[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 139 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S5722]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            INTENT TO OBJECT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to proceeding to the 
nomination of Norm Eisen to be Ambassador to the Czech Republic at the 
Department of State for the following reasons.
  I object to the proceeding to the nomination because of Mr. Eisen's 
role in the firing of the inspector general of the Corporation for 
National and Community Service, CNCS, and his lack of candor about that 
matter when questioned by congressional investigators. The details of 
Mr. Eisen's role in the firing and his misrepresentations about that 
matter are detailed in the Joint Minority Staff Report of the House 
Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Finance Committee, dated 
November 20, 2009. I would also ask unanimous consent that a letter of 
January 12, 2011, sent by myself and Congressman Issa to Mr. Bauer, 
then counsel to the President, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, January 12, 2011.
     Hon. Robert F. Bauer,
     Counsel to the President, The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Bauer: We write to express our objection to the 
     President's use of a recess appointment to install Norman L. 
     Eisen as U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic. As you know, 
     we objected to Mr. Eisen's nomination on the grounds that he 
     attempted to constructively remove the Inspector General (IG) 
     of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) 
     without the prior notice required by law and that he misled 
     Congressional investigators.
       It is our concern that the President's decision to force 
     through such a nominee without the advice and consent of the 
     Senate signals a departure from his recent pledge to work 
     cooperatively with Congress.
       The President announced Mr. Eisen's nomination on June 28, 
     2010. On September 27, 2010, Senator Grassley provided public 
     notice of his intention to object to the nomination. Senator 
     Grassley referred to ``Mr. Eisen's role in the firing of the 
     Inspector General of the Corporation for National and 
     Community Service and his lack of candor about that matter 
     when questioned by Congressional investigators.''
       During that investigation, a bicameral group of 
     investigators learned Mr. Eisen personally delivered an 
     ultimatum to former CNCS IG Gerald Walpin demanding that he 
     resign or be terminated within one hour. At the time he 
     delivered the ultimatum, no notice had been provided to 
     Congress as is legally required by the Inspector General 
     Reform Act (IG Act). As you know, the IG Act requires the 
     President to communicate in writing the reasons for removal 
     of an IG to Congress not later than 30 days prior to taking 
     action.
       During an interview on June 17, 2009, Mr. Eisen refused to 
     answer at least 12 direct questions. He did, however, assert 
     on that date that the CNCS Board of Directors unanimously 
     supported the removal of IG Walpin. He also asserted that the 
     White House conducted ``an extensive review'' in response to 
     concerns raised by the Board about 10 Walpin's fitness 
     following a May 20, 2009 CNCS Board meeting. According to Mr. 
     Eisen, his ``extensive review'' substantiated the Board's 
     concerns and informed the decision to remove IG Walpin.
       Our investigation found that, contrary to Mr. Eisen's 
     assertions, the Board had not unanimously expressed a desire 
     to have Mr. Walpin removed prior to the decision. Moreover, 
     we could find no evidence that Mr. Eisen's ``extensive 
     review'' consisted of anything more than simply asking the 
     CNCS General Counsel to document the Chairman of the Board's 
     concerns about Mr. Walpin. Mr. Eisen did not interview the 
     CNCS Directors. He did not provide Mr. Walpin or anyone else 
     in the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to be 
     heard. He took action based on incomplete information 
     provided only by individuals who had adversarial 
     relationships with the IG.
       Mr. Eisen has had several opportunities to address our 
     concerns and has yet to do so. He failed to be forthcoming 
     and responsive during his initial meeting with our staff on 
     June 17, 2009. He again demonstrated a lack of candor in 
     response to Questions for the Record following his nomination 
     hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 
     22, 2010.
       In the interest of allowing Mr. Eisen to address our 
     concerns, we scheduled a meeting with our staff for December 
     16, 2010 at 11:30 A.M. At approximately 11:15 A.M., the White 
     House postponed the meeting until 2:15 P.M. At approximately 
     2:00 P.M., the meeting was canceled by the White House Office 
     of Legislative Affairs without further explanation. By 
     calling off a face-to-face meeting in favor of a recess 
     appointment, the White House sent the message that the 
     President is not interested in hearing the concerns of 
     Republican Members of Congress.
       In short, Mr. Eisen took action on behalf of the President 
     that ran afoul of the IG Act and subsequently misled 
     Congressional investigators in lieu of conducting a fair, 
     thorough, and responsible investigation. Senate confirmation, 
     under the advice and consent clause, is one of the strongest 
     checks on executive power. Recess appointments are 
     meantatofill vacancies that arise during a long recess, not 
     to bypass the confirmation process. We are troubled by the 
     Administration's circumvention of that process, especially in 
     this instance. The vacancy arose on January 20, 2009, and yet 
     the President waited eighteen months before making an 
     appointment. Given that there had already been considerable 
     public controversy over Mr. Eisen's actions in this matter at 
     the time of his appointment, issues with his confirmation 
     should have been easily anticipated. For these reasons, we 
     believe that a recess appointment of Mr. Eisen to serve as a 
     United States Ambassador is particularly inappropriate.
       Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We 
     look forward to working with the White House toward our 
     mutual goal of identifying and deploying qualified 
     individuals of the highest integrity to serve American 
     interests abroad.
           Sincerely,
     Darrell Issa,
       Chairman, U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform.
     Charles E. Grassley,
       United States Senator.

                          ____________________