[House Report 109-733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-733
_______________________________________________________________________
House Calendar No. 254
INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO IMPROPER
CONDUCT INVOLVING MEMBERS AND CURRENT OR FORMER HOUSE PAGES
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF
OFFICIAL CONDUCT
MR. HASTINGS FROM THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE SUBMITTED THE
FOLLOWING REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
December 19, 2006.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California,
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois Ranking Minority Member
STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
William V. O'Reilly, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Ed Cassidy, Chief of Staff to the Chairman
Bari Schwartz, Special Counsel to the Ranking Minority Member
Kenneth E. Kellner, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
C. Morgan Kim, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
Pete Van Hartesveldt, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
Stan P. Simpson, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
Carol Dixon, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
Washington, DC, December 19, 2006.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to Rule 21(a) of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, and Clauses 3(a)(2) and (b) of
Rule 11 of the House of Representatives, and by direction of
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we herewith
transmit the attached Report of the Investigative Subcommittee,
``Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct
Involving Members and Current or Former House Pages.''
Sincerely,
Doc Hastings,
Chairman.
Howard L. Berman,
Ranking Minority Member.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................1
II. CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY............................................3
A. Establishment of the Investigative Subcommittee....... 3
B. Investigative Process................................. 6
III.BACKGROUND INFORMATION...........................................10
A. The Page Program...................................... 10
1. Eligibility and Selection Process................. 10
2. Organization of the Page Program.................. 11
3. The House Page Residence Hall..................... 11
4. The House Page School............................. 12
5. The Page Board.................................... 12
6. Harassment Policy................................. 13
B. The Office of The Speaker............................. 13
IV. NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE....................................15
A. Rep. Mark Foley....................................... 15
1. Rep. Foley's Interaction with Pages Generally..... 15
2. Rep. Foley's Reported Page Dorm Visits............ 16
3. Former Page Sponsored By Rep. Kolbe............... 17
4. Other Foley Conduct Related to Pages or Former
Pages............................................ 21
B. Efforts to Address Rep. Foley's Conduct............... 22
1. Communications Directly to Rep. Foley............. 22
2. Communications to Kirk Fordham.................... 23
3. Communications with Ted Van Der Meid.............. 24
4. Communications with Scott Palmer.................. 25
5. Communications with Other Members of the Page
Board............................................ 28
C. Rep. Foley's E-Mails to a Former Alexander Page....... 28
D. Inquires by the St. Petersburg Times.................. 30
E. Intervention by Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus............. 32
1. Rep. Alexander's Office Contacts the Speaker's
Office........................................... 32
2. Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus Confront Rep. Foley..... 34
F. Continuing Press Interest; Rep. Alexander Briefs
Majority Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds; Majority
Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds Reportedly Brief
Speaker Hastert...................................... 36
G. The E-Mails Are Published and the Instant Messages
Surface.............................................. 40
H. Rep. Foley Resigns.................................... 42
I. Events After Rep. Foley's Resignation................. 43
V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................46
A. Summary of Findings................................... 46
B. Review of Relevant Standards of Conduct............... 52
C. Conclusions Regarding Conduct......................... 53
1. Treatment of Foley's Conduct Unrelated to the E-
mails............................................ 53
2. The Handling of the 2005 E-Mails.................. 55
3. Rep. Foley's Resignation.......................... 58
D. Recommendations....................................... 59
Exhibit List
Exhibit 1: House Resolution 1065, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. (Sept.
29, 2006)...................................................... 61
Exhibit 2: Subpoena for documents from Rep. Mark Foley dated Nov.
16, 2006....................................................... 64
Exhibit 3: Subpoena for testimony from Rep. Mark Foley dated Nov.
16, 2006....................................................... 68
Exhibit 4: Letter from counsel to Rep. Mark Foley to Kenneth E.
Kellner, Esq., dated Nov. 21, 2006............................. 69
Exhibit 5: Letter from Christopher M. McGaffin to The Honorable
Wilson Livingood dated Oct. 16, 2006........................... 70
Exhibit 6: Press release by Representative Jim Kolbe dated Oct.
10, 2006....................................................... 71
Exhibit 7: Statement by Scott Palmer to Speaker Dennis L. Hastert
dated Oct. 4, 2006............................................. 72
Exhibit 8: Electronic mail messages dated from July 29, 2005 to
Sept. 27, 2005................................................. 73
Exhibit 9: Electronic mail message from Royal Alexander to Mike
Stokke dated June 1, 2006...................................... 94
Exhibit 10: Excerpt from stopsexpredatores.blogspot.com website
dated Sept. 24, 2006........................................... 95
Exhibit 11: Excerpt from wonkette.com website dated Sept. 27,
2006........................................................... 97
Exhibit 12: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 28, 2006, 3:06
p.m............................................................ 99
Exhibit 13: Transcripts of instant messages...................... 101
Exhibit 14: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 29, 2006, 3:02
p.m............................................................ 205
Exhibit 15: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 29, 2006, 5:29
p.m............................................................ 207
Exhibit 16: Preliminary report from the Office of the Speaker
dated Sept. 30, 2006........................................... 210
Calendar No. 254
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-733
======================================================================
INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO IMPROPER CONDUCT INVOLVING
MEMBERS AND CURRENT OR FORMER HOUSE PAGES
_______
December 19, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hastings, from the Investigative Subcommittee submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct]
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On Friday, September 29, 2006, Representative Mark Foley
resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives. After his
resignation, H. Res. 1065 was introduced as a privileged
resolution on the floor of the House by Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi. H. Res. 1065 directed the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct to appoint a subcommittee to determine facts
connected with ``Representative Foley's conduct and the
response thereto'' and directed the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee to make a preliminary report
within ten days.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 1065 was not adopted by the House. Rather, by
unanimous vote of the House, it was referred to the Committee
on Standards of Official Conduct (the ``Committee''). In
accordance with House and Committee rules, and because the
privileged resolution was not adopted by the House, the
Committee retained discretion to determine whether to take
action on this matter. In order to make that determination, all
the Members of the Committee returned to Washington, D.C.
during the October recess period to deliberate at a meeting
held on Thursday, October 5, 2006 on the appropriate course of
action.
During the October 5, 2006 meeting, the Committee
determined that the matter warranted immediate Committee review
and, by unanimous vote on that date, the Committee voted to
establish an Investigative Subcommittee. The Committee's action
was taken in accordance with clause 3 of House Rule XI and
Committee Rules 1(c), 14(a)(3), and 18(a), which authorize the
Committee to establish an investigative subcommittee on its own
initiative. The Investigative Subcommittee was established with
jurisdiction to conduct a full and complete inquiry and
investigation into any conduct of House Members, officers, and
staff related to information concerning improper conduct
involving Members and current and former House Pages, and was
directed to report to the full Committee at the conclusion of
its inquiry with the Investigative Subcommittee's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations.
The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Investigative Subcommittee are contained in this Report. During
the course of its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee
examined the conduct of former Representative Foley, as well as
the conduct of current and former officials and employees of
the House. The Investigative Subcommittee did not attempt to
make formal findings regarding the conduct of former officials
and employees because, as non-affiliates of the House, the
Investigative Subcommittee lacked disciplinary authority over
them. The Investigative Subcommittee comments upon their
conduct, however, as set forth in this Report.
Regarding the conduct of current Members, officers, and
employees of the House, the Investigative Subcommittee
considered whether such individuals violated the House Code of
Official Conduct or other rules and standards applicable to
them. In its review of this matter, the Investigative
Subcommittee was disturbed by the conduct of some of those who
dealt with allegations regarding the conduct of former
Representative Foley. When confronted with such allegations,
the response of some individuals was limited to that necessary
to shift notice and responsibility to those they believed more
responsible for dealing with such matters. Other individuals
took more direct action, but declined to probe deeply into the
nature and scope of the allegations regarding Representative
Foley or declined to follow-up to see if their efforts to
intervene had any positive result. Others tried repeatedly to
elevate the matter, but encountered obstacles in the chain of
command that limited the effectiveness of their efforts. In
all, a pattern of conduct was exhibited among many individuals
to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of
former Representative Foley's conduct with respect to House
pages.
Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the specific conduct
of some individuals who learned of certain allegations
regarding Representative Foley, based on the specific facts
presented, the Investigative Subcommittee did not find that any
current House Members or employees violated the House Code of
Official Conduct. The requirement that Members and staff act at
all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House
does not mean that every error in judgment or failure to
exercise greater oversight or diligence establishes a violation
of House Rule 23. The Investigative Subcommittee therefore
recommends no further investigative or disciplinary proceedings
against any specific person.
Nonetheless, this Report should serve as a strong reminder
to Members, officers, and employees of the House that they are
obligated to pursue specific and non-specific allegations of
improper interaction between a Member or House employee and a
participant in the House Page Program--even if the allegations
are not readily verifiable or involve the sensitive subject of
a Member's personal relationship with a young person. The same
standard applies regardless of whether the Member and page are
of the same or opposite sex. The failure to exhaust all
reasonable efforts to call attention to potential misconduct
involving a Member and House page is not merely the exercise of
poor judgment; it is a present danger to House pages and to the
integrity of the institution of the House.
The evidence obtained by the Investigative Subcommittee in
this matter included, but was not limited to, the sworn
testimony of eight Members of the House, and interviews and
sworn testimony of 43 other witnesses. During the inquiry,
approximately 3,500 pages of transcribed sworn testimony and
witness statements resulted from proceedings before the
Investigative Subcommittee or interviews with Investigative
Subcommittee counsel. In addition, the Investigative
Subcommittee obtained hundreds of pages of documents supplied
by witnesses.
In addition to the foregoing, a description of the
Investigative Subcommittee's investigative efforts, and an
explanation of all the Investigative Subcommittee's findings
are also contained in this Report. The Report also contains
certain recommendations regarding the operation of the House of
Representatives Page Program.
II. CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY
A. Establishment of the Investigative Subcommittee
The introduction of H. Res. 1065 and the empanelment of the
Investigative Subcommittee in this matter followed the
publication in the news media of several allegations related to
Representative Foley's conduct, as described below:
That Representative Foley sent e-mails to a high school
student who had formerly served as a House page sponsored by
Representative Rodney Alexander, and that such e-mails
contained content that may not have been appropriate;
That in addition to the e-mails sent to the former House
page referenced above, Representative Foley sent instant
messages over the Internet to one or more former House pages
that contained sexually explicit and salacious language;
That prior to the publication of the aforementioned e-mails
or instant messages, one or more Members of the staff of
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert had received information concerning
Representative Foley's e-mail communications with the former
House page sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander;
That prior to the publication of the aforementioned e-mails
or instant messages, Representative John Shimkus, the Chairman
of the House Page Board, and Jeff Trandahl, then the Clerk of
the House and the supervising official of the House Page
Program, had learned of the e-mails sent to the former page
sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander and had taken
certain actions in response to that information; and
That Majority Leader John A. Boehner and Representative
Thomas M. Reynolds had learned of information related to the e-
mails sent by Representative Foley to theformer House page
sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander and had, independently of
each other, brought this matter to the attention of Speaker Hastert.
The publication in the news media of information related to
the e-mails and instant messages sent by Representative Foley
occurred during the week of September 25, 2006, and preceded
his resignation from the House on September 29, 2006.
During a meeting of the Committee held in executive session
\2\ on October 5, 2006, the Committee determined to establish
an Investigative Subcommittee to inquire into this matter.\3\
The Investigative Subcommittee was established pursuant to a
resolution adopted by the Committee during the meeting and in
accordance with the House and Committee rules referenced in the
resolution. In subsequent Investigative Subcommittee and
Committee proceedings, the Investigative Subcommittee's inquiry
was referred to as the ``Investigation of Certain Allegations
Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Current or
Former House Pages.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Rule XI, Rules of the House of Representatives for the
109th Congress.
\3\ In a press statement issued on October 3, 2006, the Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member announced that the full Committee would
meet in executive session on October 5, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The resolution adopted by the Committee provided as
follows:
Whereas certain allegations have arisen related to
communications and interactions between former
Representative Mark Foley and current or former
participants in the U.S. House of Representatives Page
Program; and
Whereas certain additional allegations have arisen
regarding the conduct of certain Members and employees
of the House related to communications and interactions
between former Representative Mark Foley and current or
former participants in the U.S. House of
Representatives Page Program; and
Whereas the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee
of the House, in connection with the aforementioned
allegations, may have violated the Code of Official
Conduct or one or more law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of a
Member, officer, or employee of the House in the
performance of his or her duties or the discharge of
his or her responsibilities; and
Whereas the Committee has authority to investigate
such conduct pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2)
and (3)(b)(2), and pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3)
and 18; and
Whereas the Committee has determined pursuant to
Committee Rule 1(c) that the interests of justice
require the adoption of special procedures in order for
the Committee to carry out its investigative and
enforcement responsibilities with respect to the
aforementioned allegations;
It is hereby resolved by the Committee:
1. That an Investigative Subcommittee be established
with jurisdiction to conduct a full and complete
inquiry and investigation into any conduct of House
Members, officers and staff related to information
concerning improper conduct involving Members and
current and former House Pages;
2. That the scope of the inquiry may extend to any
matters related to the jurisdiction of the
Investigative Subcommittee as set forth in this
resolution;
3. That the Investigative Subcommittee is authorized
to advise the public at large that it is interested in
receiving information and testimony from any person
with first-hand information regarding the matters
within the jurisdiction of the Investigative
Subcommittee;
4. That at the conclusion of its inquiry, the
Investigative Subcommittee shall report to the
Committee its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations;
5. That the Members of the Investigative Subcommittee
shall be designated pursuant to Committee Rule 19(a);
6. That Committee Rules 7 (Confidentiality), 8(a)
(Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure), 9
(Quorums and Member Disqualification), and 10 (Vote
Requirements) are fully applicable to this inquiry by
the Investigative Subcommittee;
7. That the Investigative Subcommittee is authorized
to obtain evidence and relevant information by the
means and in the manner set forth in Committee Rules
19(b)-(c), except as those rules apply to respondents;
8. That witnesses before the Investigative
Subcommittee shall be furnished with a copy of the
special procedures for this inquiry (as set forth in
this resolution), as well as accorded the rights set
forth in Committee Rules 26(k)-(o);
9. That the Committee intends that all witnesses who
provide testimony before the Investigative Subcommittee
should be sequestered and should not communicate with
any other witnesses regarding any aspect of their
testimony unless the Investigative Subcommittee permits
otherwise;
10. That except as otherwise provided in this
Resolution, the Rules of the Committee shall be
applicable in this matter and will be interpreted by
the Investigative Subcommittee and the Committee in a
manner not inconsistent with this Resolution.
In a public statement issued on October 5, 2006, the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee announced
that the Chairman of the full Committee, Representative Doc
Hastings, would serve as Chairman of the Investigative
Subcommittee, and that the Ranking Minority Member of the full
Committee, Representative Howard L. Berman, would serve as the
Ranking Minority Member of the Investigative Subcommittee. It
was further announced in the statement that the next most
senior members of the full Committee, Representative Judy
Biggert and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, would also
serve as Members of the Investigative Subcommittee.
In a separate statement also made on October 5, 2006
regarding the inquiry, Chairman Hastings and Ranking Minority
Member Berman announced that:
[S]hortly following the meeting of the full Ethics
Committee, our new investigative subcommittee met for
the first time and unanimously approved nearly four
dozen subpoenas for documents and testimony. Many of
the individuals we plan to talk with are Members,
officers, and staff of the House. For that reason, we
sincerely hope most of the subpoenas we authorized
today will prove unnecessary, because we believe that
most of those individuals share our desire to get quick
and truthful answers to the questions being asked by so
many Americans.
B. Investigative Process
The Investigative Subcommittee was established on October
5, 2006 and determined to commence work immediately and at a
rapid pace. As noted, the Investigative Subcommittee authorized
the issuance of numerous subpoenas even before the Committee's
public announcement of its empanelment. The Investigative
Subcommittee's investigative work continued until December 4,
2006, the last date that the Subcommittee met to receive sworn
testimony from a witness. Each of the four Members of the
Investigative Subcommittee returned multiple times to
Washington, D.C. during the October and November recess periods
for the purpose of conducting the Subcommittee's work. In
addition, Members of the Investigative Subcommittee received
updates from staff and deliberated informally with each other
in person and by telephone throughout this inquiry. The
Investigative Subcommittee acknowledges the commitment and
effort of staff in assisting the Subcommittee, including
William O'Reilly, Ed Cassidy, Bari Schwartz, Ken Kellner,
Morgan Kim, Pete Van Hartesveldt, Stan Simpson, and Carol
Dixon.
The accelerated pace of this inquiry was necessitated for
several reasons. First, in empanelling the Investigative
Subcommittee, the Committee recognized the seriousness of a
matter involving highly improper communications between a
Member of Congress and a high school student who had served as
a congressional page. Second, the Committee and Investigative
Subcommittee recognized the need to obtain information and
testimony from as many witnesses as possible as quickly as
possible, in order that the testimony and recollections of
those witnesses would not be impacted either by
theextraordinary media coverage of this matter, or by communications
and interactions amongst themselves regarding the events under review.
In this regard, the Committee and Investigative
Subcommittee took measures to discourage communications between
witnesses before the Investigative Subcommittee regarding their
testimony. These measures were taken for the purpose of
maintaining the confidentiality and reliability of information
provided by and asked of witnesses during this inquiry, and to
discourage attempts to deliberately or inadvertently
orchestrate or coordinate testimony before the Investigative
Subcommittee. The Committee addressed these concerns directly
in the resolution it adopted on October 5, 2006. One of the
special procedures included in the resolution in accordance
with Committee Rule 1(c) provides that, unless the
Investigative Subcommittee permitted otherwise, witnesses who
provided testimony to the Investigative Subcommittee should be
sequestered from other witnesses.
Each witness before the Investigative Subcommittee was
provided with a copy of the Committee's resolution containing
the sequestration provision. In addition, correspondence to
witnesses specifically referenced the sequestration provision
and informed witnesses that the Investigative Subcommittee
would ``inquire on the record'' regarding witnesses' compliance
with the instruction that communications with the Investigative
Subcommittee be kept confidential. In addition, nearly every
proceeding before the Investigative Subcommittee and its
counsel included an ``on the record'' inquiry regarding
communications a witness may have had related to his or her
contact with the Investigative Subcommittee, and every
proceeding concluded with an admonishment that the witness
should continue to comply with the resolution's sequestration
provision. Based on Committee precedent, it was the position of
the Investigative Subcommittee that Members and employees of
the House were obligated to comply with the sequestration rule
and not discuss any aspect of their testimony with anyone other
than their counsel, and that failure to comply with this
request could form the basis of disciplinary proceedings in the
House in accordance with House and Committee rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of
2003, H. Rep. 108-722, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 4, 2004) at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Investigative Subcommittee encountered representation
of more than one witness by the same attorney.\5\ Speaker J.
Dennis Hastert and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Mike Stokke, were
both represented during their depositions by attorney J.
Randolph Evans of the law firm of McKenna, Long and Aldridge.
Mr. Evans also served as counsel to Speaker Hastert for the
purposes of the preparation an ``Internal Review of Contacts
with the Office of the Speaker Regarding the Congressman Mark
Foley Matter,'' that will be discussed in more detail in the
factual narrative of this Report. Tim Kennedy, Special
Assistant in the Speaker's Office, was represented by Stefan
Passantino, also of the law firm of McKenna, Long and Aldridge.
Mr. Passantino also attended the deposition of Mike Stokke, as
co-counsel to Mr. Evans. Finally, both Representative Rodney
Alexander and his Chief of Staff, Royal Alexander, were
represented during their separate depositions by Craig Smith
and Richard John. The Investigative Subcommittee does not
conclude that any attorney had disclosed the specific testimony
of a witness to any other witness that the same attorney
represented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Some Subcommittee Members believe that House Rules should be
amended to prohibit such multiple representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, the Investigative Subcommittee began its work on
October 5, 2006. One of the first steps taken by the
Investigative Subcommittee, in addition to the authorization of
subpoenas for documents and testimony, was to issue a ``Dear
Colleague'' letter for the ``immediate and personal attention''
of all House Members. The letter, signed by the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Investigative Subcommittee, was
distributed to all House offices on October 6, 2006, and
contained the following text:
As you may know, an Investigative Subcommittee of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the
``Committee'') has been empanelled to conduct an
inquiryregarding any conduct of House Members, officers
and staff related to information concerning improper conduct involving
Members and current and former House Pages. We are contacting you now
in our capacities as Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of that
Investigative Subcommittee.
The purpose of this letter is to notify all Members
that it is the expectation of the Investigative
Subcommittee that any Members with information related
to the matter under investigation will bring such
information to the attention of the Investigative
Subcommittee. Such information should include, but not
be limited to, any information related in any way to
communications or interactions between former
Representative Mark Foley and any current or former
participants in the House Page Program. In this regard,
you should inquire of staff under your supervision as
to relevant information in their possession.
In order to assist the Investigative Subcommittee
with its inquiry, we also request that you contact
current and former House Pages sponsored by your office
for the purpose of learning whether any of those
individuals had any inappropriate communications or
interactions with former Representative Foley or any
other Member of the House. You should advise all Pages
contacted that any information gained pursuant to your
inquiry will be shared with the Investigative
Subcommittee, and will be maintained by the
Investigative Subcommittee in a confidential manner
consistent with House and Committee rules.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you
have any questions, or if you have information to
provide to the Investigative Subcommittee, please
contact Committee Chief Counsel William V. O'Reilly at
(202) 225-7103.
The Investigative Subcommittee acknowledges here its
receipt from many House offices of information obtained from
efforts to contact current and former House pages. Additional
information was obtained by the Investigative Subcommittee from
a designated toll-free telephone number established within the
Office of the Clerk of the House for the purpose of reporting
information concerning House Pages or the House Page Program.
Some, but not all, of the information received from these
sources developed into leads or formal investigative actions.
The most critical evidence obtained by the Investigative
Subcommittee was the approximately 3,500 pages of transcribed
sworn testimony and witness statements procured during
proceedings before the Investigative Subcommittee or during
interviews with Investigative Subcommittee counsel. In
addition, hundreds of pages of documents were collectively
supplied to the Investigative Subcommittee by witnesses. The
Investigative Subcommittee also obtained and reviewed publicly-
available records, including published press releases and news
articles.
In total during its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee
formally deposed eight Members of the House, including Speaker
J. Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John A. Boehner,
Representative Rodney Alexander, Representative Thomas M.
Reynolds, and Representative Jim Kolbe, as well as the three
House Members that serve on the House Page Board,
Representative Shelley Moore Capito, Representative John
Shimkus, and Representative Dale Kildee. Nine current House
employees were also deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee,
as well as nine individuals not affiliated with the House
(including some former House employees and former Clerk of the
House Jeff Trandahl). The House Sergeant at Arms, Wilson
Livingood, who is also a member of the House Page Board, was
also deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee. Each of the
witnesses who were deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee
was placed under oath.\6\ At least two Members of the
Investigative Subcommittee were present at all times for all
sworn depositions as required by Committee rules. In addition,
as authorized by the Investigative Subcommittee, counsel for
the Investigative Subcommittee interviewed approximately 30
other individuals, including current House Clerk Karen L. Haas,
supervising and non-supervising employees of the House Page
Program, and several other current House employees. The
majority of the interviews were transcribed by a stenographer
with the consent of the individual being interviewed. In
addition, the Investigative Subcommittee received information
informally from several witnesses, including information
supplied by their counsel. The Committee considered statements
of witnesses not placed under oath to be subject to the ``false
statements'' criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, as amended
in 1996. That statute, among other things, prohibits knowingly
and willfully making any materially false statement or
concealing a material fact in ``any investigation or review,
conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee . . . of
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or
Senate.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Committee Rule 19(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Investigative Subcommittee notes the cooperation of
Members of the House during the Investigative Subcommittee's
inquiry. No Member of the House that was asked to provide
voluntary testimony declined to do so, although Representative
Kolbe limited the scope of his testimony as described in
Section V of this Report.
The Investigative Subcommittee did not obtain testimony
from former Representative Mark Foley. After Representative
Foley resigned from Congress, he left Washington and returned
to Florida. He then entered a rehabilitation facility in
Tucson, Arizona, reportedly for treatment of alcoholism. After
thirty days, Representative Foley announced that he intended to
remain in the rehabilitation facility for an additional thirty
days. At the same time, several state and local law enforcement
agencies announced that they were beginning preliminary
investigations into whether Rep. Foley had engaged in criminal
activity with former pages or other young men. On November 16,
2006, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement announced that
it had opened a criminal investigation after its preliminary
inquiry. On November 16, 2006, the Investigative Subcommittee
issued subpoenas for documents and testimony to Representative
Foley.\7\ Representative Foley's counsel responded on November
21, 2006, asking that the Subcommittee defer the subpoenas in
light of the pending criminal investigations. Representative
Foley's counsel also stated that if Representative Foley were
made to appear for testimony he would invoke the Fifth
Amendment and refuse to testify.\8\ The Investigative
Subcommittee determined that both deferring questioning of
Representative Foley until resolution of any criminal
proceedings and instituting enforcement proceedings to compel
compliance with the subpoenas would unnecessarily delay the
issuance of this report. The Subcommittee has therefore chosen
to issue this report without the benefit of Representative
Foley's testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ A copy of the document subpoena is at Exhibit 2. A copy of the
subpoena for testimony is at Exhibit 3.
\8\ Exhibit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Investigative Subcommittee notes the receipt
of a communication from the Department of Justice advising it
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting a
``preliminary investigation'' of the activities of former
Representative Mark Foley, and requesting that the
Investigative Subcommittee conduct its inquiry in a manner that
would not interfere with federal law enforcement interests.
Among the requests made by the Department of Justice was that
that entity be permitted to complete its interviews of any
current or former House Pages with relevant information before
such interviews are conducted by the Investigative Subcommittee
or its counsel.
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. The Page Program
The House of Representatives has been employing pages from
the earliest Congresses. The first three known ``pages'' served
during the 20th Congress (1827-29). Today, there are
approximately 70 pages in each academic year class.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Initially, Members sponsored young boys for the positions, many
of whom were destitute or orphaned. By 1842, the number of pages was
capped at eight, each of whom earned $2 per day. In the period after
the Civil War, the number of pages serving each Congress expanded to
several dozen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The duties of a House page consist primarily of delivering
correspondence, legislative materials, and small packages
within the Capitol complex. Pages are also assigned to answer
phones in the Members' Cloakrooms, take messages for Members,
and prepare the House floor for sessions. Pages are paid
employees of the House and presently earn a gross salary of
$1,568.08 per month. Depending on the party affiliation of
their sponsoring Member, pages are currently supervised either
by majority chief page supervisor Peggy Sampson or minority
chief page supervisor, Wren Ivester.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Sampson has held her position for just over 20 years.
Interview Transcript of Peggy Sampson (hereinafter Sampson Int. Tr.) at
4. Ivester was hired in September 1995. Wren Ivester Interview
Transcript (hereinafter Ivester Int. Tr.) at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Eligibility and selection process
Pages generally serve either during the fall or spring
semester, or during one of two summer terms. All academic year
applicants must be high school juniors who will be at least
sixteen years old on the date they begin their term. In
addition, academic year applicants must attend Page School,
which requires at least a 3.0 grade point average for
acceptance. Applicants for the summer program, which has no
grade point average requirement, may include rising high school
juniors or rising seniors. Page School is not offered during
the summer terms.
Applicants must be sponsored by a Member of Congress.
Because of the limited number of page positions, not all
Members can sponsor a page at the same time. Application
requirements vary according to Member and political party, but
they may include a written essay, resume of extracurricular
activities, and letters of recommendation. Once sponsored,
selection to participate in the page program is made at the
discretion of the Speaker of the House or the Minority Leader.
2. Organization of the page program
The Page Program consists of three components, informally
referred to as ``the triangle'' by those within the program.
These components represent the three aspects of page life--
living in the House Page Residence Hall, attending classes at
the House Page School, and working on the House floor and
throughout the Capitol complex.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Grace Crews Interview Transcript (hereinafter Crews Int. Tr.)
at 7-8; John Leekley Interview Transcript (hereinafter Leekley Int.
Tr.) at 6; Sampson Int. Tr. at 13; Interview Summary of Ellen McNamara
(hereinafter McNamara Int. Sum.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the House has the responsibility for
administering the page program. Karen Haas is the current Clerk
and has held this position since her appointment by Speaker
Dennis Hastert on November 18, 2005.\12\ Although Haas is
ultimately responsible for the page program, much of the day-
to-day activity and operation of the program is delegated to
the administrators of the triangle components. These
individuals include the principal of the Page School, the
director of the Page Residence Hall, and the majority and
minority chief page supervisors, each of whom is required to
submit a weekly status report to Haas and to attend a regular
Tuesday morning ``chiefs'' meeting.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Karen Haas Interview Transcript (hereinafter Haas Int. Tr.) at
12, 14. Prior to being promoted to the position of Clerk of the House,
Haas had worked since June of 1999 as a floor assistant under Speaker
Hastert.
\13\ Haas Int. Tr. at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting directly to the Clerk and assisting with her page
program responsibilities is the page program coordinator,
currently Ellen McNamara.\14\ McNamara acts as a liaison
between the Clerk and the page program administrators. Her
duties also include processing and maintaining page
applications, communicating with parents, assisting with the
updating and distribution of the page handbook.\15\ McNamara
has served as the page program coordinator since January 2006,
succeeding Grace Crews, who had held the position for
approximately eight years.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Haas Int. Tr. at 31; McNamara Int. Sum.
\15\ McNamara Int. Sum.
\16\ Crews Int. Tr. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The House Page Residence Hall
Pages have been living at the Residence Hall's present site
located three blocks from the Capitol at 501 First Street, SE,
since it opened in the fall of 2001. Previously, pages were
housed in the Old Congressional Hotel. John Leekley is the
current director of the Page Residence Hall. He was promoted to
the position in August of 2004 after having spent one year as
the Hall's assistant director and two years as a proctor.\17\
Reporting directly to Leekley are the assistant director, a
tutor, an office coordinator, and four proctors.\18\ Leekley
and each of his staff live at the Residence Hall.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 3-4.
\18\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 5.
\19\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Page Residence Hall is governed by strict rules. The
first floor of the Residence Hall is designated for male
residents and the second floor for females. The U.S. Capitol
Police provide security for the building. Officers conduct foot
patrols and man a lobby desk 24 hours per day. Both residents
and visitors must present identification and sign in when
entering the building. In addition, pages are required to sign
out each time they leave the building and disclose their
destination. They must also have an escort or ``buddy,'' which
may be another page, a parent, or parentally-approved adult
over the age of 21, at all times when outside the Residence
Hall.
Curfew at the Residence Hall is 10 p.m. from Sunday through
Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday. A ``bed check''
is performed every night by the proctors. Permission to be away
from the Residence Hall overnight may be granted by the
director upon written and verbal consent of the parents. A
computer lab that pages can utilize to do their homework is
located on the second floor of the Residence Hall. Like all
House employees, pages are assigned a user ID and password.
Pages do not, however, have a House e-mail account, but they
are permitted to use e-mail through other Internet service
providers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The House Page School
Pages were first required to attend school following the
passage of the 1925 Compulsory School Attendance Act. The first
Page School consisted of a single room and was located in the
Capitol basement. In 1949, the Page School was moved into the
Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress, where it remains
today.
The Page School is fully accredited by the Middle States
Association of Colleges and Schools. Students are entitled to
have the grades and credits earned at the Page School
transferred to their home high schools. Because most pages
pursue higher education, the School provides an honors college
preparatory curriculum.
5. The Page Board
Oversight of the Page Program is vested with the Page
Board. Created by statute in 1982 following the Speaker's
Commission on Pages, the Page Board was established to ``ensure
that the Page Program is conducted in a manner that is
consistent with the efficient functioning of the House and
welfare of the pages.'' \21\ Following the adoption of the
statute by the 97th Congress, the first members of the Page
Board were appointed. The Board consists of two Members from
the Majority party selected by the Speaker, one Member from the
Minority party selected by the Minority Leader, the Clerk of
the House and the House Sergeant at Arms.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 2 U.S.C. Sec. 88bxA092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives Page Board; establishment and
purpose.
Until otherwise provided by law, there is hereby
established a board to be known as the House of
Representatives Page Board to ensure that the page program
is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the
efficient functioning of the House and the welfare of the
pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 2 U.S.C. Sec. 88bxA093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presently, the Page Board is comprised of Republican
Members Shelly Moore Capito and John Shimkus, who also serves
as Chairman, Democratic Member Dale Kildee, Clerk of the House
Karen Haas, and Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood. In addition,
former Clerk of the House Donnald Anderson was appointed Member
Emeritus of the Page Board following his retirement from the
House in 1995.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Page Handbook, Fall 2006-Spring 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Page Board does not have regularly scheduled meetings.
Rather, it meets on an as-needed basis to deal with any
emergencies, page-related issues, or staffing issues that may
arise.\24\ Decisions made by the Page Board are generally
reached through consensus rather than by a formal vote of the
members.\25\ As discussed more fully below, a Page Board
meeting was held on the evening of September 29, 2006,
following the resignation of Rep. Foley. Aside from this
meeting, the only other Page Board meeting that occurred in
2006 was held on March 14.\26\ There was only one Page Board
meeting in 2005 and two in 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Representative Dale Kildee Deposition (hereinafter Kildee
Dep.) at 12-13.
\25\ Kildee Dep. at 5.
\26\ McNamara Int. Sum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside the context of Page Board meetings, communication
among and between its members is done informally; there are no
formal rules or procedures.\27\ There is also a measure of
deference accorded to the chairman and his decision-making
concerning many recurring or routine issues. In situations
involving the expulsion of a page, for example, the chairman
works closely with the Clerk of the House in reaching such a
decision. His subsequent consultation with the remaining Page
Board members before implementing the decision is more of a
formality or ``courtesy'' to the members rather than an attempt
to seek their input on the matter.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Kildee Dep. at 13-14.
\28\ Kildee Dep. at 13; Representative John Shimkus Deposition
(hereinafter Shimkus Dep.) at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Harassment Policy
The Page Handbook sets forth a policy on harassment. This
policy prohibits not only sexual harassment, but also
harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, or national
origin. Under the policy, any page who believes that he or she
has been subjected to or has witnessed actions that violate the
harassment policy are advised to promptly report the violation
to his or her ``direct supervisor, the next level supervisor,
or any other management official with whom the employee feels
comfortable discussing such issues.'' \29\ The harassment
policy is discussed and explained to the pages at their initial
orientation session. In addition, all pages are required to
attend mandatory sexual harassment training conducted by the
Office of House Employment Counsel.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Page Handbook, Fall 2006-Spring 2007 at I-26 to I-27.
\30\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Office of The Speaker
The Speaker's most prominent role is that of presiding
officer of the House,\31\ and in this capacity he is empowered
by House rules to administer proceedings on the House floor,
including the power to recognize Members on the floor to speak
or make motions and the power to appoint Members to conference
committees.\32\ The Speaker also oversees much of the non-
legislative business of the House, such as exercising general
control over the Hall of the House and the House side of the
Capitol.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See generally House Rule I.
\32\ See House Rule I, clauses 1, 2.
\33\ See generally House Rule I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Dennis Hastert became House Speaker on January 6, 1999.
Scott Palmer has been chief of staff to Speaker Hastert for the
entire time Hastert has served as Speaker.\34\ According to
Speaker Hastert, Palmer's ``job is the day-to-day operation of
the House.'' \35\ In his capacity as chief of staff to the
Speaker, Palmer ``deals with other staff--Chiefs of Staff,
Senate staff--on issues that are before the House, usually
policy issues.'' \36\ According to Speaker Hastert, Palmer's
``realm is more in the policy [ ] issues, but he also would
deal with personnel issues as well. He ostensibly is over all
staff, our district staff, our staff back in Illinois. So he
has a broad responsibility.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Scott Palmer Deposition (hereinafter Palmer Dep.) at 5.
\35\ Speaker J. Dennis Hastert Deposition (hereinafter Hastert
Dep.) at 17.
\36\ Hastert Dep. at 17.
\37\ Hastert Dep. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deputy chief of staff in the Office of the Speaker is
Mike Stokke, and he has held that position for approximately
eight years. \38\ According to Speaker Hastert, Stokke ``really
is kind of a Member management type of situation. People come
in and have a complaint, they see Mike.'' \39\ In addition,
Stokke handles any ``political issues'' a Member might
have.\40\ ``If it's political policy, he's out of my office and
does that over in the [National Republican Congressional
Committee]. But that's also part of Member maintenance, you
know. So if somebody has something that they want politically,
they go see Mike.'' \41\ In general, Stokke is responsible for,
among other things, helping Members with issues on which they
wish to have the Speaker's assistance.\42\ In addition to his
salary for working in the Speaker's office, Stokke receives
compensation for work performed for political committees
controlled by Speaker Hastert.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Mike Stokke Deposition (hereinafter Stokke Dep.) at 9.
\39\ Hastert Dep. at 17.
\40\ Hastert Dep. at 17.
\41\ Hastert Dep. at 18; see also Palmer Dep. at 11-12 (``Mike
concentrates on sort of the Member services aspect of things, and he
also oversees the press operation and he deals with all things
political.'').
\42\ Stokke described his duties as ``Member service types of
issues. So it could be anything from people seeking to be on a
committee, to people who wish to forward some sort of legislation, to
people who have legislation whose legislation isn't moving in a
committee, to any number of things that Members would find of interest
and wish to seek out the Speaker's assistance on.'' Stokke Dep. at 7-8.
\43\ Stokke Dep. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Hastert testified that matters involving a Member's
conduct would be addressed by Palmer, but ``if Scott was
overburdened with something, Stokke might pick up the loose
ends. But, you know, if it was something that was important,
really needed my attention, it would bubble to me eventually. I
mean, that is basically the process.'' \44\ Stokke testified
that he would report directly to the Speaker on most things,
but he would report to Palmer on matters that were within
Palmer's area of responsibilities.\45\ ``We speak because we're
in the same office. But I don't raise things to his attention,
generally speaking, because what I'm doing is often different
than what he's doing.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Hastert Dep. at 18-19.
\45\ Stokke Dep. at 10.
\46\ Stokke Dep. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Van Der Meid is counsel to the Speaker's office and
director of floor operations.\47\ According to Speaker Hastert,
Van Der Meid was ``the first red flag guy on anything.'' \48\
Van Der Meid ``deals with all the constitutional offices of the
Congress, plus things like the Architect's Office and all of
the other entities that exist around here. So he is kind of the
overseer, the liaison with those groups. . . . [H]e would be
the first person I would go ask a question of what is proper to
do or what is not proper to do.'' \49\ Among other matters, Van
Der Meid handles financial disclosure issues and trip requests,
and he is liaison to the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group.\50\ Van Der Meid reports to Scott Palmer, but he can
bring matters up directly with the Speaker.\51\ Within the
Speaker's Office, because of his role as liaison to the Office
of the Clerk, Van Der Meid is assigned matters having to do
with the House page program.\52\ Stokke and Van Der Meid share
an office, together with their shared assistant Tim
Kennedy.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Ted Van Der Meid Deposition (hereinafter Van Der Meid Dep.) at
8, 185.
\48\ Hastert Dep. at 21.
\49\ Hastert Dep. at 21.
\50\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 9.
\51\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 14, 18.
\52\ Hastert Dep. at 60; Van Der Meid Dep. at 24; Palmer Dep. at
12; Tim Kennedy Deposition (hereinafter Kennedy Dep.) at 13; Jeff
Trandahl Deposition (hereinafter Trandahl Dep.) at 90.
\53\ Stokke Dep. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
A. Representative Mark Foley
1. Representative Foley's interaction with pages generally
Representative Mark Foley was first sworn in as a Member of
the House of Representatives in January 1995 at the beginning
of the 104th Congress. From the beginning of his tenure,
Representative Foley reportedly showed ``a fairly common
friendliness'' to Members and staff alike.\54\ Various persons
also began to observe Representative Foley's particular
interest in young male staff, interns, and House pages.
Representative Foley's chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, was told
by another Member's office soon after Foley took office that
Representative Foley had been placing phone calls to a young
male intern in that Member's office.\55\ In another example, a
young male custodian complained to cloakroom staff that
Representative Foley had become ``too friendly'' towards
him.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Kirk Fordham Deposition (hereinafter Fordham Dep.) at 5.
``Generally, throughout the 10 years that I worked with Mr. Foley,
there was a fairly common friendliness that he exhibited towards all
staff. Those of you that have met him probably know he was overly
friendly with everyone. He talks to Members, he talks to staff, he
talks to interns, pages.''
\55\ Fordham Dep. at 6-7.
\56\ Interview Summary of Tim Harroun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Trandahl began employment in the Clerk's office in
1995 as an assistant clerk, later moving to the position of
deputy clerk.\57\ During this period, even though he was not
yet Clerk of the House (a position he was elected to in January
1999), Trandahl exercised a significant management role over
the page program.\58\ In this capacity, Trandahl became
concerned that Representative Foley was spending too much time
with pages, and that his relationship with the pages was too
familiar.\59\ He termed Representative Foley a ``nuisance,''
which he described as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Trandahl Dep. at 7.
\58\ Gerasimos Vans Interview Transcript (hereinafter Vans Int.
Tr.) at 6-8.
\59\ Trandahl Dep. at 12, 14.
[P]eople who got too involved in the program. They
didn't keep a professional distance, they didn't
maintain--they went to a personal level with
relationships, instead of holding professional level.
And I would have different experiences through my
career; but, for example, I would have people [Members]
come to complain to me because a page complained to
them about a math test. And it's so out of what I would
view the reasonable and normal that Members would have
that level of interaction or interest. And I would have
those experiences with him. And I would ask him, you
know, to maintain that professional distance and not to
get overinvolved in the personal aspects of the kids
interacting with each other.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Trandahl Dep. at 13.
Trandahl's concerns in this regard continued following his
election as Clerk of the House in 1999. In addition to his own
observations, he also began to receive complaints from page
program staff. For example, Peggy Sampson, the majority chief
page supervisor, had similarly become concerned with
Representative Foley spending too much time with pages on the
House floor and generally interfering with the performance of
their duties.\61\ Sampson observed Representative Foley to be
particularly interested in male pages and testified that
Representative Foley's interactions gave her a ``creepy
feeling.'' \62\ Sampson tried to stay in the vicinity when
Representative Foley was near the pages, but she did not see
Representative Foley inappropriately touch any page or hear him
say anything inappropriate.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Sampson Int. Tr. at 39, 41-42.
\62\ Sampson Int. Tr. at 31.
\63\ Sampson Int. Tr. at 41-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Representative Foley's reported page dorm visits
Representative Foley also reportedly appeared at the page
residence hall after curfew on at least two occasions. A number
of witnesses testified that they had been told about an
incident where Representative Foley appeared at the page dorm,
possibly intoxicated, and was turned away by Capitol Police.
Trandahl recalled that he had heard about this incident from
residence hall staff sometime before 2000, possibly before he
became Clerk.\64\ Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's counsel and
director of floor operations, testified that he had heard about
this incident from Trandahl ``many years ago.'' He recalls that
Trandahl told him that he had gotten a call from the Capitol
Police indicating that Representative Foley was outside the
page dorm publicly intoxicated and that Trandahl may have told
him that he had to take Foley home.\65\ Sampson similarly
testified that Trandahl had told her about the incident
sometime prior to when the new page dorm opened in September
2001.\66\ Kirk Fordham also recalled hearing about this
incident from Trandahl, but he believes that it occurred in
2002 or 2003.\67\ The Investigative Subcommittee heard no
testimony from any person who actually witnessed this event,
nor did the Investigative Subcommittee obtain any other direct
evidence reflecting any such appearance by Representative Foley
at the page dorm.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Trandahl Dep. at 15-16.
\65\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 94-100.
\66\ Sampson Int. Tr. at 44-46.
\67\ Fordham Dep. at 19-20.
\68\ Wilson Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms since 1995, who
is a member of the House Page Board and also a member of the board of
the Capitol Police, testified that he had no knowledge of any incident
involving Representative Foley appearing outside the page dorm. Wilson
Livingood Deposition (hereinafter Livingood Dep.) at 14. Livingood also
testified that he asked the Chief of the Capitol Police to search their
files for any record of such an incident. Livingood received a letter
signed by acting chief of police, Christopher M. McGaffin, dated
October 16, 2006, stating, ``After a comprehensive search of Department
reports and record files, no written police report has been discovered
that addresses any police matter involving former Congressman Foley.''
Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An apparently separate incident occurred in June 2000
during the pages' customary end-of-semester ``all night
party,'' during which the pages are permitted to stay up past
curfew on the residence hall grounds under the supervision of
residence hall staff. At about 10 or 11 p.m., a man in a
convertible appeared in front of the residence hall, and before
the supervising staff member was able to react, two or more
pages had gotten into the car with the man and driven away. The
staff member learned from other pages that the man was
Representative Foley, and she then contacted the residence hall
director for guidance. Upon learning that the man was
Representative Foley, the director was reportedly unconcerned,
and the pages reportedly returned shortly thereafter.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Janelle Pulis Interview Transcript at 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Former page sponsored By Representative Kolbe
During the fall of 2001, a former page who had been
sponsored by Rep. Jim Kolbe contacted Rep. Kolbe to report that
he had received an instant message (``IM'') from Rep. Foley
that had made him uncomfortable.
Rep. Foley's contact with the former page began while he
was still a page during the 1999-2000 academic year.\70\ On the
last day of the program, Rep. Foley gave the former page his e-
mail address and also told him that the address was also
Foley's ``Instant Messenger sign-in.'' \71\ The former page
kept in contact with Rep. Foley from the time he left the page
program, and he testified that he does not recall any
inappropriate communications from Rep. Foley until the fall of
2001.\72\ Among other things, the former page requested that
Rep. Foley provide a letter of recommendation for college,
which Rep. Foley did.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Deposition of the Former Kolbe Page (hereinafter Former Kolbe
Page Dep.) at 5, 8-10.
\71\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 8.
\72\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 18.
\73\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 10, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In approximately October 2001, while he was a freshman in
college, the former Kolbe page told Rep. Foley in an IM
conversation that his girlfriend was coming to visit him. While
the former page cannot recall the precise wording of the IM he
received in response, he recalls that Rep. Foley made reference
to the size of his penis.\74\ According to the former Kolbe
page, after consulting with his parents, he forwarded Foley's
IM as an attachment to an e-mail directly to Rep. Kolbe through
Rep. Kolbe's personal e-mail account. In his e-mail to Rep.
Kolbe, the former Kolbe page explained that Rep. Foley had said
something inappropriate to him and asked Rep. Kolbe to ``take
care of it.'' The former Kolbe page did not request any
particular resolution, believing that such a request would be
``presumptuous.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 18, 19.
\75\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About a week later, the former Kolbe page received another
e-mail from Rep. Foley apologizing for making him feel
uncomfortable. The former Kolbe page believes that Rep. Foley's
apology may have resulted from his communication to Rep.
Kolbe.\76\ The former Kolbe page accepted the apology and
considered the matter closed.\77\ The former Kolbe page
continued to communicate with Rep. Foley after the incident,
and he told the Subcommittee that Rep. Foley did not say or do
anything inappropriate again.\78\ Later in the fall of 2001,
Rep. Foley and the former Kolbe page had dinner together when
they were both in the same city. The former Kolbe page stated,
``I went to dinner with him, Dutch, down the middle, perfectly
acceptable conversation. . . . I considered it a networking
issue. I was really happy to do it. I didn't think it was
anything inappropriate at that time. I know he was being
appropriate at that time.'' \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 30. ``And I figured at that point
that either Mr. Kolbe had spoken with him because it was overtly--you
know, it was overtly apologetic and to a point where he must have
gotten a scolding since he was speaking like that, not a simple
apology.''
\77\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 31.
\78\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 46.
\79\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 45-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Kolbe recalls having been contacted by his former page
about Rep. Foley, but denies having seen the actual IM. Rep.
Kolbe provided the following account:
Either [the former page] called me or he called
Patrick Baugh, my assistant, and said that he had had--
and it may have been an e-mail or a phone call--and
said that he had had an e-mail from Congressman Foley,
and I cannot tell you the word he used, but the essence
of it was that it made him feel uncomfortable.
My best recollection is that it was Patrick Baugh
that came to me and said, we've had this contact from
[the former page], and he's asked us to contact Mr.
Foley's office--Mr. Foley--to ask Mr. Foley to cease
communications with him. I did not see any
communication that [the former page] had received, and
as far as I know Mr. Baugh had not either seen that.
When he came to me and I went to Patrick or Patrick
got it and came to me, the next step we both agreed
upon immediately was to contact Mr. Foley's Chief of
Staff, Kirk Fordham, who I had known before Mr. Foley
came to Congress because he was a staff person for
another Member of Congress, and suggest to him that he
tell his Member to cease communications. Within a
matter of 2 or 3 minutes, Patrick Baugh came back into
my office and said, ``Message delivered.'' And I also
called the Clerk's Office to tell them what we had
done,\80\ and I said, ``Fine.'' That was the end of it.
I do not believe I even called [the former page] back
to tell him the message had been delivered, but there
was no--apparently no--as far as I was concerned, the
issue was closed. [The former page] never contacted me
again on that matter.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Kolbe later explained that it was Baugh who contacted the
Clerk's office. Representative Jim Kolbe Deposition (hereinafter Kolbe
Dep.) at 71-72.
\81\ Kolbe Dep. at 16-17.
Baugh says that the former Kolbe page contacted Rep. Kolbe
directly, not him, and that he discussed the matter with Rep.
Kolbe and Kolbe's chief of staff, Fran McNaught after the page
had contacted Rep. Kolbe. He says that Rep. Kolbe directed him
to ``talk to Kirk Fordham and to ask him to basically ask Mr.
Foley or tell Mr. Foley to stop whatever communication he was
having with'' the former page.\82\ Baugh testified that Kolbe
did not show him an e-mail or IM, or tell him anything other
than that the former page was made ``uncomfortable'' because of
``inappropriate e-mails that [the former page] had received
from Congressman Foley.'' \83\ Similarly, McNaught testified
that Rep. Kolbe had mentioned to her that ``a page felt
uncomfortable . . . because of some action by Mr. Foley,'' \84\
but that she did not remember Rep. Kolbe giving any description
of why the page felt uncomfortable.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Patrick Baugh Deposition (hereinafter Baugh Dep.) at 16.
\83\ Baugh Dep. at 12.
\84\ Frances McNaught Deposition (hereinafter McNaught Dep.) at 8.
\85\ McNaught Dep. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baugh testified that he complied with Rep. Kolbe's request
and contacted Fordham by telephone and told him that the former
page was made uncomfortable by messages from Mr. Foley and that
the former page ``wishes Mr. Foley would go away, would stop
whatever actions he's doing . . . .'' \86\ Baugh testified that
Fordham ``said he would take care of the problem, and that was
the last that I heard of it.'' \87\ Baugh said that he
``reported back to either Congressman Kolbe or Ms. McNaught, or
perhaps both, that I had spoken to Mr. Fordham and that he'd
agreed to take care of the matter.'' \88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Baugh Dep. at 18.
\87\ Baugh Dep. at 18.
\88\ Baugh Dep. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baugh testified that he also contacted Trandahl regarding
Rep. Foley's communication to the former Kolbe page at the
request of either Rep. Kolbe or McNaught. He testified that he
advised Trandahl as follows:
You know, [the former page], came to Congressman
Kolbe; you know, contacted Congressman Kolbe; was
uncomfortable with an e-mail he'd received. We--you
know, I talked to Kirk Fordham; told him to ask Mr.
Foley or tell Mr. Foley to stop whatever contact he had
with [the former page]. Mr. Fordham said he would take
care of the issue. You know, we think that's case
closed.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Baugh Dep. at 23.
He did not request any action or follow-up from Trandahl,
and Baugh does not recall Trandahl's reaction or whether
Trandahl expressed any surprise or awareness of Rep. Foley's
behavior.\90\ Kolbe testified that Baugh did not report to him
any details of the conversation he had with Trandahl.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Baugh Dep. at 23-24.
\91\ Kolbe Dep. at 72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Kolbe testified that he ``did not attempt to speculate
about what it was'' that made the former page
uncomfortable.\92\ ``I acted on the information that we
received from [the former page], and he asked us as a
constituent now, not as a page, to contact Mr. Foley and ask
him directly to stop communicating with him, and that is what
we did.'' \93\ Although, according to Rep. Kolbe's testimony,
he never asked his former page what had made him uncomfortable,
Rep. Kolbe said that it had occurred to him that ``it may have
been some kind of a communication that was sexual in nature.''
\94\ Rep. Kolbe did not follow up with his former page or Rep.
Foley after Baugh had addressed the matter with Fordham.\95\
Rep. Kolbe testified that he thought the way he addressed the
issue was ``sufficient and the correct way to handle it.'' \96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Kolbe Dep. at 24.
\93\ Kolbe Dep. at 24.
\94\ Kolbe Dep. at 25.
\95\ Kolbe Dep. at 34.
\96\ Kolbe Dep. at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the former Kolbe page, on September 29, 2006,
after Rep. Foley resigned from the House, he called Rep.
Kolbe's cell phone to get advice on what he should do if asked
about the 2001 IM by the Committee on Standards or other
authority.\97\ The former page left a message and believes Rep.
Kolbe called him back the next day.\98\ According to the former
page, Rep. Kolbe responded that ``I haven't thought about that
in years,'' and told the former page that ``it is best that you
don't even bring this up with anybody. . . . [T]here is no good
that can come from it if you actually talk about this. The man
has resigned anyway.''\99\ Rep. Kolbe confirmed that he had
spoken to his former page after Rep. Foley's resignation, but
says that the page had already decided that he was not going to
report the IM, and that he merely responded, ``That's your
decision.'' \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35-37.
\98\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35. Rep. Kolbe recalls talking to
the former page on September 29, 2006, but the former page believes the
conversation took place on September 30, 2006. Kolbe Dep. at 91-92;
Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 38.
\99\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35.
\100\ Kolbe Dep. at 36, 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some days after that call, the former Kolbe page recalls
receiving a phone message from Rep. Kolbe in which he said,
``It looks like you did some talking.'' Rep. Kolbe continued on
to say that there was going to be a story about him in the
Washington Post and asked what the former Kolbe page had
said.\101\ According to the former Kolbe page, Rep. Kolbe's
message also said that he wanted to make sure that the page was
represented by counsel in case the matter ``blew up,'' and
advised him to call Rep. Kolbe on his home phone if he needed
anything.\102\ The former Kolbe page testified that he returned
Rep. Kolbe's call and told him that he was not the source for
the story and referred Rep. Kolbe to his attorney.\103\ Rep.
Kolbe acknowledged that he left a message for the former page
to see what he knew about ``the whole story that was appearing
in the paper,'' and that he was ``then informed that since [the
former page] had informed the Clerk's Office, he had an
attorney. So I made no further attempt to contact [the page].''
\104\ Rep. Kolbe testified that Baugh had previously spoken
with the former page and told him to report what he knew about
Rep. Foley to the Clerk's office.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40. See Jonathon Weisman,
``Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages in 2000,'' Washington Post, October 9,
2006.
\102\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40.
\103\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40-41. The former Kolbe page
continues to deny that he was the source for this story.
\104\ Kolbe Dep. at 66.
\105\ Kolbe Dep. at 46-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 10, 2006, Rep. Kolbe issued a statement that
included the following:
I have been contacted by news organizations about
former Rep. Foley's e-mail contacts with former pages.
This is my best recollection of the single incident I
was made aware of.
Some time after the Page program, an individual I had
appointed as a Page contacted my office to say he had
received e-mails from Rep. Foley that made him
uncomfortable. I was not shown the content of the
messages and was not told they were sexually explicit.
It was my recommendation that this complaint be passed
along to Rep. Foley's office and the Clerk who
supervised the Page program. This was done promptly. I
assume e-mail communication ceased since the former
Page never raised the issue again with my office. I
believed then, and believe now, that this was the
appropriate way to handle this incident given the
information I had and the fact that the young man was
no longer a Page and not subject to the jurisdiction of
the program.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Exhibit 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Other Foley conduct related to pages or former pages
During this period, Rep. Foley's chief of staff Kirk
Fordham also observed other conduct that raised concerns with
him regarding Rep. Foley's interaction with pages. He observed
that pages occasionally showed up at Rep. Foley's office to
have their picture taken with him or to get his autograph.\107\
In approximately 2002, Fordham learned that Rep. Foley had used
his own frequent flyer miles to fly a former page to Washington
to visit him.\108\ Fordham testified that around this same
time, he learned from Rep. Foley's information technology
manager, who maintained both Rep. Foley's office and home
computers, that Rep. Foley had been having e-mail
communications with former pages.\109\ The information
technology manager informed the Investigative Subcommittee that
he did not recall seeing any such e-mail.\110\ Fordham did not
attempt to view the e-mails or investigate the matter.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ Fordham Dep. at 12; Lester Int. Tr. at 13.
\108\ Fordham Dep. at 12-13.
\109\ Fordham Dep. at 30-31.
\110\ Dean Lester Interview Transcript at 25-26.
\111\ Fordham Dep. at 32.
\112\ Trandahl Dep. at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each year the pages vote as to who they would like to
appear as speaker during their graduation, and in 2002, Rep.
Foley was selected to speak.\112\ During the speech, Rep. Foley
referred to a number of pages by their nicknames and referred
to an instance where he had taken a page in his BMW out to
dinner. The page had purchased a dinner with Rep. Foley in the
Member's dining room in the Capitol as part of an auction
fundraiser for the page program, and Rep. Foley instead took
the page to Morton's restaurant.\113\ Another page testified
that upon overhearing a conversation among a number of pages
related to the dinner with Rep. Foley, Peggy Sampson told the
group to ``watch out'' for Rep. Foley:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Congressional Record H3281 (June 6, 2002).
Ms. Sampson, our Republican page supervisor, I can't
remember--I don't--she never like sat out there with us
but she was passing by, I guess or whatever, inside her
little office there, and mentioned in a manner and tone
like you would mention watch out for the crazy kid down
the street, watch out for that guy. It didn't sound
like she knew anything, just he's like the weird kid
down the street.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 7-8. After the e-mails and IMs from
Rep. Foley became publicly known in September 2006, this former page
gave an interview to the press in which he referenced this ``warning''
about Rep. Foley. Former Page X Int. Tr. at 43.
In response to Rep. Foley's speech, Trandahl deliberately
``rigged'' the election the following year so that Foley would
not speak during graduation.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ Trandahl Dep. at 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Efforts To Address Representative Foley's Conduct
Jeff Trandahl, beginning soon after Rep. Foley took office
in 1995 through the time that Trandahl left office on November
18, 2005, repeatedly attempted to address Rep. Foley's conduct
in a variety of ways. Trandahl testified that he was not aware
of any misconduct of a sexual nature by Rep. Foley, and he did
not consider Rep. Foley to be a ``threat'' to the pages.\116\
Rather, Trandahl described his concerns as two-fold. First, he
believed that Rep. Foley was taking a political risk by paying
too much attention to pages. He described this concern as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Trandahl Dep. at 28.
Here you had--which I think is appropriate to say--a
closeted gay guy who was putting himself in a situation
of being one on one with young people. And if an
accusation is made, he would be immediately presumed,
in a political light, guilty unless he could prove
himself innocent. So my counseling to him was, one, you
don't need to be in the middle of this community of
children; and two, you are creating an enormous
political risk for yourself.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Trandahl Dep. at 16.
Second, Trandahl was concerned for the integrity of the
program in that he believed that Rep. Foley's interaction with
the pages was a distraction and was interfering with the
program. As described earlier, Trandahl considered Rep. Foley
to be a ``nuisance,'' or a person that failed to keep a
professional distance from the pages.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Trandahl Dep. at 11-13, 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Communications directly to Representative Foley
Trandahl testified that beginning as early as the mid-
nineties, he repeatedly confronted Rep. Foley personally about
becoming too involved with the pages and failing to keep a
professional distance.\119\ Trandahl testified that over the
years, he directly confronted Foley on the matter approximately
ten times at various places for various reasons. Trandahl
testified as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Trandahl Dep. at 16.
The majority of the time [the discussions with Rep.
Foley] happened because I would see him on the floor
hanging out by the desk. Other times it would happen
because Peggy [Sampson] would say, Jeff, he is back.
And other times it would be opportunity. To be
perfectly frank, I would find myself standing in a
hallway alone with him, or in the lobby, and just
trying to reaffirm to him again that I thought he was
creating a bad perception for himself.
* * * * * * *
But again, I would react because Peggy would say
something to me that she felt like he was spending too
much time or he was hanging around too much. Linda
Miranda from the school would say, well, you know,
there was a former page reunion, and Mark Foley's name
was widely discussed by the kids. You know, he is
obviously communicating with them. My antenna would go
up again, that I needed to go back and try and push him
back.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Trandahl Dep. at 18, 75.
During these conversations, Rep. Foley would sometimes
appear to agree with Trandahl and at other times he would tell
Trandahl that he was being ``too intense or too concerned'' or
that the matter was not Trandahl's concern.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Trandahl Dep. at 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Communications to Kirk Fordham
In addition to raising his concerns directly with Rep.
Foley, Trandahl testified that he raised his concerns with Rep.
Foley's chief of staff Kirk Fordham on multiple occasions, a
fact which Fordham confirms. Trandahl testified that he raised
the issue with Fordham ``a lot more than 10 times,'' as
follows:
It was pretty much the same thing [as the
conversations with Rep. Foley], which is I felt
uncomfortable that Mark [Foley] was spending too much
time, I felt he was creating a political situation for
himself, a terrible perception. And to be perfectly
frank, I was on Kirk so much I was surprised he didn't
turn around and run every time he saw me.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Trandahl Dep. at 19.
Trandahl testified that Fordham shared his concerns and was
always ``100 percent agreeable'' to addressing the problem.
``[Fordham] would say, I will sit down and I will talk to Mark.
Other times he would say: You need to grab Mark and say this to
Mark and I will try to talk to him separately. So Kirk was
always agreeable.'' \123\ Both Trandahl and Fordham testified
that these conversations regarding Rep. Foley's interactions
with pages did not stem from a specific complaint or allegation
but rather a general concern that pages and Members should keep
a professional distance from one another.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Trandahl Dep. at 73.
\124\ Fordham Dep. at 8, 15; Trandahl Dep. at 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fordham testified that as a result of Trandahl's concerns,
he also confronted Rep. Foley on his relationship with pages on
several occasions. Fordham described one of those conversations
as follows:
I went in to the boss and again--very uncomfortable
conversation to have--and again relayed basically what
Mr. Trandahl had shared with me. I reminded him that
because, you know, he is gay--most of his colleagues
had figured that out, even though he hadn't announced
that he was, you know, people were watching what he
did. There [sic] were paying attention to his behavior,
and he needed to be more conscious of how he interacted
with younger staffers, interns, pages. So it was a
short conversation. We never had long discussions about
this stuff. It is not something I look forward to
doing.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Fordham Dep. at 10.
After his conversations with Rep. Foley and Fordham,
Trandahl noticed some positive effects. For example, he would
notice that Rep. Foley was not hanging around the page desk as
much. However, after some time had passed, Rep. Foley would
revert back to his former conduct.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Trandahl Dep. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fordham left Rep. Foley's office in January 2004 and later
returned to House employment as chief of staff to Rep. Tom
Reynolds in September 2005. He did not share with Rep. Reynolds
any of his concerns, experiences, or observations about Rep.
Foley and pages or former pages.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Fordham Dep. at 4-5, 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Communications with Ted Van Der Meid
Trandahl testified that he also raised his two-fold
concerns regarding Rep. Foley on a number of occasions to the
Speaker's counsel and director of floor operations, Ted Van Der
Meid.\128\ Trandahl approached Van Der Meid because, in
addition to serving as the Speaker's director of floor
operations, Van Der Meid was assigned as the Speaker's liaison
with the Clerk's office, including for matters related to the
page program.\129\ Specifically, as with Rep. Foley and
Fordham, Trandahl told Van Der Meid that Foley's conduct with
pages was distracting them from performing their page program
duties and that Rep. Foley's excessive attention to the pages
could be perceived as inappropriate and could harm Foley's
reputation.\130\ As noted previously, Trandahl also informed
Van Der Meid about the incident in which Rep. Foley allegedly
was intoxicated outside of the page dorm.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ Van Der Meid served as the staff director and chief counsel
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from 1995-99. Van Der
Meid Dep. at 6.
\129\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 21-22; Trandahl Dep. at 27, 88. Trandahl
testified that he discussed Rep. Foley's conduct with respect to pages
with the highest authority in the ``chain of command,'' Van Der Meid,
and that although he respected the ``chain of command,'' he felt
constrained by it at times. Trandahl Dep. at 88.
\130\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 40, 59.
\131\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 94-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Trandahl, he raised his concerns about Rep.
Foley to Van Der Meid ``pretty often'' in the context of
raising similar concerns he had relative to Van Der Meid's
over-involvement with pages assigned to the Speaker's office.
Trandahl testified, ``So here is my point of contact in the
Speaker (sic), and I'm trying to have the conversation about
him specifically, but also in a general sense.'' \132\
According to Trandahl, while Van Der Meid understood his
concerns ``politically,'' Van Der Meid's ``pushback'' was that
``there is nothing wrong with people being mentors and caring
about the kids.'' \133\ Trandahl responded that the page
program had paid professionals to serve those functions.
Trandahl felt that ``there needed to be a very clear line
between the page program and people who worked up here [in
leadership].'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ Trandahl Dep. at 30-32. Van Der Meid does not recall Trandahl
criticizing his interaction with pages and testified that his
interactions with pages were appropriate. Van Der Meid Dep. at 46-54.
\133\ Trandahl Dep. at 30.
\134\ Trandahl Dep. at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Van Der Meid did not report Trandahl's concerns about Rep.
Foley's conduct to anyone else in the Speaker's Office. During
his testimony, Van Der Meid stated that the decision as to
whether to elevate a matter within the Speaker's Office was a
``judgment call.'' \135\ He explained that he did not elevate
the Foley matter because he ``got the impression that
[Trandahl] was dealing with it.'' \136\ Van Der Meid stated,
``I think I just got the impression that [Trandahl] had talked
to Kirk [Fordham], and that was how he handled it.'' \137\ He
further testified that ``[Trandahl] had never asked me to take
any other action,'' and in any event, ``I don't know what I
would have done.'' \138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 112.
\136\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 56.
\137\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 62.
\138\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Communications with Scott Palmer
According to both Trandahl and Fordham, in late 2002 or
early 2003 Trandahl again approached Fordham about Rep. Foley's
interaction with the pages.\139\ Trandahl believes this
conversation may have been in part a reaction to Rep. Foley's
graduation speech to the pages, while Fordham believes it may
have been precipitated by Rep. Foley's alleged visit to the
page dorm while intoxicated.\140\ Fordham and Trandahl had
become frustrated that their previous efforts in getting
through to Rep. Foley had been unsuccessful, and they
brainstormed for more effective ways to modify Rep. Foley's
behavior. Fordham suggested that the matter be brought to the
attention of Speaker Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer,
with a view towards having either Palmer or the Speaker himself
talk to Rep. Foley. Trandahl agreed.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Trandahl Dep. at 33.
\140\ Trandahl Dep. at 36; Fordham Dep. at 18. Fordham's
recollection on this point appears incorrect. Other witnesses place
this alleged page dorm incident before 2000.
\141\ Trandahl Dep. at 33; Fordham Dep. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly thereafter, according to Fordham, Fordham called
Palmer to set up a meeting, and Fordham and Palmer met in a
conference room in the Capitol.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Fordham Dep. at 22-23.
I just put in a call directly to Palmer. I remember
it was uncomfortable. I just told him I had to talk to
him about something personal. I told him it was urgent.
So I don't remember if he set a specific time, or just
come down now, but it was immediately thereafter,
within the same day.
I walked over to his office in the Capitol. Met him
at his office, and then we walked upstairs to a--I
remember it was a small room, much smaller than this,
but it had a table and a few scattered chairs. It was
somewhere I had never been before. Somewhere up on the
3rd or 4th floor.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ Fordham Dep. at 22.
Fordham testified that he explained to Palmer that he had
received calls from the Clerk's office regarding Foley's
conduct around the pages, that ``there seems to be a chronic
problem with my boss's attention to pages and young staffers,''
and that he was looking for assistance in dealing with the
problem.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ Fordham Dep. at 23.
My plea to him was sort of that we needed to figure
out a way to send a message to Mark [Foley] that would
be clear, that there were other eyes keeping an eye on
him when he was interacting with pages, so that perhaps
if he knew more than--that it wasn't just me calling
him on this, that there were other people in leadership
that were aware, that this was in fact something that
he needed to correct.
And, you know, we had a frank conversation about, you
know, Mark. He [Palmer] liked Mark. He saw him in
thewhip meetings every week. We were both sort of exasperated about the
fact he's got a bright future, he is a talented Member; and couldn't
understand why he would put himself in such a position, that it was
sort of reckless behavior.
And so I asked him if he or the Speaker would speak
to Congressman Foley and just have a brief conversation
about this. And it was mainly because I knew that if
one of them had talked to Mark that the message
certainly would have gotten through to Mark. That it
would have shaken him up a bit.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ Fordham Dep. at 24-25.
Fordham says that he did not tell Palmer about the page
dorm incident he had heard about from Trandahl.\146\ Fordham
testified that, at the conclusion of the meeting, Palmer agreed
that either he or the Speaker would talk to Foley about the
matter.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ Fordham Dep. at 24.
\147\ Fordham Dep. at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fordham testified that a day or two later, he and Palmer
had a brief follow-up telephone conversation in which Palmer
told Fordham that he had spoken to Rep. Foley, they had a good
conversation, and that Rep. Foley ``understood the message.''
Fordham testified that Palmer also said that he had ``brought
the Speaker into the loop.'' \148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Fordham Dep. at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trandahl testified that he was not told about the meeting
with Palmer or invited to attend the meeting. He said that
within a few days after he and Fordham had decided to bring the
matter to Palmer, Palmer said to him in a short conversation in
the Speaker's suite, ``I've talked to Kirk Fordham. I
understand the problem. I'm on it.'' \149\ According to
Trandahl, he recalls this ``vividly'' because he had expected
to take part in the meeting and he was ``dumbfounded'' that the
meeting had occurred without him.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ Trandahl Dep. at 38.
\150\ Trandahl Dep. at 38, 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Fordham, several months after his meeting with
Palmer, ``Congressman Foley [ ] made reference about someone
had given him a warning or something like that. And I let him
know that I knew that Palmer had talked to him about it.''
\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ Fordham Dep. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palmer testified that he does not recall any meeting with
Kirk Fordham, confrontation with Rep. Foley, or conversation
with Trandahl after the alleged meeting with Fordham.\152\ When
asked about his alleged meetings with Fordham and Rep. Foley,
Palmer testified as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Palmer Dep. at 44-54, 163-74. Shortly after Foley's
resignation, apparently in response to what he believed were statements
by Fordham, Palmer issued a one-sentence press statement, stating that
``What Kirk Fordham said did not happen.'' Exhibit 7.
A I understand your question. I've thought about
this question just about every minute since that
Wednesday when this question was raised, and that's
several long weeks. I have agonized over this to try to
capture any recollection of this and the other piece of
it, too. I mean, trying to remember what he might have
said to me, but also always combined with whatever it
is he thinks he said to me is the notion that I would
have talked to Mark Foley, and I've tried to visualize
that conversation, and I just can't visualize it. At
the time it's hard to imagine I would forget it.
Q And in trying to visualize the conversation you
had with Mark Foley about conduct in general with
pages, however you want to characterize it,
inappropriate, overfriendly, any conduct is something
that that didn't happen?
A I believe it didn't happen. I don't have any
recollection of it. Again, I'm in the zone of trying to
prove a negative, but I just don't remember it, and I
think it would have been an awkward conversation.
* * * * * * *
I've been very careful with the committee, or I've tried to
be very careful, in not saying that I can't prove a negative. I
think I know what the limits are. I know what I remember, which
unfortunately is nothing, or maybe fortunately, because that
may be the truth. It may never have happened, and I know how I
behave well enough to know that he could not have come to me,
recollection or not, and told me about behavioral problems,
something that was going to put pages in danger, something that
was happening without my doing something about it. . . . When
you add to it the other piece, because there are two pieces
here, There's him talking to me, which I'm supposed to try to
remember, and then talking to the Foley. I just can't get
around talking to Foley. I can't visualize that. I can't craft
that in any way.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Palmer Dep. at 163-64, 172.
As noted in part II of this report, the Committee was
unable to address with Representative Foley whether this
meeting occurred.
5. Communications with Other Members of the Page Board
Trandahl testified that in the late nineties, he also
raised the matter of Rep. Foley's conduct around the pages with
Rep. Kolbe, who was a member of the Page Board from 1995 to
2001. Trandahl explained the context of his appeal to Rep.
Kolbe as follows:
Okay. The whole reason it was discussed the way it
was discussed was because I viewed Jim Kolbe the same
way, I viewed him as putting himself at risk. He, too,
spent far too much time socially interacting with the
pages. I was uncomfortable with it. And, you know, I
voiced that to his chief of staff; Fran, his
administrative assistant; Patrick Baugh; and to Jim
Kolbe himself. And I do remember discussing and
bringing Mark up to him and saying, you know, that I
felt he was doing the same thing, and that I needed it
all to stop.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ Trandahl Dep. at 22.
According to Trandahl, Rep. Kolbe remained involved in the
page program after his Page Board service and continued to be
among the people that Trandahl considered a ``nuisance'' in
terms of being too involved in the program. Although he
apparently did not again directly address the conduct of Rep.
Foley with Rep. Kolbe, Trandahl said he continued to raise his
concerns about Rep. Kolbe ``on multiple occasions'' directly to
Rep. Kolbe and also to McNaught and Baugh. Trandahl testified
that that while McNaught and Baugh were sympathetic ``and would
confirm to me that they talked to [Kolbe] multiple times as
well. . . . Unfortunately, they would tell me that [Kolbe]
would tell them to kind of mind their own business.'' \155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Trandahl Dep. at 106-07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from his unsuccessful attempt at addressing the
matter with Rep. Kolbe in the late nineties, Trandahl did not
raise his concerns about Rep. Foley to members of the Page
Board. Trandahl testified that Rep. Shimkus approached him on
the House floor in approximately 2004 with general concerns
that had been relayed to him from another Member regarding Rep.
Kolbe's interaction with pages, and Trandahl told him that
``Foley is a bigger problem to me.'' \156\ But aside from this
brief exchange, Trandahl never raised the Foley issue at a Page
Board meeting or individually to any other member of the Board.
Trandahl explained that he did not raise the Foley issue with
the Page Board because he believed that he was dealing only
with a ``nuisance'' or ``distraction,'' not a threat to the
pages.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Trandahl Dep. at 23-25. Rep. Shimkus does not recall any
conversation with Trandahl about Rep. Foley other than the November
2005 matter involving the e-mails. Representative John Shimkus Dep.
(hereinafter Shimkus Dep.) at 18.
\157\ Trandahl Dep. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Representative Foley's E-Mails to a Former Alexander Page
In July 2005, near the end of his page term, a page
sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander gave thank-you cards to a
number of Members and staff whom he had come to know during his
time as a page. One of the Members was Rep. Foley. Rep. Foley
asked the Alexander page to write his e-mail address on the
back of the card, and he did so.\158\ On July 29, 2006, at 1
p.m. on the Alexander page's last day as a page, he received
the first of seven e-mails he would eventually receive from
Rep. Foley. That e-mail, sent from the e-mail address
[email protected], contained the single sentence ``do I have the
right email,'' and concluded with Mark Foley's name.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ Former Alexander Page Dep. at 17-18.
\159\ Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After receiving a short response confirming that he had the
right e-mail address, Rep. Foley sent another e-mail the
following day to the now former page asking a number of casual
questions. The former page responded the following afternoon,
and that evening he received another e-mail from Rep. Foley
containing more general conversation, concluding with the
question ``how old are you now?'' The former page responded a
week later, telling Rep. Foley he was then 16 and would be 17
in December. Rep. Foley responded that same day, asking the
former page ``what do you want for your birthday coming up . .
. what stuff do you like to do.'' The former page responded
twelve days later, writing among other things, ``I don't know
what I want for my birthday'' and describing his hobbies and
interests, including that he likes to do ``what generally every
other teenager does.'' He also asked if Rep. Foley was
``keeping up with [the first name of another former page].''
Rep. Foley responded that night asking whether the former
Alexander page was asking about [the full name of the other
former page]. Four days later, on August 23, Rep. Foley wrote
to the former Alexander page again referring to the other page
as ``a nice guy'' who is ``in really great shape.'' \160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an e-mail on August 29, Rep. Foley asked the former page
how he was weathering hurricane Katrina, \161\ and also asked
him to e-mail Rep. Foley a ``pic'' of himself. This request
alarmed the former Alexander page, who was already concerned
regarding the frequency and the tenor of the earlier e-mails.
He raised his concerns to Danielle Savoy, an Alexander employee
whom he had come to know while he was a page. In an e-mail to
Savoy, the former page described Rep. Foley's e-mails and said
that Rep. Foley ``is starting to freak [him] out.'' At Savoy's
request, the former Alexander page then forwarded portions of
Rep. Foley's e-mails to her, characterizing them as ``sick,
sick, sick . . . .'' On August 31, 2005, the former page
forwarded to Savoy the entirety of Rep. Foley's portion of five
of the actual e-mails and asked her what she thought of
them.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ In an e-mail the previous day, the former Alexander page had
mentioned the approaching hurricane but had explained that he lived in
northern Louisiana, so the hurricane would not hit him. Exhibit 8.
\162\ Exhibit 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 1, Savoy discussed the e-mails with another
Alexander employee, Jonathan Johnson, who did not think that
they were particularly significant.\163\ Savoy, looking for
another opinion, then forwarded the e-mails, including the e-
mails between her and the former page, to her girlfriend,
Kelley Halliwell, who was a former House employee who was then
working for a small lobbying firm.\164\ Late on September 1,
the former Alexander page again e-mailed Savoy and asked,
``Just wondering . . . are you showing these e-mails to anyone?
I would prefer you not to.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Savoy testified that she told Johnson about contents of the
e-mails in some detail, including the request for a picture, and the
references to a birthday gift and the other page. Johnson recalls only
that he was advised that their former page had received some e-mails
that made him uncomfortable from an unspecified source. Danielle Savoy
Deposition (hereinafter Savoy Dep.) at 37-44; Jonathan Johnson
Interview Transcript at 9-11.
\164\ Savoy Dep. at 45-47; Interview Summary of Kelley Halliwell
(hereinafter Halliwell Int. Sum.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon receiving the e-mails, Halliwell forwarded them to her
boyfriend, Justin Field, who then worked for the House
Democratic Caucus, and also to her boss, Mike Grisso, a
registered lobbyist.\165\ Field was disturbed by the nature of
the e-mails, and shortly after he received them, he shared them
with his friend and colleague, Matt Miller, who was then the
communications director for the Democratic Caucus. The two
discussed the nature of the e-mails and possible actions.
Miller believed that the e-mails were inappropriate, and
suggested that they be given to the press.\166\ Miller
testified that he considered providing the e-mails to the
Committee on Standards or to the Page Board, but feared that
``nothing would come'' of such action. He says that he also
considered providing them to law enforcement, but believed that
the e-mails, though inappropriate, did not evidence the
commission of a crime.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ Halliwell Int. Sum. Grisso states that he did not discuss or
share the e-mails with anyone. Interview Summary of Mike Grisso.
\166\ Matthew Miller Deposition (hereinafter Miller Dep.) at 13-14;
Justin Field Interview Transcript (hereinafter Field Int. Tr.) at 8-9.
\167\ Miller Dep. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miller testified that in approximately November, 2005 he
redacted Savoy's e-mail address and Field's name from the top
of a printed copy of the e-mails and faxed them to reporters
that he knew at both the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg
Times.\168\ Miller said that later in November or in December,
he also provided the e-mails to a reporter from Roll Call. Both
Field and Miller testified that neither then-Rep. Menendez, who
was then chairman of the Democratic Caucus, nor any other
person in the office of the Democratic Caucus, was provided
with the e-mails or was involved in the decision to provide
them to the press.\169\ Miller testified that also during the
fall of 2005, in part as a ``gut check'' regarding his
impression of the e-mails, he provided the e-mails to the
communications director of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee (``DCCC''). Miller testified that he was not
aware of what actions his DCCC counterpart may have taken with
respect to the e-mails, but he expected that he would share
them with the press. Miller testified:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ Miller Dep. at 10-11, 22-35. Miller believes that he withheld
the e-mails between Savoy and the former Alexander page from the Miami
Herald. Miller Dep. at 26.
\169\ Miller Dep. at 40; Field Int. Tr. at 12.
I think I gave them to him not with any direct expectation,
but with the understanding that [the DCCC communications
director] is someone that talks to reporters all day. If
there's something that I'm missing, maybe--maybe there's a way
that he could get the--you know, that he could give them to a
reporter; you know, in the course of talking to reporters that
he might find a way. I didn't have any direct expectation, but
in general.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ Miller Dep. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Inquiries by the St. Petersburg Times
Miller testified that he had a number of conversations with
the Miami Herald reporter after providing her with the e-mails.
According to Miller, the reporter told him that the Herald did
not actively pursue the story out of concern over the
authenticity of the e-mails and a reluctance to contact the
minor page.\171\ The St. Petersburg Times, however, made a
number of inquiries. In mid-November 2005, a reporter from the
St. Petersburg Times contacted the offices of both Rep. Foley
and Rep. Alexander about the e-mails.\172\ Rep. Foley spoke
with the reporter personally and explained that the e-mails
were innocent. He said that he was merely checking up on the
page after Hurricane Katrina, that he maintained contact with
many former interns and pages who often sought job
recommendations, and that he considered himself to be mentoring
the former page.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ Miller Dep. at 26-27. Miller testified that he had no
communications with the Roll Call reporter after he provided the e-
mails.
\172\ Miller Dep. at 33-34.
\173\ Miller Dep. at 34; Liz Nicholson Deposition (hereinafter
Nicholson Dep.) at 8, 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2005, the former Alexander page received a call
on his home phone from a reporter at the St. Petersburg Times.
The reporter told the former page that he had the e-mails Rep.
Foley had sent to him and explained that the reporter was
working on a story about them because he thought it ``would be
good for the people in the District to know what kind of person
is representing them in Congress.'' The former Alexander page
spoke to the reporter but ``tried to keep it vague.'' \174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Alexander Former Page Dep. at 43-47. The former page
repeatedly asked the reporter how he had obtained the e-mails, but the
reporter refused to reveal his source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After speaking to the former Alexander page, the St.
Petersburg Times reporter contacted Rep. Alexander's press
secretary, Adam Terry. According to Terry, the reporter
described the e-mails, indicated that Savoy was a party to
them, and sought comment. The reporter asked if Alexander's
office knew anything about the e-mails, and if so, why Rep.
Alexander's office had not done anything about them.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ Adam Terry Interview Transcript (hereinafter Terry Int. Tr.)
at 7-9, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At Terry's request, Savoy produced the e-mails, and a
discussion followed within Rep. Alexander's office as to how to
handle the matter. According to Rep. Alexander, at one point he
also talked to the reporter and opined that although he would
not have sent any similar e-mails, he could not judge whether
they were inappropriate. Rep. Alexander testified that he
``couldn't really understand what the big deal was,'' and
suspected that the reporter ``knew a whole lot more than what
we were looking at in the e-mails.'' \176\ According to Terry
and Rep. Alexander, in the course of these discussions, Terry
had noticed that the reporter was missing one of the e-mails
from the former Alexander page. After discussing this with both
Rep. Alexander and Rep. Alexander's chief of staff, Royal
Alexander,\177\ he sent the reporter the complete set of the e-
mails.\178\ Terry did not consult or obtain permission from the
former page or his family before doing so.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ Representative Rodney Alexander Deposition (hereinafter Rep.
Alexander Dep.) at 22-23.
\177\ Royal Alexander is not related to Rep. Alexander.
\178\ Terry Int. Tr. at 19-20. Terry stated ``You have a reporter
calling you from the St. Petersburg Times, so he is about to write a
story. Our concern was, he needs to know everything if he is going to
write about the e-mail dialogue. Let's get it all to him.'' Terry Int.
Tr. at 19. Rep. Alexander testified that the reporter was missing the
e-mail from the page to Savoy asking her not to share the e-mails, and
that they forwarded that e-mail to fend off a claim that they ``were
trying to cover something up.'' Alexander Dep. at 16.
\179\ Terry Int. Tr. at 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Rep. Alexander and Royal Alexander, at Rep.
Alexander's direction, Royal Alexander called the former page's
parents and warned them that they might be contacted by the
press about the Foley e-mails. The former Alexander page's
father recalls that Royal Alexander told him that a reporter
might be calling him but that he did not have to talk to the
reporter.\180\ The father also recalled that Royal Alexander
made a comment to the effect that ``they were trying to make
something of [the e-mails]'' and that ``the Democrats would
like to use something like this'' against a Republican.\181\
During their conversation, the father did not make any requests
or provide any instructions not to disclose the matter to other
Members of Congress or conduct an investigation into the
matter.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Father of Former Page Dep. at 13.
\181\ The father testified as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A I think he said that--he said the Democrats would like
to use something like this to smear a Republican.
Q Did he say words like that?
A He didn't say the word ``smear'' but he did mention
the Democrats would like to--would love to use something
like this; something to that effect.
Q What did he say about the Democrats?
A That they would love to have something, to get
something--I don't remember verbatim, but to the effect
they would like to get something on a Republican, you know,
make something out of it. Father of Former Page Dep. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ Father of Former Page Dep. at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The former page's mother recalls being asked by Rep.
Alexander's staff whether the family wanted to pursue anything
in connection with the e-mails, and that she said that she did
not feel there was anything in the e-mails to pursue. She
recalls telling them in substance to ``do what you need to
do,'' but that she did not want the matter ``blown out of
proportion.'' \183\ The parents asked that the contact from
Rep. Foley stop, and they expressed their desire that their son
not be involved in a public ordeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ Mother of Former Page Dep. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Petersburg Times ultimately did contact the former
page's parents, who declined to comment and made ``vehement
pleas to drop the matter.'' The St. Petersburg Times decided
not to run a story on the e-mails, concluding that it ``did not
have enough substantiated information to reach beyond
innuendo.'' \184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ Neil Brown, ``Why the Times didn't publish the Foley e-
mails,'' St. Petersburg Times, October 5, 2006; Miller Dep. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After Rep. Foley resigned, Alexander's office contacted the
family of the former page to suggest that a public statement
from the family might help alleviate the media pressure being
placed on Alexander's office and deter further media attention
on the family.\185\ According to the former Alexander page's
father, the family edited a suggested statement sent by Rep.
Alexander's office to reflect their own language and because
the statement provided by Rep. Alexander's office contained
information that the family could not have known.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Father of Former Page Dep. at 32, 43, 45-46; Terry Int. Tr.
at 44.
\186\ Father of Former Page Dep. at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Intervention by Trandahl and Representative Shimkus
1. Representative Alexander's office contacts the Speaker's Office
In response to the call from the St. Petersburg Times and
the conversation with the former page's parents, Rep. Alexander
directed Royal Alexander to contact the Speaker's office to
advise them of the situation and to seek their assistance in
ensuring that Rep. Foley stop contacting the former Alexander
page. Although there were significant differences in the
testimony regarding the manner in which that contact occurred,
there was general agreement that the Speaker's office was
notified, and that the Speaker's office referred the matter to
the Clerk of the House to take the lead in addressing the
issue.
According to Royal Alexander, on November 17, 2005, he
contacted Mike Stokke, the Speaker's deputy chief of staff, to
brief him on the matter. Royal Alexander contacted Stokke
because he knew him personally. Royal Alexander says that he
explained the matter on the telephone to Stokke and generally
described the e-mails as overly friendly, although he does not
recall the precise words he used. He testified that he is
certain that he did not share the e-mails with Stokke or with
anyone else, because he was trying to protect the privacy of
the former page.\187\ Royal Alexander testified that Stokke
responded by saying ``we know,'' or words to that effect, and
that he was relieved by this response because he thought that
it meant that the Speaker's office was aware of the issue and
would take care of it.\188\ Royal Alexander also testified that
Stokke told him that someone from the Clerk's office would get
in touch with him on the matter, and the next event he recalls
is receiving a call from a woman in the Clerk's office telling
him that they were ``working on addressing the situation.'' He
does not recall the specific person who called or her precise
words, but he understood that she was referring to the Foley
matter. Royal Alexander could not place the date of this phone
call, but he believes it was within a week of his phone call
with Stokke.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ Royal Alexander Deposition (hereinafter Royal Alexander Dep.)
at 50.
\188\ Royal Alexander Dep. at 48-50, 53.
\189\ Royal Alexander Dep. at 59-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Stokke confirms receiving a phone call from Royal
Alexander, but he recalls that Royal Alexander then came to
Stokke's office to discuss the matter in person. According to
Stokke, during this meeting in his office, Royal Alexander
showed, read, or summarized the e-mails to him, but did not
provide him with a copy. Stokke, believing that he had no
responsibility for the page program, said that his ``intention
was to solve the problem that they had brought to us, which is
how do we prevent this Member from having . . . continued
inappropriate contact with this page, and figure out the right
place for this to go, and to have that person'' prevent future
contact with the page.\190\ He therefore asked his assistant,
Tim Kennedy, to consult Van Der Meid as to whom the matter
should be referred. Van Der Meid advised that the matter should
be referred to the Clerk of the House, because the page program
was under the Clerk's jurisdiction.\191\ Accordingly, Stokke
recalls that Royal Alexander was put in touch directly with the
Clerk, Jeff Trandahl. Stokke testified that while he was
concerned about the request for a picture,\192\ he did not
report the matter to either Speaker Hastert or his chief of
staff, Scott Palmer.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ Stokke Dep. at 55-56.
\191\ Stokke Dep. at 21-46.
\192\ Stokke Dep. at 34-35.
\193\ Stokke Dep. at 55. Similarly, Van Der Meid said that he did
not inform the Speaker regarding the e-mails, and could not recall
informing Palmer. Van Der Meid Dep. at 142. Kennedy also testified that
within the Speaker's office, to his knowledge, only he, Van Der Meid,
and Stokke were aware of the e-mails in November, 2005. Kennedy Dep. at
41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trandahl testified that he first heard about the e-mails
from Tim Kennedy, the assistant to Stokke and Van Der Meid, who
called him and told him generally that there had been an e-mail
exchange between Rep. Foley and a former page from Rep.
Alexander's office.\194\ Trandahl testified that he immediately
called Rep. Alexander's office and talked to Royal Alexander.
According to Trandahl, Royal Alexander explained that one of
Rep. Alexander's former pages had been receiving e-mails from
Rep. Foley that were making the former page uncomfortable, that
the press was calling the former page's family, and that the
parents of the former page wanted the contact from Rep. Foley
to stop.\195\ Royal Alexander also reportedly told Trandahl
that the family did not want their name in the newspaper and
``just wanted it all to go away.'' \196\ Trandahl recalls that
he asked several times for copies of the e-mails, but that
Royal Alexander was unwilling to provide them.\197\ Trandahl
also asked repeatedly whether the e-mails were sexually
explicit, and he was told that they were not, but were merely
``overly friendly'' or ``too familiar.'' \198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Trandahl Dep. at 48-49.
\195\ Trandahl Dep. at 51-52.
\196\ Trandahl Dep. at 50-52.
\197\ Trandahl Dep. at 52.
\198\ Trandahl testified as follows: ``And then I was like, okay,
will you read them to me? Will you--what are these things? Are they
sexually explicit? I must have used the words `sexually explicit' about
20 times in that conversation, saying characterize them for me then.
And that's where the famous `overly friendly' came from. It was me
saying are they overly friendly, if they're not sexual? Why are people
uncomfortable?'' Trandahl Dep. at 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No notes or memoranda were prepared within the Speaker's
office to record that Alexander's office had brought the e-
mails to their attention or that the matter had been referred
to the Clerk.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ Stokke Dep. at 69, 78-79, 94-95; Kennedy Dep. at 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless of how the matter had been referred to Trandahl,
once the matter had been brought to his attention, Trandahl
resolved to confront Rep. Foley in order to get him to stop
contacting the former Alexander page and to again raise with
Rep. Foley the concerns he had been raising for years regarding
Rep. Foley's interaction with pages.
2. Trandahl and Representatives Shimkus confront Representative Foley
Following his conversation with Royal Alexander, Trandahl
immediately called Rep. Foley's chief of staff to set up a
meeting with Rep. Foley. He then went to the House floor with
his deputy clerk, Gerry Vans, in search of Rep. Shimkus, the
chairman of the Page Board, to ask him to accompany him to Rep.
Foley's office.\200\ Trandahl found Rep. Shimkus on the floor,
briefed him on the matter, and explained that a ``Member-to-
Member [confrontation with Rep. Foley] would be much more
effective than just me.'' \201\ Trandahl testified that he
further explained to Rep. Shimkus that ``this is exactly the
perception problem I've warned Mark Foley about multiple
times,'' and that he characterized Rep. Foley to Rep. Shimkus
as a ``ticking time bomb.'' \202\ Rep. Shimkus describes the
communication from Trandahl as ``They [the parents of the
former page] are asking us to approach Congressman Foley and
ask him to stop contacting their son via e-mail, and they want
this kept in confidence.'' \203\ According to Rep. Shimkus,
Trandahl also had an 8\1/2\ by 11 inch sheet of paper which
included words and phrases, and which Rep. Shimkus recalls
saying something about Hurricane Katrina and asking for a
``pic.'' \204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ Trandahl Dep. at 53-54.
\201\ Trandahl Dep. at 56.
\202\ Trandahl Dep. at 57-58.
\203\ Shimkus Dep. at 10.
\204\ Shimkus Dep. at 10. Trandahl does not recall learning
anything about the contents of the e-mails at this time, including the
request for a picture, and he does not recall having any piece of paper
with him when he met with Shimkus or Foley. Trandahl Dep. at 84, 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Shimkus agreed to accompany Trandahl to confront Rep.
Foley, and the two of them went to Rep. Foley's office in the
Cannon House Office Building later that day, November 17, 2005.
During the meeting, which also included Foley's new chief of
staff Liz Nicholson, Rep. Shimkus directed Rep. Foley to cease
all communications with the former Alexander page and to stay
away from the page program in general. Rep. Shimkus recalls
that he gave Rep. Foley the single sheet of paper that Trandahl
had reportedly given him. Rep. Shimkus testified that Rep.
Foley said that if he was being accused of being ``overly
friendly,'' then he was ``guilty,'' and explained that he was
``mentoring'' the page, as Rep. Foley himself had been mentored
and encouraged in politics when he was young.\205\ Trandahl
recalls that Rep. Shimkus asked Rep. Foley whether there were
any additional communications with House pages, and Rep. Foley
``left the impression'' that this was the only former page that
he was actively talking to.\206\ According to Nicholson,
Trandahl may have also told Rep. Foley at the meeting, ``Mark,
you've been warned by Scott before.'' After Trandahl and Rep.
Shimkus had departed, Nicholson asked Rep. Foley what Trandahl
was referring to by this comment, and Rep. Foley ``said
something about--that Scott Palmer had talked to him once
before about . . . mentoring with youths and things like
that.'' \207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Shimkus Dep. at 19.
\206\ Trandahl Dep. at 99-100. Rep. Shimkus testified that he did
not ask Rep. Foley if he had been in contact with other pages. Shimkus
Dep. at 20.
\207\ However, Nicholson later testified that it might have been
Kirk Fordham who said this to Foley at a meeting she recalls occurring
a few weeks after the November 17 confrontation. Nicholson Dep. at 19-
20, 26, 98-100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trandahl briefed Van Der Meid on the confrontation with
Rep. Foley either in the Speaker's office immediately after the
meeting or later that night on the House floor.\208\ According
to Van Der Meid, this conversation was the first time he
learned any details regarding the matter, including that the
matter involved Rep. Foley.\209\ According to Stokke, he
followed up with Tim Kennedy at the end of the week as to
whether they had heard anything from the Clerk's office
relative to the resolution of the Foley e-mail matter, and
Kennedy reported that Trandahl had intervened with Rep. Foley
and that the matter had been resolved to the satisfaction of
the former page and the parents.\210\ Van Der Meid recalls that
he had a similar wrap-up conversation with Stokke.\211\
Trandahl's last day as Clerk of the House was the next day,
Friday, November 18, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ Trandahl recalls that the briefing occurred immediately after
the meeting, while Van Der Meid testified that it occurred that night
on the House floor. Trandahl Dep. at 65-67; Van Der Meid Dep. at 131-
35.
\209\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 133.
\210\ Stokke Dep. at 69-70.
\211\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 139-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Shimkus testified that he did not consider involving
other members of the Page Board in addressing the matter of the
Foley e-mails. Rep. Shimkus explained this decision as follows:
Well, first of all, the excerpts of the e-mail were
such that this is a former page. They are not a current
page. It is a request of the parents to intervene.
There is nothing explicit in these e-mails that would
rise to the level of concern that there is anything
other than what it says on this e-mail. We were asked
to address this by the parents in confidence, and that
is--I weighed on doing something that is not easy to
do, addressing a colleague on something of this nature
and keeping confidence with the parents. That is
why.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ Shimkus Dep. at 12.
After Rep. Foley resigned, on approximately October 2,
2006, Rep. Shimkus told fellow Page Board member Rep. Shelley
Moore Capito that he believed he had done the right thing in
2005 based on the information he had, but added words to the
effect of ``Dale's [Rep. Dale Kildee] a nice guy, but he's a
Democrat, and I was afraid it would be blown out of
proportion.'' \213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ Representative Shelley Moore Capito Deposition (hereinafter
Capito Dep.) at 21. Rep. Shimkus confirms that he made such a statement
to Rep. Capito in October 2006, but he testified that party affiliation
was not a factor in his decision in 2005. He ascribes the statement to
frustration over the timing of the release of the sexually explicit IMs
in late September 2006, just prior to the election. Shimkus Dep. at
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Continuing Press Interest; Representatives Alexander Briefs Majority
Leader Boehner and Representative Reynolds; Majority Leader Boehner and
Representative Reynolds Reportedly Brief Speaker Hastert
Over Memorial Day weekend 2006, Matt Miller, the House
Democratic Caucus communications director, who is himself a
former page, attended a page reunion in Washington. During the
reunion, in a conversation with another former page, he
mentioned the Foley e-mails and his frustration that the press
had declined to run a story on them. The other former page put
him in touch with a writer from Harper's Magazine. The Harper's
writer was interested in the story, and soon thereafter, he
contacted the offices of both Rep. Foley and Rep. Alexander.
Rep. Foley, as he had done previously with the St. Petersburg
Times, talked to the reporter directly and attempted to explain
away the e-mails.\214\ Rep. Alexander's office again responded
by contacting the former page's parents to warn of possible
press calls, and also to confirm that there had been no more
communication from Rep. Foley.\215\ Royal Alexander also again
contacted Stokke to advise him of the renewed press interest in
Rep. Foley's e-mails. On June 1, 2006, Royal Alexander e-mailed
Stokke, ``I just wanted to give you a heads up that that
sensitive matter we discussed about 3 months ago re Rep. Foley
is cropping up again. It may be worth a conversation.'' \216\
According to Royal Alexander, Stokke did not respond.\217\
Stokke testified that he does not recall receiving the e-
mail.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ Nicholson Dep. at 36.
\215\ Rep. Alexander Dep. at 41-42; Mother of Former Page Dep. at
35-38.
\216\ Exhibit 9.
\217\ Royal Alexander Dep. at 79-81.
\218\ Stokke Dep. at 106-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Alexander decided at that point that he personally
needed to bring the matter to the attention of leadership
because he ``felt like the story was about to break and just
need[ed] somebody to know.'' \219\ While on the House floor
during a series of votes, Rep. Alexander mentioned the matter
to Majority Leader Boehner, stating in substance, ``I don't
know how familiar you are with the e-mail story about the page
from Louisiana and Congressman Foley. But we have gotten
another inquiry from a different media source about these e-
mails. And I wanted you to be aware that they are contacting
the office again.'' According to Rep. Alexander, Majority
Leader Boehner responded with words to the effect of ``Okay, we
will handle it.'' \220\ Majority Leader Boehner confirmed that
this conversation occurred. His recollection of the
conversation was substantially the same, although he recalls
that his response to Rep. Alexander was ``thanks for the
info.'' \221\ Majority Leader Boehner recalls that his
conversation with Rep. Alexander lasted for ``less than a
minute.'' \222\ According to both Rep. Alexander and Rep. Tom
Reynolds, Rep. Alexander also similarly briefed Rep. Reynolds
during the same time period in a short conversation on the
House floor.\223\ Rep. Alexander did not show the e-mails to
either Majority Leader Boehner or Rep. Reynolds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ Rep. Alexander Dep. at 48-50, 72.
\220\ Rep. Alexander Dep. at 49.
\221\ Majority Leader John Boehner Deposition (hereinafter Boehner
Dep.) at 6-8.
\222\ Boehner Dep. at 9.
\223\ There was a difference in testimony regarding this sequence
of events. Rep. Alexander believes that he first briefed Majority
Leader Boehner, and then briefed Rep. Reynolds later that same day
after Rep. Reynolds came to him on the floor and said that he had been
told about the e-mails by Leader Boehner. Alexander Dep. at 50-51. Rep.
Reynolds testified that Leader Boehner advised him on the House floor
that Rep. Alexander would be coming to see him on an unspecified
matter, and that Rep. Alexander eventually approached him as long as a
week later. Representative Tom Reynolds Deposition (hereinafter
Reynolds Dep.) at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Leader Boehner testified that within half an hour
of being briefed by Rep. Alexander, he believes that he briefed
Speaker Hastert on the matter on the House floor, and that
Speaker Hastert said that the matter ``has been taken care
of.'' Majority Leader Boehner testified as follows:
Q Now, you say later on--how soon after [talking to
Alexander] did you speak with the Speaker?
A You know, some--I would say sometime within a
half-hour, an hour, as best I can recall. Best I can
recall, I believe that I found the Speaker on the floor
and told him what Alexander had told me, and I believe
that he said to me it had been taken care of.
Q Now, when you had heard this news from Mr.
Alexander, and the conversation concluded, I mean, did
you make a decision to talk to the Speaker, or how you
were going to handle it?
A No. No. The Speaker and I have conversations all
day every day, and I routinely pass information to him,
and he routinely passes information to me.
Q So to the best of your recollection, what of this
information that was told from Mr. Alexander did you
communicate to the Speaker?
A As best I can recall that Alexander talked to me,
that there had been some contact between Foley and a
former page, and that the parents didn't want it
pursued. I don't know whether I told him that Reynolds
told me he had talked to--or Alexander--I don't know
whether I told him that Alexander had told Reynolds. I
may have. I don't know.
* * * * * * *
Q So the Speaker communicated that it had been taken
care of?
A Yes, to the best I can recall.
Q Can you testify that those were his exact words,
or you are characterizing?
A No. I believe that those were the exact words.
Q What did you take that to mean?
A That it had been taken care of. The Speaker--the
Speaker is a friend of mine. We've known each other a
long time. We've worked close together. We work well
together, and this is something--an issue in his
purview, and he tells me it has been taken care of, I
believe it has been taken care of.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ Boehner Dep. at 11-13.
The conversation was apparently brief. Paula Nowakowski,
Majority Leader Boehner's chief of staff, testified that
Boehner briefed her on what he had heard from Rep. Alexander,
but that Majority Leader Boehner did not mention that he had
briefed the Speaker.\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Paula Nowakowski Deposition (hereinafter Nowakowski Dep.) at
9-11, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Hastert testified that he does not recall this
conversation. ``What I'm saying is I don't remember having that
conversation with Boehner on the House floor; and probably the
House floor would not be the place to have that conversation,
in my point of view.'' \226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ Hastert Dep. at 8, 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Rep. Reynolds testified that ``more than a day''
after he was briefed by Alexander, he also informed Speaker
Hastert, probably in Speaker Hastert's office, of the
information he had learned from Rep. Alexander. Specifically,
Rep. Reynolds testified that he told Speaker Hastert that he
had had a conversation with Rep. Alexander ``that indicated
that he had a page that received some overly friendly e-mails
from Mark Foley. But that the parents were aware, and didn't
want anything further to happen or to be dealt with on the
issue.'' \227\ According to Rep. Reynolds, the Foley e-mails
were just one briefing item out of many at that meeting, and
Speaker Hastert did not comment on the matter.\228\ A Reynolds
aide, Sally Vastola, recalls a brief discussion in a car
outside the Capitol during this time period in which Rep.
Reynolds, who was late for an appearance at a campaign event,
explained to her that he was late because he had to go see the
Speaker about a conversation he had with Rep. Alexander
regarding Rep. Foley. Rep. Reynolds did not elaborate on the
content of that conversation.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ Reynolds Dep. at 18.
\228\ Reynolds Dep. at 18-19.
\229\ Sally Vastola Deposition (hereinafter Vastola Dep.) at 15.
Rep. Reynolds does not recall mentioning his meeting with the Speaker
to Vastola. Reynolds Dep. at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Hastert testified that he does not recall any
conversation with Rep. Reynolds regarding the Foley e-
mails.\230\ Speaker Hastert testified that it is his practice
to make notes regarding significant matters brought to his
attention, particularly if action is required by his office,
and that he does not recall recording the alleged conversations
with Majority Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ Hastert Dep. at 7. The Speaker's office released a document
entitled ``Internal Review of Contacts with the Office of the Speaker
Regarding the Congressman Mark Foley Matter'' on September 30, 2006,
which is discussed later in this report. The ``Internal Review'' states
in part, ``During a meeting with the Speaker [Rep. Reynolds] says he
noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker
than an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and
Shimkus.'' Reynolds denies that he advised the Speaker regarding any
investigation or other resolution of the matter. According to Rep.
Reynolds, at the time he notified the Speaker of the matter, he had
``no idea there was an investigation done by Mr. Shimkus or the Clerk
of the House.'' Reynolds Dep. at 58-59.
\231\ On this point, the Speaker testified as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A I stated that I don't recollect that conversation taking
place. I carry these little note cards with me all the
time. Usually if I have something, I take it down. I wrote
it down. I have never done that.
Q With respect to Mr. Boehner or Mr. Reynolds'
conversation?
A That's correct.
Q What types of matters do you take down on your note
cards?
A If a Member asks me to do something, I write it down.
More than two things, I can't remember it anymore.
Q What if a Member just passes on information or keeps
you informed or keeps you in the loop, would you write that
down on your note cards?
A Depends on what the information is. I'm not trying to
be coy, it just depends what it is.
Q So if it requires you to take an affirmative step or
to do something --
A If they are asking me to do something or take an
action or provide a resource, I would--I would make note of
it on the floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hastert Dep. at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stokke testified that in May 2006, Rep. Reynolds also
raised the Foley issue with him as a potential political
problem during the course of a discussion on political matters
in Stokke's office. Stokke told Rep. Reynolds that he was aware
of the issue and that he thought that it had been ``handled.''
\232\ Stokke described the exchange as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ Stokke Dep. at 94-102.
I believe he [Rep. Reynolds] raised it as part of a
discussion of a number of Member[s]; and the issue there was,
as I recall it, he was going to run again, Mr. Foley, but there
has been this issue raised about Mr. Foley. And my recollection
is that I indicated that we were aware of this issue and that
this issue had been dealt with. Not in a press sense, because I
don't know where the press state was, but in a solve-the-
problem sense.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ Stokke Dep. at 98. Nicholson testified that beginning in
early 2006, Rep. Foley began to express serious reservations about
running for reelection, and that she had difficulty getting him to
focus on what appeared to be a significant election challenge.
Nicholson testified that Rep. Foley was ``down'' and was a ``whole
different guy'' for a long period, and it was not until early summer
that he began to get energized about the election. Nicholson Dep. at
42-45.
Ultimately, as with the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg
Times, Harper's declined to run a story on the e-mails because
they ``did not have absolute proof that Foley was, as one
editor put it, `anything but creepy.' '' \234\ Nevertheless,
the e-mails continued to circulate throughout the spring and
summer of 2006. According to the Harper's reporter, he was
disappointed with the decision not to publish, and he ``passed
along the emails and related materials to several people who
were in a position to share them with other media outlets,''
and he ``subsequently learned that other people had the same
information and were also contacting reporters.'' \235\ Jason
Kello, Rep. Foley's communications director, testified that by
the summer of 2006, his assumption was that every reporter he
dealt with had the e-mails, and he repeatedly raised the issue
with Liz Nicholson and Rep. Foley in an effort to develop a
plan to respond to the issue. In his view, ``it was not an if
these e-mails came out, that it was more along the lines of
when these e-mails came out.'' \236\ According to Nicholson, in
July of 2006, the Foley campaign received word that Foley's
Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, intended to use the e-mails
in his campaign.\237\ According to an organization called
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
(``CREW''), it received the e-mails from an undisclosed source
on July 21, 2006, and forwarded them to the FBI the same day.
The FBI apparently declined to pursue the matter at that
time.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Ken Silverstein, ``Republicans Want to Turn Over a New
Page,'' Harper's Magazine online, Oct. 10, 2006.
\235\ Ken Silverstein, ``Republicans Want to Turn Over a New
Page,'' Harper's Magazine online, Oct. 10, 2006.
\236\ Jason Kello Interview Transcript (hereinafter Kello Int. Tr.)
at 19-20 (emphases added).
\237\ Nicholson Dep. at 40-41.
\238\ The Justice Department has reportedly stated, ``The e-mails,
while inappropriate, did not contain a criminal predicate to allow the
FBI to move forward with an investigation.'' Dan Eggen, ``Watchdog
Group Disputes FBI's Claims on E-Mails,'' Washington Post, Oct. 6,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. The E-Mails Are Published and the Instant Messages Surface
On Sunday, September 24, 2006, the e-mails were posted on
an apparently recently established weblog,
stopsexpredators.blogspot.com. The postings included the
comment, ``This is absolutely amazing. I just received these
emails. They were sent by Congressman Mark Foley to a 16-year-
old male page. I have removed his name to protect his identity.
But how shocking is this? I can't believe this was emailed to
me? There must be even more out there. Email me at
[email protected] and let me know what we should
do!!!! Something must be done!!!!'' \239\ Another weblog,
wonkette.com, subsequently linked to the stopsexpredators
weblog on September 27, 2006, although wonkette.com was
skeptical that the e-mails were real.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ Exhibit 10. Subsequent press reports identified the blogger
as former Democratic congressional aide Lane Hudson. Hudson reportedly
provided the e-mails to the Los Angeles Times in July 2006 and later
established the blog after being frustrated that the Times had not
published an article. Hudson would not identify the source of the e-
mails but said that they ``weren't hard to come by.'' Hudson was then
employed by the Human Rights Campaign, but he was later terminated for
violating the organization's policy against using its computers for
blogging. Noam Levey, ``Anti-Foley Blogger Speaks Out,'' Los Angeles
Times, Nov. 10, 2006.
\240\ Exhibit 11. (``This is one in a series of emails some
anonymous and semi-literate blogger claims are from Representative Mark
Foley (R-FL) to a 16-year-old male House page. Oh, of course they're
not real. But let's all pretend, ok? 'Cause it's better than another
damn plagiarism `scandal''').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next day, Monday, September 25, Rep. Foley and his
staff had a conference call to discuss the e-mails. During the
call, at least two staff members pressed Rep. Foley on whether
there was ``anything else out there,'' and Rep. Foley told them
that there was not. The conclusion after the meeting was to
wait and see if anything else happened. As the week went on,
Rep. Foley's office continued to get inquiries from a number of
media outlets and others, including the Washington Post and ABC
news.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ Kello Int. Tr. at 31-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thursday, September 28, 2006, Rhonda Schwartz of ABC
News contacted Foley's chief of staff, Liz Nicholson, regarding
the e-mails, and Nicholson commented at length on the
record.\242\ Later that day, ABC News posted a story on the e-
mails on the Brian Ross page of its website. Nicholson was
quoted in the article as saying that Rep. Foley's office
believed that the e-mail exchange was totally innocent, and
that the e-mails were released by the opposition as part of an
``ugly smear campaign.'' Nicholson also was reported to have
said that Rep. Foley's office ``believed the e-mail exchange
began when the page asked Rep. Foley for a recommendation.''
The article also reported that ``Foley's office says it is
their policy to keep pictures of former interns and anyone who
may ask for a recommendation on file so they can remember
them.'' \243\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ Nicholson Dep. at 59-60. Nicholson became Foley's chief of
staff in May 2005. Nicholson Dep. at 6.
\243\ Rhonda Schwartz and Maddy Sauer, ``Sixteen-Year Old Who
Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with
Congressman.'' The post indicates that it was posted at 3:06 p.m. on
September 28, 2006. Exhibit 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ABC News report came to the attention of Stokke in the
Speaker's office, who testified that he recalled getting an e-
mail from Royal Alexander telling him that the issue regarding
the e-mails had ``come up again.'' \244\ Stokke thought that
the issue had previously been ``raised and addressed,'' and
that it was now a ``political/media'' issue, and said that he
did not discuss the matter with anyone in the Speaker's office
that day.\245\ Van Der Meid also recalls hearing about the e-
mails on September 28, and understanding that these were the
same e-mails that he had known about earlier.\246\ He does not
recall talking to anyone about the e-mails on that day.\247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ Stokke Dep. at 115-16.
\245\ Stokke Dep. at 121.
\246\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 155-56.
\247\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 156-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On that same date, Rep. Foley authorized Bradley Schreiber,
an attorney on his congressional staff, to put together a legal
team for the purpose of considering whether to file a
defamation lawsuit against ABC News. ``I believe, given the e-
mails that we had reviewed and the way that the story was
written, that it made an inference that [Rep. Foley] was a
sexual predator. I suggested to [Rep. Foley] that that would
affect not only his campaign, but would--not only affect his
campaign, but as an individual and as a sitting Member of
Congress, and that we consider filing a lawsuit against ABC
News.'' \248\ Discussion of a possible defamation lawsuit
continued within Rep. Foley's office on September 29, 2006. On
that date, Schreiber contacted Elliot Berke, counsel to Speaker
Hastert, to consult with him on the merits of filing such a
lawsuit.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ Bradley Schreiber Interview Transcript (hereinafter Schreiber
Int. Tr.) at 29.
\249\ Schreiber Int. Tr. at 28-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News included a ``tip line'' on its website, and on the
evening of September 28 a former page (``Former Page X'')
contacted ABC News and reported that he had information
regarding Rep. Foley's interaction with former pages.\250\ In
2003, Former Page X had received copies of multiple sexually
explicit IM conversations from Rep. Foley to two other former
pages. He received the IMs from one of the recipient former
pages with whom he had kept in contact since they were pages in
2001 and 2002.\251\ Former Page X did not forward the IMs to
anyone or take any other action when he first received them in
2003, but he stored the IMs on his computer where they remained
until September 28, 2006.\252\ Former Page X testified that he
did not consider bringing the IMs to the attention of the page
program at the time he received copies of them, explaining as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 36.
\251\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 13-19.
\252\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 26-27.
Personally, you know, it's I guess up to the victim
to, you know, deal with that kind of stuff. You know, I
didn't--I guess didn't feel it was my responsibility.
You know, it was up to [the recipients] to bring it
forward if they wanted to.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 60-61.
On the evening of September 28, Former Page X was alerted
to the ABC story by another former page, and he remembered the
IMs that he had received in 2003. He was able to recover them
from his computer, and he forwarded them to the former page who
had alerted him to the ABC story. The two of them discussed the
IMs and what they should do, and they concluded that they
should contact ABC News. Former Page X contacted ABC through
the tip line, and he forwarded the IMs on the evening of
September 28 and the morning of September 29.\254\ Former Page
X believes that the other page also provided the IMs to ABC
independently.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 35-40. Former Page X provided the
Investigative Subcommittee with copies of all of the e-mails and
instant messages he had in his possession, which included the IMs
published by ABC News, as well as many additional IMs with similar
content. A copy of the material provided to the Committee is included
as Exhibit 13, with personal information regarding the recipient page
redacted.
\255\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 38, 43-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to September 28 and 29, 2006 the IMs were apparently
known to a number of pages and close friends of the IM
recipients. According to Former Page X, after he had provided
the IMs to ABC News, he and the IM recipient discussed the
identity of the ABC News source. Former Page X did not admit
that he was the source, and the IM recipient told Former Page X
that he had shared them with as many as 12 people.\256\ In
addition, according to Former Page X and another former page,
the IMs were a topic of discussion during a February 2003 page
reunion in Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 47-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Investigative Subcommittee uncovered no evidence that
the IMs were provided to, or were possessed by, any House
Member, officer or employee, the press, or any political
organization prior to September 28 and 29, 2006.
H. Representative Foley Resigns
On the morning of September 29, ABC News called Rep.
Foley's communications director and said that ABC had 36 pages
of sexually explicit IMs purportedly written by Rep. Foley to a
former page.\257\ The communications director called Fordham,
who, though no longer Rep. Foley's chief of staff, was still a
Foley campaign advisor, and was then at Rep. Foley's Capitol
Hill home for lunch, along with Rep. Foley and his current
chief of staff, Nicholson. The communications director
described the phone call from ABC.\258\ Fordham then asked Rep.
Foley whether the IMs were authentic, and Foley responded,
``Probably.'' \259\ Fordham told Rep. Foley that the IMs could
not be defended and suggested to Rep. Foley that he
resign.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ Kello Int. Tr. at 40-41.
\258\ Fordham Dep. at 58.
\259\ Fordham Dep. at 60.
\260\ Fordham Dep. at 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fordham then walked from Rep. Foley's house to the offices
of the National Republican Congressional Committee (``NRCC''),
where a number of people, including Fordham, Vastola, Rep.
Reynolds, and a number of other NRCC staff gathered to discuss
the matter.\261\ Speaker Hastert and Stokke were at the NRCC on
another matter, and they were brought into the meeting as
well.\262\ Some of those present at the meeting recall that
statements were made that Rep. Foley intended to resign, while
others recall that the meeting participants concluded that Rep.
Foley had to resign.\263\ In any event, there was general
agreement that Rep. Foley needed to resign immediately, and the
NRCC staff drafted a one-sentence letter of resignation.
Fordham left the NRCC with the proposed letter of resignation,
and went back to Rep. Foley's house by way of Rep. Foley's
office in the Cannon House Office Building. Rep. Foley signed
the letter of resignation and, in anticipation of a press
onslaught, left town.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\261\ Fordham Dep. at 61.
\262\ Fordham Dep. at 62; Hastert Dep. at 10-12.
\263\ Hastert Dep. at 11; Vastola Dep. at 40.
\264\ Fordham Dep. at 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News ran two stories later that day regarding the IMs
and Foley's resignation.\265\ Excerpts from the IMs were posted
on the ABC website with the second story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer, ``Foley Resigns Over Sexually
Explicit Messages to Minors'' The post indicates that it was posted at
3:02 p.m. on September 29, 2006. Exhibit 14; Brian Ross, Rhonda
Schwartz, and Maddy Sauer, ``Exclusive: The Sexually Explicit Internet
Messages That Led to Fla. Rep. Foley's Resignation.'' The post
indicates that it was posted at 5:59 p.m. on September 29, 2006.
Exhibit 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Events After Representative Foley's Resignation
As September 29 progressed, word of Rep. Foley's
resignation filtered through the Capitol. Rep. Shimkus was
summoned to the Speaker's office mid-afternoon just prior to a
scheduled enrollment ceremony where Rep. Foley's sudden
resignation was being discussed. Speaker Hastert let Rep.
Shimkus know that he would invoke Rep. Shimkus' name if asked
about the Foley matter by the press after the ceremony, and
suggested that perhaps the Page Board should initiate an
investigation.\266\ Rep. Shimkus was initially ``clueless,''
because this was the first he had heard about Rep. Foley's
resignation and, unaware of the IMs, he could not believe that
Rep. Foley would resign over the e-mails that he had known
about a year earlier.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ Shimkus Dep. at 25.
\267\ Shimkus Dep. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later that day, Rep. Shimkus went to see Rep. Dale Kildee,
who was a member of the Page Board, and for the first time
disclosed to Rep. Kildee his knowledge of the e-mails in
November 2005 and his confrontation with Rep. Foley.\268\ Rep.
Shimkus then had a similar meeting with Rep. Shelley Moore
Capito, who was also unaware of the events of November
2005.\269\ A Page Board meeting was held later that day with
all of the members except for the emeritus member, Donnald
Anderson.\270\ The Board briefly discussed and dismissed the
possibility of an investigation, as they did not believe that
they had investigative authority. After the meeting, Rep.
Shimkus, Rep. Capito, and the current Clerk of the House, Karen
Haas, visited the page dorm to reassure the current pages that
they were committed to their safety.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ Shimkus Dep. at 39-40.
\269\ Shimkus Dep. at 44.
\270\ Capito Dep. at 9-10; Kildee Dep. at 8-9; McNamara Int. Sum.
\271\ Capito Dep. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometime on the evening of September 29, Majority Leader
Boehner told a Washington Post reporter that Rep. Alexander had
approached him regarding the Foley e-mails during the spring of
2006, and that he, in turn, had informed Speaker Hastert of the
situation and that Speaker Hastert had said that the matter
``had been taken care of.'' \272\ Palmer later contacted
Nowakowski regarding the perceived inconsistency between
Majority Leader Boehner's and Speaker Hastert's statements, as
Speaker Hastert had stated that he had no knowledge regarding
the e-mails.\273\ Nowakowski, along with press secretary Kevin
Madden, asked Majority Leader Boehner whether he was absolutely
sure that he spoke with Speaker Hastert on the matter. Majority
Leader Boehner explained to them that although he believed that
he had spoken with Speaker Hastert, he could not be
certain.\274\ Madden and Majority Leader Boehner subsequently
contacted the Post reporter to relate Majority Leader Boehner's
position.\275\ In his testimony to the Subcommittee, Majority
Leader Boehner explained that his recollection of receiving a
response from the Speaker makes him believe that he did have a
conversation with Speaker Hastert: ``And that's why, while I
can't be certain that I talked to him or where I talked to him,
I do believe that I talked to him, because I remember the
response.'' \276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\272\ Boehner Dep. at 16.
\273\ Palmer Dep. at 78-80.
\274\ Nowakowski Dep. at 16. Nowakowski also testified that
Majority Leader Boehner later told her that he was ``99%'' certain he
had talked to the Speaker. Nowakowski Dep. at 49.
\275\ Boehner Dep. at 17.
\276\ Boehner Dep. at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker Hastert departed for Illinois by air with Stokke on
the evening of the September 29. After the Speaker had
departed, Minority Leader Pelosi introduced H. Res. 1065, a
privileged resolution directing that the Committee on Standards
``immediately appoint an investigative subcommittee . . . to
fully and expeditiously determine the facts connected with
Representative Foley's conduct and the response thereto.'' The
resolution included the language, ``Whereas Rep. Alexander has
said `We also notified the House leadership that there might be
a potential problem.' '' \277\ The resolution was referred to
the Committee on Standards by vote of the full House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometime before midnight, a meeting was held in Majority
Leader Boehner's office to talk about the matter.\278\ Among
those present, at least at some point, were Majority Leader
Boehner, Rep. Shimkus, Rep. Pryce, Rep. Alexander, Rep. Cantor,
Rep. Blunt, Palmer, and Nowakowski. Since the meeting was
convened after the referral to the Committee on Standards, some
participants questioned whether it was appropriate to conduct
the meeting.\279\ Rep. Reynolds chose not to attend the meeting
on the advice of his counsel, Randy Evans, after suspecting
that Rep. Alexander and others who had prior knowledge of the
Foley matter might be in attendance.\280\ Rep. Reynolds
testified:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ Palmer Dep. at 91.
\279\ Nowakowski Dep. at 29.
\280\ Reynolds Dep. at 45-50, 84.
I'm not inclined to go in and collaborate or
memorialize anything that would deal with this based on
the fact that, previous to this, we had voted to send
it to the Ethics Committee.
* * * * * * *
I made a decision not to go, based on a discussion
with Randy Evans' counsel [sic], because I had
previously voted to engage the ethics committee to
review this. Not being a lawyer, there are not many
things I know about the legal side of this, but I do
know that discussions of recollecting anything is not
preferred.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ Reynolds Dep. at 82, 86.
Nevertheless, the conclusion was reached by others involved
that the meeting should proceed in the interest of being able
to answer press calls regarding the matter, and, according to
Palmer, Majority Leader Boehner opened the meeting by
explaining that the meeting was not intended to influence
recollections.\282\ During the meeting, Rep. Alexander
explained what he knew about the e-mails and the family's
wishes. He also clarified that he had not talked to the Speaker
about the e-mails and apologized that a previous statement that
he had made had left that impression.\283\ Rep. Shimkus
described his confrontation with Rep. Foley the previous
November.\284\ The group discussed the difference between the
e-mails and the IMs, and Majority Leader Boehner went around
the room asking whether anyone had known about the IMs, and it
was stressed that any statements on the matter should be
precise in differentiating between the e-mails and the
IMs.\285\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ Palmer Dep. at 93. Nowakowski recalls that ``we were trying
to be very careful that we not get ourselves in the issue--the
situation where, you know, we might be seen as manipulating someone's
testimony or that kind of thing.'' Nowakowski Dep. at 29.
\283\ Palmer Dep. at 95-96. Rep. Alexander recalls that this
clarification was made to the press outside the meeting. Rep. Alexander
Dep. at 59.
\284\ Palmer Dep. at 96.
\285\ Nowakowski Dep. at 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At about two or three a.m. on September 30, Palmer, upon
returning to his office, was reportedly told by one of the
Speaker's attorneys, Elliott Berke, that Palmer should talk to
Tim Kennedy.\286\ Palmer testified that in speaking with
Kennedy, he first learned that Stokke had been made aware of
the e-mails in November 2005, and had referred the matter to
the Clerk.\287\ Palmer directed Berke to conduct an internal
review of the matter with a view towards issuing a statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ Palmer Dep. at 112.
\287\ Palmer Dep. at 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the day of September 30, Elliott Berke and Randy
Evans interviewed Kennedy, Stokke, Van Der Meid, and Karen
Haas. According to Haas, she had been called by Van Der Meid
who said ``that he was trying to put together a timeline, you
know, kind of what had happened, and so if there was anything
that, you know, I could provide, that would be helpful, either,
you know, past conversations I had with Jeff or anything else
that, you know, he would appreciate it.'' \288\ She called Jeff
Trandahl and later that day reported the results of that
conversation to Berke and others in the Speaker's office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ Haas Int. Tr. at 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palmer drafted a report based on input from Berke and
Evans. Before the statement was released, Palmer read the
report during a conference call among leadership staff,
including Boehner's chief of staff, Paula Nowakowski. The
Speaker's office released the ``Internal Review of Contacts
with the Office of the Speaker Regarding the Congressman Mark
Foley Matter'' (``Internal Review'') on September 30,
characterizing the release as a ``preliminary report.'' \289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\289\ A copy of the ``Internal Review'' is attached as Exhibit 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 2006, the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct met and passed the resolution creating the
Investigative Subcommittee.
V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Summary of Findings
The Investigative Subcommittee was established to conduct a
broad inquiry into whether Members, officers, and employees of
the House of Representatives acted properly with respect to any
knowledge or information they had regarding improper conduct
involving Members and pages or former pages. At the time the
Investigative Subcommittee was established, in the week after
Rep. Foley's resignation, little was known about the facts
regarding Rep. Foley's conduct (or the conduct of any other
Member) with pages or former pages, who knew about any aspects
of that conduct, and what they did with that knowledge. The
facts that were known raised important issues regarding the
safety and well-being of congressional pages, and caused
sufficient concern about the oversight and management of the
page program that the Committee concluded an immediate
investigation was necessary.
As a result of its investigation, the Investigative
Subcommittee concludes that the evidence available to it does
not establish a basis to recommend additional proceedings to
determine whether any particular House Member, officer or
employee subject to the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct violated House rules or standards
of conduct. The Investigative Subcommittee therefore does not
recommend further investigative or disciplinary proceedings
against any Member, officer or employee.
The Investigative Subcommittee's conclusion that the
evidence does not support further investigative or disciplinary
proceedings should not be read as a conclusion that the
Members, officers and employees whose conduct was reviewed
acted properly at all times in connection with their knowledge
or handling of information concerning improper conduct
involving Members and current and former House pages. To the
contrary, the Investigative Subcommittee finds a significant
number of instances where Members, officers or employees failed
to exercise appropriate diligence and oversight, or should have
exercised greater diligence and oversight, regarding issues
arising from the interaction between former Rep. Mark Foley and
current or former House pages. But the requirement that Members
and staff act at all times in a manner that reflects creditably
on the House does not mean that every error in judgment or
failure to exercise appropriate oversight and sufficient
diligence establishes a violation of House Rule 23. The
Subcommittee is mindful of the ease with which decisions and
conduct can be questioned in hindsight with the benefit of
later-discovered facts. The danger of hindsight is particularly
significant in this matter, given the nature of the instant
messages that never surfaced until late September 2006 and led
to Rep. Foley's resignation. The Subcommittee has reviewed the
conduct of the various individuals involved in this matter
based on the information they had available to them at the
time.
As a general matter, the Subcommittee observed a
disconcerting unwillingness to take responsibility for
resolving issues regarding Rep. Foley's conduct. Rather than
addressing the issues fully, some witnesses did far too little,
while attempting to pass the responsibility for acting to
others. Some relied on unreasonably fine distinctions regarding
their defined responsibilities. Almost no one followed up
adequately on the limited actions they did take.
With respect to the e-mails to the former Alexander page, a
number of Members, officers and staff had opportunities to
inquire further into Rep. Foley's conduct, to elevate the
issues raised by the e-mails to more senior Members or staff,
or to otherwise take steps consistent with knowledge of
inappropriate e-mails from a middle-aged Member of Congress to
a 16-year-old boy one month removed from the House page
program. While some did fulfill their responsibilities, the
Investigative Subcommittee finds that too many exhibited
insufficient diligence or willingness to take the steps
necessary to ensure that the matter was being appropriately
handled. No one in the House who was involved in addressing
Rep. Foley's conduct, other than Rep. Alexander and his staff,
actually saw the e-mails. Several people were told about the e-
mails and were asked to take action regarding them, including
confronting Rep. Foley and telling him to stop communicating
with the former page, but none of those people saw--or insisted
on seeing--the e-mails prior to taking such action. A number of
witnesses testified that they were not given copies of the e-
mails because of the family's request for privacy, but all of
those witnesses knew at the time that a newspaper already had
the e-mails. Almost no one followed up to make sure that the
action they had taken had been successful.
The Investigative Subcommittee cannot determine
conclusively the motivation for those who failed to fulfill
their responsibilities. However, the Investigative Subcommittee
identified several factors that may have been in play. Some may
have been concerned that raising the issue too aggressively
might have risked exposing Rep. Foley's homosexuality, which
could have adversely affected him both personally and
politically. There is some evidence that political
considerations played a role in decisions that were made by
persons in both parties. The wishes of the page's family for
privacy could have also provided a convenient justification for
failing to pursue the matter more aggressively for those who
were already so inclined.
Some or all of these factors (as well as others) may have
played a role in decisions that were made about how this matter
should have been handled, but in the Investigative
Subcommittee's view none of these factors mitigated the need
for those involved to learn all the relevant facts and
communicate those facts candidly and freely to those with
authority to address the issues raised by the e-mails.
The Investigative Subcommittee did not address whether the
various matters involving former Rep. Foley would necessarily
have been resolved differently had greater diligence or
oversight been exercised, including whether disclosure of the
instant messages that led to Rep. Foley's resignation would
have happened sooner, later, or not at all. Reaching such
conclusions would require constructing a chain of uncertain and
unpredictable events, and would therefore involve inappropriate
speculation. So, for example, even had one or more of the
witnesses discussed below successfully demanded to see the
actual e-mails sent to the former Alexander page prior to or
after confrontingRep. Foley in November 2005, the Investigative
Subcommittee cannot conclude that the outcome of that meeting with Rep.
Foley would have been different. The inability to predict different
outcomes, however, does not prevent the Investigative Subcommittee from
reaching conclusions regarding the conduct that was the subject of the
inquiry.
As described elsewhere in this Report, Rep. Foley resigned
from the House on September 29, 2006, after he learned that the
media had copies of certain sexually graphic instant messages
he had sent to one or more former House pages. The disclosure
of the instant messages reportedly triggered a number of state
and federal criminal inquiries. The Committee lost jurisdiction
over Rep. Foley upon his resignation, and through his counsel
Rep. Foley refused to testify before the Subcommittee, citing
the pending criminal investigations against him and asserting
his constitutional right to refuse to testify against himself.
As a result, the Investigative Subcommittee did not seek to
investigate fully all instances in which former Rep. Foley may
have had improper communications with pages or former pages, or
to determine the complete facts and circumstances surrounding
the instant messages that were the cause of his resignation.
Based on the evidence it did collect, however, the
Investigative Subcommittee unanimously concludes that had Rep.
Foley not resigned there would have been a substantial basis to
find a violation by Rep. Foley of House rules or standards of
conduct.
The evidence before the Subcommittee establishes that Rep.
Foley on more than one occasion established contact with House
pages before the end of their page service and secured e-mail
addresses or other contact information for the pages. That
evidence also suggests that at or after their departure from
the House, Rep. Foley began contacting some former pages with
increasingly familiar communications. As the former pages
responded, the messages from Rep. Foley at times turned to
sexually graphic topics, including messages that could be read
as sexual solicitation. Although the recipients were former
pages by the time the sexually graphic messages were sent, the
fact that the initial contact began when the young men were
pages suggests that Rep. Foley may have been using the page
program to in part at least to identify possible future
recipients of graphic communications.
At its core, such conduct is an abuse of power, and an
abuse of trust of the pages, their parents or guardians, and
the Congress itself. Behavior of this kind cannot be excused or
tolerated, as it undermines the integrity of the House. A
Member engaging in such conduct violates House Rule 23, Clause
1, which mandates that Members conduct themselves ``at all
times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.''
In the case of former Rep. Foley, a 54-year-old-man who made
unwelcome communications with teenage former House pages, the
evidence adduced by the Investigative Subcommittee would almost
certainly have subjected him to disciplinary proceedings had he
not resigned. As described in a report of the Committee in an
earlier matter involving the relationship between Members and
House Pages:
[T]here is a difference between a 17-year-old page away
from home and a 44-year-old Member of the House of
Representatives in terms of responsibility, maturity, judgment,
and fiduciary obligation. The House has always regarded pages
as its wards and has always accepted a special responsibility
to them.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ Investigation Pursuant to House Resolution 12 Concerning
Alleged Improper or Illegal Sexual Conduct By Members, Officers, or
Employees of the House, H. Rep. 98-297, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 14,
1983) at 37 (emphasis added).
In that same report, the Committee emphasized, and this
Investigative Subcommittee concurs, ``the House does have [] a
duty to the American people who have a right to expect the
highest standards from the House as an institution and from its
individual Members,'' \291\ and ``any sexual advance or
relationship of any kind involving a Page and a Member, officer
or employee potentially entails an element of either
preferential treatment or coercion, and hence an abuse of
office or position.'' \292\ The issue before this Investigative
Subcommittee is not whether a Member of the House is free to
have a consensual relationship with a young person; the issue
is the obligation of Members to act appropriately and
professionally at all times with House pages who are in
Washington, D.C. for a limited time to attend school and to
assist the House with its work, and to whom the House has a
``special responsibility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ Id. at 37.
\292\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the Investigative Subcommittee's specific factual
findings are set forth below, followed in the next sections of
this Report by a review of the relevant standards of conduct
and the Investigative Subcommittee's conclusions regarding the
application of those standards to its factual findings.
* * * * * * *
The Investigative Subcommittee devoted substantial effort
to determining whether any House Member, officer or employee
was aware of or saw the sexually graphic instant messages
possessed by ABC News prior to their publication by ABC News
and others following Foley's resignation on Friday, September
29, 2006. Much of the initial press coverage of this matter did
not distinguish between those instant messages and the e-mails
sent in 2005 to the former Alexander page, which had been
published by ABC News on Thursday, September 28, 2006 after
they had been posted on at least one website earlier that week.
The distinction between the e-mails and the instant
messages is an important one, because the e-mails do not
contain the graphic or explicit sexual content of the instant
messages. The Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude,
however, that the e-mails sent to the former Alexander page
were merely ``overly friendly,'' as they have often been
described both by the few who saw them in 2005 and some who saw
them for the first time after Rep. Foley's resignation. When
read carefully and in context, the e-mails reflect
inappropriate communications between a middle-aged congressman,
through his private e-mail account, and a young male who had
just left the employ of the House. The e-mails included
references to the ``great shape'' of another former male page,
a question about the age of the page and what he wanted for his
birthday (although Rep. Foley had been told by the former page
that his birthday was five months away), and a request for a
picture, all of which could fairly be read as inappropriately
personal and excessively familiar, and which some could read as
implicitly sexual. The Investigative Subcommittee finds no
merit to any of the suggested justifications by Rep. Foley or
anyone on his staff for the tone or content of the e-mails.
The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the e-mails
clearly provided a sufficient basis to at the very least
confront Rep. Foley, demand an explanation for both the content
of the e-mails and the reason for sending them, insist that
Rep. Foley stop such communications with former pages, and make
him aware that he could face serious consequences if the
conduct did not stop. There is evidence that some of those
things were done, although (as discussed more fully below) the
Investigative Subcommittee concludes that a number of persons
with knowledge of the existence of the e-mails should have done
more to learn of both their contents and their context.
However, the content of the instant messages is materially
different, and far more reprehensible, and had any House
Member, officer or employee known about the instant messages
they would have been obligated to do far more than was done in
response to the e-mails. The Investigative Subcommittee finds
no evidence, based on the testimony before the Subcommittee,
that any Member, officer or employee had such knowledge of the
instant messages prior to their publication on September 29,
2006. Each of the House Members and employees who testified
that they were aware of the e-mail messages prior to September
28, 2006, testified that they were unaware of the instant
messages prior to September 29, 2006, and the Subcommittee
received no evidence contradicting that testimony. The instant
messages were known to a number of former pages well before
that date, but none of the pages that the Investigative
Subcommittee contacted who had known of the instant messages
stated that they had disclosed their existence to any House
Member, officer, or employee. The instant messages were
published by ABC News within 24 hours after ABC News had been
given copies of the instant messages by a former page.
The Investigative Subcommittee finds that a number of House
Members, officers, staff and others, including several
newspapers and other media, were aware of the e-mailsfrom
former Rep. Foley to the former Alexander page before those e-mails
were published by ABC News on September 28, 2006. Those in the House
who were made aware of the e-mails included House Speaker Dennis
Hastert and several members of his staff; Majority Leader John Boehner;
Rep. Tom Reynolds; Rep. Rodney Alexander and several members of his
staff; Rep. John Shimkus; House Clerk Jeff Trandahl and his deputy; and
Rep. Foley and his chief of staff Liz Nicholson as well as his former
chief of staff Kirk Fordham. The communications directors for both the
House Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee also had copies of the e-mails in the fall of 2005.
The Investigative Subcommittee finds that persons and
organizations outside the House who were aware of the e-mails
before their publication in September 2006 includes a friend of
the Alexander staff member who forwarded the e-mails, as well
as two people to whom she, in turn, forwarded the e-mails;
multiple media organizations who received the e-mails from Matt
Miller, the House Democratic Caucus staff member who had
received the forwarded e-mails, including the St. Petersburg
Times, the Miami Herald, Roll Call, Harper's Magazine and
possibly others; and reportedly at least one public interest
group which claims to have forwarded them to the FBI. At least
some of these persons or organizations had the e-mails from as
early as November 2005, but none chose to publish the e-mails.
Several Members and staff were also aware of other conduct
by Rep. Foley regarding pages or former pages, including
concerns raised by former Clerk Jeff Trandahl and former Foley
chief of staff Kirk Fordham about Foley's close interaction
with pages. Those concerns were raised directly with Rep. Foley
on multiple occasions, and were also brought to the attention
of at least two persons in the Office of the Speaker, chief of
staff Scott Palmer and counsel Ted Van Der Meid.
The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the reports that
House pages were generally or as a group warned about Rep.
Foley are not supported by the record. None of the staff
associated with the page program or former pages who were
interviewed by the Subcommittee recalls any such warning being
given.
The Investigative Subcommittee's inquiry was not limited to
Rep. Foley and his interaction with current or former House
pages. Witnesses were asked to provide any information they had
regarding potentially improper conduct involving House pages
and any Member, officer or employee of the House. Other than as
described below, the Subcommittee received no information that
warranted further inquiry regarding any other Member, or any
officer or employee of the House.
The Investigative Subcommittee was provided with
information concerning certain allegations made regarding Rep.
Jim Kolbe and his interaction with former House pages. The
Subcommittee was told that those allegations are the subject of
a preliminary inquiry by federal law enforcement officials. The
Committee Rules include provisions that address the handling of
a complaint that alleges a violation of a law or rule that is
enforced by law enforcement or regulatory authorities.
Committee Rule 15(f) provides that the Committee ``may defer
action on a complaint against a Member'' where either of two
circumstances is present--
``when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has
reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law
enforcement or regulatory authorities,'' or
``when the Committee determines that it is appropriate for
the conduct alleged in a complaint to be reviewed initially by
law enforcement or regulatory authorities.''
A 1975 Committee report explained the Committee's approach
in the circumstance of an ongoing investigation by law
enforcement authorities as follows:
[W]here an allegation involves a possible violation
of statutory law, and the committee is assured that the
charges are known to and are being expeditiously acted
upon by the appropriate authorities, the policy has
been to defer action until the judicial proceedings
have run their course. This is not to say the committee
abandons concern in statutory matters--rather, it feels
it normally should not undertake duplicative
investigations pending judicial resolution of such
cases.
The Subcommittee concludes that the allegations regarding
Rep. Kolbe are within its jurisdiction, because they involve
knowledge or information of Members, officers or employees
regarding potentially improper conduct involving Members and
pages or former pages. The Subcommittee heard some testimony
regarding the allegations, but Rep. Kolbe did not provide full
and complete testimony regarding the allegations, citing the
pending federal inquiry. The Investigative Subcommittee
therefore makes no findings and draws no conclusions regarding
the allegations.
Rep. Kolbe is retiring from the House at the end of this
term, and will no longer be within the Committee's jurisdiction
after his retirement. In light of Rep. Kolbe's imminent
retirement, as well as the preliminary federal inquiry and the
Committee's frequent practice of deferring matters involving
parallel criminal investigations or proceedings, the
Investigative Subcommittee does not recommend further
investigative or disciplinary proceedings by the House against
Rep. Kolbe.
B. Review of Relevant Standards of Conduct
Pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and (3)(b)(2),
and pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18, the Committee
has the authority to investigate any alleged violation by a
Member, officer, or employee of the House, of the Code of
Official Conduct or one or more law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of a Member,
officer, or employee of the House in the performance of his or
her duties or the discharge of his or her responsibilities.
The Code of Official Conduct of the House of
Representatives is set forth in House Rule 23. The
Investigative Subcommittee determined that only Clause 1 of
House Rule 23 would be applicable to this matter. House Rule
23, Clause 1 (the ``Code of Official Conduct'') provides that
``[a] Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or
employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a
manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.'' As noted
previously by the Committee, this provision (House Rule 23,
Clause 1) is the most comprehensive provision of the Code of
Official Conduct and was adopted in part so that the Committee,
in applying the Code, would retain ``the ability to deal with
any given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgment of
the committee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on the
Congress.'' \293\ This provision serves ``as a safeguard for [
] the House as a whole.'' \294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ House Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (April 1992) at 12
(quoting 114 Cong. Rec. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968); In the Matter of
Representative Earl F. Hilliard, H. Rep. 107-130, 107th Cong., 1st
Sess. (July 10, 2001) at 12; In the Matter of Representative E.G.
``Bud'' Shuster, H. Rep. 106-979, 106th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 16, 2000)
at 9.
\294\ Inquiry into the Operation of the Bank of the Sergeant-At-
Arms of the House of Representatives, H. Rep. 102-452, 102d Cong., 2d
Sess. (March 10, 1992) at 22 (citing H. Rep. 90-1176, 90th Cong., 2d
Sess. at 17 (1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Investigative Subcommittee concluded that the Code of
Ethics for Government Service, which is applicable to Members
and employees of the House, is also implicated in this
matter.\295\ In particular, Clause 9 of the Code of Ethics for
Government Service provides that ``[a]ny person in Government
service should . . . [e]xpose corruption wherever discovered.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ See In the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr.,
H. Rep. 107-594, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. Vol. 1 (July 19, 2002)
(Violations of the Code of Ethics for Government Service, along with
violations of the Code of Official Conduct, formed the basis of a
Statement of Alleged Violations adopted by an Investigative
Subcommittee against a Member, and that led to the expulsion from the
House of that Member.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as in the case of evidence of corruption, the
Investigative Subcommittee believes that Members and House
officials must act in a responsible manner in any case of any
allegation involving House pages. At a minimum, House Members
and officials are obligated not to withhold any information
from any appropriate governmental or supervisory authority that
relates, or even possibly relates, to the education, care, or
safety of House pages.
C. Conclusions Regarding Conduct
Broadly stated, the conduct reviewed by the Investigative
Subcommittee fell into three general categories: Conduct prior
to the discovery of the e-mails from Rep. Foley to the former
Alexander page in November 2005; the response to the e-mails
beginning in November 2005 and continuing into 2006; and
conduct surrounding the resignation of Rep. Foley in September
2006. The Investigative Subcommittee's analysis and conclusions
are set forth below.
1. Treatment of Foley's conduct unrelated to the e-mails
The evidence establishes that concerns began to arise about
Rep. Foley's interactions with pages or other young male staff
members shortly after Rep. Foley took office in 1995. Both Kirk
Fordham and Jeff Trandahl acknowledged that they had such
concerns, and that they raised their concerns with Rep. Foley
directly on multiple occasions. These concerns, as explained by
these witnesses, were not the result of either knowledge or
suspicion that Foley was engaged in improper contact with pages
or other young staffers, but were instead based upon the
possibility that any close interaction between Foley and pages
or other young male staff could create an appearance problem
for Foley in light of his status as a closeted homosexual.
The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Kirk
Fordham talked to Scott Palmer about Fordham's concerns about
Rep. Foley's conduct, and that Palmer later talked to Rep.
Foley. Similarly, the evidence shows that Jeff Trandahl raised
his concerns with Ted Van Der Meid on several occasions, but
Van Der Meid testified that those discussions did not conclude
with any requests or decisions to take any action.
Absent any evidence that Rep. Foley was engaging in
improper contact with pages or other young male employees, the
Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude that those
employees who were nevertheless concerned that Rep. Foley's
conduct presented possible appearance problems acted
unreasonably in not taking further action at that time. In
fact, the evidence shows that both Fordham and Trandahl took
steps to bring their concerns about Rep. Foley's conduct to the
attention of others who they thought might be able to help
address their concerns. The Subcommittee similarly finds that,
given the nature of the concerns, those who were made aware of
such concerns did not act unreasonably in not taking further
action at that time.
The incident involving the former Kolbe page and the
handling of his communications from Rep. Foley presents a more
difficult question. The Investigative Subcommittee deliberated
extensively over whether the evidence supports a finding that
Rep. Kolbe saw a copy of the sexually graphic instant message
allegedly received by his former page, or whether, as Rep.
Kolbe testified, he was only told by the former page that Rep.
Foley had sent an e-mail or instant message that made the
former page ``uncomfortable.'' The Investigative Subcommittee
found the former page to be credible and his testimony to be
plausible, but given the absence of documentary evidence, the
denial by Rep. Kolbe of having seen the communication, and the
possibility that the instant message could have been attached
to an e-mail sent to Rep. Kolbe but not opened and read, the
Investigative Subcommittee cannot definitively conclude whether
Rep. Kolbe saw the instant message.
In the end, however, the Investigative Subcommittee did not
consider the answer to the question of whether Rep. Kolbe
actually saw the instant message sent by Rep. Foley to be
dispositive in addressing the conduct of Rep. Kolbe and others
in his office. If Rep. Kolbe was not shown the instant message
he should have asked for it. He knew that Rep. Foley was gay,
knew that the communication made the former page (who by this
time was only a college freshman and was less than two years
removed from the page program) uncomfortable, and recognized
that the communication may have been sexual in nature. He also
knew that he was being asked to confront another Member about
the Member's conduct on a potentially extremely sensitive
issue. In light of those facts, the Investigative Subcommittee
believes that Rep. Kolbe should have asked for the instant
message (if he did not already have it) in order to make sure
that his response was the correct one.
The Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude that Rep.
Kolbe's handling of this matter supports a conclusion that Rep.
Kolbe violated any House rule or standard of conduct. Although
Rep. Kolbe says that he did not see the contents of the
message, he did take steps to address the former page's
complaint by asking his administrative assistant to contact
both Rep. Foley's chief of staff Kirk Fordham and the Clerk.
The former page received an apology from Rep Foley, which
indicates that Rep. Foley was told that his communication to
the former page had made the former page uncomfortable. The
Investigative Subcommittee therefore does not recommend to the
full Committee either that the Investigative Subcommittee's
jurisdiction be expanded or that another Investigative
Subcommittee be established to name Rep. Kolbe or others on his
staff as respondents.
2. The handling of the 2005 e-mails
The former Alexander page's decision to send the Foley e-
mails to his acquaintance on Rep. Alexander's staff in August
2005 triggered a complicated series of events that led
eventually to Rep. Foley's resignation over a year later. The
Investigative Subcommittee finds that few of the individuals
who ultimately came to participate in those events handled
their roles in the manner that should be expected given the
important and sensitive nature of the issues involved.
Rep. Alexander's Office. The Investigative Subcommittee
first reviewed the facts surrounding the initial contact with
Rep. Alexander's office by its former page, which occurred in
late August contemporaneously with the e-mailed request from
Rep. Foley for a picture. The junior staff member who received
copies of the e-mails is no longer a House employee, and the
Investigative Subcommittee therefore did not attempt to reach a
conclusion regarding whether her conduct could provide a basis
for disciplinary action. While the preferred course of action
would have been to bring the e-mails to the attention of her
chief of staff or Rep. Alexander rather than sharing them with
sources outside the House, it is not possible to presume what
Rep. Alexander would have done had he beennotified of the
content of e-mails any sooner. Accordingly, the Investigative
Subcommittee focused its inquiry on the conduct of Rep. Alexander and
his staff following their discovery that the news media had copies of
the e-mails.
The Investigative Subcommittee next carefully reviewed the
evidence surrounding the November 2005 press inquiry regarding
the e-mails, which soon led to the notification to the
Speaker's office, referral to the Clerk's office, and the
subsequent intervention with Rep. Foley by Jeff Trandahl and
Rep. Shimkus. The Investigative Subcommittee was particularly
interested in understanding the wishes of the parents of the
former Alexander page regarding how the matter was to be
handled, because a number of witnesses testified that they had
decided against taking certain actions because of the family's
desire for privacy, as conveyed by Rep. Alexander's office.
The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the family did
wish that the matter be handled in a way that maintained their
and their son's privacy, but we also conclude that the family's
desire for privacy could have been accommodated while still
investigating the matter more aggressively. The family did not
provide any instructions or directions not to share the e-mails
with appropriate House Members or staff. By the time of the
initial press inquiry in November 2005, the former page
believed that the e-mails had stopped after the former page had
stopped responding to Rep. Foley's messages. Neither the former
page nor his parents were seeking to have Rep. Alexander's
office or anyone else address the matter, and the only reason
the family was faced with a question about how the matter
should be handled was because of the press inquiry.
Understandably, they did not want to see any publicity
regarding their son, but their testimony is clear that they did
not impose any conditions on how Rep. Alexander's office should
proceed.
The refusal of Rep. Alexander's office to provide copies of
the e-mails to the Clerk is not supported by the stated
concerns for the family's privacy. Although at least one member
of Rep. Alexander's staff had been aware of the e-mails for
over two months, Rep. Alexander and his chief of staff learned
of the e-mails only because at least one newspaper reporter had
them and called both the family of the page and Rep.
Alexander's office. The staff's refusal to give those e-mails
to an officer of the House based on concerns for the family's
privacy defies logic given that the reporter already had copies
of them, and that Rep. Alexander's office gave a copy of one of
the former page's e-mails to the reporter.
Rep. Alexander's office took steps to bring the existence
of the e-mails to the attention of others in the House in an
effort to make sure that Rep. Foley's communications to the
former page ceased. They contacted the Speaker's office and
were directed to the Clerk. Those steps brought the e-mails to
the attention of Rep. Shimkus and Trandahl, who then confronted
Rep. Foley in November 2005.
Office of the Speaker. The Speaker's Office responded to
the request by Rep. Alexander's office by directing the inquiry
to the Clerk. The Speaker's office had no defined procedure for
addressing matters such as this that were brought to their
attention.
The Investigative Subcommittee deliberated over whether the
Speaker's counsel Ted Van Der Meid should have undertaken a
more active response to the e-mails, including demanding to see
their contents and following up as appropriate, and whether his
failure to do anything after learning about the e-mails could
be a violation of House rules or standards of conduct. The
Investigative Subcommittee concludes that Van Der Meid, as the
Speaker's liaison with the Clerk, and therefore as the staff
person within the Speaker's office with responsibility for
page-related issues, showed an inexplicable lack of interest in
the e-mails and the resolution of the matter with Rep. Foley,
particularly in light of his prior knowledge regarding concerns
raised by Jeff Trandahl about Foley's close (albeit not sexual)
interaction with pages. Van Der Meid had also heard from
Trandahl about the alleged incident involving Rep. Foley being
intoxicated outside the page dorm.
Given Van Der Meid's knowledge regarding Foley's past
conduct, as well as his role within the Speaker's office, the
Subcommittee believes that he should have done more to learn
about the e-mails and how they had been handled. The general
concerns he had heard about Rep. Foley had now become more
specific and tied to a particular incident. He knew that the
matter involved e-mails and a former page, which should have
raised a sufficient concern to trigger further inquiry on his
part. The new incident involving the e-mails also should have
been sufficient to cause Van Der Meid to share what he knew
with more senior staff in the Speaker's office, or with the
Speaker directly. The Subcommittee concludes, however, that Van
Der Meid's conduct does not support a finding that he acted in
a way that violated House Rules or standards of conduct.
The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the
evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told,
at least in passing, about the e-mails by both Majority Leader
Boehner and Rep. Reynolds in spring 2006. Rep. Alexander did
not ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do
anything--each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on
his own initiative. Like too many others, neither the Majority
Leader nor Rep. Reynolds showed any curiosity regarding why a
young former page would have been made uncomfortable by e-mails
from Rep. Foley. Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds
asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the
information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that
the Speaker took any action.
The Speaker's reported statement in response to Majority
Leader Boehner that the matter ``has been taken care of'' is
some evidence that the Speaker was aware of some concern
regarding Rep. Foley's conduct prior to his conversation with
the Majority Leader in spring 2006. Although the Speaker
testified that he does not recall ever hearing about the e-
mails prior to Foley's resignation in late September, he may
have been aware of the matter and believed it had been taken
care of prior to spring 2006, given the involvement of his
office by Ted Van Der Meid, Mike Stokke and Tim Kennedy in
November 2005. The Subcommittee notes, however, that each of
those witnesses has testified under oath that they did not tell
the Speaker or anyone else in the office about their knowledge
of the Foley e-mails until after Rep. Foley's resignation on
September 29, 2006.
Clerk Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus. As discussed above, Clerk
Jeff Trandahl had concerns about Rep. Foley's close interaction
with pages for almost a decade by the time the e-mails were
brought to his attention in November 2005. Trandahl had taken
numerous steps to protect the integrity of the page program and
to try to define and enforce limits on the interaction between
pages and Members, officers, and staff. The Investigative
Subcommittee concludes that much of Trandahl's conduct when he
heard about the e-mails was reasonable: He took responsibility
for confronting Rep. Foley, he brought in Rep. Shimkus, the
Chairman of the Page Board, to confront Rep. Foley directly as
a fellow Member, and he notified his liaison in the Speaker's
Office, Ted Van Der Meid, after the meeting with Foley. He
also, according to his testimony, pressed Rep. Alexander's
chief of staff for copies of the e-mails, but the staff member
reportedly refused to provide copies, citing the wishes of the
parents for privacy.
The Investigative Subcommittee attempted unsuccessfully to
determine why Trandahl had not sought support from the
Speaker's office or the members of the Page Board to obtain a
copy of the e-mails. Trandahl testified that he followed a
``chain of command'' by dealing solely with his liaison, Van
Der Meid, in his dealings with the Speaker's office, and
Trandahl may not have felt that such support would have been
available. The Investigative Subcommittee believes that given
the importance of the need to protect the safety and well-being
of the pages, in the future the Clerk, as an officer of the
House, should not feel constrained by a chain of command or
other reporting structure from bringing any such matters
directly to the attention of the Speaker.
The Investigative Subcommittee similarly concludes that
Rep. Shimkus should have demanded copies of all relevant e-
mails or other documents, if not before he confronted Rep.
Foley, then after. Although there is conflicting testimony on
whether Rep. Shimkus had excerpts or phrases from the e-mail,
there is no suggestion by any witness that he had copies of the
actual e-mails. The Investigative Subcommittee concludes that
confronting a Member in such a matter without having access to
allrelevant information was imprudent, but the action did not
constitute conduct failing to reflect creditably on the House.
The Investigative Subcommittee also considered whether Rep.
Shimkus should have informed others on the Page Board about
Rep. Foley's conduct toward the former page. The Page Board is
charged by federal statute with ensuring that the page program
is managed to provide for the welfare of the pages. As the Page
Board Chairman, Rep. Shimkus was the logical person for
Trandahl to contact regarding an issue related to a former
page. But once made aware of such a concern, Rep. Shimkus also
had an obligation to determine whether the issue brought to him
by Trandahl was one that should be addressed by the Page Board
rather than by him individually. The Investigative Subcommittee
was not persuaded by the argument that the Page Board did not
have jurisdiction over the matter because it involved a former
page rather than a current one. Rep. Foley's e-mails to the
former Alexander page began while he was still a page, and the
e-mails the former page characterized as ``sick'' were sent
within a month after he left the page program. The Subcommittee
finds that at a minimum Rep. Shimkus had an obligation to learn
more facts regarding the e-mails before concluding that he
should handle the matter himself without informing the other
members of the Page Board or seeking their input.
3. Rep. Foley's resignation
Rep. Foley's resignation and the events that caused it were
the focus of substantial attention in the U.S. media in the
following days. Understandably, many of those who may have had
some knowledge about Rep. Foley's conduct felt the need to make
public statements as their roles began to be scrutinized by the
press and others. Beginning the evening after the resignation,
several Republican Members and staff met in the Capitol for the
purpose of discussing what they knew in order to respond to the
media. At least one of the Members who was invited to the
meeting, Rep. Tom Reynolds, decided not to attend after
consulting with his counsel, Randy Evans, who advised him that
attending such a meeting was inadvisable given that there
likely would be an Ethics Committee investigation into the
matter.
By the next day, however, Evans who was then acting as
counsel to Speaker Hastert and others in the Speaker's office,
was coordinating the effort to prepare a statement to be issued
by the Speaker's office describing the office's knowledge
regarding Rep. Foley's conduct. The Investigative Subcommittee
understands the need in a political environment to respond
quickly to perceived negative press reports. Such a need is
particularly acute where, as here, much of the early reporting
failed to make the important distinction between the e-mails to
the former Alexander page and the sexually graphic instant
messages which caused Rep. Foley to resign. As explained above,
the Investigative Subcommittee heard no evidence that anyone in
the House--from either party--was aware of the instant messages
before they were published on September 29, and the
Investigative Subcommittee does not fault the Speaker's office
for attempting to explain that distinction on September 30.
However, in the Investigative Subcommittee's view, the
efforts by the Speaker's office to prepare a statement under
the direction of counsel could have had the additional effect
of inhibiting the Investigative Subcommittee's ability to
secure evidence from witnesses without interference resulting
from efforts to compare and contrast recollections prior to
testimony before the Committee. This effect was compounded by
the appearance of Evans and a law partner as counsel for the
Speaker, Stokke and Kennedy during their testimony before the
Subcommittee.
D. Recommendations
The Investigative Subcommittee makes the following
recommendations:
The current operation of the page program should be
reviewed to ensure that its structure and management remain
sound. The program was restructured previously after the page
scandal in the early 1980's, and a review should be undertaken
to determine whether the changes made at that time remain
appropriate and sufficient to protect the safety and well-being
of pages in the page program.
The Page Board should meet on a regularly-scheduled basis
to ensure that the page program is being managed appropriately
and that the Clerk and others who work to administer the
program have the necessary resources to address any issues that
might arise. Regular meetings would also make it easier for the
Clerk and others who are more involved with the day-to-day
management of the program to bring any issues they may be aware
of to the attention of the Page Board.
Consideration should be given to constituting the Page
Board with equal representation from both parties, in order to
lessen the potential for political considerations to influence
the handling of issues regarding the safety and well-being of
pages.
The Clerk, as an Officer of the House, should have a clear
ability to bring matters regarding the safety and well-being of
the pages directly to the attention of the Speaker as well as
the Page Board.
Members and staff should be better educated regarding the
management and structure of the page program, so that all
Members and staff understand the role of pages in the House and
understand the appropriate ways to address any concerns
regarding the welfare of pages.
All Members, officers, and employees of the House must
pursue specific and non-specific allegations of improper
interaction between a Member or House employee and a
participant in the House Page Program--even if the allegations
are not readily verifiable or involve the sensitive subject of
a Member's personal relationship with a young person. This
obligation applies regardless of whether the Member and page
are of the same or opposite sex.