Transcripts For CSPAN House Oversight Hearing On Office Of Special Counsel And The Hatch Act -... 20240714

Branch officials from engaging in political activity. Mr. Cummings the committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any time. The full Committee Hearing is convening regarding violations of the hatch act under the Trump Administration. I now recognize myself for five minutes to give my Opening Statement. Today are holding a hearing on a very troubling on a very troubling report issued by the office of special counsel on june 13, of this year. This report finds that Kellyanne Conway, counselor to president donald trump, violated the hatch act dozens of times. And it recommes that the president fire her immediately for her violations. There are rarely issues that come befe our c committee that are so clear cut, but this is one of them. This is about right and wrong. This is about the core principle of our precious democracy, that nobody, not one person, nobody in this country is above the law. Contrary to claims from misconway and President Trump, this is not a conspiracy to silence her or restrict her First Amendment rights. This is an effort to enforce federal law. O enforce federal law. Which very clearly theres no ambiguity here, which very clearly prohibits employees from engaging in Political Activities on federal property or while using their official position. This report was issued by pecial counsel henry kerner. Mr. Kerner leads the office of special counsel. The independent Agency Charged with enforcing the hatch act. Listen to this. Mr. Kerner was nominated to his position by President Trump in 2017. And all of the republicans and democrats in the Senate Approved his nomination by a voice vote. Mr. Kerner worked on the republican staff of this very committee for several years under both chairman darrell issa and jason chaffetz. In this report, the special counsel describes, and i quote, persistent, notorious and deliberate hatch act violations, end of quote. This report explains how ms. Conway violated the law dozens of times, by using her official position to criticize Democratic Candidates and support republican candidates. I should not have to say this, but obviously that is against the law. It is against federal law. Unfortunately this was not the first time the special counsel ms. Ed the president and conway violated the law. In 2018 special counsel sent President Trump a report finding that ms. Conway violated the hatch act twice. Yet the president took no disciplinary action against her. Instead, with the president s full support, ms. Conway has engaged in an astounding show of defines by increasing the frequency of her illegal activity and disparaging the law itself. On may 29, 2019, she answered a question from a reporter about her violations saying, and i quote, blah, blah, blah. End of quote. She then stated dismissively and i quote, let me know when the jail sentence starts, end of quote. Ms. Conway is apparently comfortable escalating her violations. And her defines. Because she knows President Trump will not take any disciplinary action against her. The president stated during an interview with fox news, and i quote, no, im not going to fire her. I think shes a terrific person. Shes a tremendous spokeswoman. Shes been loyal. End of quote. This is nonot a question of whether somebody is a terrific person. Its not a question of whether they are a tremendous spokesperson. It is not a question as to whether they are loyal. It is a question of whether they owe bade the law owe bade the law obeyed the law. Period. Now things are getting worse. In response to the special counsels report, the white house and ms. Conway have gone on the offensive. By arguing that the hatch act esot even apply to her. Tell that to all the other federal employees that have to adhere to this law. In a letter to special counsel on jewel 11, the white House Counsel claimed there were no violations, quote, even assuming that the hatch act applies to the most Senior Advisors to the president in the white house, end of quote. Similarly, ms. C conway stated this week, quote, it is not ite clear to us at the white counsel, that the hatch act applies to assistance of the president , end of quote. Let me make this abundantly clear. The hatch act is absolutely absolutely applies to ms. Conway. Period. It is written in black and white. Re the committee on jurisdiction over this law. And Neither Congress nor the courts have ever suggested that a president s advisors are exempt. Finally, i want to address the white houses baless, and they truly are baseless, arguments for refusing our request for ms. Conways testimony here today. They sent a letter to the committee on monday arguing that ms. Conway is, quote, absolutely immune, end of quote, from testifying. They claim that this festival has been, quote, consistently adhered to by administrations of both political parties, end of quote. Ladies and gentlemen, this is simply not true. Congress has never accepted the claim that white house advisors are absolutely immune. In fact, our committee has obtained public testimony from numerous white house officials while they served in the white house. These include multiple white House Counsels, the deputy counsel to the president , and associate counsel to the president , a Deputy Assistant to the president , and the director of the White House Office of security. In the case of mgs conway, the white houses argue mingtments have even less merit. Were not asking about any conversations she had with the president. And were not asking about any advice she gave to the president. Here we have a clearcut case of a federal employee violating federal law over and over and over again. We have video of that same federal employee mocking the law itself and claiming it does not apply to her. And we have the white house asserting that congress may not question this employee. May not investigate her repeated violations and may not conduct oversight relating to the legislation that we on this ommittee pass. This is the opposite of accountability much its contrary to our fundamental system of laws accountability. Its contrary to our fundamental system of laws in our country. Again, nobody is above the law. Not even ms. Conway. For these reasons, we will hear from our Ranking Member. We will hear special counsel kerners Opening Statement and then we will pause this hearing so the Committee Members can vote on a subpoena to compel ms. Conways appearance at a hearing later today. With that, i will yield to the distinguished Ranking Member. Mr. Chairman, the report from the office of the speciaia counsel is outrageous. Its unprecedented. Its unfair. And its just flatout wrong. We should be honest. The reason were here today is mr. Kerner got his feeltings hurt. He told that to the white House Counsels office. He said, he took great offense to ms. Conways response. Mr. Jordan and thats why, thats why he rushed the report and only gave ms. Conway 16 hours to respond. Mr. Kerner felt slighted. Ms. Conway didnt pay enough attention to him in his and his office. And you know why she didnt . Because the allegations ridiculous. Lets be clear about the hatch act. Federal employee cant come to work and hand out partisan literature, cant come to work and hand out yard signs. Federal employee cant come to work and raise funds for a candidate or pressure subordrdinates to support a particular Political Party. But a Senior Advisor to the president of the United States can sure as heck go on cable news shows and answer questions. David plus did it, David Axelrod did it. They all did it for president obama. But now that its a strongwilled republican helping President Trump, oh, cant have that. Cant have that. All of a sudden, nope. Got to stop that. Mr. Kerner and the office of special counsel felt slighted. They also felt pressured, again, he said it, he told the white House Counsel he felt pressured. Pressured by the left Wing Political Organization that filed the complaint, same left Wing Political Organization that raises tons of money by attacking President Trump and his administraration. They felt slighted. They felt pressured. So they were unfair. And the Obama Administration held were all found to violate the hatch act. O. S. C. Didnt recommend they be fired. Some of those people didnt even issue a public report. Americans hate unfairness. And they know it when they see it. They also hate double stanandards. By the way, you know what else the federal employee cant do . You know what else they cant do . They cant target people for their political beliefs. Remember this just a few years ago, when the i. R. S. Systematically target people targeted people because they did different political persuasion . Federal employees cant do what lois learner and the i. R. S. Did when they targeted key Political Party groups. When they applied one standard to their friends but a different standard if you were conservative. And heres the irony. Office of special counsel seems to be doing the same thing to ms. Conway. The Democratic Political group who filed the complaint and the o. S. C. , they dont like the fact that ms. Conway is conservative. Its not even really. That its nonot even really tha i. R. S. Didnt target Tea Party Groups because they were conservative. They targeted them because they were effective. And thats s the same thing we see in play here. Ms conways being targeted not just because shes a conservative, not just because shes in the Trump Administration. But shes being targeted because shes good at what she does. Thats why this should not stand. And the idea that democrats are going to now subpoena here i just ridiculous. Her is just ridiculous. Theyre going to do because she does her job so well. Thats why were here. I hope in the next few hours that we can get the truth out about the hatch act and really expose the motives that drive this whole darn thing in the fifirst place. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Cummings mr. Kerner, i now would lilike to welcome our witness, the honorable henry j. Kerner, special counsel, office of special counsel. If you would please rise and raise your right hand, i will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truthth, so help you god . Mr. Kerner i do. Mr. Cummings let the you may be seated. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. I want to thank you for being here. Mr. Kerner, i remind you, since youre familiar with the hearing room and being in these settings, the microphones are very sensitive. So please speak directly into them. Without objection, your written statement will be made a part of the record. Theres been a lot said by the Ranking Member and i would hope that you would address some of those issues in your Opening Statement. If not, we will get to them in questions. With that, youre now recognized for five minutes. Mr. Kerner thank you, mr. Chairman. I have a prepared statement but since the Ranking Member mentioned the i. R. S. Targeting scandal, i thought id point out that when i was working on the senate side, we authored a 37page report criticizing the i. R. S. For targeting conservative groups and Tea Party Groups. I was the author of that report and we were very strong in making clear that that was unacceptable. And that the i. R. S. Should not have targeted the conservative groups. Mr. Jordan no kidding. Mr. Kerner absolutely. Mr. Cummings do not interfere with the witness. Let him testify. Mr. Jordan i was speaking directly mr. Cummings no, hes talking. Mr. Jordan got it. Mr. Kerner sorry. I just wanted to make that clear. Good morning, chairman cummings, Ranking Member jordan and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committe to discuss the important work of o. S. C. s hatch act unit. Im proud to be here representing o. S. C. And im especially pleased to be back before this committee where i started my federal career. I came to work as what was then o. G. R. Because i wanted to make a difference and im proud of the work we did to hold government officials accountable all the way up to the attorney general. While republican staff are here on two separate occasions under chairman issa and chaffetz, i learned two valuable lessons. One, the importance of accountability. Espeally of high government officials. And two, treating everybody the same. Holding the little guy to the exact same standard as those who are part of the pololitical well connected class. We cannot have two sets of rules. Instead we need to have equal treatment und the law. And ive internalized those two lessons and ive taken them with me to my new job at the office of special counsel. Speaking of the office of special counsel, im proud of the longstanding work of o. S. C. To hold government officials at all levels accountable for violations of the hatch act. When President Trump appointed me to the position of special counsel, and im honored by that appointment, i accepted this job with the expectation and obligation that i would uphold the constitution and faithfully discharge my duties in a fair and impartial manner. I knew from my 18 years as a prosecutor in los angeles that doing so would involve making hard calls. That leaves me to our leads me to our topic of the day. O. S. C. s investigations into Kellyanne Conways violations of the hatch act. I want to make it clear at the outset that with respect to ms. Conways First Amendment rights, we in no way wish to assist anyone in silencing her speech. The president has stated publiclyhat he considers her an effective proponent of his policies and we have no intent in depriving the president of that assistance. That said, over the past 1 1 2 years, o. S. C. Has received merous separate hatch act complaints against ms. Conway. As with all hatch act complaints that o. S. C. Receiveses, career hatch act attorneys conduct a thorough and impartial investigation of lleged political activity. O. S. C. Documented multiple hatch act violations by ms. Conway. Although ms. Conway had the opportunity to respond to that report, she chose not to do so. The most recent report was the result of a months long investigation that began with complaints by the twitter activity back in december of last year and came to include a multitude of violations during media appearances about which o. S. C. Has receive complaints. Let me also be clear. The statements made by ms. Conway that violated the hatch ac were her political opinions. Ms. Conway was not talking only about facts during her media appearances in question. Instead she pivoted, sometimes completely unprompted, to attacking the Democratic Candidates personally, such as calling the entire field of Democratic Candidates woodchips and calling senator booker tinny anand sexist. Those statements are not facts. Th a Campaign Rhetoric and they are forbidden by the hatch act when she says them in her official capacity. During the recent investigation of ms. Conway, o. S. C. Had substantial communication with the white House Counsels office. O. S. C. Repeatedly offered ms. Conway the opportunity to come into compliance with the law. She refused to do so. In fact, the frequency of her hatch act violations only increased. This left us with no choice but to make the recommendation we made, which is that give the evidence of her clear, repeated andnowing violations of the hatch act, and her apparent unwillingness to come into compliance with the law, the only appropriate recommendation under these circumstances was removal from office. I want to emphasize one more time that we did not make this recommendation lightly. But as professor jonathan turly, a frequent witness on capitol hill, and nationally recognized constitutional law scholar, wrote on his blog, ms. Conways behavior presented a, quote, direct and existential challenge to the office of special counsel. They have to act in the face of such flagrant and repeated violations, end quote. So why do we even have a hatch act . We have a hatch act, which was passed in 1939, because its central purpose remains unchanged. To separate the nonpartisan governance of the country from partisan political campaigning. By maintaining the hatch act protects two groups. Federal workers who are protected from the possibilityr American People are also protected because they know their tax dollars are being spent on government and not on election campaigns they may or may not support. To achieve these worthy goals, the hatch act placed certain limitations on the political activity of federal executive branch employees. Political activity is defined in the hatch act regulations as any activity directed toward the success or failure of a Political Party, partisan Political Group or candidate for partisan Political Office. One of the acts core restrictions prevents Government Employees from using their official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election. The Supreme Court has twice affirmed the hatch acts constitutionality as a permissible regulation of speech. And the later of the two rulings, the Supreme Court said hatch act struck a delicate balance between fair and effective government and the First Amendment rights of individual employees. As a former Congressional Staffer, im well aware of the restrictions placed on Congressional Staff and even members in regard to mixing political activity with ones official duties. Just like the hatch act, those restrictions play a crucial role in reassuring the American People that their government is working on their behalf, regardless of how they voted or which party or candidate they support. Some have questions why the hatch act should apply to someone like ms. Conway, who is a former Campaign Manager for President Trump and presently serves as one of his senior counselors. But as the conduct of past Administration Officials in similar positions, people like David Axelrod, covek, has shown, being be an advisor does not inherently have ms. Conway to leverage her official authority to attack candidates or engage in political activity as defined under the act. Another example is the now departed press secretary, Sarah Huckabee sanders, who pivoted away from questions that that were posed to her by the press corps about election issues. Ms. Conways comments by contrast were indistinguishable from the partisan attacks that a Campaign Official would make. Her repeated personal attacks on multiple Democratic Party candidates, which ms. Conway by the way is permitted to make as a private citizen, are wholly unrelated to the work of governing on behalf of the American People. Some have tried to argue that o. S. C. Is holding ms. Conway to a higher standard. And treating her more harshly than highlevel officials of the Obama Administration. The opposite is true. The career supervisor of o. S. C. s hatch act unit not only are aware of but investigate violations by Obama Administrations Administration Officials and their recommendations are calibrated on the severity of the violations based on precedent. For example, then h. H. S. Secretary sebelius was found to have committed two hatch act violations at a single event. In response acknowledged error and reimbursed the u. S. Treasury for all expenses associated with that event. Interesting at the time that o. S. C. Issued its report on this, some republicans on the house side conservative groups called for her removal. In contrast to ms. Sebelius, ms. Conway has committed to found to have committed 10 separate violations, express nod remorse and continues to express disdain for the laws longstanding restrictions. As stated in the report, ms. Conways conduct created an unprecedented challenge to o. S. C. s ability to enforce the hatch act. Her conduct sent a false message to other federal employees that they need not abide by the hatch act or that senior officials are above the law. Im here to emphatically say that is not the case. In closing, just as i did when i worked for the esteemed committee, ill continue to work hard to hold federal employees accountable when they fall short of the standards that congress has mandated. According lirks under my leadership, o. S. C. Will continue its distinguished history of enforcing the hatch act and preserving the distinction between governing and campaigning. Thank you and i look forward to answers your questions. Mr. Cummings thank you. We look forward to engaging new questions when we reconvene after we dispose of some committee business. The hearing will now stand in recess. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] mr. Cummings the committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. The chair may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment for which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. Now, pursuant to notice, i call up a subpoena resolution to compel the appearance of Kellyanne Conway to testify before this committee. The clerk will report the resolution, which was distributed in advance. The clerk a resolution offered by chairman cummings authorizing issuance of subpoena related to the hatch act. Mr. Cummings without objection, the report is considered read and open to amendment at any time. The chair recognizes himself to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Copies of the amendment have already been distributed and are on the dais. The clerk will report. The clerk amendment in the nature of a substitute to a resolution offered by mr. Cummings, authorizing issuance of subpoena related to the hatch act. Mr. Cummings without objection, the amendment is considered read and will serve as the base text for purpose of amendment. I recognize myself for a brief Opening Statement. Ive already addressed these issues by my Opening Statement. So i will be extremely brief. Our committee has jurisdiction over the hatch act. I personally have worked across the aisle to amend this very important law several times over the past decade. The office of special counsel has found that ms. Conway violated the hatch act dozens of times. Let me repeat that, dozens of times. And recommends that the president fire her. But he refuses to do so. In fact, he refuses to take any disciplinary action against her. Keep in mind, we have over two million federal employees. Who adhere to the hatch act every day. Nobody is above the law. The committee sought her voluntary testimony today. We wanted to hear from her directly. She is a public official who we pay by the way, who has been accused of wrongdoing. And she refused to explain herself to the office of special counsel. Regrettably, ms. Conway did not appear here today. The white house sent a letter on monday claiming she is, and i quote, absolutely immune, end of quote, from congressional testimony, even if shes violating the law. Theres a longstanding precedent for the white house aides to testify before this very committee. Weve heard from multiple white House Counsels to deputy counsel to the president and associate counsel to the president , Deputy Assistant to the president , and the director of the White House Office of security. The American People demand, they demand that our Public Officials follow the law. And be held accountable for their actions. Through this resolution, the committee demands answers and requires ms. Conway to provide those answers under oath. I urge my members of the committee to vote for this resolution and now i yield to the distinguished Ranking Member, mr. Jordan. I yield to mr. Meadows. Mr. Meadows thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this subpoena, one, is not necessary. And quite frankly, its not following the law. I can tell you that what we have here is a political spectacle. Were talking about keeping politics out of government. This subpoena is nothing more than a political spectacle. We are better than this, mr. Chairman. We are better than this. I can tell you, as we look at this particular hatch act violation, socalled hatch act violation, if you look at what the hatch act is all about, its about protecting federal employees. Were not doing any of that here today. In fact, were setting a dangerous course where were going to bring in every federal employee that has a hatch act violation when we are going to go and put a subpoena and put them on trial right here before congress. It is wrong, mr. Chairman. And i can tell you that if you look at what the hatch act is all about, it is not about Kellyanne Conway and her speech. Because if were going to have the same standard, let me just tell you, there is ethical complaints about every Single Member of congress that does some kind of tv hit here in the capitol where they start to talk about it, mr. Swalwell, mr. Schiff. If were going to use the same standard, they are violating, indeed would be violating the very rules of this house. And i can tell you that as we start to look at this no, i will not yield. Youll have time in opposition, im sure, that the chairman will allow you to do that. Heres what is troubling, mr. Chairman. As we start to look at the subpoena, we have one standard for Kellyanne Conway and another standard for everybody else. So, if youre going to subpoena people, lets subpoena so man that powers. Lets make sure he had subpoena Samantha Powers. Lets make sure she comes. In i have emails on her official account where she was going after donald trump while she was working for our government, and indeed at the same time was unmasking individuals. So if we want to hold people accountable, lets do it with the same standard. Because i dont think its right to hold her to a different standard. Mr. Cummings the gentleman yield . Mr. Meadows i will to my friend. Mr. Cummings let me be clear mr. Meadows not to suggest other person was not my friend. Ms. Wasserman schultz yeah, thanks a whole heck of a lot, mr. Meadows. [laughter] mr. Cummings let me be clear. I think weve gotten to a point sadly where disobeying the law is ok. Mr. Meadows this is not reclaiming my time. Mr. Cummings yes, it is. It is mr. Meadows it is my time. Reclaiming my time. I can promise you that paragraph e gives a waiver. So i want to hear from mr. Kerner, who gets a waiver . Because you know what, when you go out and you state the fact, that is not political campaigning. Shes not asking for contributions, shes not asking for anything other than shes not even campaigning. She has a microphone stuck in her face and she is responding. Youve done the same thing, mr. Chairman. And so i would just say, lets be careful about the standard were about to hold. I will yield to the gentleman from ohio. Mr. Jordan this is one more example of the democrats obsession with going after this president. You have to go back remember how this committee started this congress . Who was the first announced witness of the entire 116th congress . Who was it . Michael cohen. Mr. Cummings that is not true. Mr. Jordan michael cohen. The first announced witness, their first big hearing, who do they bring in front of this committee . Who do they bring in front of the congress . Who do they bring . A guy who is a convicted liar, who sits in prison today. First big hearing. No, im not. Its my time. Youre out of order. Mr. Cummings all right. Mr. Jordan mr. Chairman, i got 2 58. Mr. Cummings lets hold it real quick. Mr. Jordan wait mr. Cummings freeze the time. Mr. Jordan i dont freeze my time. Id have to yield my time to you and im not doing. That are you asking know yield . Mr. Cummings im asking you to yield. Dont want to take anything away from you. The reason youre hearing that is the first hearing was with regard to drugs. Mr. Jordan not the first announced mr. Cummings insulin. Dont be funny with the words. Mr. Jordan im not. I said exactly what i meant. Mr. Cummings dont put out there thanges are not accurate. Its not accurate. You act like the lady [talking simultaneously] mr. Jordan its my time, mr. Chairman. Do you wish that you hadnt announced mr. Cohen as your first announced witness . Is that what youre saying . Mr. Cummings oh, god. Mr. Jordan all im saying is your first announced witness, your first big hear something a guy who sits in prison for lying to congress and when he came here, he lied again. And now today, now today the democrats, instead of focusing on issues that matter to americans, they want to focus on Kellyanne Conways tweets. Thats the obsession you have with going after this president. Mr. Meadows is right. In fact, ill yield back time to mr. Meadows. We got 2 20. Mr. Meadows i thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, here is my concern. We are going down a downward spiral on something that does not have to happen. Weve got mr. Kerner here who is usurping the authority granted to o. P. M. We in a bipartisan way have been talking about o. P. M. And the importance of o. P. M. Yet were allowing this committee to usurp the authority of o. P. M. . He doesnt even have the authority to write the guidance. Yet were bringing them in for a subpoena. Ive studied this. You go back to 1939. You go back to the 1990s when they amended this bill the last time. Let me just tell you, it has nothing to do with what this hearing is about today. It has everything to do with not coercing federal employees, not giving them special treatment because theyre of one part theyre of one party or another. This is a Chilling Effect on free speech. Its a direct attack on this president and Kellyanne Conway and were better than this, mr. Chairman. Were better than this. If you want to subpoena her, lets go ahead and add Samantha Powers to it. She did a peter strzok kind of back and forth, trashing this president , at the same time she was unmasking those individuals so that they could be surveiled. That is not protected. That should be addressed as well. With that, ill yield back. Mr. Cummings i yield to mr. Throons strike the last word. Mr. Lance thank you, mr. Chairman. I think its a good time for us to get back to the facts. Lets get back to the facts of what were talking about, the behavior that were addressing. Ill start with right after the president was sworn into office in february, on february 13. Former director of the office of government ethics, walter should be a, sent a letter to the white house recommending the president take disciplinary action against Kellyanne Conway. At that time she was violating the federal ethics regulations because she had, during interviews, started promoting ivanka trumps business line. Mr. Lynch her product line. Then later on, in march of 2018, ms. Conway gave a couple of interviews in support of the senate candidate, roy moore, leading right up to the alabama , 2017, special election. Thats actively promoting a specifically a specific candidate. As a federal employee. Then leading up to the 2018 midterm elections, ms. Conway tweeted out, request for people to vote for 15 candidates. 15 specific candidates, vote for these people. As an elected official, as part of the president s campaign. O. S. C. Declared there were at least 15 violations during this time period. N december of 2018, ms. Conway did not take o. S. C. s advice and posted another series of tweets disparaging democratic president ial candidates in the spring of 2019. So, ms. Conway has been continually defiant in face of o. S. C. Repeated warnings. And we are trying to treat her the same as everyone else. If you look at what happened with sebelius, you look at what happened with mr. Castro. Both party of the part of the Obama Administration. You saw that they were they had a cease and desist from that activity and they had to reimburse the government. We just pulled in two postal workers during the last election. One of them was supporting trump, one was supporting clinton. But you cant do that. You cant do that actively in the workplace. While youre on the payroll. So we penalized both of them. From different sides of the political spectrum. But this is about the rule of law. This is about the rule of law. Does the hatch act mean anything . Are we going to follow the rule of law . Are we going to just discard it . Thats it the core question here. Thats the core question here. These are blatant and repeated examples. This is not a closed case. I know there is a prevailing attitude, and i can suggest where it comes from, where some people in the administration dont believe that the law applies to them. And we see that repeatedly. And so congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight. We have a request outstanding. Ms. Conway knew very well about it. She decided not to come. Its another slap in the face to the rule of law and to this body. Of which you are part. Now, you can make excuses while youre not doing your job. But theyre not good theyre not valid excuses. Im talking to the whole committee. Im talking to the whole committee. We have a responsibility to conduct oversight. You can say its not a valid subpoena or its not necessary. Well, we asked her to come and she didnt come. Weve had repeated attempts by various particulates of our government to get her parts of our government to get her to cease and desist from this activity which is a violation of the law. Mr. Meadows we keep saying its a violation of the law. Let me just tell you, were if were talking about tweets, i can if were talking about tweets, i can promise you mr. Lynch this is just a partial list. I dont have enough time to read it all. Mr. Meadows if were talking about mr. Lynch i reclaim my time. This is not a closed came case. This is not a closed case at all. Mr. Meadows it should be. Mr. Lynch if we bring in and suspend, we spended two postal workers, postal workers in the workplace talking to their coworkers, pushing a political candidate. Within that small work force. Here we have special counsel to the president on national tv pushing certain candidates or on social media giving out a list of candidates that she wants people to vote for. In the middle of an election. Come on. Come on. This is not close. Either we change the law or abide by it and force people to comply with it. Those are our choices. I yield back. Ms. Pressley i want to thank our chairman for his leadership and his consistently demonstrated professionalism and decorum in the face of what i consider to be unfounded and completely unfair accusations, questioning the character and the integrity and the intention of this committee. Ms. Plaskett patience is a virtue and i guess i dont have it. But im grateful that you do. I thank you, mr. Chair, for your leadership. I support this resolution. Which will show the committees support for a subpoena that will require Kellyanne Conway to testify before us. As to our colleagues across the aisle who feel that this is a violation of freedom of speech, instead of appearing before this committee, ms. Conway appeared on quksfogs appeared on fox and friends. So she is consistent with a contempt, a disdain, evading and obstructing, stonewalling over and over again by this administration. Ms. Pressley so how is it a violation of freedom of speech when she appeared on fox and friends and said, quote, they want to put a big roll of masking tape over my mouth, but we sure as hell heard her loud and clear on fox and friends. So this committee is not trying to silence ms. Conway. We believe the American People should hear from her. We have offered her a platform to explain herself. And she did not show up. Back in march, 2018, o. S. C. Issued its first report detailing ms. Conways hatch act violations and during that investigation o. S. C. Tried to engage ms. Conway several times. And despite repeated attempts, ms. Conway never responded to o. S. C. After concluding that investigation, but before issuing the report to the president , o. S. C. Provided conway yet another opportunity to respond to the report, again she never engaged with o. S. C. And never provided a response to o. S. C. s report. Ms. Conway ignores o. S. C. , ignores the hatch act, and now is ignoring the committee. This is completely disrespectful to us as a coequal branch of government, that shes not shown up here. The committee has no choice but to issue a subpoena. I support the leadership of this chair and this resolution. Would my friend yield . Over here. Ms. Pressley i yield. Thank you. [laughter] a me just say, this is not matter of quibbling. And unlike the statement of the Ranking Member, this is not some obsession about the president. This is the rule of law. We have in front of us a report from a trump appointed official who was a former staff member of this committee on the republican side. Hes not a partisan, hes not some wildeyed liberal. Mr. Connolly hes doing thinks job. And repeatedly, after being cited for willful violations of the law, a law thats not trivial, a law thats not upheld by numerous Supreme Court rulings, as a fair balance between the need to restrict overt political activity in the workplace and the First Amendment rights of federal employees on the other hand. If we take no action, which apparently is what the Ranking Member and my friend, mr. Meadows want us to do meadows, want us to do, every federal employee, two million, are going to say, youve just embraced a double standard. I can be hauled up for political activity, but if youre the president s favorite, you can thumb your nose at the law. Final point. Were here because of unique circumstances. We have never seen a report like this before. This is not the same. This is actually an extraordinary document calling to account a woman who refuses to be taken to account. She has her own rules and she is being enabled to pursue those own rules by the president of the United States. In violation of the law. Lets be very clear about that. This is not the same. And she has willfully thumbed her nose at the process, at o. S. C. , and at the law itself, and now, as ms. Pressley points out, the committee of jurisdiction. We cannot allow that to stand. Failure to endorse this subpoena and to subsequently enforce it is enabling violations of the law on a selective basis and i took an oath, and i will not violate that oath, i will support this subpoena. And i thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Cummings there being no further debate, the question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. The question now occurs on agreeing to the resolution. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The resolution is agreed. To mr. Jordan wed ask for a record vote on that, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings roll call is ordered, for approving the resolution to subpoena ms. Conway. The clerk will recall the ill call the roll. Clerk [roll call] the clerk [roll call] the clerk [roll call] the clerk [roll call] the clerk ms. Foxx is not recorded. Ms. Fox votes no ms. Foxx votes no. Mr. Cummings is there any member wishes to vote or change their vote . The clerk shall report the vote. The clerk on this vote we have 25 yeses and 16 noes. Mr. Cummings the resolution is approved. The motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. Staff is authorized to make any technical and conforming changes. There being no further business o mark up, stands adjourned. E hearing will now reconvene mr. Kerner, where is he . Mr. Cummings i want to thank all the members for being here. As soon as mr. Kerner gets to the table we will start the questioning. Mr. Cummings this meeting will come to order. Mr. Kerner i want to thank you and the hardworking professionals who spent months doing an investigation. I understand your suggestion to President Trump that Kellyanne Conway be removed from office was not made without careful consideration. I want to play a clip from a phone interview President Trump id last friday on fox and friends responding to o. S. C. s report. Play the clip, please. Youre not going to fire her . President trump im not going to fire her. Shes a terrific person. Shes a tremendous spokesperson. Shes been loyal. Shes just a great person. I would certainly not think, based on what i saw yesterday, how could you do that . They have tried to take away her speech. And i think youre entitled to free speech in this unt canry. They say if youre working for the white house you shouldnt be involved in criticizing other candidates or other politicians and she has. Will owe uncourage her not to do that Going Forward . It doesnt work that way. President trump i think biden is one of the people she was accused of criticizing he criticized me and we then criticized him or she criticized him. Its not shes making a point. Shes trying to make a point. How could you do this. Basically youd have to take a person off, a person wouldnt be able to express themselves. And i just dont see it. Now im going to get a very strong briefing on it, but it seems to me to be very unfair. Its called freedom of speech. Mr. Cummings what message does the president s refusal to fire ms. Conway send to the over two Million People in our federal work force . Thank you, mr. Chairman. From our perspective, we follow the statute. We try to apply the law the facts to the law. Under the law we issued a report with a recommendation to the president. This is the prerogative of the president then to decide what discipline if any, to impose. Thats his choice. We respect his choice. And the president obviously decided to do what he does. And thats consistent with the statute. Mr. Cummings the hatch act was intended to provide the American People with confidence that the government is using tax dollars for the public good and not to influence or fund a political campaign. Is that a fair statement . Mr. Kerner yes. Mr. Cummings if a career Civil Servant violates the hatch act, he office of counsel can bring n action to discipline the employee, but o. S. C. Doesnt have authority to discipline political appointee is that correct in mr. Kerner yes. Mr. Cummings o. S. C. Can make a recommendation of discipline but its ultimately up to the president. Send the 2016, you president a report that ms. Conway violated the hatch act on two occasions and she knew she was breaking the law. Did he president send you a response . Mr. Kerner i dont believe so. Mr. Cummings are you way air aware of the president taking any actions to discipline her . Mr. Kerner she mentioned in interview she is may have been counseled but we are not aware f any actions. Mr. Cummings in response to your report he said, and i quote, did not advocate for or against the election of any plar candidate. She simply expressed the president s obvious position that he had people in the house and senate who support his agenda, end of quote. Was that kind of response, was that the kind of response you would expect to see in the white house, if the white house was taking your report seriously . Mr. Kerner we have had conversations with the white house and we obviously try to work with the white house in order to make sure that the hatch act is complied with. So our hope is that we will continue to be able to get the white house to sort rt to agree to comply with the hatch act prohibitions. Mr. Cummings on june 13, 2019, o. S. C. Released another report that found that ms. Conway broke the law dozens of times. You recommended to the president that he fire her. And im sure that was not a decision you took lightly. Why did you recommend that the president fire ms. Conway . Pretty stiff penalty. Mr. Kerner that is the harshest penalty. We did not take that lightly. Its based on the folks who prepared the report, its based on the fact that we have never had a repeat offender. We have never had anyone we had to write two reports to the president to. We never had a situation where there were so many violations and ultimately she made a comment that seemed to suggest she didnt feel she was bound by the after act. So theres no way to stay in federal employment while she doesnt feel shes obligated to abide by this law. Mr. Cummings i wonder if youve got again these two million federal employees and im sure these cases do come up, and where they may have one violation, you know, we talk about fairness, if a person has one or two violations, here we have somebody with 25. Alleged violations. And basically nothing happens. What does that say to them . I mean is that fair . Mr. Kerner i think from o. S. C. s perspective, we try to apply the law as fairly as we can. To emphasize what i said in my opener, we are going to treat the wellconnected the same as the little guy. Were going to have one standard. Were not going to have a twotyre hatch act enforcement a twotier hatch act enforcement standard. Recommendations go to the board, the board sometimes imposes punishment other than what we recommend. Punishment is not something o. S. C. Does. We just bring the cases. Mr. Cummings if she was a regular Civil Servant would she have been disciplined . Mr. Kerner the professionals working for me who have worked here for 40 years, have said if there were a normal case removal outcome. He i yield to the gentleman. The hatch act doesnt apply to members of congress. Its interesting to hear about the blending of political and official when every day we see examples of elected officials using their current positions to propel their campaign messages. I cant help but feel the office of special counsels interpretation of the hatch act means President Trumps top advisors must subscribe to the legal and political fiction that you can decouple an opponents president ial campaign from their current elected position my concern with the o. S. C. s interpretation of the hatch act at least appears to be bipartisan. Chairman cummings sent a letter on december 7 of last year, heres a direct statement. O. S. C. s guidance is wrong. Theres no limit that criticizing a policy of the sitting president or any other politician is a vellings of the hatch act. Apparently that applies unless youre an advisor to this president. All that aside, President Trumps advisors will cant to act as his surrogates. Going forward maybe this hearing can help us understand what a senior counselor to the president is allowed to say on tv or social media without personally offending mr. Kerner or anybody else in the o. S. C. s office. So if were talking about sitting senator and were talking about medicare for all is it ok to say i hope Bernie Sanders medicare for all proposal is purely Campaign Rhetoric because if he were to introduce a senate bill people would have to give up the coverage they trust and taxpayers would be on the hook for trillions of dollars. Is that an ok statement . Mr. Kerner im not in a position to judge a Statement Like that. The way our o. S. C. Works is we get complaints about statements, theres an investigation opened and started and we dont just , what if senator warner wrote plans to cancel student len debt for 95 of were roers. Driving people to vote for you to president is a bad way to legislate as a senator. What if an advisor was to ask about the status of the ndaa with several Senate Democrats campaigning for president instead of being president to support our military. Could they say, senators jill brant, klobuchar should get off the president ial campaign bill and back to the senate to complete the ndaa . Instead the Senate Minority leader is asking for a full stop in the senate until the democratic primary is complete. What if an adviseor makeance obviously connection between a policy proposal and possible political motivation . Is the advisor allowed to highlight the intention othey have lawmaker . Im sure introducing legislation that gives more free stuff to more people has nothing to do with her president ial campaign. What about if an advisor ways in weighs in on current u. S. Senators campaign against bortion . What if a senator claims to support something while running for office but refuses to introduce a bill. Can the president s advisor comment on how the sitting senator is acting in a political not governmental capacity . What about this . Senator jill brand in her role as senator, not as a candidate for president , introduced legislation to eliminate pesticides from school lunch programs. Demonstrating a misunderstanding of science and production agriculture. Im sure just a coincidence that it happened right around the same time it was mentioned in campaign speech. If she wants to check with the former first lady shell find out that Rural America doesnt like the senate or white house interfering with school lunch programs. Can the president s advisors ask if Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill to make samesex couples retroactive tax refound however she hasnt supported a retroactive filing for others . This nonstraits shes acting in the best interest of her Political Base not in the not in the best interest of the average citizen. In close, i request unanimous consent to enter into the record the front page of the o. S. C. Website which as of this morning features a prominent link stating o. S. C. Finds lell Kellyanne Conway repeatedly violates the hatch act, recommends removal from office. The argument that o. S. C. Is apolitical holds no water. They have repeatedly targeted this administration. Mr. Cummings without objection, so order. With that, i yield back. Mr. Cummings mr. Conaway. Mr. Mr. Conaway i field a lil a little bit like the image of die odge niece with his lantern trying to find one honest man in town when it comes to my republican friends and holding the Trump Administration accountable. I mean, my lord what happened to he passion of the obama years . Ts actually a marvel to behold. Mr. Connolly maybe die odge niece found an honest man in you, mr. Kerner remind me of your political affinity . Are you a liberal democrat from, i dont know, new york . Mr. Kern no, sir. Mr. Connolly what are you . D you mind my asking . Mr. Kerner i consider myself a conservative republican, i voted for ronald reagan, my first vote as president. When it was cool to vote for ronald reaganful i came to d. C. In 2011 when chairman is a took over. Mr. Connolly you worked for daryl isasm do the horrors ever stop here. So youre not bringing to your job some kind of political bias against this president , is that correct . Mr. Kerner none whatsoever. R. Connolly youre an obama appointee . Mr. Kerner no im a trump appointee. Mr. Connolly gosh. So. Presumably being who you are, you would be inclined not to violate the law, not to ignore your duties, but you would probably, if you could, yud bend over backwards to counsel someone who was in trouble with the law that youre charged with enforcing to kind of write himself, herself, give them a little bit of a warn, a chance so it doesnt have to get to a level that it now is. Would that be a fair statement . Mr. Kerner i wouldnt say bend over backwards. I believe its anymy job in a nonpartisan way, to assist the dministration with all laws. O. S. C. Generally works with whistleblower law, i want to protect whistleblowers. We have a robust effort to train people on hatch act. We have career professionals to do this. Were not partisan whatsoever. Mr. Cloinl did you verbally counsel ms. Conway, youre crossing a line . Mr. Kerner i have never spoken to ms. Conway. The white House Counsels office, the white House Counsels office gave her training, we sent over power points and training materials. Mr. Connolly your Office Issued a report on this . Mr. Kerner weve issued two reports. Mr. Connolly have you done that before with a white house official . Kerner never issued two reports on an official. Mr. Connolly and your office is how old . Mr. Kerner since 1989. Mr. Connolly so 30 years. Have you received a response to those reports from ms. Conway . Mr. Kerner ms. Conway never responded. Mr. Connolly the Ranking Member compared this to axelrod and others, did those people respond to chastisements by your office, verbal or there hasnt been a written report like that. Mr. Kerner i dont know if they responded, i wasnt there. Ill leave that to mr. Connolly we have your testimony earlier that one of those people not only responded but issued a mea culpa and reimbursed the government for expenses associated with the unfavorable act. Mr. Kerner thats correct, secretary sebelius reimbursed the treasury. Mr. Connolly contrary to the case in point. Could this be solved if ms. Conway moved to the campaign . Mr. Concerner absolutely. Have you ly we suggested that . Mr. Kerner yes. Mr. Connolly shes in violation of the law and you definitively determined that. Mr. Kerner yes. Mr. Connellry and has white House Counsel been so informed . Mr. Kerner yes. Mr. Connolly what was their response . Mr. Kerner they sent us an 11page letter disputing our findings. Mr. Connolly one more, are you concerned about the impact of this law on the twoplus million federal employees who fall around the hatch act. Mr. Kerner i think its important to let workers know were going to treat everybody equally, were not going to have a twotier hatch act system, and ere going to do our best to treat everybody equally. Mr. Cummings mr. Roy. Mr. Roy i thank the chairman, thank the witness for being here today and appearing before the committee. I suggest my colleague on the other side of the aisle he must not be say, when he said hes seeking one honest man that everyone on this side of the aisle is somehow dishonest. I know that cant be the case. Particularly when some of us have broken ranks, for example, offering and asking for a subpoena with respect to child separation policies. But to suggest that were somehow dishonest by saying youre seeking to find one honest man because we believe that this is a charade and a waste of time of the American People i think that that is a questionable direction to go and with respect to the obama years i would raise it would be awfully nice if my colleagues on the other side would recognize the president sent up a request enwe. Million for i. C. The problem at our border was nothing like what it is today yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to recognize that. Mr. Kerner, on your offices website, it says congress authored the hatch act to ensure that federal employees are advanced based not on merit, based on merit, not based on political affiliation. Is that right . Mr. Kerner thats correct. Mr. Roy would you say arguably President Trump chose ms. Conway because of partisan affiliation . Because shes partisan. Mr. Kerner he chose her that her an adva cat for policies. Mr. Roy so its not a surprise she advocating for his policies, not those of democrats. Mr. Kerner yes. Exempt o it doesnt mr. Kerner ms. Conway is bound by it. Mr. Roy you cant advocate on behalf of his policies. Mr. Kerner shes allowed to advocate for his policies, shes not allowed to inject herself in campaign activities. Mr. Roy can she defend the president s positions . Mr. Kerner yes. Mr. Roy is it not true that there are two categories of employees, restrict and less restricted. So we do treat people differently depending on what their job is and what theyre doing . Mr. Kerner but the enforcement is not different. Mr. Roy but we recognize there are differences, true or false . Law does the recognize that. Mr. Roy if o. S. C. Claims that certain forms of political speech are her missable under the hatch act where to we draw the line. Can ms. Conway explain why open borders policy is a bad policy . Mr. Kerner i cant get into a specific. Mr. Ry you cant say whether she can advocate that a specific policy choice is a baddle to policy. 34 kerner she can advocate policy choices. Notroy can you explain why allowing people mr. Kerner she can talk about polls is. Mr. Roy can she say why emocrat legislation, ploitigging the tragedy of migrants dying, while the same democrats who keny the crisis refuse to address it and act like theyre heroes for throwing money at it with no plan to deal with it, can she explain whether thats flawed. Mr. Kerner i cant say. To the can she speak policy . Can she call for the legislations defeat . Can she criticize the democrats as a group who failed to take the crisis seriously and athroid crisis to get so bad people are now diing . Mr. Kerner i think thats getting close to who the democrats are. Mr. Ry she cant criticize democrats as a class. Mr. Kerner when she starts to criticize people including those running if office. Mr. Roy a member of white house staff cant criticize a member of this body for roundly unserious policy suggestions and make that clear to the American People that that should not be followed and itsed bad policy. Mr. Kerner theres a couple of other rules, even though you run every two years the president declares the day he got elected, we did not deem him a candidate until later. Even though youre running every two years, if you choose, theres a date we take for when quour actually a declared candidate. Thats number one. Number two, as i indicated, absolutely she can comment on policies. However when you ask about talking about democrats and people running potentially for office it gets closer which is why we have a very robust advisory function. The folks sitting behind me who are in the hatch act units permanent nonpartisan officers, they advoice and get questions like you said. Mr. Roy point me statute where it says political advisors to the. Cant comment on bad policies. Mr. Cummings the gentlemans time has expired. You may answer the question. Mr. Kerner thank you, congressman. The statute specifically says shes not allowed to use furble short speaking for the president in her official capacity to influence an election. If shes talking about folks who are running, there are restrictions on what she can say about them. And thats why we have this are bust advisory opinion that allows people to know exactly what is ok. Mr. Roy when all of congress is running. Mr. Cummings mr. Raskin. Mr. Raskin President Trump appointed you to this position but thats irrelevant of course because youre a professional, committed to rules of law an governed by the hatch act itself. I want to ask you about the hatch act because ive got 65,000 constituents who are federal employees. Theyve been told they cannot wear a button to work that says resist. They cannot talk about impeachment on the job. And the way i understand it is, they can do whatever they want on their own private time in terms of electoral activity but when they come to work, theyre there to work, not there to campaign for or against anybody. Is that a basic intuitive understanding of the statute . Mr. Kerner yes. Mr. Raskin what you found with Kellyanne Conway is she was actually intervening in the election by making comments about specific candidates, is that right . Mr. Kerner in her official capacity. Mr. Raskin shes allowed to say whatever she wants on the weekend and evening but as long as the american taxpayers pay her sally Congress Said and the Supreme Court affirmed that she cant go and inject herself into political campaigns is that right . Mr. Kerner thats correct. Mr. Raskin in january of 2018 you started an investigation of ms. Conway for making partisan statements strongly supporting republican u. S. Senator candidate and accused child molester roy moore in the alabama special election. You sent her interrogatories to get her side of the story why she should be able to intervene in that campaign using her official capacity. What did she say in response. Mr. Kerner we receive nod response. Mr. Raskin you sent President Trump a report that ms. Conways intervening for roy moore violated the hatch act. And gave her a chance to act. Did she . Mr. Kerner k no. Mr. Raskin they didnt respond when when thousands of employees cant wear a button with the word resist. Did President Trump respond to you in mr. Kerner no. Mr. Rasskib you sent ms. Conway a letter saying she couldnt use the same twitter account for official government business and use to it disparage democrats and support republican candidates like her beloved roy moore. It gave her simple recommendations to come into compliance with the law and say heres how you separate the official business paid for by the American People and your partisan activity. How did she respond to that let her mr. Kerner we receive nod response. Mr. Raskin for 18 months yu engage had had in attempts to get a response. Did she ever respond to you . Mr. Kerner she did not. We did have conversations with the white House Counsels office on her behalf if you will. There was some back and forth in that regard but we never heard from her directly. Mr. Raskin ms. Conway seemed to ridicule the enforce ofment the hatch act. On one occasion she had the audacity to mockingly ask, let me know when the jail sentence starts. What message does that send to my constituents who are governed by the hatch act and what message does it send to postal workers who was been disciplined for violating the hatch act. Mr. Kerner i thought the comments were unfortunate. Mr. Raskin does it send the message that theres one standard to people in president s trumps favor and a different standard for millions of federal employees. Mr. Kerner i think it sends the wrong message. It sends the message that the hatch act wont be equally apply. Mr. Raskin we have heard murmurings about frespetch from the other side of the aisle, which is unusual, so to pounce on the moment to say thats greet, freedom of speech. The hatch act has been challenged in the Supreme Court by unions who say we should be able to express ourselves politically at work. Generally our cloges say no, thats not the case. We want a straitjacket on your political speech. But the Supreme Court upheld the hatch act. When you discipline employee, do you allow constitutional arguments to take place . Can people make a free throw speech argument before . Mr. Kerner sure, if we take the case to the board they can make whatever argument they would like. Mr. Raskin we havent heard anything from ms. Conway about why the line should be drawn differently for her than anyone el. Her compts you defiance of your brd and you as the director of it is unacceptable and intolerable. Her contempts you defiance of the committee is unacceptable and i hope well rend they are subpoena quickly and i just want to say, the message should go out to all employees of the white house if you act in contempt of the American People and congress well find you in contempt of the American People and of congress. I yield back, mr. Chairman. R. Cummings mr. Miller. Mr. Massie. Mr. Massie youre not saying that Kellyanne Conway couldnt say any of the thing she is said, right . She stale has the First Amendment. She can say whatever she wants. Mr. Kerner correct. Mr. Massie theres a legal way she could say all those things. What youve taken obvious with is the manner in which she said them. You said she violated the hatch act. What are the determinants that you and your staff behind you used in deciding whether somebodys speech is their first exercise of a First Amendment right or violation of the hatch act. What are some of the factors that go into that . Mr. Kerner the way i understand it, obviously i dont conduct the investigations, its done by the professional staff but from what i understand they look at is the person speaking in their official authority, their official capacity. What factors into that . Mr. Kerner is she introduced as the counselor to the president , is she on the white house lawn, anything other than, im kellyanne i just want to say what i think. Shes speaking for the president , its in her official capacity. Mr. Massey she can say whatever she wants on the weekend and in the evening and you said correct. Mr. Kerner i thought there was more to the question. I thought the implication was in her own. D uh ever take into the account the time at which something is said. Mr. Kerner im sure our hatch act union does. Mr. Massie what time does the after act unit show up to work . R. Kerner regular work hours. Many d. C. I understand that to be about 9 00 to 5 00. Mr. Kerner say from 7 00 to 6 00 or 7 00. When you worked in congress what were the hours . 9 00 to 6 00 during session, 9 00 to 5 00 in recess. Mr. Massie i went and looked at the first three videos. I watched the first three videos of Kellyanne Conway talking in interviews on tv and one thing i noticed, i didnt get a chance to go through all of your example bus in the first three you gave, two of them were not on Government Property and in fact, all three of them were out outside of the window of 9 00 to 5 00. There was one interview at 8 03 a. M. One at 44 a. M. And one at 10 17 p. M. I would hope mr. Raskin might agree that somebody acting at 10 17 p. M. Will the gentleman yield. The question is whether shes acting in an official capacity. Mr. Massie so mr. Kerner what would you use to determine if at 10 17 p. M. Somebody is on their own time or they still belong to the taxpayer . Mr. Kerner as the congressman just said and also as my staff informs me, i should be clearer, the issue isnt time. Because kellyanne mr. Massie shes on the cloak all the tile. What coyou to determine if its her time and her First Amendment. Mr. Kerner if shes speaking on her own behalf or in an official capacity. Mr. Massie how do you know that. Mr. Kerner im speeging for the president. Mr. Massie she didnt introduce herself that way. Who gets to pick what is shown on the screen . Mr. Kerner i think its the producer. Mr. Massie can she see whats on the screen . Mr. Kerner i think she knows when shes representing mr. Massie with all due respect to my friends mark meadows and jim jordan, ive been introduced as a member of the freedom caucus, im not in the freedom caucus. It shows up on the chyron, i dont get to pick that. Its not her choice to pick that. I would men tain the first three examples you gave us are extremely poor examples. They were outside of the work window. She didnt get the chance to put what was on the chyron or make it her opinion. She didnt say what her title was. And i just think if youre trying to claim that all 24 hours of the day belong to the taxpayer, i think thats wrong. Youre not affording her any place to express her personal opinion and i think its wrong. s what makes it a sad sur pute pursuit because of the choices, the examples you have chosen and with that, i yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Kerner can i respond to one thing. I understand the argument, im just looking at the first example, she is standing at the white house. Shes mr. Massie what about the second and third . Youre telling me when shes at fox studios at 10 17 p. M. You own her time . I disagree. Mr. Kerner the issue is not about time. Its not even about who orpes the chyrons. Is she talking about official administration matters. If shes representing what the president thinking, what the president says what the official position is, then shes bound by not involving. Mr. Massie could he explain a way she could do it legally. Looking for a legal way. Mr. Cummings right now its mr. Roudas turn. Mr. Rouda mr. Kerner, thank you for being here today. I want to reiterate again, my understanding is you are a conservative republican. You vote for ronald reagan. Is that a political statement . Mr. Rouda reclipping my time. I vote for ronald reagan. While i disagreed with his policies i missed his integrity and character especially in these days. As in your position, you were appointed by President Trump as we heard earlier, is that correct . Mr. Kerner right, yes. Mr. Rouda we have a conservative republican, appointed by a republican president who delivered this report with how many violations . Mr. Kern inter mr. Kerner 10 media violations that were violations and the twitter account. 11. Mr. Rouda how many violations did you have under the Obama Administration . Mr. Kerner you mean for the entire administration . R. Rouda yes. Senior aides. Mr. Kerner two letters to secretary sebelius and secretary castro. There were other allegations. Mr. Rouda for those two, just one each . Over eight years two violations. Yet we have one person here in the first two years of this administration slightly over two years, who has 11 violations. Is that correct . Mr. Kerner 11 on this report and two more on the first report. Mr. Rouda and in an effort to get her to take action, rectify these misstakes, these violations, or these purposeful violations, she has not responded, she has not agreed to stop, in fact weve seen her testimony just the opposite, shes basically making it very clear she doesnt care what you think in this report. Is that correct . Mr. Kerner i think thats fair. Mr. Rouda we talk about double standards and hypocrisy, i believe thats what the Ranking Member said earlier. Yet i have here, multiple quotes from the previous chair of this committee when the current minority was in the majority. And its very clear when you look at what passed chairman issa what past champlee issa said that demanding that these hatch violations of obama individuals that they be held accountable, some often demanding for their resignation or firing. Yet we see a completely different voice here today. I applaud you for bringing to the office the integrity it the serve the nonpartisanship it deserves, i know its difficult to do that in these times. I thank you on behalf of the committee and america for doing the right thing. Its clear that this white house is systematically and pervasively interfered with and obstructed investigations undertaken by multiple independent agencies in government and including the offices of government ethics, special counsel mueller, inspectors general, the Government Accountability office, and now the office of special counsel. I think if i recall correctly, i think id that quote here that the request from the white house that you withdraw and retract your report was, i quote, wholly inappropriate. These requests represent a significant encroachment on o. S. C. s independence, is that crect . Mr. Kerner yes. Mr. Rouda could you elaborate on what you think its so egregious that the white house has taken these actions . Mr. Kerner o. S. C. , while were anchored in the executive, were an independent agency. As an independent agency its important to preserve our ability to do oversight over the executive branch. If the white house can ask for our files and do oversight over us, while were doing oversight over them, it really underminings our ability to be an independent force for the american taxpayer. Mr. Rouda usually in these types of situations you would ee the conservative republican apoibed by the republican president being attacked by the democratic side of the aisle. But here we have the opposite, the democratic side thanking you for your iven dependence and the republican side questioning your independent analysis and conclusions you have made. Again, i want to thank you for your time today and i yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings mr. Miller. Mrs. Miller. Mrs. Miller thank you, chairman cummings and Ranking Member jordan. Can an executive branch state the truth . Can someone working for the president in the white house state the truth . Mr. Kerner sure, of course they can state the truth, they just cant talk about they cant use the standard we talked about, use their official authority to influence an election or talk about partisan politics they cant do that, they have to pivot away from that when theyre in their official duties. Mrs. Miller is the same staff permitted to offer opinions . Would Valerie Jarrett who was a Senior Advisor to president obama Say Something like, george bush enjoys painting and running . Was he a candidate at the time . Mrs. Miller how about an opinion on policy. Could Valerie Jarrett say former Vice President dick cheney is hawkish and a hardliner on Foreign Policy . Mr. Kerner comments on policy are allowed. When they talk about someone who is running for office, a candidate, and theyre in their official duties there are resticks on that. Mrs. Miller is joe biden creepy. In your letter to President Trump you said ms. Conway is not allowed to state that we have all seen pictures where joe biden has acted inappropriately. Can you express that opinion about a former elected official. Mr. Kerner its an opinion. I think the argument was made she was stating facts and whether former Vice President biden is creepy or not is not a fact. Its an opinion by ms. Conway. Mrs. Miller in march she sated theres a whole hot mess in the Democratic Party beginning right over the bridge here in virginia. Mr. Kerner i think we can agree this is a statement of opinion. On policy. Ive seen this statement backed up with fact and illustrated in policies like the green new keel which would try to enact efforts to stop air travel altogether and inhibit cow emissions as well as instituting a Single Payer Health care system which would take away medicare from the elderly and make health costs skyrocket. My colleagues across the aisle want to get rid of the recently passed tax cuts which help boost our economy. I dont know about you, mr. Kerner, but this sounds like a hot mess to me. Mr. Chairman, i am so disappointed that we are wasting our time on this hearing today. We have a crisis right now, right here on our southern border. We had 144,000 immigrants cross illegally into our country in may alone. 144,000. We have lethal drugs flowing across a porous border, i know that for a fact in my state theyre killing our citizens. My leagues across the aisle have chosen to focus on the false hatch act allegations. Thats pathetic. Its not as though four million jobs created since 2016, record low unemployment for africanamericans and hispanic americans and major tax reform is enough. No. In order to hide and distract from all the great growth thats happening in our country, they have to hold hearings with a singular goal to impeach and impugn our president. It is disappointing that my colleagues across the aisle still have not accepted the results of the election that occurred nearly three years ago. And now at every turn they continue to divide our country and waste our time with these hearings instead of focusing on the real issues facing everyday americans. Yield back my time. Mr. Cummings ms. Hill. Ms. Hill i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a report from the Congressional Research Service Called hatch act restrictions on federal employees, Political Activities, and the digital age. Mr. Cummings without objection, so order. Ms. Hill i want to point out a couple of issues in that report in response to a few of my colleagues remarks. Theres guidance issued by o. S. C. Described in this that was issued in 2015, which is clearly before the Trump Administration, around the use of social media. And there are a number of things stated which is that, lets see, weve got employees may not use their official authority to influence or interfere with or affect the results of an election, engage in political activity, activity directed at the success or failure of a Political Party, comments to a blog or social media site that advocates for or against a Political Party, candidate for partisan Political Office or partisan Political Group. May not use any email account or thatle media to send media advocates for a partisan Political Office or group. And within the same report theres clarifications for the exceptions to whom the hatch act applies. And it is around whether somebody is paid for by the treasury or confirmed by the senate. Neither of which applies to ms. Conway. So, mr. Kerner, i want to thank you and your staff for this investigation and report. The white House Counsel wrote in his letter on june 11, 2019, that the o. S. C. s report finding dozens of hatch act violations was, and i quote, the product of a fatally flawed process and that it, quote, raises serious concerns regarding o. S. C. s current investigatory practices. Can you respond to that . Do you believe it was a fatally flawed process . Mr. Kerner i do not. I think it went through the exact process we always use which means cases are started via complaint. Where mandated by we are mandated by statute to investigate. The career nonpartisan Civil Servants that d that, they conduct a thorough investigation, including atever information they need and take proach appropriate actions. Ms. Hill there was nothing procedure . Bout the mr. Kerner no, other than there as already a first report. Ms. Hill so it was conducted by career staff in o. S. C. s hatch act unit. How experienced are the independent professionals who conducted this investigation . Mr. Kerner i like to call them the worlds greatest experts on hatch. I dont want to age anyone but they have about 40 years of combined experience. And they apply the law to the facts of the law, the law to the facts, dispassion notly in a nonpartisan way. Theyre the consummate and ultimate professionals, im proud to represent them here today. Ms. Hill did any of them raise a concern that they felt the work that went into the report was the product of a fatally flawed process in mr. Kerner no. You were a prosecutor, i assume you have a lot of experience in evaluating whether Police Investigations you relied on were thorough, is that correct . Mr. Kerner yes. The office of white House Counsel accuses you of rushing to justice but you investigated for months. You began investigating her twitter account in 2018 and spent months conducting that review. Do you believe you rushed to judgment . Mr. Kerner we did not. Ms. Hill they contacted the white house many times before completing report. Does the o. S. C. Give career employees that many chances . Mr. Kerner i think this process had probably more back and forth with the white house than a normal case would. Ms. Hill if anything, ms. Conway and the white house have been given possibly more deference than most employees would have received. Mr. Kerner i think thats right. Ms. Hill they were allowed to review the report before it was publicly released. Did the white house raise any concern that ms. Conway never said or tweeted the things included in the report . Mr. Kerner no ms. Hill so the white house doesnt dispute the facts, the president doesnt want to hold kellyanne accountable. As in so many other instances, the administration believes it should not be held to the same laws every other american should abide by. The executive branch is constitutionally established to carry out and enforce the laws of the land. So my question is, what does it mean for us if they wont enforce the laws of the land on themselves . Mr. Kerner thats a good question for the congress, from o. S. C. s perspective we have to make sure we abide by the statute and we conduct fair, nonpartisan investigations that apply the facts to the law and thats what we did here. I think other steps are up to the committee and the congress. Ms. Hill thank you, mr. Kerner, i yield back. Mr. Cummings mr. Meadow. Mr. Meadows mr. Kerner she made you mad, didnt she sm Kellyanne Conway made wru made . Mr. Kerner i would not describe that, no. Mr. Meadows you mentioned to numerous people she poked you in the eye. So you dont get mad when you get poked in the eye. Mr. Kerner i would describe my reaction as being disappointed. Mr. Meadows but you talked to multiple people saying you felt mad and felt pressured to put out this report. Mr. Kerner thats not true. Mr. Meadows youre under oath. I want to caution you. You know the rules you didnt talk to anyone to say you felt heat from the media and from some on the left, you didnt feel any heat, you didnt mention that to anybody . Mr. Kerner what i said was that the report was written prior to her making those statements. Mr. Meadows i asked a different question. Did you tell anybody you felt pressure from media and others on the left to actually address this problem . Mr. Kerner yop what i dont know what address this problem means. Mr. Meadows write the report. Its fairly clear. You didnt feel any pressure . You didnt tell anyone that you felt pressure . Youre under oath . I know you did. Just answer it. Mr. Kerner i had a conversation in which i expressed that because she had made those statements i felt we ought to have an answer to that statement. Mr. Moe des thats not the context in which you said that. I am giving you context. Did you tell anyone you felt pressure to do something about ms. Kellyanne conway . Have you mentioned that to anyone . Yes or no . Mr. Kerner i do not recall. Mr. Meadows you do not recall. Mr. Kerner i do not recall saying, out of context i cant answer that. Mr. Meadows what about in the response that you actually had to the office of general counsel where you said that she poked you in the eye. Mr. Kerner the office of general counsel i did tell them that i felt, what she said was inappropriate, it was a poke in the eye but there was no pressure in terms of the report was written. Mr. Meadows that dog doesnt hunt. You told multiple people. It wasnt just the white House Counsel. Under what authority do you have to write prohibitions against using twitter . Does o. S. C. Have the Legal Authority to write those prohibitions . Mr. Kerner i think mr. Meadows under what statute . It is uniquely reserved for o. P. M. Weve got office of Legal Counsel thats given opinion. C. R. S. Thats been quoted. It is not your authority, mr. Kerner, wouldnt you agree with that . Mr. Kerner i disagree with that mr. Meadow quote the statute. Mr. Kerner sneck hatch act statute and its regulations. Mr. Meadows when it was amended, what was the senators name that did the amendment . Mr. Kerner i dont remember. Mr. Meadows what was the senator that actually was on the house floor, the senate floor doing the amendment . Who was it . Youre the expert. Its my time, tlaib. Mr. Kerner we dont know, i dont know. Mr. Meadows it was senator john glenn. Ive done the research. Everyone is talking about the rule of law, upholding the rule of law. Its time that you stay consistent with the law because you do not have the ability to even set the regulations for twitter. Mr. Kerner can i answer that now . 5 u. S. C. 11212f which provides the power for o. S. C. To provide advisory opinions. Mr. Meadows advisory opinions are not rules and regulations. Theyre very different. Thats reserved for o. P. M. Advisory opinions when it comes to regulation, i promise you ive done the work. I have the homework. Mr. Kerner i disabrie with you. Im telling you what my professional staff who has been doing this for 40 years has told me. We are issuing guidance. Mr. Meadows do you have an advise visery opinion for this more twitter use . Do you have an advisory opinion out there from your o. S. C. . Mr. Kerner i couldnt hear the beginning of that. Mr. Meadows do you have an adrisery opinion on twitter use from o. S. C. Mr. Kerner we have social media guidance weve done. On the conway twitter use its not actually done under that. The conway twitter use was done urn the statute and what the mr. Meadows her personal twitter account, kellyannepolls. Mr. Kerner it is her personal account. Mr. Meadows she cant use her personal twitter account. Is realdonnelltrump his personal account. Mr. Kerner the president is exempt from the hatch act. Mr. Meadows is anybody else exempt . Mr. Kerner the Vice President. Mr. Meadows the guidance in subpart e, i ask unanimous consent it be put in the record it gives other exemptions in the very c. R. S. Report that this that ms. Hill identify. Have you read that . Mr. Kerner i do not believe it gives exemptions for the use of the official authority section. Mr. Cummings the gentleman is time has expired. Exemptions it gives for employees and cabinet members b it would apply here. Mr. Cummings i do believe as i listen to my colleague, that your integrity is being challenged. And i believe in fairness. And i want you to, if you want to clear up anything im going to give you that opportunity. Mr. Kerner met me let me inish. Mr. Cummings in this committee, there are folks anxious to allege that people perjure themselves. In fairness to you, mr. Meadows said it at least four or five times, we reminding that you are under oath. Im not questioning that, im giving you an opportunity to clear yourself. Thats all. If you dont want to, thats fine. Mr. Kerner im happy to respond. Diid i did not understand the context of the question and mr. Meadows didnt provide me the context, i dont know when he says did you tell anyone, i dont know what i told someone in a hypothetical. The issue on the mr. Ed me meadows mr. Meadows i can give context if you want the context. Mr. Cummings youre out of time. Im trying to allow. Mr. Meadows he was given 10 minutes for an Opening Statement. Mr. Cummings i am trying to be fair to this distinguished conservative republican [laughter] who has simply come to give his opinion. Now is his integrity has been challenged. And im simply if he doesnt want to take advantage of it, ive seen whats happened in this committee over 23 years. All im saying if you want to clear up something, clear it up now if not, you dont have to but then ill move on to the next questioner. Mr. Kerner im happy to, if i may just finish my point. I indicated i asked mr. Meadows for the context prior to just now, he wouldnt provide it. Obviously the report just on the release of the report, the report was written prior to statements being done. When the statements by ms. Conway on may 29 were made it became clear that she was a, not remorseful, which is one of the criteria thats used by the mspb, and furthermore that she was not interested in complying with the hatch act. I felt as the agency had that she did poke us in the eye. We felt as jonathan truly said that that was a direct attack on o. S. C. And we felt that we had the report and since there was practically no way she was going to come into compliance. We break away here briefly for live coverage of the u. S. House. The clerk the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, maam, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2h of rule 2 of the rules of the u. S. House of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 26, 2019, at 4 54 p. M. That the Senate Passed with an amendment, h. R. 3401, signed sincerely, cheryl l. Johnson. The speaker pro tempore for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise . Madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9 00 a. M. Tomorrow. The speaker pro tempore without objection, so ordered. For what purpose does the gentleman rise . Madam speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. The speaker pro tempore the question is on the motion to adjourn. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adotchted. A brief but significant moment in the u. S. House. Yesterday they passed a 4. 5 billion border supplemental. The senate today took up that measure and could not pass it. The vote was 3357. They needed 60. And the Senate Passed its own version. There on the house floor they introduced the Senate Version so the senate the house can now consider it in conference with the u. S. Senate. On that measure, because both bodies are trying to pass it by the end of the week, erica warder of the Washington Post covering Congress Tweets that Hakeem Jeffries says House Democrats might reconvene after tonights congressional baseball game for a caucus meeting on that border bill. The baseball game getting under way at 6 45 over on cspan2. Earlier the house passing another fiscal year 2020 spending bill, a 47 billion measure, on Financial Services and general government. Follow live house coverage tomorrow when they take up the Election Security bill. They gavel in at 9 00 a. M. Eastern. Ms. Wasserman schultz its achievable if youre committed to actually abiding by the law or actually have some ethics. So special counsel kerner, i want to thank you for joining us today. The office of special counsel issued a report in march, 2018, regarding the conway that recommended to President Trump that he take, quote, appropriate disciplinary action. President trump failed to discipline ms. Conway. Ms. Conways behavior did not change following that 2018 report. Is that correct . Mr. Kerner thats correct. Ms. Wasserman schultz her violations increased rather than decreased. So lets watch the clips of interviews so that we can see what were dealing with here. That ms. Conway conducted in one week in april, 2019, more than a year after o. S. C. s report. Just today we have the 19th person running for president. I woulmi