 1992 was suspended for five days because Director Freeh found that his analysis of the justification for the shootings was incorrect and incomplete and because his report showed ``inattention to detail'' in referring, for example, to Vicki Weaver as ``Vicki Harris.'' It is difficult to square the suspension imposed on this lower-level FBI employee with the ruling of the Justice Management Division that no discipline may be imposed on senior FBI executives in the absence of proof of intentional misconduct. We, of course, understand that none of thee matters occurred under your watch. However, we believe that it is important for our Committee to review carefully how decisions on matters of internal discipline are made within the FBI. As we are sure you can appreciate, the poisonous perception that there is a double standard being applied threatens to undermine FBI morale as well as public confidence. We would therefore appreciate your providing us with appropriately- redacted copies of the documents previously produced to our Committee as soon as possible. In its report on Ruby Ridge filed in December of 1995, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information noted that allegations of a cover-up in Ruby Ridge were then under investigation by the Department of Justice, but that ``a full public airing of this matter must eventually be undertaken'' and that ``the Subcommittee will consider additional hearings to deal with the cover-up allegations.'' (p. 1124). We intend to pursue these matters within the Committee to ensure that Congress, and the public, are fully informed as to how the FBI handled these important investigations. Sincerely, Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Charles E. Grassley, Senator, Arlen Specter, Senator, Orrin G. Hatch, Ranking Republican Member, Herb Kohl, Senator. ____________________