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

88–527 PDF 2014

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT: ALLEGATIONS 

OF IMPROPER LOBBYING AND OBSTRUCTION 

AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 113–65 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice Chairman 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman 

Emeritus 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, Chairman 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

AL GREEN, Texas, Ranking Member 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

February 26, 2014 ............................................................................................ 1 

Appendix: 

February 26, 2014 ............................................................................................ 25 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2014 

Montoya, Hon. David A., Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ........................ 5 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Montoya, Hon. David A. ................................................................................... 26 

(1) 

INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT: ALLEGATIONS 

OF IMPROPER LOBBYING AND OBSTRUCTION 

AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Wednesday, February 26, 2014 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Patrick McHenry 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives McHenry, Bachmann, Duffy, 

Hultgren, Barr, Rothfus; Green, Maloney, Sinema, and Beatty. 

Ex officio present: Representative Hensarling. 

Chairman MCHENRY. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the 

subcommittee at any time. My apologizes to Members for my late 

arrival, and especially to the full committee chairman, who is 

present. I apologize for delaying him and my ranking member. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. This morning we welcome David Montoya, the Inspector 

General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to testify on an investigation I requested in August 

2013, August of last year. 

On July 31, 2013, an e-mail was sent on behalf of the HUD Deputy Secretary to ‘‘friends and colleagues,’’ calling on them to encourage Senators to vote to advance Senate consideration of HUD’s 

appropriations bill. Because the e-mail appeared to violate Federal 

anti-lobbying laws, on August 28th of that year I requested that 

the Inspector General investigate this matter and advise the committee on whether any laws had been broken. 

On February 18th of this year, the Office of the Inspector General provided its report of investigation to the committee. Their Inspector General found that Deputy Secretary Jones and other HUD 

officials had acted improperly and that certain HUD officials had 

obstructed the Inspector General’s investigation and attempted to 

conceal their improper activities. 

The Inspector General also found that one HUD official was actively working to keep information requested by this committee 

from ‘‘the Republicans.’’ And that this particular HUD official had 

2 

coordinated his efforts to thwart the committee’s proper investigative functions with its White House Counsel’s Office. 

This investigation is an example of Inspectors General doing the 

job that Congress gave them in the 1978 Inspector General Act. Offices of Inspector General were established by public law as permanent, nonpartisan, and independent offices. The Inspector General 

Act states that the three principal purposes of Inspectors General 

are: first, conducting and supervising audits and investigations related to agency programs and operations; second, providing leadership and coordination and recommending policies for activities designed to promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and 

the prevention and detection of fraud and abuse in such programs 

and operations; and third, keeping the agency head and Congress 

fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies related to such programs and the necessity for and progress of corrective action. 

The Inspector General’s report delivered to this subcommittee on 

February 18, 2014, is an example of how inspectors general can 

play a valuable role in assisting Congress in exercising its oversight of the Executive Branch. This is a good thing no matter the 

party of the Presidency or the party who controls the House or the 

Senate. This is about good governance. 

However, it is important to note that Inspectors General are not 

required to conduct a review requested by legislators, an agency 

head, the President, or anyone. Inspectors General are Cabinetlevel agencies, and are independent of the agencies they review and 

to Congress alike. 

This independence is crucial to their achieving their mission and 

should be protected at all costs. 

I would like to thank Inspector General Montoya for being here, 

and I thank you for your service in our government and to the 

American people. And I want to thank you and your staff for this 

important report, and I look forward to your testimony. 

With that we will now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would 

also like to thank Mr. Montoya for testifying today. Today’s hearing 

is an important one. At issue is whether certain actions taken by 

HUD officials were violations. 

The HUD OIG report dated February 18, 2014, outlines actions 

taken by officials at HUD in regards to, among other things, emails sent requesting that recipients encourage certain elected officials to vote in favor of a pending piece of appropriations legislation. 

Many of the allegations made in this report are deeply concerning and cannot be condoned. I am very much interested in 

knowing what steps HUD has taken to ensure there is no future 

confusion about what is acceptable as it relates to matters pending 

before Congress. I believe that a clear understanding of what occurred is necessary before final conclusions are drawn. 

To this end, I look forward to an engaging discussion with Mr. 

Montoya about the HUD OIG investigation. I also believe, Mr. 

Chairman, that there are two things we should not do. We should 

3 

not minimize the seriousness of the allegations, and we should not 

exaggerate the final conclusions. 

To do either, would not do justice to the findings and conclusions. 

Again, I believe it is our responsibility to fully understand this 

matter. I trust that the GAO and the OSC will present their reports and that HUD will respond to the disturbing allegations. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman MCHENRY. I certainly thank the ranking member, and 

I will now recognize Mr. Duffy for 2 minutes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this very important hearing. This committee has sent a number 

of requests for information and documents to many of the Executive Branch agencies this committee has jurisdiction over, and the 

Obama Administration has been largely unresponsive to this committee’s legitimate oversight function. 

This is surprising since President Obama promised the American 

people that he would have the most transparent Administration in 

history and continues to claim an unprecedented level of openness. 

Today’s hearing will lay bare the falsity of these high-minded 

claims. 

The report of the Inspector General and his written statement 

demonstrate to the American people just how political the Obama 

Administration is and how political operatives within agencies, 

such as HUD, work hand in glove with the White House to thwart 

legitimate oversight efforts by this committee. 

Although this hearing will open the door to reveal the true nature of the Obama Administration’s political operatives within 

HUD, I believe that this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are 

political operatives in every Executive Branch agency working to 

ensure that the American people are kept in the dark about what 

is really going on in our Federal Government. 

In fact, this hearing will show that the Administration has taken 

obstruction of congressional investigations to a whole new level. I 

look forward to Mr. Montoya’s testimony today, and I think it will 

expose a shocking set of behaviors and methodical behavior within 

HUD to obstruct our investigations and our efforts in this committee. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this very important hearing, and I yield back. 

Chairman MCHENRY. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin. 

Thank you. We will now recognize Mrs. Beatty for 2 minutes. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you, Chairman McHenry, and Ranking 

Member Green. And Mr. Montoya, thank you again for being here 

today. As my other colleagues expressed this morning, we appreciate you coming forth for your testimony here today and for the 

work that you are doing in the Inspector General’s Office at HUD. 

Like many of my colleagues, I received and became aware of the 

existence of this investigation into the activities of a few high-level 

officials at HUD. So far, the redacted version of Mr. Montoya’s report that I have seen has not been finalized as his office is still 

waiting for further investigative results from the GAO. 

But if even half of the conduct described in the preliminary report is substantiated in the final report, I find it all very alarming, 

4 

as you can imagine. Certainly, any allegations of clear and direct 

violation of long-established anti-lobbying in appropriations laws, 

as well as attempts to circumvent specific internal HUD policies 

alone would warrant cause for concern. 

But if you add to that any of the findings of obstruction of justice, witness coaching, or evidence of tampering, it would make it 

a very disturbing report. And all of this brings us back to the very 

important mission of the Inspector General. When Congress passed 

the Inspectors General Act, it was specifically for the purpose of facilitating independent investigations such as this which can be 

used to root out waste, fraud, and abuse within Federal Government. 

I applaud your Office for your diligent efforts to preserve Americans’ faith in their government by working every day to improve 

the integrity of HUD’s operation and ensure that taxpayers’ dollars 

are spent improving the fabric of our society because certainly, 

none of us should be against the work of HUD because of what a 

couple of individuals may do. I yield back. 

Chairman MCHENRY. We will now recognize Mr. Barr of Kentucky for 2 minutes. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Inspector General Montoya, I have read your report and I am impressed with its thoroughness and professionalism, and I want to thank you for the outstanding work that you and your team are doing. 

Your report lays out what appears to be a series of actions by 

HUD officials designed to not only obstruct your investigation but 

also to obstruct the legitimate and appropriate oversight of this 

subcommittee and of this Congress. 

So I was very surprised and disappointed to see that the Department of Justice has declined to prosecute any of the HUD officials 

identified in your report. As an attorney accustomed to applying 

the facts to the law, it appears to me that there is more than a 

good faith argument that certain HUD officials identified in your 

report obstructed your investigation and misled your investigators 

in violation of Federal criminal law. 

It also appears to me that at least one HUD official has also obstructed Congress in violation of Federal law. I would note that the 

Federal obstruction of justice statutes as well as the Federal statute criminalizing false statements all have statutes of limitations 

of 5 years, so that even if this Department of Justice and Attorney 

General are unwilling to enforce the law, perhaps in the next 5 

years we will have a Department of Justice and an Attorney General willing to uphold the law and the integrity of both the Inspector General’s investigations and the legitimate oversight interests 

of this Congress. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. I 

also appreciate the ranking member’s recognition that it is an important hearing, and that we should not minimize the seriousness 

of these allegations. After all, this is not and should not be about 

partisan politics. Every Member of Congress, whether a Republican 

or a Democrat, and frankly, every American, should be concerned 

and dismayed anytime Executive Branch agencies engage in this 

kind of misconduct and attempt to obstruct a legitimate investigation of either an Inspector General or the Congress. 

5 

I look forward to the Inspector General’s testimony, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman MCHENRY. I thank my colleague. 

I will now recognize the Inspector General of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, the Honorable David A. Montoya. Mr. Montoya was sworn in as the HUD Inspector General on 

December 1, 2011. Mr. Montoya’s 26-year career has been dedicated to public service focused on law enforcement with over 16 

years of oversight, supervisory, and leadership positions, including 

more than 10 years’ experience in the Federal senior executive 

service. Mr. Montoya is a native of El Paso, Texas, and a 1986 

graduate of the University of Texas at El Paso. 

The witness’ written statement will be made a part of the record. 

We will now recognize Mr. Montoya for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID A. MONTOYA, INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

(HUD) 

Mr. MONTOYA. Thank you, sir. Chairman McHenry, Ranking 

Member Green, and members of the subcommittee, I am David 

Montoya, the Inspector General of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, and I want to thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on our work. 

As Inspector General, my staff and I strive to make a positive 

difference in HUD’s performance and accountability. We are committed to our statutory mission of detecting waste, fraud, abuse, 

and mismanagement, as well as promoting the effectiveness of 

HUD’s programs and operations. 

Our independence and impartiality is imperative and allows for 

clear and objective reporting to the Secretary and to the Congress. 

I am here today because my office received a request from this 

subcommittee regarding an e-mail communication sent by former 

HUD Deputy Secretary Maurice Jones on July 31, 2013. 

The e-mail called on recipients to contact specific U.S. Senators 

and encourage them to vote in favor of procedural motions to advance consideration of legislation making appropriations for Fiscal 

Year 2014 to the Department of Transportation, HUD, and related 

agencies. 

The e-mail also urged recipients to oppose certain amendments 

and suggested that they encourage named Senators to support final 

passage of the bill. The subcommittee’s correspondence suggested 

that the directness and specificity of the e-mail appeared to violate 

well-established Federal restrictions on lobbying by Federal agencies, and based on the apparent violations of the Federal law, requested that my office thoroughly investigate the matter and then 

advise the subcommittee. 

Our subsequent investigation disclosed that the decision to send 

the July 31st e-mail was based on having the HUD Secretary or 

Deputy Secretary engage in a ‘‘more aggressive lobbying effort’’ relative to legislation or an appropriation. The catalyst for this new 

posture was then-General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Elliot Mincberg. 

6 

We determined this e-mail was a grass-roots lobbying campaign 

on a matter that was pending before Congress. At the time the 

July 31st e-mail was drafted and sent, HUD’s internal policies and 

guidelines regarding lobbying were long-standing and designed to 

create not only the appearance of ethical behavior but to include 

actual guidelines to ensure ethical behavior by all employees of the 

Department including Presidentially-appointed Senate-confirmed 

officials. 

Ins spite of clear Department policies which were rooted in the 

statutory provisions, our investigation disclosed that the interest 

for HUD to be more aggressive in its lobbying activities overrode 

their adherence to their own long-standing policies. 

While our investigation did not result in criminal or civil prosecution, it did discern an institutional failure to follow HUD’s existing internal policies and guidance. At a certain level, HUD’s actions leave the impression of impropriety and ethical lapses. 

The Department should have more fully scrutinized the decision 

to send the e-mail as well as its content and its list of recipients. 

This inattention was particularly evident when one examines the 

types of organizations represented on the list of e-mail recipients, 

which included 46 HUD employees. 

While our investigation determined that including 46 HUD employees was inadvertent on the part of the Deputy Secretary, the 

lack of due diligence by those preparing the e-mail may have 

caused the Deputy Secretary to commit a prohibitive personnel 

practice and to violate Federal law prohibiting an official from coercing a Federal employee’s political activities. 

Equally troubling was the fact that the e-mail was sent to individuals at organizations that receive HUD funding. Such organizations are generally prohibited from using Federal funds to carry 

out certain lobbying activities. 

In fact, one of the recipients, a large public housing authority, 

had recently been found by my office to have violated Federal requirements by using Federal funds to carry out lobbying activities. 

Of significant concern to me, and something that I will not tolerate 

as Inspector General or as a career law enforcement Federal official, was the interference with our investigation, specifically by Mr. 

Mincberg, who not only interrupted and inserted himself into an 

ongoing witness interview, but he threatened to terminate the 

interview. He threatened not to allow the witness to provide documentation as requested by investigators and contacted witnesses 

prior to our interview of them to, in my opinion, create the story. 

Finally and most troubling was his threat to have my investigators charged merely for doing their duty in an attempt, as I see it, 

to intimidate them into not proceeding further. This series of 

events illustrates what may happen when senior government officials veer from the course of ethical behavior, skirt the edges, and 

act in a manner that is not in the Department’s best interest. 

There were breakdowns in communication and in responsibility. 

The conduct of several individuals ultimately resulted in the Deputy Secretary being misled, embarrassed, and ill-served. In particular, Mr. Mincberg’s obligation to exercise sound ethical judgment and to avoid violating well-established HUD policy was mitiVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:34 Aug 26, 2014 Jkt 088527 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\88527.TXT TERRI
7 

gated by his eagerness to be ‘‘more aggressive’’ with regard to lobbying. 

This concludes my oral presentation into the investigation regarding the subcommittees’ referral. I want to thank the subcommittee for your continued interest in our oversight work and 

our efforts to assist the Department in maintaining an adherence 

to ethical behavior. I am happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Inspector General Montoya can be 

found on page 26 of the appendix.] 

Chairman MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Montoya. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. Inspector General Montoya, did the Deputy Secretary, Maurice Jones, appear to violate Federal law that 

prohibits Federal officials, including Executive Branch officials, 

from forcing citizens to engage in political activity? 

Mr. MONTOYA. By the technical definition of the term, sir, yes, 

but I would like to add that I don’t believe he knowingly or intentionally did that. I think it fell to the shoulders of those who were 

advising him, sir. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Those who were advising him. Was Mr. 

Mincberg one of those advising him? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes sir, he was. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Now about Mr. Mincberg, in your report you detail it as a condition providing a list of recipients of this 

e-mail, which you say is around 1,000 people. Mr. Mincberg asked 

your office to withhold this information from the House Financial 

Services Committee. Is that correct? 

Mr. MONTOYA. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. And further, he reached out to 

White House Counsel and stated this to your investigators. Did he 

not? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I believe the reason he reached out to the White 

House Counsel was more in keeping with whether HUD could have 

an attorney present during our interview of witnesses. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. So not about this, but in reaction to 

your investigation? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Correct, sir. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Is that a normal protocol for HUD 

to have legal counsel, political appointees in with your interviewers? 

Mr. MONTOYA. It is not normal protocol for the Department to 

have an attorney present. Certainly, if the witness had wanted 

their own personal attorney, I would have allowed it. But in this 

case it was HUD’s attorneys who wanted to be in the interview, for 

all intents and purposes to hear what we were investigating. That 

would be inappropriate. 

Chairman MCHENRY. You also outline that before they reached 

out to the White House Counsel on this matter of HUD legal counsel being in these interviews, they also reached out to the Department of Justice about this matter, did they not? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Correct, sir. And I think they reached out to the 

Department of Justice first. Again, their attempt was to try to get 

their attorney into our interviews. 

8 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. And who in the Office of Legal 

Counsel contacted the Department of Justice? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I believe the individual who would have contacted 

the Department of Justice was Henry Shi. I think he is a Special 

Assistant to the General Counsel. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. In terms of the list of recipients of 

this e-mail, this lobbying e-mail that is the issue at point here, Mr. 

Mincberg demanded that you withhold this information from Congress. And in particular, his language was, he asked that you not 

provide the list of recipients to ‘‘Republicans.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. MONTOYA. That is correct. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Would you provide that list to both 

Republicans and Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee? 

Mr. MONTOYA. As an official request from the chairman, sir, I believe I can do that, yes, sir. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. I would make that an official request of this subcommittee chairman— 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MCHENRY. —that you provide that information to us. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. 

Mr. MONTOYA. If I may ask, it was my understanding that HUD 

was in the process of providing that information. Sir, may I ask if 

they have not done so? 

Chairman MCHENRY. HUD is in the process of doing a number 

of responses to committee inquiries, let’s say insufficiently and very 

slowly, as we found it seems to be a practice of this Administration 

to do that in a way that I have not previously experienced in my 

10 years in Washington. 

Furthermore, I would also like to ask you, in your prepared testimony and in your report, you describe how Mr. Mincberg attempted to obstruct your investigation and convince your staff to 

withhold information from Congress. 

Was Mr. Mincberg involved in any other activities prior to the 

July 31st e-mail which, in your view, impeded inquires originating 

from your office or from Congress? 

Mr. MONTOYA. We had an occasion previously where three committees had independently asked us to look at a matter with regards to allegations that the Department was keeping witnesses 

from speaking to it. I believe the committees were the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. All three had sent me a joint letter asking that we look into 

that matter. 

As it turned out, there was no basis to the allegation. We did not 

find that the Department was, in fact, holding witnesses back from 

Congress. So in that particular case, sir, it didn’t pan out, but that 

was one that was mentioned as having a concern over. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Finally, your office referred its findings to HUD so they could consider whether it was appropriate to 

take administrative action against the individuals in your report. 

To your knowledge, have they imposed any disciplinary actions? 

9 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir. To my knowledge, they have not, and I 

would suspect that they might actually wait until GAO and the Office of Special Counsel opine, but again, I am not clear on that. 

Chairman MCHENRY. And you made referrals to both? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir, we made the referrals to both of them. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Thank you for your service. 

We will now recognize Mrs. Maloney for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 

Ranking Member. Mr. Montoya, I want to thank you for your thorough investigation of this matter, and we truly do need more Inspectors General like you. The findings that you made, to say the 

least, are a cause for great concern. And as we wait for all the facts 

and information about this incident to come to light, so that we can 

have a better understanding of how this has happened and how we 

can prevent it from happening again. 

And this includes responses from HUD, the Government Accountability Office, and the Department of Justice, but I would like 

to state that this report brings to light important issues and information relevant to every administrative agency and regulator, ensuring there is an appropriate and proper effort to educate and 

train staff on ethics and lobbying policies. 

But I specifically would like to ask you, you said that the Justice 

Department declined to open a criminal investigation, so there 

won’t be any criminal penalties. What remedies do you have available in this case, and what are the possible penalties in an administrative proceeding? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, ma’am. Thank you for the question. With regards to DOJ’s findings and the remedies, we certainly will be 

working with the Secretary to help with some recommendations. I 

understand that he has already, very swiftly after this came to 

light, included additional ethics training for his staff. I think they 

have already done three. 

With regards to the administrative action, that really is up to the 

Department, ma’am. I couldn’t answer what they might be thinking or what the level of administrative action could be. It could 

range from really nothing to firing, quite frankly, is the full range, 

but that would not be something in which we would engage. That 

is really a Department decision. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. In your opinion, are the penalties available in the administrative proceedings sufficient? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes. I believe that the range of administrative— 

including firing, are certainly available to them and certainly, I 

think, severe enough. With regards to GAO, depending on their 

findings, they can certainly levee a civil penalty that would require 

potential payment for the expense of this grass-roots lobbying campaign. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Your report says that the lobbying e-mail was inadvertently sent to 46 HUD employees. Did you interview any of 

these HUD employees who received the e-mail about whether they 

felt that they had been coerced into political activities? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, ma’am. To clarify, I want to make sure that 

we understand it was inadvertent on the part of the Deputy Secretary. I don’t believe it was inadvertent on the part of those who 

10 

were preparing the e-mail and the recipient list. I believe it was 

their duty to have vetted this more appropriately. 

With regards to interviewing those individuals, no ma’am, we did 

not. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I hope that these types of incidents don’t happen 

again, and we are all committed to working with you and other 

agencies to make sure that these incidents don’t happen again, and 

I look forward to hearing from HUD so that we can better understand what you are doing to ensure that these types of problems 

do not continue. 

So I will ask you, right now, what are you doing to ensure that 

this does not happen again? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I have had several discussions with the Secretary, 

ma’am. I can tell you he was none too pleased and none too happy. 

I think quite frankly he was disappointed in his staff. He has committed to me to work with me to try to fix this and to ensure it 

doesn’t happen again. I am confident that, based on my meetings 

with him, he is going to do that. 

We will certainly be providing him with some recommendations 

later, I believe, on the set-up of the ethics program and how they 

can do a better job with that. 

Mrs. MALONEY. What are the recommendations that you will be 

supplying him? Can you give us a preview? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I don’t know that we have actually come to a complete determination on that. I think we want to wait to see what 

GAO and OSC come up with to include that in any recommendations, so I don’t want to get too far ahead of myself. But certainly, 

it is an area we are considering—it is certainly an area where I 

told him we would offer him some recommendations. 

Mrs. MALONEY. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Thank you, ma’am. 

Chairman MCHENRY. I thank my colleague, and we will now recognize Mr. Barr of Kentucky for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Montoya, did your investigation reveal the identity of the individuals in the White 

House Counsel’s Office with whom Mr. Mincberg communicated? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir, we did not ask that question. 

Mr. BARR. Can you amplify the details of your investigation’s 

confirmation that there was a communication between Mr. 

Mincberg and the Office of the White House Counsel? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I believe it was several attorneys who advised my 

legal staff at the time that they had reached out not only to Justice 

but to the White House Legal Counsel on their ability to allow one 

of their attorneys to sit in with the witness interviews. 

To the extent that is—I believe that was the only extent that 

they reached out to the White House, and that was proprietary of 

them not being able to have their attorneys in our witness interviews. I don’t believe it had to do, as far as I know, with the recipient list and whether that should come to Congress or not. 

Mr. BARR. So as far as you know, from your investigation, the 

only communication between the White House Counsel’s Office and 

Mr. Mincberg related to his participation in witness interviews 

with the IG? 

11 

Mr. MONTOYA. Not necessarily his, but whether the Office of 

General Counsel could have an attorney sit in on our interviews. 

Mr. BARR. Were there any additional communications that you 

are aware of between White House Counsel or any White House official and Mr. Mincberg, relating to his activities? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir, I am not aware of any others. 

Mr. BARR. In following the last line of questioning, are you aware 

of any disciplinary proceedings that have been initiated at all, administratively within the Department relating to the conduct of 

Mr. Mincberg? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir, I don’t believe any administrative action 

has been taken— 

Mr. BARR. So at this point, there have been no ramifications for 

Mr. Mincberg’s behavior? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir. But in fairness I believe that they may, 

in fact, be waiting for GAO’s opinion and OSC’s opinion, which I 

believe would actually maybe have some bearing on whatever action would be taken. 

Mr. BARR. And did you officially refer your report to the Justice 

Department or was it just made available? 

Mr. MONTOYA. We actually went there and briefed them on it. I 

believe we may have provided them some written documentation. 

At the time, we didn’t have a full report. It was really more a case 

summary, and we actually go visit with them and brief them on the 

matter. 

Mr. BARR. Okay. And did Justice communicate to you that they 

would decline any prosecution or seeking to impanel a grand jury 

or anything of that nature? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No. They advised us they would decline, but just 

to be clear, part of the reason that the Department declined was 

really the confusion and the lack of memory by a lot of the witnesses. When DOJ decides to take on a case, you obviously want 

strong witnesses who are going to remember what happened. 

And in this particular case, there seems to be a lot of memory 

lapses from almost all of our witnesses, so that, I think, played into 

their role for declining. 

Mr. BARR. So lack of clear memories is the principal justification 

for declining to prosecute, is that correct? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I believe it is certainly one of the factors. I don’t 

know that you could make a case if you don’t have witnesses who 

can remember what in fact happened. 

Mr. BARR. Did Mr. Mincberg contact any HUD employee to discuss the July 31st e-mail after your office began its investigation? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. He actually had several contacts with attorneys that we were planning to interview. And it is my understanding that the contact was on the premise of, I remember my 

conversation this way, how do you remember it. I remember saying 

this to you. You remember saying this to me. Things that as an investigator I think raised a red flag and indicated to us that this 

is part of a subtle way of trying to create what the story line would 

be. 

Mr. BARR. I recognize that Justice has declined to prosecute, but 

you have, obviously, a background in Federal legal prosecutorial 

12 

work. In your judgment, did Mr. Mincberg’s actions potentially violate Federal law? 

Mr. MONTOYA. We certainly felt that there was enough there to 

present it to the Department of Justice, sir, but I wouldn’t certainly 

second-guess them on their opinions with regards to taking a matter criminally. 

Mr. BARR. Let me ask this: If you were a lawyer at Justice presented with these same facts, do you think it would justify 

impaneling a grand jury? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I’m sorry. I don’t think I would be able to answer 

that question. I think as I sit here as the IG, I would rather maintain my role as the IG and not try to figure out what I would have 

done if I was in DOJ. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Thank you. 

I now recognize Mrs. Beatty for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Thank you, Chairman McHenry and Ranking 

Member Green, and again, to our witness, thank you for being 

here. 

In your testimony, you used words like, ‘‘veer from the course or 

skirt around the edges,’’ acting in a manner that could not be in 

the best interest of government. Reading those words it made me 

think of the question, do you think there was a specific culture or 

expectation within HUD that this type of behavior could be tolerated? 

Because, also, if you look to page two in your testimony, you talk 

about Mr. Mincberg in his other position with HUD being part of 

the General Counsel developing language that would prohibit employees from doing what appears to be the same thing that he did 

do in this. So was it in the culture, people learn it? These are 

learned scholars. These are attorneys. Do you think there was a 

culture of doing this? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Ma’am, I don’t believe that there is a culture. 

Most, if not all, HUD employees I met are very well-intentioned, 

very dedicated, very ethical. Do I believe that at least two individuals failed to demonstrate a model of ethical behavior? Behavior 

that would reinforce ethical guidelines in the Department? Yes, 

ma’am, I am concerned about that. 

I am concerned that the publicity this is getting would create 

ethical lapses in the Department because these senior officials did 

so themselves. 

Mrs. BEATTY. So if that is the case, can you tell me what guidance you think that Mr. Mincberg should have received and from 

whom when he was making his decisions to allegedly engage in lobbying activity? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Ma’am, what our investigation determined was 

Mr. Mincberg himself was one of the drafters of a 2011 memorandum for Senate confirmation of political appointees and it confirmed individuals not lobbying Congress. This was an internal policy to HUD that they were not to lobby Congress on pending matters. 

So he was very well versed with the policy. In February of 2013, 

5 months before this e-mail, he had asked a question of the ethics 

officials whether, in essence, they could be more aggressive in the 

13 

lobbying. The answer back to him was that, again, they had a 

standing policy that they were not to engage in grass-roots lobbying by Presidential appointees. So, he was well knowledgeable of 

the internal policy. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Has your Office worked in the past, or presently, 

to coordinate with HUD’s General Counsel or Ethics Counsel to develop guidance for personnel practices? If so, how involved has your 

Office been in creating such policies, and if not, why not? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, ma’am, we generally don’t do that. That is 

generally something the Department does for itself. In fact, for a 

while, our ethics program ran through theirs. I opted shortly after 

I arrived to create my own ethics shop with my own ethics officer. 

I wanted some independence from the Department. 

As the agencies ethics official, the General Counsel will be responsible for setting those policies and, in fact, she signed all the 

policies that were in place at the time this occurred. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Do you think we need any new policies? Is there 

anything that Congress can do, or do you think this was just an 

isolated case? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I think this was just isolated. I think it was an 

aberration. I think it was pretty much one person who decided to 

act on his own, if you will. I don’t know that we need to strengthen 

the ethics laws, m’aam. 

Mrs. BEATTY. Let me thank you for your testimony and the due 

diligence you are doing to this, and also, thank you for the clarification that to the best of your knowledge, there was no connection 

with attorneys in the Presidents’ office to this. And let me also say 

to you that I agree with you that this certainly puts the Deputy 

Secretary and the Secretary in a very embarrassing position. 

But also, I have a concern about the programs that are mentioned here in the two House bills they were lobbying for, to make 

sure that there is no black eye to those programs that serve the 

people who need these programs because those programs have been 

stellar in my district and in districts across the country. So again, 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Thank you, m’aam. 

Chairman MCHENRY. I appreciate my colleague. Thank you for 

your comments. The other question was about the obstruction, 

which is a different matter, and we all should have deep concern 

about that. 

We will now recognize Mr. Duffy for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In no way do I want this 

question to undermine the importance of this hearing, but the issue 

that we are dealing with, an e-mail that was sent out and intended 

to lobby, would you agree is probably not the most serious violation 

that an agency could undergo. Though it can be criminal, but on 

the scope, on the spectrum, not the most serious. Right? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I think I would answer that by saying that in the 

Deputy Secretary’s role, he certainly has the legal ability to lobby, 

absolutely. 

Mr. DUFFY. I would agree with you, but I guess my point is that 

there is not a great deal of outrage here about Mr. Jones. I think 

people can make mistakes. I do believe that, and this very well 

could have been a mistake. 

14 

What angers me is not what could have been a mistake. What 

angers me is when you investigate what could have been a mistake, what could have been a crime, the kind of push-back that you 

get on this level of violation, this level of an investigation. The 

terms of individuals at HUD being aggressive with the investigators, obstructing, uncooperative. 

And I guess what I draw from this is if they will obstruct, if they 

will be uncooperative at this level, if there are more serious issues 

taking place in HUD or any other Federal agency, to what lengths 

will they go to obstruct Congress and the American people from 

knowing the behavior of this Administration? 

I guess I would throw to you, Mr. Montoya, any insight there? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Sure. I think what I would like to tell you is when 

I first committed to the chairman that I thought I could get this 

done in 30 days, I fully expected that I could do that. It turned out 

after a very quick review that this could have easily been just an 

administrative case. So what happened was this white-wash sort of 

mentality of circle the wagons and let’s see if we can keep the IG 

from asking the questions. 

Really, what happened was the Department or at least one individual made a Federal case out of what really ultimately turned 

out to be an administrative matter, to be quite frank with you. 

Mr. DUFFY. And that is why we are here today. This really probably wouldn’t have gone as far, but for the obstruction of individuals within HUD. And looking at Mr. Mincberg and Mr. Constantine, these aren’t low level guys, right? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir, they are not. 

Mr. DUFFY. They are high-level guys. And when you talk about 

a culture within HUD, culture doesn’t come from the bottom up, it 

comes from the top down. And when we talk about culture, it concerns me that at the top level, we have individuals like Mr. 

Mincberg and Mr. Constantine who are partaking at a pretty aggressive level in obstructing your investigation. 

Mr. MONTOYA. That is correct. And I will go back to my earlier 

statement where the fact that they are not modeling ethical behavior concerns me because that does, like you said, from the very top, 

have a very negative impact on a Department. 

Mr. DUFFY. Do you know if Mr. Mincberg is an attorney? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir, he is an attorney. 

Mr. DUFFY. And so he has a law license then. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes. 

Mr. DUFFY. He studied law and passed the Bar somewhere? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUFFY. And Mr. Constantine similarly is an attorney, as 

well? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. DUFFY. Do you know, have they had any action taken 

against their law licenses? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir, not to my knowledge, and that wouldn’t 

be for us to refer. That would probably be something the Department would refer as part of their administrative action. 

Mr. DUFFY. Is it your testimony that to your knowledge and belief, neither Mr. Mincberg nor Mr. Constantine have been disciplined by the Secretary? 

15 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. To date, they have not as far as I understand, but again I believe that they may in fact be waiting for GAO 

and OSC’s opinion on the matter as they—is their conduct related 

to some of what we referred to those agencies. 

Mr. DUFFY. They may, but there is nothing stopping the Secretary from taking action right now disciplining his high-ranking 

employees, is there? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir. There would certainly be nothing to stop 

him if he cared to do so now. 

Mr. DUFFY. And I think as many of us read the reports, it was 

shocking. We were shocked at their behavior, and that they would 

have not been disciplined as of yet, and frankly, that they still have 

their jobs is of great concern. And for me, it makes me believe that 

there is a culture of one, stonewalling on cooperativeness, but also, 

if you behave this way, you won’t be disciplined. Actually, you will 

be protected. You will be coddled. 

There will be no recourse from the Administration for you if you 

push back against Republicans from a committee that has the role 

of providing oversight of these agencies. With that, I yield back. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Mr. Green will defer, so we will go to Mr. 

Rothfus for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Montoya, for being here with us today. I just want to get a little 

bit better appreciation for this idea of Mr. Mincberg going to the 

White House Counsel’s Office. In your opinion, is it typical for a 

person at that level to reach out to the White House Counsel’s Office on an issue like this? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I couldn’t answer that. Certainly, it was not atypical for him to reach out—for someone to reach out to the Department of Justice asking a question about whether IGs, whether I 

was right or wrong in allowing their attorneys, but I couldn’t answer the question about White House Counsel service. It is the first 

time it has come up. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. As far as the process of Mr. Mincberg, and where 

he was going, did he consult first with the HUD General Counsel’s 

Office before reaching out to the White House Counsel’s Office? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I don’t know if it was Mr. Mincberg who had actually reached out. I believe it might have been Henry Shi, a Special 

Assistant to the General Counsel, who actually reached out to the 

White House. I would have to clarify that, but I believe it was him. 

I don’t know if he did or did not. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Did you investigate whether Mr. Mincberg would 

have reached out to the White House, the liaison’s office at HUD? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, we did not, sir. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Your report names a number of additional employees besides Mr. Mincberg and Maurice Jones: Peter Constantine; 

Jennifer Szubrowski; Francey Youngberg; and Jonathan Harwi. 

Were any of these individuals career employees at HUD? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I believe the only career employees at HUD were 

the administrative assistant to the Deputy Secretary, and Mr. Constantine, the ethics official. All the others were, I think, what we 

call schedule C political appointees. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Your report, on page 19, says that Mr. Mincberg 

had said that his office had coordinated with the White House 

16 

Counsel and would need assurance that HUD OIG would not turn 

the recipients’ list over to the Republicans on the committee. Was 

it your impression or understanding that the directive came from 

the White House Counsel’s Office with respect to that, not turning 

the information over to Republicans on the congressional committee? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, I don’t know that for sure, sir, but just to 

clarify—I was just handed a note by my staff—apparently, Mr. 

Mincberg on one occasion did suggest to our agents that he did 

reach out to the White House on the issue of whether an attorney 

could be present during our interviews. 

With regards to whether he reached out to the White House on 

whether they should disclose the recipient list or not, we have no 

information about that. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Again, your report said that his office had ‘‘coordinated with White House Counsel and would need assurance that 

HUD OIG would not turn the recipients’ list over to the Republicans on the congressional committee.’’ 

It is your testimony that you don’t know whether or not that directive came from the White House Counsel? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, we don’t, sir. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Did you ask whether it did? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I do not believe we did, sir. I think we just took 

him at face value of what he said. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Was there a feeling of fear amongst some of the 

HUD employees that you interviewed? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I don’t know that I could—that my agents would 

suggest to me there was this feeling of fear, to be honest with you. 

We certainly questioned why everybody seemed to have amnesia 

and why nobody could remember what otherwise was a one-time 

event. But with regards to fear, I am not sure. 

I think the closest we ever got to anything like that was in our 

interviews of Mr. Constantine where he made reference to having 

to work with Mr. Mincberg again once he left his acting role in the 

congressional intergovernmental relations and back into the office 

of General Counsel. We did press him on that a little bit, on whether that was some fear, and he never acknowledged that is what it 

was and gave us no real clarity. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Was it your impression that he felt intimidated? 

Mr. MONTOYA. He never said that. I think, as a career law enforcement officer when I read that, I have to say that in my professional opinion, yes, I think there was some feeling like that. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Did any of the other HUD staff who were interviewed by your Office feel similar intimidation? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, I don’t believe so. I don’t think any of the others suggested anything like Mr. Constantine did. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Any opinion as to why Mr. Mincberg’s actions 

would have gone unchecked by his supervisors? 

Mr. MONTOYA. We asked that question, sir, and I appreciate you 

asking, that is a very good question. The only thing, I think, we 

could come up with was that there was this sort of feeling that he 

had this license with some authority, if you will. 

Just because of the active role he took in not only preparing this 

e-mail, being the catalyst of it, but quite frankly, also being the catVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:34 Aug 26, 2014 Jkt 088527 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\88527.TXT TERRI
17 

alyst for the change in HUD’s internal policy with regards to ethics 

and the new policy that recently came out. 

In his statement, he suggested to us that he had no involvement 

in re-writing the policy, if you will, after the fact, and yet all the 

other witnesses told us that he was very diligent and active in rewriting that policy. A policy that really is the responsibility of the 

ethics office; he is Congressional Affairs. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Mr. Hultgren for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Montoya, 

thank you very much for being here. A lot has been covered, but 

just to bring some clarity for myself, I wondered again, if you could 

discuss a little bit—if your Office interviewed HUD ethics attorney 

Peter Constantine while conducting its investigation and preparing 

this report. And what was Mr. Constantine’s role in advising HUD 

regarding the ability of HUD officials to engage in grass-roots lobbying? 

Mr. MONTOYA. As the ethics official, it would be my contention 

that his responsibility was to ensure that the advice he gave kept 

everybody in an ethical swim lane, if you will. I think the largest 

concern I have is that is the issue kept coming to him. Several conversations with Mr. Mincberg, an e-mail request from Mr. 

Mincberg, or he discuses the words, ‘‘more aggressive lobbying,’’ 

and in the words, ‘‘Deputy Secretary and the Secretary.’’ 

It just seems to me that as the ethics official, that should have 

drawn a red flag to him, and I think as an attorney, as well, he 

had a responsibility to pin Mr. Mincberg down to say, ‘‘Listen, if 

you are asking for an opinion, I expect you to give that to me in 

writing so I can formally respond to you.’’ 

I think he should have done more to protect ultimately what 

happened to the Deputy Secretary. I think he could have done 

more, in my opinion. 

Mr. HULTGREN. How many times did your office interview Mr. 

Constantine? 

Mr. MONTOYA. We interviewed him, if I can remember correctly, 

no less than 3 times, sir. 

Mr. HULTGREN. And how would you characterize Mr. Constantine’s responses to your Office’s questions? Do you believe he 

was forthcoming with HUD OIG and that he provided HUD OIG 

with all relevant information? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Oh, I can tell you almost every interview was different from the one before. I can tell you that when we pointedly 

asked him to provide us any documentation that he might have on 

Mr. Mincberg asking about the aggressive lobbying, he did not do 

so. It wasn’t until we confronted him with an e-mail that he had 

actually responded to Mr. Mincberg on, just 5 months earlier on 

this issue, that he then said he didn’t recall. It is ironic that all 

of his other staff attorneys had that memo and that they provided 

it to us. But he failed to do so. 

Mr. HULTGREN. I am wondering, getting back to Mr. Mincberg, 

in your report you have a statement, ‘‘He was less than forthcoming regarding his involvement with preparation and transition 

of that e-mail from July 31st.’’ I wonder why you used those words, 

‘‘less than forthcoming?’’ Was Mr. Mincberg attempting to conceal 

18 

his involvement in the project, is that kind of what was intended 

by the language he used? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. I think he was trying to conceal just how 

aggressive and how involved he was, and quite frankly, our investigation suggests that he was the catalyst for this new sort of position that the Department was trying to undertake. 

Mr. HULTGREN. You also used that same language, ‘‘less than 

forthcoming regarding his knowledge of the anti-lobbying act and 

his knowledge of related HUD policies against lobbying.’’ 

Why was this the case? Why did you specifically, in those circumstances, believe he was less than forthcoming? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I think in several interviews, he claimed he either 

didn’t know or couldn’t remember about the policy, and yet he 

wrote one of the policies. In fact, he helped to write one of the policies that specifically dealt with Presidentially-appointed, Senateconfirmed individuals, the position the Deputy Secretary held. And 

quite frankly, included in that is the language that past Presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed individuals would not 

lobby Congress on pending legislation. 

He had sent the e-mail or the question to the ethics office in February of 2013. He was certainly familiar with that. And so, those 

are two things that I can remember off the top of my head that 

suggested to us that he was not forthcoming. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have 

completed my questions, and I would be happy to yield back my 

time to the chairman actually— 

Chairman MCHENRY. I certainly appreciate my colleague yielding 

back to me—or yielding to me. I do want to ask about one thing. 

HUD had an internal policy regarding grass-roots lobbying at the 

time of the July 31st e-mail, did they not? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir, they did. 

Chairman MCHENRY. And later, after my request of you, they revised that policy, did they not? 

Mr. MONTOYA. It is my understanding that shortly after that, 

they pulled down their ethics guidelines from their Web servers 

and started redrafting the new policy, a policy that for all intents 

and purposes would have not restricted or prohibited the activity 

that they had just undertaken. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. But at the time of the e-mail, the email violated HUD’s policy, which existed at that time? 

Mr. MONTOYA. That is correct, sir— 

Chairman MCHENRY. Furthermore, when Mr. Mincberg and the 

Department responded to my question about this, they said it did 

not violate the HUD policy because they had revised it after. So the 

question about Mr. Mincberg obstructing your investigation, his 

communication with Congress was, let’s just say, a bit clouded and 

white-washed as well. 

My time has expired, but I will come back to this point in a moment. 

I now recognize Mr. Green, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Montoya, I would 

like to thank you on behalf of a good many people. The people who 

work over at HUD, who are not associated with this, I want to 

19 

thank you for not painting with a broad brush. I want to thank you 

for taking a sober approach to this investigation. I think it is imperative that when these kinds of investigations are conducted, we 

approach it looking for facts as opposed to making allegations that 

can sometimes tarnish people for life. So I greatly appreciate the 

approach that you have taken, and I want to thank you on behalf 

of a good many people. 

I also would like to acknowledge and reiterate that you believe 

the range of administrative penalties are sufficient. I think that 

was appropriate for you to say because there are persons who could 

conclude that much more than the administrative penalties would 

be merited. 

But I believe that you have stated clearly that given the range, 

which includes firing, those penalties are sufficient. You have indicated that the GAO and OSC have not weighed in and that it is 

not inappropriate for HUD to receive all of the intelligence before 

making a decision as to what course of conduct to pursue. This 

makes sense. 

And I just appreciate your acknowledging these things because 

it helps us to tie up a lot of loose ends such that we don’t leave 

with the allegations exceeding the conclusions that have been 

reached. 

And finally, I want to thank you for indicating, and I am going 

to have you indicate again, I believe that you have not found in 

your report that there was involvement of the White House. Is that 

a fair statement? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I’m sorry. Will you repeat that, sir? 

Mr. GREEN. You have not found that there is involvement with 

reference to the White House in this? 

Mr. MONTOYA. No, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. That is a term that is broadly used sometimes and 

just the statement can sometimes create an image of something 

that is not in any way correct. So your position is, after your report, a sober report, that there is no involvement of the White 

House. You have not found anything in this report that would indicate this. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. MONTOYA. That is a fair statement. There is no involvement. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. With that said, Mr. Chairman, I am going 

to yield back the balance of my time, and I look forward to our second round. 

Chairman MCHENRY. And the first round being ended with all 

Members’ time being expired, we will now enter into a second 

round, and I ask unanimous consent that we limit questioning to 

5 minutes per side. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Montoya, the individuals in charge, in questioning are Mr. 

Mincberg, in particular. Is he a civil servant with civil servant protections? 

Mr. MONTOYA. As a Schedule C, sir— 

Chairman MCHENRY. A Schedule C? Does a Schedule C political 

appointee have the same protections that career civil servants have 

in terms of hiring and firing? 

20 

Mr. MONTOYA. I don’t know, sir. I would have to get back to you 

on that. That is a good question, but I don’t know if I can answer 

that clearly for you. 

Chairman MCHENRY. They can be fired at any time and they are 

Presidential appointees, so just my understanding— 

Mr. MONTOYA. But I want to make sure I am clear. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Right. So at this point, the Secretary could 

fire Mr. Mincberg and have him out the door by the close of business? Now let me ask you, if someone on your staff committed the 

acts that Mr. Mincberg did, would you take disciplinary action? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I think I prefer to maintain sort of an independent objectivity here, sir, regarding that answer. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. I will withdraw that question then. 

Now on page 20 of your report—I just want to go through this because it is very important—there is an interview that you are having with a witness. Mr. Mincberg inserts himself into this interview and asks the person, tells the person that they should not 

speak with you. Is that correct? Your investigators? 

Mr. MONTOYA. He indicates to our investigators that he would 

instruct the individual not to speak to us. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. And your investigator told Mr. 

Mincberg— 

Mr. MONTOYA. Ultimately, we told them it potentially could be 

an obstruction of our investigation. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. At which point—and this is in your 

report on page 20—Mr. Mincberg stated that if he was charged 

with obstruction of justice, he would ensure that the investigators 

were charged, as well, based on their ‘‘inappropriate actions.’’ 

Was that a threat? Did your investigators view that as a threat? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Certainly, I think they could have viewed it as a 

veiled threat. We looked at it more as a way to keep them from 

investigating further. So I guess in that regard, it could be a veiled 

threat. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. A veiled threat. So is this pretty 

standard? You have been doing this for how many years? In an investigative function? 

Mr. MONTOYA. In the IG function, a good 15 years— 

Chairman MCHENRY. Fifteen, okay— 

Mr. MONTOYA. This is the first time I have seen something from 

that level of an employee to an investigator. It did prompt an immediate phone call from me to the General Counsel, that I would 

not have that— 

Chairman MCHENRY. The General Counsel. And who was the 

General Counsel? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Helen Kanovsky. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Helen Kanovsky, who is now the acting 

Deputy Secretary? 

Mr. MONTOYA. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Did she know about HUD’s staff effort to get the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel 

involved in your investigation? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. I believe she was aware of those calls. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. In order to—which goes back to this 

question about threats and obstruction of justice related to that. 

21 

And so at a time of some very questionable activity, she has received a promotion. Also on page 20 of your report, I just want to 

outline, midway, fourth paragraph down on page 20, ‘‘Additionally, 

after receipt of a separate committee request to HUD, Mincberg appears to have taken steps to conceal or cloud the fact that the July 

31st e-mail communication violated HUD restrictions on lobbying 

by Federal employees which was in place at that time.’’ 

‘‘When he spearheaded the removal of HUD’s internal policy from 

the—basically the HUD Web site, this occurred 1 week after receiving the committees’ letter with the stated explanation that the various policies were confusing.’’ 

It is very interesting because this one individual took it upon 

himself to go to extraordinary lengths to obscure from Congress the 

policies of HUD in place at the time, and furthermore to impede 

your actions and your investigators’ actions. Is that correct? 

Mr. MONTOYA. That is correct, and I would add that there were 

a number of attorneys in the Office of Ethics who did not believe 

that policy was confusing. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Now additionally, about Maurice 

Jones, this was his e-mail under his name coming from his e-mail 

address? And you stated that, in essence, he got bad advice. Was 

that— 

Mr. MONTOYA. Since you give me the opportunity, I want to 

make sure that we are clear. We found nothing in this investigation to suggest that the Deputy Secretary was either knowingly or 

intentionally involved in this sort of large grass-roots lobbying campaign that included 46 employees. 

In fact, I think in our interview, he was surprised that it went 

out to so many people. Except for the— 

Chairman MCHENRY. Perhaps mismanagement but not malfeasance? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I don’t know if I would even call it mismanagement. I think at the Deputy Secretary level, I certainly had countless meetings with him on any number of issues. He was always 

very engaged in matters. I think that, quite frankly, he was hoping 

and depending on his staff, certainly the head of Congressional Affairs and certainly the head of Ethics, to properly advise him. I 

think that is where the failure is here. 

I don’t know that I would want to throw it at his feet. We could 

all say he is ultimately responsible, but quite frankly, we found 

nothing in this that would suggest to us that it was his fault, per 

se. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Now the question is about the obstruction piece. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Right. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Is that correct? Is it just Mr. Mincberg involved in that? 

Mr. MONTOYA. It is just Mr. Mincberg with regards to us having 

to suggest to him that his actions would potentially result in an obstruction matter. He was the only one with regard to that. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. I did 

want to give you the opportunity to do that. With that, I ask unanimous consent—I took 61⁄2 minutes, so I will ask unanimous consent 

22 

that the ranking member can control 61⁄2 minutes. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s continue with the 

report and let’s move to page 23, which has at the bottom of the 

page an area titled, ‘‘Disposition of HUD OIG Report of Investigation.’’ And what I would like to do, Mr. Montoya, is simply go 

through the disposition because the conclusions are also things that 

you support in your report. And the first deals with Deputy Secretary Jones, and you recently spoke of his acting with a lack of 

malice aforethought, which means that he didn’t with 

intentionality do any of these acts, that he was receiving advice 

and he was acting. 

But as to Mr. Jones, the Deputy Secretary, DOJ determined that 

there was nothing in the material warranting the opening of a 

criminal investigation, and you have indicated as much in your report. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. Let’s move on now to some other persons. 

Mincberg, Constantine, this sounds like a law firm, by the way, 

Mincberg, Constantine, Szubrowski, Youngberg and Harwi. DOJ 

determined that there was nothing in the—and the writing is small 

and my eyes are old—material warranting the opening of a criminal investigation on November 25, 2013. DOJ declined further review of this matter. Is that a true and accurate statement? 

Mr. MONTOYA. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. Moving on to the Federal appropriations 

law. You have forwarded your report to GAO for its use in responding. Is that a fair statement, sir? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir, with regards to any violation of Federal 

appropriations law. 

Mr. GREEN. Exactly. And as to Deputy Secretary Jones, you have 

provided a report to the Office of Special Counsel for use in determining whether there was a violation. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Of a prohibitive personal practice? Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. And finally, I think the last 14 words of your 

report are important and I will read the last 14 words. They are, 

‘‘This report was forwarded to the HUD Secretary for any administrative actions deemed appropriate.’’ And you have concluded that 

administrative actions are a fair remedy with reference to this report. 

Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I certainly can’t speak for GAO or OSC. With regards to our report, administrative actions, yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. As to your report? And you stand by your 

report? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. I thank you again, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman MCHENRY. I thank the ranking member, and I would 

advise the ranking member that I will be sending a letter this 

afternoon asking for the Secretary of HUD to come before us to explain what actions and remedies he has taken. And I would gladly 

welcome the ranking member in joining me in that request. 

23 

Mr. GREEN. I will look forward to perusing the document and 

making a decision after having the benefit of a perusal. 

Chairman MCHENRY. I thank the ranking member, and I would 

certainly take his legal advice as a career judge, and Texas makes 

a different brand of judges—and our Texas witness would say that, 

I’m sure. 

This is Mr. Montoya’s second appearance before our subcommittee, and he has appeared before Congress multiple times, so 

thank you, again, for your testimony. 

And without objection, I would just take a moment of personal 

privilege to thank the Inspector General for his career of service in 

our government and for steadfast work and making sure that these 

important programs within your purview are well-executed and the 

taxpayer dollars are preserved and the delivery is actually done. 

And so, I thank the Inspector General for that. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Thank you, sir, for your kind words. 

Chairman MCHENRY. Thank you. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this witness, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to this witness 

and to place his responses in the record. Also, without objection, 

Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

And without objection, the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(25) 

A P P E N D I X 

February 26, 2014 

26 


88527.001
27 


88527.002
28 


88527.003
29 


88527.004
30 


88527.005
31 


88527.006
32 


88527.007