The resolution that Senator Specter seeks this Committee to authorize today would authorize the Chairman, in consultation with me, to issue at least thirty-eight subpoenas to at least twenty-eight individuals for their testimony and to the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Department of State with sweeping document demands. I cannot support this resolution because it is unnecessary, over-broad and, in some cases, irresponsible.

While issuing subpoenas for the testimony of twenty-eight persons, including a federal judge, present and former government prosecutors, FBI agents, and a convicted defendant, may make good fodder for news reports, we question the necessity for these subpoenas since none of the individuals named in the subpoena resolution have to our knowledge refused to appear voluntarily. Indeed, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense has voluntarily made a number of individuals available already. One of the other people, Dr. Richard Twogood, is here right now in the hearing room, more than willing to make himself available to speak to this Committee. Until a person with relevant and material evidence refuses to testify or to be interviewed, this resolution approving the issuance of subpoena to that person is entirely unnecessary.

Furthermore, this resolution calls for the issuance of subpoenas to at least twelve individuals involved in the FBI’s siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. We have been given no assurances about whether any interviews and testimony for these Waco witnesses have been coordinated with Special Counsel John Danforth. We have already received two letters, dated September 17 and 21, 1999, from Special Counsel Danforth, shortly after he had been appointed and charged with the responsibility of investigating the Waco matter, expressing his dismay over the fact that a staff member from Senator Specter’s office had traveled to Waco and was investigating and interviewing witnesses. This staff member had also asked two witnesses to travel to Washington to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Danforth indicated that “it does undermine the work of the Special Counsel when Judiciary Committee personnel attempt to conduct interviews without any coordination with this office.” We should avoid repeating the missteps that occurred at the outset of Senator Specter’s efforts to investigate anew the incidents at Waco.

At least nine of the individuals to be subpoenaed are line prosecutors. There are serious policy issues and concerns at stake with issuing subpoenas to line prosecutors. I share the concerns that Senator Hatch has articulated on other occasions. Subjecting line prosecutors to be subpoenaed to come before a congressional committee or subcommittee to testify about the decisions they have made to prosecute or not to prosecute carries the real threat of chilling the candid exchange of information and exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and would tend to politicize prosecutorial decision-making. At a minimum, demanding that a line prosecutor come before us to explain why a particular person was or was not charged or was charged with a more or less serious crime gives the appearance that we are attempting to influence the outcome of prosecutions. Such interference, or perceived interference, could result in a decreased public confidence in the fairness, and non-political nature, of our criminal justice system. This is wrong. I strongly object to this resolution calling for the issuance of subpoenas to line prosecutors.

That is not all. This resolution also calls for the issuance of a subpoena to a sitting federal judge in the Central District of California. As Members of this Committee, we should demand that substantial grounds be demonstrated to us of the need for the testimony and inability to obtain the information anywhere else, before we demand that a federal judge leave her courtroom to travel across the country to testify about matters she worked on in a previous job as a prosecutor. I have heard no effort to establish such substantial grounds, and strongly object to this resolution authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to the judge.

Yet another person targeted to receive a subpoena is an FBI agent, who is a defendant in the civil case in Texas involving the FBI’s siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. This individual has testified before this Committee during the Ruby Ridge hearings and asserted the Fifth Amendment. Does this resolution contemplate sending this FBI agent a subpoena simply to force him to assert the Fifth Amendment again?

The sponsor of this resolution has provided no assurances with respect to any of these substantial concerns. Due to these concerns, the complete substitute amendment I offer would not authorize the issuance of any subpoenas for testimony to any persons.

The resolution also calls for sweeping subpoenas for “any and all documents” relating to a number of persons and investigations. These document demands are overly broad and repetitive of ones called for by the October 14, 1999 resolution approved by this Committee. I have a list of all the documents that the Justice Department has already and is continuing to produce to us in connection with that prior resolution, and I would like to make it a part of the record. It is an impressive list, and the Department continues to work with our staffs to figure out how to respond to document requests.

The substitute resolution I offer eliminates the subpoenas for people; eliminates requests duplicative of those in the prior resolution; and reduces the number of proposed subpoenas to seven.

We should take care to request only those documents necessary to conduct legitimate oversight. We must realize that responding to broad document requests diverts law enforcement resources from case work and criminal investigations. At present, the FBI’s Civil Discovery Review Unit, which usually handles document requests, is tied up responding to Waco document requests from Congress, the court and Special Counsel Danforth. This leaves senior agents from the National Security Division to handle all the other document requests that we have already made and are making.

I understand from the FBI that in response to this Committee’s Oct. 14th resolution, the FBI’s National Security Division has spent an estimated thirty-plus work days trying to respond to requests for documents related to the Peter Lee case alone. That does not even count the significant amount of time spent by the Director’s Office, the Congressional Affairs office or the General Counsel’s office at the FBI. Nor does this estimate count the amount of time spent on responding to demands for documents relating to other Chinese espionage cases and investigations, the Wen Ho Lee matter, the campaign finance investigations and prosecutions and other requests. We have been told by the FBI that the document requests are already “having a detrimental effect on case development and operations.”

At a time when we are facing such potential concerns as the crash of EgyptAir flight 990, we should act responsibly when we ask that law enforcement resources be diverted to respond to our inquiries.

We should be mindful that our responsibility is oversight. This Committee cannot undo plea agreements. This Committee cannot bring criminal charges against or prosecute wrongdoers. To the extent these document requests are designed to allow us to review the way in which the Department of Justice and FBI exchange and use intelligence and other information, we should not forget that as a result of its own recent review, the FBI has restructured itself internally and created two new divisions: the Investigative Services Division and the Counter-terrorism Division. I am interested in hearing about this new structure, as an appropriate starting point, and how the Department of Justice and the FBI believes this restructuring will work better.

A majority of the Democrats on this Committee have sent the Chairman a letter further explaining our concerns, with respect to the scope, the timing and the cost of the proposed investigations. I ask that a copy of that letter be made part of the record. As set forth in that letter, we believe these basic concerns should be addressed before any wide-ranging, overly broad authorization for subpoenas is issued.