[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESUMPTION OF THE JULY 16, 2014 FULL COMMITTEE HEARING, ``WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS: IS SUPPORTING CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGN
FUNDRAISING AN APPROPRIATE USE OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICE?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-125
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-594 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 25, 2014.................................... 1
APPENDIX
Correspondence between the Committee and the White House......... 10
RESUMPTION OF THE JULY 16, 2014 FULL COMMITTEE HEARING, ``WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS: IS SUPPORTING CANDIDATES AND CAMPAIGN
FUNDRAISING AN APPROPRIATE USE OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICE?''
----------
Friday, July 25, 2014
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:09 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Meadows, Cummings, Maloney,
Norton, Tierney, Clay, Lynch, Cartwright, Duckworth, Kelly,
Welch, Cardenas, and Horsford.
Staff Present: Alexa Armstrong, Legislative Assistant;
Melissa Beaumont, Assistant Clerk; Molly Boyl, Deputy General
Counsel and Parliamentarian; Ashley H. Callen, Deputy Chief
Counsel for Investigations; Steve Castor, General Counsel; John
Cuarderes, Deputy Staff Director; Lamar Echols, Counsel; Adam
P. Fromm, Director of Member Services and Committee Operations;
Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Caroline Ingram, Counsel; Mark D.
Marin, Deputy Staff Director for Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto,
Chief Counsel, Investigations; Andrew Rezendes, Counsel; Laura
L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Jessica Seale, Digital Director;
Andrew Shult, Deputy Digital Director; Jonathan J. Skladany,
Deputy General Counsel; Rebecca Watkins, Communications
Director; Krista Boyd, Minority Deputy Director of Legislation/
Counsel; Marianna Boyd, Minority Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman,
Minority Communications Director; Julia Krieger, Minority New
Media Press Secretary; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of
Operations; Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director; and Michael
Wilkins, Minority Staff Assistant.
Chairman Issa. Committee will come to order.
We are here to continue a hearing that began July 16th,
2014, called ``White House Office of Political Affairs: Is
Supporting Candidates and Campaign Fundraising an Appropriate
Use of a Government Office?'' The purpose of the hearing is to
gather facts about the White House Office of Political and
Strategic Outreach.
I would like to note for the record Mr. David Simas,
director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach and
assistant to the President, is in fact not present at the
hearing today. Mr. Simas was invited to testify to give
committee members and the American people an opportunity to
hear from the head of an office that has, under several
previous administrations, misused government resources for
political purposes.
Despite being under subpoena, Mr. Simas failed to appear at
the hearing on July 16th. I gave him a second chance to appear
today to fulfill his obligation under a lawful subpoena.
At this time, I would like to place in the record the
correspondence between the committee and the White House
regarding this matter.
The White House has informed my staff for the first time
this morning at 7:30 a.m. that Mr. Simas would not be present
at today's hearing. We continue to work with the White House
staff on proposed ways to resolve this. However, today's
failure to appear is noted for the record and is not excused.
Mr. Cummings, do you have any remarks?
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I just have a brief statement.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Cummings. And just one question. I just wanted to
highlight the letter, the last correspondence that we just put
in the record, for the members to--I want to draw their
attention to it and aware--it is very brief. It is only three
or four sentences. I received your--this is to the chairman
dated July 24, 2014: I received your letter of today's date a
little after 7:00 p.m. this evening. This is yesterday. My
staff has reached out to yours to discuss these issues in good
faith. I trust that they will report back to us on their
progress. In light of this, it would be helpful if you would
withdraw the subpoena to Mr. Simas as we discuss whether we can
reach an appropriate accommodation. Sincerely, W. Neil
Eggleston, Counsel to the President.
The end part of this is very brief, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, before we proceed any further, I just want to make
sure, confirm what we talked about already, that we understand
that we are doing--what we are doing this morning so our
members will be clear. You resumed this hearing this morning
even though we knew Mr. Simas was not coming. And earlier this
morning, your staff told special counsel, Carolyn Lerner, not
to come to the hearing today, and so we won't have her
testimony.
My understanding is that you plan to move next to the
business meeting to consider your resolution on Mr. Simas. And
is that correct?
Chairman Issa. At this time, based on his non-attendance,
yes.
Mr. Cummings. And just to be clear, I have a statement I
would like give. And I am happy to wait until the business
meeting to give it, but I want to make sure that I will have
that opportunity, and you told me that I would.
Chairman Issa. That is correct. Although if you'd like to
give it now, you may.
Mr. Cummings. No. I will wait till the business meeting.
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cummings, just in brief response, as you know, we have
an inherent obligation of oversight. The question before us
today is a very straightforward question: Are we doing
oversight? Is it our right and our obligation to do oversight?
I believe it is. There is a long precedent that when this
committee asks for someone appropriately, and they are not made
available, and we believe, the chair believes we need that
person--and in the case of an office of only four people, the
head is not a big ask--to be the most appropriate, that we
expect that person to come.
The record will show that we have negotiated and attempted
alternatives, including discussions about possible transcribed
interviews and other nonpublic ways to get the same
information. However, the subpoena is, in my opinion,
inappropriate to lift, because ultimately, lifting the subpoena
implies and would mean that he may not come. It is the
considered opinion of this committee chair that we have an
absolute right and obligation to investigate, not any
wrongdoing, no predicate or claim of wrongdoing--however, this
is an office that has a past, that past, under both Republicans
and Democrats, have been questioned, and there has been an odd
situation of saying it was wrong, but keeping it for 3 years;
shutting it down and then reconstituting it much smaller.
And as you and I spoke, and if you don't mind, something
that we said in private, the question that came from the
briefing, which I was appreciative that the White House did
give us, was that this office controls only the President and
the First Lady, and it does not control the members of the
Cabinet.
As the earlier proceeding made clear, we have an obligation
to look at all government officials, whether covered by the
Hatch Act or not, and find out whether or not they are doing
political activity with government money and government time
unless explicitly exempted. It is the considered opinion at
this time of the committee and Ms. Lerner, the counsel, that
the four people whose purpose it is to schedule the president
and the First Lady, who are exempt from the Hatch Act, is in
fact potentially a necessary office. Because this office was
closed by this President as wrong and, if you will,
unnecessary, operated for 3 years, without finding out if those
four individuals are necessary and how their use of our
taxpayer dollars are being used, is a question.
And when we reconvene, and probably a second hearing after
Mr. Simas appears at the first hearing, will be to ask the
second question: If this office controls only the President and
First Lady, and there are hundreds of potential Cabinet and
sub-Cabinet officers who then are controlled to go to places
where they meet, participate either overtly in political
activities or are scheduled to be in districts of Senators
and--or States of Senators and districts of House Members at
times when it might be beneficial to their campaign, so
literally fundraising or, less literally, support of
candidates' reelection, who is scheduling them? How are they
scheduling them?
This was intended to be a short, and I hope it still will
be, oversight of a relatively small but, in the past,
controversial office consistent with our requirement to do
oversight even without a predicate of wrongdoing. I do want to
make sure the committee understands on both sides of the aisle
that we were going to ask the question as to the President and
First Lady, and we believe we will get satisfactory answers. We
then must move on to the Cabinet. And, as you know, under this
President, not uniquely, it happens with other past Presidents,
we have had two Cabinet officers who did in fact commit Hatch
Act violations. That tells us that we have a control
responsibility with a predicate, an inherent predicate, for
making sure that the organizational systems for Cabinet
officers and the like is covered. I claim no predicate for the
office of the President. I claim oversight, and I believe you
would support me in that principle.
I think we do have a predicate in the case of the Cabinet,
but we have no ongoing wrongdoing accusation about the cabinet.
We simply have a history under Presidents of both parties that
this has been an area of concern and past violations.
So this has been communicated back and forth with the White
House. They understand this is not alleging a scandal at any
level, but in fact doing the oversight that we are pledged to
do and that cannot be done by the executive branch, can only be
done by our branch. So I look forward to your remarks when we
open for the business meeting. I take it very serious that we
are going to likely find that--that the committee believes Mr.
Simas has a responsibility to be here and find that, once
again, we are going to insist that he respond to the subpoena
either in its original form or, if we can reach a mutually
agreeable accommodation, that accommodation.
Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Issa. Of course.
Mr. Cummings. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for
what you just said, and what you said is accurate as to what
our discussions have been. I want to make that very clear.
With regard to--I want to--so that the public and the
committee will be clear, so there are no--and I realize that
you are not saying that there needs to be, but you are saying
that, if I understand it, to your knowledge, Mr. Simas has done
nothing wrong and his office has done nothing wrong.
Chairman Issa. We are accusing neither the President nor
this four-person office of any wrongdoing. There is a past
history that you and I are both aware of that caused an opinion
that it needed to be closed and the closing of the office. And
so inherently when an office is closed, one might say in
scandal, and that is a multi-Presidential scandal, and then
reopened, it is probably inherently the most important
oversight we can do and say, in the past, this didn't work
properly. How do we know it will work properly going forward?
I believe the American people have an obligation--or we
have an obligation to make sure that we spend the money well
and that the American people have a comfort level, but again,
you are exactly right, Mr. Cummings: I allege no ongoing
wrongdoing, but it is more appropriate when you have a history
like this to look at it than the average four-person office in
the White House.
Mr. Cummings. And there were two Cabinet members that you
mentioned. And, of course, we would agree that those offenses,
Hatch Act offenses, took place long before this incident, the
opening of this office.
Chairman Issa. That is correct, although I believe one of
them likely took place before the closing of its previous
office, but--and as you and I talked about in the White House
briefing, they told us they are not controlling through this
office the activities of members of the Cabinet, which actually
raises the concern that I think you and I are going to have to
mutually work on is, if not this office, then who do we look to
to make sure that these inherent calls from a party office,
currently the Democratic party, but it could become the
Republican party at some day in the future, who allows those,
who coordinates them, who spends the government dime when that
call comes in scheduling or talking about why the Secretary of
blank should go support the Congressman of what?
Mr. Cummings. And would the gentleman yield?
Chairman Issa. Of course.
Mr. Cummings. So as I hear you, bringing in Mr. Simas in
one respect is sort of trying to create a preventive, do
something to prevent something that could possibly happen in
the future based upon what happened under previous
administrations. Is that what you are trying to say?
Chairman Issa. Not only that, but I think in a sense, and I
hope we all look to this as we look at this office and the
others, if Congress looks at a system and says, we see nothing
wrong with the system, and then the system is faithfully
executed and something bad happens, then it is not a scandal;
it is a need for further reform.
And I will give a current example. We voted, we broadly
voted in 2008 for a law on immigration that now is at the
center of some problems, and we as a government are looking to
fix something, but it wasn't--it isn't a scandal that people
are taking advantage of a 2008 law, and the American people, I
think, currently understand the immigration question; it is
simply something we looked at, we voted for and now we see
that.
If we look into these various activities and we see nothing
wrong in the system that is explained to us and in what we are
told is happening, then, in fact, in a sense, we add to the
ease with which the administration and future administrations
can feel this is an appropriate way to operate. It is one of
the reasons that we have been communicating with Carolyn
Lerner. It is one of the reasons that we want her input,
because in the past, she issued a scathing report finding that
under both President Bush and in an ongoing sense through 2011,
the administrations of those two Presidents were using an
office that was inherently flawed. And that is what we are
making sure we look at before this goes much longer.
Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Issa. Thank you. I will.
Mr. Cummings. And then I will just have one or two more
questions. Mr. Chairman, you know, when I read the letter that
you wrote yesterday, I think it was, there were two new issues
that came up with regard to the President going on trips,
official trips and then doing some campaigning, if I remember
correctly, and I had not seen those allegations before. The
reason why I raise this is because----
Chairman Issa. And, Mr. Cummings, if you could yield.
Mr. Cummings. Sure.
Chairman Issa. It is not an allegation. It is an
observation.
Mr. Cummings. Okay.
Chairman Issa. All Presidents do both, and this office's
coordination is a very simple question of it. So I appreciate
that.
Mr. Cummings. And I guess what I am concerned about is--
well, two things. One, it seems as if--I just wonder when the
questions end. In other words, this was a question that was
presented yesterday, and Mr. Simas's--I am sorry, Mr.
Eggleston's response was, Well, you know, we will continue to
work with you. And it seems like--I am just wondering whether
there is a constant movement of the goalposts.
And the public needs to know that our staffs met with the
White House for 75 minutes, and they answered just about every
question, they--they left the meeting probably thinking they
did, and then some other questions came up. And I know that
things like that happen, but I guess, at some point, where does
it end, but more significantly, you understand the concern of
the White House. And it is not just this White House. There
will be future folks who occupy the White House who will be of
the Republican party, and we may be up in heaven somewhere,
but----
Somebody laughed, but anyway.
Chairman Issa. What you are implying is this isn't heaven?
Mr. Cummings. But I guess my concern is the White House's
concern, and I think it would be under a Republican, too, there
are certain advisors that they want to make sure that they have
this freedom to talk to----
Chairman Issa. And I want to bring this to a close----
Mr. Cummings. Sure.
Chairman Issa. --and we will bring up the next part, but
the gentleman's point is a good one. I want to make sure that
we come to an understanding. Oversight is ongoing, and we are
not looking to ask about, on a trip, what did the President say
or the communication. We understand the nature of that advice.
And we are not asking why did--why did you decide, in
consultation with the President, to have the President do X and
Y?
The organizational questions, which included the one in the
letter, are, how do you decide? What is the system? And how do
we know, again, that dollars paid to Federal employees are, in
fact, even though they are clearly supporting campaign efforts,
that they are absolutely necessary and the best possible use of
the President's time and money and the people's time and money,
simply because we have a unique situation with the President,
that we don't want him going down to the Democratic National
Committee for briefings. We don't want the First Lady out and
about or having to go back and forth to the residence. These
are accommodations unique, in that we are using taxpayer
dollars in support of campaigns, but only because of the unique
security considerations and so on of the President.
So, for that reason, the process is in fact important, but
we are not moving the goalposts, to be honest. We have a lot of
questions. I don't know that all have been asked. And I am
absolutely positive that if we go through this process, many of
your members will have additional questions, and we would want
to make sure that all relevant questions, all questions related
to the American people's taxpayer dollars and the necessity of
this are answered. So I look forward to eventually having that
dialogue.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. For all involved, this meeting, this
committee stands in recess.
Mr. Cummings. It is estimated that we will come back at
10:15, folks, 10:15.
[Whereupon, at 9:28 a.m., the committee was recessed.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9594.016