The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SUPPORT FOR THE FBI” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S2222-S2223 on March 13, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SUPPORT FOR THE FBI
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to voice support for FBI Director Louis Freeh, who has been subject to some criticism in a variety of quarters, including on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I do so as someone who is thoroughly familiar with the work of FBI Director Freeh and of his organization. I have worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for many, many years, going back to my days as an assistant district attorney of Philadelphia, when I prosecuted the Local 107 Teamsters and got the first conviction of teamsters resulting from the McClellan committee investigation. I worked with the FBI as an assistant counsel on the Warren Commission. I have seen a great deal of the FBI's work since being in the Senate and working as a member of the Judiciary Committee.
I think the FBI does a good job--not a perfect job, not a job without substantial problems, and not a job where, on some occasions, they don't make mistakes, but a good job. I have seen Director Freeh's work in some detail, specifically, on the oversight hearings that the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism conducted on Ruby Ridge, where I served as chairman.
Ruby Ridge was a national tragedy. Randy Weaver did some things he should not have done, but he didn't deserve the armada of law enforcement that descended on his mountain in Idaho. That was a sad story, because the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms unit had misrepresented Weaver's record. They said he had a prior record of convictions, which was false. They said he was a suspect in a bank robbery case, which was false. That brought the hostage rescue team from the FBI and the killing of a U.S. Marshal, William Deacon, the killing of Mrs. Randy Weaver and their son, Sam Weaver, age 14.
To the credit of FBI Director Freeh, he was willing to concede the errors. He changed the rules of engagement, he changed the FBI standards on use of deadly force, and he changed the use of the hostage rescue team. This was in stark contrast to what the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms did. They would not concede their errors. The Department of the Treasury, which managed Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, stood by their conduct, even though it was palpably wrong, as disclosed in the extensive hearings the subcommittee had over the course of 2 months, 16 hearings, and a long report in excess of 150 pages.
I have seen what Director Freeh has done in combating domestic violence in the Oklahoma City bombing, and I have seen what the FBI has done in the Unabomber case. Where the FBI has made mistakes, Director Freeh has come forward and conceded that. Where there was unwarranted publicity on the Atlanta Olympics pipe bomb case, for example, when someone unfairly leaked information, Director Freeh conceded that a mistake was made.
While I applaud his concessions on the unfair publicity, I have problems with our inability to properly conduct oversight on that Atlanta pipe bombing case. We have not been able to move that ahead. So that when I evaluate Director Freeh, I do so in the context of someone who sees problems and has been critical, as well as someone who praises the Bureau's overall performance.
Director Freeh has been criticized on the so-called VANPAC case, which involved the murder of a Federal judge and a civil rights leader. Director Freeh prosecuted this case--he has had a very remarkable career as an assistant U.S. Attorney, a Federal judge, and he left the Federal bench to become Director of the FBI. He was recently criticized because there were alleged errors made by the FBI laboratory in connection with the VANPAC case. The FBI laboratory has admittedly had serious problems. That was one of the aspects that was investigated by the Senate subcommittee on Ruby Ridge, because there were problems with their work there, as well.
As the prosecuting attorney in that criminal prosecution, Director Freeh relied on evidence from the FBI laboratory, some of which may have been faulty. But when Director Freeh found out that that was an area of concern in September of 1995, he recused himself from the investigation of the FBI laboratory. That means he took himself out of the case and did not pass judgment on it.
The inspector general, who is about as independent as you can be within the Federal branch--has been looking into the FBI laboratory. We have these inspector generals in a variety of departments. My legislation brought the inspector general to the CIA, the only reform legislation coming out of the Iran-Contra affair. Inspectors general are not perfect because it is hard to be totally independent. But to the extent you can have independence, the IGs are independent. They report directly to Congress. They are as good a mechanism as you can have for that sort of an investigation, unless you have congressional oversight. There ought to be more of that.
But, at any rate, Director Freeh did what was possible by recusing himself and referring the matter to the inspector general, who brought in five independent scientists. He has been out of the case, and he is prepared to make whatever changes are necessary within the FBI laboratory.
The FBI is currently conducting a very sensitive investigation on campaign irregularities, which may go to the highest levels of Government. Not a great deal can be said about that investigation at this time. But from what I have observed Director Freeh has been independent, has been forthright, and has done his job in a professional way. In that kind of an investigation there are inevitable pressures, either express or implicit. I have some familiarity with what the Bureau is doing and what the Director is doing. I have confidence in him. I do so with some understanding of investigative work on grand juries and criminal matters and the kind of sensitivity which is involved. There are matters on which I consult with him with some frequency in terms of oversight.
As of this moment, I am not yet satisfied with what has been done on Ruby Ridge. The Department of Justice has conducted an investigation on a number of the FBI agents, one of whom was the former Deputy Director, Larry Potts. It may well be as I said, in those hearings, that Director Freeh did not exercise the best judgment with respect to Deputy Director Potts. But at the same time I have said publicly that Deputy Director Potts and others are entitled to have the matter resolved, and that the Department of Justice has been investigating that since the fall of 1995--some 18-month lapse--which is unwarranted. I know that case thoroughly because of the hearings we had. I know investigative practice. That matter should have been concluded. That is not a matter under Director Freeh's purview. It is in the Department of Justice.
I recently wrote to the Attorney General complaining about the delays and got an unresponsive response saying that the investigation will take several more months due to the complicated nature of this matter. It is not all that complicated. We have the Atlanta pipe bomber case where I have been trying to get an oversight hearing since October-
November. I am not delighted with what the FBI has done on that in terms of not being as responsive as I think they might be. They have internal investigations which are really very difficult and which delay congressional oversight. But overall my view is that Director Freeh has done a good job. And when you pick up some of these matters on the FBI laboratory, I think he has provided appropriate management and appropriate oversight.
Mr. President, I think my time has probably lapsed. But in the absence of any other Senator on the floor, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes to proceed as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
____________________
