U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

89–594 PDF 2014

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

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 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 

2 

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 

3 

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. 

4 

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 multiPresidential 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 

5 

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. 

6 

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. 

7 

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.] 

(9) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

10 


Insert offset folio 1 here 89594.001
11 


Insert offset folio 2 here 89594.002
12 


Insert offset folio 3 here 89594.003
13 


Insert offset folio 4 here 89594.004
14 


Insert offset folio 5 here 89594.005
15 


Insert offset folio 6 here 89594.006
16 


Insert offset folio 7 here 89594.007
17 


Insert offset folio 8 here 89594.008
18 


Insert offset folio 9 here 89594.009
19 


Insert offset folio 10 here 89594.010
20 


Insert offset folio 11 here 89594.011
21 


Insert offset folio 12 here 89594.012
22 


Insert offset folio 13 here 89594.013
23 


Insert offset folio 14 here 89594.014
24 


Insert offset folio 15 here 89594.015
25 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 16 here 89594.016