[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3644-3646]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   INSPECTOR GENERAL EMPOWERMENT ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this body was last in session during 
Sunshine Week, but the principle of government transparency is one that 
does not expire. So I would like to take a few moments now to reiterate 
my support for that timeless principle.
  Open government is good government. And Americans have a right to a 
government that is accountable to its people. In 1978, following the 
lessons learned from the Watergate scandal, Congress created Inspectors 
General--or IGs--to be our eyes and ears within the executive branch. 
These independent watchdogs are designed to keep Congress and the 
public informed about waste, fraud, and abuse in government. But they 
also help agency leaders identify problems and inefficiencies that they 
may not be aware of. So IGs are critical to good governance and to the 
rule of law.
  But in order for these watchdogs to do their jobs, IGs need access to 
agency records. That is why the law authorizes IGs to access ``all'' 
records of the agency that they're charged with overseeing. However, 
since 2010, more and more agencies have refused to comply with this 
legal obligation. This obstruction has slowed down far too many 
important investigations--ranging from sexual assaults in the Peace 
Corps to the FBI's exercise of anti-terrorism authorities under the 
PATRIOT Act.
  Last July, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel aided and 
abetted the obstruction by issuing a memo defending it. That memo has 
given cover to other agencies to follow the FBI's lead and withhold 
records from their IGs.
  According to OLC's 66-page opinion, Congress didn't really mean to 
give IGs access to ``all records''--even though that is literally what 
we spelled out in the law. Think about that for a second. One unelected 
bureaucrat in the Justice Department thinks he can overturn the will of 
535 elected officials in Congress and the President who signed the bill 
into law. That is unacceptable, and Americans are tired of stunts like 
this that undermine democracy and the rule of law, and make a mockery 
of government transparency.
  The public deserves robust scrutiny of the federal government. So, 
since September, a bipartisan group of Senators and I have been working 
to overturn the OLC opinion through S. 579,

[[Page 3645]]

the Inspector General Empowerment Act. Among other things, this bill 
includes further clarification that Congress intended IGs to access all 
agency records, notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless 
other laws specifically state that IGs are not to receive such access.
  We attempted to pass this bill by unanimous consent in September. 
Since then, the cosponsors and I have worked hard in good faith to 
accommodate the concerns of any and all Senators willing to work with 
us. As a result, this bill now has a total of 17 cosponsors, including 
7 of my esteemed Democratic colleagues: Senators McCaskill, Carper, 
Mikulski, Wyden, Baldwin, Manchin, and Peters. I want to thank each and 
every one of them for standing up with me for Inspectors General and 
for the principles of good governance.
  In December, we attempted to pass this bipartisan bill by unanimous 
consent. The bill cleared the Republican side with no objection, but 
the bill was objected to on the Democratic side.
  So, let's do the math. None of the 54 Republican Senators objected. 
There are seven Democrat cosponsors. That is at least 61 votes--at 
least. If this bill came up for a vote, it would certainly pass easily. 
It was developed hand-in-hand over many months with both Democrats and 
Republicans in the House of Representatives, which is ready to move an 
identical bill as soon as we act here in the Senate.
  So, on December 15, Senators McCaskill, Johnson, and I attempted to 
pass this bill by a process known as a live unanimous consent. Our goal 
was to pass the bill right then and there, and we could have, had a 
Senator not objected. However, the minority leader, Senator Reid stood 
up and objected. The minority leader obstructed a bill sponsored by 
seven Senators of his own party. Senator Reid refused to give any 
reason for obstructing this bipartisan bill, both at that time and 
later when questioned by reporters. All he would say publicly was that 
a Senator on his side of the aisle had concerns.
  Apparently, Senator Reid is now telling the press that his concerns 
relate to provisions of the bill that give IGs the power to subpoena 
testimony from former federal employees. In a moment, I will explain 
why this authority is absolutely vital to the ability of IGs to conduct 
effective investigations. But before I do that, I want to make one 
thing crystal clear. My bipartisan cosponsors and I have been working 
in good faith to address these concerns for 5 months--since November 
2015. In those 5 months, we have offered at least half a dozen 
accommodations that would limit the subpoena authority in question. So 
we have offered reasonable compromises, but the one or two Senators who 
object to this provision appear to be demanding it be removed from the 
bill entirely.
  Let me tell you why we cannot do that. When employees of the U.S. 
government are accused of wrongdoing or misconduct, IGs should be able 
to conduct a full and thorough investigation of those allegations. 
Getting to the bottom of these allegations is necessary to restore the 
public trust. Unfortunately, employees who may have violated that trust 
are often allowed to evade the IG's inquiry, by simply retiring from 
the government. So the bill empowers IGs to obtain testimony from 
employees like this.
  Similarly, the bill helps IGs better expose waste, fraud, and abuse 
by those who receive Federal funds. It enables IGs to require testimony 
from government contractors and subcontractors and grantees and sub-
grantees. Currently, most IGs can subpoena documents from entities from 
outside their agency. However, most cannot subpoena testimony, although 
a few can. For example, the Inspectors General for the Defense 
Department and the Department of Health and Human Services already have 
this authority.
  The ability to require witnesses outside the agency to talk to the IG 
can be critical in carrying out an inspector general's statutory duties 
or recovering wasted federal funds. But I want to be clear: the bill 
also imposes limitations on the authority of IGs to require testimony.
  There are several procedural protections in place to ensure that this 
authority is exercised wisely. For example, the subpoena must first be 
approved by a majority of a designated panel of three other IGs. It is 
then referred to the Attorney General. For those IGs that can already 
subpoena witness testimony, I am not aware of any instance in which it 
has been misused.
  In fact, the Inspector General for the Department of Defense has 
established a policy that spells out additional procedures and 
safeguards to ensure that subjects of subpoenas are treated fairly. I 
am confident that the rest of the IG community will be just as 
scrupulous in providing appropriate protections for the use of this 
authority as well. You see, we all win when IGs can do their jobs. And 
most importantly, the public is better served when IGs are able to 
shine light into government operations and stewardship of taxpayer 
dollars.
  This is a common sense, bipartisan bill that should have passed by 
unanimous consent. It overturns an OLC opinion that has been roundly 
criticized by nearly everyone who has read it. For example, the New 
York Times editorial board recently urged us to pass this bill so that 
we can allow IGs to do their jobs. But Senator Reid is standing in the 
way of the Senate doing its job.
  The Washington Post editorial board and the Project on Government 
Oversight have also called on us to fix this IG access problem. At a 
Judiciary Committee hearing in August, Senator Leahy said that this 
access problem is ``blocking what was once a free flow of 
information.'' Senator Leahy also called for a permanent legislative 
solution.
  Even the Justice Department witness at that hearing disagreed with 
the results of the OLC opinion and supported legislative action to 
solve the problem. But, to all of that, Senator Reid said ``no.''
  Make no mistake: by blocking this bipartisan, good-government bill, 
Senator Reid is muzzling watchdogs, and the public is being robbed of 
their right to an accountable government. What is it about independent 
Inspector General oversight that the minority leader is afraid of? 
Remember, the public is better served when IGs are able to shine light 
into government operations and stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
  And the public is beginning to take notice of Senator Reid's 
obstruction. Just last week, the Las Vegas Review-Journal--which is the 
largest circulating daily newspaper in the minority leader's home 
State--published an article discussing his obstruction. Let me just 
take a moment to read a quote from this article:

       U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada received 
     a government watchdog group's dubious honor . . . for 
     blocking a bill to back inspectors general in their battles 
     against waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement and refusing 
     to provide a full explanation on why he did so.

  Then, just over this weekend, the editorial board of this same 
newspaper wrote an opinion piece entitled, ``Let the sun shine in.'' 
Let me just read an excerpt from this article:

       Because Sen. Grassley's bill has attracted bipartisan 
     support, and because Republicans and Democrats jointly have 
     objected to efforts to thwart IGs from doing their jobs, 
     we're confident that compromise is possible . . . . We urge 
     Sens. Reid and Grassley to work together to pass this 
     important legislation as quickly as possible.

  As I mentioned earlier, the bipartisan group of cosponsors and I have 
already offered half a dozen accommodations to address the concerns 
related to the subpoena authority provision. All of those offers are 
still on the table, and we stand ready to work with Senator Reid and 
the other Senator to get this bill done; in a way that improves IG 
access to both documents and witness testimony.
  Remember, the Inspector General Act was passed in 1978, following one 
of the worst political scandals in American history. Today, at least 61 
Senators, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the New York Times, the 
Washington Post, and good governance groups like POGO and Citizens 
Against Government Waste, all support restoring the intent of that 
act--through S. 579. This

[[Page 3646]]

bill would redeem the free flow of information that Senator Leahy 
advocated in August. And every day that goes by without overturning the 
OLC opinion is another day that watchdogs across the government can be 
stonewalled.
  Let me be clear. Only one Senator is publicly standing in the way of 
fixing this problem. Who is the obstructionist here? Who is not doing 
their job? We need to find a way to get this bill done. Especially now, 
we need to focus on the things we can agree on. When there is something 
with this much bipartisan support, it should be a no-brainer. One or 
two Senators should not be allowed to stand in the way.
  I urge my colleagues to work with me to get S. 579 passed so that IGs 
can resume doing the work that we asked them to do in 1978.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.

                          ____________________