Attorney, maybe i do not suffer the tragedy of knowledge that this is more complicated than it seems. We seem to be in violent agreement. We have a 67page opinion. It seems to me if we put as much work and focus into the fix, we will have something in the end of august to act on and if we fail to do it, i think it is a failure on the part of all parties. Thank you for your testimony. We appreciate your time here today. We will bring forward the next panel. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, before we have the will havesit down, we you remains standing so you can be sworn. Actually, i will give them an opportunity welcome. If you will please raise your right hand. Do you affirm this testimony youre about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god . Thank you. You may be seated. The panelists arm is danielle bryan. , afessor paul liked professor of Public Service at the Robert G Wagner school of Public Service at you new york university. And the current director of navigate solutions. Ian, we will start with you. Are a watchdog the champions government reform. In order to serve as the eyes and ears of congress, and by extinction extension the American Public, the ig must have oversight of the organizations it overseas. Argue the ones that are most hesitant to have an ig for review are the ones that are most important for the ig to have. If the office has to seek the agencys permission to carry out its mission, it is restricted. Agencies that restricted limit the ability of congress and the public to hold the executive branch accountable. Chairman grassley and others have rightly committed the declared the opinion. They cannot be expected to be effective watchdogs. Of the house of representatives doj that the opinion treats as if it were above the law. Doj can use the midas touch approach to turning material secrets. We are particularly concerned about the consequences for whistleblowers on the front lines exposing agency malfeasance. Opinion could have a Chilling Effect on whistleblowers at the fbi, dea, wantther places that would to provide information, but would understandably feared the communication with the ig wouldnt would in itself be a prosecutable offense. Be opinion would also thwart the ability to confront claims of whistleblower retaliation, as ton the fbi delayed access records in two recent investigations. The essence of the opinion hands control over to the subject of the investigation to decide whether or not it wants to operate. As it turns out, this is not the first time the olc has challenged the authority of federal what stocks. Prior to the passage of the act, that the prior reporting of ig offices to congress as well as the agency head would violate the separation of powers doctrine. They allegedinion was restricted from receiving intelligence information. This is being felt beyond congress and the irs, indicating issues for offices across the federal government. Igs offices face other barriers as well, but i would like to take the opportunity to raise these in the hearing. The doj ig is required to refer any allegations of misconduct to an internal investigators said investigative unit. That opr documented hundreds of cases of recklessness or misconduct by doj attorneys over the past decade. Did not release identifying information, unlike the Inspector General, meaning we have no way of knowing if anyone is held accountable. It is hard enough for the doj ig when it has to fight with Department Leaders for access to agency records. It is even harder for them to hold doj accountable when it is legally restricted from an investigation by personnel. They have the authority prohibit the dig ig from conducting audits that would have information concerning sensitive operations. Includingal agencies visa crave defense, the secretary of treasury, and the secretary of Homeland Security have similar powers under the law. Be giventhese require. Pportunities to investigate senator grassley, your bill also addresses problems that doj faces across agencies. A neededthat this is improvement. And also, congress should continue to put pressure on white house and agency head to fill vacancies with independent and aggressive watchdogs. Strengtheningd to ig independence and ensuring that oversight is fair and effective. [indiscernible] sir, turn on your microphone. Dr. Light it is such a pleasure to testify before this committee and the chairman in particular, who was from iowa and i am from south dakota. So, i trust you will be gentle. I have a couple of statements. To the point. Number one, i am extremely familiar with the legislative record of this act, dating back to 1976. That particular statute establishing the atw oig, which is not mentioned in the throughspread like cornfields. And it has. I do not think it is a sophisticated, heavily negotiated at, having drafted plenty of legislative reports when i was here as a staffer and congressional fellow. I urge you to please go lightly on the work wire meant that your legislativethe report on this. It is in the attorney generals to control thety inspectors general. That is where it comes from. Numeral simply amend the statute to read that this particular authority does not include withholding. And let me just conclude we can talk in question and answer about those. The key conclusion in this section six permits withholding. Now my adobe reader on my , and ir work, i think serve every last i searched every last record i have, every last hearing, every last conference report, the legislation. I cannot find the word withholding used or granted as a tool of prevention. The attorney general has the authority to events disclosure of sensitive information. But not through withholding. Not through withholding. The statutes are not in conflict , which renders the olc opinion of little interest, unnecessary, taken up by other agencies and the department of for complexused negotiations that themselves i the igsute should say to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and promote economy and efficiency. This is an easy fix or my perspective reading the record. I urge you to consider that rather than the heavy duty negotiations you might soon or you are only thing to answer. Last point not a legal i am a legislative historian and i know this record than olc, from my reading of the opinion. It is wrong on many points. It misinterprets in many areas and draws the wrong conclusion. I would give my student is degraded as you move through this report. Thats all i have to say. Grassley thank you, mr. Light. Chairman grassley, thank you for allowing me to testify. Thank you for your support or inspectors general. It is a pleasure to see so many of my former colleagues behind me in the audience. I think this shows how important this issue is to the entire ig community. After serving in the department of justice for about 15 years, i have the honor of serving as the Inspector General of the General Services administration, and i 2014, until last year, and i consider myself extremely fortunate to have served with so many rents a bold Public Servants principled Public Servants and brilliant attorneys and others who work diligently and i,ig Community Area too, am concerned about the opinion. The olc concerned about the policy impact. We heard something serious a while ago. Even the doj officials did not opinion. Efend the olc the Deputy Attorney general stated a different policy. Informationat this should go to the eye g. Not even the doj is supporting this opinion. But generally, everyone supports oversight. We need to have oversight of federal agencies. We need to have oversight of how they spend money, how they keep our most sensitive and private information. That is why we have igs. To withhold one of the important tools that an ig has will deliver devastating results. Ig, but for the doj all. Making their job much more difficult. The American People expect that the fbi and Law Enforcement departments that actually obtain grand jury information and wiretap information and or valence information keep that information confidential. But they also want someone to to makethose agencies sure that they are using that information in the proper way and not misusing our most private information. Igs to get want that information. I think that is the policy that has been stated in the previous hour. That is the policy everyone if i to agree to, even heard the representative of the Deputy Attorney general correctly, even he stated that. Order to have effective oversight, and ig must have independence to conduct an audit. Gation review or this includes determining what information is needed. In making this determination, it is the judgment of the ig conducting the investigation that matters. Not the judgment of the agency being investigated. The olc opinion reverses that process and makes the judgment of the agency being investigated control the judgment of the ig. That is exactly backwards. To deny the ig information that is needed to reach a conclusion or a finding is misguided. Its like trying to build a bridge halfway over a river and saying, you can have the rest of the material. It just doesnt work. Its disastrous. The ig must have all of the information to make an accurate conclusion and finding. The results of the current procedure at doj will stall doj ig investigations while they meet for investigations to meet on the access for this information. They will not get the information they need. That doesestigation not get information will stall, just like a car. It if it does not get gasoline, it will stall. The igs job is hard enough already. Have problems getting information from agency officials. Various legal reasons are often inquiries. Lock ig many of those get worked out because they are simply unfounded. Many of those are based on privacy issues, personally identifiable information concerns, or financial information. Ultimately the ig gives the information, but the investigation or the audit is slowed down. In fact, back in 2009 and 2008, we were having difficulty gettingdid read on unrestricted readonly access to the databases at gsa. I read an article at the journal of Public Inquiry about it. At the process was much similar to this in that what the agency wanted to do shift the shifted the burden to the ig. Our auditors were filling out forms, explaining why we need to know. When i found out about this and the delays and our audits, i had a series of meetings with the administrator. We ultimately worked it out, but it was a difficult issue we had to work through, and i recommended at the time in that article that there be a legislative fix to clarify all igs and have fun restrict it, allonly access to electronic databases. The language is already clear that all means all. I urge this committee to make comply withencies that language and they understand that all means all. Thank you very much. Senator grassley i will ask his questions after he is gone. Professor light we are where we are. It looks like the a grade on the a, but be less than in what does a light fix look like in your opinion . i think youht need to add a section of definitions. Very simple. Many statutes include definitions of key terms. The two definitions at hand that need to be defined to dispose of this issue and i give the olc and a for effort. I think, senator, the chairman said, or one of your colleagues said that it was really almost a herculean effort to figure out how to make the statute speak to this issue. Really impressive. No. In terms of the outcome, so, look, youve got to define what the pivot is in here that the notion that an agency had or the attorney general could on thed is not dependent statutes. That the igs have to Pay Attention to that. It stands on the notion that the agency and the attorney general and direct the igs and therefore can control, and at least that is how i read the opinion and you have to say nothing in that provision may be interpreted to give the attorney general or any Agency Authority to hold information under section the full access section. And then i think you define all of the war perhaps. I mean, you know, the olc opinion is on point regarding Supreme Court decisions, regarding the broad nature of the word. I dont agree i think all means crucial and fundamental and that the senate and the house worked very hard to say how important this was, but go ahead and give olc some help. I strongly believe that this memorandum should be withdrawn. To issuegood for olc an opinion that is so tangled. It does not help their reputation in future memoranda. Thats not something you can order would want to order. Its very simple, i think. Senator tillis mr. Miller, do you have anything to add . Mr. Miller i like the language added, the inspectors, their letter from the inspector to this committee specifies that the provision require no law restricting information applies to inspectors general, unless that law expressly so states and restricting that access extends to all records available to the agency, regardless of location or forms. In the priors panel from testimony and your opening statement, it seems to me we all have agreement when he to fix it, even within the department. Professor like, you made a comment, that i think is very important, something i am very concerned with. We can work very hard and have all of these intensive negotiations, everything else. But it does not seem that difficult. I think the month we are spending now, we need to come up not a 100le fix, saddle on a 10 horse. This is a straightforward proposition. I wont ask anymore questions except to say for those involved in this, keep it simple and get it done quickly, because we need to get the Inspector Generals back to the point where they can do their job, a very important job they have done very well for many, many years. Thank you, mr. Chair. Grassley before i have questions, i know senator leahy has questions for both panels. Expect that. What is the normal time so, up to one week we will take questions for answer in writing. You have all had a chance to olc e ol see opinion askolc opinion, i want to all of you, what is the weakest point of the olc opinion . The question of if congress all. It is similar in whistleblower protections with any. It is the same willful disregard of congresss intent. Senator grassley mr. Light . Professor light it was in the order of presentation regarding the the linear nation of house provision, dealing with a blanket exemption for the Inspector General from the privacy act. Reads this and says, well, this is the blow that congress did not intend full access. They deleted the statute with this eloquent language for this provision in 1978. The olc actually reached that by ing that deletion allows inside the deletion was a mundane effort to clean up the statute. The senate is looking at the house statute and says, you know, this provision is unnecessary. It is kind of insulting. The senate was concerned about all of the justice departments objections to this. There was in 1957 men to random that was very intense about the unconstitutionality there was issue that was very intense about the unconstitutionality. In issue is expired earlier the report, four pages earlier, as, you know, we were cleaning up certain features of this act. That is it. If you reverse the order, it looks like this dramatic moment senateoncern it consideration that dumped this provision in an effort to say all does not mean all. I found that the most disturbing, actually. Reordering are legislative history. And that is absolutely not acceptable. Senator grassley mr. Miller, before you answer, my first question i what you to think about the second one. We are looking for language that would make it there enough to ensure the inspectors general really do get access to all of the records that belong to be a respective agencies buried cancer both right now, mr. Miller. Ok, mr. Chairman. I think the weakest part of the opinion is where it deals with the appropriations linkage, section 218. , and thehat was clear olc, that is probably the weakest part. And the olc opinion, that is probably the weakest part. On page 46 or so, it talks about the notwithstanding language. It mentions that a number of places. I think it begins on page 45,. Ut mainly on page 46 other standards where it would not apply. It says notwithstanding any other law or statutory hibition on disclosure, et cetera, et cetera. Clear statement ,aying manifest an unequivocal and i think any sort of fix would have to be clear, manifest, and unequivocal. I think that is on page 56 57 of the opinion, first full paragraph. Saying the problem not with any other law, you run into this problem, which you have mentioned, mr. Chairman, that there are so many laws that if you try to list them all and say they dont apply, but if you forget one or if one is passed after the statute, there are thelems. At i do think council of oigs on integrity up with some pretty good testimony. I quit that in my written testimony at the end. That simply says actually, i dont have it in front of me right now. I read it earlier. That language was very clear. Says here it is. No law or provision restricting access to information applies to inspectors general unless that law expressly so states and that such unrestricted Inspector General access extends to all records available to the agents he regardless of location or form. Senator grassley ok. I think i will end with this question. , your organization has force fording accountability. In that time weve seen the importance of having which dogs watchdogs in each agency that are truly independent. What will be the practical result of the olc opinion Going Forward if we do not fix it legislatively . Ms. Brian thank you, senator grassley. We wereremember that founded by your old friend ernie fitzgerald. That gets to the point of how the biggest indications for whistleblowers, who are generally be first line equal reporting to the igs, not only will they have legitimate concerns, as they already do, about coming forward now, that this will amplify that problem, but it also will prevent the protection of those whistleblowers, which is what we are hoping the igs will be more capable of doing. So, we see this as unnecessary in some senses, because as we have been hearing before, and i think senator cornyn made a really good