[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6214-6215]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Marshals Service performs many 
important functions. Marshals protect Federal judges, they transport 
Federal

[[Page 6215]]

prisoners, and they apprehend fugitives. The marshals operate the 
Witness Security Program, and they manage the Asset Forfeiture Program. 
The work is vital and sometimes even dangerous.
  Given the important nature of the work, it is all the more essential 
that its leaders carry out their mission with integrity and openness. 
Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that there are serious questions 
about the leadership of the Marshals Service. The growing number of 
allegations brought to my office by whistleblowers is very alarming. It 
suggests there may be a pattern of mismanagement.
  In several letters to the Justice Department, I have asked about 
multiple personnel actions allegedly driven by favoritism rather than 
merit.
  The first example involves the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, 
Stacia Hylton. In September 2011, Director Hylton sent an email from 
her personal email address to Kimberly Beal. At the time, Beal was the 
Deputy Assistant Director of the Asset Forfeiture Division. The email 
included the resume of an applicant for a highly paid contractor 
position.
  Beal apparently went to unusual lengths to ensure that the applicant, 
who knew Director Hylton in college, was hired. Emails indicate that 
Ms. Beal inserted herself into the hiring process even though a 
contractor representative told her the applicant was unqualified. She 
directed subordinates to remain silent about the applicant's lack of 
qualifications. Ms. Beal traveled to Boston to interview the applicant 
in person. According to the whistleblower, she did not travel to 
interview other candidates for similar positions.
  After the contractor hired the applicant, Director Hylton placed Ms. 
Beal in the position of Acting Assistant Director of the Asset 
Forfeiture Division--a position she now holds permanently.
  In yet another example, an Assistant Director reportedly directed 
subordinates to offer a lucrative contract position to a person with 
whom she allegedly had a personal relationship. Gamesmanship of this 
sort undermines the confidence of dedicated Marshals Service employees 
in their leaders.
  I could go on and on with examples such as these that have been 
pouring into my office.
  Another problem area is the alleged mismanagement of the Assets 
Forfeiture Fund. The law requires that proceeds generated from asset 
sales be used to operate the Asset Forfeiture Program, compensate 
victims, and support law enforcement. Yet, it appears that some in 
leadership use the funds to feather their own nests. Money is spent on 
the ``best of the best'' in office furnishings and decorations instead 
of what is really needed to enhance law enforcement. In one example, 
the fund was used to purchase a $22,000 conference table. In another 
example, the fund was used to buy 57 square feet of top-of-the-line 
granite for the Asset Forfeiture Training Academy in Houston. The 
Marshals Service claims it cannot even figure out how much the granite 
cost. Whistleblowers say the official who approved it told the supplier 
that ``cost was not a factor.'' And that official has dismissed 
concerns about wasteful spending of asset forfeiture money on the 
grounds that it does not come from appropriated funds.
  That is not responsible leadership. All money collected through the 
power of government needs to be spent carefully. Every dollar wasted on 
unnecessary luxuries in Marshals Services offices is a dollar that 
cannot be used to support real law enforcement priorities as the law 
requires. The proceeds of asset forfeitures should not be a slush fund 
for the personal whims of unaccountable bureaucrats.
  How has the Justice Department responded to these allegations? When I 
asked the Department to explain the efforts to have Director Hylton's 
favorite candidate hired by a contractor, the Department told me that 
Director Hylton ``did not recommend'' the applicant ``for any 
position.'' And the words ``did not recommend for any position'' is a 
quote.
  The Marshals Service says it consulted with its Office of General 
Counsel before the Department sent its letter denying any improper 
hiring practices. That is disturbing because the Office of General 
Counsel has known about these allegations since December 2013. Still, 
the Justice Department told me that no one did anything wrong. Someone 
in the Marshals Service General Counsel's Office had an obligation to 
speak up before the Justice Department issued a false denial. They 
should have known better.
  About 3 weeks later, the Department retracted its earlier denial. In 
a second response, the Department attached additional evidence that, in 
its words, ``appears to be inconsistent with representations'' that it 
had previously made. That evidence was an email chain showing that 
then-Deputy Assistant Beal had, in fact, received the applicant's 
resume from Director Hylton's personal email address. She then 
forwarded it to other senior leadership, stating that the ``Director . 
. . highly recommends'' the applicant. That evidence directly 
contradicts the denial that the Department initially sent to the 
Judiciary Committee.
  You would think the Department would insist on an independent inquiry 
after being misled like that. Unfortunately, the Department is still 
allowing the Marshals Service to investigate itself. Justice Department 
headquarters is not doing its job when it fails to supervise components 
within DOJ. There needs to be better supervision and a truly 
independent inquiry to get to the bottom of these allegations.
  Finally, I recognize the courageous whistleblowers who are bringing 
these shortcomings to Congress's attention. As often happens, many of 
these whistleblowers have faced retaliation for just speaking up, just 
telling the truth, just helping Congress do its constitutional 
responsibilities. But they have been retaliated against, and even today 
they fear more retaliation will come. Multiple whistleblowers allege 
that senior leaders submit FOIA requests to seek information on 
employees who may have made protected disclosures. How sneaky. This is 
not the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act. Multiple 
whistleblowers also allege that since receiving my letters, managers 
within the U.S. Marshals Service have been on the hunt for the 
identities of those who have made protected disclosures to my office. 
This behavior is absolutely unacceptable and contrary to the intent of 
whistleblower protection legislation. Maybe instead of spending time 
targeting the people who are trying to bring wrongdoing to light, the 
marshals should focus on providing full and accurate answers to my 
questions.
  The work of the Marshals Service is vital. The men and women doing 
that work deserve not just our gratitude but our support as well. That 
support includes demanding responsible and accountable leadership from 
the Marshals Service.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________