Agreed, and it's deeply alarming for both its near-term and long-term consequences. Near-term: if Schiff's allegations are accurate, ODNI has circumvented the IG law by conferring with DoJ about a whistleblower complaint that should be headed to Congress.
Long-term: If ODNI refuses to provide whistleblower information to Congress, that single action would set a precedent that undermines the entire structure of intelligence oversight, and with it, undermines the legitimacy of the Intelligence Community.
That legitimacy was hard-won. It was less than 50 years ago the the Church/ Pike hearings in Congress demonstrated the need for ongoing, engaged, effective, and informed oversight of the IC by Congress.
And that legitimacy is always tenuous: many activities of the IC must, for good reasons, be carried out in secret. That secrecy makes robust and effective oversight absolutely critical. The Intel Ctes are among the few bodies who can provide the necessary checks and balances.
Sen. Church and Rep. Pike recognized that years ago, during their hearings that laid the framework for U.S. intel oversight in the modern era. As the authors of the draft Pike Cte report wrote, "The key to exercising oversight is knowledge." 
All of this is precisely why the Intel Ctes need access to IC information; why the IC IG needs to remain independent; why whistleblower protections are so important; and why all of these measures have been incorporated into statutory obligations.
