STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY
UNITED STATES SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
"OVERSIGHT OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT"
APRIL 5, 2005
Mr.
Chairman, thank you for scheduling this oversight hearing on the
PATRIOT Act. As you may know, I have resisted efforts to make changes
to the Act before it was ripe for review. Now is that time, and I'm
glad we have this opportunity to discuss how effective the Act has been
and if provisions of the Act need to be modified. It would also be
appropriate to discuss any proposed expansion of the Act.
I
appreciate Attorney General Gonzales and Director Mueller making
themselves available to answer our questions. With sixteen provisions
of the PATRIOT Act sunsetting at the end of the year, it is fitting
that the AG and FBI Director explain how these provisions have been
helpful in the war against terror.
In 2001, I supported the
PATRIOT Act, because I believed it provided the right balance between
assisting our law enforcement agencies with the means to combat terror
while also protecting the civil liberties that we Americans hold so
dear. The Act struck this important balance, giving federal authorities
more effective tools to fight terrorism. The Attorney General said it
well in a speech before the National Association of Counties, "without
security, government cannot deliver, nor can the people enjoy, the
prosperity and opportunities that flow from freedom and democracy."
Now
that it is time to consider renewing the provisions of the Act that are
about to sunset, we should remember that the Act has been instrumental
in helping Federal authorities thwart terrorist activities since
September 11, 2001. The Act has been critical to our war on terror
because it made two fundamental changes to the way we do business.
First, the Act tore down the wall that prevented federal law
enforcement and the intelligence community from sharing information
regarding terrorists. The 9/11 Commission highlighted the ill advised
nature of a system where communications between agents conducting
intelligence investigations and the criminal prosecution units at the
Department of Justice were prevented.
The second change was
updating the surveillance tools used by federal investigators in
terrorism cases. We must remember that the surveillance statutes
updated by the PATRIOT Act had been enacted decades ago when the rotary
telephone was the primary communications technology. In some
traditional criminal areas, the federal courts had sanctioned the use
of new surveillance tools. In fact, many of the tools addressed in the
PATRIOT Act have been in use for years in drug trafficking, child
pornography, and white collar fraud cases. It made no sense that
federal law enforcement investigators would be able to use these tools
in those criminal cases, but not in the war against terror. The PATRIOT
Act changed this, giving federal investigators tools appropriate for
the 21st century. These two changes have resulted in a more secure
America, so we should think long and hard before we decide not to renew
them.
In the three and a half years since the PATRIOT Act was
enacted, there have been numerous terrorism-related prosecutions
resulting in convictions. Virtually all of the actions taken by the
Federal government under the PATRIOT Act have been reviewed by
independent Federal judges with no provision in the Act being
successfully challenged in federal court.
Frankly, any
discussion of renewing the PATRIOT Act's surveillance provisions must
of necessity include talking about oversight of the Act. Where the
Congress has expanded the government's authorities to conduct
surveillance, it is inherent that the Congress makes sure that the
government has not misused that authority. So it is my position that
any bill regarding the PATRIOT Act include adequate oversight and
reporting measures. Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy, and I introduced a
bill last Congress, the "Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act," to allow
Congress and the public to better monitor the terrorism investigations
of federal agencies. This was an important piece of legislation that
should be added to any bill to renew and/or revise the PATRIOT Act.
Additionally,
I am particularly proud of two legislative initiatives which I
co-authored that were a part of the PATRIOT Act. Those legislative
efforts helped law enforcement officials identify and detect the
transfer of illicit funds by international criminals through the
banking system. These provisions have helped to shut off the spigot
that allows tainted money to flow through the U.S. banking system and
finance terrorist activities in the United States and around the world.
As the Senate considers renewal of the PATRIOT Act, I will be taking
the opportunity to also discuss my Combating Terrorist Financing and
Money Laundering bill. Although the Committee was unable to consider my
bill during last Congress, I hope that it will be enacted this year.
Further,
I am concerned about the working relationship between the FBI and other
law enforcement agencies on terrorists financing investigations. In
early 2003, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had just begun
operation, Secretary Ridge and Attorney General Ashcroft signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which terminated Operation Green Quest
and transferred lead responsibility and control of all terrorist
financing investigations to the FBI. Operation Green Quest began
shortly after the 9/11 attacks and was transferred from the Customs
Service to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when DHS was
created. By all accounts, it was a major success, yielding 38 arrests,
26 indictments, and the seizure of $6.8 million in terrorist assets in
its first nine months of existence. Yet, the FBI succeeded in killing
the program and ensuring that no similar initiative could be started by
ICE in the future.
The MOA represented a significant victory
for the FBI in the turf battle surrounding the creation of DHS. In
theory, the MOA is supposed to preserve "the significant expertise and
capabilities of ICE" in terrorist financing investigations. However, I
understand that the way this MOA is being implemented and enforced has
created a disincentive in the field for ICE agents to focus their
efforts on investigations related to terrorist financing. I know of at
least one instance, for example, where ICE spent significant resources
pursuing an investigation and coordinating with the FBI every step of
the way, only to have FBI headquarters use the MOA to step-in at the
last minute, demand control of the investigation, and unnecessarily
delay a critical wiretap request. This delay may well have prevented
the collection of vitally important information related to terrorist
financing, and for what purpose? So, that the FBI can protect its turf?
I have also heard that this is not an isolated incident, that
there may be other cases involving similar turf problems. Congress
needs to take a hard look at this MOA and the way the FBI is enforcing
it. Is it necessary to ensure a unified approach to terrorist financing
investigations? Or does it simply serve to protect the interest of the
FBI in expanding its own jurisdiction? As Chair of the Finance
Committee, I am particularly interested in making sure that the
elements of the Treasury Department, ICE, and the FBI are all working
together smoothly to stop terrorist financing activity, not battling
each other for jurisdiction. Therefore, I intend to inquire about some
of these cases in the coming weeks. I hope that Attorney General
Gonzales and Director Mueller will welcome an honest look at these
questions and cooperate fully with requests for information on these
issues.
Mr. Chairman, I once again want to thank you for
holding today's hearing, and of course I want to express my gratitude
to the Attorney General and Director Mueller for their willingness to
answer our questions today.
|
