Senators were stupefied Wednesday as Obama administration officials explained a recent legal opinion allowing federal agencies to withhold records from inspectors general appointed to oversee them – the consequences of which the officials support reversing with legislation.

Two inspectors general, supported by a crowd of about three dozen colleagues, also clamored for action at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, warning that in the meantime, whistleblowing through official channels has become riskier and accountability for agencies has diminished.

The administration's departure from a traditional understanding of the word "all" inspired the calls for prompt legislation by hearing participants.

Last month, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel decided the Inspector General Act of 1978’s requirement that agencies make “all” records available to their inspectors general does not override laws that mandate certain types of information not be disclosed.

The department's analysis specifically addressed grand jury proceedings and information protected by the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Federal Wiretap Act, finding no specific carve-outs for unfettered disclosure to inspectors general and that the Inspector General Act doesn’t specifically warrant otherwise.

The official watchdogs – appointed to detect and discourage waste, fraud and abuse – told senators the opinion's reach already is creeping to other types of information governed by laws that do not specifically say inspectors general can review it.

“Yesterday, in our review of the FBI’s use of the bulk telephony statute, a review that this committee has very much been interested in our doing, we got records with redactions [due to] other areas the FBI has legal concerns about," Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said. “The question is, where does it stop?”

The legal interpretation came in response to FBI resistance since 2010 to handing over records to inspectors, who are bound to abide by the same privacy and secrecy laws as the agencies they oversee.

Horowitz speculated the FBI's pivot may have been sparked by a hard-charging look into the bureau's employment of national security letters, which often are used to ply records from Internet companies without warrants. Horowitz said his office previously had been trusted with highly classified information – including details about the post-9/11 President's Surveillance Program – and never has been accused of mishandling it.

The probe into the FBI's collection of communications records (a previous report by the Justice Department inspector general on the collection of such information was partially redacted and released earlier this year) isn’t alone in being affected by the administration’s new stance.

David Smith, acting inspector general of the Commerce Department, also shared that his office was forced to cancel an audit as the Commerce Department anticipated the Office of Legal Counsel decision. He had sought access to proprietary business information that officials worried was protected by the Tariff Act of 1930 and the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

“This is not just a Justice OIG problem, nor is it limited just to law enforcement data,” Smith warned, saying the new interpretation may be used routinely to stall delivery of records inspectors general are entitled to review.

Smith and Horowitz also said they are concerned the new legal opinion will discourage whistleblowers from coming forward and strip protections against retaliation from those who do.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, made little effort to disguise his disgust and said the Office of Legal Counsel refused to provide a representative for the hearing.

“I appreciate all of the statistics you gave us, but mathematically, all of those don’t equal A-L-L: all,” Grassley told FBI Associate Deputy Director Kevin Perkins, who said the bureau was willing to work with Congress on reform allowing greater access.

“The process in place today is the best it has ever been,” Perkins said, saying the FBI had otherwise streamlined conveyance of information to the inspector general.

Associate Deputy Attorney General Carlos Uriarte said Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other department leaders are working to craft “a concrete legislative proposal” to reverse the effects of the Justice Department’s legal interpretation.

“We do think a legislative solution here is workable and it is something we absolutely support to address this issue,” Uriarte said. “We do not, as [Horowitz] mentioned, want to be in a position of having to deal with these issues. We think he should get everything he needs and erase any question about his independence.”

Congress previously attempted to accomplish this with 2015 appropriations bill language barring the use of funds to restrict inspector general access.

Editorial Cartoons on Barack Obama View All 287 Images

“What we thought was a fix turned out not to be that,” Horowitz said. Grassley said he had felt that the restriction had reaffirmed that "all" meant "all."

“It is laughable and it’s completely unacceptable,” said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who suggested Lynch use her authority to reverse the legal interpretation. Opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel previously have been withdrawn, he pointed out.