why mr. -- while mr. simas is not in charge of the white house political office when these violations occurred, he is now charge. he has a responsibility to explain on the record what this administration is doing to prevent further reviews. i repeat, to prevent further reviews. future, what he will proactively do. special counsel says it does not appear based on reviewing dialogue back and fourth between the white house of the does not appear to be a violation. 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 and 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 for support of candidates. there's no question that someone must have oversight. dollars ar

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 don't 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 e

in oneing in mr. simas of trying tort 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. are lookingrnment to fix something, but it isn't just scandal that people are taking advantage of in 2008 law. 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

it would help if you were to withdraw the subpoena to mr. simas as we discussed whether we can reach an appropriate accommodation. sincerely, w. mcneil wilson, counsel to the president. the inquiry of this is very brief, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, before we proceed any further, i just want to confirm what we talked about already. we understand that we are doing -- what we're doing this morning so our members will be clear, we resume this hearing this morning even though we knew mr. simas was not going, and we won't have ms. lerner's testimony. my understanding is we continue on to the business meeting in spite of mr. simas not appearing. i have a statement i would like to give, and i'm happy to wait until the business meeting is given. >> if you would like to give it now, you may. >> no, i'll wait. thank you. >> mr. couple mipummings, just 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

mr. simas was invited to testify to give committee members and the american people an opportunity to hear from the head of an office that has, under several previous administrations, misused government resources for political purposes. despite being under subpoena, mr. simas failed to appear at the hearing on july 16. i gave him a second chance to appear today to fulfill his obligation under a lawful subpoena. at this point i'd like to put on the record the cooperation of the white house on this matter. the white house has informed my staff for the first time this morning at 7:30 a.m. that mr. simas would not be present at today's hearing. we continue to work with the white house staff on proposed ways to resolve this, however, today's failure to appear is noted for the record and is not excused. mr. cummings, do you have any remarks? >> mr. chairman, a brief statement. just one question. i just wanted to highlight the letter, the last correspondence that we put in the record for the members. i

while mr. simas 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 prevent further abuse. future. what he will proactively do. special counsel says it does not appear based on reviewing dialogue back and forth between the white house that there's a violation. in the case of harriet meyers and the firing of u.s. attorneys, the president had an absolute right under the constitution to have and dismiss for any reason or no reason u.s. attorneys. there was no predicate, criminal predicate, but there was -- there were questions and those questions were asked to be answered by congress. the white house office is, in fact, a use of federal taxpayer dollars in support of moving the president and first lady to and from and coordinating their support for fundraising for political purposes and support of candidates. there's no question that

that mr. simas would not be present at today's hearing. we continue to work with the white house staff on proposed ways to resolve this, however, two days 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. 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 to reach appropriate combination -- 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 are doing -- 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 b