[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE
OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 13, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
www.cha.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-723 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma DEREK KILMER, Washington
MIKE CAREY, Ohio NORMA TORRES, California
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York
LAUREL LEE, Florida
Tim Monahan, Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia, Chair
MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia NORMA TORRES, California
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina Ranking Member
ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, New York DEREK KILMER, Washington
Caleb Hays, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statements
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight Barry Loudermilk,
Representative from the State of Georgia....................... 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Barry Loudermilk.............. 3
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight Norma Torres,
Representative from the State of California.................... 4
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Norma Torres............ 5
Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration Joseph
Morelle, Representative from the State of New York............. 6
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle.......... 7
Chairman of the Committee on House Administration Bryan Steil,
Representative from the State of Wisconsin..................... 57
Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil................... 58
Witnesses
Paul Vinovich, chairman, Office of Congressional Ethics.......... 8
Prepared statement of Paul Vinovich.......................... 11
Omar Ashmawy, staff director and chief counsel, Office of
Congressional Ethics........................................... 21
Prepared statement of Omar Ashmawy........................... 23
Michael Barnes, co-chairman, Office of Congressional Ethics...... 33
Prepared statement of Michael Barnes......................... 35
Submissions for the Record
Politico article................................................. 61
Washington Post article.......................................... 64
Questions for the Record
Omar Ashmawy answers to submitted questions...................... 80
Michael Barnes answers to submitted questions.................... 83
Paul Vinovich answers to submitted questions..................... 86
OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE
OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
----------
June 13, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:46 p.m., in
room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Barry
Loudermilk [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Loudermilk, Griffith, Murphy,
Torres, and Kilmer.
Also present: Representatives Steil and Lee.
Staff present: Tim Monahan, Staff Director; Caleb Hays,
Deputy Staff Director, General Counsel, Acting Parliamentarian;
Hillary Lassiter, Clerk; Brent Munyon, Counsel; Alex Deise,
Elections Counsel, Assistant Parliamentarian; Elliott
Tomlinson, Deputy General Counsel; Khalil Abboud, Minority
Deputy Staff Director, Chief Counsel; Eddie Flaherty, Minority
Chief Clerk; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; and Owen
Reilly, Minority Shared Staff.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARRY LOUDERMILK, CHAIRMAN OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE
OF GEORGIA
Chairman Loudermilk. The Subcommittee on Oversight will
come to order. I note that a quorum is present, and without
objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any time. Also
without objection, the meeting record will remain open for five
legislative days so Members may submit any materials they wish
to be included therein.
Thank you Ranking Member Torres and Members of the
Subcommittee and to our witnesses for joining us for today's
important hearing. The first-ever congressional hearing with
the Office of Congressional Ethics. The Office of Congressional
Ethics, or OCE, was established in 2008 during Nancy Pelosi's
first speakership. It was created to independently review
allegations of misconduct against House Members, officers, and
staff. OCE is often conflated and confused with the Ethics
Committee, but the two are very different entities.
First, while they can intake and review allegations of
misconduct brought forward by the public, OCE has no
disciplinary authority. Its job is simply to make referrals to
the Ethics Committee when it deems appropriate. However, there
is little to no transparency regarding which cases OCE decides
to open. In the past 10 years, only half of the cases OCE
opened were then referred to the Ethics Committee.
Second, the OCE referrals carry no extra weight, meaning
the Ethics Committee does not have to consider any of the OCE's
referrals. Third, if the Ethics Committee does not decide to
investigate a complaint that OCE refers, the Committee starts
from scratch and does not even use any of OCE's materials.
Despite having Congress in its name, OCE only has jurisdiction
to investigate the House of Representatives. The Senate does
not have a corresponding entity.
This calls into question if the Senate does not need a
similar entity, what value does OCE add to transparency and
accountability that the House Ethics Committee does not already
provide? If it is not meeting its intended purpose, what
reforms must be made to ensure there is effective and
nonpartisan accountability?
Let me be clear, I support transparency and accountability.
I believe all of Congress should be held to the highest ethical
standards, but I also have confidence in my colleagues on the
Ethics Committee. In the 15 years of its existence, OCE has not
had any oversight from the Committees of jurisdiction. The goal
of this hearing is to begin establishing formal oversight of
the office, examine if they are achieving their intended
purpose, and identify if reforms are necessary.
Unfortunately, we must also ask tough questions about some
of the OCE's current practices and recent controversies that
have caused both Republicans and Democrats to lose trust in the
office. While initially designed to field complaints from the
public to the Ethics Committee, in practice, political groups
have weaponized the office to file complaints as a way of
generating negative headlines regardless of the merits of the
complaint to achieve a desired political outcome. This has
turned the office into a political tool, rather than an
accountability measure.
There have been allegations that OCE itself is leaking
reports to the press before being made public. In 2015,
Politico Magazine wrote a story about how OCE leaked a
confidential report to The Washington Post and Politico.
Politico Magazine wrote that OCE leaked the report because the
Ethics Committee told them to cease the investigation and refer
the matter to the Committee instead.
That is well within the Ethics Committee's power to do so.
The allegation that OCE would then turn around and undermine
the investigation by leaking to the press is highly concerning.
With a current annual budget of over $1.7 million, the American
people deserve to know that the office is being used as
intended and not for political purposes.
Finally, we must bring transparency and accountability to
OCE leadership. The OCE staff director and chief counselor,
Omar Ashmawy, is tasked as Congress's ethical watchdog. Yet he
has faced several allegations of unethical behavior himself,
including allegations of harassment, intimidation, and improper
use of official resources. Mr. Ashmawy, I would like to give
you the opportunity in today's hearing to address these
allegations, especially in light of your refusal to provide the
Committee with your own written testimony for today's hearing,
but opting instead to cosign with the co-chairs of the board.
May I remind you that were invited here to give your
perspective as the head staffer of the office and give us an
update on how the office is updating. Further, I would like to
address an incident involving alcohol this past September.
Substance abuse is an issue impacting Americans across the
country, and I encourage all who struggle with this to seek
help. There is no shame in asking for help.
However, Mr. Ashmawy is in a position to pass judgment on
the behaviors of Members, officers, and staff. I find it
concerning that Mr. Ashmawy was arrested for driving under the
influence after he hit a stop sign, two parked cars, and
crashed into the front porch of a house. He admitted to
drinking and driving, and was caught on video trying to pay the
resident to not report the incident to law enforcement.
Despite repeated issues with unethical behavior, the board
has continued to reappoint Mr. Ashmawy to his position, so we
have a lot to dive into today. I look forward to bringing
accountability and transparency to an office that has
historically operated in the dark. I now recognize the Ranking
Member, Mrs. Torres for 5 minutes for the purpose of providing
an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Loudermilk follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
BARRY LOUDERMILK
Thank you Ranking Member Torres and Members of the
Subcommittee and to our witnesses for joining us for today's
important hearing. The first-ever congressional hearing with
the Office of Congressional Ethics. The Office of Congressional
Ethics, or OCE, was established in 2008 during Nancy Pelosi's
first speakership. It was created to independently review
allegations of misconduct against House Members, officers, and
staff. OCE is often conflated and confused with the Ethics
Committee, but the two are very different entities.
First, while they can intake and review allegations of
misconduct brought forward by the public, OCE has no
disciplinary authority. Its job is simply to make referrals to
the Ethics Committee when it deems appropriate. However, there
is little to no transparency regarding which cases OCE decides
to open. In the past 10 years, only half of the cases OCE
opened were then referred to the Ethics Committee.
Second, the OCE referrals carry no extra weight, meaning
the Ethics Committee does not have to consider any of the OCE's
referrals. Third, if the Ethics Committee does not decide to
investigate a complaint that OCE refers, the Committee starts
from scratch and does not even use any of OCE's materials.
Despite having Congress in its name, OCE only has jurisdiction
to investigate the House of Representatives. The Senate does
not have a corresponding entity.
This calls into question if the Senate does not need a
similar entity, what value does OCE add to transparency and
accountability that the House Ethics Committee does not already
provide? If it is not meeting its intended purpose, what
reforms must be made to ensure there is effective and
nonpartisan accountability?
Let me be clear, I support transparency and accountability.
I believe all of Congress should be held to the highest ethical
standards, but I also have confidence in my colleagues on the
Ethics Committee. In the 15 years of its existence, OCE has not
had any oversight from the Committees of jurisdiction. The goal
of this hearing is to begin establishing formal oversight of
the office, examine if they are achieving their intended
purpose, and identify if reforms are necessary.
Unfortunately, we must also ask tough questions about some
of the OCE's current practices and recent controversies that
have caused both Republicans and Democrats to lose trust in the
office. While initially designed to field complaints from the
public to the Ethics Committee, in practice, political groups
have weaponized the office to file complaints as a way of
generating negative headlines regardless of the merits of the
complaint to achieve a desired political outcome. This has
turned the office into a political tool, rather than an
accountability measure.
There have been allegations that OCE itself is leaking
reports to the press before being made public. In 2015,
Politico Magazine wrote a story about how OCE leaked a
confidential report to The Washington Post and Politico.
Politico Magazine wrote that OCE leaked the report because the
Ethics Committee told them to cease the investigation and refer
the matter to the Committee instead.
That is well within the Ethics Committee's power to do so.
The allegation that OCE would then turn around and undermine
the investigation by leaking to the press is highly concerning.
With a current annual budget of over $1.7 million, the American
people deserve to know that the office is being used as
intended and not for political purposes.
Finally, we must bring transparency and accountability to
OCE leadership. The OCE staff director and chief counselor,
Omar Ashmawy, is tasked as Congress's ethical watchdog. Yet he
has faced several allegations of unethical behavior himself,
including allegations of harassment, intimidation, and improper
use of official resources. Mr. Ashmawy, I would like to give
you the opportunity in today's hearing to address these
allegations, especially in light of your refusal to provide the
Committee with your own written testimony for today's hearing,
but opting instead to cosign with the co-chairs of the board.
May I remind you that were invited here to give your
perspective as the head staffer of the office and give us an
update on how the office is updating. Further, I would like to
address an incident involving alcohol this past September.
Substance abuse is an issue impacting Americans across the
country, and I encourage all who struggle with this to seek
help. There is no shame in asking for help.
However, Mr. Ashmawy is in a position to pass judgment on
the behaviors of Members, officers, and staff. I find it
concerning that Mr. Ashmawy was arrested for driving under the
influence after he hit a stop sign, two parked cars, and
crashed into the front porch of a house. He admitted to
drinking and driving, and was caught on video trying to pay the
resident to not report the incident to law enforcement.
Despite repeated issues with unethical behavior, the board
has continued to reappoint Mr. Ashmawy to his position, so we
have a lot to dive into today. I look forward to bringing
accountability and transparency to an office that has
historically operated in the dark.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NORMA TORRES, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This, indeed, is a
troubling time for Government ethics throughout all three
Federal Government branches. At this very hour, the twice-
impeached, insurrection-inciting former leader of the executive
branch and current Republican candidate for president, Donald
Trump is under arrest in Federal court. A grand jury of our
fellow citizens indicted him on felony charges of threatening
our national security in violation of the Espionage Act and
committing obstruction of justice and false statement crimes.
Our laws that protect national defense information are
critical to the safety and security of the United States, and
they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country
and allies at risk. Meanwhile, at the top of the judicial
branch, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is embroiled in
variety of ethics scandals. For decades, Justice Thomas has
engaged in a pattern of accepting and in violation of
disclosure requirements, concealing gifts and luxury vacations,
received from a billionaire political activist who reportedly
had a financial interest in at least one case before the
Supreme Court.
Here, in the legislative branch, just last month, a grand
jury indicted Republican Representative George Santos, on
Federal charges of fraudulent schemes, money laundering, theft
of public funds, and false statements. That is not counting the
pending charges he has in Brazil. I cannot imagine, Mr.
Chairman, having one of our Members of Congress extradited by
another country. The House Ethics Committee is now
investigating these allegations, and whether Mr. Santos engaged
in sexual misconduct against someone seeking employment in his
congressional office. Although more than a dozen Republican
House Members led courageously by Representative D'Esposito of
this Committee have called on Mr. Santos to resign, House
Republicans prevented Democrats from forcing a vote on
expelling Mr. Santos from the House.
I ask that all Members of this Committee to take the
opportunity during this hearing to join Representative
D'Esposito and me in publicly calling on a bipartisan basis for
Mr. Santos to resign. It is clear that ensuring ethical conduct
here in the House has never been more important. Let me be
clear, I remain committed to fighting against corruption for my
years of work to hold judges accountable for sexual assaults to
my work as a Member of the Appropriations Committee ensuring
appropriate use of taxpayers' funds. Throughout this work, I
have seen the ways in which a single bad actor overshadowed the
good work of essential institutions.
I am deeply concerned about the allegations facing one of
our witnesses here today, but we must not let one individual
define the entire institution. I sincerely thank the Chairman
for convening this hearing and the witnesses for their
testimony. I am grateful that we are here to get the
transparency the American people deserve, and use this as an
opportunity to strengthen the Office of Congressional Ethics
because no one is above the law.
The Office of Congressional Ethics or OCE serves a crucial
role as an independent, nonpartisan entity charged with
reviewing allegations of misconduct against Members, officers,
and staff of the House, and when appropriate, referring matters
to the Ethics Committee. By the way, while I did eventually
find your code of conduct, I did not--it did not appear in my
search when I looked at your website.
It is very valuable for an independent, nonpartisan entity,
such as OCE, to participate in enforcing the House's ethical
standards. At the same time, it is important that OCE set an
example for ethical unbiased conduct and ensure fairness in its
activities. I look forward to learning more about OCE from our
witnesses and working with my colleagues On a bipartisan basis
to ensure that it functions as well as possible. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Torres follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT NORMA TORRES
This, indeed, is a troubling time for Government ethics
throughout all three Federal Government branches. At this very
hour, the twice-impeached, insurrection-inciting former leader
of the executive branch and current Republican candidate for
president, Donald Trump is under arrest in Federal court. A
grand jury of our fellow citizens indicted him on felony
charges of threatening our national security in violation of
the Espionage Act and committing obstruction of justice and
false statement crimes.
Our laws that protect national defense information are
critical to the safety and security of the United States, and
they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country
and allies at risk. Meanwhile, at the top of the judicial
branch, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is embroiled in
variety of ethics scandals. For decades, Justice Thomas has
engaged in a pattern of accepting and in violation of
disclosure requirements, concealing gifts and luxury vacations,
received from a billionaire political activist who reportedly
had a financial interest in at least one case before the
Supreme Court.
Here, in the legislative branch, just last month, a grand
jury indicted Republican Representative George Santos, on
Federal charges of fraudulent schemes, money laundering, theft
of public funds, and false statements. That is not counting the
pending charges he has in Brazil. I cannot imagine, Mr.
Chairman, having one of our Members of Congress extradited by
another country. The House Ethics Committee is now
investigating these allegations, and whether Mr. Santos engaged
in sexual misconduct against someone seeking employment in his
congressional office. Although more than a dozen Republican
House Members led courageously by Representative D'Esposito of
this Committee have called on Mr. Santos to resign, House
Republicans prevented Democrats from forcing a vote on
expelling Mr. Santos from the House.
I ask that all Members of this Committee to take the
opportunity during this hearing to join Representative
D'Esposito and me in publicly calling on a bipartisan basis for
Mr. Santos to resign. It is clear that ensuring ethical conduct
here in the House has never been more important. Let me be
clear, I remain committed to fighting against corruption for my
years of work to hold judges accountable for sexual assaults to
my work as a Member of the Appropriations Committee ensuring
appropriate use of taxpayers' funds. Throughout this work, I
have seen the ways in which a single bad actor overshadowed the
good work of essential institutions.
I am deeply concerned about the allegations facing one of
our witnesses here today, but we must not let one individual
define the entire institution. I sincerely thank the Chairman
for convening this hearing and the witnesses for their
testimony. I am grateful that we are here to get the
transparency the American people deserve, and use this as an
opportunity to strengthen the Office of Congressional Ethics
because no one is above the law.
The Office of Congressional Ethics or OCE serves a crucial
role as an independent, nonpartisan entity charged with
reviewing allegations of misconduct against Members, officers,
and staff of the House, and when appropriate, referring matters
to the Ethics Committee. By the way, while I did eventually
find your code of conduct, I did not--it did not appear in my
search when I looked at your website.
It is very valuable for an independent, nonpartisan entity,
such as OCE, to participate in enforcing the House's ethical
standards. At the same time, it is important that OCE set an
example for ethical unbiased conduct and ensure fairness in its
activities. I look forward to learning more about OCE from our
witnesses and working with my colleagues On a bipartisan basis
to ensure that it functions as well as possible.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mrs. Torres. I now
recognize the full Committee Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for
the purposes of providing an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK
Mr. Morelle. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and to the
Ranking Member. I appreciate the opportunity to make just a few
observations. Before I do that, I want to thank our witnesses
for testifying, and particularly want to note the presence of a
former Member of this House, Mr. Barnes. Thank you all for your
service.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote, if men were
angels no Government would be necessary, if angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
Government would be necessary. In framing a Government, which
is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty
lies in this: He must first enable the Government to control
the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control
itself.
Created in March 2008, the Office of Congressional Ethics
was an independent, nonpartisan office in the House of
Representatives was responsible for reviewing allegations of
misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the House of
Representatives. The office establishment as the chair noted,
was led by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi after several high-profile
corruption scandals involving various Members of the House.
Given the recent indictment of Republican Representative
George Santos on Federal charges of fraud, money laundering,
theft of public funds, and false statements, it is crucial for
the House to effectively enforce its ethical standards. To that
end, it is extremely valuable to have an independent
nonpartisan office able to investigate misconduct by House
Members, officers, and staff, as such an office must itself
uphold the highest ethical standards to conduct its work
consistent with constitutional due process principles in a fair
and unbiased manner, and strike an appropriate balance between
confidentiality and transparency in carrying out this very
important and very sensitive work.
I look forward to today's hearing, thinking about how we
can work together to improve House ethics enforcement and be
anxious to hear from the testimony and any questions from
Members. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote, if men were
angels no Government would be necessary, if angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
Government would be necessary. In framing a Government, which
is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty
lies in this: He must first enable the Government to control
the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control
itself.
Created in March 2008, the Office of Congressional Ethics
was an independent, nonpartisan office in the House of
Representatives was responsible for reviewing allegations of
misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the House of
Representatives. The office establishment as the chair noted,
was led by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi after several high-profile
corruption scandals involving various Members of the House.
Given the recent indictment of Republican Representative
George Santos on Federal charges of fraud, money laundering,
theft of public funds, and false statements, it is crucial for
the House to effectively enforce its ethical standards. To that
end, it is extremely valuable to have an independent
nonpartisan office able to investigate misconduct by House
Members, officers, and staff, as such an office must itself
uphold the highest ethical standards to conduct its work
consistent with constitutional due process principles in a fair
and unbiased manner, and strike an appropriate balance between
confidentiality and transparency in carrying out this very
important and very sensitive work.
I look forward to today's hearing, thinking about how we
can work together to improve House ethics enforcement and be
anxious to hear from the testimony and any questions from
Members.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Morelle. The full
Committee Chairman, Mr. Steil also wishes to make an opening
statement, but he is tied up in another meeting. Without
objection, I will continue on with introducing the witnesses
and swearing them in, and then recognize Mr. Steil when he
arrives. Without objection, we will take that direction.
Also without objection, other Members' opening statements
will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted
by the Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today. Pursuant to paragraph
B, Committee rule six, the witnesses will please stand and
raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses answered in
affirmative, and you may be seated. I will now introduce our
witnesses. Our first witness Mr. Paul Vinovich serves as
chairman of the board of the Office of Congressional Ethics.
Mr. Vinovich retired as chief counsel of the Senate Budget
Committee in December 2018 after more than 20 years of service
as a congressional staffer. Previously, Mr. Vinovich served as
the Staff Director and Chief Counsel at the Committee on House
Administration 6 years.
Our next witness, Mr. Omar Ashmawy is the Staff Director
and Chief Counsel at the Office of Congressional Ethics. Before
joining OCE, Mr. Ashmawy completed 8 years of Active-Duty
service in the United States Air Force. Thank you for your
service, sir. I, as well, am an Air Force veteran--where he was
assigned to the judge advocate general court.
Finally, former Representative Michael Barnes served as Co-
Chairman of the Board of the House of Congressional Ethics, and
previously represented in Maryland's 8th congressional district
in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank you for your
service, sir. In the House of Representatives, Barnes served as
assistant majority whip and as a Member of the Budget, District
of Columbia, Foreign Affairs, and Judiciary Committees.
We appreciate the witnesses being here today, and I look
forward to your testimony. As a reminder, we have read your
written statement, and it will appear in the full hearing
record under Committee rule 9. You are limited--you are to
limit your oral presentation to a brief summary of your written
statement, unless I extend this time period in consultation
with Ranking Member Torres. Please remember to press the button
on the microphone in front of you so that Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on, your 5 minutes has expired, and we ask that
you please wrap up your statement at that time.
I now recognize Chairman Paul Vinovich for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF PAUL VINOVICH, CHAIRMAN, OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS; OMAR ASHMAWY, STAFF DIRECTOR AND CHIEF COUNSEL, OFFICE
OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS; AND HON. MICHAEL BARNES, CO-CHAIRMAN,
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS.
STATEMENT OF PAUL VINOVICH
Mr. Vinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
me here. It is good to be back here at the Committee. As you
mentioned, I served here for 6 years, 4 years as the staff
director.
We can dive into all the issues you raised on transparency
and so forth, but since I served here before there was an OCE,
I wanted to talk a little bit about that history that led to
the creation of the office. I started in 2001, which was after
the ethics wars of the late 80's and the early 90's, the
battles between Jim Wright and Newt Gingrich when Gingrich used
the ethics process to depose Wright, and you know, subsequently
became speaker himself, and then found himself subjected to the
same process when the Democrats decided they wanted to, you
know, do to him what he had done to Wright, i.e., use the
ethics process to depose him.
Following that period, there was a kind of nonaggression
pact that seemed to take hold in the House where Members, I
think tired of the acrimony, and, you know, kind of constant
fighting on the ethics front, decided to stop filing complaints
against each other. That had a positive effect of reducing the
rancor in the House, but it had a negative effect of the belief
taking hold that the Ethics Committee was not enforcing the
rules, that it had, you know, effectively ceased to function as
a guardian of enforcement in the House.
In those days, the rules still allowed Members and staff to
accept gifts from lobbyists subject to limits. There was a $50
per event, and $100 aggregate limit. You take, you know, a
hamburger and a beer, but not a steak dinner and a bottle of
wine. While these limits were in place, it would be fair to say
that not all Members and staff were rigorous in their efforts
to stay below these limits. It was pretty routine for the
limits to be ignored or exceeded, and this happened with little
fear that the Ethics Committee would do anything.
Then, something unexpected happened. When The Washington
Post started running a series of articles about a lobbyist
named Jack Abramoff, who was taking huge sums from his Indian
gaming clients, these articles drew the attention of the FBI
and the Justice Department, which launched criminal
investigations of Mr. Abramoff and his associates, many of whom
wound up pleading guilty. As part of those guilty pleas, they
started providing the names of Members and staff that, you
know, were helping their clients and were accepting gifts in
excess of these limits.
The consequence of that was Members who had they been
operating in the House with the functioning Ethics Committee
might have received, you know, a letter of admonition and a
fine, wound up with felony convictions and jail sentences.
In 2006, as was mentioned, the Republicans lost their
majority, largely in part due to this and other ethical
scandals, and Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House. She had
run on a promise to drain the swamp.
We are going to get into the virtues of the office and how
effective it has been, but at root, I will say that I believe
it is useful for Members to know that they are being watched.
You can say that ethics is what you do when no one is watching,
but it is just a fact of human nature that people behave
differently if they expect that there will be consequences for
their behavior.
Now, I understand you all are watched all the time of
course. We are on television right now. You are constantly
watched by your colleagues and your political opponents and the
press. What we do is different. We are not trying to win an
election. We are not trying to sell newspapers or get clicks.
Our job is to focus on the facts and the law and determine if
they have been complied with, and if we feel they have not, we
make referrals to the Ethics Committee with our findings. Our
purpose is basically, I think--and we will get into
transparency a bit later--I think is to make the process more
transparent, to make it harder for the Ethics Committee to
ignore cases. I think we have done that, and we can get into
more during the question period.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vinovich follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL VINOVICH
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Vinovich.
Mr. Ashmawy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF OMAR ASHMAWY
Mr. Ashmawy. Thank you very much, Chairman Loudermilk and
Ranking Member Torres. I am really here to present the staff
perspective of our office, and I want to emphasize to this
Committee and our shared institution that we as the staff know
the responsibility that the Office of Congressional Ethics has
to not only the House as a whole, but to each individual one of
you. The gravity and seriousness of the work that we do is
never lost on us, not for a day, not for a moment. When we go
to work each day, we understand that we are working for the
House as a primary institution of our republic, and it is only
by faithfully performing our duties that we meet our
responsibilities to it.
Now, obviously, I am also the subject of this hearing so
allow me to put a few things in context. One, I apologize for
any confusion. It was not our intention to not provide written
testimony. Initially, on the Friday due date, it was our
collective understanding that the testimony being provided was
a statement of the OCE, and that any written testimony was
voluntary. There was a decision by my superior that we would be
here to answer questions that you may have. That is purely
unintentional, and I apologize.
With regard to the allegations against me, you know, you
mentioned the harassment, sir. That was a matter that was
investigated five different times. Each investigation found
that I was the victim of unprovoked assault. I did not harass
anybody or act in any other way that was inappropriate, and
every claim that suggests that was determined to be false.
You know, I understand the, you know, the perspective that
you have, sir. What I would say as the head of the OCE, is also
a human being. In my case, it turns out I am an alcoholic. I
recently completed 6 months of intensive outpatient therapy.
This is sometimes called recovery. It is--used to be called
rehabilitation, rehab. I continue in that program in a lesser
intensive fashion. I have a sponsor. Every day, even here, on
this piece of paper here, I have the serenity prayer. It is a
big deal for people who are addicts. You know, every day I look
at it, and every day I have to think about what happened and
say that the people who know me best, the people who know my
work best, who observe me on a daily basis, sometimes as long
as 10-plus years, they still have confidence in me to do this
job, to be a father, and to do what is necessary to help the
House of Representatives in whatever way that I can.
You know, real quick, I think it is key to point out a few
misconceptions. One is, you made reference a leak in 2015. It
was not a leak. It was a release of a report involving an
improper trip to Baku, Azerbaijan, where the Nation of
Azerbaijan was laundering funds through American-based non-
profits to influence illegally Members of Congress and their
staff. The OCE was responsible for uncovering that effort,
which ultimately led to an FBI investigation and DOJ
prosecution. When the report was not released, it was
considered to be of vital importance by the board to release
it. The board chose by unanimous vote at the time to release
the report publicly on our website, not to the press.
Real quick--and I know we can get into this a little bit
deeper--but Ethics Committee, they do use our materials pretty
regularly. We have a robust relationship with them where we
provide evidence about cases. It is a misconception that they
do not. Ma'am, we do have a code of conduct. I am sorry you
could not find it. I did look at the website the other day, and
I did see it. I am happy to answer questions about that.
As far as transparency with regard to what we open, that is
done because of a belief that the confidentiality of the people
who are being accused of whatever misconduct deserve to be
respected. We do not publicize all of the information that
comes in our way.
Last, you know, I think that, you know, it is conventional
wisdom the Senate would benefit from an independent ethics
institution.
With that, I am happy to answer any questions you have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashmawy follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF OMAR ASHMAWY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Ashmawy. Mr. Barnes,
you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BARNES
Mr. Barnes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is
actually really good that, as you said, for OCE has never had a
hearing, and I think it is helpful for OCE to have this
opportunity for people to understand a little better about how
we work, and what we do. I am going to try to get into that a
little bit. Those of us who serve on the board today--and it
is, three of us are former Members of the House, and three are
former senior staff of the House. Paul and I serve with Bill
Luther. Many of you know Bill Luther, former Member from
Minnesota, and Lynn Westmoreland from Georgia, and Karen Haas
and Lorraine Miller who are long time senior staff here,
respected on both sides of the aisle.
We stand on the shoulders of the giants of OCE, the
founding board members, particularly the two first co-chairs,
Porter Goss, former head of the CIA, former House Member, David
Skaggs former Member from Colorado, and their colleagues who
really were giants, Bill Frenzel from Minnesota, Ab Mikva from
Illinois. The first board created a culture for OCE, which
exists, and we work hard to make sure it continues to exist to
this day.
It is really--in the Washington D.C. of 2023, it is sort of
hard to believe that there is an institution like this that
does exist, that has a culture of total professionalism,
confidentiality, mutual respect for everybody else involved in
the effort, collegiality. I consider all the members of the
board that I have served with--and I have been on it when I was
four terms as an alternate, and my second term now as first
chairman and now co-chairman--I consider everybody a friend,
all the members on the board that I have served with, a great
sense of mutual respect and collegiality, and total absolute
nonpartisanship.
We had, not very long ago, a Republican Member of the
House--you know, when you are investigated by OCE, before the
board makes any final determination about whether to refer it
over to the House Committee on Ethics, you have the opportunity
to come in and make your pitch to us and tell us why we should
not refer it. We had a Republican Member come in not very long
ago and said to us, everybody knows that OCE is prejudice
against us Republicans. We know this is a partisan thing. One
meeting or two meetings later, we had a Democrat come in and
say, everybody knows that OCE is out to get us Democrats. You
guys are after us, and it is--everybody knows that.
Well, the reality is very far from that. In the years that
OCE's been around through the last Congress, well over 50,000
complaints against Members of the House were presented to OCE
by the public, and it came from all over--you know, from the
various kinds of groups on both sides, Democratic groups,
Republican groups, candidates against House Members will
submit, you know, complaints to the OCE saying, you know,
Congressman--Congresswoman so and so did such and such. We have
had over 50,000.
Out of those 50,000, we have initiated cases on 242. 242.
Of those 242, 124 were Republicans and 118 were Democrats. Of
the ones we referred over to the Committee on Ethics, there
have been 104. Out of the 242 that we opened an investigation,
out of the more than 50,000 allegations, we opened 242 cases--
out of those 242, we referred for further review to the House
Committee--and the standard for that is reasonable basis to
believe that a violation of rules or law did occur--we referred
104 cases: 52 Democrats, 52 Republicans.
In all these years of OCE, 15 years, 52 Democrats, 52
Republicans. Now, this is total coincidence. We do not sit
around as a board and say, Well, we just did Republican, let us
find a Democrat. This is total coincidence. To demonstrate, A,
nonpartisanship, and also, I guess, B, that there is an equal
number of folks in both parties who occasionally make mistakes,
or purposefully make mistakes.
Why do we serve on the board? It is not for the glory.
There is no glory in serving on this board. It is certainly not
for the money. Why do we serve? Why do we do this? Why do we
spend so much time reviewing all these 50,000 allegations and
going through all this evidence and reading huge amounts of--
why do we do it? Because the greatest honor that we ever had in
our lives was serving here in this institution.
All of us--you know, I am speaking for myself, but I am
sure that I speak for all of us, all of us have a reverence for
the House, a love of this institution. We want it to be as good
as it can be. We want to it to be great. This is the people's
House. You cannot be appointed to the House of Representatives;
you can only get elected here by the people, and we are so
proud to serve here, and that is why we are doing what we are
doing. I would argue to you that it is being done effectively
and with integrity and with transparency and collegiality, et
cetera, et cetera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BARNES
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. The gentleman's time's expired.
We will now begin our questions. I will start with the
questions today and be followed by the Ranking Member, then we
will alternate between parties. I now recognize myself for the
purpose of questioning our witnesses.
Mr. Ashmawy, how long have you been in your current
position with the OCE?
Mr. Ashmawy. A little over 14 years.
Chairman Loudermilk. 14 years. What year was it that you
came in?
Mr. Ashmawy. A little over 14 years, and I started the very
end of February, beginning of March 2009.
Chairman Loudermilk. 2009?
Mr. Ashmawy. 2009.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. You are staff director and chief
counsel; is that correct?
Mr. Ashmawy. Yes.
Chairman Loudermilk. As role of chief counsel, I assume you
are an attorney, and--is that correct?
Mr. Ashmawy. I am.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. I appreciate you being here. I
am going to have some tough questions, but we are in a position
here where we need to clarify some things, especially in an
office to where you are the chief counsel and making judgments
on people. Now, I understand that a few years ago, you were
involved in a bar brawl, and then in October 2022, you drove a
car while intoxicated, crashed it into someone's porch, hit a
stop sign, and two parked cars; is that correct?
Mr. Ashmawy. I was not involved in a bar brawl. As I said
in my opening statement, I was attacked, assaulted without
provocation. The matter was investigated by the local
authorities, by the Department of Homeland Security, by the
Ethics Committee, independently by an attorney hired by the
Office of Congressional Ethics. When my clearance was up for
reconsideration, again by them. Every investigation determined
that I was the unprovoked victim of an assault that evening.
Chairman Loudermilk. Okay. We will get back to that. My
question right now is: Is it correct that you were driving
intoxicated, crashed a car into a front porch and two parked
cars; is that correct?
Mr. Ashmawy. I was in an accident following having
alcoholic beverages. As I have said publicly and here today,
that accident was a wake-up call to me to do something that I
never had the courage to do, which was address my addiction,
address the fact I am an alcoholic, which I have sought
treatment for, continued to do, and also shed light on a
medical condition that I have as well. It was the worst thing
that had ever happened to me, but going through recovery, I
could be here today sober, is the best thing that has ever
happened to me.
Chairman Loudermilk. I appreciate your honesty with that,
but you know whether or not the crash was a direct result of a
medical condition or not, you admitted that you had been
drinking alcohol that day before you drove; that is correct,
right?
Mr. Ashmawy. Yes.
Chairman Loudermilk. Regarding the brawl in the--or the
altercation, let me say, at the bar, I heard your discussion
about that and your answers that you were the victim, not the
perpetrator. Regardless of what started the brawl, it is
reported that you used your official OCE email to improperly
pressure law enforcement and separately have admitted to
driving under the influence and crashing into someone's home.
Do you believe that with these allegations, that you are
the most qualified to lead an office charged with passing
judgment on others?
Mr. Ashmawy. Like I said, Congressman, it was not a brawl.
It was not an altercation. It was an unprovoked assault. One of
the witnesses that evening, the one who called 911, described
it as an ambush.
Chairman Loudermilk. That was something that happened on
your personal time, correct?
Mr. Ashmawy. It happened on my personal time. It was
Valentine's Day, and I was out with my girlfriend, who is now
my wife. I think it is very important to put that incident into
its proper context and understand how thoroughly it has been
reviewed and investigated, and how completely false any
allegation of harassment or misconduct that night is.
As far as use of my email, yes, I used my work email to
communicate with law enforcement and other individuals involved
in the investigation. At the time, I believed that I was within
the bounds of House ethics rules. I realize now that I may not
have been.
Chairman Loudermilk. Did you not think that using an
official email may be perceived as using some form of
persuasion on those that you were communicating with being that
the position that you are in?
Mr. Ashmawy. At the time, you know, the House rules allowed
for a limited amount of personal use of email communications. I
realize it was a mistake as we sit here today, but at the time
given the context of what had happened, I did not see it then
as a violation of my responsibilities.
Chairman Loudermilk. Alright. Thank you. I will now move on
for questions for our co-chairs, and thank you for your
answers, Mr. Ashmawy.
One of the aspects--Mr. Ashmawy's conduct as he was working
with the judge advocate office in the military, unless things
have changed since I was in the Air Force, this type of conduct
would not be tolerated.
Mr. Vinovich, you said something interesting in your
opening statement. You said people behave differently if they
are being watched all the time. Now, it is interesting that
this is the first-ever hearing of oversight of your office.
Could it be that this office has not been watched is the reason
that we are having to ask these type of hard questions today of
the chief staff member?
Mr. Vinovich. Arguably, I mean--I cannot say that I am
surprised that these questions are being raised, you know.
Whether they are raised in a public or private forum, you know,
we understood at the time that this was a problem and was not--
the decision that the board made to retain him was not
something that we came to quickly. I mean, we understand that
this is a serious matter, and we took it seriously.
You know, ultimately, you know, the board consulted on
this. We put it in the context of his 14 years of service, and,
you know, prior to that, his military service obviously. You
know, I do not know that addressing it in public, you know,
which changes the calculus----
Chairman Loudermilk. I am just really going off of your
statement that people will behave differently if they are being
watched all the time. To me, it seems like this office that
sits over in the O'Neill building, that the only time that we
ever hear from it is when the office is coming after one of us,
Okay?
Mr. Vinovich. Yes.
Chairman Loudermilk. Let me switch over to Mr. Barnes here.
Mr. Barnes, how important is it for the staff of the OCE be
held to the same ethical standards as Members of Congress and
Congress staff?
Mr. Barnes. It is important. The board took this, as Paul
said, the board took this very seriously. We suspended Mr.
Ashmawy. We investigated the matter. We have been in touch
regularly.
Chairman Loudermilk. Now the matter, or the two matters?
Mr. Barnes. Well, we investigated the early one--I am
talking about most recent one. We investigated the earlier one
extensively, and we learned, by the way----
Chairman Loudermilk. Which would have been the so-called
barroom brawl?
Mr. Barnes. In that case, the person who attacked him ended
up suing Omar and the police chief of the town, and the police
chief was saying Omar's version of what happened there was the
accurate version. He was attacked by some people while he was
out with his wife on Valentine's Day. The board took it very
seriously. Omar was suspended while we reviewed this matter.
We--and I will give our chairman--now chairman, then co-
chairman, Mr. Vinovich, real credit for making sure--he was on
top of this--making sure that whatever we did in the case of
Mr. Ashmawy was consistent with the way this matter should be
treated under House rules for employees of the House of
Representatives if they are suffering from an illness like
alcoholism and have an incident like this, how would they be
treated?
We did not want him to be treated any better, but we
certainly did not want him to be after his excellent service as
chief counsel and staff director and after his distinguished
service in the United States military, we did not want him
treated worse than your staff would be treated in a similar
circumstance, Mr. Chairman. The board unanimously, unanimously
agreed that after he had been suspended for a period of time
and investigation was undertaken, and we made sure that all of,
you know, all the hoops had been jumped through appropriately
with respect to House rules, we decided to reinstate Mr.
Ashmawy.
Let me just say one other thing----
Chairman Loudermilk. Well, let me do this, Mr. Barnes, I am
way over my time, and I want to be respectful of the other
Members that are here because there are so many things going
on. I am going to yield now to Mrs. Torres for her questions.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I was not going to stop you because
I think you were going in the right direction, but thank you
for yielding to me.
Chairman Vinovich, would you say that the employees that
work for this office are not the traditional Federal workers?
Mr. Vinovich. I am not sure what you mean by that. Could
you clarify the--traditional in what sense?
Mrs. Torres. Ethics, you have to abide by your own ethics,
right?
Mr. Vinovich. Yes.
Mrs. Torres. I see the position of your employees as one
not of it is just a job, it is just another employee. It is a
lifestyle. When you sign on to do the work to judge other
people's behavior, you have to be above all of that, which is
very difficult. I am having a tough time hearing an
acknowledgment and hearing acceptance of some responsibility on
your behalf, Director. While I understand addictions, rampant
addictions, whether it is alcohol or any other substance, it is
an awful issue to have to deal with, and it takes a lot of
stress on the person, an individual, and the family and
everyone involved. You do not have the average job of a Federal
employee. Therefore, you do not get to simply say, I just made
a mistake and move on.
Chairman, I want to ask you some questions about the rules
and policies that govern OCE staff. What is the process for
setting standards of conduct for the staff beyond what is
posted on the website, which is very difficult to find? I want
to encourage you to also revamp that website.
Mr. Vinovich. Okay. Well we do have the code of conduct. We
have an employee manual that governs staff behavior and
conduct. We obtained the manual from the House basically----
Mrs. Torres. Is that put in practice? Is there training? Is
there, you know, ongoing training on these conduct?
Mr. Vinovich. Well, the day-to-day operations of the
office, the chairman and I--the board meets on a monthly basis
to review complaints. The way the process is set up, at each
stage of the process for a complaint to be--for an
investigation to begin, for initiation, for second phase, for
referral----
Mrs. Torres. What are the policies that exist for
disciplining your staff and ensuring a safe work environment?
Mr. Vinovich. The discipline--the staff discipline--the
board is ultimately responsible for hiring and staffing
decisions. Typically, the staff director would be responsible
for staff discipline. He is the day-to-day manager of the
staff. In this case, obviously, he was himself the subject.
Mrs. Torres. Did Mr.--who notified you when the first
incident occurred, the bar fight?
Mr. Vinovich. That happened in 2015. I began my service in
2019, so.
Mrs. Torres. Do you know who notified the office?
Mr. Vinovich. I do not have any knowledge.
Mrs. Torres. Who notified the office of the incident that
occurred last year of the traffic collision?
Mr. Vinovich. Mr. Ashmawy called me and the co-chair.
Mrs. Torres. Mr. Ashmawy, can you please describe which of
the new House rules for this 118th Congress has impacted OCE,
and what the impact has been and might be in the future?
Mr. Ashmawy. Of the rules that were established in this
Congress, one was the re-imposition of term limits. Another was
a requirement that the board hire its current staff within 30
days. Of all of them, I would say the one that is most
concerning merely from a logistical perspective is that over
the last 14, 15 years really, before my time, this was the
first Congress in which the board was appointed in a timely
fashion. That 30-day provision really could legitimately result
in the accidental termination of OCE staff at the beginning of
a Congress. It is our collective suggestion that 30 days either
be removed or simply pinned to the time that the board is
appointed so the board has 30 days from appointment, and then
same result can----
Mrs. Torres. I exceeded my time. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. Thank you. Mrs. Torres. I ask
unanimous consent of the Committee to commit to the record a
report that I have of the incident regarding the--well the
independent counsel report of the incident in Milford,
Pennsylvania. Without objection.
Chairman Loudermilk. I now recognize Ms. Lee for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lee. Good afternoon. Mr. Vinovich, I would like to
start by directing your attention to some procedural questions
about the investigative process at the Office of Congressional
Ethics. Specifically, let us start here: When a complaint is
filed with the office, is that complaint forwarded to the
respondent?
Mr. Vinovich. The subject of the complaint?
Ms. Lee. Correct.
Mr. Vinovich. We do not have communication with a subject
unless and until we initiate an investigation. If we initiate,
you have to have two board members to initiate an
investigation, and if that happens, then the subject is
notified of that.
Ms. Lee. During this period of time--so the answer to the
question is, you do receive complaints that are not necessarily
forwarded to the subject of the investigation; is that right?
Mr. Vinovich. Yes. As the co-chair mentioned, we receive
58,000 complaints, so we do not--I do not believe communicate
all those to the subject.
Ms. Lee. When an investigation is initiated, is it your
practice to always provide the investigative materials that you
have, including any inculpatory or exculpatory information to
the subject of the investigation?
Mr. Vinovich. At the initial phase?
Ms. Lee. Yes.
Mr. Vinovich. No. The initial notice is just to the effect
that, you know, that the OCE has initiated an investigation of
you, and we make a request for information from the subject.
Ms. Lee. When the House Ethics Committee decides to bring
forward an investigative Subcommittee, does the Office of
Congressional Ethics necessarily stand down if you have an
investigation ongoing about the same person or subject?
Mr. Vinovich. Under the rules, upon request of the Ethics
Committee, if--the Ethics Committee can send a cease and refer
notice, asking us basically to conclude our investigation
because they have one ongoing. If that happens, then we would
do that. We would just--yes.
Ms. Lee. If the House Ethics Committee is already reviewing
an allegation, does the Office of Congressional Ethics ever
open an investigation as well in tandem to that already
existing investigation?
Mr. Vinovich. Well, this kind of goes to the transparency
issue. The Ethics Committee could be doing an investigation
unbeknownst to us or anyone else. It is possible, yes, that the
Ethics Committee could have an ongoing investigation, and then
we begin an investigation.
Ms. Lee. If you are aware of an ongoing investigation by
the Ethics Committee, would it be the practice of the Office of
Congressional Ethics to also initiate a tandem investigation in
some circumstances?
Mr. Vinovich. I cannot think of an example of that during
my tenure.
Ms. Lee. I would like to return, Mr. Ashmawy, to a line of
questioning. The Chairman was asking you some questions about
some of your challenges during your tenure. If I understood
correctly, I believe one of your answers related to the extent
that you had violated any ethical rules yourself during that
time, it was inadvertent and not a purposeful thing; is that
correct?
Mr. Ashmawy. If you are referring to the use of email after
my assault, I thought I was within the bounds of the rules.
Turns out, I may not have been, and I accept responsibility of
that.
Ms. Lee. Okay. As we sit here today, you would acknowledge
that some of that conduct by you during that time did, in fact,
run afoul of some of the rules that would govern your conduct?
Mr. Ashmawy. It was determined that way to be that way,
yes.
Ms. Lee. Alright. Would you also agree, sir, that your
function as--your role in this process and in this Committee
is, in fact, to be the subject matter expert on what the rules
of professional conduct are that govern things like that? Is
that not the type of thing that you assess when it comes to
people who are the target of these allegations that come before
your Committee?
Mr. Ashmawy. It is part of my job.
Ms. Lee. Now, let me ask this question going back to you,
Mr. Vinovich. Are you aware of any circumstances where OCE
staff gave a report to the press before providing it to the
subject of an investigation?
Mr. Vinovich. No, I am not. There--you know, occasionally
our reports will appear in the press. When that happens, I
always contact Omar. This happened recently with respect to a
subject. He released a very limited aspect of the complaint for
his own purposes. No, I am not aware of any releases by us or
our staff.
Ms. Lee. Now, in the circumstance where you have issues
with staff misconduct, are those issues required to be raised
to the board?
Mr. Vinovich. Yes. I mean, the only one that has happened
during my tenure is the one that is being discussed here today,
and it got a lot of attention from the board. Whether it is
required, it got attention.
Ms. Lee. My time has elapsed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. I now recognize Mr. Kilmer for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I spent the last 4 years
chairing the Select Committee on Modernization of Congress, and
now serve on the Subcommittee on Modernization that House Admin
set up. There are a couple of open recommendations from the
Modernization Committee that I just wanted to run by you. They
involve ethics rules, and the ability of Members to work for
the public good.
First, the Select Committee recommended that the House
update and provide clear ethical guidelines to allow our
offices to direct constituents to appropriate community
organizations, resources, and services. You know, as Members,
we know our local food banks, for example, and non-profits and
employers. You get the idea. That was one recommendation of the
Select Committee.
The other one was recommending that the House provide some
flexibility within House Rule 24 to allow district offices to
cosponsor constituent service events with nongovernmental
organizations to provide information on other resources to
constituents. For example, Members who want to be able to host
job fairs or resource fairs, there is that flexibility under
Senate rules, but not under House rules. One of our
recommendations was to do that.
The questions I have for you are more just interested in
inviting your information and guidance. One--and I do not know
who to direct this to, maybe Mr. Barnes because he served--do
you know, has OCE had to investigate instances of Members
breaking these kinds of ethics rules? Second, I think there is
interest by the Modernization Subcommittee to have ethics rules
that make sense, that allow Members to serve the public good to
the best of their ability, but that do not unnecessarily
prevent the sort of resource sharing and events that could
benefit our constituents? Want to get your appetite for working
with the Modernization Subcommittee in that regard.
Mr. Barnes. Well, I am aware of the work of the
Modernization Committee, and I think very highly of what you
all are trying to do, I think, to improve the operations of the
House. I am not aware of any cases that have come before us
with respect to the issues you raised.
I do have a couple of very quick recommendations for you
all to consider with respect to OCE. One would be, to give us,
which we do not currently have, subpoena power, not over
Members of Congress. We are not trying to subpoena Members of
Congress, but third parties. For example, when we are
investigating an allegation, we will go to a company that may
have evidence with respect to the allegation, and they say,
Well, we would love to give it to you if you would subpoena us.
We could--it would be very helpful for OCE investigations going
forward in the future to have subpoena power over third
parties, not over the subject of the investigation.
The other one that I would mention, and this a sort of a
real strong personal view on my part, when I was appointed
initially, the rules for OCE required concurrence by the
appointing party, the Speaker or the minority leader, with the
nomination of the other. When I was appointed by Speaker
Pelosi, then minority leader John Boehner had to agree with my
appointment. The rules were changed, so that is no longer the
case. Now it is just concurrence. They have to notify the other
that--I mean, it is just notification now. It is no longer an
agreement.
I looked at my Wikipedia profile not too long ago, and it
said that John Boehner had appointed me. Well, technically that
is true, because back when I was appointed, both of them had to
agree that this person should serve there. I think--although
the current board, I do not think has any problem at all--I
think just looking at the future, it is a better process for an
organization like this that is totally nonpartisan, should be
appointed in a way that is agreed by both parties.
Mr. Kilmer. I think one--and I do not want to speak for the
chair of the Modernization Subcommittee, but I think the
Members of the Committee are interested in working with OCE and
with the Ethics Committee to make sure if we were to provide
those sorts of flexibilities that I just mentioned, that we do
it in a way that does not create problems, right? We want to
have an ethical House. We also want Members to be able to serve
their constituents' needs and do things like have job fairs and
things like that as our recommendation suggested.
You know, there are some other things that we looked at,
and I think we would invite your input on other rules that we
ought to be thinking about, things like there are civic
technology organizations that want to be able to provide their
software and underlying code to Congress for its use to make
the institution function better. We are limited in that regard,
so I just raise that. I know I am out of time. I yield back.
Thank you.
Chairman Loudermilk. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Mr. Murphy for 5 minutes.
[3:44 p.m.]
Dr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
coming today. Interesting discussion.
Ethics is not an easy job. I did it in many, many
committees in medicine over the last 30 years. It is always
hard to judge people when there is a mirror in front of your
face all the time, and so, I appreciate your service.
I would like to ask Mr. Ashmawy--and I am not ganging up on
you, I am not doing that. I am trying--I know this is not easy.
I am not pretending it is easy, but you know, there were a
couple of incidents that you have had with alcohol and some
other things, some not your fault, some your fault.
I am just interested, you know, when someone is relieved of
pay and goes to get things straightaway, what process did you
have to go through to earn the trust of your coworkers again?
Mr. Ashmawy. Well, I think the most important aspect of the
program was a random urinalysis program. It meant--you may or
may not know, but it turns out they can now detect the alcohol
metabolites as far back as almost 4 days. I was subject to
that, continue to actually be subject to that, and I am very
proud to report that I have always had negative results in that
regard.
It also tests, by the way, for other drugs, but thankfully
that is not an issue.
Dr. Murphy. You mentioned syncope as being related to this.
Have you had a separate workup--I will not do a HIPAA violation
here, but have you--because that is, you know, if you are
alcohol, if you are syncope, you are out. It is not a short
little event.
Mr. Ashmawy. It is--yes. As you clearly understand, I have
had a number of episodes related to syncope. I have been
hospitalized on two occasions, most recently here at GW last
month. I am working through various specialists and addressing
that separately from my alcoholism.
Dr. Murphy. Are you allowed to drive?
Mr. Ashmawy. I do not drive.
Dr. Murphy. Okay. Alright. I will just leave that as it is.
I want to get a little bit into how you guys work, what this is
all about. Fortunately, I have not had, to my knowledge, any
ethical complaints. Can you guys point to where you get most of
your tips from?
Mr. Vinovich. Yes, sure, you can start.
Mr. Ashmawy. The Office of Congressional Ethics has--so one
of the things, just very quick, one of the things----
Dr. Murphy. Is there, like, a 1-800-Report-On-Your-
Congressman line?
Mr. Ashmawy. It is, like, it is--we are the public-facing
entity, and so, we do receive a tremendous amount of
unactionable material. It is one of the reasons why we do not
notify the subject of an incoming submission because so many
times, the submission itself is just irrelevant to the work
that we do and clearly, on its face, not a violation. It has
always been our belief that bothering Members of Congress----
Dr. Murphy. Are they anonymous?
Mr. Ashmawy. Sometimes they are anonymous, often they are
not. Mostly they are not.
Dr. Murphy. What do you all do in the instance where you
have the suspicion that it is a political attack? Is there a
special remediation? Is there special discernment? Let me just
ask Mr. Barnes on how that gets handled.
Mr. Barnes. We get those all the time, political attacks,
and we recog--one of the advantages of having former Members
serving on this board is that we----
Dr. Murphy. How can you tell the difference between a
political attack----
Mr. Barnes [continuing]. we can spot that pretty easily
and----
Dr. Murphy. Okay. How do you do? How do you action it? How
do you act on that?
Mr. Barnes. Well, we take that very much into account. That
does not mean a violation did not occur. There might be a
look--there would be on any--on any accusation, there is going
to be a look to see if there is any kinds of substance at all
to it. We will not even begin a preliminary investigation
without a pretty thorough analysis that indicates that
something might have happened.
Dr. Murphy. Who makes that decision as to whether to
proceed forward?
Mr. Barnes. Well, our staff of investigators, and, you
know, these are all former--they are all attorneys----
Dr. Murphy. Do you all sit and vote on it on a Committee to
proceed or----
Mr. Barnes [continuing]. they are all former investigators.
We have got a former detective who is sitting behind me here
who works for us. We have got, you know, a former--an attorney
for the Congress. We have got----
Dr. Murphy. Alright. Well, you have got--how do you make
the decisions?
Mr. Barnes [continuing]. former prosecutors. They make
these----
Dr. Murphy. How do you make the decision?
Mr. Barnes [continuing]. they go through these 50,000
things initially before they--they do not bring something to
the board that is obviously frivolous. We have got a lot of--we
get a lot of complaints about----
Dr. Murphy. Alright. Well, let me just ask one question.
Mr. Barnes [continuing]. about President Obama, about
President Trump, you know----
Dr. Murphy. Okay.
Mr. Barnes [continuing]. they have nothing to do with us.
Dr. Murphy. Alright. Who makes the final decision as to
whether you proceed with an allegation or something with a
Member of Congress?
Mr. Barnes. The board.
Dr. Murphy. The board?
Mr. Barnes. Only the board.
Dr. Murphy. Okay and is that by a majority--simple majority
vote, or how is that done?
Mr. Barnes. To start the investigation, it takes 2
members--one Democrat, one Republican. You cannot open an
investigation without that.
Now, usually--and almost all the stuff we do as the board
ends up being unanimous. As I said, we have a great spirit of
collegiality and respect, mutual respect. Almost everything,
way over 80 percent of everything we have ever done in my
tenure has been unanimous.
Dr. Murphy. Alright. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. The chair now recognizes Mr. Griffith
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Pushing the old button. Sorry.
Mr. Ashmawy, you just answered a question that raised alarm
bells in my mind. You do not drive. You were asked the
question, was your license--and you did not say it this way,
but was it suspended, and your response was that you do not
drive.
As a former criminal defense attorney--let me get there,
because I am not trying to put you on the spot. I am just
trying to get the facts--that would indicate to me multiple
driving under the influence charges.
Can you just explain that to me. Have you had more than
one? We have heard about the one driving under the influence.
Have you had more than one driving under the influence charge?
Mr. Ashmawy. I have had no other instances of----
Mr. Griffith. You are not legally prohibited from driving,
but you have chosen not to because of where you live and
because of circumstances related to your alcoholism?
Mr. Ashmawy. Because of the syncope that Congressman
Murphy----
Mr. Griffith. Murphy talked about. Sure.
Mr. Ashmawy [continuing]. also. I have a family. I do not
want to put them at risk. God forbid, I am behind the wheel and
I pass out, that would do tremendous harm to anyone in the car,
let alone----
Mr. Griffith. Right. As along as it is not court-related--
--
Mr. Ashmawy. No.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. I care, but I do not--it is not
part of my questioning today.
Mr. Vinovich----
Mr. Vinovich. Yes, sir.
Mr. Griffith [continuing]. you all looked at the
transgressions--the one transgression during the fight incident
using the official email or stationary or whatever, and you
looked into the alcohol situation. You all decided that it was
worth not pursuing any further. I am correct in restating that,
am I not?
Mr. Vinovich. Sure, yes.
Mr. Griffith. Okay. Then that raises the issue of
Congressmen. Now, I have always feared substance abuse, so I do
not use substances--alcohol or anything else--except caffeine.
Love my caffeine. That being said, would it be appropriate then
to excuse some inadvertent, inappropriate use of congressional
stationery or assets or doing something that maybe you did not
realize was a breach, as Mr. Ashmawy said at the beginning in
his opening? He did not realize that doing that was a breach of
the Ethics but probably is. Would you take that into
consideration for a Member who has significant substance abuse
issues?
I am thinking of a particular Member who has since got
himself cleaned up, but his congressional career is at least
gone for the time being. Does that come into play as to whether
or not you would refer to the Ethics Committee, because you
gave Mr. Ashmawy a pass? Why would not you give a Member of
Congress a pass?
Mr. Vinovich. I will say a couple things about that. The
Chairman introduced--again, this was----
Mr. Griffith. I am just asking, would not that require you,
if you are playing fair, would not that require you to give a
Member of Congress a pass if there was a clear issue related to
alcoholism or other substance abuse?
Mr. Vinovich. Yes, but I do not think the email and the
alcoholism are related, but I will answer it this way. Do we--
if we are looking at a complaint, do we sometimes choose not to
refer because we regard something as a de minimis violation.
The answer to that is yes.
Mr. Griffith. Okay. Now, let me go to another situation
here that I thought it was interesting in the confidentiality
issues. It says, if the board--I am looking at the
confidentiality disclosure stuff off y'all's website--if the
board recommends dismissal and the Committee also votes to
dismiss the matter, the report does not have to be made public.
Well, should not that be the decision of the accused? If it
is dismissed and not moving forward, should not that be the
decision--as opposed to ``does not have to be,'' should not
that be the decision of the accused whether it is released to
the public?
Mr. Vinovich. I mean, that is just, the rules speak to what
we do. I suppose if the subject receives----
Mr. Griffith. Should not it say, it should not be released?
I mean, I would think it should say it should not be released
unless released by the accused. Because it says it may not have
to be. Well, it should not be, because you have got people's
careers on the line here, and people who have worked hard to
have their reputation in the community. Sounds like to me if it
is not founded, it should not be released.
Let us go to confidentiality further. In 2015, Politico
Magazine wrote a story about how the OCE leaked a confidential
report to The Washington Post and Politico. Politico Magazine
wrote that they leaked the report because the Ethics Committee
told them to cease the investigation and refer to the matter to
the Ethics Committee instead, something that was within the
Ethics Committee's power to do. Mr. Ashmawy, what did your
investigation show? Who was the leaker?
Mr. Ashmawy. That matter was independently investigated. It
was determined that no one on staff was responsible for the
release of that report, but, however, as I mentioned----
Mr. Griffith. Well, who released it?
Mr. Ashmawy. I could not----
Mr. Griffith. Why did Politico falsely accuse you all of
releasing it?
Mr. Ashmawy. I cannot answer that either. I can simply say
that there was no evidence that it was improperly----
Mr. Griffith. Have you ever found out--have you ever found
anybody who released information that was confidential before
it was supposed to be released?
Mr. Ashmawy. Not by our office, no.
Mr. Griffith. You have never investigated--or you have
never found--your investigations have never found a leaker?
Because I am telling you, many Members of Congress believe that
your office leaks information, like a sieve.
Mr. Ashmawy. I can honestly tell you, sir, that we do not
and never have.
Mr. Griffith. Politico is just plain wrong? Their sources
were wrong?
Mr. Ashmawy. I can tell you it was not our office.
Mr. Griffith. Does OCE have subpoena power?
Mr. Ashmawy. We do not.
Mr. Griffith. Then why do you--it is my understanding from
several sources that you all have told witnesses that you will
have to subpoena them if they do not answer the questions.
Mr. Ashmawy. We definitely have not done that because we
have no authority to do that.
Mr. Griffith. If somebody has told me that, they are also
in error?
Mr. Ashmawy. What may have been told to them, which is
accurate, is that if they do not cooperate with our review, a
recommendation can be made to the Committee on Ethics, that the
Committee on Ethics subpoena them in the related matter. That
is something----
Mr. Griffith. If I find witnesses who say that has
happened, you will take disciplinary action against the
staffer? Yes or no?
Mr. Ashmawy. Well, I do not think it is----
Mr. Griffith. I did not say you had to terminate him. I am
saying disciplinary action.
Mr. Ashmawy. I would bring it--I would bring it up to the
board, and we would investigate it, but I can----
Mr. Griffith. You never find anything.
I yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. The gentleman yields.
As agreed upon by unanimous consent, I now recognize the
Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Steil, for the purposes of
an opening, slash, closing statement. The gentleman is
recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WISCONSIN
Chairman Steil. Hopefully 5 minutes of questioning on top
of that. I appreciate your generosity, Chairman, and thank you
for our witnesses for being here today.
Jurisdiction over the Office of Congressional Ethics is
split among House Administration, the Ethics Committee, and the
Rules Committee. However, after nearly two decades of
existence, the Office of Congressional Ethics has never
testified before Congress. I am glad to see that that has ended
today.
The Committee on House Administration continues our
aggressive oversight agenda. I think the American people
deserve to have confidence that Congress is accountable and
that congressional entities are accountable to the American
people. That is why the Ethics Committee's work is so critical.
The Office of Congressional Ethics was formed as a separate
office to review the conduct of Members and staff in a
nonpartisan and independent manner.
OCE is supposed to uphold the rules and ethics of the
House, and there is evidence that this has not been always the
case. Even today, OCE leadership, I think, continues to avoid
accountability.
As we do with each invited witness, we offered OCE's staff
director and chief counsel, Mr. Ashmawy, the opportunity to
share his views on OCE's operations and his work here.
Both Committee rules and House rules require each invited
witness to provide written testimony. Mr. Ashmawy declined to
provide his own written testimony to the Committee, but after
staff reminded him of our rules and offered him another
opportunity to provide testimony, he co-signed his name, at the
11th hour, onto the previously submitted testimony of the co-
chairs, who have very different rules at OCE.
The purpose of our hearing today is to take steps to
reestablish trust in the Office of Congressional Ethics, which
has become politicized over the last 15 years. I think it is
important to know that the OCE has spent $23 million since its
creation, and has an annual budget of $1.7 million.
I think it is important that we are ensuring taxpayers are
getting $23 million worth of value for their $23 million
investment. If not, we should identify where reforms are
necessary to ensure OCE fulfills its purpose and is functioning
in a nonpartisan and independent manner.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL
Jurisdiction over the Office of Congressional Ethics is
split among House Administration, the Ethics Committee, and the
Rules Committee. However, after nearly two decades of
existence, the Office of Congressional Ethics has never
testified before Congress. I am glad to see that that has ended
today.
The Committee on House Administration continues our
aggressive oversight agenda. I think the American people
deserve to have confidence that Congress is accountable and
that congressional entities are accountable to the American
people. That is why the Ethics Committee's work is so critical.
The Office of Congressional Ethics was formed as a separate
office to review the conduct of Members and staff in a
nonpartisan and independent manner.
OCE is supposed to uphold the rules and Ethics of the
House, and there is evidence that this has not been always the
case. Even today, OCE leadership, I think, continues to avoid
accountability.
As we do with each invited witness, we offered OCE's staff
director and chief counsel, Mr. Ashmawy, the opportunity to
share his views on OCE's operations and his work here.
Both Committee rules and House rules require each invited
witness to provide written testimony. Mr. Ashmawy declined to
provide his own written testimony to the Committee, but after
staff reminded him of our rules and offered him another
opportunity to provide testimony, he co-signed his name, at the
11th hour, onto the previously submitted testimony of the co-
chairs, who have very different rules at OCE.
The purpose of our hearing today is to take steps to
reestablish trust in the Office of Congressional Ethics, which
has become politicized over the last 15 years. I think it is
important to know that the OCE has spent $23 million since its
creation, and has an annual budget of $1.7 million.
I think it is important that we are ensuring taxpayers are
getting $23 million worth of value for their $23 million
investment. If not, we should identify where reforms are
necessary to ensure OCE fulfills its purpose and is functioning
in a nonpartisan and independent manner.
With the Chair's grace, I will move on directly to my
questions.
Chairman Loudermilk. The gentleman is recognized.
Chairman Steil. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Ashmawy, if I can, I am looking at a report from
Jeffrey Harris to the Board of Congressional Ethics, titled,
Investigative Incident and the Aftermath Involving Chief
Counsel Omar Ashmawy Occurring on February 14, 2015, in
Milford, Pennsylvania. We have discussed this a little bit
before.
Mr. Vinovich and Mr. Barnes, did you receive copies of this
report as well?
Mr. Vinovich. We did.
Mr. Barnes. Yes.
Chairman Steil. Mr. Ashmawy, you did as well, correct?
Mr. Ashmawy. I have seen a copy, yes.
Chairman Steil. In February 2015, you were involved in the
bar brawl in Pennsylvania that resulted in a lawsuit that was
settled out of court, correct?
Mr. Ashmawy. Not exactly.
Chairman Steil. Was there a lawsuit that was settled?
Mr. Ashmawy. There was an assault that occurred in a bar--I
am sorry, Congressman, you missed my previous answer----
Chairman Steil. No, I was actually privy to it. I was able
to watch while not being physically present in the room. Was
there a lawsuit associated with that was settled out of court?
I understand the conversation where the incident and you
referenced yourself as the victim. I am just curious if there
was a lawsuit that was settled out of court.
Mr. Ashmawy. There was a lawsuit in which I, the town, and
the then-chief of police was a party. Ultimately it was
settled.
Chairman Steil. Did you personally have to pay restitution
or damages as part of that settlement?
Mr. Ashmawy. The agreement, for what it is worth,
Congressman, is confidential. I am not permitted to give the
details of it.
Chairman Steil. Okay so no answer related to that.
You did use your official email to correspond with
Pennsylvania law enforcement and prosecutors, correct, as
previously noted?
Mr. Ashmawy. Other individuals, yes.
Chairman Steil. As we look at that, independent counsel
found your actions were improper. Do you agree with the outside
investigator that your emails could easily be viewed as
intimidating?
Mr. Ashmawy. I certainly would not have said that at the
time. I do not take any issue with the ultimate conclusion by
the investigator.
Chairman Steil. Not at the time, but looking back, you view
that your emails could have been viewed as intimidating?
Mr. Ashmawy. I see that--I see that he came to that
conclusion and take no issue with it.
Chairman Steil. Okay.
Mr. Vinovich--then I will come to you, Mr. Barnes, as
well--do you see using official resources into this manner can
be viewed as intimidating, Mr. Vinovich?
Mr. Vinovich. I suppose. I do not know that--conceivably,
yes.
Chairman Steil. Okay. Mr. Barnes?
Mr. Barnes. Sure, it could be seen to be that way.
Chairman Steil. Okay. Mr. Ashmawy, in one of the emails you
sent to the Pennsylvania victim witness coordinator, you wrote
that, quote, ``There are a growing number of individuals in the
Washington, D.C. community who have taken an interest in the
matter,'' end quote. Who in D.C. are you referring to in that
statement?
Mr. Ashmawy. At the time this issue was the topic of
frequent conversation with the then co-chairs of the OCE who
were checking in periodically, both with regard to my health
and the status of the investigation.
Chairman Steil. They were interested because they were
concerned both about your health but also about the
investigation?
Mr. Ashmawy. Yes.
Chairman Steil. Were they interested in the investigation
because these actions were unbecoming of the top ethics
official in Congress?
Mr. Ashmawy. At the time that they were making inquiry,
there was only the assault being investigated, and so, no, they
were not.
Chairman Steil. Very good.
Continuing, you and staff director and chief counsel--you
are the staff director and chief counsel for the Office of
Congressional Ethics, and were found to have abused your
position. Would you have kept an employee at OCE who was
accused of intimidation while using official resources?
Mr. Ashmawy. Based on the same wording and ruling of Mr.
Harris' report, I would be inclined to if they had the same
record that I had at the time, yes.
Chairman Steil. You believe you should have been able to
keep your job?
Mr. Ashmawy. I am very proud of the 14 years that I have
served, and I have served both the office and this country
honorably, yes, sir.
Chairman Steil. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Vinovich and then Mr.
Barnes, H. Res. 5, which Congress adopted earlier this year,
required the board to affirmatively vote to appoint and approve
compensation of OCE staff.
Mr. Vinovich, did you vote to appoint Mr. Ashmawy?
Mr. Vinovich. Yes.
Chairman Steil. Alright. Mr. Barnes?
Mr. Barnes. Yes. The board was unanimous in deciding to
reappoint Mr. Ashmawy.
Chairman Steil. It was a unanimous vote of the board?
Mr. Barnes. Unanimous vote of 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans,
yes, sir.
Chairman Steil. Thank you very much. I have no further
questions. I yield back.
Chairman Loudermilk. Well, the gentleman yields back.
Without objection, I would like to enter into the record
the article of Politico that was referred to several times
during the hearing, entitled, Congress Must Halt Its Own
Brewing Ethics Fight.
Without objection.
[The Politico article referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Steil. May I seek recognition----
Chairman Loudermilk. Yes.
Chairman Steil [continuing]. to insert--I seek unanimous
consent to insert a Washington Post article from 2015 regarding
the alleged leak at the OCE as well.
Chairman Loudermilk. Without objection.
[The Washington Post article referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Loudermilk. Well, again, I want to thank the
witnesses for being here today. I think this is--it is been
helpful to us. This is the first time that there has been an
oversight hearing or any oversight of the Office of
Congressional Ethics, and as I said, I think it is been very
helpful for us regarding decisions this Committee needs to make
going forward.
Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you, and we ask that you please respond to those
questions in writing.
Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days
to insert additional material into the record or to revise and
extend their remarks.
If there is no further business, I thank the Members for
their participation. Without objection, the Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]