Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140726

Republican in order to deport all of these people. That will be a really interesting question about how to handle that. So they would have the one youre going to do that you havent announced yet . Got it. Well, what i said, the substance, in terms of the politics of Immigration Reform will have a significant impact. At the end of the summer. Yes. In one block . [laughter] as you look at keeping your political hat on, as you look at the landscape of the house and senate races, how can you examine them and think about how they might affect the president ial race . What do you think in the races now that hits you in terms of the larger race to come . I think just one note on the 2014 election is you wouldnt know this from reading the coverage, but as someone who has spent a lot of time looking at the data and talking to the people in the race and the president has been out with the fundraising committees recently, it has strengthened in the last few weeks here somewhat significantly. Its a tough territory. We have a lot of work to do. You would think reading the news that they got it worse. A lot of people including us believe its gotten stronger where democratic incumbents have strengthened their hands in alaska, arkansas, north carolina. Now tough states, a lot of work to do. I think what is interesting about these races for the long term is probably just because of where the senate races are per se, theyre not happening, with a couple of exceptions, happening in states that will be determined by a president ial election under most scenarios. Where people should Pay Attention is the governors races. Its always helpful but not determinative to have the governor of your party in charge of a big battleground state. You have better political, nuts and bolts political in that state and the like. It has impact on democratic governors, makes it hard for republicans to undertake some of these very onerous positions to cut down on voting rights. And then longterm in the governor races have to do with censuses and redirecting. In losing the 2010 governors races like we did was very impactful. Democrats Going Forward have to be as focused as republicans are on those races for that very reason and because where washington is so, having so much trouble passing anything, a lot of the Public Policy stuff is happening at the state level, looking at the 13 states plus District Of Columbia that passed minimum wage since the president called for raising the minimum wage in state of union. Look at a. C. A. And medicaid expansion, it makes a big difference on who controls the statehouse there. It needs to be a focus for us. Are you projecting, predicting that democrats will hold these . I dont think anyone would tell you that it is easy, but i believe they will hold the senate. I think we have better candidates and the republicans made somewhat of a fundamental error in deciding that their best candidates in a lot of these states were members of the tremendously unpopular republican congressional house majority. Its tough. It requires a lot of work. We got good candidates and we expect the president to help them. What are the prospects of changing the 2008 law bringing any details in congress onboard with that . Is the president going to come out and reiterate his favor of adjusting that law the way Speaker Boehner, but also henry has asked him to do . Well, i was sort of mystified, but i guess not surprised by Speaker Boehner demanding that, raising questions. The president wrote him a letter three weeks ago specifically asking, saying that we wanted changes in the law. We sent that request up when we sent up the other request, however many weeks ago that was. We believe that. Were working with, were talking to members on the hill about the best way to go about doing it. I think we cant do is hold up resources over this issue if we cant come to a resolution. We need the resources. Changes in Authority Without resources, nothing to solve our problem. We need the resources and we need them sooner rather than later which is why i pointed out its disappointing and frustrating and the republicans have decided to hang up the closed for business sign so early before august and just declare theyre not going to act. Were going to keep working, as we said many times, and our, we said yesterday from the white house that we continue support or changes in the law, were going to work with congress to make sure theyre done in a way that dematerials illegal migration, protects legitimate claims. Why separate the two when it could be done . Well, youre going to have theoretically a version that passes the senate and a version that passes the house. You have to reconcile with them. A lot of proposals is one where we disagree with the way in which they do it. It has to be done in a way that meets the test we just laid out. We dont believe the current proposal does that. Dan, you mentioned, you brought up the president ial library. Dont be alarmed. Good thing the security people are not here. [laughter] looking at the proposals that are there, mrs. Obama [indiscernible] can you describe a little bit of what he is doing . A vast majority of this is being handled outside the white house. This is something that the president and first lady lady, this is obviously important to them. People who are very close to them, involved in this process, i do not know if the resident has look at the bids or not. If he is not coming you will of the appropriate time. The perfect time is coming up now and i have not asked him, so i do not know the answer. What about giving the museum to dallas . Put your politics hat on again. I am wondering, as uss the 26th team field with republicans, do you see who do you see is the most formidable and the most beatable . The caveat i would give here is a stage of the game, if we judge the 2016 elections in 2014, it would be like deciding who would win the 2016 super bowl based on the 20 14th and a fell season. Two of the smartest political reporters around in june on six wrote a book called the way to win. Do not hold me accountable for anything im about to say. I think senator cruz is a particularly interesting candidate for democrats. He is deeply out of step with the country on a wide array of issues. I have to admit i was rooting a little bit for the convention to be invalid because i thought to be interesting if he ran to austin how he would handle the nominates the of another person nominating of another person. I think one of the most intriguing candidates is senator paul. I think he has a message he is the only republican president equated a message that is not pardon is potentially appealing to younger americans. Every other republican is just yet romney when it comes to younger americans. They come from a different era. The libertarian bent of senator paul, he bears there is a germ of something there. Whether he can pull it off, i do not know. He has said some things that could be problematic in the larger electorate. I will be an interesting one. Would you rather run against cruise or rick perry . That is like would you rather have ice cream or cake . Im going to speak to the im going to stick with the 2016 theme. In recent months and had to just pull themselves on Foreign Policy discipline themselves on Foreign Policy, and did not say anything about a second term with gaza, ukraine and iraq. Have you talked to the president . I have a different interpretation of this than i think you do. I think up until the moment when secretary clinton decides shes going to run or not and beyond that, there will be a massive amount of attention to try to divine meaning and everything in everything she says. It wouldve been an awkward sentence construction to go out of her way when talking about her own experience in the first term to then associate herself with a second term. She has been very supportive of the president on issues like the efforts in iran around the broader foreignpolicy. I do not think they will all agree 100 on every decision that was made before or since. She was incredibly loyal to this president , he is area she is very appreciative of it. All of us who work with are very appreciative of it. I suspect that there will be a lot of criminology into every word she says for a long time. But im not concerned about that. Is it going to hurt the president if she starts to [indiscernible]. I do not think so. In a long list of concerns that i have in my life, political and otherwise, this is pretty low in my list. I do not think shes trying to distance herself, i think she would say she is. Decisions that were made when she was secretary of state into the things that we have done now, it is a fairly natural thing. What is notable is given the very highly charged primary campaign the two ran against each other, only six years ago, it is notable how close the relationship is, how close they have been on core issues and their loyalty to each other. Thank you for doing this. We appreciate it very much. [laughter] thank you. Are you having a good time . Did you do anything fun . I had dinner with [indiscernible]. How fun. Heres a look at her primetime schedule on this hes been better on our cspan networks. Coming up, another chance to see dan pfeiffer talking about the agenda. On cspan two, virginia congressman Scott Russell discusses relations with russia. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] president obama and Vice President biden met with Central American leaders to discuss unaccompanied minors in that u. S. Tilde without a proper claim to stable be returned to the country because the u. S. Is a nation of laws. This is 20 minutes. I want to thank president melina, president hernandez for being here today. Our nations share extraordinary sides of culture and commerce that enrich all of us and make our countries stronger. [spanish translation] we have a wide range of issues that we share and have discussed in the past in various forms. But, today our focus was on what has been a significant challenge in the news, and for families that have been at risk as a consequence of children leaving the homes in Central America and making the journey that poses great dangers to themselves. [spanish translator] all of us recognize that we have a shared responsibility to correct this problem. [spanish translator] president molina hosted Vice President biden to look at steps that could be taken to alleviate this challenge. [spanish translator] and today what i did was share with my counterparts the efforts the United States has in our containing response, including resources at the border, more facilities to care for these children that have arrived, and more resources for immigration courts to process the claims of these children in a way that is orderly and timely, that protects due process and expedites the length of time that it takes to assure they have gotten a fair hearing. [spanish translator] i emphasize to all three president s that the American People in my administration have compassion for these children and want to make sure that they are cared for the way all children should be cared for. And, we have seen an outpouring of generosity from not only families at the borders themselves providing assistance, nonprofit organizations providing assistance, but across the country people have expressed their concern and compassion for these children. [spanish translator] but i also emphasize to my friends here that we have to deter a continuing influx of children putting themselves at great risk and families putting their children at great risk. I emphasize that within a Legal Framework any military and framework, and proper due process, children who do not have proper claims and families with children who do not have robert claims at some point will be subject for repatriation to their home countries. [spanish translator] i say that not because we lack compassion but in addition to be a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of laws. If you have a disorderly and dangerous process of migration that not only puts the children themselves at risk but it also calls to question the legal immigrants of those who are properly applying and trying to enter our country. Each president here emphasized the degree to which they are ready begun to make efforts to discourage this dangerous trafficking. [spanish translator] and i want to thank all of them publicly. I already did so privately, for specific adverts efforts they are taking too discouraged parents, for going after and arresting smugglers, and working with us on the issue of repatriating the children and families in a safe and orderly way. [spanish translator] in this report show our joint efforts a peer to be paying off and the number of children crossing the border has dropped off. It is still too high. Today we agreed to continue to Work Together. [spanish translator] finally, even as we meet this immediate situation, we all recognize we have to do more to address the root causes of the problem. That includes poverty and violence in Central America. I discuss this when i met with Central American leaders last year in costa rica. We are committed to working together in partnership with each of these countries to find ways in which we can come up with more aggressive action plans to improve security and development, and governance in this country. I expressed to them that we have a shared responsibility when it comes to dealing with drug trafficking, that we are dealing with demand for drugs in the United States, and doing more to stop the crossborder flows and arms from the north to the south. I also continue to emphasize the fact that not just if but when we pass comprehensive Immigration Reform in this country, then we will have the capacity not only to strengthen our borders but create more orderly ways for legal migration in some cases temporary worker programs, that allow people to advance economically, allow our economy to grow, but also in many cases allow people to return to their families in their home countries. [spanish translator] with respect to the u. S. Meeting its responsibilities, i briefed my fellow president s on the supplemental request working its way through congress. I want to mention this is my hope that Speaker Boehner and House Republicans will not leave town for the month of august for their vacations without doing something to solve this problem. We have a supplemental advisories for Additional Border security, additional judges, Additional Resources to assist our Central American countries in providing facilities and opportunity, and security needs to deal with the smugglers. We need to get that done. There have been press conferences about this. We need action and less talk. [spanish translator] let me once again thank the president s. They have shown great responsiveness, great sincerity in wanting to deal with the situation in a sensible and compassionate way. I appreciate their efforts. They all face significant challenges. The one thing that we recognize, if we are working together in a coordinated fashion, if the United States is listening to the ideas of these president s in how they are creating greater opportunities in their country and also how we can deal with the challenges of the smugglers, im confident we will solve this problem. They have proven to be excellent partners, and this is a situation where the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. Thank you for not only your thoughtful presentations but also your cooperation. It means a lot to me and to the American People. [spanish translator] thanks. Actually, let me just respond to this particular question. Some of the stories, as i explained to my fellow president s, under u. S. Law, we admit a certain number of refugees from around the world based on narrow criteria. Typically Refugee Status is not granted just based on Economic Needs or because family lives in a bad neighborhood or poverty. It is defined narrowly. You have a state targeting a political activist, and they need to get out of the country for fear of prosecution or death. There may be some narrow circumstances in which there is a humanitarian or Refugee Status that a family might be eligible for. If that were the case it would be better to apply and country rather than take a very dangerous journey all the way up to texas to make those claims. I think it is important to recognize that that would not necessarily accommodate a large number of additional migrants. What is important to be able to find the kinds of solutions both shortterm and longterm that prevent smugglers from making money on families that feel desperate, that ensure that we are creating greater security for families in Central America, and we are helping to grow opportunity longterm in Central America, and creating the Legal Immigration system is that makes this underground migration system less necessary. Thats what im committed to doing. I said one question. [speaking spanish] but we are going to continue to work in consultation with Central American countries to find additional creative and sensible ways in which legal claims for migration can be processed in those countries. In a fair and just way. [spanish translator] you guys got some bonus coverage there. Thank you. [laughter] next, a house hearing on campaign finance. The house debate on future military troops in iraq. After that, house leadership discusses next weeks agenda. Michele flournoy is our guest on q a. You are focused on the crisis of the day. Part of my responsibilities was representing the secretary of defense on the Deputies Committee which is the senior level groups working through the issues, developing options, a lot of Crisis Management focus. When youre in a think tank your utility is not trying to secondguess the policymaker on the issues of the day but do some work to raise their days and look over the issues i will confront 10 years from now, and had why think more strategically about americas role in the world . Former undersecretary of defense and cofounder of the center for National American security, michele flournoy. Sunday at 8 00 eastern. In a 1914 partyline vote the House Oversight Committee Approved a resolution rejecting the claim for david simas. Mr. Simas was supposed to testify, but did not show up. The white House Counsel said he is immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters related to his official duties and will not appear. This is an hour and a half. The committee will come to order. We are here to continuing hearing that began on july 16, 2014, called the house office of Clinical Affairs and supporting candidates and Campaign Fund raising and inappropriate use of government office. The purpose of the hearings to gather facts about the White House Office of political and strategic outreach. I would like to note for the record mr. David simas, director of the office of political strategy and outreach is in fact not here today. He was invited to speak to give the American People the chance to hear from the head of an office that has under several administrations misused the funds given to that office. You failed to appear on the 16th, and he has failed to appear again. The white house has informed my staff for the first time this morning at 7 30 a. M. That mr. Simas would not be present at todays hearing. We continue to work with the white house staff on proposed ways to resolve this, however, two days failure to appear is todays failure to appear is noted for the record and is not excused. Mr. Cummings, do you have any remarks . A brief statement. Just one question. I just wanted to highlight the letter, the last correspondence that we just put in the record for the members. The want to draw your attention to it. It is very brief, delighted july 24 dated july 24. My staff has reached out to your us to discuss this in good faith, i am sure they will work with you. And be helpful to review and withdraw the subpoena as we work appropriate accommodation. The inquiry is very brief. Before we proceed any further, i just want to make sure to confirm what we have talked about already, that we understand that we resumed this morning even though we can you was not coming. Staff told special counsel mr. Lerner not to come so we will not have testimony. You plan to move next to the business meeting to consider a resolution on mr. Simas . Based on his nonattendance, yes. Questions to be clear, im statement that i would like to give to man it would be happy to wait until the business meeting is given, but i want to have that opportunity. That is correct. You like to give it, you may. I will wait. A brief response, as you know, we have an inherent obligation of oversight. The question before us today is a very straightforward question, are we doing oversight . Is it our right and our obligation to do oversight . I believe it is. There is a long president that when this Committee Asks for someone appropriately, and they are not made available, and we believe we need that person, and in the case of an office of only four people, the head is not calming, that we expect that person to come. The record will show we have negotiated attempted alternatives, including transcribed interviews and other nonpublic ways to get the same information. The subpoena is in my opinion appropriate to left, because if it implies, and would mean he would not come. It is the considered opinion of this Committee Chair that we have an absolute right and obligation to investigate not any wrongdoing, however this is an office that has a past, that passed under both republicans and democrats is questioned, and there has been an odd situation of saying it was wrong but keeping it for three years. Shutting it down and then reconstituting it much smaller. The question that came from the briefing which i was appreciative that the white house did you must give us is that this office controls only the president and the first lady and it does not control the members of the cabinet. As the earlier preceding made clear, we have an obligation to look at all government officials, whether covered by the hatch act or not, and find out whether or not they are doing political activity with government money and government time, unless explicitly exempted. It is the considered opinion at this time of the committee and the council that the four people whose purpose it is to schedule the president and the first lady who are exempt from the hatch act, is a necessary office. Because this office was closed at this president as wrong as necessary, and operated for three years without finding out if those four individuals are necessary. Interleague fundraising or less literally fundraising. How are they scheduling it . This was an oversight in the past controversial office consistent with our requirement to do oversight even without a predicate of wrongdoing. I do want to make sure that the committee understands of both sides of the aisle that were going to ask the question as to the president and the first lady we believe we will get satisfactory answers. We must move on to the cabinet. Under this president , not uniquely, we had two camera officers that committed hatch act violations. We have a control responsibility, with an inherent predicate for making sure that the organizational systems for cabinet officers and the like is covered. I claim no predicate for the office of the president , i claim oversight, and i believe he would support me in this sensible. Principle. We simply have a history under president s of both parties this has been an area of concern in past violations. This has been communicated back and forth with the white house, they understand. This is not about letting scandal at any level, but in fact doing the oversight we are pledged to do and cannot be done by the executive ranks, can only be done by our branch. I did get very serious that we will likely find that the committee believes that mr. Simas has a responsibility to be here and find that once again we are going to insist that he response to the subpoena. First of all, mr. Chairman, i thank you for what you just said, and for that you stand. With regard, so that the public can have it abundantly clear, i realize youre not saying there needs to be, but if i understand it, to your knowledge mr. Simas has done nothing wrong . Were using iv the president nor this quadrant Person Office of any wrongdoing. There is a past history that you and i are both aware of that caused an opinion that a digit be closed and a closing of the office. Apparently when and offices closed, one might see in scandal, and then reopened, it is the most important oversight we can do in saying that in the past is to not work properly, how do we know what will work properly Going Forward . I think the American People have an obligation, and we must make sure that the money is being spent correctly. I alleged no wrongdoing, but it is more appropriate when he have a history of this to look at it than the average poor Person Office in the white house four Person Office in the white house. There a couple of cabinet members you mentioned. We would agree that those offenses hatch act offenses took place long before the opening of this office. That is correct, but one likely to waste before the closing of the previous office. As we talked about the white house reefing, they told us they are not controlling through this office the activities of members of cabinet which actually raises the concern that i think you and i are going to have to mutually work on, if not this office, then who do we look to to make sure that these inherent calls from a party office, currently the democratic party, who allows those . Who coordinates those . The gentleman yield of course. As i hear you, bringing in mr. Simas in one respect is sort of trying to create a preventive, preventing something that could happen in the future based upon what happened under the previous administrations. Not only that, but in a sense, and i hope we all look at this as we look at this office, if congress looks to the system and says we see nothing wrong with the system, and then the system is faithfully executed, and something bad happens, then it is not a scandal, it is a need for further reform. I will give a current example. We voted in 2008 for a law on immigration that now is at the center of some problems. We as a government are looking to fix something, but it isnt just scandal that people are taking advantage of in 2008 law. It is something we looked at, voted for, and now we see. If we look into these various activities, and we see nothing wrong in the system that is the next lane to us, and what we are is happening, then in fact we add to the ease with which the administration and other administrations can feel this is an upper read way to operate. It is one of the reasons we have been communicating with caroline larner, and one of the reasons we want her input because in the past she wrote a scathing report. The administrations of the previous two president s were using an office that was inherently flawed. Thats is why were making sure before we look at it. When i read the letter that you wrote yesterday, there were see the two new issues that came up regard to the president going on trips, official trips, and then doing some campaigning. I had not seen those allegations before. The reason why i raise this if you could yield. It is not an allegation, it is an observation. I have not seen those allegations before. If you could yield. It is not an allegation, it is an observation. All president s do both. This office is coordination offices coordination is a very simple question of it. What im concerned about is two things. It seems as if you buy just wonder when the questions and. This is a question that was presented yesterday. Mr. Eagletons response was we will continue to work with you. Im just wondering, whether is there a Constant Movement of the goalpost. The publicly to know our staff met with the white house for 75 minute, and answer just about every question. I know that things like it happened, but some point, where does that end . And more significantly, your understanding concern of the white house, and not just this white house. There will be those of the republican party, and we may be up in heaven somewhere. What youre implying is that this is not heaven . [laughter] my concern, the white house is concerned, there are certain advisors they want to make sure that they have this freedom to there will be those of the republican party, and we may be up in heaven somewhere. Somebody laughed. [laughter] my concern, the white house is concerned, there are certain advisors they want to make sure that they have this freedom to talk i want to bring this to a close to bring up the next point. The gentlemans point is good and we want to come to an understanding. Oversight is ongoing. We are not looking to ask about on a trip, when did the president say. What is the indication . We know the impact of the advice. The organizational questions are how do you decide . What is the system . How do we know that dollars paid to federal employees are in fact, even though they are clearly supporting campaign efforts, that they are absolutely necessary, and the peoples time and money, because we have a unique situation with the president that we do not want him going down to the Democratic National committee for briefings. We do not want the first lady out and about, or having to go back and forth to the residents. We are not moving the goalposts. I am absolutely positive that if we go through this process many of your members will have additional questions. We would want to make sure that all levels of questions related to the american taxpayer dollars and the necessity of them are answered. And recess. This committee stands in recess. [gavel] it is estimated that we will come back at 10 15 a. M. The committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. The Committee Meets today to consider a resolution to reject the claim that david simas, director of the office of political strategy and outreach, and assistant to the president , and federal Government Employee is immune from being compelled to testify before congress on matters relating to his official duties. The clerk will designate the resolution. The resolution on Committee Oversight and reform. It will be considered as read and open for amendment at any time. I will recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement. It morning. Let me say at the outset that i the assertions of absolute immunity. I disagree with them in the Harriet Miers case, and i disagree with them here today. One key difference is that in this case, the committee has identified no evidence that simas or thatdavid anyone else in his office engaged in any inappropriate activity or conduct that as a result i strongly opposes resolution. I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter that we just received lerner,ht from carolyn the head of the u. S. Office of special counsel. Without objection so ordered. Additionally, i would ask unanimous consent that all backandforth letters between the white house and either staffs of the house or senate be placed in the record. Without objections ordered. The office of special counsel is the independent federal Agency Charged with investigating violations. It is the same office that investigated violations by the White House Office of Political Affairs under the Bush Administration. Letter, which was just entered into the record, which all the members should now have, explains that the special all thereviewed correspondence between chairman issa and the white house regarding the new office of political strategy outreach, which was established six months ago. Based on that review, the special counsel concluded as itlows, and i quote appears at the white house adhered to osc guidance in determining the scope of o. Ivity for ops it appears to be operating in a manner that is consistent with the hatch act. The office of special counsel has not received any allegations that assistant to the president thed simas or anyone in opso has violated the hatch act. She goes on to say, i have no opsos to believe that informals exceed those communications between white house lawyers, the oversight and government reform committee. These conclusions are from the top official at the independent , with the core mission of enforcing the federal act check. Chairman i said originally invited special counsel to testify at the committees hearing on july 16. Two days before the hearing, the professional counsel submitted a written statement indicating that she plans to testify at her office and identified no ever since no evidence of impropriety. But the chairman cut that hearing short and recessed it until today. She was not able to testify. The chairman invited her again at todays hearing, but again, his office told her not to come, and again she will not be testifying this morning. That is why today i am making a public letter received from her last night. Now, the chairman said his own letter to the white house last night raising concerns about the actions of two cabinet secretaries. Secretary hilda so lease in health any and how the human sect health and Human Services secretary kathleen sibelius. The actions of both occurred in 2012, nearly two years before this new office was established in january of 2014. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let me say this. We all are members of this house. We should all be concerned with its credibility and with its authority. In myaid at the beginning statement, i oppose the assertion of absolute immunity by the Bush White House in the myers case. I agree with the district judge who concluded that the insertion will the assertion was invalid. Is based onssertion a longstanding practice of republicans and democratic administrations. I respectfully disagree with this white house assertions of absolute immunity as well. But this is the worst possible case to try to test our position. As the special counsel said in her letter, we do not have an allegation of wrongdoing. The judge in the myers case submission had to be legitimate. Here, theres a reason to create an unnecessary constitutional confrontation. In the house of representatives made significant gains, as in restitution in the myers case and once in a were. Tion gains they im deeply concerned that our committees actions here today could threaten to reverse those gains if we pursue this case with absolutely no foundation, no basis, and no predicate whatsoever. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to support this resolution based on these meager facts. Instead, lets try to see what the remaining questions are that members may have about this new office, even after all of the letters and White House Briefing the documents that we reviewed, there may be other questions. But just as late as last night, the white house, through mr. Eagleson, is still reaching out and trying to work a combination and left the door open so that those accommodations might be made. Then, lets Work Together to get answers to the questions without counterproductive actions. I thank you and your back. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize myself. The white houses decision not available has denied the American People the opportunity year from the official in charge of ensuring the white house political activity complies with the hatch fact the American Peoples tax dollars are not used to campaign. Hatch act then violations in several mid ministrations including two by president obamas own cabinet. Mr. Is not in charge of the White House Political Office when these violations occurred, he is now in charge. He has a responsibility to explain on the record what this administration is doing to prevent further abuse. I repeat, to prevent further abuse, future, what he will proactively do. Says it does not appear, based on reviewing dialogue back and forth between the white house, that there is a violation. Miers,case of harriet and the firing of the u. S. Attorneys, the president had an absolute right under the constitution to have and to dismiss for any reason or no reason u. S. Attorneys. There was no predicate, no criminal predicate, but there were questions. Those questions were asked to be answered by congress. The White House Office is in fact the use of federal taxpayer dollars in support of moving the president and the first lady to and from and coordinating their support for fundraising for political purposes and support of candidates. Theres no question that someone must have oversight. Dollars are appropriated from taxpayers to pay for this office. The special counsel is not a proactive auditor. We are. Spoke of aber constitutional crisis. Mason tillman, there was no constitutional crisis. We asked for oversight pursuant to our specific amenities responsibilities, and the witness was denied a claim which even the Ranking Member says he disagrees with, of inherent immunity, is before us today. Failing to comply with the congressional subpoena is a serious matter. To face the consequences unnecessarily by not coming. His refusal to testify will be an issue for him, should he ever seek a position requiring senate confirmation, or to run for elected office. Not only does the administration feel it is above the law in , buting inherent immunity it arrogantly believes that it should be held to a lesser standard than the Bush Administration. Last night, i wrote to the white , neil eggleston, and offered him extraordinary accommodation. After he complained yesterday publicr request for mr. Testimony differed from mr. Bushs office. I offered him the option of living to deposition or transcribed interview instead of appearing here today. The white house did not accept the offer, nor recant their claim of inherent immunity. House argued that scene fellow shells that senior officials can be immune from testifying to congress if so deemed by the president. It is in fact a direct contradiction to the u. S. District court for the District Of Columbia when it ruled in its decision in the committee on judiciary versus the white house , cites a legal opinion issued by the Justice Department office of Legal Counsel in claiming immunity, the opinion merely states the views of the executive branch. The authority does not outweigh that of the courts. The historyoutweigh of two centuries plus of this branch questioning every nickel, every dime spent on behalf of the taxpayers. Citel see opinion does not any case law in support of its assertion that are immune. Express technologies it is not based on precedent. The white house thinks it is immune from congressional oversight. Can it be any wonder that if we allow that the American People will not just lose trust and confidence in this president , but in the body that we sit in, both republicans and democrats. I am going to read to you a quote. The white house must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to congress and the American People. No one, including the president , is above the law. The white house must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to congress and the American People. No one, including the president is above the law. The person who said that a senator Harry Reid Harry reid, heres referring to the Bush White House is reluctance to make an employee available. Our constitutional principles on which this country was founded. I am confident the federal courts will agree. That statement was made by then judiciary chairman john conyers. He was right. Theouse democrat House Democrats follow the lawsuit to obtain this testimony , in which they ultimately prevailed. House and Senate Democrats were unequivocally in the support of requiring that white house officials testified before congress. Thenis a quote from speaker of the house nancy pelosi. By filing this lawsuit, house numbers recognize the need to defend congresss subpoena power against the efforts of an administration to hide information in order to prevent the exercise of congresses oversight and lawmaking responsibility. This action is completely again, the words of speaker pelosi. Scrutinized the president s Political Office. He close the office and generate 2011 in anticipation of a critical report by the office of special counsel released just days later. Both democrats and republicans commended his decision. President obama decided to reopen the office in january of this year, after three years of operating without the office, committee had some questions. Rightfully so heard in fact, the Ranking Member mr. Cummings said that he was skeptical about the reopening, given the offices history. Yet, this once shared skepticism has since turned into an effort that appears to be at odds with our oversight. The white house, too, is going to Great Strides to criticize this oversight rather than civic operating. A recent letter, the white house called the committees efforts to rush to subpoena and exceptionally aggressive. Since themonths opening and nearly that long since we began inquiring, despite the committees proactively seeking cooperation for months, the white house continues to obstruct this investigation. Ssminating in mr. Sima defiance and failure to appear here today. This is a Second Opportunity they to give mr. Simas ability to come and explain the operations. As i said earlier, i offered an alternative in response to their request there not be a public hearing. The president has called maintaining, cuts control the senate. , that hisiority prerogative, that is his prerogative, but using a taxpayerfunded office and personnel to achieve their goals skirts to the line of the hatch act. This is not an investigation of the president s activities or his goals. This is simply oversight. Is simply oversight. While the white house has made assurances the new structure is in compliance with the hatch act, no one from the office has answered bake questions or even provided documentation. The office of special counsel has not been able to evaluate anything but publicly available correspondence. Couple that with serious hatch act violations by the cabinet secretaries and it becomes obvious that there are serious and legitimate concerns. What is the white house afraid of . Why wouldnt you be afraid of changes made to be compliant with the goals of the hatch act . I expect the committee will reject president obamas 0 cert agses that the assertions at the white house did not extend this to democrats when they were in the majority. The president s decision to ignore a lawful subpoena is a clear attempt to impede what we believe to be our clear responsibility. My colleagues in the minority can express the pn that they do not think oversight of this administration is legitimate. But if they express the again that they believe oversight is legitimate, can there be anything more basic than the committee charged with overseeing the hatch act asking the questions, how do we revent violations of the hatch act under this administration not only at the level of the president and first lady, but at the level of cabinet officers. No chairman of either party would do different or less than i am doing here today or he or she would be slinging from their responsibilities, their pledge and their oath. I believe strongly that todays vote is not a vote of contempt. It is not a vote of anything more than a rejection of inherent immunity because that stands before us today as the reason mr. Simas was not here, the reason that mr. Simas has not agreed or at least begun the process of agreeing to alternative means. Inherent immunity from oversight is the question before us today. Thank you, i will hold the record open till the end of the day so that all members may submit written statements and other comments. Does any member wish to speak on the resolution . Does any member wish to offer an amendment . Mr. Tierney . You are recognized for five minutes. Strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, i would like to speak because i think that people dont necessarily disagree with the notion that absolute immunity upped all under all circumstances is something that the white house is entitled to. I think we draw some dis tinctions between what happened in the Bush Administration and what is happening here right now. Oversight, that can be dup and was in the process of being done, as i understand it. The difference is there is no stance here that the president or anybody in the office of outreach had violated the hatch act or engaged in inappropriate activity. The office of special counsel was clear in the letter. O. S. C. Has not received any allegations from anyone that o. S. C. Has violations the hatch act. And they went on to send over detailed letters of how the committee operates. I understand the committee sent over a whole gaggle of people over there to the white house to question the people for 75 minutes. As i understand it, they asked all their questions, got answers and then left and then after that more were written. The situation during the Bush Administration was completely different. That was an investigation. That wasnt just oversight. That was a total investigation because there had been allegations that were serious about the forced resignations of seven United States attorneys. In that instance, the white House Counsel, harriet meyers, was out of office by the time she was asked to testify. Here you have not . Who is in office and advising the president. I quote the d. C. Court congress, more oh is acting pursuant to a legitimate use of its investigative thomplet notwithstanding its best efforts the committee has been unable to uncover the underlying causes of the forced resignations. There is no evidence that the committee is merely seeking to harass ms. Meyers by asking her to testify. Thats the courts language, not mine. So there is no allegation of inappropriate or illegal conduct in the situation before us today. We havent exhausted all the other avenues of getting the information. The court talked about there being an ongoing process and how things are generally worked out and that the parties in myers had reached a selfimposed, selfdeclared impasse. We havent reached that. So i think the issue here re involves around whether or not there is an impasse. Theres not. Allegations of wrong doing . There is not. There is no Ongoing Investigation on that basis. I think we want a pretty won a pretty important victory as a congress in the meyers case to say that in all situations a white house is not swiletted to absolute immunity. But then the court had some very specific language about when its appropriate to move forward. Were not there yet. If we want to press, we risk losing some ground or at the very least tying us up in litigation for a long time that doesnt serve the American People. We could continue with dialogue and at the same time move on to other business as well instead of being tied up in litigation unnecessarily. Thats why i think this is premature, notwithstanding the issues of unilateral subpoena and all that that are intended here. I just think in this particular situation were way ahead of ourselves and we ought to just back down and have that period of prolonged discussion that the court states and then if we cant reach resolution, well talk about it again. But as i understand it, all the questions were exhausted at the first meeting. Subsequent questions materialized and they were answered and i suspect if other questions arise they can be handled without roe resorting to a subpoena. I just wanted to make one other dissing teenktion. In disteektion disteeksing. In the meyers case there was also a referral to the office of special counsel. Here there is no referral. For those of you who were not here earlier today, i asked the chairman, and i quote, you are saying to your knowledge mr. Simas has done nothing wrong and his office has done nothing wrong . The chairman responded saying, we are accusing neither the president nor this fourPerson Office of any wrongdoing. End of quoment thank you, i yield back. Gentleman from utah. I thank the chairman and i thank you for bringing this up. Its important that Congress Stand up for itself. Where is this newfound immunity from having to come to congress because youre an advisor to the president . The white house hasnt claimed any executive privilege. Theyre not claiming that. Where are the bounds of this any newfound immunity . Can they just simply say that you can never come up here because, well, i did nothing wrong . Is that the standard . I mean thats what i hear. As my colleague trey gowdy and jim jordan like to point out here, can we any questions of this person . Can we talk about good news . F can we talk about association. The others, secretary kerry, they come here all the time on a routine basis. The secretary of Foreign Affairs comes up on a regular basis. I also find it interesting that this persons title is director of political strategy and outreach. What does that mean . Its a new office. What is outreach . Can anybody answer that question . What is outreach . Were funding it with taxpayer dollars. If were going to do proper oversight, its not just following some headline because there is some scandal and a whistleblower. We should be doing regular oversight of a whole host of agencies eep when things are going well. This is how we do innings things. I think its interesting that the there is no argument is there is no legitimate reason to talk to them. Of course there is. Thats what makes the United States the most unique country on the face of the planet. We are selfcritical. We do take a good hard look under the head. If there is executive privilege for the president , then claim that. Well be respectful of that. There is no reason we isnt cant have a dialogue and discussion. I find it interesting that the white house sends over five attorneys, but when we want to have a discussion in the light of day, remember, this was going to be the most transparent president in the hit of our nation, when we want to do that in the light of day they say no, no, no, were not going to do that. Were just going to let the staff do that. Isnt this something fundamentally wrong with that . There is. And gowdy has pointed out, the same standard no matter who is in the white house. I suspect there say host of things that are wrong. Lets come up with the standard no matter who is in the white house. But i cant live with the idea that they are, quote unquote, immune from coming to testimony testify before congress. Theyre not saying they plead the fifth or claiming executive privilege. Theyre just imuvene from showing up. Immune from showing up. Thats a very dangerous precedent and one i cant allow to happen. Will the gentleman yield . I want to thank the gentleman. The Ranking Member appropriately noted something i said earlier today in a colquoy and i think its important that we remind everybody of what he said because we agree on that. There is no predicate of some criminal act here. This is about inherent oversight. But there are questions and there is a history. There are acts that have happened during this president s tenure which violated the hatch act by individuals and theres a history under previous president s. During the months of march, april, may, june, and now most of july that we have been seeking answers, the president has gotten into air force one time and time again and raised millions of dollars. This office of Political Affairs has coordinated those trips much the American People undoubtedly have written to to their congressmen, to newspapers and have written to the office of special counsel concerned about the use of air force one for the president and other aircraft for the first lady, use of aircraft for the Vice President any time they go and do either official trips and add a political event or they simply go out on a political event. We believe strongly that that history is well established. Were not objecting to it, but we have an oversight responsibility and id ask you all to remember that thats the question before us today. I thank the gentleman for yielding the the next in line holding his hand up is mr. Lynch. Thank you, gentlemen. I thank the chairman for yielding. I do think recourse to the law is probably a good starting point on this and we do have a very strong, wellplowed area of the law called prior restraint, and under the doctrine of prior restraint which is very firm within our constitutional fabric, the law does not abide prior restraint. And what were doing here is you are saying that this advisor to the president has engaged in no illegal, theres no allegation of illegal conduct here on the part of the president s advisor. Were not saying that. We just want to haul him in here. We just want to haul him in here, put a subpoena on him, have him sit here and answer questions under oath. Ok . So in its normal balance the law would look at the balance of interests. One interest is the ability of the president to have some advisors to receive counsel. Your interest is in finding out basically get inside that counsel and to find out what theyre thinking, with no allegation of anything, any wrongdoing. You are trying to cut off and have a Chilling Effect on that communication between a president ial advisor and the president , with no allegation of wrongdoing whatsoever. Thats what you are trying to do here, and my belief is thats approximate bad for any president. Only this president but every previous president. If they cant talk to their advisor without congress with no allegation of wrongdoning, hauling their advisor before them with a subpoena or otherwise and demanding answers on that relationship, that communication between the president and his advisor, thats very bad for our government. Thats very, very bad for the executive branch. I think its bad for the American People as well. Will the gentleman yield . Briefly. I appreciate it. If there is executive privilege direct with the president they just need to claim it. No, no. The president should not in every single case have to fight to be able to talk to their advisors. Reclaiming my time. There is recourse for the gentleman. There is he recourse for the chairman. You have the courts, you have the hatch act, you have legislation. We are lawmakers. We could change the law. We could bring charges. Your problem with those recourses is youre saying, youre stipulating that this man has done nothing wrong, so you dont have a way in. Your problem is he hasnt done anything wrong and youve admitted it. Thats why youre having a problem getting answers because theres no, theres no, theres no complaint of wrongdoing here. Will the gentleman this is just will the gentleman yield . P right now. Let me finish my thought. So under the normal procedures is we dont bring charges till there is some wrongdoing. We dont prosecute under the plaw until there is wrongdoing. You want to skip that par. You dont want to wait till he does wrongdoing. You dont want to think something up. I mean, you know, Creative Minds can come up with some allegation at some point of some wrongdoing somewhere to drag the gentleman down, but we havent even bothered with that. Will the gentleman yield . I will. Go ahead. Do you believe that the only people we should call before the Oversight Committee are those that have been accused of wrongdoing . No. No. I think there should be an allegation something, believe me. Take a look around at this government . Will the gentleman yield for a quick, quick question . No. Let me respond to your last question first. This body, this Oversight Committee as plenty of work to do. Our injured is when jurisdiction is when something bad happens or something is going wrong with the u. S. Government, we have to oversee that. There is plenty on our plate. We have a targetrich environment. With all the things going on in the world today and were subpoenaing folks who havent done anything wrong . All im saying is our priorities are misplaced and you are impinging on a basic prerecognize tive that the president has to get counsel from his advisors. It is a prior restraint. I yield. The gentlemans time has expired. I think the gentleman from utah wants 30 of your seconds . No, he doesnt. The gentleman is recognized. Well, i just heard the commentary and i respect the gentlemans opinion from massachusetts, but first of all, all you have to do is look at the history of this much the White House Political Office was closed in january of 2011. It was closed just days before a scathing report about abuse and misuse of that office occurred. Now look at the history. It opened, what, january, just a few was it japan of this year, the beginning of this year, 2014 . Said ain, shakespeare something is rotten in denmark. Well, something smells awfully fishney washington. I dont know where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were this week but the president of the United States, and in fact even the most liberal media, as a went to bed last night i saw the president s air force one landing. They broke in on one of the stations eau as he arrived. He had just finished a threeday whirlwind on air force one, a very valuable federal asset. Hes had a tour around the United States running his fishing nets for political purposes. Is that running for hes not running for office. He cant do that. I think the constitution prohibits that but hes taking the white house and its assets which is obvious to anyone on the planet and using them for political purposes to the extent which again even the liberal media is having heartburn the will the gentleman yield . No. I wont yield because again, this committee has the right to investigate this matter, how these assets are being used. This office is now opened, reopened and weve seen a use of this office unparalleled in the history of administrations. Yes, proosh, president reagan, president clinton, they all used federal assets for political purposes but this office has reopened and again weve its like this, the president of the United States is spending so much of his time on political amatters, using federal assets for that purpose, in an unprecedented manner. Again weve, i get the schedule, almost every schedule i get from the president dont you members get it, too . He used it for some little some excuse for one little thing. New york. Two political events in colorado, california, texas. Just talking about the last few weeks. So yes, we have a right and obligation as the chief investigative body in the house of representatives to see whats going on with this reopened Political Office using assets and taxpayer money. Is there abuse . We dont know. Thats our purpose. Does this individual have immunity or does he have some executive privilege . Theres no way. This is a Political Office. Hes not advising him on policy in the middle east, not advising him on federal policy to congress. This is a Political Office using assets of the taxpayers and this committee has every right and obligation to investigate what is going on. Im pleased to yield back the balance of my time. Or yield it to you. I think the gentleman from florida makes an exceptionally good point. This is a Political Office. Its not as if hes advising the president on substantive policy matters. The other thing i would like to highlight is, we dont know what we dont know. And a review of the doubts may yield nothing, it may yield something. It may yield more questions. Weve been given zero documents. If somebody is going to go out there and make the case that no, we shouldnt even look at the basic documents, thats quite a new standard. Again i would ask those on the other side of the aisle who want to defend the president at all costs, what is the outreach . Outreach doesnt sound like private communication with the president. The office of political strategy and outreach, what does that mean . Theyre using taxpayer dollars to do it and i think we have a legitimate reason to look at it. There may be nothing there but if youre going to be the most transparent presidency in the hit of the United States, then do it in the light of day. Thank you. The gentlemans time has expired. The gentlelady from the District Of Columbia is next in seniority. Mr. Chairman, this scussion is perplexing inasmuch as it involves members of congress where some of the root principles of what is basically at stake here seems to be misunited. The gentleman from utah said we dont know what we dont know. Were talking about an advisor to the president. When you say you dont know what you dont know, you are really talking the classic language of a fishing expedition. We dont know what we dont know but if we fish around we sure are bound to find would the gentlelady yield . I havent finished my point, mr. Chairman. But a degree with the gentlelady that we dont know what we dont know. Before the gemlady came in we were very clear this started off as something with a history reclaiming my time, mr. Chairman because i want to make a formal fundamental point. This is, to be sure, not about executive privilege. Its not about the kind of lpga we throw around in this committee. Its about something far more fundamental and that is the separation of powers itself. My republican colleagues are about to file suit against the president of the United States based on this notion of separation of powers. They want separation of powers observed when it comes to the congress, but when the , thats essentially what hes saying, under a constitutional separation of powers government i do not have to send my immediate advisors to speak with you. And the analogies that have gone back and forth on the other side as if this were an vesks an investigation shows that there is the president s immediate advisor is not an agency, and this is not a matter of policy. This is a fishing expedition, and yet the president has come to allow the committee to understand the fundamentals of the office. You want to understand why we set up this office . They have been over here time and again. When you call mr. Simas, you are calling the advisor of the president himself. You need a predicate for a subpoena. You need more than a fishing expedition. You do not have a right to know everything in a separation of powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation of powers government. This is an immediate advisor to the president. If you want separation of powers respected so deeply that you are about to file suit against the president , it seems to me that at the very least you ought to be willing to continue in this process until you have exhausted all other remedies Still Available to you to find out as much as you can about this office before doing a showcase fishing expedition subpoena designed clearly more to get the attention of the press than to get the attention of the president. I yield will the gentlelady yield . I yield to the Ranking Member. I want to thank the gentlelady. One thing i want to add, so the public will be clear, the office of special counsel has reviewed various communications. Both sides have been given information showing that the report from back in 2008, an investigation by the waxman committee, and then a more recent report by the office of special counsel, all of that has been given to folks in this office, and they are adhering to that, and the office of special counsel has said that. And i think that they have bent over backwards trying to accommodate, as you said, and i think there is clearly a question of separation of powers. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentlelady. I am informed there are two more people who seek recognition, perhaps sharing that time on your side. Is that correct . I would like to try to just organize if the chair will give us six minutes display, we will do that. If is fine with the Ranking Member, i ask unanimous consent that we split six minutes per side to bring this to conclusion if that is acceptable. That is acceptable. The gentleman is recognized. And be kind to your friend next to you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You know, the original title of this hearing hardly confirms the assertion that we are just trying to get at the truth, that we recognize there is nothing on towards that has happened, but something might happen, and so preemptively we need to pursue this matter. That is a thin read legally, a really thin read, and i have no confidence it would be upheld in the courts. In sharp contrast to the previous administration, which was described their office of Political Affairs was described as the political boiler room. This one, according to carolyn lerner, she found no violations of the hatch act. And by the way, what is ironic is, in the advertisement of the title of this hearing, the majority staff got the title wrong. They cited the White House Office of Political Affairs. That is the title of the Bush Administration office. It is not the title of the current administrations office. Maybe that was a freudian slip, although if they want to go active the Bush Administration to examine in great oversight detail, knowing their commitment to oversight, about the many, many violations that occurred in that administration, unlike this admission, which is been found clean, by the office of special counsel, they will have full democratic support. This is a sad day because i think i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, especially those with legal training, i think theyre going to do damage to our institution. We are going to get greater capability in legitimate oversight and in legitimate assertion of the rights of the executive branch, because we are abusing that we have no foundation for this action. We are going to take it because you get the votes. But should we take it is a different matter. I now yield to my friend from california. I thank my good friend and colleague, and i will make sure i have some time left over for my good friend, mr. Lynch. I will be very brief. This is a patently political action. And i agree with my colleague when he says that we are placing this institution in great harm, and doing great damage to it. As my colleague ms. Norton said, this is a fishing expedition. We are talking about an office with 1 million of taxpayer funds. That is it. 1 million. If they are so concerned they are making sure that they are using this money for precisely the right purposes, then call in the General Accounting Office which is available to us night and day and have them go and audit the office. 2 1 2 months ago i sent to the chairman of this committee a letter asking him to start an investigation, hold a hearing on Health Management associates, which has already ripped off the taxpayers of this country by 600 million in medicare and medicaid fraud. Are we doing anything to look at something as important as that issue . Oh, no, we want to investigate the president s 1 million Political Office to see if the funds are being used for political or governmental purpose. This is a mockery, and i stand with my colleagues objecting to it. I go back. I now yield the balance of my time to mr. Lynch. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. A number of times ive heard the assertion that we do not know what we did not know, but we do know what we do know, and the republican staff at the white house and asked a whole lot of questions that you just asked. They asked, what are the functions of this office . You say you do not know. Your staff went over there, and they got the answers, and the white house explained that the new office is set up for two primary functions. One is to obtain information to help form the president s policy agenda and make sure that his visits are being effective, and then to send political invitations on behalf of parties to determine whether invitation should be accepted. Before when this happened, all different officers of the white house would get invitations, which led to potential violations of the hatch act. So they are concentrated in this one office. If you take the time, your staff did a very good job. They asked some very pointed questions of the white house when they went over there, and the white house, in fairness to them, did answer those questions, and all without a subpoena and without a public show and all without it interfering with the right of the president s counsel to advise him. I think the white house has been very cooperative in this respect, and the fact you cannot find anything wrong is no reason to offer a subpoena. I yield back. Mr. Goudy will control the last six. I want to thank my colleagues. Ive learned a lot this morning. Ive learned that you can have a firmlyrooted right to assert on begalf of the entity that is neither named nor contemplated by the institution. I was previously not a rerun of that. What i would like us to lead with today is some consistent on what the standard is. I want to understand, because i honestly think there is a hunger in this country for any group to apply the same standards, the same rules, regardless of politics. Recess appointments should not depend on which jersey the president has on. I think we can all agree on that. So too the power to summon someone for the peoples house should not depend on which party is in power, and what i have heard from colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning cannot possibly be the standard. The standard cannot simply be that you have to have done something wrong. We do not have the power to investigate criminal conduct. You all know that. Remind us of that all the time. We do not have the time to investigate or prosecute criminal wrongdoing. That is another branch. So that cannot possibly be the standard. Can we summon someone before congress to discuss good news . What if they have done a good job . Can we send him a summons . Can we invite them to come share with us the progress and the success they have . Not under your standard. Can we invite someone to come discuss how to take their department from good to great . Youre doing a good job, youre doing a great job . Can we summon them before the peoples house . Not according to your standard. Can we invite them to discuss appropriations . Can we summon them to discuss policy . Not according to your standard. Your standard is you have to have done something wrong or you have to have broken the law, and you all know that cannot be right. You got really bright lawyers over there. You know that we have no power to investigate criminal wrongdoing. So how can that possibly be the standard . What is the standard Going Forward after today . When can this branch, when can the peoples house summon people to come . Can we discuss policy . Appropriations . Good news . Can we bring them to say you are doing a great job, or is it only when it verges on criminal wrongdoing where you can see that we have the power . This is what is most vexing for me, and this is what i really want, i really want some of their reasonable folks on this side to think about. Are you willing to concede that this branch has less power to summon, or the Judicial Branch does not only have the power to summon people on an allegation of wrongdoing. The executive branch does not only have the power to summon people. Some of you who have done criminal work, you can send a grand jury subpoena to someone who is totally innocent. They just happen to have facts that you are interested in. A Circuit Court judge, a District Court judge can serve in a civil case a subpoena someone. Theres no allegation of criminal wrongdoing. You all know that. Many of you have practiced that. So why are you telling us that we have less power than the other two branches under the constitution . What is the standard Going Forward after today . Can somebody explain to me, because we all believe in bright lives, but i may live long enough to see a republican president. So what is the standard going to be . What is the standard going to be . I will tell you what i would like to do. Will the gentleman i will. But i do want someone to tell me if there is a republican president , are you willing to apply the same standard, are we willing to apply the same standard . The country wants to know as well and say at the end of this debate, is this a standard we can live with regardless of who is in power . Can you only bring witnesses . I am not talking about testimony. That is executive privilege. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It is the power to summon someone before the peoples house. Is the new standard only if you have done something wrong and only if we have a hint of criminal impropriety . If that is the new standard, then lets live with it Going Forward. I just think you are giving short shrift to the peoples house. The reality that we cannot bring someone here to talk about good things a are doing or policy improvements, that we cannot bring the secretary of agriculture before committee of congress to discuss something that is wrong and not criminal really, you need to think about what we are doing today and whether or not you are in the short term shortening your own constitutional prerogative, because honestly, after all the mornings worth of debate, i cannot tell you what the standard is Going Forward. I cannot do it. With that, i will your back. I ask unanimous consent the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. Without objection, so ordered. I would be delighted to you yield to my friend from massachusetts. Thank you, and we wish you a long and healthy life during which no republican president serves. [laughter] thank you for yielding. This is all in the context of the hatch act investigation. I think we went off the line on that basis. Under your theory that we would be able to subpoena the chief of staff, that is not where we want to go on this. The standard set forth by the courts in the meiers case, it is about bringing in an authority and first exhausting of getting the information youre seeking or just oversight in some other way. If the standard for a limited legitimate investigation that you have to have an impasse and have an investigation where you cannot get the answers any other work, is something we require a lot more on that basis, and there has been no showing of the white house not cooperating