Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S2742-S2743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOTICE OF INTENT TO OBJECT TO PROCEEDING
I, Senator Chuck Grassley, intend to object to proceeding to the
nomination of Mashall Billingslea, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary
of State for Arms Control and International Security dated June 4,
2020.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous
consent request relating to the nomination of Marshall Billingslea, of
Virginia, to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security, vice Andrea L. Thompson, resigned (PN1732).
Following my bipartisan letter to the president on April 8, 2020,
regarding the removal of the Intelligence Community Inspector General
(IC IG), I sent a separate letter to the President regarding the
removal of the Department of State Inspector General (State IG). My
letter echoed the IC IG letter to the President and reminded him of his
requirement under the Inspector General Reform Act to provide clear
reasons for removal of inspectors general. I also raised concerns
regarding the inherent conflicts of interest created by naming
individuals holding political positions within the overseen agency as
acting inspectors general. After a delay, the White House promised me a
response to both the IC IG letter and my State IG letter that fulfilled
the statutory requirement by providing substantive reasons for the
removal. On the evening of May 26, 2020, I received a response from the
White House, but it contained no explanation for the removal of the
State IG and made no comment regarding the conflicts of interest issues
that I raised.
Though the Constitution gives the president the authority to manage
executive branch personnel, Congress has made it clear that should the
president find reason to remove an inspector general, there ought to be
a good reason for it. The White House's response failed to address this
requirement, which Congress clearly stated in statute and accompanying
reports. I don't dispute the President's authority under the
Constitution, but without sufficient explanation, the American people
will be left speculating whether political or self-interests are to
blame. That's not good for the presidency or government accountability.
This is only compounded when the acting IG maintains their
presidentially appointed position within the overseen agency.
Further, the White House's response states that the President was
acting in a manner that comported with the precedent that began under
the Obama administration. The letter states that the President's letter
mirrors the one sent by President Obama when he removed IG Walpin. What
that letter fails to mention is that President Obama, at the demand of
myself and other members of this Chamber, eventually did send several
letters explaining in much greater detail the reasons for the removal
of Mr. Walpin. They were inadequate responses that continually changed
and eventually resulted in a bicameral investigation into the matter,
but reasons were provided.
I have attached copies of these letters and the aforementioned report
for the Record. I intend to maintain this hold until the notice
requirement in the Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. app.
Sec. 3(b) is met and the reasons for the IC IGs removal are provided.
[[Page S2743]]
____________________