[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 104 (Thursday, June 4, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Page 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 Christopher C. Miller, of Virginia, to be Director of the 
National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National 
Intelligence dated June 4, 2020.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous 
consent request relating to the nomination of Christopher C. Miller, of 
Virginia, to be Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, 
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (PN1741).
  On April 8, 2020, I sent a bipartisan letter to the President 
cosigned by seven of my colleagues regarding the removal of 
Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Michael Atkinson. That 
letter reminded the President of his requirement under the Inspector 
General Reform Act to provide clear reasons for such removal. After a 
delay, the White House promised me a response to my 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 IC IG.
  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 fire 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.
  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.

                          ____________________