The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“NOTICE OF INTENT TO OBJECT TO PROCEEDING” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S2742-S2743 on June 4, 2020.
The State Department is responsibly for international relations with a budget of more than $50 billion. Tenure at the State Dept. is increasingly tenuous and it's seen as an extension of the President's will, ambitions and flaws.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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.
____________________
