Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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. 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 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. The First Amendment

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 3 weeks, America will celebrate Independence Day. For 244 years, Americans have fought, marched, voted, petitioned, legislated, published, protested, and died to defend and build our blessings of freedom. The American experiment has plenty of battle scars and growing pains handed down from one generation to the next.

The first half of 2020 shows us there are plenty of historical wounds to heal and challenges to overcome.

In the interest of public health, stay-at-home orders limited individual freedoms that many Americans take for granted, including the right to earn a living or to worship with fellow believers.

Just as the economy began to reopen, the shadows of racial injustice darkened America's doorstep. All people are created equal, but not all people are treated equally.

The unconscionable suffocation of George Floyd at the knee of a police officer in Minneapolis struck a chord of unity to end racism in America. Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered to exercise their First Amendment rights. They march to protect racial injustice and police brutality.

Unfortunately, some exploited the peaceful protests to riot, loot, vandalize, and burn. These criminal acts were not protected by the Constitution. It is obvious they weren't protected. They were antithetical to the laws of the land protecting life, liberty, and domestic tranquility.

All of this led one of my colleagues, the junior Senator from Arkansas, to submit an essay to the New York Times. In his opinion piece, he advocated why he thought the President ought to use his authority to deploy Active-Duty military forces to uphold the law and public order, as had been done by Presidents in past instances of civil unrest.

The Times op-ed pages accepted his column and published it online under the headline: ``Bring in the Troops.''

Within hours, the newsroom was in a frenzy. The leftwing rallied their troops to stop the press. The New York Times, as we know, prides itself as the ``paper of record.''

Since 1851, it has served as an influential platform to gather and report the news and to hold government accountable. Policemen keep the public peace. Journalists are the policemen of our political system to keep the political system honest and open and transparent.

The New York Times opinion pages ostensibly provide a space for the free exchange of ideas and thought-filled conversation on issues of the day. I have long counted journalists as the constables of the fourth estate. They serve a very vital role in bolstering our system of checks and balances. They have a responsibility to set the tone for open dialogue.

Last week, the New York Times flunked this standard. The Gray Lady ghosted Senator Cotton's opinion piece after a meltdown in its ivory tower and when the ivory tower workforce hyperventilated.

It is certainly reasonable to disagree on the merits and to debate if recent events rise to the level of past riots that justified invoking the Insurrection Act.

I certainly think we should be hesitant to deploy our military forces domestically, even in difficult situations.

But the overheated reaction by alleged journalists even to have this debate raises the question, Do they consider themselves neutral reporters or activists for a certain world view?

Even a casual reader is able to read between the lines and know that the New York Times ascribes to a left-leaning ideology, but the mutiny in their newsroom seems to cross the line from journalism with a leftwing bias to political activism and ideological conformity.

Sadly, last week the New York Times lowered the bar of journalistic integrity. It snubbed a voice of dissent and rebuked the free exchange of ideas.

The First Amendment protects five fundamental freedoms that sets America apart as the leader of the free world: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.

The Constitution does so because the expression of diverse opinions is necessary to preserve liberty.

Within 4 days of publishing Senator Cotton's commentary, the New York Times caved to an ideological revolt in the newsroom.

Under mob rule, the casualty among its ranks was none other than the editorial page editor. He was forced out of his job for having the audacity to publish an opinion of a U.S. Senator.

At first, the publisher made a feeble effort to stand on principle, defending, in his words, ``openness and a range of opinions.'' Within a few days, the publisher threw James Bennet under the bus.

It is a sad day for journalism, a sad day for the free press. These actions damage the wall dividing the newsroom and the opinion desk. They solidified their silo of leftwing thought. Canceling dissenting views is a very slippery slope. Sooner or later, it mutes the exchange of ideas in a free society.

As a student of history, I know that freedom has often been threatened by those who are convinced their views were on the right side of history.

I offer a bit of wisdom without malice to the New York Times: Don't back down from the First Amendment. Swapping your free press for party- line propaganda and punishing dissent is not a good look. Ask the people of North Korea, China, and Iran.

On Independence Day 2020, I encourage members of the media and all Americans to step out of your comfort zones and seek to understand other viewpoints.

Before we can expand America's promise, end racism, and beat the virus, we must come together as Americans. No matter one's race, politic, creed, wealth, celebrity, remember, we are bound together by self-evident truths ``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.''

I want even a leftwing newspaper to be a responsible policeman for our political system.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source