[House Prints, 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



111th Congress                                         Review No.
 1st Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES       09-9012
--------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
                       UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
                           REPRESENTATIVES

                             --------


                            Report and Findings

                            Transmitted to the
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
                           on December 2, 2009
            and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of the
                           110th Congress as amended


            
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              December 2009



111th Congress                                         Review No.
 1st Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES       09-9012
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                    OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
                       UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
                           REPRESENTATIVES

                             --------


                            Report and Findings

                            Transmitted to the
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
                           on December 2, 2009
            and released publicly pursuant to H. Res. 895 of the
                           110th Congress as amended


            
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           December 2009


                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-538                       WASHINGTON : 2009



                               OFFICE OF
                        CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS
                                BOARD

                    UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                          ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

DAVID SKAGGS, Chair
PORTER GOSS, Co-Chair
YVONNE BURKE
KAREN ENGLISH
ALLISON HAYWARD
JAY EAGEN
WILLIAM FRENZEL
ABNER MIKVA
                                   ---------

Leo J. Wise, Chief Counsel & Staff Director
Paul J. Solis, Investigative Counse;




                                 REPORT

                           Review No. 09-9012

    The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (hereafter 
the ``Board''), by a vote of no less than four members, on 
November 20, 2009, adopted the following report and findings 
and ordered them to be transmitted to the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct of the United States House of 
Representatives.
    SUBJECT: Representative Todd Tiahrt.
    NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: In Fiscal Year 2009, 
Representative Todd Tiahrt authored earmarks for clients of the 
PMA Group, Inc. (``PMA''). During campaign cycles 2008 and 
2010, Representative Tiahrt received contributions to his 
campaign committee and Leadership PAC from PMA's Political 
Action Committee (``PAC''), PMA employees, the PACs of PMA 
clients for whom he authored an earmark, and the employees of 
those clients.
    If Representative Tiahrt solicited or accepted 
contributions or other items of value in exchange for or 
because of an official act, or solicited or accepted 
contributions or other items of value in a manner which gave 
the appearance that the contributions were linked to an 
official act, then Representative Tiahrt may have violated 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 201(b) (Bribery), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c) (Illegal 
Gratuities), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353 (Gifts), and House Rules and 
Standards of Conduct.
    RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct further review the above 
allegations.
    VOTES IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 4
    VOTES IN THE NEGATIVE: 0
    ABSTENTIONS: 2
    MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNATED TO PRESENT THIS 
REPORT TO THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE: Leo Wise, Staff Director & 
Chief Counsel.
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

  I. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 5
          A. Summary of Allegations..............................     5
          B. Jurisdictional Statement............................     5
          C. Procedural History..................................     6
          D. Summary of Investigative Activity...................     6
 II. REPRESENATIVE TIAHRT'S EARMARK PROCESS, CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING, AND 
     RELATIONSHIP TO PMA............................................. 8
          A. Relevant Law, Regulations, Rules or Standards of 
              Conduct............................................     8
          B. Earmark Process.....................................    11
          C. Campaign Fundraising................................    13
          D. Relationship to PMA & PMA Clients...................    14
          E. Contributions Linked to Official Acts by Outside 
              Entities...........................................    18
III. CONCLUSION..................................................... 19
 IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR 
     THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS...................................... 19
                  FINDING OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW

                           Review No. 09-9012

    On November 20, 2009, the Board of the Office of 
Congressional Ethics (hereafter the ``Board'' and the ``OCE'') 
adopted the following findings of fact and accompanying 
citations to law, regulations, rules and standards of conduct 
(in italics). The Board notes that these findings do not 
constitute a determination that a violation actually occurred.

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    1. Representative Tiahrt would not consent to an interview 
with the OCE, nor would he allow members of his staff, the 
Chief of Staff and Military Legislative Assistant (hereafter 
``MLA''), to be interviewed by the OCE.

                       A. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

    2. If Representative Tiahrt solicited or accepted 
contributions or other items of value in exchange for or 
because of an official act, or solicited or accepted 
contributions or other items of value in a manner which gave 
the appearance that the contributions were linked to an 
official act, then Representative Tiahrt may have violated 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 201(b) (Bribery), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c) (Illegal 
Gratuities), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353 (Gifts), and House Rules and 
Standards of Conduct.

                      B. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

    3. The OCE has jurisdiction to review any alleged violation 
by a Member, officer, or employee of the House of any law, 
rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to 
the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee in the 
performance of his duties or the discharge of his 
responsibilities.\1\ The allegations that are the subject of 
this review concern Representative Tiahrt, a Member of the 
United States House of Representatives from Kansas. The 
Resolution the United States House of Representatives adopted 
creating the OCE directs that, ``[n]o review shall be 
undertaken . . . by the board of any alleged violation that 
occurred before the date of adoption of this resolution.'' \2\ 
The House adopted this Resolution on March 11, 2008. Because 
the conduct under review occurred or relates to actions taken 
after March 11, 2008, review by the OCE is in accordance with 
the Resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  H. Res 895, 110th Cong. (2008) (``the Resolution'').
    \2\  Id. at Sec. 1(e) (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

    4. The OCE received a written request for a preliminary 
review in this matter signed by at least two members of the 
Board on July 6, 2009. The preliminary review commenced on that 
date (July 6, 2009).\3\ The preliminary review was scheduled to 
end on August 5, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  A preliminary review is ``requested'' in writing by members of 
the Board of the OCE. The request for a preliminary review is 
``received'' by the OCE on a date certain. According to the Resolution, 
the timeframe for conducting a preliminary review is 30 days from the 
date of receipt of the Board's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    5. At least three members of the Board voted to initiate a 
second-phase review in this matter on August 5, 2009. The 
second phase review commenced on August 6, 2009.\4\ The second-
phase review was scheduled to end on September 20, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  According to the Resolution, the Board must vote (as opposed 
to make a written authorization) on whether to conduct a second-phase 
review in a matter before the expiration of the 30-day preliminary 
review. If the Board votes for a second-phase, the second-phase 
commences the day after the preliminary review ends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    6. The Board voted to extend the 45-day second-phase review 
by an additional 14 days on September 17, 2009, as provided for 
under H. Res 895.\5\ Following the extension, the second-phase 
review was scheduled to end on October 5, 2009.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  Id. at Sec. 1(c)(2)(A)(ii) (2008).
    \6\  The 14-day extension expires after the 45-day second-phase 
review ends. The 14-day extension does not begin on the date of the 
Board vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    7. Representative Tiahrt presented a statement to the 
Board, under Rule 9(B) of the OCE's Rules for the Conduct of 
Investigations, on November 9, 2009.
    8. The Board voted to refer the matter to the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct for further review and adopted 
these findings on November 20, 2009.
    9. This report and findings in this matter were transmitted 
to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on December 
2, 2009.

                  D. SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY

    10. Due to the nature of the allegations in this review, 
the OCE's investigation required the collection of information 
from a number of sources.
    11. The OCE reviewed publically available records of 
campaign contributions to the campaign committees of Members of 
the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense from 
recipients of earmarks during the 2008 and 2010 campaign 
cycles. The review included campaign contributions to the 
leadership PACs, if any, of these Members.
    12. Specifically, the OCE reviewed campaign contributions 
to these Members from donors that were affiliated with the 
lobbying firm of PMA, i.e., contributions from the PMA PAC, PMA 
employees, the PACs of corporate clients of PMA and employees 
of PMA clients.
    13. The OCE also reviewed campaign contributions to Members 
of the Defense Subcommittee from PACs of non-PMA clients, and 
employees of non-PMA clients.
    14. Beyond Members of the Defense Subcommittee, the 
investigation included a review of campaign contributions from 
PMA clients and non-PMA clients to Representatives who are not 
on the Defense Subcommittee, but authored defense earmarks PMA 
clients and non-PMA clients.
    15. The OCE requested information from forty PMA clients 
that received earmarks from Members of the Defense Subcommittee 
for fiscal years 2008 to 2010.
    16. All of the PMA clients that the OCE contacted 
cooperated with the investigation, except for two.
    17. Aeroflex and Kimball and Associates are the only PMA 
clients that refused to cooperate with the investigation.
    18. Thirty-eight PMA clients and Representatives' offices 
produced documents totaling approximately 200,000 pages. These 
PMA clients also made witnesses available for interviews upon 
request of the OCE.
    19. Based on the information discovered during the review 
of the produced documents, the OCE interviewed twenty-six 
individual PMA client witnesses.
    20. In addition, the OCE interviewed six witnesses who were 
formerly employed as lobbyists with PMA during the 2008 and 
2010 campaign cycles.
    21. In sum, the OCE requested and received documentary, and 
in some cases testimonial, information from the following 
sources:
          (1) 21st Century Systems, Inc.;
          (2) AAR Composites;
          (3) Advanced Acoustic Concepts;
          (4) Advanced Concepts & Technologies Intl.;
          (5) Aircraft Interior Products;
          (6) Applied Global Technologies;
          (7) Argon ST;
          (8) Boeing Corporation;
          (9) Carnegie Mellon University;
          (10) Coda Octopus Group;
          (11) Concurrent Technologies Corporation;
          (12) Conemaugh Health Systems;
          (13) Cryptek;
          (14) DDL OMNI Engineering;
          (15) DRS Technologies;
          (16) EM Solutions;
          (17) General Atomics;
          (18) General Dynamics;
          (19) Goodrich Corporation;
          (20) Innovative Concepts, Inc.;
          (21) ITT Corporation;
          (22) Lockheed Martin Corporation;
          (23) MobilVox;
          (24) NuVant Systems, Inc.;
          (25) Optimal Solutions & Technologies;
          (26) Parametric Technology Corporation;
          (27) Planning Systems Inc.;
          (28) Profile Systems;
          (29) Prologic, Inc.;
          (30) QTL Biosystems;
          (31) RaySat Antenna Systems;
          (32) Rockwell Collins;
          (33) Samueli Institute;
          (34) Sierra Nevada Corporation;
          (35) Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.;
          (36) Teledyne Controls;
          (37) Windber Research Institute;
          (38) Xunlight Corporation;
          (39) Vice President, 21st Century Systems, Inc.;
          (40) Chief Administrative Officer, 21st Century 
        Systems, Inc.;
          (41) Vice President for Communications, 21st Century 
        Systems, Inc.;
          (42) PAC Treasurer, 21st Century Systems, Inc.;
          (43) General Manager, AAR Composites;
          (44) Chief Operating Officer, AAR Composites;
          (45) Chief Executive Officer, Applied Global 
        Technologies;
          (46) Vice President, Applied Global Technologies;
          (47) PAC Treasurer, DRS Technologies;
          (48) President, DRS Technologies;
          (49) Chief Operating Officers, Optimal Solutions & 
        Technologies;
          (50) Chief Executive Officer, Optimal Solutions & 
        Technologies;
          (51) Director, Optimal Solutions & Technologies;
          (52) CEO, Samueli Institute;
          (53) Vice President, Sierra Nevada Corporation;
          (54) Congressional Affairs Director, Sierra Nevada 
        Corporation;
          (55) Assistant to Business Development Director, 
        Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.;
          (56) Business Development Director, Teledyne 
        Continental Motors, Inc.;
          (57) PAC Treasurer, Teledyne Controls;
          (58) General Manager, Teledyne Controls;
          (59) Vice President, Teledyne Controls;
          (60) Director of Contracts, Teledyne Controls;
          (61) Contract Administrator, Teledyne Controls;
          (62) Legislative Affairs Director, Teledyne Controls;
          (63) Associate General Counsel, Teledyne Controls;
          (64) President, Teledyne Controls;
          (65) PMA Lobbyist 1;
          (66) PMA Lobbyist 2;
          (67) PMA Lobbyist 3;
          (68) PMA Lobbyist 4;
          (69) PMA Lobbyist 5; and
          (70) PMA Lobbyist 6.

 II. REPRESENATIVE TIAHRT'S EARMARK PROCESS, CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING, AND 
                          RELATIONSHIP TO PMA

      A. RELEVANT LAW, REGULATIONS, RULES OR STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

    22. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(b)--Bribery of public officials and 
witnesses
          ``(b) Whoever--
        (2) being a public official or person selected to be a 
        public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly 
        demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive 
        or accept anything of value personally or for any other 
        person or entity, in return for:
          (A) being influenced in the performance of any 
        official act . .  . .''
    23. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c)--Illegal Gratuities
          ``(c) Whoever--
          (1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper 
        discharge of official duty--
          (B) being a public official, former public official, 
        or person selected to be a public official, otherwise 
        than as provided by law for the proper discharge of 
        official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, 
        receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept 
        anything of value personally for or because of any 
        official act performed or to be performed by such 
        official or person . . . .''
    24. ``An illegal gratuity . . . may constitute merely a 
reward for
        some future act that the public official will take (and 
        may have already determined to take), or for a past act 
        that he has already taken.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  House Ethics Manual (2008) at 79. See also United States v. 
Sun-Diamond Growers, 526 U.S. 398, 404 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    25. House Rules and Standards of Conduct
        ``[T]he scope of the House standards of conduct in this 
        area is broader than that of the criminal bribery 
        statute . . . the House standards of conduct generally 
        preclude any link between the solicitation or receipt 
        of a contribution and a specific official action.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\  Memorandum of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 
Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against 
Representative DeLay. Accessed online on June 24, 2009 at http://
ethics.house.gov/Investigations/Default.aspx?Section=18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Put another way, there are fundraising activities 
        that do not violate any criminal statute but well may 
        violate House standards of conduct.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\  Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``[T]here are certain proffered campaign contributions 
        that must be declined, and certain fundraising 
        opportunities that must be forgone, solely because they 
        create an appearance of improper conduct.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\  Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``[N]o solicitation of a campaign or political 
        contribution may be linked to an action taken or to be 
        taken by a Member or employee in his or her official 
        capacity.'' \11\ In addition, a Member may not accept 
        any contribution that is linked with any specific 
        official action taken or to be taken by that Member.'' 
        \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\  House Ethics Manual (2008) at 147.
    \12\  Memorandum of the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, 
Recommendations for disposition of the complaint filed against 
Representative DeLay. Accessed online on June 24, 2009 at http://
ethics.house.gov/Investigations/Default.aspx?Section=18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``It is probably not wrong for the campaign managers of 
        a legislator . . . to request contributions from those 
        for whom the legislator has done appreciable favors, 
        but this should never be presented as a payment for the 
        services rendered. Moreover, the possibility of such a 
        contribution should never be suggested by the 
        legislator or his staff as the time the favor is done. 
        Furthermore, a decent interval of time should be 
        allowed to lapse so that neither party will feel that 
        there is a close connection between the two acts. The 
        Standards Committee has long advised Members and staff 
        that they should always exercise caution to avoid even 
        the appearance that solicitations of campaign 
        contributions are connected in any way with an action 
        taken or to be taken in their official capacity.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\  Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``[A] Member should not sponsor or participate in any 
        solicitation that offers donors any special access to 
        the Member in the Member's official capacity.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\  Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``[G]overnment officials should `never discriminate 
        unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or 
        privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or 
        not.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\  Id. at 151 (citing Code of Ethics for Government 
Service,Sec. 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        `` `[P]ublic office is a public trust,' and the public 
        has a right to expect House Members and staff to 
        exercise impartial judgment in performing their 
        duties.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\  Id. at 151 (citing Code of Ethics for Government 
Service,Sec. 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        `` `Ethics rules, if reasonably drafted and reliably 
        enforced, increase the likelihood that legislators (and 
        other officials) will make decisions and policies on 
        the basis of the merits of issues, rather than on the 
        basis of factors (such as personal gain) that should be 
        irrelevant.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\  Id. at 151 (citing Congressional Ethics Reform: Hearing 
Before the Bipartisan Task Force on Ethics, U.S. House of 
Representatives, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 113 (1989)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    26. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353--Gifts to Federal Employees
        ``(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b), no Member 
        of Congress . . . shall solicit or accept anything of 
        value from a person--
          (1) seeking official action from, doing business with 
        . . . the individual's employing entity; or
          (2) whose interests may be substantially affected by 
        the performance or nonperformance of the individual's 
        official duties.
        (b)(1) Each supervising ethics office is authorized to 
        issue rules or regulations implementing the provisions 
        of this section and providing reasonable exceptions as 
        may be appropriate.
          (2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), a Member, 
        officer, or employee may accept a gift pursuant to 
        rules and regulations established by such individual's 
        supervising ethics office pursuant to paragraph (1)
          (B) No gift may be accepted pursuant to subparagraph 
        (A) in return for being influenced in the performance 
        of an official act.''
    27. House Ethics Manual--Soliciting Campaign and Political
        Contributions
        While the federal gift statute (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353) 
        broadly restricts the ability of House Members and 
        staff to solicit things of value from virtually anyone, 
        even when no personal benefit to the solicitor is 
        involved, legislative materials concerning the statute 
        state that it does not apply to the solicitation of 
        political contributions. Consistent with those 
        materials, the Standards Committee has long taken the 
        position that the restrictions on solicitation set 
        forth in that statute do not apply to political 
        solicitations. However, in soliciting campaign or 
        political contributions, Members and staff are subject 
        to a number of other restrictions, as follows.
        ``A Contribution linked to an Official Action May Not 
        Be Accepted
        . . . no solicitation of a campaign or political 
        contribution may be linked to any action taken or to be 
        taken by a Member or employee in his or her official 
        capacity.
        In a similar vein, a Member or employee may not accept 
        any contribution that the donor links to any official 
        action that the Member or employee has taken, or is 
        being asked to take. In this respect, a campaign or 
        political contribution is treated like any other gift, 
        and acceptance of a contribution in these circumstances 
        may implicate a provision of the federal gift statute 
        (5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353) or the criminal statutes on 
        bribery and illegal gratuities.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\  House Ethics Manual (2008) at 150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           B. EARMARK PROCESS

    28. The Board notes that Representative Tiahrt would not 
consent to an interview with the OCE, nor would he allow 
members of his staff, including the Chief of Staff, Jeff Kahrs, 
and the MLA, Jim Richardson, to be interviewed by the OCE. 
Representative Tiahrt's counsel submitted a written memorandum 
that she prepared and represented was an outline for his 
process for vetting and reviewing appropriations requests.\19\ 
However, the Board notes that this attorney has no personal 
knowledge of the earmarks under review and therefore, the 
submitted outline is not considered evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\  This process is also on Representative Tiahrt's website, 
available at, http://www.house.gov/toddtiahrt/pdf/defense--project--
vetting--process.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    29. During the time period of the 2008 and 2010 election 
cycles, Representative Tiahrt authored three earmarks for PMA 
clients.
    30. The PMA clients that received earmarks during this 
period are Boeing ($9M) and Aeroflex ($1M and $2.4M).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\  H.R. 2638, Pub. L. 110-329 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    31. In response to the OCE's Request for Information 
(``RFI''), Representative Tiahrt produced internal documents 
related to appropriations requests and earmarks.
    32. The documents include emails between entities 
requesting appropriation earmarks and Jim Richardson, 
Representative Tiahrt's MLA or ``Defense Appropriations Aide.'' 
\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\  See example in attached Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    33. Representative Tiahrt submitted the following document 
to the OCE which is titled ``Congressman Todd Tiahrt Defense 
Appropriations Form.''

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    34. In addition, the Board notes the following email that 
appears to describe part of the defense appropriations process.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    35. Representative Tiahrt, Jim Richardson and Jeff Kahrs 
also submitted written, signed statements to the OCE briefly 
discussing their general roles and responsibilities.\22\ All 
three denied any wrongdoing. The OCE did not request these 
documents, nor were they accepted in lieu of witness 
interviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\  Letter from Todd Tiahrt to Leo Wise, July 31, 2009; Letter 
from Jeff Kahrs to Leo Wise, July 31, 2009; Letter from Jim Richardson 
to Leo Wise, July 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    36. The Board notes that the Legislative Affairs Director 
of Teledyne Controls, when interviewed by the OCE, stated that 
Jim Richardson, Representative Tiahrt's MLA, was present at all 
fundraisers he attended.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\  Memorandum of Interview of Teledyne Controls Legislative 
Affairs Director, October 6, 2009 (Exhibit 2 at 09-9012--5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    37. Because Representative Tiahrt would not make Jim 
Richardson available for an interview with the OCE, the Board 
does not know why Richardson was present or, more specifically, 
whether he discussed earmarks with campaign contributors at 
these fundraisers.

                        C. CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING

    38. During the 2008 and 2010 campaign cycles, 
Representative Tiahrt's campaign committee, ``Kansans for 
Tiahrt,'' received $8,950 in contributions from PMA's PAC and 
employees. Kansans for Tiahrt and Tiahrt's Leadership PAC, 
``Heart PAC'' also received $32,300 in contributions from 
Boeing's PAC and employees. Heart PAC also received $2,700 in 
contributions from AeroPAC. Teledyne Technologies Inc.\24\ PAC 
has contributed $4,000 corresponding to the 2008 election 
cycle.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\  Teledyne Controls and Teledyne Continental Motors Inc. are 
business units of Teledyne Technologies Inc.
    \25\  The contribution amounts are from the reports that 
Representative Tiahrt filed with the Federal Election Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    39. In response to the OCE's RFI, Representative Tiahrt 
produced internal documents related to fundraising. The 
documents included emails, invitations to fundraisers, and 
fundraiser flyers. However, because Representative Tiahrt did 
not make himself available for an interview, the OCE has an 
incomplete factual record related to fundraising processes.
    40. Many of the emails submitted to the OCE concerning 
fundraising were authored by Jeff Kahrs, the Chief of 
Staff.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\  See example in attached Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  D. RELATIONSHIP TO PMA & PMA CLIENTS

    41. The OCE obtained documents in which PMA clients discuss 
making campaign contributions to Representative Tiahrt and also 
discuss the receipt of earmarks authored by Representative 
Tiahrt.
    42. A February 4, 2008 email \27\ contains a statement that 
the ``justification'' for a contribution from the PMA client's 
PAC to Representative Tiahrt is a ``follow-on'' for a $1 
million earmark authored by Representative Tiahrt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\  The email was created in February 2008 and discusses 
contributions and appropriations in Fiscal Year 08.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    43. An April 13, 2007 email \28\ connects a PAC request 
with Representative Tiahrt's interest in supporting a Teledyne 
project. Within the same paragraph, a PAC contribution and 
Representative Tiahrt's project support are discussed. Further, 
the email demonstrates the PAC treasurer's action based on the 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\  The email was created in 2007 and discusses a contribution 
submitted for the 2008 election cycle.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    44. In addition, the Board notes that a February 7, 2008 
``Request for TDY-PAC Contribution'' evidences a similar 
linkage. Teledyne Controls highlights the FY-08 ``plus-up'' 
request and $1 million earmark obtained from Representative 
Tiahrt. The document also contains a statement that Teledyne 
Controls intends to seek additional project funding for Fiscal 
Year 09.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    45. When interviewed about the document, the Teledyne 
Controls PAC treasurer stated that he created the form.\29\ The 
questions attempt to address how the PAC contribution will 
benefit Teledyne Controls' business; the questions are listed 
in order of importance to Teledyne Controls.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\  Memorandum of Interview of Teledyne Controls PAC Treasurer, 
October 6, 2009 (Exhibit 4 at 09-9012--10).
    \30\  Id. at 09-9012--10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    46. Another ``Request for TDY-PAC Contribution,'' dated 
March 28, 2008, contains a statement that MLA Jim Richardson 
told Teledyne that Representative Tiahrt intended to support 
the funding request. The Board notes that this information is 
included in an internal Teledyne document, the purpose of which 
is to cause the Teledyne PAC to make a contribution to 
Representative Tiahrt.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    47. When interviewed about the role of earmarks in PAC 
decisions, Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.'s Business 
Development Director stated that Teledyne would be more likely 
to support the campaigns of those Members that supported the 
company; however the witness stated that he never engaged in a 
``quid pro quo'' during his time as a lobbyist. The witness 
stated that in his experience, Members are very careful about 
separating legislative actions from campaign actions. He stated 
that no Member has ever ``leaned on him'' for 
contributions.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\  Memorandum of Interview of Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc. 
Business Development Director, October 5, 2009 (Exhibit 5 at 09-9012--
15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    48. Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc.'s Business 
Development Director stated that he has a ``familiar'' 
relationship with Representative Tiahrt and that he has 
personally received several telephone calls from Representative 
Tiahrt himself soliciting campaign contributions. These calls 
occurred roughly two to three years ago. During these calls, 
the witness stated that Representative Tiahrt never discussed a 
Teledyne project.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\  Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    49. The Board notes that the witness' statements are 
inconsistent with the content of the Teledyne emails and PAC 
documents referenced in findings 42, 43, 44, and 46.
    50. When interviewed, Teledyne Controls' Legislative 
Affairs Director stated that he recalled attending a fundraiser 
for Representative Tiahrt and told Representative Tiahrt about 
the specifics of one of the company's projects.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\  Memorandum of Interview of Teledyne Controls Legislative 
Affairs Director, October 6, 2009 (Exhibit 2 at 09-9012--5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    51. The OCE has also obtained documents that discuss 
meetings, briefings, and other communications between 
Representative Tiahrt, his staff, and former PMA employees 
concerning earmarks and fundraising.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\  See examples in attached Exhibit 6. All screen captures 
displayed within the findings of fact are contained in attached Exhibit 
7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      E. CONTRIBUTIONS LINKED TO OFFICIAL ACTS BY OUTSIDE ENTITIES

    52. The OCE found evidence that entities seeking earmarks 
from Members of Congress appear to have linked contributions to 
Members' campaigns and/or PACs to specific legislative acts.
    53. The federal gift statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7353, prohibits 
the solicitation or acceptance of anything of value from a 
person seeking official action from or doing business with the 
House, or from someone whose interests may be substantially 
affected by the performance or nonperformance of a Member's, 
Officer's or staff member's official duties. The statute also 
provides that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
may enact reasonable exceptions to the prohibition. According 
to the Ethics Manual, the Standards Committee has long taken 
the position that the restrictions on solicitation set forth in 
the statute do not apply to political solicitations. However, 
Members and staff are subject to a number of other restrictions 
regarding the solicitation of campaign or political 
contributions under the rules of the House.
    54. Under House rules, a Member or employee may not accept 
any contribution that the donor links to any official action 
that the Member or employee has taken, or is being asked to 
take. If a donor's contribution is linked to any official 
action, it is treated like any other gift and may be subject as 
such to the federal gift statute and the criminal statutes on 
bribery and illegal gratuities.
    55. The Board notes that the examples provided in the 
Ethics Manual of instances where a Member may be in violation 
of the House's rule against accepting a contribution linked to 
an official action are all instances in which the Member has 
some degree of knowledge of the link. As a result, it stands to 
reason that it is unlikely a violation of the rule could occur 
unless and until a Member is aware of the link and does nothing 
to remedy the situation.
    56. The Board notes that because the OCE was unable to 
interview Representative Tiahrt or his staff, the Board is 
unable to conclude whether the Member was aware or not that the 
donor linked the contribution to an official act.

                            III. CONCLUSION

    57. Given that the documents the OCE has obtained through 
its investigation show potential connections between 
appropriations requests from former PMA clients and campaign 
contributions from the same clients to Representative Tiahrt, 
without further information that can only be obtained through 
witness interviews, the OCE cannot fully assess Representative 
Tiahrt's role in the former clients' intentions to make 
contributions based on receipt of earmarks. In the event that 
the OCE is unable to obtain information necessary to reach this 
determination, and there is probable cause to believe the 
allegations based on obtained evidence, the Board may refer the 
matter to the Standards Committee for further review. The Board 
finds that the evidence gathered in the OCE's review supports a 
finding of probable cause.
    58. For the above reasons, the Board recommends that the 
Standards Committee further review the above described 
allegations concerning Representative Tiahrt.

 IV. INFORMATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND RECOMMNEDATIONS FOR 
                       THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS

    59. The OCE was unable to interview Representative Tiahrt, 
Representative Tiahrt's Chief of Staff, or Representative 
Tiahrt's MLA.
    60. In every instance, the OCE asked the recipient of an 
OCE RFI to identify any information they withheld and the 
reason they were withholding it. However, absent the authority 
to subpoena the evidence in possession of the witness, it is 
impossible for the OCE to verify if information was withheld, 
but not documented.
    61. In some instances documents were redacted or specific 
information was not provided. For instance, DRS Technologies 
provided evidence responsive to the OCE's RFI but indicated 
they would not provide any information regarding their 
``Legislative Strategy.''
    62. In at one least instance, the OCE had reason to believe 
a witness withheld information requested, but did not comply 
with the OCE's request that they identify what was being 
withheld. Specifically Boeing represented that they had fully 
cooperated. However, Boeing indicated that they had no 
electronic mail responsive to the OCE's RFI. The OCE then 
received, from another source, electronic mail to and from 
Boeing that were in fact responsive to the OCE's request.
    63. The Board also notes that while the OCE was able to 
interview six former employees of PMA that provided general 
information on PMA and its business practices, many remaining 
former employees either refused to consent to interviews or did 
not return calls from the OCE. In addition, the OCE was unable 
to obtain any evidence within PMA's possession.
    64. The Board recommends that the Standards Committee seek 
releases from or issue subpoenas to Representative Tiahrt, 
Representative Tiahrt's Chief of Staff, Representative Tiahrt's 
MLA.


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

