[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS: IS SUPPORTING CANDIDATES AND
CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISING 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 16, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-122
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-384 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 16, 2014.................................... 1
APPENDIX
Correspondence in July 2014 between The White House and the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, submitted by
Chairman Issa.................................................. 8
Testimony of Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel and Ana Galindo-
Marrone, Chief, Hatch Act Unit U.S. Office of Special Counsel.. 17
WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS: IS SUPPORTING CANDIDATES AND
CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISING AN APPROPRIATE USE OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICE?
----------
Wednesday, July 16, 2014,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Darrell
Issa [chairman of the committee], presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Farenthold, Lummis,
Woodall, Lankford, DesJarlais, Chaffetz, Jordan, Bentivolio,
Meadows, Turner, Gowdy, Cummings, Norton, Connolly, Tierney,
Lujan Grisham, Welch, Kelly and Horsford.
Staff Present: Alexa Armstrong, Majority Legislative
Assistant; Melissa Beaumont; Majority Assistant Clerk; Molly
Boyl, Majority Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian;
Lawrence J. Brady, Majority Staff Director; Ashley H. Callen,
Majority Deputy Chief Counsel for Investigations; Sharon Casey;
Majority Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor, Majority General
Counsel; John Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Lemar
Echols, Majority Counsel; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of
Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority
Chief Clerk; Frederick Hill, Majority Deputy Staff Director for
Communications and Strategy; Christopher Hixon, Majority Chief
Counsel for Oversight; Caroline Ingram, Majority Counsel; Ashok
M. Pinto; Majority Chief Counsel, Investigations; Andrew
Rezendes, Majority Counsel; Jessica Seale, Majority Digital
Director; Andrew Shult, Majority Deputy Digital Director;
Jonathan J. Skladany, Majority Deputy General Counsel; Katy
Summerlin, Majority Press Assistant; Sarah Vance, Majority
Assistant Clerk; Rebecca Watkins, Majority Communications
Director; Krista Boyd, Minority Deputy Director of Legislation/
Counsel; Marianna Boyd, Minority Counsel; Aryele Bradford,
Minority Press Secretary; Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Minority
Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority
Communications Director; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of
Operations; Juan McCullum, Minority Clerk; and Dave Rapallo,
Minority Staff Director.
Chairman Issa. Good morning. The committee will come to
order.
Today's hearing is on the White House Office of Political
Affairs: is supporting candidates and campaign fund-raising an
appropriate use of a government office?
The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental
principles. First, Americans have the right to know that the
money Washington takes from them is well spent. Second,
Americans deserve an efficient and effective government that
works for them.
Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to
hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have
a right to know what they get from the government.
Our job is to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen
watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring
genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission.
Last night, the committee received a deeply disturbing
letter from the White House Counsel. The Counsel declared that
a senior advisor to the President, David Simas, a witness who
had been subpoenaed to testify here today, was ``immune from
congressional compulsion to testify.''
This is at odds with rulings from our Judicial Branch about
checks and balances. It is directly in conflict with the case
known as Miers Bolton, a lawsuit brought by the Democrats and
then-Chairman John Conyers when they were in the majority.
A federal judge wrote that senior advisors to the President
of the United States are ``not absolutely immune from
congressional process.'' Oversight of political activities in
the White House has frequently been a divisive issue and it has
been an issue over which this committee has asserted
jurisdiction and oversight on a bipartisan basis over the last
four committee chairmen while I have been a member of the
committee.
For example, in 2007, former committee Chairman Henry
Waxman initiated a series of investigations into improper
political activities in the Bush Administration. During the
committee's two year investigation, the staff interviewed 18
political appointees, including President Bush's political
directors, in other words, the same individual we are not
getting today, and received nearly 70,000 pages of documents.
For those who do not know what 70,000 pages of documents
look like, it is 14 banker boxes filled with documents. Even
the chairman of the Republican National Committee received a
subpoena requiring production of emails.
The committee's current investigation has looked much
different. It has exercised patience for months and gave the
White House extensive opportunities to explain concerns through
briefings and document productions.
In his first run for President, then Senator Obama
campaigned on closing the White House Political Office. In
January 2011, three years into his term, the Office of Special
Counsel concluded that the White House Office of Political
Affairs violated laws, namely the Hatch Act, designed to keep
taxpayers from paying for political activities by government
workers, the same the White House announced the closure of the
political office. That office remained closed for almost three
years.
In January 2014, the White House announced the reopening of
its political office. The office's new name is Office of
Political Strategy and Outreach or OPSO. In March, the
committee sought information about the relaunch of this
political office in an effort to continue this committee's
legacy of overseeing the White House political office.
This request came as the committee learned that two members
who served in President Obama's campaign had violated the Hatch
Act by abusing their positions to aid overtly political
campaign efforts.
In March 2012, the United States Labor Secretary Hilda
Solis, a sitting member of the President's Cabinet, engaged in
prohibited activity outlined in the Hatch Act. The Los Angeles
Times reported that Secretary Solis had solicited a donation
from a subordinate Labor Department employee.
The committee has now come to have possession of a voice
mail and I would ask that it be played now.
[Voice Mail played.]
Chairman Issa. That recording was a message Secretary Solis
left on the phone of a subordinate employee at her department
and was the subject of complaint made to the Office of Special
Counsel.
Hatch Act violations have been a problem under all
Administrations. This makes the claim by this Administration
that they are doing everything right and should be immune from
oversight all the more indefensible.
It is deeply ironic that an Administration claiming to be
the most transparent ever has resisted oversight of its
political office and offered less cooperation than its
predecessors. Today's hearing was intended to be an opportunity
for Congress to assess how the Administration has tried to
address the issues raised by the Office of Special Counsel's
2011 report on political activity.
That report found OPA was inherent in violation of federal
law because taxpayer dollars were being used to pay the
salaries of staff who conducted political activities.
Surprisingly, the White House did not consult with the Office
of Special Counsel before reopening OPA, despite the agency's
critical role in enforcing the Hatch Act.
The American people have a right to know that the tax
dollars being spent are not spent on political activities of
Republicans or Democrats. This committee is obligated to shed
light on improper use of taxpayer money for political gain.
This committee has an obligation to look into whether it is
happening or not.
We do not and should not need a smoking gun in order to
look into whether or not taxpayer dollars that are being spent
are being spent properly. An inherent tenet of this committee
has always been if taxpayer dollars are being spent, if the
power of the government is being used, then we have
jurisdiction. That has not changed and will not change under
leaders of either party.
Unfortunately, the most key witness, Mr. Simas, who serves
as the Director of White House Political Office, has chosen to
defy the committee's legal obligation and its subpoena. The
panel of witnesses who are here today, I want to thank you for
your appearing, particularly Ms. Lerner, who I know had to make
significant changes in her otherwise busy schedule to be here.
I would never have brought you here unless I thought we were
going to have a full complete hearing.
The committee wrote Mr. Simas on July 3, 2014 to invite him
to today's hearing. White House Counsel Neil Eggleston, wrote
to me on July 10, 2014, stating that the request of Mr. Simas
to testify was not appropriate. I then authorized a subpoena
for Mr. Simas to appear after staff consultation with the
Minority. The subpoena was served on July 11, 2014 and the
White House accepted service.
As one of our witnesses has chosen not to appear, we will
be unable to have a full and fair hearing. Nevertheless, we
will offer opening statements. At this time I would ask
unanimous consent to place the correspondence between the White
House and this committee in the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
Chairman Issa. Without objection, the Chair is authorized
to declare recess of the committee at any time. With that, I
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Cummings, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
For the past 18 years, I have been deeply honored to serve
as a member of the House of Representatives, representing
700,000 people from the great State of Maryland.
At the same time, I have been truly honored on every day of
that 18 years to serve on this committee. I also have
tremendous respect for this committee and the chief
investigative body of the House that it is.
For these reasons, I strongly support the authority to
issue subpoenas, when necessary, to require people to provide
information to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities, but
I cannot and I will not support the abuse of this very powerful
authority when it serves no legitimate purpose and where there
is no evidence that a witness did anything wrong.
These actions do not enhance our authority as a committee.
They undermine it. They degrade it and they make us weaker.
They distract and they lead to dysfunction and if you want to
be effective and efficient in the things we do, then the last
thing we need is distraction and dysfunction.
Last Friday, Chairman Issa issued a unilateral subpoena to
compel David Simas to testify here today. Mr. Simas is a senior
advisor to the President of the United States of America and
everyone on this committee knows the doctrine of separation of
powers. As a matter of fact, it was first introduced to me in
middle school.
We do not simply haul in one of the President's top
advisors at will. There must be a valid reason. There must be a
predicate. There must be a justification, some evidence that
this official engaged in some type of inappropriate activity.
That foundation simply does not exist.
On Friday, I wrote a letter to the Chairman formally
objecting to the subpoena. I noted that he has already issued
nearly 100 subpoenas without any debate or vote of this
committee. This is more than all three previous chairmen
combined in less than half the time.
I also noted that his unilateral subpoenas began to spike
last month after Speaker Boehner announced that he was taking
the Benghazi investigation away from this committee and
transferring it to the new Select Committee.
For example, the Chairman issued a subpoena to the
Secretary of State without even calling to see if he was
available to testify. He later withdrew the subpoena.
The Chairman also issued a subpoena to the IRS Commissioner
in an attempt to hold the first public hearing on Lois Lerner's
emails. That failed and the Committee on Ways and Means went
first.
Then on Friday, Chairman Issa proposed the latest subpoena.
The subpoena was not based on anything Mr. Simas did. It was
based on the fact that the White House violated the Hatch Act
six years ago under the Bush Administration. The committee has
identified no evidence that Mr. Simas or anyone in his office
did anything inappropriate.
In my letter, I asked Chairman Issa not to issue the
subpoena. If he thought I was wrong, then I asked him to bring
it before the committee for a vote, but he ignored my concerns.
He did not reply to my letter, did not call a committee vote,
he just issued the subpoena by himself.
These actions directly contradict the pledges made by the
Chairman during this committee's first meeting four years ago
in 2011. I shall never forget that meeting. It started off with
a prayer by our former Chairman Ed Towns. I would now like to
play a video clip from that meeting so that we can remember
back then and those who may not have been here they need to see
this. Play the clip, please.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, those were your words; they
were not mine. I said something else in that hearing and I
cited an old proverb. It basically said that if you want to go
fast, go alone but, if you want to go far, go with others
together. That was four years ago.
When I raised concerns, you did not take them seriously.
You did not ask other members if you were nuts or if you were
wrong. When I asked for a vote, you ignored my request. Since
you have been chairman, you have not held a single vote on even
one of your nearly 100 subpoenas.
One of the things that concerns me about this committee and
this Congress is every two years when we raise our hands and
swear to protect the citizens of our country, there is
something that underlies that. That is that we have a duty to
preserve this democracy that we inherited when we came upon
this earth.
Mr. Chairman, with the utmost respect, for this
institution, because this is not about me, this is not about
this committee. This is about generations yet unborn. I urge
you to change course. This is supposed to be a deliberative
body.
The members of this committee, I will say it and say it
until I die, the members, each one of them, represents 700,000
plus people, 700,000. The members should have the chance to
deliberate, especially on matters as serious as compelling the
testimony of a senior presidential advisor.
It is time for this committee to stop serving as the center
stage for political theater and fulfill its responsibilities
under the Constitution to conduct responsible oversight.
Then the Chairman cited the Miers case and I am glad he
did. In Miers, when the Bush Administration claimed executive
privilege to prevent the White House Counsel, Harriet Miers,
from testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in 2007
and 2008, the committee had a legitimate investigation into the
forced resignations of seven U.S. attorneys.
The D.C. District Court explained, ``Congress moreover is
acting pursuant to legitimate use of its investigative
authority. Notwithstanding its best efforts, the committee has
been unable to discover the underlying causes of the forced
terminations of the U.S. attorneys. The committee has
legitimate reasons to believe that Ms. Miers' testimony can
remedy that deficiency. There is no evidence that the committee
is merely seeking to harass Ms. Miers by calling her to
testify.''
Finally, in the Miers case, there are some distinguishing
factors. Keep in mind Ms. Miers was no longer in the White
House. Number two, remember there was a complaint to the Office
of Special Counsel already, a complaint about the firing of
U.S. attorneys. And number three, there had been negotiations
and all parties declared there was an impasse.
Here only one person declares that there is an impasse
apparently and that is the Chairman.
And so I end by saying this is our watch. I end by saying
we are better than this. If we want to go far, let us go
together. If we want to go fast, go alone.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
As our witness has chosen not to appear, we are unable to
complete the full hearing. The committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the committee was recessed.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]