[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 113 (Thursday, June 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3097-S3098]
NOMINATION OBJECTION WITHDRAWAL
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I previously notified the Chamber of my
objection to the nominations of Marshall Billingslea, of Virginia, to
be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security
and Christopher C. Miller, of Virginia, to be Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence. On June 12, 2020, I received two letters: one from the
Department of State, which contained a copy of recent correspondence
between the administration to the Council of the Inspectors General on
Integrity and Efficiency, CIGIE, requesting that CIGIE investigate
specific allegations into the conduct of the State Department Inspector
General, State IG, Steve Linick, and another separate letter from the
White House Counsel concerning the removal of Intelligence Community
Inspector General, IC IG, Michael Atkinson. Without making comment
regarding the veracity of the allegations made against Mr. Linick, I
believe that these letters fulfill the President's requirement to
provide Congress reasons for the removal of the IC IG and the State IG,
as required by the Inspector General Reform Act. It is for this reason
that I withdraw my objection to both Mr. Billingslea and Mr. Miller.
The letter from the White House Counsel regarding the removal of the
IC IG repeats a previous letter from the White House which stated that
the President had lost confidence in the IC IG. However, the White
House Counsel enclosed with that letter a transcript of President Trump
providing his reasons for removing Mr. Atkinson to the press and has
informed me that those reasons represent the President's official
explanation of Mr. Atkinson's removal to Congress. I believe that this
transcript and its transmittal to Congress has fulfilled the statutory
notice requirement of the Inspector General Reform Act. It is for this
reason that I withdraw my objection to Mr. Miller.
Here follow my comments to the President, including my actions and
rationale: although the Constitution gives the President the authority
to manage executive branch personnel, Congress has made it clear by law
that should the President fire an inspector general, there ought to be
a good reason for it. No such reason was provided when the President
informed Congress of the removal of Mr. Atkinson on April 3, 2020.
Thus, in a bipartisan letter on April 8, 2020, my colleagues and I
reminded the President of his requirement under the statute to provide
reasons for removing an IG. On May 15, 2020, the President notified
Congress of his intent to remove Mr. Linick. This notification also
lacked reasons for the removal spurring my solo letter on May 18, 2020,
again reminding the President of his requirement to provide reasons.
After a delay, and a personal call with the White House Counsel, I
was promised a response to my letters that would fulfill the statutory
notice requirement. On May 26, 2020, I received a response from the
White House Counsel explaining the President's Constitutional removal
authority, which I never questioned. However, the letter still
contained no reason for the removals as required by law. This failure
to comply with the statute prompted my objection to both Mr. Miller and
Mr. Billingslea on June 4, 2020.
On June 6, 2020, I asked the White House to provide written reasons
for the removals. We discussed several issues. I took this opportunity
to talk to the White House and I told them that I needed reasons for
the firing of IGs to be submitted in writing.
On June 12, 2020, I received the enclosed letter from the State
Department which finally fulfills the executive branch's legal
requirement to provide Congress reasons for an IG's removal with regard
to Mr. Linick.
Here is my view on the firing of Mr. Linick. The State Department's
correspondence with CIGIE provided four reasons for Mr. Linick's
removal, all involving the investigation of the leak of information to
a news reporter pertaining to an IG report, which the reporter claims
to be based on information garnered from ``two government sources
involved in carrying out the investigation. The letter to CIGIE
requests that they begin an investigation into Mr. Linick's alleged
transgressions, including his: 1) ``failure to formally refer to CIGIE
. . . the investigation of [the] leak''; 2) ``hand selection'' of the
Department of Defense OIG to conduct the leak investigation; 3) ``non-
compliance with State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG)
email policies''; and 4) refusal to supply Department of State
leadership with a copy or summary of the leak investigation report
despite ``repeated requests'' from State Department leadership. These
claims are as of yet unverified but the President has offered an
additional briefing on the matter from State Department officials. I am
in the process of scheduling
[[Page S3098]]
such a briefing and reviewing the additional relevant information.
After reviewing the provided rationale, I have several concerns.
Chief among them is that CIGIE does not traditionally conduct
investigations into agency or OIG leaks. It reviews allegations against
individuals but not IG offices and generally lacks the funds and
resources to conduct work outside of their narrow scope. As a matter of
course however, IGs do traditionally check each other's work, and CIGIE
often suggests that allegations against IGs or their offices be
referred to peer IGs. This is done when crucial IG independence must be
maintained but the appearance of conflicts of interest may arise. It
would also not be uncharacteristic for an IG to safeguard the office's
statutorily required independence by potentially refusing to provide
internal information to its parent agency. In short, although it would
make little sense for CIGIE to conduct the leak investigation in the
manner desired by the State Department, it would not be outside the
bounds of precedent for one office of inspector general to conduct an
investigation into another.
Although I have not yet had the opportunity to verify the allegations
regarding Mr. Linick, as I noted earlier, the President retains the
constitutional authority to manage executive branch personnel. My
objection to these nominees was designed to prompt compliance with the
IG Reform Act, which the President has now done with regards to Mr.
Linick. Therefore, I am withdrawing my objection to Mr. Billingslea.
On June 12, 2020, I received the enclosed letter from the White House
Counsel which finally fulfills the executive branch's legal requirement
to provide Congress reasons for an IG's removal with regard to Mr.
Atkinson.
As it pertains to Mr. Atkinson: Even though the President satisfied
the requirements of the law, I do not agree that the provided reasons
merited Mr. Atkinson's removal. In the provided transcript the
President states, ``I thought [ Atkinson] did a terrible job.
Absolutely terrible . . . But ask him, `Why didn't you go and see the
[transcript of my phone call with the Ukrainian president]?' There was
no rush. [Atkinson] said, `Oh we'd have to rush it.' '' I infer from
this statement that the reason(s) that the President removed Mr.
Atkinson was because of the speed with which he sought to bring the
whistleblower information to Congress and/or his role generally in the
impeachment process.
With respect to this objection concerning Mr. Atkinson's supposed
haste, it is necessary to review the IC IG's responsibility under the
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The act provides
the IC IG only 14 days to determine if an ``urgent concern'' ``appears
credible'' and transmit that information to the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence, ODNI. Notably, the law also does not require
that a full investigation of a whistle blower's allegations be
completed before the information is provided to Congress. Reading such
a requirement into the law could result in critical and relevant
information not reaching the ODNI or Congress in a timely manner, and
could pose a chilling effect on whistleblowers' willingness to report
urgent concerns and other issues of waste, fraud, and abuse in the
intelligence community. That being said, I understand and appreciate
the President's irritation with this IG's action being a factor in the
House of Representative's impeachment.
In those remarks, the President also said that ``they give this
whistleblower a status that he doesn't deserve . . . . And, frankly,
somebody ought to sue [him].'' To the extent that the President is
referring to Mr. Atkinson's determination that the whistleblower
allegation at issue amounted to an urgent concern under the law, there
remains a significant difference of legal opinion on this matter. The
President's position is supported by the Department of Justice Office
of Legal Counsel, and Presidents routinely follow the legal
determinations of that office. However, whether or not the
whistleblower's allegation meets the legal definition of an ``urgent
concern'' under the law, I obviously do not agree that person should be
sued or otherwise retaliated against.
My objection to these nominees was designed to prompt compliance with
the IG Reform Act, which the President has now done with regards to Mr.
Atkinson. Therefore, I am withdrawing my objection to Mr. Miller.
Although some may want to believe that this is a new issue unique to
this administration, it certainly is not. In July of 2009, then
President Obama removed the Corporation for National and Community
Service--CNCS--Inspector General, Gerald Walpin, from his post in a
very similar manner and also did not provide reasons for removal. This
began a bout of negotiations that resulted in not only the hold of
several Presidential nominees but also a bicameral congressional
investigation into the matter. In that case, I similarly pushed for
compliance with the statute, held up a nominee to obtain information,
and disagreed with the stated reasons for Mr. Walpin's removal. In the
end, Mr. Walpin was never reinstated.
Given the misinterpretation of the statute by successive
administrations from both political parties, it is apparent that
Congress must clarify the statute to ensure inspectors general are able
to continue operating without undue interference. So I am introducing a
bipartisan bill today to accomplish just that.
(At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, today I will not be present to vote on
the confirmation of Justin Walker, vote 123, to be a judge on the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Were I present, I would vote
nay.
____________________
