[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 113 (Thursday, June 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3088-S3090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Inspectors General
Mr. GRASSLEY. In recent months, a lot of attention has focused on the
Nation's inspectors general. It seems like a good idea to take a few
minutes now to remember what inspectors general are, why Congress
created them in the first place, and how we got here.
Congress first established offices of inspectors general in 1978 ``to
create independent and objective units'' in the Federal Government to
do three things: conduct audits and investigations; No. 2, promote
efficiency and determine fraud and abuse; and No. 3, keep agency heads
and Congress ``fully informed'' about the problems that IGs find.
In short, Congress designed inspectors general to shine a bright
light on waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the Federal bureaucracy
with the hope that the executive and legislative branches could work
together to do something about those problems.
IGs, then, are the original swamp drainers, and--an equally important
point for those who weren't around at the time it was created--the
support for creating these offices was breathtakingly bipartisan. The
vote in the House of Representatives where I was then a Member was 388
to 6. Now, more than 40 years later, we have 75 offices of inspectors
general working to stop fraud and abuse.
Their actions also save the taxpayers billions of dollars. In 2020 so
far, IGs have identified more than $20 billion of potential savings
through their audits, reports, and recommendations--$20 billion--and
this year is not even half over. On oversight.gov, you can find the
latest figures on these watchdogs' contributions, as well as
investigative and audit reports on every kind of topic you can think
of. IGs have found everything from blatant government employee
misconduct to procurement fraud and, of course, much more. It is all
there in black and white in the public domain for all to see. These
inspectors general are helping Congress watch over the people's
business and ensure the fidelity of agency action.
We in Congress cannot perform our constitutional mandates of
oversight without IGs. The IGs' work makes government more transparent
and more accountable, and that strengthens the public trust in our
democracy. That is a good thing for Congress and a good thing for the
Presidency. In this way, these watchdogs serve an indispensable
function in our system of checks and balances.
What makes a good inspector general? If I learned anything about
oversight, it is that this type of work is not for the faint-hearted or
the thin-skinned or the thick-headed. You need a strong code of
professionalism to withstand pressures to go along to get along. You
need a real backbone to wring wrongdoing from the bowels of
bureaucracy, and you need a quick wit to look on smiling faces and
discern truths from half-truths and bald-faced lies.
The law says IGs are supposed to be objective and independent. They
have to be fierce watchdogs, not lap dogs. They can't bow to personal
agenda or political machinations, and they shouldn't be subject to
inappropriate political pressure from any corner whatsoever.
When IGs are working hard, staying independent, and shining the light
on waste, fraud, and abuse, they should stay. But when they don't put
in the work, when they pull the punches, when they became political
hacks, or when they compromise their vital independence, then IGs must
go.
For many years, I have investigated and held accountable IGs from
both Democratic and Republican administrations for these very failures.
In 2003, I pushed the Health and Human Services IG to resign over
whistleblower complaints about poor staff management. I also
investigated allegations of poor work product, coercive management
decisions, and questionable hiring practices by the watchdog at the
Federal Housing Finance Agency. Just last year, I began pushing hard to
get to the bottom of whistleblower complaints about another apparently
ineffective Commerce IG, although the media at that time didn't seem to
care about that despite bipartisan concerns and briefings from my
staff.
Alternatively, when IGs come under fire for doing good work, this
Senator
[[Page S3089]]
has their backs. In 2009, I shined a light on a sudden departure of the
Amtrak IG, who signed a gag order in exchange for significant payout.
When the Obama administration blocked a broad swath of the IG
community from assessing records needed for oversight, I worked across
the aisle to introduce and finally pass the Inspector General
Empowerment Act in 2016.
In short, I have gone to the mat my whole career to ensure inspectors
general do and are able to accomplish their work with support,
independence, and integrity. And because this work is so critical to
Congress and our oversight role and to the public trust, I have worked
hard to ensure that any effort to remove an IG is for a darn good
reason. That is what Congress required in the IG Reform Act of 2008, a
law that then-Senator Obama not only voted for, but he cosponsored.
That law recognizes two things. First, it is the President's
constitutional prerogative to manage the executive branch personnel.
The President can fire an IG. Second, it is Congress's intent in that
law to support IG independence and maintain public trust. IGs should
not be removed for blatant political reasons. This requires that
Presidents tell Congress and the people their reasons for removal of an
IG.
The IG Reform Act codified those principles by requiring the
President to submit to Congress a notice of intent to remove an IG 30
days in advance and to explain why. The executive branch, under two
successive Presidencies of both political parties, has sought to ignore
the law and keep Congress in the dark. Both Presidents provided
Congress then with paltry excuses of ``lost confidence.''
In July 2009, less than a year after Congress passed the IG Reform
Act, then-President Obama removed the inspector general for the
Corporation for National and Community Service, Gerald Walpin, from his
post and placed him on administrative leave. Obama's White House
informed Congress merely that President Obama had lost confidence in
Mr. Walpin.
My colleagues and I made it very clear that a vague reference to
``loss of confidence'' was insufficient and did not satisfy the
requirements of the very law that President Obama voted for and
cosponsored when he was a Senator. This began a bout of negotiations
that resulted in the hold of Presidential nominees and, eventually, a
bicameral congressional investigation.
In that case, I pushed for compliance with the statute, held up
nominees to obtain information, and disagreed with the stated reasons
for Mr. Walpin's removal. Mr. Walpin was never reinstated. In Mr.
Walpin's case, a Federal court found later that despite a clear
congressional record to the contrary, the law doesn't require more than
what President Obama gave us in any other greater detail beyond its
``minimal statutory mandate'' to justify the removal of Mr. Walpin.
Fast forward to the last several months when the current President
followed the court's incorrect ruling and the Obama precedent by
removing two Senate-confirmed IGs, placing them on administrative leave
and telling Congress only, as Obama once did before, that he had lost
confidence in them.
In response, I did exactly what I had done before in the Obama
administration. I, and several colleagues, wrote asking for a better
explanation. When we finally got a response from the White House
Counsel, we were left without substantive reasons for the IG's removal.
So, as before, I notified the majority leader of my intent to object
to the two administrative nominees until the White House coughed up
some form of rationale for the removal. I finally got those reasons
this week. I don't agree with all of them, and I am working to better
understand others, but because the President has finally fulfilled the
law, both Congress and the public can look to see for themselves what
happened.
This, of course, was the intent of the law all along.
We took the long road to get here, and we could have avoided all this
hullabaloo if both Presidents Obama and Trump had just followed the
statutory notice requirements in the first place, but we are here.
These episodes have convinced me that the executive branch,
regardless of what party is in charge, just doesn't get it. From one
administration to the next, Democrat or Republican, it makes no
difference to me. This isn't about politics. This is about the
separation of powers, checks and balances, public trust. It is clear
that Congress can't rely on any White House to get it right.
We need to change the law. We need to be clearer, and we need to
better safeguard the independence of these IGs. That is why I have been
developing bipartisan reforms to sharpen the independent authority and
recruitment of those hired and confirmed to serve as inspectors
general.
We are not going to enact a clearly unconstitutional law that
infringes on the President's authority to manage personnel and that
would surely result in lengthy court battles. But we are going to
clarify once and for all that the law's notice requirement means that
Presidents have to give clear, substantive reasons for removing an IG
and that they can't put an IG on administrative leave without a good
reason.
To fully safeguard statutorily required IG independence, we are also
going to make sure that the President cannot place political appointees
with clear conflicts of interest into acting IG roles. We can't have
individuals with political day jobs simultaneously in charge of
confidential, independent IG matters, including substantive and
sensitive audits, investigative work, and whistleblower information.
Today, I have introduced that legislation with my colleagues Senators
Peters, Collins, Feinstein, Lankford, Carper, Romney, Tester, Portman,
and Hassan. I want to thank Ranking Member Peters for working with me
on this. His input has been insightful in crafting this bipartisan
legislation, and his staff has been diligent in furthering these
efforts.
Whether you have been following the important work of inspectors
general for many years or you just tuned in for the last few, we
welcome your support. I hope that support continues well past the
current administration. If we don't update the law, we can only expect
future administrations to continue to do what has been done lately, not
giving Congress good reasons
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, June 12, 2020.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley: I write to follow up on our recent
conversation regarding the removal of the Inspectors General
of the Department of State and of the Intelligence Community.
As a further accommodation, we are providing the additional
information you requested.
With respect to the State Department Inspector General,
please see the attached letter sent to you today from the
Department's Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. The
letter includes materials that identify the concerns of the
Secretary of State and the Under Secretary for Management
with the Inspector General's performance. As to the removal
of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the
President lost confidence in him and has spoken publicly
about this loss of confidence, including on the day after the
President notified Congress of his decision.
As you have stated, the President has the constitutional
authority to remove inspectors general. As a matter of
accommodation and presidential prerogative, the President
complied fully with the statutory notification provision of
the Inspector General Act.
As I said in my previous letter, the President appreciates
and respects your longstanding support for the role that
inspectors general play. We look forward to the Senate's
swift confirmation of all of the President's outstanding
inspector general nominees.
Sincerely,
Pat A. Cipollone,
Counsel to the President.
____
The following excerpt from an official White House
transcript entitled ``Remarks by President Trump, Vice
President Pence, and members of the Coronavirus Task Force in
Press Briefing.'' The briefing was held on April 4, 2020 in
the James S. Brady Press Room of the White House at 4:15 p.m.
EDT.
The full transcript can be found at: https://
www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-0906-
12%20White%20House%20Counsel%
20 to%20Grassley%20-%20 IC%20IG%20and%
20 State%20IG.pdf
THE PRESIDENT: Think of it: We're paying people not to go
to work. How about that? How does that play?
Q: I understand that.
THE PRESIDENT: And they want to go to work, by the way.
They don't even want--they don't want money. This country is
[[Page S3090]]
great. But we're paying people. We have to get back to work.
That's what I'm saying.
Go ahead, please.
Q: Mr. President, this is off topic. It's about the
announcement from last night. It's a yes or no question, but
not that we expect the answer to be yes or no.
But wasn't Michael Atkinson doing the job of the Inspector
General of the intelligence community, the job he was
supposed to do, when he simply took the whistleblower
complaint to Congress that hadn't been taken previously?
Wasn't he doing the job that he was supposed to do, that
American taxpayers were paying him to do? And why did you
decide to terminate--
THE PRESIDENT: I thought he did a terrible job. Absolutely
terrible. He took a whistleblower report, which turned out to
be a fake report--it was fake. It was totally wrong. It was
about my conversation with the President of Ukraine. He took
a fake report and he brought it to Congress, with an
emergency. Okay? Not a big Trump fan--that, I can tell you.
Instead of saying--and we offered this to him: ``No, no, we
will take the conversation''--where, fortunately, we had that
transcript. If we didn't have a transcript with the kind of
deception and dishonesty that were practiced by the
Democrats, I might not be standing here right now. Okay?
Fortunately, we had a transcript and it was a perfect
transcript, because even the lieutenant colonel admitted it
was correct. Okay?
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You asked a question.
So he took this whistleblower--and I keep saying, ``Where's
the whistleblower?'' Right? ``And why was the whistleblower
allowed to do this?'' Why was he allowed to be--you call it
fraudulent or incorrect transcript.
So we offered this IG--I don't know him; I don't think I
ever met him. I don't think I--he never even came in to see
me. How can you do that without seeing the person? Never came
in to see me. Never requested to see me. He took this
terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report--right?--and he
brought it to Congress.
We offered to have him see my exact conversation. It was
all about the conversation, by the way. That was the whole
thing, was about the conversation. Right? And then after he
saw it, he must've said, ``Wow,'' because as I've said it
many times and it drives you people crazy, it was a perfect
conversation.
So instead of going and saying, ``Gee, this is a terrible
thing he said about the President's conversation''--well, it
was a fraud. I didn't say that. And, by the way, you have the
whistleblower. Where's the informer? Right?
And here's another question: Remember before I did the--
before I gave the transcript--in other words, before I
revealed the real conversation--where's the second
whistleblower? Remember the second whistle--
Wait, wait, wait, wait. There was going to be a second
whistleblower. But after I gave the conversation, he just
went away. He miraculously went away.
Where's the informer? Because there was going to be this
informer. Maybe Schiff was the informer. You ever think of
that? He's a corrupt guy. He's a corrupt politician.
So, listen, I say this: Where's the informer? Remember, the
informer was coming forward. But I gave--because, see, I did
one thing that surprised everybody. This gentleman right here
said, ``Boy, that was a shocker.'' I revealed the
conversation. I got approval from Ukraine because I didn't
want to do it without their approval. And they said,
``Absolutely. You did nothing wrong.''
By the way, President of Ukraine, Foreign Minister said,
``He did nothing wrong.'' And over that, with 196 to nothing
vote by the Republicans--not one dissenting Republican vote--
dishonest Democrats impeached a President of the United
States. That man is a disgrace to IGs.
All right, let's go. Next. Please. He's a total disgrace.
Q: Mr. President, did you run by your decision to dismiss
the Inspector General by Senator McConnell?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, we'll get off this because people want
to talk about what we're talking about. But let me just tell
you something: That's my decision. I have the absolute right.
Even the fake news last night said, ``He has the absolute
right to do it.''
But ask him, ``Why didn't you go and see the actual
conversation?'' There was no rush. He said, ``Oh we'd have to
rush it.'' He even said it was politically biased. He
actually said that. The report could have been--you know who
the whistleblower is, and so do you and so does everybody in
this room, and so do I. Everybody knows. But they give this
whistleblower a status that he doesn't deserve. He's a fake
whistleblower. And, frankly, somebody ought to sue his ass
off.
Q: I just want to follow up, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, it's enough with the
whistleblower.
Go ahead, please.
Q: Mr. President, the governor of New York today said that
he is still desperate for ventilators and that he has
accepted 1,000 of them from the Chinese government. Are you
concerned that states--
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what he didn't say is--okay, let me
tell you what he didn't say.
Two very good friends of mine brought him those
whistleblower--brought him those ventilators, right? Two very
good friends of mine--they brought them. If you'd like their
name, I'll give you their name.
Q: But should states and cities have to rely on--
THE PRESIDENT: No, but he--the governor didn't--
Q: --China and Russia for supplies?
THE PRESIDENT: --mention that. It came through the
Chinese--the country of China. But they were given by two
friends of mine, but he didn't tell you that.
Now, the governor also--
Q Who are your friends?
THE PRESIDENT: You'll see when you read the letter.
The governor also asked for 40,000--40,000. He wanted
40,000 ventilators.
Now, the governor, as you know, had a chance to get 16,000
a few years ago. He decided not to get that. The State of New
York has asked for help. I've given him four hospitals, four
medical centers. Then I gave him an additional hospital. Then
I gave him military people to operate the hospital. They were
not supposed to be COVID hospitals. The boat--the ship is
not--an interesting thing happened with the ship. People
aren't in accidents because there's nobody driving. There's
nobody taking motorcycle rides down the West Side Highway at
100 miles an hour. People are away. So people aren't being
injured.
Now they're asking whether or not we could open up the ship
for COVID. We have given the governor of New York more than
anybody has ever been given in a long time. I'll just say--I
was going to say ``in history,'' but in a long time. And I
think he's happy.
But I think that--because I watched what he said today, and
it was fine. I wouldn't say gracious. It wasn't gracious. It
was okay. I must tell you, Gavin Newsom has been gracious--
Los Angeles, California, the job we've done, and all of
California.
Q: But why does that matter if they're gracious or not
gracious if they need the supplies?
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. But I
think when we've given as much as we've given to New York,
somebody should say--
Nice--I'll tell you who's been very nice: Mayor de Blasio
has been very nice. He understands what we've given him. We
brought him some more ventilators, too, yesterday.
But nobody has been given like New York. And I think--I
know he appreciates it. He just can't quite get the words
out, but that's okay.
Q: So when he says--but when he says that he needs 40,000--
Q: Mr. President--
THE PRESIDENT: Please, go ahead.