Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 3 (Tuesday, January 5, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 5, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H66-H68]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1230
INSPECTOR GENERAL PROTECTION ACT

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 23) to require congressional
notification for certain changes in status of inspectors general, and
for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 23

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Inspector General Protection
Act''.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN STATUS OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL.

(a) Change in Status of Inspector General of Offices.--
Section 3(b) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, is placed on paid or unpaid non-duty
status,'' after ``is removed from office'';
(2) by inserting ``, change in status,'' after ``any such
removal''; and
(3) by inserting ``, change in status,'' after ``before the
removal''.
(b) Change in Status of Inspector General of Designated
Federal Entities.--Section 8G(e)(2) of the Inspector General
Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``, is placed on paid or unpaid non-duty
status,'' after ``office'';
(2) by inserting ``, change in status,'' after ``any such
removal''; and
(3) by inserting ``, change in status,'' after ``before the
removal''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL EXPLANATION OF FAILURE TO NOMINATE AN
INSPECTOR GENERAL.

(a) In General.--Subchapter III of chapter 33 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
3349d the following new section:

``Sec. 3349e. Presidential explanation of failure to nominate
an Inspector General

``If the President fails to make a formal nomination for a
vacant Inspector General position that requires a formal
nomination by the President to be filled within the period
beginning on the date on which the vacancy occurred and
ending on the day that is 210 days after that date, the
President shall communicate, within 30 days after the end of
such period, to Congress in writing--
``(1) the reasons why the President has not yet made a
formal nomination; and
``(2) a target date for making a formal nomination.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
33 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to 3349d the following new item:

``3349e. Presidential explanation of failure to nominate an Inspector
General.''.

[[Page H67]]

shall apply to any vacancy first occurring on or after that
date.

SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Palmer) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.

General Leave

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure
before us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Inspector General Protection Act was introduced by
Representatives Ted Lieu and Jody Hice. An identical measure passed the
House in the last Congress.
I am proud to support this bipartisan measure, which would improve
the independence of inspectors general. The bill would also address the
disturbingly slow nomination of IGs that has been the norm across
multiple administrations.
The bill would require notification of Congress 30 days prior to an
IG being placed on leave. Such notification is already required prior
to an IG being removed from duty.
The bill also would require the President to report to Congress if he
has not nominated an IG after 210 days of a vacancy occurring. This
report must include the reasons for failing to make the nomination and
a target date for doing so. The requirement will hopefully prod the
executive branch to nominate IGs in a more timely manner.
IGs provide critical oversight and accountability within Federal
agencies, and the positions need to be filled more quickly than is
currently the case.
I urge Members to support this bipartisan bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 23, the Inspector General
Protection Act. I want to thank Representatives Ted Lieu and Jody Hice
for working together on this legislation.
H.R. 23 will help Congress track Federal agency inspectors general
vacancies and make sure they are filled by the President in a timely
manner.
Inspectors general help combat Federal fraud, waste, and abuse and
improve the operations of the executive branch departments and
agencies. Inspectors general help Congress shine light on areas of the
government that need improvement and oversight. However, both
Republican and Democratic administrations have experienced numerous and
prolonged inspector general vacancies.
The Inspector General Protection Act would simply require the
President to notify Congress of any change to a current inspector
general's employment status. The bill would also require the President
to notify Congress if a nomination to replace an inspector general does
not take place within 210 days.
These provisions will improve congressional oversight of the
executive branch by providing transparency to the President's
inspectors general nominations.
Inspectors general are an indispensable resource to Congress and to
the American people, and Congress can reaffirm our responsibility to
combating government waste, fraud, and abuse by assuring consistent
Federal agency inspector general office leadership.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Lieu's
Inspector General Protection Act.
The inspector general system has been invaluable in rooting out
waste, fraud, and abuse in our Federal programs, and sometimes even
criminal activity. It has also instilled confidence in Federal agencies
by ensuring accountability. That, however, doesn't mean the system is
perfect.
Since the initial passage of the Inspector General Act of 1978, we
have seen what works and what doesn't. We have added inspectors general
and refined their processes.
On January 20, a new President will be sworn into office and a new
administration will lead our Federal agencies. Before they begin, now
is a good time to update some of our inspector general requirements.
This bill makes important improvements by requiring disclosure to
Congress when an IG is put on nonduty status and why a President has
not nominated a permanent IG for a vacant position. These updates are
necessary, and we must also do more.
Last Congress, I introduced the Appointments Clause Enforcement Act.
That bill included several important changes to the IG system that
would help make inspectors general more independent and instill
confidence in them.
For example, rather than the President appointing an acting IG when a
position is vacant, my bill would have the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency develop a list of qualified
candidates and share those with the chief judge of the district court
in the District of Columbia, who would make the appointment. That way,
a President could not install political allies as acting inspectors
general, even ones who didn't receive the advice and consent of the
Senate, as a way to reduce oversight.
We should also clarify provisions to make sure that IGs forward
legitimate whistleblower complaints to Congress without political
interference and that those whistleblowers are protected from political
retribution.
I thank Representative Lieu for sponsoring the Inspector General
Protection Act and Speaker Pelosi for bringing it to the floor as one
of our first bills.
I hope that this is the beginning of the 117th Congress' efforts to
improve the inspector general system that works to improve our Federal
Government's systems of administration and protects policies that are
important for transparency and integrity of government.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, the integrity of the inspector general
process and the ability of the President of the United States to
appoint inspectors general is dependent on the integrity of the
Presidential election.
During the campaign, Vice President Biden would get 55 people at an
event. President Trump got 55,000 at just one rally. President Trump
increased his vote with African Americans, increased his vote with
Hispanic Americans, won 19 of 20 bellwether counties, won Ohio by 8,
Iowa by 8, Florida by 3, got 11 million more votes than he got in 2016,
and House Republicans won 27 of 27 toss-up races.
But somehow Joe Biden, the guy who barely left his house, won the
election? Maybe.
But 80 million Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, have their
doubts, and 60 million Americans think the election was stolen--60
million people, over one-third of the electorate.
But no one in this town seems to care. Democrats don't care. The
media doesn't care. Eighty million of our fellow citizens have their
doubts about the election 2 months ago, and the media and the Democrats
say: Nothing to see here.
Of course, this town has been out to get the President since July 31,
2016, before he was elected the first time. Four years and $40 million
on the Russia hoax, but we can't look into an election that 60 million
Americans think was stolen?
Nine weeks since election day, not one investigation, not one hearing
in the House of Representatives. We asked for it. We asked Chairwoman
Maloney. Mr. Comer and I asked for it. We asked

[[Page H68]]

Chairman Nadler. Nope, not going to do it.
We would welcome an inspector general investigation, for goodness
sake. Over 200 affidavits and declarations of wrongdoing, but no
investigation in the Congress--no subpoenas, no depositions, no chance
for questioning or cross-examination of witnesses.
Why? Why won't they look into it? Why no hearings? Why no
investigation?
I think it is because deep down they know there were big problems
with this past election. They know the Constitution was violated.
Article I, Section 4: Time, place, and manner for holding elections
shall be determined in each State by the legislature thereof.
Article II, Section 1: ``Each State shall appoint, in such manner as
the legislature thereof may direct. . . . ''
Look at Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania law says mail-in ballots by 8
o'clock on election day. Election day ends at 8 o'clock. Mail-in
ballots have to be in by 8 o'clock on election day. The Democrat State
Supreme Court said: No, we are going to extend the election day till
Friday, till 5 o'clock on Friday.
Pennsylvania State law says mail-in ballots require signature
verification. The Democrat secretary of state said no. For 2.6 million
ballots, she said: We are not going to follow the law.
Pennsylvania law says mail-in ballots can't be processed until
election day, but some county commissioner said no and allowed ballots
to be cured, to be fixed, to be changed before election day. You can
imagine which counties allowed that, you can just imagine. Democrat
counties allowed it; Republican counties didn't.
The legislature determines the time, place, and manner of elections,
not State supreme courts, not secretaries of states, not county
commissioners. All of those entities took actions that directly
violated the law, the law that State legislatures enacted, and thereby
violated the Constitution.
But Democrats don't care. They don't want to look into it. They would
rather just belittle 60 million of our fellow citizens, call them
names, say it is a conspiracy, make fun of the very people we are all
supposed to represent.
Well, guess what. Tomorrow, those people will get a chance to hear
the truth. Tomorrow, those 60 million people, those 80 million people
who have their doubts, will not be treated with disrespect; they will
be treated with the respect they deserve.
Tomorrow, there will be a debate in the people's House. Tomorrow, the
Constitution will be defended, and the American people will see the
truth. They will see how Democrats changed the rules in the days and
weeks leading up to the election and created chaos in our election
process. Tomorrow, they will see what the late Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg said: The ultimate date of significance is January 6.
Tomorrow, the citizens of this great country will see why.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further
speakers. I urge a positive vote on H.R. 23, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I hope we can continue to find bipartisan
ways to build on similar good government reforms, such as this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
commonsense legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of
H.R. 23, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 23.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________