Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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. If we don't update the law, we can only expect future administrations to continue to do what has been done lately, not giving Congress good reasons

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, while there are reports of plans to remove troops stationed in Germany, I am reluctant to comment on a proposal that I have not seen. What I can say, however, is that Congress will have a say. What I can also say is that the U.S. commitment to NATO and our European allies is rock solid. That said, it is not in the American character to project power for power's sake. Since World War II, we have reluctantly accepted the lesson that our geography and good will alone cannot protect us in the United States from being dragged into other things around the globe, particularly conflicts. The U.S. military presence in Europe since World War II has preserved the freedom of half of Europe and contributed to the eventual freedom of the other half of Europe. Yet, despite enjoying economic and security benefits, polls show our presence is unpopular with a large segment of the German population. Combine the American public's reluctance to station troops abroad with the sense that they are not wanted or appreciated by their hosts, you can expect some second thoughts. This isn't the whole story. I know many German political leaders who treasure the friendship between our two countries, and their voices are needed now more than ever before. Moreover, our bases in Germany are not there just for the Germans. They provide critical support to troops in harm's way in the Middle East and are vital for NATO deterrence. The people of Poland and the Baltic countries are among the most pro- American that you can find anywhere in the world, and the governments representing them put their money where their mouth is when it comes to NATO. Our mere presence in Europe reduces the likelihood of Russian aggression against these friends and a repeat of their past oppression. America will not abandon our allies. Our credibility and national honor demand it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business, and if the leader doesn't come, I may ask for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, yesterday, I gave the details of historic police reform that passed unanimously in both houses of the Republican-controlled legislature. Surely, if Democrats in Iowa can work with Republicans to find unanimity, we shouldn't have any problems here in the U.S. Congress passing something unanimously as well. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This morning, Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Senator Tim Scott, and other Members of the Republican task force unveiled a piece of legislation that goes by the title of Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere, or the acronym JUSTICE, for short. I applaud their leadership on this issue. Democrats should stop partisan attacks and instead spend their time with us working together to find solutions. It is pretty simple for me. If the Iowa legislature can do it in a bipartisan and unanimous way, we can do it here as well

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have notified the Senate majority leader of my intent to object to proceeding to S. Res. 625, a resolution encouraging the Government and the people of the United States to ``Buy American.'' The resolution, though well-intentioned, would have implications on trade and manufacturing policy that require further study. It could further invite our trading partners to take similar actions that would negatively impact U.S. farmers, businesses, consumers, and workers.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, too often, Americans are cynical about our political system when all they see is legislative gridlock. Yet Iowans were able to set themselves apart by working together on law enforcement reforms in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Every step of the way, the Iowa process was fueled by input from the grassroots, including those who demonstrated peacefully. The Republican-led statehouse and senate partnered with the Democrats to unanimously pass reforms in our State--some of them historic reforms. Governor Reynolds signed House File 2647 to bring additional accountability to Iowa's law enforcement officers. These are some of the things that they did: created stronger restrictions on the use of choke holds by law enforcement officers; improved the law enforcement decertification process to ensure that those who have been fired or who resign after serious misconduct do not work in our State; strengthened the authority of the Iowa attorney general to prosecute officers whose actions result in the death of another; established annual anti-bias and deescalation training requirements for officers. We are working on some of these very same policies here on the Federal level. Washington should follow Iowa's example and pass legislation to help correct wrongs and inspire positive change in our communities across the country. Senator Lindsey Graham will be leading hearings today on this issue before the Committee on the Judiciary. Hopefully, we can act. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this time of year for the last roughly 30 years, the World Food Prize has announced a laureate. The laureate announced this year is Dr. Rattan Lal. He will receive the prize for his work on soil health at the annual ceremony that has taken place in Des Moines for the last 30 years in October. Often called the Nobel Prize for Agriculture, the World Food Prize is awarded for exceptional achievements that advance human development by increasing the quantity, quality, availability of, or access to food. The award was created by Iowan Dr. Norman Borlaug, who is credited with saving more lives than any other person who ever lived through his pioneering work in developing new, more productive plant varieties and particularly plant varieties free of disease. The Green Revolution sparked by Dr. Borlaug made it possible for India to feed its people. Dr. Lal, also from India, is being recognized for his work, which will be of interest to Iowans and others around the world. Dr. Lal said: Achieving hunger-free humanity, soil degradation neutrality, negative emission farming, and pollutant-free water are among principal challenges which can never be ignored. . . . Sustainable management of soil and agriculture is also essential to keeping global temperatures within the safe range and restoring the environment. If people want to know who Dr. Borlaug is, he is one of the two statues that Iowa has put in Statuary Hall. He is one of five people in our country who have received a Nobel Peace Prize, the Congressional Gold Medal, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. The miracles of scientific innovation have cleared illnesses that a generation ago delivered a death sentence to many Americans. Dr. Jonas Salk's polio vaccine in 1953 eradicated the fatal effects of the virus that killed thousands of children in the first half of the 20th century. I have every confidence that our scientific community will unlock a vaccine to stop the coronavirus pandemic. Testing, developing, and reviewing vaccines take time, but all of that is well underway. However, there is no time to lose for Congress to pass my bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. We have the responsibility to ensure that pharmaceutical treatments, therapies, and vaccines are affordable for all Americans facing this pandemic or any of the future ones. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Wednesday, June 3, this year, the Associated Press released an article detailing China's stonewalling and delay tactics in withholding crucial data from the World Health Organization. That information that was held was about the novel coronavirus that caused COVID-19. Now, this article gives us a glimpse behind the scenes of the World Health Organization, and there are a lot of questions raised about the World Health Organization today in regard to their relationship with China. The political leaders at WHO pursued a strategy of placating China in a seemingly haphazard attempt to coax China's leader into cooperating more fully. Now, despite red flags raised by medical experts within the organization about the lack of data coming out of China and also serious doubts about the Chinese Government's claim that human-to-human transmission was not of any concern, WHO leadership, through all of that, continued lauding China's approach and transparency on this whole virus issue. Many career officials openly voiced their frustration with how the World Health Organization leadership lacked the willingness to push China to hand over vital information about the virus. Remember, the World Health Organization did publicly push China when it withheld information on the SARS outbreak in 2003 but didn't seem to be as interested pushing China as much this time. The Chinese Government then refused to share data about COVID-19 test results that would have allowed researchers around the world to make independent assessments of the virus's spread. Now, weeks passed before the Chinese Government allowed the World Health Organization to see the map of the virus genome, and that genome was created by Chinese researchers. So they had the information where other people could start out to try to find a vaccine. By that time, the virus was already spreading around the globe, which has led to countless needless deaths and immeasurable economic damage globally that now rests on the shoulders of the Chinese for that happening. I am glad that the World Health Organization member countries approved an investigation as to how the organization handled COVID-19. I hope this will be a truly independent investigation that will prevent future mishaps. Now, in the meantime, we already know enough about the actions by the World Health Organization management to warrant immediate changes. Politics must never again get in the way of those medical professionals in the organization who are actually dedicated to fulfilling the World Health Organization's mission to share accurate and timely public health information and at the same time save lives. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business, please.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the virus pandemic underscores the very vital contribution pharmaceutical sciences make for our Nation's public health, our Nation's economic prosperity, and our way of life. It also confirms that we need a policy solution to treat soaring healthcare prices. The American people want the best medical cures at prices they can afford. The Prescription Drug Pricing Act is a winning solution. Let's get it to the President's desk without delay. It will help secure our American way of life in a post-pandemic world for generations to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that is kind of like a one-size-fits-all for elections, meaning that everything ought to be run out of Washington, DC, which is contrary to what we have done in this country for 240 years, wherein we have had 50 States running the elections. I want to refer to what happens in the State of Iowa. Last week, Iowans voted in record numbers in our June primary. In most elections, about 40 percent of Iowans choose to vote by absentee ballot. This year, in our primary and, understandably, because of the pandemic, the vast majority cast its votes by absentee ballot--a State decision, a personal decision, not something dictated by Washington. As I have already referred to, there are those here in Washington, DC--in Congress and maybe outside of Congress--who say that, unless the Federal Government mandates that States adopt a whole new, centralized, nonoptional vote-by-mail system before November, Americans will not be able to vote from home. Iowa's successful primary election shows that the absentee ballot system that is already in place in our State--and in most States--that is run by our county auditors is up to the task. We have proven that. Every Iowan who wants to vote absentee in November can do so, and those who want to vote in person can also do so safely. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is no longer business as usual in America, so let's end business as usual in Washington. We are experiencing a deadly pandemic. The United States is firing on all cylinders to fight it and to find a vaccine, but it does us no good if Americans can't even afford the vaccine or related treatments. Even before the coronavirus outbreak reached our shores, President Trump called upon Congress to deliver a bill to his desk that lowered drug prices for Americans. He mentioned that in his State of the Union message. The Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act does just that. It is time for Congress to support the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today marks the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, when students led demonstrations for greater accountability, constitutional due process, democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. One million people participated in these historic protests. Tragically, the Chinese Communist Party responded with ruthless force, killing demonstrators and bystanders. Troops with assault rifles and tanks fired at demonstrators and those trying to block the military's advance into Tiananmen Square. Several hundred to several thousand people were killed that day. China has been ruled by a brutal, authoritarian regime, a communist regime, since 1949. This regime has not changed its nature, and we see that today in the South China Sea, Hong Kong, against Taiwan, and in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Sunday, a young Iowan from Davenport set out to exercise her constitutional rights by peacefully protesting the disturbing death of George Floyd. But when agitators turned things violent, Italia Marie Kelly decided it was time to go. As she was trying to leave, she was struck and killed by a bullet. She was only 22. Italia was protesting against violence, but she couldn't escape it. We must stand up against violence, racism and abuses by law enforcement. We must also stand up against those who hijack peaceful protests. More death and destruction is no way to honor the legacies of those lost.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Christopher C. Miller, of Virginia, to be Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (PN1741). On April 8, 2020, I sent a bipartisan letter to the President cosigned by seven of my colleagues regarding the removal of Intelligence Community Inspector General (IC IG) Michael Atkinson. That letter reminded the President of his requirement under the Inspector General Reform Act to provide clear reasons for such removal. After a delay, the White House promised me a response to my 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 IC IG. 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 fire 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. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, 1 minute for morning business, please.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the virus pandemic is disrupting our daily lives in unimaginable ways. The National Institutes of Health is working with a private sector biotech company and has already begun early-stage human trials for a potential vaccine, so there is hope on the horizon. However, the soaring prices of prescription drugs are making lifesaving treatments and cures simply unaffordable for many Americans. This pandemic made clear two issues: Americans urgently want a cure, and when lifesaving therapies and cures come to the market, Americans must be able to afford them when their providers prescribe them. My bipartisan Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act is needed now more than ever. I yield the floor.