[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 104 (Thursday, June 4, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2742-S2743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NOTICE OF INTENT TO OBJECT TO PROCEEDING

  I, Senator Chuck Grassley, intend to object to proceeding to the 
nomination of Mashall Billingslea, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary 
of State for Arms Control and International Security dated June 4, 
2020.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous 
consent request relating to the nomination of Marshall Billingslea, of 
Virginia, to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security, vice Andrea L. Thompson, resigned (PN1732).
  Following my bipartisan letter to the president on April 8, 2020, 
regarding the removal of the Intelligence Community Inspector General 
(IC IG), I sent a separate letter to the President regarding the 
removal of the Department of State Inspector General (State IG). My 
letter echoed the IC IG letter to the President and reminded him of his 
requirement under the Inspector General Reform Act to provide clear 
reasons for removal of inspectors general. I also raised concerns 
regarding the inherent conflicts of interest created by naming 
individuals holding political positions within the overseen agency as 
acting inspectors general. After a delay, the White House promised me a 
response to both the IC IG letter and my State IG letter that fulfilled 
the statutory requirement by providing substantive reasons for the 
removal. On the evening of May 26, 2020, I received a response from the 
White House, but it contained no explanation for the removal of the 
State IG and made no comment regarding the conflicts of interest issues 
that I raised.
  Though the Constitution gives the president the authority to manage 
executive branch personnel, Congress has made it clear that should the 
president find reason to remove an inspector general, there ought to be 
a good reason for it. The White House's response failed to address this 
requirement, which Congress clearly stated in statute and accompanying 
reports. I don't dispute the President's authority under the 
Constitution, but without sufficient explanation, the American people 
will be left speculating whether political or self-interests are to 
blame. That's not good for the presidency or government accountability. 
This is only compounded when the acting IG maintains their 
presidentially appointed position within the overseen agency.
  Further, the White House's response states that the President was 
acting in a manner that comported with the precedent that began under 
the Obama administration. The letter states that the President's letter 
mirrors the one sent by President Obama when he removed IG Walpin. What 
that letter fails to mention is that President Obama, at the demand of 
myself and other members of this Chamber, eventually did send several 
letters explaining in much greater detail the reasons for the removal 
of Mr. Walpin. They were inadequate responses that continually changed 
and eventually resulted in a bicameral investigation into the matter, 
but reasons were provided.
  I have attached copies of these letters and the aforementioned report 
for the Record. I intend to maintain this hold until the notice 
requirement in the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. app. 
Sec. 3(b) is met and the reasons for the IC IGs removal are provided.

[[Page S2743]]

  

                          ____________________