MAY 16, 1990

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530

The Solicitor General has reported to the Attorney General the results of the Solicitor General's review of the Representative Gray matter. The Solicitor General concluded that the investigation conducted by the Department's Criminal Division was thorough and complete, and that no further investigation is warranted. The Solicitor General agreed with the Criminal Division that the investigation uncovered no basis for criminal prosecution. That investigation found, and the Solicitor General agreed, that there is no evidence that any official of Main Justice or any United States Attorney's office was the source of the original unauthorized disclosure. That investigation also found, and the Solicitor General agreed, that there is no evidence that any person at Main Justice or any United States Attorney's office played any role in confirming the Rita Braver story, other than that by the Department's press spokesman, which was previously described by the Attorney General.

While several individuals experienced difficulties on some aspects of their polygraph examinations, the Criminal Division found, and the Solicitor General agreed, that there was no evidence that any person at Main Justice or any United States Attorney's office served as the original or confirming source of the Rita Braver story, other than as previously described by the Attorney General. The Solicitor General did not recommend that any disciplinary action be taken against any Department of Justice official, and concluded that it was appropriately within the discretion of the Attorney General to determine that no disciplinary action of any Department official is warranted. Solicitor General did identify certain concerns of an administrative nature, and reported those concerns to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has taken corrective actions, including procedural changes, in response to those concerns, and the Solicitor General has concluded that the matter may appropriately be closed.

The

After the Solicitor General met with the Attorney General, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General met with the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and the ranking minority member from each of these committees, and reported the findings of the Solicitor General.

STATEMENT FROM THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR GRASSLEY

Q: Mr. Attorney General, you have stated that the Department of Energy's interim report on last December's LP gas shortage indicated the sharp increase in demand for a limited supply of the product caused the fuel crisis. There is no question that

increased demand exacerbated the problem. However, the question that needs to be addressed is why these fuel supplies were in stock at an already unusually low level when we were well into the winter

season.

a. Is the Department looking into why propane gas stocks were unusually low even before the severe weather caused an abnormal increase in demand?

b. Is the Antitrust Division looking into whether there was any orchestrated effort that resulted in the unusually low stocks of propane gas that helped precipitate the crisis?

A:

The Department is looking into a variety of issues surrounding the rapid price increases for propane and heating oil last December, including inventory levels. The Antitrust Division is looking into whether there is any indication that collusion may have played any part, whether by lowering inventory levels or otherwise, in the fuel price increases including propane prices

Q: You stated that the Department was conducting an "inquiry" into the problem.

a.

How does the ongoing inquiry differ from a regular investigation?

b. What is the methodology being used to conduct the inquiry? Have any witnesses or documents been subpoenaed? If not, how can any dispositive evidence be obtained given that most of the necessary information is not readily available to the public or even to Congress?

A: The Department has initiated a standard antitrust investigation to determine whether there is any indication that collusion may have played a part in the fuel price increases observed last December. Information is being reviewed from a variety of sources, both public and non-public, in analyzing the factors that led to the December fuel price increases. The Department will employ whatever other investigative tools are necessary to complete its analysis.

It should be noted that the need to employ compulsory process, whether criminal or civil, varies from investigation to investigation depending upon the nature of the conduct under investigation and upon the availability to the Department of information and data from public and private sources. The goal of the Department's inquiry is to determine, based on public and nonpublic sources of information, whether there is reason to believe

Q:

The Information Security Oversight Office's annual report for 1989 detailed a 35% decrease in government decisions to classify information. During that same time period, the Justice Department increased original classification decisions by 43%. What accounts for this increase?

I recognize that some of your investigations involve classified information, but that is also true for the state Department and the CIA -- both of which decreased the number of original classifications last year. How would you explain that difference?

A: The Department of Justice (primarily FBI) original classification decisions in Fiscal Year (FY) 1989 jumped by 438 compared to the 1988 Information Security Oversight office Report due to a more accurate counting system.

The main reason for the FBI increase in original classification decisions in FY 1989 is due to the implementation in FY 1989 of an automated system which accurately counts the classification decisions made on FBI documents. Previously, original classification decisions were ascertained each FY by the FBI through a weekly survey of each field office and Headquarters Division and the results of the survey were projected for an annual figure.

In addition to the automated counting of classification decisions, the FBI's increased involvement in international terrorism and drug investigations has also contributed to this significant rise in original classification decisions.

A: Yes. Solicitor General Starr and I had a meeting on the matter with Senators Biden and Thurmond, and Congressmen Brooks and Fish on May 16, 1990. Later that day a statement was released to the press concerning the results of the review. It is attached for your convenience.

Q: Since late November of 1989, I have written three letters to Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner McNary, asking him to advise me of the status of agency reorganization plans as they would affect the INS Eastern Region, based in Burlington, Vermont. In recent weeks, I have heard from several employees of the Eastern Region that reorganization plans are very advanced, and that the plans will have a significant impact on the character and size of the Burlington-based operation.

I recognize the demands that the southern border places on INS resources. However, I do not want to see the northern border's necessary share of these resources drained away under the guise of "reorganization."

What is the status of reorganization plans for the Eastern Region? Will any operations be transferred from there to the central or other regional offices? How many full-time positions will be eliminated in the Eastern Region? Does reorganization of the Eastern Region means that resources will be shifted away from northern border facilities of the INS to those on the southern border?

One of my concerns is the status of the Regional Adjudications Center in St. Albans, VT. A new facility has been planned there for several years. Construction work on this project began in March of this year. Will this facility be completed according to plans, and will the facility be staffed adequately?

Finally, consistent with requests I made in two of my three letters (dated January 8 and April 26), I would appreciate the INS briefing my staff on the subject of Eastern Region reorganization. Would you facilitate such a briefing?

A: This is in response to your letter of April 26, 1990 and to the meeting of May 24, with members of your staff, John Romano and Jill Friedman. At that time, members of my staff had the opportunity to discuss concerns of a possible reorganization of the Eastern Regional Office in Burlington, Vermont.

The Service is still in the process of evaluating possible Servicewide reorganization. As you know, I was given a clear mandate from Congress at my confirmation hearings that the Service was badly managed and in dire need of reorganization and centralization of operations. While I take that mandate and commitment most seriously, I can assure you that we have not, at this time, made any decisions regarding reorganization in any region.