◆ SpookStack

But just in my couple of years of being in Congress is it seemed lo me that the FBI, at the very top at least, was not interested in oversight and was set on intimidating anybody that really wanted to pursue that. I know we have one members of Congress, a former FBI agent, who had indicated to me that because many of us who are very familiar with many FBI agents, we've been hearing that this policy was causing the FBI to lose some of their best supervisors. The policy basically, as ] understand it: Once you've been a supervisor for five years, then you either have to move up to Washington or move out; that you can't be a supervisor; and that we've lost many of our best supervisors, which has put new, inexperienced people in supervisory capacities; and that this was something that Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent, a member of Congress, wanted to talk to someone about. And when he finally was able to gel somebody to agree in a supervisory position, he goes back to his office, and his whole office staffis out in the hall because the FBI's come over and done a sweep of his office that was really unnecessary and seemed to be more about intimidation. GOHMERT: One of the most outspoken critics of the FBI the last couple years has been Kirk Weldon, and we know that back in September and October, the FBI announces, “Well, gee, he's under investigation,” just at a perfect time to get him defeated. And so, it seems that -- and then we find out there were all these 143,000 letters that were inappropriately requested, well, gee, somebody asks tough questions of FBI persomel, they may very well be the 143,001st letter in the next batch inquiring about their own records; that there has not been this desire for oversight, but there's been quite some intimidation. So 1'm curtous, has there been any revisiting of this up-or-out policy to get rid of the best-trained and experienced supervisors, since this lack of training and experience and inadequate guidance and controls has come to light? CAPRONI: Congressman, the period of time covered by Mr. Fine was at a period of ime when those supervisors would have still been in place. What we've seen, actually, is that the five-year up-or-out has encouraged people to bid for and seek promotion to higher positions, which has been a net positive. Now, I know that you have an interest in this, and I know that there were agents who were not happy about the policy. The director feels very strongly that it's an appropriate policy, that it does move good supervisors up in management so that they have a greater span of control, so that we can further benefit from the skill set that they have from their tenure at the bureau. GOHMERT: So the answer 1s no, you're not revisiting the policy, is that your answer? CAPRONI: That is correct.