[House Report 111-422]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
111th Congress                                                 Report
  2d Session                                                   111-422
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                 House Calendar No. 166


 
IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TRAVEL OF 
    HOUSE MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTINATIONAL 
                 BUSINESS CONFERENCES IN 2007 AND 2008

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF
                            OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                              BOOK 1 OF 2




 February 26, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

 IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TRAVEL OF

    HOUSE MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTINATIONAL

           BUSINESS CONFERENCES IN 2007 AND 2008--BOOK 1 OF 2
                                     

111th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                111-422
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                 House Calendar No. 166


IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TRAVEL OF 
    HOUSE MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTINATIONAL 
                 BUSINESS CONFERENCES IN 2007 AND 2008

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF

                            OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                              BOOK 1 OF 2




 February 26, 2010.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JO BONNER, Alabama
  Chair                                Ranking Republican Member
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky               K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
             R. Blake Chisam, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
                  C. Morgan Kim, Deputy Chief Counsel
                 Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Chair
     Kelle A. Strickland, Counsel to the Ranking Republican Member
                   Clifford C. Stoddard, Jr., Counsel
                       Sheria A. Clarke, Counsel
                  Amelia Johnson, Investigative Clerk

                       INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE

G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
  Chair                                Ranking Republican Member
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina          MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
                   Clifford C. Stoddard, Jr., Counsel
                       Sheria A. Clarke, Counsel
                  Amelia Johnson, Investigative Clerk
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                 Washington, DC, February 26, 2010.
Hon. Lorraine C. Miller,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Miller: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we 
herewith transmit the attached Report, ``In the Matter of The 
Investigation Into Officially Connected Travel of House Members 
To Attend The Carib News Foundation Multinational Business 
Conferences in 2007 and 2008.''
            Sincerely,
                                   Zoe Lofgren,
                                           Chair.
                                   Jo Bonner,
                                           Ranking Republican
                                             Member.
                           EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    The Investigative Subcommittee conducted a five-month 
review following a preliminary review by the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct (Standards Committee). The 
Investigative Subcommittee has concluded that Karl Rodney and 
Patricia Louis, agents of the Carib News Foundation 
(Foundation), provided false and misleading information to 
Members of Congress and the Standards Committee. They falsely 
indicated on the Private Sponsor Travel Certification Forms 
(sponsor form) provided to Members who attended the 2007 and 
2008 Multi-National Business Conferences that the sole sponsor 
of those conferences was the Foundation.
    At issue was corporate sponsorship of the 2007 and 2008 
conferences. Several corporations, including AT&T, Verizon, and 
American Airlines, donated money to the Foundation specifically 
to sponsor the 2007 and/or 2008 conferences. Karl Rodney 
solicited the donations from the corporations on behalf of the 
Foundation. However, he told Representatives Thompson, Clarke, 
Payne, Kilpatrick, and Delegate Christensen, as well as staff 
of the Standards Committee, that the Foundation was the sole 
sponsor of the conference.
    New travel rules were implemented in March of 2007. The new 
rules limit the corporations and entities that may sponsor 
travel for Members. Under the new rules, an entity that employs 
or retains lobbyists may only sponsor a Member's travel for 
one-day trips, provided the entity qualifies as a sponsor.
    Before a Member may accept travel expenses from a private 
sponsor, the Member must receive approval from the Standards 
Committee. The Member is required to submit information about 
the trip, including the sponsor(s) of the trip, to the 
Standards Committee. The Standards Committee will not approve a 
trip for longer than one day if the trip is sponsored by an 
entity that employs or retains lobbyists. It will not approve a 
trip if an entity providing a source of funds does not qualify 
as a sponsor.
    The new rules require the private sponsor to give 
information about the trip, including the location, the agenda, 
and the sponsors of the trip, to Members invited on that trip. 
It also requires the sponsor to certify certain information 
including that there are no other sources of funding for the 
travel. In turn, the invited Member submits the information 
provided by the private sponsor to the Standards Committee on a 
Private Sponsor Travel: Traveler Form (traveler form). The 
Member also submits a form to the Standards Committee that 
includes the sponsors of the trip and the estimated cost. The 
Member obtains this information from the trip sponsor.
    Standards Committee staff reviews the information submitted 
by the Member. The Standards Committee staff attempts to verify 
the information provided by the trip sponsor. The Standards 
Committee will deny the Member's request for travel if a number 
of criteria, including the sponsors of the trip, do not meet 
the requirements of the new rule.
    Patricia Louis, at the direction of Karl Rodney, contacted 
the Standards Committee in 2007 after the new rules were 
implemented and submitted the Private Sponsor Travel 
Certification Form and a trip agenda for Standards Committee 
staff to review. Standards Committee staff was concerned that 
the trip was sponsored by entities other than the Foundation. 
The staff repeatedly asked Patricia Louis, who in turn asked 
Karl Rodney, if any other entity provided money or in-kind 
donations to the Foundation for the 2007 conference.
    Karl Rodney instructed Patricia Louis to tell the Standards 
Committee staff that the Foundation was the only sponsor of the 
trip. He also told her to tell the Standards Committee staff 
that corporations listed on the agenda donated to the 
Foundation's general fund.
    After Karl Rodney and Patricia Louis told the Standards 
Committee staff on several occasions that the Foundation was 
the sole sponsor of the trip, the Standards Committee approved 
the Members' requests to attend the conference.
    In 2008, the Foundation hosted another conference. The 
Foundation sent sponsor forms to Members to invite them to the 
conference. Some of the Members submitted the forms from the 
Foundation and traveler forms to the Standards Committee to 
review.
    Standards Committee staff emailed and called Karl Rodney 
and Patricia Louis to ask about the conference. The staff asked 
if any other entity provided money or in-kind donations for the 
conference. Karl Rodney instructed Patricia Louis to tell the 
staff, ``no.''
    After Karl Rodney and Patricia Louis told the Standards 
Committee staff on several occasions that the Foundation was 
the sole sponsor of the trip, the Standards Committee approved 
the Members' requests to attend the conference.
    The Members relied upon the information the Foundation 
provided. The Standards Committee attempted to verify the 
information the Foundation provided. The Standards Committee 
did not find any evidence tending to show that the Foundation 
was not the sole sponsor of the conferences. The Standards 
Committee relied upon the information the Foundation provided.
    The Investigative Subcommittee concluded that Karl Rodney 
and Patricia Louis provided false and misleading information to 
the Members by sending post-travel expense totals they knew to 
be false to the Members. Additionally, the Investigative 
Subcommittee concluded that Karl Rodney and Patricia Louis 
provided false testimony before the Investigative Subcommittee 
regarding the information they provided to the Members who 
attended the 2007 and 2008 conferences.
    The Investigative Subcommittee found that Members who 
attended the conferences, other than Representative Charles 
Rangel, did not knowingly accept an improper gift of travel. 
These Members include Representatives Bennie Thompson, Yvette 
Clarke, Donald Payne, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, and Delegate 
Donna Christensen. The Investigative Subcommittee found that 
Representative Rangel accepted an improper gift of travel.
    The information provided to the Standards Committee by Karl 
Rodney and Patricia Louis, at Karl Rodney's direction, was 
false and misleading. Several corporations, including AT&T, 
Verizon, and American Airlines, donated to Carib News 
specifically for the conferences, after being solicited to 
contribute by Karl Rodney. Karl Rodney provided those entities 
with invoices specifying that the donations from those entities 
were for the conferences. The Government of Antigua and Barbuda 
(hereinafter Government of Antigua) also paid for lodging for 
Members of Congress, per an agreement with Karl Rodney.
    The Investigative Subcommittee reviewed Representatives 
Bennie Thompson, Yvette Clarke, Donald Payne, Carolyn Cheeks 
Kilpatrick, and Delegate Donna Christensen's conduct under 
House Rule XXIII, clauses 1, 2, and 4, and House Rule XXV, 
clause 5.
    The Investigative Subcommittee also reviewed Representative 
Charles Rangel's conduct under House Rule XXIII, clauses 1, 2, 
and 4, and House Rule XXV, clause 5. Representative Rangel's 
staff prepared a memorandum for him in 2008 that discussed a 
corporation's contribution to the 2008 conference. In 2006, 
Representative Rangel asked the Standards Committee whether he 
could ask corporations to donate money to the Foundation for 
the conference. The Standards Committee told him that it was 
not permissible.
    The Investigative Subcommittee also reviewed the actions 
taken by Dawn Kelly Mobley, then designated counsel to the 
former Chair of the Standards Committee, related to the 2007 
conference and determined that her communications with Patricia 
Louis were improper. Ms. Mobley provided internal Committee 
communications to Patricia Louis, which assisted Karl Rodney in 
formulating his answers to Committee counsel Susan Olson's 
questions regarding the conference sponsors. Ms. Mobley also 
gave contradictory information to Investigative Subcommittee 
counsel and the Investigative Subcommittee regarding her 
interaction with Carib News and other Committee Staff.
    Therefore, the Investigative Subcommittee finds that Karl 
Rodney, through Patricia Louis, provided false information to 
the Standards Committee when Patricia Louis sent the sponsor 
form to the Committee for review in 2007 and again when they 
provided the sponsor form to Members for the 2008 conference, 
which was in turn submitted for review to the Committee. 
Furthermore, Karl Rodney directly and through Patricia Louis, 
provided false information in response to questions from Ms. 
Olson regarding the 2007 conference. Karl Rodney and Faye 
Rodney provided false or misleading information to Committee 
counsel Margaret Perl in response to questions regarding the 
2008 conference. Additionally, Karl Rodney, through Patricia 
Louis, provided false information to Members of Congress to be 
used in the filing of their Post-Travel Disclosure Forms with 
the Office of the Clerk following the 2007 and 2008 
conferences.
    The Investigative Subcommittee also finds that Karl Rodney 
provided false or misleading testimony, while under oath, to 
the Investigative Subcommittee when he testified that the 
Government of Antigua did not pay for the lodging of the 
Members who attended the 2007 conference and that the 
Government of Antigua was aware at the time that its payment 
was not being made for such lodging.
    The Investigative Subcommittee finds that Dawn Kelly Mobley 
improperly communicated internal confidential Committee 
information to Karl Rodney and Patricia Louis. The 
Investigative Subcommittee further finds that Dawn Kelly Mobley 
improperly influenced the information provided by Karl Rodney 
and Patricia Louis to Ms. Olson during her review of the 2007 
Multi-National Business Conference.
    The Investigative Subcommittee makes no finding as to 
Representative Rangel's actual knowledge, but finds that his 
staff had knowledge that must be imputed to him. The knowledge 
involved the fact that private corporations, other than the 
Carib News Foundation, contributed funds directly to be used 
for the 2007 and 2008 Multi-National Business Conferences. 
Because of this knowledge, Representative Rangel was 
responsible for properly reporting to the Committee the correct 
classification of these corporations as co-sponsors for the 
2007 and 2008 conferences. The Investigative Subcommittee does 
not conclude that Representative Rangel knowingly submitted 
false information to the Committee. However, it does find that 
Representative Rangel did not exercise proper supervision over 
his staff and office to ensure such information was properly 
reported.
    The Investigative Subcommittee further found that the 
Standards Committee and the House would benefit from a review 
of the House travel rules and the Standards Committee's 
interpretation of those travel rules. While there is no doubt 
that the Foundation's conduct in the matter was illegal, and 
that Representative Rangel accepted a gift of travel he knew or 
should have known was improper, insufficient guidance by the 
Standards Committee staff during the Investigative 
Subcommittee's review suggests that a review of the rules and 
guidelines would be beneficial.
    Because of the aforementioned information and findings, the 
Investigative Subcommittee makes the following recommendations.
    1. The Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the 
Standards Committee refer the matters involving Karl Rodney, 
Faye Rodney and Patricia Louis, regarding their providing or 
conspiring to provide, false information to Congress, on 
multiple occasions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 and 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1505, to the U.S. Department of Justice for such 
action as the Department deems necessary.
    2. The Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the 
Standards Committee authorize the release of materials in 
possession of the Committee and not available through any other 
source, to the U.S. Department of Justice, as necessary for any 
further action the Department of Justice pursues as a result of 
the referral of this matter.
    3. As explained in this Report, the Investigative 
Subcommittee is concerned that violations of House rules and 
other standards of conduct may have occurred. The Investigative 
Subcommittee could pursue these matters only if its 
jurisdiction were expanded pursuant to Standards Committee 
rules and the resolution adopted by the Standards Committee on 
June 24, 2009. The Investigative Subcommittee does not find 
sufficient evidence to conclude, nor does it believe that it 
would discover additional evidence to alter its conclusion, 
that Representative Rangel had actual knowledge of the 
memoranda written by his staff. However, the Investigative 
Subcommittee finds Representative Rangel is responsible for the 
knowledge maintained by his staff. For this reason, the 
Investigative Subcommittee does not recommend that its 
jurisdiction be expanded. Rather, the Investigative 
Subcommittee recommends the Standards Committee adopt this 
Report as the Report of the full Committee and approve its 
dissemination to the House and the public. It is the intention 
of this Investigative Subcommittee that the publication of this 
Report will serve as a public admonishment by the Standards 
Committee to Representative Rangel. The Investigative 
Subcommittee also intends the publication of this report will 
serve as an advisory for all Members, employees, and officials 
of the House that Members may be held responsible for the 
knowledge and official conduct of their staff. Furthermore, the 
Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the Standards 
Committee request Representative Rangel to repay the total cost 
of his trips to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences.
    4. As explained in this Report, the conduct of Dawn Kelly 
Mobley in this matter raises concerns that violations of House 
Rules and other standards of conduct may have occurred. The 
Investigative Subcommittee could pursue these matters only if 
its jurisdiction were expanded pursuant to Standards Committee 
rules and the resolution adopted by the full Standards 
Committee on June 24, 2009. However, the Investigative 
Subcommittee does not recommend that its jurisdiction be 
expanded. Rather, the Investigative Subcommittee recommends the 
Standards Committee adopt this Report as the Report of the full 
Committee and approve its dissemination to the House and the 
public. It is the intention of this Investigative Subcommittee 
that the publication of this Report will serve as a public 
admonishment by the Committee to Ms. Mobley.
    5. Based on its investigation, the Investigative 
Subcommittee recommends that the Standards Committee establish 
written policies and procedures as to the duties and 
responsibilities of the designated counsels to the Chair and 
Ranking Member to ensure that such counsels are performing 
their duties to the Committee consistent with the provisions of 
Committee Rule 6. The interaction of the designated counsels in 
the travel review process or other Standards Committee 
functions performed by the professional staff can result, as 
the Subcommittee believes happened in this case, in improperly 
influencing the actions and recommendations of the staff.
    6. During the course of its review, the Investigative 
Subcommittee encountered areas that could benefit from 
improvement in the current House rules and Standards Committee 
rules regarding travel. The Investigative Subcommittee 
recommends that the Standards Committee conduct a review of the 
current House travel rules and Standards Committee rules as 
necessary to ensure that information submitted by a sponsor 
accurately reflects the source of funding for Congressional 
travel and any other amendments that may be necessary to ensure 
an effective and efficient travel review process. For example, 
sponsors should be required to certify to the accuracy of all 
information provided to invitees, including the post-travel 
cost information. Failure to provide certified post-travel 
information may result in that sponsor being ineligible to 
sponsor future trips. The travel regulations should also be 
amended to clarify the definition of a permissible source and 
to foster the identification and disclosure of such sources in 
connection with congressional travel.
    7. During the course of the investigation, counsel for Karl 
Rodney was also engaged to represent Faye Rodney and Patricia 
Louis. The record indicates that information and questions 
asked during the Subcommittee interviews of one witness were 
disclosed to the other witnesses prior to their testimony or 
that counsel used the testimony of one witness to prepare the 
other witnesses for their testimony. Each witness was given a 
sequestration warning at the conclusion of his or her 
testimony. As addressed by the investigative subcommittee in In 
the Matter of Representative Earl F. Hilliard, multiple 
representation by one counsel is ``inimical to the fact-finding 
process.''\1\ Thus, the Investigative Subcommittee recommends 
that the Standards Committee adopt a rule prohibiting or 
limiting representation of multiple witnesses by counsel or 
counsels within the same firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter 
of Representative Earl F. Hilliard, H. Rep. 107-130, 107th Cong., 1st 
Sess. 98 (July 10, 2001) (describing multirepresentation of witnesses 
as ``inimical to the fact-finding process''); see also House Comm. on 
Standards of Official Conduct, 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. 13-14 
& n.16 (recommending a ``sequestration of witnesses'' requirement be 
implemented in future inquires by Committee rule, policy, or resolution 
and noting that multirepresentation of witnesses by the same attorney 
``poses a substantial risk to the integrity of an investigation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    8. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that Representative 
Bennie Thompson did not knowingly violate any provision of the 
House gift rule or other applicable rules of conduct when he 
accepted payment or reimbursement of travel to the 2007 and 
2008 conferences. Additionally, the Investigative Subcommittee 
finds that Representative Bennie Thompson is entitled to rely 
upon the opinion letter issued by the Standards Committee 
approving his travel to the 2007 and the 2008 conferences. 
Therefore, Representative Thompson may not be sanctioned for 
unknowingly violating provisions of the House gift rule and 
other applicable rules or statutes. Nevertheless, the 
Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the Standards 
Committee request Representative Thompson to repay the costs of 
his trips to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences as determined 
by the Standards Committee using its standard practices 
relating to the reimbursement of trips determined to be 
invalid. The Investigative Subcommittee further recommends that 
the Standards Committee dismiss the review of officially 
connected travel by Representative Thompson to the 2007 and 
2008 conferences.
    9. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that Delegate Donna 
Christensen did not knowingly violate any provision of the 
House gift rule or other applicable rules of conduct when she 
accepted payment or reimbursement of travel to the 2007 and 
2008 conferences. Additionally, the Investigative Subcommittee 
finds that Delegate Christensen is entitled to rely upon the 
opinion letter issued by the Standards Committee approving her 
travel to the 2007 and the 2008 conferences. Therefore, 
Delegate Christensen may not be sanctioned for unknowingly 
violating provisions of the House gift rule. Nevertheless, the 
Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the Standards 
Committee request Representative Christensen to repay the costs 
of her trips to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences as 
determined by the Standards Committee using its standard 
practices relating to the reimbursement of trips determined to 
be invalid. The Investigative Subcommittee further recommends 
that the Standards Committee dismiss the review of officially 
connected travel by Delegate Christensen to the 2007 and 2008 
conferences.
    10. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Yvette Clarke did not knowingly violate any 
provision of the House gift rule or other applicable rules of 
conduct when she accepted payment or reimbursement of travel to 
the 2007 conference. Additionally, the Investigative 
Subcommittee finds that Representative Yvette Clarke is 
entitled to rely upon the opinion letter issued by the 
Standards Committee approving her travel to the 2007 
conference. Therefore, Representative Clarke may not be 
sanctioned for unknowingly violating provisions of the House 
gift rule. Nevertheless, the Investigative Subcommittee 
recommends that the Standards Committee request Representative 
Clarke to repay the costs of her trip to attend the 2007 
conference as determined by the Standards Committee using its 
standard practices relating to the reimbursement of trips 
determined to be invalid. The Investigative Subcommittee 
further recommends that the Standards Committee dismiss the 
review of officially connected travel by Representative Clarke 
to the 2007 conference.
    11. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Donald Payne did not knowingly violate any 
provision of the House gift rule or other applicable rules of 
conduct when he accepted payment or reimbursement of travel to 
the 2008 conference. Additionally, the Investigative 
Subcommittee finds that Representative Donald Payne is entitled 
to rely upon the opinion letter issued by the Standards 
Committee approving his travel to the 2008 conference. 
Therefore, Representative Payne may not be sanctioned for 
unknowingly violating provisions of the House gift rule. 
Nevertheless, the Investigative Subcommittee recommends that 
the Standards Committee request Representative Payne to repay 
the costs of his trip to attend the 2008 conference as 
determined by the Standards Committee using its standard 
practices relating to the reimbursement of trips determined to 
be invalid. The Investigative Subcommittee further recommends 
that the Standards Committee dismiss the review of officially 
connected travel by Representative Payne to the 2008 
conference.
    12. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick did not knowingly 
violate any provision of the House gift rule or other 
applicable rules of conduct when she accepted payment or 
reimbursement of travel to the 2008 conference. Additionally, 
the Investigative Subcommittee finds that Representative 
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is entitled to rely upon the opinion 
letter issued by the Standards Committee approving her travel 
to the 2008 conference. Therefore, Representative Kilpatrick 
may not be sanctioned for unknowingly violating provisions of 
the House gift rule. Nevertheless, the Investigative 
Subcommittee recommends that the Standards Committee request 
Representative Kilpatrick to repay the costs of her trip to 
attend the 2008 conference as determined by the Standards 
Committee using its standard practices relating to the 
reimbursement of trips determined to be invalid. The 
Investigative Subcommittee further recommends that the 
Standards Committee dismiss the review of officially connected 
travel by Representative Kilpatrick to the 2008 conference.
    13. The Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the 
Standards Committee transmit this Report to the House and 
approve its dissemination to the public.
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................     v
 I. INTRODUCTION......................................................4
          A. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE.....     4
          B. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS...............................     5
              1. Carib News, Inc. and the Carib News Foundation..     6
              2. The Multi-National Business Conferences.........     7
II. FEDERAL LAWS AND HOUSE RULES......................................8
          A. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001--
              STATEMENTS OR ENTRIES GENERALLY....................     8
          B. TITLE 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341--FRAUDS AND SWINDLES......     9
          C. TITLE 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343--FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO OR 
              TELEVISION.........................................     9
          D. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621--PERJURY GENERALLY..............     9
          E. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TITLE 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342, 
              RECEIPT AND DISPOSITION OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND 
              DECORATIONS (FGDA).................................    10
          F. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TITLE 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4941 AND 
              26 U.S.C Sec. 4946.................................    11
              1. Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4941--Private Foundations: 
                  Taxes on Self-Dealing..........................    11
              2. Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4946--Definitions and 
                  special rules..................................    12
          G. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF HOUSE RULE XXIII--CODE OF 
              OFFICIAL CONDUCT...................................    14
          H. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF HOUSE RULE XXV--LIMITATION ON 
              OUTSIDE EARNED INCOME AND ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS......    15
          I. RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS 
              OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT TRAVEL GUIDELINES AND 
              REGULATIONS (EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2007)..............    17
          J. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
              STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT......................    18
III.NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE....................................18

          A. THE 2007 CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTI-NATIONAL 
              BUSINESS CONFERENCE................................    18
              1. Attendance by Members and Staff.................    18
              2. Pre-travel Approval Process.....................    18
              3. Contributors to the 2007 Conference.............    67
              4. Truthfulness of the Information Provided to 
                  Members and the Standards Committee............    72
          B. THE 2008 CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTI-NATIONAL 
              BUSINESS CONFERENCE................................    76
              1. Attendance by Members and Staff.................    76
              2. Pre-travel Approval Process.....................    77
              3. Corporate Contributors to the 2008 Conference...    84
              4. Truthfulness of the Information Provided to 
                  Members and the Standards Committee............    87
          C. INTERVIEWS OF MEMBERS WHO ATTENDED THE 2007 OR 2008 
              CONFERENCES........................................    89
              1. Representative Bennie Thompson..................    90
              2. Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick........    91
              3. Representative Yvette Clarke....................    92
              4. Delegate Donna Christensen......................    94
              5. Representative Donald Payne.....................    96
              6. Representative Charles Rangel...................    98
IV. FINDINGS........................................................100
          A. COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF THE 2007 AND 2008 CARIB NEWS 
              FOUNDATION MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCES.....   100
              1. Travel Regulations..............................   100
              2. Tax Prohibitions on Private Foundations.........   105
              3. Contributions from Corporations that Retained or 
                  Employed Federally Registered Lobbyists........   106
              4. Payments for Lodging from the Governments of 
                  Antigua and St. Maarten........................   107
          B. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2007 AND 2008 MULTI-
              NATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCES BY REPRESENTATIVE 
              BENNIE G. THOMPSON.................................   109
          C. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2007 AND 2008 MULTI-
              NATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCES BY DELEGATE DONNA 
              CHRISTENSEN........................................   111
          D. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2007 MULTI-NATIONAL 
              BUSINESS CONFERENCE BY REPRESENTATIVE YVETTE CLARKE   114
          E. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2008 MULTI-NATIONAL 
              BUSINESS CONFERENCE BY REPRESENTATIVE DONALD PAYNE.   115
          F. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2008 MULTI-NATIONAL 
              BUSINESS CONFERENCE BY REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN 
              CHEEKS KILPATRICK..................................   117
          G. TRAVEL TO THE 2007 AND 2008 MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS 
              CONFERENCES BY REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES RANGEL.......   120
          H. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DAWN KELLY MOBLEY AND THE 
              CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION REGARDING THE 2007 CONFERENCE   127
          I. THE CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION...........................   130
 V. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................136
111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-422

======================================================================




               COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

                                _______
                                



  INVESTIGATION INTO OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TRAVEL OF HOUSE MEMBERS TO 
ATTEND THE CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTINATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCES IN 
                             2007 AND 2008

                                _______
                                

                           February 26, 2010

                                _______
                                

   Ms. Lofgren, from the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Standards 
Committee) submits this Report pursuant to House Rule XI, 
Clause 3(a)(2), which authorizes the Committee to investigate 
any alleged violation by a Member, officer, or employee of the 
House of Representatives of the Code of Official Conduct or any 
law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable 
to the conduct of such Member, officer, or employee.
    Pursuant to Rule 18, in 2009 the Committee, on its own 
initiative, began investigating officially-connected travel in 
2007 and 2008 that was sponsored, funded, or organized by 
organizations known as Carib News or the Carib News Foundation. 
The travel involved in the investigation concerned the Carib 
News Foundation Multi-National Business Conferences, which were 
held in Antigua and Barbuda in November 2007 and St. Maarten in 
November 2008. During the course of the Committee's independent 
investigation, the Committee received referrals naming 
particular Members from the Office of Congressional Ethics 
(OCE) regarding this matter. On June 24, 2009, in accordance 
with clause 3 of House Rule XI and Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 
18, the Committee voted unanimously to establish an 
Investigative Subcommittee to conduct an inquiry regarding 
allegations that have arisen regarding sponsorship of travel 
relating to six Members.
    The Investigative Subcommittee conducted a thorough eight-
month investigation. The Investigative Subcommittee authorized 
the issuance of six subpoenas; interviewed 29 witnesses; 
reviewed and analyzed over 3,000 pages of documents; and held 
over 19 Investigative Subcommittee meetings. The members of the 
Subcommittee voted unanimously to adopt the report which was 
presented to the Committee.
    On February 25, 2010, the Standards Committee unanimously 
voted to adopt the Report of the Investigative Subcommittee and 
includes that Report herewith as part of the Standards 
Committee's Report to the House of Representatives on this 
matter. By this act, the Standards Committee adopts the 
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Investigative 
Subcommittee.
    The Standards Committee unanimously voted to release a 
public Report finding that Representatives Bennie Thompson, 
Yvette Clarke, Donald Payne, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, and 
Delegate Donna Christensen did not knowingly violate any 
provision of the Code of Official Conduct or any law, rule, 
regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to each 
individual's conduct in the performance of his or her duties or 
the discharge of his or her responsibilities with respect to 
the acceptance of payment or reimbursement for travel to either 
or both of the Carib News Foundation Multi-National Business 
Conferences held in 2007 and 2008. These Members properly 
relied on the information provided to them by the officers and 
employees of Carib News and the Carib News Foundation in 
seeking and receiving pre-trip approval from the Committee to 
accept these trips.
    The Investigative Subcommittee found that these Members did 
not violate any House rule, regulation, law, or other standard 
of conduct. Only after the initiation of the Subcommittee's 
investigation was it learned that payments were made for their 
travel that were impermissible. Unfortunately, because false 
and misleading information was provided to the Committee, the 
Members inadvertently received impermissible gifts of travel 
that require repayment for the costs of their trips.
    Although the Committee had approved the Members' travel, 
that approval was conditional upon the information provided to 
the Committee being true and correct. That was not the case. 
Since the Members were provided false information by others, 
and relied upon that information in seeking approval to accept 
the trips, the Committee concludes that the Members committed 
no wrongdoing. Nevertheless, since the Members did, in fact, 
receive impermissible gifts of travel, they must repay the 
costs of their trips to the respective entities that paid for 
their travel. Because some portions of transportation costs 
were paid by Carib News out of funds the actual source of which 
could not be determined, the Committee will require those funds 
to be paid to the U.S. Treasury.
    The Report further finds that Representative Charles B. 
Rangel violated the House gift rule by accepting payment or 
reimbursement for travel to the 2007 and 2008 conferences. The 
evidence shows that members of Representative Rangel's staff 
knew that corporations had contributed funds to Carib News 
specifically for the 2007 and 2008 conferences. This 
information was not provided to the Standards Committee when he 
sought and received approval from the Committee to accept these 
trips. The Committee does not find sufficient evidence to 
conclude, nor does it believe that it would discover additional 
evidence to alter its conclusion, that Representative Rangel 
had actual knowledge of the memoranda written by his staff. 
However, the report finds that Representative Rangel was 
responsible for the knowledge and actions of his staff in the 
performance of their official duties. It is the intention of 
the Committee that publication of this Report will serve as a 
public admonishment by the Standards Committee of 
Representative Rangel. The Committee will also require 
Representative Rangel to repay the costs of the trips to the 
respective entities that paid for his travel. Because some 
portions of his transportation costs were paid by Carib News 
out of funds the actual source of which could not be 
determined, the Committee will require those funds to be paid 
to the U.S. Treasury.
    The Report further finds that Dawn Kelly Mobley, former 
shared staff to the Committee who was designated counsel to the 
former Chair of the Standards Committee, improperly 
communicated confidential internal Committee information to 
officers and employees of Carib News, Karl Rodney and Patricia 
Louis, and that she improperly influenced the information 
provided by Karl Rodney and Patricia Louis to Standards 
Committee staff during the Committee's review of the 2007 
Multi-National Business Conference. It is the intention of the 
Committee that publication of this Report will serve as a 
public admonishment by the Standards Committee of Ms. Mobley.
    Finally, the Report finds that officers and employees of 
Carib News and the Carib News Foundation--Karl Rodney, Faye 
Rodney, and Patricia Louis--submitted false or misleading 
information to the Committee during its pre-travel review of 
the 2007 and 2008 conferences and again when providing sworn 
testimony to the Investigative Subcommittee. The Committee 
unanimously voted to refer the conduct of these officers and 
employees of Carib News and the Carib News Foundation to the 
United States Department of Justice for further action as it 
deems appropriate.
    In accordance with clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of House Rule 
XI, and Standards Committee Rule 10(a)(7), the Standards 
Committee unanimously agreed to issue the attached Report to 
the House. The Report follows the receipt of materials 
forwarded to the Standards Committee by the Office of 
Congressional Ethics (OCE) and addresses the findings and 
conclusions of the Standards Committee with regard to the 
conduct of Representatives Thompson, Payne, Kilpatrick, Clarke, 
Rangel, and Delegate Christensen. OCE's Report and Findings for 
each member are contained within the Standards Committee's 
Report.
    The Standards Committee thanks the members of the 
Investigative Subcommittee for their hard work, dedication, and 
service to the Committee and to the House. Representative G.K. 
Butterfield served as Chair of the Investigative Subcommittee. 
Representative Charles W. Dent served as Ranking Republican 
Member. Representatives Brad Miller and Michael K. Simpson also 
served on the Subcommittee. In addition, Representative J. 
Gresham Barrett initially served as Ranking Republican Member 
before resigning his position on the Standards Committee, at 
which time Representative Dent was selected as Ranking 
Republican Member. Each of these members devoted substantial 
time and effort to the investigation, and the Committee thanks 
each of them for their service.

II. STATEMENT UNDER RULE 13, CLAUSE 39(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF 
                            REPRESENTATIVES

    The Standards Committee made no special oversight findings 
in this report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is 
authorized by any measure in this report.

                            I. INTRODUCTION


           A. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE

    On June 24, 2009, the Standards Committee passed a 
Resolution by unanimous vote establishing an Investigative 
Subcommittee in response to an ongoing Standards Committee 
investigation into officially connected travel by Members of 
the House of Representatives and referrals from the Office of 
Congressional Ethics.\2\ The travel involved in the 
investigation as authorized by the Resolution concerned two 
conferences hosted by the Carib News Foundation, Inc. (the 
Foundation), which were held in Antigua in November 2007, and 
St. Maarten in November 2008. While the Foundation has 
sponsored similar conferences since 1995, only the conferences 
held in 2007 and 2008 were included within the jurisdiction of 
the Investigative Subcommittee under the Resolution, because 
they were held after the House travel rules were amended and 
became effective in March 2007. The amended travel rules 
required that all Members, staff, and employees receive pre-
travel approval from the Standards Committee before accepting 
any officially connected travel from a private sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See Exhibit 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a public statement released on June 25, 2009, 
Representative Zoe Lofgren, Standards Committee Chair, and 
Representative Jo Bonner, Ranking Republican Member, announced 
the establishment of the Investigative Subcommittee. The 
announcement stated that Representative G. K. Butterfield would 
serve as the Chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee and 
Representative J. Gresham Barrett as the Ranking Republican 
Member.\3\ Representatives Brad Miller and Michael K. Simpson 
would serve on the Subcommittee as Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Representative Barrett, following his resignation from the 
Standards Committee, was subsequently replaced as Ranking Republican 
Member of the Subcommittee by Representative Charles W. Dent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 9, 2009, the Investigative Subcommittee held its 
first meeting. During the initial meeting, the Subcommittee 
authorized Standards Committee counsel assigned to the 
Subcommittee to interview Standards Committee staff involved in 
the pre-travel reviews for the 2007 and 2008 conferences. The 
Investigative Subcommittee also authorized the issuance of a 
subpoena to the Foundation for all records, communications, 
documents and other materials related to the 2007 and 2008 
conferences. The Investigative Subcommittee further authorized 
counsel to contact Members' offices and verify which Members 
attended the 2007 and 2008 conferences. During a subsequent 
meeting on July 30, 2009, the Subcommittee authorized counsel 
to begin interviewing Members' staff, notify involved Members 
of the investigation, and request documents and records 
maintained by the Members and their staff related to the two 
conferences.

                        B. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

    The Investigative Subcommittee authorized counsel to 
interview Standards Committee staff that had reviewed or had 
knowledge of the 2007 and 2008 conference travel requests. 
Because of their involvement and the sequestration rule in the 
Resolution, counsel and staff who had worked on or discussed 
the two conferences were recused from any work on the 
investigation and discussions regarding the investigation. 
Counsel who had been hired after the 2008 conference were 
assigned to the investigation.
    Pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 19(b)(5), the 
Subcommittee authorized--and the Standards Committee's Chair 
and Ranking Member subsequently issued--a subpoena to Karl 
Rodney, who agreed to accept service on behalf of the 
Foundation and Carib News, for all records related or 
pertaining to the 2007 and 2008 Multi-National Business 
conferences sponsored or funded by the Carib News Foundation. 
The initial returns of documents required under the subpoena 
did not contain any transaction records, such as the records of 
contributions from corporations to the Foundation for the 
conferences, hotel receipts and bills, or transportation 
records. Upon discussion with counsel to the Foundation, some 
of these records were subsequently provided. When questioned as 
to the records provided pursuant to the subpoena, Mr. Rodney 
indicated he had other records that he had not provided.\4\ The 
Subcommittee asked Mr. Rodney to provide those records.\5\ His 
attorney later notified Subcommittee counsel that the records 
described by Mr. Rodney during his interview did not exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 22. See also Karl Rodney 
December 1, 2009, Tr. at 145-146.
    \5\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to Standards Committee Rule 19(b)(5), the 
Subcommittee authorized the issuance of a subpoena to Unique 
Vacations, Inc., the U.S. representative for Sandals Grande 
Antigua Resort and Spa, site of the 2007 conference. Unique 
Vacations provided records, including the contract between 
Unique Vacations, Inc. and the Carib News Foundation, signed on 
May 5, 2007, by Faye Rodney, which indicated the agreement for 
the costs for lodging, meals, and conference facilities to be 
used for the 2007 Conference.\6\ The materials provided by 
Unique Vacations, Inc., pursuant to the subpoena, also included 
a memorandum from Karl Rodney to Dr. Errol Cort, Minister of 
Finance, for the Government of Antigua referencing an agreement 
that Antigua would pay for the lodging and meals for Members of 
Congress and other VIPs.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\See Exhibit 2.
    \7\See Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Investigative Subcommittee counsel contacted the Sonesta 
Maho Beach Resort in St. Maarten, the site of the 2008 
conference, and requested they provide any records in their 
possession related to the 2008 conference including lodging 
bills for the Members who attended the 2008 conference. The 
Sonesta Maho has not provided any requested records.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\The Sonesta Maho Beach Resort does not have a legal presence in 
the United States on whom a congressional subpoena could be served. Any 
cooperation from the Sonesta Maho would be voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee authorized a subpoena to 
Citibank Corporation for bank records for accounts owned by 
Carib News, Inc. (Carib News), the Carib News Foundation, Karl 
Rodney, and Faye Rodney. The subpoena was issued by the 
Standards Committee and served on Citibank on November 5, 2009. 
Citibank provided the records requested pursuant to the 
subpoena in late November and early December 2009. The records 
indicated that Carib News has multiple accounts with Citibank 
and frequently transfers money among the varying accounts. A 
review of these records indicated that the corporate 
contributions received for the 2007 and 2008 conferences were 
deposited in different accounts and comingled with other funds 
received by News.
    Standards Committee counsel conducted staff interviews of 
current and former Standards Committee staff that were involved 
or had knowledge of the pre-travel reviews and approvals for 
the 2007 and 2008 conferences.\9\ Standards Committee counsel 
also interviewed current and former staff of Representatives 
Charles Rangel, Bennie Thompson, Yvette Clarke, Carolyn 
Kilpatrick, Donald Payne, and Delegate Donna Christensen, who 
had knowledge of the conferences and documents submitted to the 
Standards Committee for approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Committee counsel had interviewed some Members' staff before the 
Investigative Subcommittee was empanelled during its Rule 18(a) 
inquiry. Transcripts of those interviews were also reviewed by counsel 
assigned to the Investigative Subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Investigative Subcommittee interviewed Delegate 
Christensen and Representatives Rangel, Thompson, Kilpatrick, 
Clarke, Payne, as well as Sheila Jackson Lee, who attended one 
day of the 2008 conference at her own expense. The 
Investigative Subcommittee also took sworn testimony from Karl 
Rodney, Faye Rodney, Patricia Louis, and Dawn Kelly Mobley.

           1. Carib News, Inc. and the Carib News Foundation

    While there is little public information about the Carib 
News Foundation other than its affiliation with Carib News, 
Inc., attorneys for the Carib News Foundation, Carib News, 
Inc., and Karl Rodney provided some background information in a 
letter sent to Leo Wise, Staff Director and Chief Counsel, 
Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).\10\ As explained in the 
letter, Mr. Rodney is a native of Jamaica and has been active 
in the Caribbean American community for many years. Mr. Rodney 
had been employed for 15 years with a life insurance company 
when, in 1982, he recognized the need for a media outlet for 
the Caribbean-American community. At that time, Mr. Rodney and 
his wife, Faye, founded Carib News using personal funds. Carib 
News is a weekly publication located in New York City that 
provides news and other information for the Caribbean-American 
community residing primarily in New York. According to records 
on file with the New York State Division of Corporations, Carib 
News, Inc. was incorporated on June 8, 1982, in Westchester 
County, New York, as a domestic business corporation.\11\ Karl 
Rodney is listed as the corporation's Chairman and Chief 
Executive Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\See Exhibit 4.
    \11\See Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to records on file with the New York State 
Division of Corporations, the Carib News Foundation was 
incorporated on May 27, 1988, as Carib News Charities, Inc., 
and is identified as a domestic, not-for-profit corporation. On 
May 15, 2001, the corporate name for Carib News Charities was 
changed to Carib News Foundation. Karl Rodney is listed as the 
process agent for the corporation.\12\ There is no listing 
regarding officers or directors of the corporation. However, 
during interviews with Karl and Faye Rodney, each indicated 
they were both directors of the Foundation and their daughter, 
Michele Rodney, is the President.\13\ Michele Rodney is an 
attorney licensed to practice in the New York metropolitan 
area. Her office is located at the same address as the Carib 
News Foundation and Carib News, Inc.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\See Exhibit 6.
    \13\Investigative Subcommittee interviews of Karl Rodney on October 
28, 2009; Faye Rodney on October 27, 2009; and Patricia Louis on 
November 18, 2009.
    \14\New York State Unified Court System, Attorney Directory, 
Attorney Detail--Michele Rodney, https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/
attorney/AttorneyDetails?attorneyId=5468239 (last visited November 12, 
2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the letter and additional information provided 
by Karl and Faye Rodney, the goal of the Foundation is to 
support the community outreach program of Carib News, Inc. The 
Foundation receives ``modest annual contributions'' unrelated 
to the annual conference for other activities.\15\ According to 
the letter from his attorneys, Mr. Rodney and the Foundation 
have ``welcomed the financial support and meaningful 
participation of corporations interested in marketing their 
services to the Caribbean-American community'' in promoting the 
annual conference.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\See Exhibit 4.
    \16\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               2. The Multi-National Business Conferences

    According to the conference's ``mission statement,'' the 
Multi-National Business Conferences organized by Carib News 
have been held annually since 1995 for the following purpose:

          To bring together businesses, community, and 
        governmental leaders interested in understanding the 
        economic opportunities in the Caribbean marketplace, 
        locally and in the Caribbean.
          To make a global community among Diverse Business 
        Entities and the Caribbean.
          Linkage between the emerging markets of the U.S. and 
        the Developing Economics [sic] of the Caribbean.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Caribbean Multinational Business Conference, About the 
Conference, http://www.caribnewsconference.com/abouttheconference.html 
(last accessed on November 4, 2009).

    According to the information provided on the conference's 
Web site,\18\ the agendas\19\ presented to the Standards 
Committee during the pre-travel approval process, and testimony 
from witnesses who attended the conferences,\20\ the 
conferences consisted of three days of meetings and workshops 
where information about education, health, security, and 
business opportunities, among other topics, were discussed and 
explored. Each Member who attended the conferences had specific 
roles, such as speaking before groups or participating in round 
table discussions, based on their interests and congressional 
assignments.\21\ Witnesses indicated that the value of meeting 
with leaders of Caribbean nations and discussing topics of 
interest to both the Caribbean nations and the United States 
could not be overestimated.\22\ Representative Thompson added 
that the Caribbean held a special interest because the area was 
part of the ``President's Third Border Initiative'' to help 
strengthen security in this region.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See Exhibit 7.
    \19\See Exhibit 8.
    \20\Subcommittee interviews of Representatives Rangel, Thompson, 
Clarke, Kilpatrick, Payne and Delegate Christensen.
    \21\Id.
    \22\Id.
    \23\``The Caribbean nations, our often overlooked `third border,' 
are important partners on trade, health and education issues and 
regional democracy. Illegal drug trafficking, migrant smuggling and 
financial crime, however, threaten both United States and regional 
security interests. In order to better focus the U.S.-Caribbean 
relationship and work with our partners on a number of capacity 
building tasks, the Bush Administration has developed a `Third Border 
Initiative.''' White House Fact Sheet on the Caribbean Border 
Initiative, April 21, 2001, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/
news/releases/2001/04/20010423-5.html (last visited February 23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    II. FEDERAL LAWS AND HOUSE RULES


  A. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001--STATEMENTS OR 
                           ENTRIES GENERALLY

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, 
in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, 
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United 
States, knowingly and willfully--
          (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, 
        scheme, or device a material fact;
          (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or 
        fraudulent statement or representation; or
          (3) makes or uses any false writing or document 
        knowing the same to contain any materially false, 
        fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
years or, if the offense involves international or domestic 
terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more 
than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense 
under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then 
the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be 
not more than 8 years.
    (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial 
proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, 
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party 
or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of 
the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to--
          (1) administrative matters, including a claim for 
        payment, a matter related to the procurement of 
        property or services, personnel or employment 
        practices, or support services, or a document required 
        by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the 
        Congress or any office or officer within the 
        legislative branch; or
          (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant 
        to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, 
        commission or office of the Congress, consistent with 
        applicable rules of the House or Senate.

           B. TITLE 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341--FRAUDS AND SWINDLES

    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme 
or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by 
means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or 
promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give 
away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful 
use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or 
other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or 
held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the 
purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so 
to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for 
mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or 
delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be 
deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered 
by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or 
receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly 
causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the 
direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to 
be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such 
matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned 
not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in 
relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, 
transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection 
with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as 
those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. 
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
U.S.C. Sec. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such 
person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned 
not more than 30 years, or both.

    C. TITLE 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343--FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO OR TELEVISION

    Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme 
or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by 
means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or 
promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of 
wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or 
foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or 
sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, 
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 
years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or 
involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, 
transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a 
presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those 
terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person 
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more 
than 30 years, or both.

               D. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621--PERJURY GENERALLY

    Whoever----
          (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, 
        officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the 
        United States authorizes an oath to be administered, 
        that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify 
        truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, 
        deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, 
        willfully and contrary to such oath states or 
        subscribes any material matter which he does not 
        believe to be true; or
          (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or 
        statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under 
        section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully 
        subscribes as true any material matter which he does 
        not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly 
provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not 
more than five years, or both. This section is applicable 
whether the statement or subscription is made within or without 
the United States.

    E. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TITLE 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342, RECEIPT AND 
          DISPOSITION OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND DECORATIONS (FGDA)

    (b) An employee may not--
          (1) request or otherwise encourage the tender of a 
        gift or decoration; or
          (2) accept a gift or decoration, other than in 
        accordance with the provisions of subsections (c) and 
        (d).
    (c)
          (1) The Congress consents to--
                  (A) the accepting and retaining by an 
                employee of a gift of minimal value tendered 
                and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy; 
                and
                  (B) the accepting by an employee of a gift of 
                more than minimal value when such gift is in 
                the nature of an educational scholarship or 
                medical treatment or when it appears that to 
                refuse the gift would likely cause offense or 
                embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the 
                foreign relations of the United States, except 
                that
                          (i) a tangible gift of more than 
                        minimal value is deemed to have been 
                        accepted on behalf of the United States 
                        and, upon acceptance, shall become the 
                        property of the United States; and
                          (ii) an employee may accept gifts of 
                        travel or expenses for travel taking 
                        place entirely outside the United 
                        States (such as transportation, food, 
                        and lodging) of more than minimal value 
                        if such acceptance is appropriate, 
                        consistent with the interests of the 
                        United States, and permitted by the 
                        employing agency and any regulations 
                        which may be prescribed by the 
                        employing agency.
          (2) Within 60 days after accepting a tangible gift of 
        more than minimal value (other than a gift described in 
        paragraph (1)(B)(ii)), an employee shall--
                  (A) deposit the gift for disposal with his or 
                her employing agency; or
                  (B) subject to the approval of the employing 
                agency, deposit the gift with that agency for 
                official use.
Within 30 days after terminating the official use of a gift 
under subparagraph (B), the employing agency shall forward the 
gift to the Administrator of General Services in accordance 
with subsection (e)(1) or provide for its disposal in 
accordance with subsection (e)(2).
          (3) When an employee deposits a gift of more than 
        minimal value for disposal or for official use pursuant 
        to paragraph (2), or within 30 days after accepting 
        travel or travel expenses as provided in paragraph 
        (1)(B)(ii) unless such travel or travel expenses are 
        accepted in accordance with specific instructions of 
        his or her employing agency, the employee shall file a 
        statement with his or her employing agency or its 
        delegate containing the information prescribed in 
        subsection (f) for that gift.
    (d) The Congress consents to the accepting, retaining, and 
wearing by an employee of a decoration tendered in recognition 
of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded 
for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, 
subject to the approval of the employing agency of such 
employee. Without this approval, the decoration is deemed to 
have been accepted on behalf of the United States, shall become 
the property of the United States, and shall be deposited by 
the employee, within sixty days of acceptance, with the 
employing agency for official use, for forwarding to the 
Administrator of General Services for disposal in accordance 
with subsection (e)(1), or for disposal in accordance with 
subsection (e)(2).
    * * *
    (h) The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any 
district court of the United States against any employee who 
knowingly solicits or accepts a gift from a foreign government 
not consented to by this section or who fails to deposit or 
report such gift as required by this section. The court in 
which such action is brought may assess a penalty against such 
employee in any amount not to exceed the retail value of the 
gift improperly solicited or received plus $5,000.

   F. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF TITLE 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4941 AND 26 U.S.C 
                               Sec. 4946

  1. Title 26 U.S.C. 4941--Private Foundations: Taxes on Self-Dealing

    (a) Initial taxes.
          (1) On self-dealer. There is hereby imposed a tax on 
        each act of self-dealing between a disqualified person 
        and a private foundation. The rate of tax shall be 
        equal to 10 percent of the amount involved with respect 
        to the act of self-dealing for each year (or part 
        thereof) in the taxable period. The tax imposed by this 
        paragraph shall be paid by any disqualified person 
        (other than a foundation manager acting only as such) 
        who participates in the act of self-dealing. In the 
        case of a government official (as defined in section 
        4946(c) [26 U.S.C. Sec. 4946(c)]), a tax shall be 
        imposed by this paragraph only if such disqualified 
        person participates in the act of self-dealing knowing 
        that it is such an act.
          (2) On foundation manager. In any case in which a tax 
        is imposed by paragraph (1), there is hereby imposed on 
        the participation of any foundation manager in an act 
        of self-dealing between a disqualified person and a 
        private foundation, knowing that it is such an act, a 
        tax equal to 5 percent of the amount involved with 
        respect to the act of self-dealing for each year (or 
        part thereof) in the taxable period, unless such 
        participation is not willful and is due to reasonable 
        cause. The tax imposed by this paragraph shall be paid 
        by any foundation manager who participated in the act 
        of self-dealing.
    (b) Additional taxes.
          (1) On self-dealer. In any case in which an initial 
        tax is imposed by subsection (a)(1) on an act of self-
        dealing by a disqualified person with a private 
        foundation and the act is not corrected within the 
        taxable period, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 
        200 percent of the amount involved. The tax imposed by 
        this paragraph shall be paid by any disqualified person 
        (other than a foundation manager acting only as such) 
        who participated in the act of self-dealing.
          (2) On foundation manager. In any case in which an 
        additional tax is imposed by paragraph (1), if a 
        foundation manager refused to agree to part or all of 
        the correction, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 
        50 percent of the amount involved. The tax imposed by 
        this paragraph shall be paid by any foundation manager 
        who refused to agree to part or all of the correction.
    (c) Special rules.
    For purposes of subsections (a) and (b)--
          (1) Joint and several liability. If more than one 
        person is liable under any paragraph of subsection (a) 
        or (b) with respect to any one act of self-dealing, all 
        such persons shall be jointly and severally liable 
        under such paragraph with respect to such act.
          (2) $20,000 limit for management. With respect to any 
        one act of self-dealing, the maximum amount of the tax 
        imposed by subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed $20,000, 
        and the maximum amount of the tax imposed by subsection 
        (b)(2) shall not exceed $20,000.
    (d) Self-dealing.
          (1) In general. For purposes of this section, the 
        term ``self-dealing'' means any direct or indirect--
                  (A) sale or exchange, or leasing, of property 
                between a private foundation and a disqualified 
                person;
                  (B) lending of money or other extension of 
                credit between a private foundation and a 
                disqualified person;
                  (C) furnishing of goods, services, or 
                facilities between a private foundation and a 
                disqualified person;
                  (D) payment of compensation (or payment or 
                reimbursement of expenses) by a private 
                foundation to a disqualified person;
                  (E) transfer to, or use by or for the benefit 
                of, a disqualified person of the income or 
                assets of a private foundation; and
                  (F) agreement by a private foundation to make 
                any payment of money or other property to a 
                government official (as defined in section 
                4946(c) [26 U.S.C. Sec. 4946(c)]), other than 
                an agreement to employ such individual for any 
                period after the termination of his government 
                service if such individual is terminating his 
                government service within a 90-day period.

      2. Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 4946--Definitions and special rules

    (a) Disqualified person.
          (1) In general. For purposes of this subchapter [26 
        U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 4940 et seq.], the term ``disqualified 
        person'' means, with respect to a private foundation, a 
        person who is--
                  (A) a substantial contributor to the 
                foundation,
                  (B) a foundation manager (within the meaning 
                of subsection (b)(1)),
                  (C) an owner of more than 20 percent of--
                          (i) the total combined voting power 
                        of a corporation,
                          (ii) the profits interest of a 
                        partnership, or
                          (iii) the beneficial interest of a 
                        trust or unincorporated enterprise, 
                        which is a substantial contributor to 
                        the foundation,
                  (D) a member of the family (as defined in 
                subsection (d)) of any individual described in 
                subparagraph (A), (B), or (C),
                  (E) a corporation of which persons described 
                in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) own more 
                than 35 percent of the total combined voting 
                power,
                  (F) a partnership in which persons described 
                in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) own more 
                than 35 percent of the profits interest,
                  (G) a trust or estate in which persons 
                described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) 
                hold more than 35 percent of the beneficial 
                interest,
                  (H) only for purposes of section 4943 [26 
                U.S.C. Sec. 4943], a private foundation--
                          (i) which is effectively controlled 
                        (directly or indirectly) by the same 
                        person or persons who control the 
                        private foundation in question, or
                          (ii) substantially all of the 
                        contributions to which were made 
                        (directly or indirectly) by the same 
                        person or persons described in 
                        subparagraph (A), (B), or (C), or 
                        members of their families (within the 
                        meaning of subsection (d)), who made 
                        (directly or indirectly) substantially 
                        all of the contributions to the private 
                        foundation in question, and
                  (I) only for purposes of section 4941 [26 
                U.S.C. Sec. 4941], a government official (as 
                defined in subsection (c)).
          (2) Substantial contributors. For purposes of 
        paragraph (1), the term ``substantial contributor'' 
        means a person who is described in section 507(d)(2) 
        [26 U.S.C. Sec. 507(d)(2)].
          (3) Stockholdings. For purposes of paragraphs 
        (1)(C)(i) and (1)(E), there shall be taken into account 
        indirect stockholdings which would be taken into 
        account under section 267(c) [26 U.S.C. Sec. 267(c)], 
        except that, for purposes of this paragraph, section 
        267(c)(4) [26 U.S.C. Sec. 267(c)(4)] shall be treated 
        as providing that the members of the family of an 
        individual are the members within the meaning of 
        subsection (d).
          (4) Partnerships; trusts. For purposes of paragraphs 
        (1)(C)(ii) and (iii), (1)(F), and (1)(G), the ownership 
        of profits or beneficial interests shall be determined 
        in accordance with the rules for constructive ownership 
        of stock provided in section 267(c) [26 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 267(c)] (other than paragraph (3) thereof), except 
        that section 267(c)(4) [26 U.S.C. Sec. 267(c)(4)] shall 
        be treated as providing that the members of the family 
        of an individual are the members within the meaning of 
        subsection (d).
    (b) Foundation manager. For purposes of this subchapter [26 
U.S.C. Sec. 4940 et seq.], the term ``foundation manager'' 
means, with respect to any private foundation--
          (1) an officer, director, or trustee of a foundation 
        (or an individual having powers or responsibilities 
        similar to those of officers, directors, or trustees of 
        the foundation), and
          (2) with respect to any act (or failure to act), the 
        employees of the foundation having authority or 
        responsibility with respect to such act (or failure to 
        act).
    (c) Government official. For purposes of subsection 
(a)(1)(I) and section 4941 [26 U.S.C. Sec. 4941], the term 
``government official'' means, with respect to an act of self-
dealing described in section 4941 [26 U.S.C. Sec. 4941], an 
individual who, at the time of such act, holds any of the 
following offices or positions (other than as a ``special 
Government employee'', as defined in section 202(a) of title 
18, United States Code):
          (1) an elective public office in the executive or 
        legislative branch of the Government of the United 
        States,
          (2) an office in the executive or judicial branch of 
        the Government of the United States, appointment to 
        which was made by the President,
          (3) a position in the executive, legislative, or 
        judicial branch of the Government of the United 
        States--
                  (A) which is listed in schedule C of rule VI 
                of the Civil Service Rules, or
                  (B) the compensation for which is equal to or 
                greater than the lowest rate of basic pay for 
                the Senior Executive Service under section 5382 
                of title 5, United States Code,
          (4) a position under the House of Representatives or 
        the Senate of the United States held by an individual 
        receiving gross compensation at an annual rate of 
        $15,000 or more,
          (5) an elective or appointive public office in the 
        executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the 
        government of a State, possession of the United States, 
        or political subdivision or other area of any of the 
        foregoing, or of the District of Columbia, held by an 
        individual receiving gross compensation at an annual 
        rate of $20,000 or more,
          (6) a position as personal or executive assistant or 
        secretary to any of the foregoing, or,
          (7) a Member of the Internal Revenue Service 
        Oversight Board.
    (d) Members of family. For purposes of subsection (a)(1), 
the family of any individual shall include only his spouse, 
ancestors, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and 
the spouses of children, grandchildren, and great 
grandchildren.

  G. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF HOUSE RULE XXIII--CODE OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT

    Clause 1. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in 
a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.
    Clause 2. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit 
and the letter of the Rules of the House and to the rules of 
duly constituted committees thereof.
    Clause 4. A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House may not accept gifts except 
as provided by clause 5 of Rule XXV.

H. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF HOUSE RULE XXV--LIMITATION ON OUTSIDE EARNED 
                     INCOME AND ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS

    Clause 5(a)(1)(A)(i). A Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer or employee of the House may not 
knowingly accept a gift except as provided in this clause.
    Clause 5(a)(1)(A)(ii). A Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not 
knowingly accept a gift from a registered lobbyist or agent of 
a foreign principal or from a private entity that retains or 
employs registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal 
except as provided in subparagraph (3) of this paragraph.
    Clause 5(a)(2)(A). In this clause the term ``gift'' means 
gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, 
forbearance, or other item having monetary value. The term 
includes gifts of services, training, transportation, lodging, 
and meals, whether provided in kind, by purchase of a ticket, 
payment in advance, or reimbursement after the expense has been 
incurred.
    Clause 5(b)(1)(A). A reimbursement (including payment in 
kind) to a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House for necessary transportation, lodging, 
and related expenses for travel to a meeting, speaking 
engagement, fact-finding trip, or similar event in connection 
with the duties of such individual as an office-holder shall be 
considered as a reimbursement to the House and not a gift 
prohibited by this clause when it is from a private source 
other than a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
principal or a private entity that retains or employs 
registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal (except 
as provided in subdivision (C)), if the Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer or employee--(ii) discloses the 
expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed . . . to the Clerk 
within 15 days after the travel is completed.
    Clause 5(b)(1)(C). A reimbursement (including payment in 
kind) to a Member, delegate, resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House for any purpose described in subdivision 
(A) also shall be considered as a reimbursement to the House 
and not a gift prohibited by this clause (without regard to 
whether the source retains or employs registered lobbyists or 
agents of a foreign principal) if it is, under regulations 
prescribed by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to 
implement this provision--
                          (i) directly from an institution of 
                        higher education within the meaning of 
                        section 101 of the Higher Education Act 
                        of 1965; or
                          (ii) provided only for attendance at 
                        or participation in a one-day event 
                        (exclusive of travel time and an 
                        overnight stay).
    Clause 5(b)(3). Each disclosure made under subparagraph 
(1)(A) shall be signed by the Member, Delegate, Resident 
Commissioner, or officer (in the case of travel by that Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioners, or officer) or by the Member, 
Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or officer under whose direct 
supervision the employee works (in the case of travel by an 
employee) and shall include--
                  (A) a good faith estimate of total 
                transportation expenses reimbursed or to be 
                reimbursed;
                  (B) a good faith estimate of total lodging 
                expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
                  (C) a good faith estimate of total meal 
                expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
                  (D) a good faith estimate of the total of 
                other expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed;
                  (E) a determination that all such expenses 
                are necessary transportation, lodging, and 
                related expenses as defined in subparagraph 
                (4);
                  (F) a description of the meetings and events 
                attended; and
                  (G) in the case of a reimbursement to a 
                Member, delegate, resident Commissioner, or 
                officer, a determination that the travel was in 
                conjunction with the duties of such individual 
                as an officeholder and would not create the 
                appearance that the Member, Delegate, resident 
                Commissioner, or officer is using public office 
                for private gain.
    Clause 5(b)(4). In this paragraph the term ``necessary 
transportation, lodging, and related expenses''--
                  (A) includes reasonable expenses that are 
                necessary for travel for a period not exceeding 
                four days within the United States or seven 
                days exclusive of travel time outside of the 
                United States unless approved in advance by the 
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct;
                  (B) is limited to reasonable expenditures for 
                transportation, lodging, conference fees and 
                materials, and food and refreshments, including 
                reimbursement for necessary transportation, 
                whether or not such transportation occurs 
                within the periods described in subdivision 
                (A);
                  (C) does not include expenditures for 
                recreational activities, nor does it include 
                entertainment other than that provided to all 
                attendees as an integral part of the event, 
                except for activities or entertainment 
                otherwise permissible under this clause; and
                  (D) may include travel expenses incurred on 
                behalf of a relative of the Member, Delegate, 
                Resident Commissioner, officer or employee.
    Clause 5(c)(2). A Member, delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House may not accept a 
reimbursement (including payment in kind) for transportation, 
lodging, or related expenses under the exception in paragraph 
(b)(1)(C)(ii) of this clause for a trip that is financed in 
whole or in part by a private entity that retains or employs 
registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal unless 
any involvement of a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
principal in the planning, organization, request, or 
arrangement of the trip is de minimis under rules prescribed by 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to implement 
paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this clause.
    Clause 5(d). A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House shall, before accepting 
travel otherwise permissible under paragraph (b)(1) of this 
clause from any private source--
          (1) provide to the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct before such trip a written certification signed 
        by the source or (in the case of a corporate person) by 
        an officer of the source--
                  (A) that the trip will not be financed in any 
                part by a registered lobbyist or agent of a 
                foreign principal;
                  (B) that the source either--
                          (i) does not retain or employ 
                        registered lobbyists or agents of a 
                        foreign principal; or
                          (ii) is an institution of higher 
                        education within the meaning of section 
                        101 of the Higher Education Act of 
                        1965; or
                          (iii) certifies that the trip meets 
                        the requirements specified in rules 
                        prescribed by the Committee on 
                        Standards of Official Conduct to 
                        implement paragraph (b)(1)(C)(ii) of 
                        this clause and specifically details 
                        the extent of any involvement of a 
                        registered lobbyist or agent of a 
                        foreign principal in the planning, 
                        organization, request, or arrangement 
                        of the trip considered to qualify as de 
                        minimis under such rules;
                  (C) that the source will not accept from 
                another source any funds earmarked directly or 
                indirectly for the purpose of financing any 
                part of the trip[.]

  I. RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL 
  CONDUCT TRAVEL GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS (EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2007)

Section B--Reasonableness of Travel Expenses

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (3) Lodging
    (a) For travel to events arranged or organized without 
regard to congressional participation (for example, annual 
meetings of business or trade associations or other Membership 
organizations), Members, officer and employees may accept 
lodging accommodations at a pre-arranged location for event 
attendees commensurate with those customarily provided to or 
purchased by other event attendees. The quality or location of 
the accommodations may not be enhanced because of the official 
position of the Member, officer or employee. [emphasis in 
original]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Section D--Direct and Immediate Relationship Between Source of Funding 
                              and an Event

    Expenses may only be accepted from an entity or entities 
that have a significant role in organizing and conducting a 
trip, and that also have a clear and defined organizational 
interest in the purpose of the trip or location being visited. 
Expenses may not be accepted from a source that has merely 
donated monetary or in-kind support to the trip but does not 
have a significant role in organizing and conducting the trip.

 J. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 
                            OFFICIAL CONDUCT

    Rule 3--Advisory Opinions and Waivers

    Clause (k). The Committee may take no adverse action in 
regard to any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a 
written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts 
addressed in the opinion.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Rules of the Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, adopted 
February 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   III. NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE


  A. THE 2007 CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCE

                   1. Attendance by Members and Staff

    The Investigative Subcommittee confirmed, through 
interviews and the review of documents filed with the Standards 
Committee and the Office of the House Clerk, that the Members 
and staff who received transportation and lodging to attend the 
2007 Multi-National Business Conference in Antigua were:
            Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (now 
        deceased), accompanied by her sister Barbara 
        Walker;\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Neither the Standards Committee nor the Investigative 
Subcommittee has jurisdiction over Representative Tubbs Jones. 
Representative Tubbs Jones passed away on August 20, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Representative Charles Rangel;
            Representative Bennie Thompson, accompanied 
        by his wife, Dr. London Thompson;
           Delegate Donna Christensen;
           Representative Yvette Clarke; and,
            George Dalley, former Chief of Staff to 
        Representative Charles Rangel.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Neither the Standards Committee nor the Investigative 
Subcommittee has jurisdiction over George Dalley due to his retirement 
from the House of Representatives on June 30, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    2. Pre-travel Approval Process 

    The first contact between anyone at the Foundation and the 
Standards Committee regarding the 2007 conference came before 
Ms. Louis submitted the sponsor form to the invitees.\27\ A 
review of email communications and interviews disclosed that 
Ms. Louis first contacted Ms. Mobley in September 2007.\28\ At 
the time, Ms. Mobley was Representative Tubbs Jones' designated 
counsel to the Standards Committee.\29\ Representative Tubbs 
Jones was the Chair of the Standards Committee at the time.\30\ 
According to the testimony of Patricia Louis, Karl Rodney, and 
Faye Rodney, Representative Tubbs Jones advised them that Ms. 
Mobley would be their point of contact for the 2007 
conference.\31\ Ms. Louis sent an email to that effect on 
September 17, 2007, to George Dalley (former Chief of Staff to 
Representative Rangel) and Shelley Thomas (scheduler for 
Representative Christensen).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\See Exhibit 10.
    \28\Id.
    \29\Mobley August 11, 2009, Tr. at 4.
    \30\Id.
    \31\Investigative Subcommittee interviews of Karl Rodney on October 
28, 2009; Faye Rodney on October 27, 2009; and Patricia Louis on 
November 18, 2009.
    \32\See Exhibit 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 17, 2007, Ms. Louis sent an email to Ms. 
Mobley referencing an earlier communication between the two 
regarding the 2007 conference.\33\ In the email, Ms. Louis 
mentioned that Ms. Mobley had asked for a program for the 2007 
conference and Ms. Louis was still working on providing one to 
her.\34\ Ms. Mobley forwarded the email to Bill O'Reilly, the 
Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Standards Committee at 
the time.\35\ Ms. Mobley asked Mr. O'Reilly to assign someone 
to review the trip.\36\ Mr. O'Reilly forwarded the email from 
Ms. Louis to Ms. Olson and asked her to handle the trip 
review.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\See Exhibit 10.
    \34\Id.
    \35\See Exhibit 11.
    \36\Id.
    \37\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson began communicating with Patricia Louis and Mr. 
and Mrs. Rodney to collect additional information and to 
clarify the information provided by the Foundation on the 
sponsor form.\38\ A review of email communications between Ms. 
Olson and Ms. Mobley, Bill O'Reilly and Patricia Louis, 
revealed that Ms. Olson raised several concerns regarding 
sponsorship of the conference.\39\ Karl Rodney and Patricia 
Louis did not list additional sponsors on the sponsor form for 
the 2007 conference.\40\ However, they identified several 
contributors as sponsors in the 2007 conference agenda and 
listed some contributors in Question 12 of the sponsor form 
they submitted to the Standards Committee for preliminary 
review.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Investigative Subcommittee staff interview of Susan Olson on 
July 21, 2009.
    \39\Id. See also Exhibit 8.
    \40\See Exhibit 13.
    \41\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Information Provided By Susan Olson

    Ms. Olson was interviewed by counsel assigned to the 
Investigative Subcommittee on July 21, 2009. Ms. Olson stated 
that Bill O'Reilly assigned her to review the 2007 
conference.\42\ She began reviewing the paperwork Ms. Louis 
submitted to the Standards Committee for a preliminary review 
and noted several problems related to the trip sponsors.\43\ 
According to Ms. Olson, Ms. Louis identified contributors as 
sponsors on the agenda and on the conference Web site, but did 
not list them as sponsors on the sponsor form.\44\ Corporations 
were also listed in response to question 12 on the first 
sponsor form Ms. Louis submitted to the Standards 
Committee.\45\ However, only the Foundation was identified as 
the sponsor in question 1 of the sponsor form.\46\ Ms. Olson 
sent numerous emails to Patricia Louis regarding the 
corporations and Government of Antigua to ascertain their role 
with the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Olson Tr. at 3.
    \43\Id.
    \44\See Exhibits 12-13.
    \45\See Exhibit 12.
    \46\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on her understanding of the information provided by 
the Foundation, Ms. Olson advised Mr. O'Reilly and Ms. Mobley 
that, in her opinion, the corporations were co-sponsors and 
must be identified as such on the sponsor form.\47\ 
Additionally, Ms. Olson advised Mr. O'Reilly and Ms. Mobley 
that, in her opinion, since at least one of the corporations 
identified on the sponsor form and in the responses from Ms. 
Louis retained or employed lobbyists, the trip had to be 
limited to a one-day event.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\See Exhibit 14.
    \48\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. O'Reilly instructed Ms. Olson to investigate the issue 
further.\49\ Ms. Olson was unaware that Ms. Mobley had already 
been in contact with Ms. Louis.\50\ Ms. Mobley told Ms. Olson 
and Mr. O'Reilly that she received information from Ms. Louis 
that the corporations were not sponsors after all.\51\ Ms. 
Olson asked if she should get additional clarification on the 
roles of the corporations based on Ms. Louis' responses.\52\ 
However, Mr. O'Reilly instructed her ``no, he didn't think it 
was necessary.''\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\Olson Tr. at 26.
    \50\Id. at 24.
    \51\See Exhibit 15.
    \52\Id.
    \53\Olson Tr. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson explained her understanding of what an 
``earmark'' of funds is under the rules.\54\ When funds are 
given for the purpose of holding a conference and the entity 
giving the funds does not designate those funds to be used for 
congressional attendance at the event, the funds would not be 
considered earmarked under the rule, according to Ms. 
Olson.\55\ She also explained that a sponsor must take part in 
planning and organizing the event.\56\ If the sponsor is not 
participating in, planning or organizing the event and is only 
providing financial support, the trip could not be 
approved.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\Id. at 9-10.
    \55\Id.
    \56\Id. at 10.
    \57\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this case, Ms. Olson was concerned that the corporations 
were contributing funds directly to the conference and should 
either be listed as sponsors or, because they did not 
participate in planning and organizing the conference, the trip 
would not be approvable.\58\ She requested further information 
from the Foundation to determine if the corporations were 
paying for any of the expenses of the Members.\59\ The 
Foundation assured her they were not, but represented that the 
corporations contributed generally to the Foundation and not 
specifically to the conference.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\Id. at 10, 15 and 19.
    \59\See Exhibit 15.
    \60\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson explained that, because the corporations listed 
by the Foundation for the 2007 conference employed or retained 
lobbyists, the trip would have to be limited to a one-day event 
if they contributed specifically to the conference and not to 
the general fund of the Foundation.\61\ Based on a response 
from Ms. Louis that the ``corporations contributed to the 
overall expenses of the conference'' and because of their 
identification as sponsors on the agenda and other conference 
related materials, Ms. Olson believed the corporations did 
contribute specifically to the conference and not the general 
fund of the Foundation.\62\ Ms. Olson sent an email to Dawn 
Mobley and Bill O'Reilly to that effect.\63\ Ms. Olson was 
unaware that Ms. Mobley forwarded her email to Ms. Louis.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\Olson Tr. at 3. See also Olson Tr. at 7, 15 and 35.
    \62\Id. at 15-16.
    \63\See Exhibit 15.
    \64\Olson Tr. at 52-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson related that part of her concern about the 
sponsors of the 2007 conference arose from the fact that, 
before the travel rule changes in 2007, the Foundation had 
always identified these same corporate entities as being co-
sponsors of the previous annual conferences.\65\ Ms. Olson 
wanted to ensure that the entities were contributing to the 
general fund of the Foundation and not specifically to the 
conference.\66\ She indicated that she addressed her concerns 
in a series of emails to Bill O'Reilly and Dawn Mobley.\67\ 
When asked why she sent emails to Ms. Mobley, Ms. Olson 
responded that she was directed to do so by Mr. O'Reilly.\68\ 
Ms. Olson further stated that the initial assignment for her to 
conduct the pre-travel review actually came from Ms. Mobley 
through Mr. O'Reilly.\69\ Ms. Olson further related that there 
were a series of emails between Ms. Mobley and Ms. Louis, which 
she found to be unusual even though Ms. Mobley worked in the 
office.\70\ Of the hundreds of submissions received by the 
Committee for pre-travel approval, Ms. Olson only recalled one 
other occasion when Ms. Mobley was involved in a trip 
approval.\71\ The particular trip was one that the Chair was 
participating in and Ms. Olson had recommended denying approval 
for that trip.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\Id. at 17.
    \66\Id. at 15-16.
    \67\Id.
    \68\Id. at 19.
    \69\Id. at 20-21.
    \70\Id. at 20.
    \71\Id. at 21-23.
    \72\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson discussed the process for reviewing and approving 
or denying a proposed trip.\73\ She explained that usually the 
Standards Committee would receive the pre-travel forms, agenda, 
and other materials from the invitee.\74\ A review could not be 
completed until all the materials were received.\75\ She 
explained that during the review process, the agenda and forms 
are reviewed to verify that the trip is officially connected to 
the Member's duties and that the Member's time during the trip 
is fully accounted for.\76\ She explained that there cannot be 
a lot of free time on the schedule, and that the Members must 
either be attending or participating in various sessions during 
most of the time they are present at a conference.\77\ As part 
of her review of the 2007 Conference, Ms. Olson began reviewing 
the agenda she received from Ms. Mobley.\78\ This review 
occurred before the Foundation submitted any signed paperwork 
to the invitees.\79\ Ms. Olson believed that the Foundation 
``wanted kind of an idea of whether or not this proposed agenda 
would be something that we would approve.''\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\Id. at 5-6.
    \74\Id. at 32.
    \75\Id. at 4-5.
    \76\Id. at 36.
    \77\Id. at 36-37.
    \78\Id. at 34-35.
    \79\Id.
    \80\Id. at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson also explained her process in dealing with Post-
Travel Disclosure Forms.\81\ She explained that she reviews the 
post-travel forms after they are filed with the Clerk's office 
to make sure all of the information is provided.\82\ She also 
compares the post-travel information with the pre-travel forms 
to make sure that there are not any significant differences 
between the two, such as the length of stay or the Member being 
accompanied by a family member who was not previously 
identified or approved.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\Id. at 56-57.
    \82\Id. at 56.
    \83\Id. at 56-57
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson stated that during the 2007 conference, she was 
notified of a non-approved trip taken by some of the 
Members.\84\ Some of the Members traveled to Montserrat, West 
Indies, to view damage caused by a volcano.\85\ The trip 
involved travel to another island paid for by a foreign 
government that was not included in the approved agenda.\86\ 
This was a major change to the approved travel itinerary and 
was not allowed under the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act 
(FGDA).\87\ The trip to Montserrat could not be approved 
because it was not permitted under the provisions in the 
FGDA.\88\ The Members who took part in the trip were instructed 
to repay the costs and did so.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\Id. at 57-60.
    \85\Id.
    \86\Id.
    \87\Id. at 57.
    \88\Id. at 57-60.
    \89\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson opined that a traveler has an obligation to 
report any changes to a trip that they become aware of when 
completing their post-travel forms.\90\ Ms. Olson stated there 
was no published guidance regarding this issue.\91\ However, 
because the post-travel form requires the traveler to certify 
the information provided is accurate, it was her opinion that 
this certification created an obligation to report any 
changes.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\Id. at 61-63.
    \91\Id. at 64.
    \92\Id. at 64-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson explained that prior to the 2007 conference a 
potential sponsor's status as a non-profit organization was not 
routinely examined by the Standards Committee staff.\93\ Ms. 
Olson stated that since the 2007 conference, she began 
reviewing the tax filing status of private sponsors to verify 
their non-profit status.\94\ Ms. Olson explained that she 
understood there were certain tax provisions that related to 
travel paid by private foundations.\95\ Ms. Olson now routinely 
verifies the private sponsor's status through the Internal 
Revenue Service's (IRS) Web site to determine whether the 
sponsor is registered with the IRS as a public charity, private 
foundation, or for-profit corporation during her review of 
privately-sponsored travel.\96\ Currently, there is no 
distinction made in the House Rules between a public charity 
and a private foundation.\97\ According to Ms. Olson, at the 
time the trip was reviewed, there were no policies in place 
regarding private foundations.\98\ As long as the trip met the 
requirements under House Rules, the trip could be approved, 
even if the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) imposed tax 
penalties for such travel payment or reimbursement.\99\ The 
Standards Committee has provided some advice to Members 
relating to the I.R.C. before 2007, but not in all cases.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\Id. at 63.
    \94\Id.
    \95\Id. at 64.
    \96\Id. at 65.
    \97\Id. at 67-68.
    \98\Id. at 68.
    \99\Id.
    \100\Id. at 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A review of email communications between Ms. Olson and Ms. 
Louis regarding the 2007 conference indicates that the 
Foundation initially identified several companies as co-
sponsors of the event.\101\ The unsigned sponsor form first 
submitted by the Foundation to the Standards Committee for its 
pre-review identified corporations and the reasons for their 
participation at the 2007 conference in the response to 
question 12.\102\ In the response to question 12, Patricia 
Louis wrote: ``Pfizer-Education/Health, AT&T, and IMB--provide 
technology to the region, MACY's--seeks new vendor source, 
Citibank--opportunities in the region.''\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\See Exhibit 13.
    \102\Id.
    \103\Id. See also Louis November 18, 2009, Tr. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The instructions provided to the Foundation for completing 
the sponsor form gave the following instructions for answering 
question 12:

          Private sponsors must have a direct and immediate 
        relationship to the purpose of the trip or location 
        being visited. Describe the role of each sponsor in 
        organizing and conducting the trip: The sponsor(s) (the 
        entity or entities paying for the trip) should be the 
        entity primarily responsible for organizing the trip. 
        Travel may not be accepted from an entity that merely 
        contributes money towards the travel and is not 
        otherwise involved in planning or conducting the 
        trip.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\Id. (Italics in original).

    Ms. Olson provided the following copies of the email 
exchanges between herself, Patricia Louis, Dawn Mobley, and 
Bill O'Reilly to the Investigative Subcommittee. The emails 
begin with the first email to Dawn Mobley on September 17, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.

        From: plouis\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \105\All emails addresses throughout this report were redacted to 
protect the privacy of the parties involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:47 PM
        TO: Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Subject: Draft Program--2007 Business Conference

        Ms. Mobley:
          We spoke earlier re permission for Members to attend 
        the Conference and you asked for the program. I have 
        not gotten back to you because we have been working on 
        getting the program together.
        Attached is a draft for your guidance
        Regards and Thanks
        Patricia Louis
        Executive Assistant
        CARIB NEWS
        7 West 36th Street, 8th Floor
        New York, NY 10018.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\See Exhibit 10.

    Ms. Mobley responded to this email at 5:53 p.m. on the same 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
date:

        To: plouis
        Subject: RE: Draft Program--2007 Business Conference

        Nothing was attached to this email. Therefore, we have 
        not received the proposed agenda you mention below and 
        have nothing to preview.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\See Exhibit 16.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 18, 2007, Ms. Louis responded:

          Sorry for the omission. Program now attached.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\See Exhibit 17.

    On September 18, 2007, Ms. Mobley forwarded the response 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Ms. Louis to Bill O'Reilly:

          Would you please have someone look at this proposed 
        travel agenda for the Chairwoman? The trip is in 
        November but she'd like to talk with someone about it 
        later this week. There is an entertainment component 
        which doesn't appear to be clear yet. Let me know who 
        will have it please? Dawn\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\See Exhibit 11.

    On September 19, 2007, Mr. O'Reilly forwarded the above 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
emails to Susan Olson along with this email:

          Have you dealt with the Carib News travel before? I 
        have a hazy memory of looking at this trip last year. 
        Can you review this and work with Dawn or the 
        Chairwoman to answer any questions they have?\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\Id.

    At 1:56 p.m. on September 21, 2007, Patricia Louis sent the 
following email to Dawn Mobley, who in turn forwarded it to Ms. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olson and Mr. O'Reilly:

          The official sponsor of the conference is the CARIB 
        NEWS FOUNDATION, a not-for-profit 501C3 Organization 
        that provides educational information about the 
        Caribbean region and its relationship with the U.S. in 
        doing business and developing good neighborly ties with 
        the United States, security, health, education etc.
          The CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION does not retain or employ a 
        registered lobbyist or registered foreign agent. Please 
        use me as your contact for the purposes of this 
        Conference. The form will be emailed to you this 
        afternoon.
          Regards\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\This email not included as an Exhibit.

    On the same date, the draft sponsor form listing the 
previously identified corporations in the response to question 
12 was faxed to the Standards Committee.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\See Exhibit 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 2, 2007, Ms. Mobley forwarded an email she 
received from Ms. Louis on October 1, 2007, with her comments:

        From: Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 12:05 PM
        To: Olson, Susan
        Subject: FW: Please read query below

          Susan: See CARIB News' email below in response to my 
        voice message about sponsorship. Please speak with 
        Patricia Lewis of CARIB News so we can start to process 
        this travel; if possible.
          I have kept the Chairwoman updated on this matter and 
        will let her know you will begin the process.
          I still have the information on my desk. Feel free to 
        grab it at your convenience.
        Dawn\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\See Exhibit 18.

        From: plouis
        Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:40 PM
        To: Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Subject: RE: Please read query below

          The conference dates are November 8-11, 2007: and 
        opens on Thursday November 8 and ends the morning of 
        November 11, 2007--(3 nights).
          CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION is the Sponsor of the event.
          Item No. 12: The companies like Pfizer, AT&T are 
        donors/contributors of grants to the Foundation.
          For educational purposes and NOT the SPONSOR, 
        consequently I assume the information contained in that 
        item will have to be changed.
          Awaiting your advice.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\Id.

    This email exchange suggests that Ms. Mobley had contacted 
Ms. Louis by phone and left her a message regarding the 
sponsorship issue. Ms. Louis then responded to clarify that the 
corporations she originally identified as sponsors, both on the 
sponsor form, and the original agenda, were not sponsors of the 
conference but contributors to the Foundation.\115\ 
Subsequently, Ms. Olson continued to inquire about the status 
of the corporations identified in the agenda and the travel 
form.\116\ Ms. Olson sent the following email to Ms. Louis on 
October 10, 2007:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\See Exhibit 18.
    \116\See Exhibit 19.

        From: Olson, Susan
        Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:01 PM
        To: plouis
        Cc: Dawn Kelly Mobley; O'Reilly, Bill
        Subject: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval Issues

        Dear Mrs. Louis:
          With regard to the pre-trip approval requests for the 
        Carib News Foundation's (Foundation) trip to Antigua, 
        the issues involving sponsorship are as follows:
          While the sponsor form that you completed indicates 
        that the Foundation is the sole sponsor of the 2007 
        trip, the draft schedule, however, indicates that the 
        following entities are ``sponsoring'' sessions, events, 
        etc. during this trip''
          Antigua Government; Sandals; Royal Caribbean Bakery; 
        CITI; Pfizer; Macy's; AT&T HSBC; IBM; Goodworks 
        International; Preferred Health Partners; Antigua & 
        Barbuda; American Airlines; and Golden Krust.
          Last year the Foundation provided the following 
        information regarding these ``additional sponsors'' for 
        the November 9 to 12, 2006 trip:
          The Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 
        organization, will be paying for the Members' travel 
        expenses including transportation, meals, and lodging. 
        The background materials for the Conference also 
        indicate that the additional trip sponsors provide a 
        ``contribution to the overall pool of expenses in 
        contribution to the [Foundation],'' which is used to 
        ``underwrite the overall expenses of the Conference,'' 
        primarily for meal expenses. These materials further 
        provide that these additional sponsors have 
        representatives from their organization who will be 
        attending and participating in the Conference.
          Accordingly, the Committee's Advisory Opinion, dated 
        October 27, 2006, provided that all of the 
        organizations that provided financial underwriting for 
        the trip along with the Foundation were required to be 
        listed as the ``trip sponsors'' on the participating 
        Members' post travel disclosure form and their 2006 
        annual financial disclosure statements.
          Accordingly, you need to provide information 
        describing the role of these ``additional sponsors'' as 
        listed in the 2007 trip draft schedule for this current 
        trip. Without such information, I cannot proceed with 
        the review of the pre-trip approval requests for the 
        Foundation's Antigua trip.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\See Exhibit 15.

    Ms. Louis sent the following email to Dawn Mobley, Shelley 
Thomas and George Dalley after receiving the above email from 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Olson:

        From: plouis
        Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 5:56 PM
        To: Kelly Mobley, Dawn; Thomas, Shelley; Dalley, George
        Subject: FW: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval Issues

          Please see email I received from Ms. Olson of the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
          A possible response could be: The sponsors contribute 
        to the overall expense of the trip and the general work 
        of the Foundation. As a courtesy, each contributor is 
        given an opportunity to be attached to a part of the 
        program that is being presented. They do not determine 
        the content or the other participants in the 
        Conference.
          Please advise us.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\See Exhibit 20.

    From the content of this email, it is clear that Ms. Louis 
is asking Ms. Mobley, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dalley to assist her 
in providing a response to Ms. Olson's question about the 
corporations listed on the agenda and what their role was to 
the conference. There is no evidence that Mr. Dalley responded 
to this email. Ms. Thomas responded to Ms. Louis' email above 
that she was not aware of the new procedures.\119\ Ms. Mobley 
responded with the following email:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\Ms. Thomas' email response is not included as an exhibit.

        From: Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:49 PM
        To: plouis
        Subject: Re: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues

          Her question centers on whether any of these ``co-
        sponsors'' retains a lobbyist or foreign. This is the 
        issue you and I focused on previously. It is a central 
        problem if any do and a repaying for the events. If so, 
        you are in the same position as last year with only one 
        day events. Call Susan back tomorrow as early as 
        possible. Hopefully, these co-sponsors don't retain 
        lobbyists, but you should have their representations on 
        this matter. At a minimum, Macy's does right? 
        Alternatively if they are only sponsoring event tables 
        or the like, a lobbyist will not be problematic.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \120\See Exhibit 20.

    It should be noted that Ms. Mobley's response to Ms. Louis 
did not include Ms. Olson as a recipient.\121\ Ms. Mobley told 
the Subcommittee that she did not include Ms. Olson on emails 
to protect the confidentiality of Ms. Olson's email address and 
the inner deliberations of the Standards Committee, but did 
share the information with Ms. Olson.\122\ Ms. Mobley also told 
the Subcommittee that she shared this email to help ``work 
through the kink.''\123\ However, the Subcommittee could find 
no similar email sent from Ms. Mobley to Ms. Olson or Mr. 
O'Reilly. Additionally, as indicated in the emails already 
discussed, Ms. Olson and Ms. Louis had already been sending 
email communication to each other so Ms. Louis would have 
already had Ms. Olson's email address.\124\ Ms. Olson's emails 
to Ms. Louis included Ms. Mobley and Mr. O'Reilly as 
recipients, as indicated in the emails from Ms. Olson 
above.\125\ Ms. Olson also told Subcommittee counsel she was 
unaware that Ms. Mobley continued to communicate with Ms. Louis 
after she began the trip review.\126\ During her interview with 
counsel to the Subcommittee, and subsequently her sworn 
testimony before the Subcommittee, Ms. Louis could not explain 
why she sent Ms. Olson's email and her proposed response to 
Shelley Thomas, George Dalley and Ms. Mobley, other than to 
state that she had been communicating with all of them during 
the trip review process.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\Id.
    \122\Mobley December 15, 2009, Tr. at 23.
    \123\Id. at 42.
    \124\See Exhibits 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28.
    \125\Id.
    \126\Olson Tr. at 24.
    \127\Subcommittee staff interview of Patricia Louis on October 14, 
2009. See also Louis Tr. at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On Thursday, October 11, 2007, Ms. Louis sent the following 
email to Ms. Olson in response to her email requesting 
clarification on the roles of the corporations identified on 
the agenda:

        From: plouis
        Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:37 AM
        To: Olson, Susan
        Subject: RE: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues

        Ms. Olson,
          In response to your email:
          The sponsors contribute to the overall expenses of 
        the trip and the general work of the Foundation.
          As a courtesy, each contributor is given an 
        opportunity to be attached to a part of the program 
        that is being presented. They do not determine the 
        content or the other participants in the Conference.
          Federally registered lobbyists or foreign agents will 
        not be accompanying the Members or participating in the 
        program.
          Regards\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\See Exhibit 21.

    Of note is that the response to Ms. Olson above contains 
the same proposed language that Ms. Louis sent to Ms. Mobley 
asking for advice and contains an additional line regarding 
lobbyists and ``foreign agent.''\129\ This additional line 
seems to correlate directly with Ms. Mobley's response to Ms. 
Louis, as the actual language in the rules uses the term 
``agents of a foreign principal.'' Ms. Mobley made it clear to 
Ms. Louis that there would be a problem if ``these co-sponsors' 
retains a lobbyists or foreign [sic],'' and Ms. Louis's 
response added the statement regarding lobbyists and foreign 
agents.\130\ After receiving the above response from Ms. Louis, 
Ms. Olson forwarded the response to Bill O'Reilly and Dawn 
Mobley along with the following email:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\Id.
    \130\Id.

        From: Olson, Susan
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 9:29 AM
        To: O'Reilly, Bill; Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Subject: FW: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues
        Bill and Dawn,
          Please note the following response from Ms. Louis at 
        Carib News. Unfortunately, it appears that if each 
        sponsor contributes funding directly to the trip (an 
        earmark of funds) and not simply to the general funds 
        of Carib News, then the assumption is that all of these 
        entities are co-sponsors of the trip for the purposes 
        of the House travel rules. If that is the case and 
        since it is likely that at least one of these co-
        sponsors hires or retains a federally registered 
        lobbyist, the trip could only be a one-day event trip. 
        Thus the Committee can't approve the trip as it 
        currently exists.
          But, if you have a different interpretation of the 
        below information from Ms. Louis, please do let me 
        know. Thanks! Susan\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \131\See Exhibit 14.

    Mr. O'Reilly responded at 11:09 a.m. stating, ``That's 
always been my understanding of the rules--can you also run 
this by others to see if anyone has any other thoughts.''\132\ 
In turn, Ms. Olson forwarded the string of emails to other 
staff in the office as suggested and asked them to review her 
analysis.\133\ She sent the emails to Carol Dixon, John 
Sassaman, Peter Van Hartesveldt, Tonia Smith, Ken Kellner, and 
Morgan Kim, all of whom were Standards Committee counsels.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\Id.
    \133\Id.
    \134\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Olson also received a response from Ms. Mobley as 
indicated in the following email:

        From: Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:49 PM
        To: Olson, Susan; O'Reilly, Bill
        Subject: RE: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues

          Did their travel form indicate that the others 
        directly fund the trip? I had difficulty speaking with 
        Ms. Louis. She is Carribean [sic] and simply did not 
        understand terminology; specifically the meaning of 
        ``sponsor''. Before I asked you to look into this 
        matter, Ms. Louis said Macy's and the others were not 
        paying for the trip or organizing. Carib News 
        organized, funded, and arranged the travel. It is my 
        understanding that the groups she calls ``sponsors'' 
        below, will be participants at the program. As such, 
        she uses the terms ``contributors'', ``sponsors'', and 
        ``participants'' interchangeably. Ms. Louis indicated 
        that these other organizations support the Carib News 
        Foundation on an annual basis.
          Would you speak with her or the director, Mrs. 
        Rodney, directly about this? I think it is a matter of 
        misunderstanding and needs direct clarification.
          Thanks,
          Dawn\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\See Exhibit 22.

    Ms. Olson subsequently sent the following email to Ms. 
Louis on October 12, 2007, asking for further clarification 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
regarding the corporations:

        From: Olson, Susan
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:41 PM
        To: plouis
        Cc: Kelly Mobley, Dawn; O'Reilly, Bill
        Subject: RE: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues

        Ms. Louis,
          Please explain more in detail your email message 
        below relative to the ``sponsors contribute to the 
        overall expense of the trip.'' In this regard, do the 
        following entities pay for any of the expenses of the 
        trip for the invited House Members, including roundtrip 
        air transportation costs, lodging costs, meal costs, 
        cost of a particular meal or reception, etc?
          Antigua Government; Sandals; Royal Caribbean Bakery; 
        CITI; Pfizer; Macy's; AT&T HSBC; IBM; Goodworks 
        International; Preferred Health Partners; Antigua and 
        Barbuda; American Airlines; and Golden Krust.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\See Exhibit 23.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis responded at 3:08 p.m. with the following email:

        From: plouis
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:08 PM
        To: Olson, Susan
        Subject: RE: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues

        Ms. Olson,
          I sent you a fax indicating that the companies are 
        not sponsors or co-sponsors of any part of the trip and 
        play no role in the planning or content. They are 
        participants. The program has been amended to reflect 
        this.
          I am sorry for the misunderstanding and confusion and 
        thank you for your patience.
          Regards and Thanks\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\See Exhibit 24.

    The facsimile Ms. Louis referred to in her email states in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
part:

        . . . the Conference is paid for by CARIB NEWS 
        FOUNDATION. The Companies are participants. They are 
        not sponsors or co-sponsors for any part of the trip 
        and play no role in the planning or content.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\See Exhibit 25.

    After receiving Ms. Louis's response and the fax, Ms. Olson 
sent another email to Bill O'Reilly and Dawn Mobley asking for 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
further guidance, forwarding Ms. Louis's response:

        From: Olson, Susan
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:28 PM
        To: O'Reilly, Bill; Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Subject: FW: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues

          Do you want me to ask Ms. Louis this follow-up 
        question, as I am concerned that she doesn't 
        specifically address the funding issue, or is this 
        simply ``beating the issue to death?''
        Ms. Louis,
          While you indicate that ``the companies are not 
        sponsors or co-sponsors of any part of the trip and 
        play no role in the planning or content,'' I also need 
        a specific assurance from you that the companies do not 
        pay for any of the expenses of the trip for the invited 
        House Members, including roundtrip air transportation 
        costs, lodging costs, meals costs, cost of a particular 
        meal or reception, etc.
          Thank you!
          Susan\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\See Exhibit 26.

    On October 12, 2007, at 6:13 p.m., Bill O'Reilly responded 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in an email to Ms. Olson and Ms. Mobley stating:

          I'd like an answer to that question, but am wondering 
        if she is the right person to provide it at this point. 
        I'm certainly not confident that those entities are not 
        sponsors, as it looks like we said last year that they 
        were sponsors. But if they can affirmatively and 
        cleanly state what you've asked below I'd be inclined 
        to accept the representation.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\Id.

    Ms. Mobley responded to Mr. O'Reilly's email at 6:18 p.m. 
stating, ``Their Directors are Mr. and Mrs. Rodney who could be 
queried at the same number.''\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\See Exhibit 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On Monday, October 15, 2007, Ms. Louis sent another email 
to Ms. Olson responding to her email from October 12, 2007:

        From: plouis
        Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 10:48 AM
        To: Olson, Susan
        Subject: RE: Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues

        Ms. Olson,
          In response to your email, the answer to your 
        question is NO. Regards and Thanks for your 
        patience.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\See Exhibit 28.

    After receipt of the above email, Ms. Olson sent another 
email to Mr. O'Reilly and Ms. Mobley in which she asked, ``In 
light of the following response from Ms. Louis, shall I still 
pursue the funding issue with Mr. and Mrs. Rodney?''\143\ Ms. 
Mobley responded to Ms. Olson's email stating, ``If you feel 
the need to do so. It is my understanding that the Rodneys will 
be in the office this morning. If you call soon, you will 
probably get one of them directly.''\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\See Exhibit 29.
    \144\See Exhibit 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Ms. Olson, when she asked Mr. O'Reilly if she 
should ask the question he advised her that it was not 
necessary.\145\ Mr. O'Reilly did not recall giving her this 
instruction.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \145\Olson Tr. at 31.
    \146\O'Reilly Tr. at 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time these email communications were occurring 
between Ms. Olson and Ms. Louis, Ms. Mobley was also in direct 
contact with Ms. Louis, without Ms. Olson's knowledge.\147\ For 
example, on October 12, 2007, after Ms. Olson sent her email to 
Bill O'Reilly and Dawn Mobley at 9:49 a.m. discussing Ms. 
Louis's response, Ms. Mobley forwarded the internal Standards 
Committee email, in violation of Standards Committee Rules 3(j) 
and 7(d), to Ms. Louis attached to the following email: \148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\Olson Tr. at 52-53.
    \148\See Exhibit 31.

        From: Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2009 9:59 AM
        To: `plouis'
        Subject: FW: Confidential

          Please read both emails below. Give Susan a call as 
        soon as you work through the kink, let her know you are 
        following up. Please make yourself available to work 
        through this matter today. Thank you Patricia. (These 
        other organizations can participate in the program but 
        should not help pay for the trip).\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \149\Id.

    This was the first communication that used the word 
``participate'' but does not call the corporations 
``participants.''\150\ However, the email from Ms. Olson 
indicated that if the corporations were paying for any part of 
the trip they would have had to been identified as co-sponsors 
and the trip would have had to been limited to a one day 
event.\151\ It should also be noted that the subject line in 
the email sent from Ms. Mobley to Ms. Louis was changed from 
``Carib News--Pre-trip Approval issues'' to 
``Confidential.''\152\ Ms. Mobley then sent another email to 
Ms. Louis at 11:55 a.m. on October 12, 2007, which read, ``Have 
you spoken with your Director and explained the problem so you 
can call Olson today?''\153\ Later that day, Ms. Mobley sent 
another email to Ms. Louis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\Id.
    \151\See Exhibit 14.
    \152\See Exhibit 31.
    \153\Id.

        From: Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:55 PM
        To: plouis
        Subject: RE: Confidential

          The fax did not come through. I will be stepping out 
        of the office for the remainder of the day, but will be 
        in early Monday. Please follow up again with Susan. I 
        have explained that the organizations you labeled as 
        co-sponsors are not. They support your foundation 
        annually, but have not and will not pay for the Members 
        trip. This is simply a misunderstanding of the terms 
        ``sponsor'', ``contributor'', and ``participant'' as 
        used in the Ethics rules which is why I sent you the 
        Rules book; for preparation.
          Once you are able to clarify these issues and make 
        sure your itinerary passes too, you should be fine. An 
        Ethics Committee Staff Attorney must review and approve 
        as well. Your Staff Attorney is Susan.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\Id.

    It is important to note that the above email from Ms. 
Mobley to Ms. Louis was sent at 1:55 p.m., six minutes after 
Ms. Mobley sent the email to Bill O'Reilly and Susan Olson, 
suggesting Ms. Louis may be confused with the terminology and 
73 minutes before Ms. Louis's response to Ms. Olson in which 
she states that the corporations are neither sponsors nor co-
sponsors and identifies them for the first time as 
``participants.''\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Interviews of Dawn Kelly Mobley

    On August 11, 2009, Dawn Kelly Mobley was interviewed by 
Subcommittee counsel regarding her involvement in the 
Foundation's 2007 conference. Ms. Mobley, as indicated below, 
initially denied having any email communication with the 
Foundation or Patricia Louis.\156\ She stated her first and 
only contact was a phone call from Patricia Louis in July or 
August 2007.\157\ Of particular note is her response as to the 
reasons she heard of Carib News, to which she responded that 
she had received a call from someone at Carib News.\158\ This 
statement is in conflict with her subsequent sworn testimony 
before the Subcommittee during which she indicated that the 
first time she heard about Carib News was when Bill O'Reilly 
handed her a post-it and asked her to call them:\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\Mobley August 11, 2009, Tr. at 6.
    \157\Id.
    \158\Id.
    \159\See Infra at p. 60 and n. 173. See also Mobley December 15, 
2009, Tr. at 10, 15-17.

          Q. Have you ever heard of the Carib News Foundation?
          A. I have.
          Q. When was the first time you heard or became 
        familiar with that foundation?
          A. Somewhere about 2007. Maybe July or August 2007.
          Q. So that was the first time you ever heard of the 
        Carib News?
          A. Absolutely.
          Q. What was the reason you heard of them?
          A. I received a phone call from someone from Carib 
        News.
          Q. Prior to that phone call, had you any meetings or 
        calls or communications with anyone from Carib News 
        before that?
          A. No, I hadn't.
          Q. Do you know who Karl Rodney is?
          A. Yes. That is the owner of the Carib News.
          Q. Do you know who Faye Rodney is?
          A. I do not.
          Q. Do you know who Patricia Louis is?
          A. I spoke with Pat on the phone and--if that's the 
        same person.
          Q. From Carib News?
          A. Yes.
          Q. Did you have any communications or meetings 
        personally with Karl Rodney?
          A. No, I did not.
          Q. You don't know who Faye Rodney is, so you won't 
        remember whether you had any meetings with her?
          A. No.
          Q. Other than that one phone call you mentioned from 
        Pat, did you ever have any other communications or meet 
        personally with a Patricia Louis from Carib News?
          A. I did not.
          Q. Did you have any email communication with Patricia 
        Louis from Carib News?
          A. I did not.
          Q. Do you recall an email sent from Patricia Louis 
        received on September 17 regarding the 2007 Carib News 
        conference?
          A. I do not recall that.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \160\Mobley August 11, 2009, Tr. at 6.

    Ms. Mobley later recalled a communication with Ms. Louis 
where she identified Susan Olson as the counsel assigned to 
review the trip.\161\ She did not recall the communication 
being in an email but believed it to be a phone call.\162\ Ms. 
Mobley was shown several emails between her and Ms. Louis but 
indicated that she did not recall any of the emails.\163\ When 
she was asked about further communication with Ms. Louis after 
Ms. Olson was assigned to review the 2007 conference, Ms. 
Mobley stated she did not recall any further communication with 
Ms. Louis.\164\ She also stated that, with respect to the 2007 
conference, she did not recall any discussions among staff that 
she was involved in about the sponsors or what the earmark 
would be.\165\ She told Subcommittee counsel that it appeared 
to her that ``Carib News, that Mr. Rodney was very confused 
about the whole process, and there was very little that [she] 
could provide for them other than to tell them to speak with 
the proper staff member who had been working on this and could 
hopefully help them.''\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\Id. at 6-7.
    \162\Id. at 7.
    \163\Id.
    \164\Id. at 9.
    \165\Id. at 12.
    \166\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Mobley provided the following information in response 
to questions regarding Ms. Olson not being included on emails 
or other communications that Ms. Mobley had with Ms. Louis:

          Q. Okay. Now did you tell Susan Olson anything about 
        your conversations or your email that you were having 
        with Ms. Louis?
          A. Absolutely, I remember telling her, again, as I 
        said, that I had concerns with this trip. I didn't know 
        what had happened in the past, but it certainly 
        appeared to me that they were very confused. I could 
        not help them very much because I was still trying to 
        understand the rules myself. Whatever questions--I 
        asked Susan several questions because I didn't 
        understand where the problem may lay, and Susan was a 
        wealth of information.
          Q. Would it have been helpful for you if you had 
        included Susan on the emails?
          A. Susan did receive--any of the emails that I 
        remember, Susan would have gotten----
          Q. The emails I just showed you do not list Susan as 
        a recipient. It is strictly between you and Patricia 
        Louis; is that right?
          A. Those emails, yes.
          Q. So you did not include Susan in any of those 
        responses back to Patricia?
          A. Very likely I could have sent them on to Susan. 
        That is typically what we always do.
          Q. What do you mean ``sent them on?''
          A. Sent them on, emailed them, sent them to Susan 
        after.
          Q. So you would have sent a separate email?
          A. Yes. They would have been confidential 
        communications with the staff, and therefore, I would 
        not have put Susan's name on any emails I sent to any 
        of the other--the outsiders.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\Id. at 29-30.

    However, Ms. Olson stated that she was unaware of these 
communications.\168\ Later during the interview, Ms. Mobley 
acknowledged that she had provided the internal email from 
Susan Olson to Patricia Louis to aid Ms. Louis in understanding 
Ms. Olson's concern.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\Olson Tr. at 52-53. Ms. Olson provided Subcommittee counsel 
with copies of all the emails she had regarding this trip review. There 
were no emails included that were copies of emails sent by Ms. Mobley 
to Patricia Louis as indicated by Ms. Mobley.
    \169\Id. at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A review of emails disclosed that Ms. Mobley had additional 
contacts with Ms. Louis in September of 2007.\170\ After her 
initial email to Ms. Louis on September 17, 2007, Ms. Mobley 
sent Ms. Louis the following email on September 19, 2007:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\See Exhibits 11, 17-18, 32.

        From: Kelly Mobley, Dawn
        Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:16 PM
        To: `plouis'
        Subject: RE: Draft program--2007 Business Conference 
        (No agenda or program attached)

        Patricia:
          I understand that several organizations will take 
        part in sponsoring food and other parts of the Antigua 
        travel. However, I need clarification of the official 
        sponsor; that organization providing travel, lodging, 
        and organizing the trip? Am I to assume it is CARIB 
        NEWS? The official sponsoring organization must not 
        retain or employ a registered lobbyist or foreign agent 
        (and the sponsor must have a direct and immediate 
        relationship with the event or location being visited). 
        To assist with this, I am scanning information/
        guidelines and emailing in just a moment. Please 
        provide a fax number if that method of submittal will 
        be more helpful. If there is someone handling the 
        matter, please provide their direct contact information 
        as I must ensure adherence to these new guidelines pre-
        travel.
          In any event, I do need to know who the official 
        sponsor will be. I have assigned a staff attorney to 
        review your documents and will remain in contact with 
        you until this matter is finalized.
          Please respond today or tomorrow at the latest. I 
        will be traveling for a while thereafter and must 
        ensure that my staff attorney has all that is necessary 
        for a safe review.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \171\See Exhibit 32.

    The above email warned Karl Rodney and Patricia Louis that 
the sponsors could not employ or retain lobbyists.\172\ This 
email may have influenced how Karl Rodney and Patricia Louis 
responded to Ms. Olson's inquiries and claims that the 
corporations were not sponsors in subsequent communications. 
Contrary to statements made during her interview with staff, it 
appears that Ms. Mobley was in regular contact with Ms. Louis 
and provided Ms. Louis with advice on what information to 
provide to the Standards Committee during the pre-trip review 
process.\173\ It also appears that before responding to 
questions asked by Ms. Olson, Ms. Louis would contact Ms. 
Mobley seeking advice as to how to respond.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\Id.
    \173\See Exhibits 11, 17-18, 32.
    \174\See Exhibits 18, 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 15, 2009, Ms. Mobley provided sworn testimony 
before the Subcommittee. During this testimony, she again 
stated that she did not have any specific recollection of the 
email communications she had with Ms. Louis but did recall some 
communications.\175\ She also restated her position that she 
informed Ms. Olson of all the communications she had with Ms. 
Louis.\176\ In a letter she provided to the Subcommittee prior 
to her testimony, Ms. Mobley stated that she only became 
involved in the 2007 conference review at the request of Mr. 
O'Reilly.\177\ Ms. Mobley denied that Representative Tubbs 
Jones assigned her to work on the 2007 conference.\178\ Ms. 
Mobley testified as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \175\Mobley December 15, 2009, Tr. at 13-14.
    \176\Id. at 22-23.
    \177\See Exhibit 33.
    \178\Mobley December 15, 2009, Tr. at 11-12.

          Q. I want to go back up to the very next email, which 
        is also on September 18, from you to Bill O'Reilly 
        where it says: ``Would you please have someone look at 
        this proposed travel agenda for the chairwoman. The 
        trip is in November, but she would like to talk to 
        someone about it later this week. There is an 
        entertainment component which doesn't appear to be 
        clear yet. Let me know who will have it please.''
          A. Yes.
          Q. And you don't recall this email. Is that correct?
          A. No, I don't.
          Q. But this email appears--and correct me if I am 
        wrong, but it appears that you are forwarding the 
        program that Ms. Louis attached to you to Mr. O'Reilly 
        at this point. Is that pretty much your understanding 
        of this email?
          A. It says travel agenda, so I am going to assume 
        it's a travel agenda. I don't know if it is the 
        itinerary, but it says agenda. And I would have shared 
        it with Bill and asked him to let me know who is going 
        to be reviewing this matter.
          Q. And then Bill O'Reilly sent a following email to 
        Susan Olson asking her if she has ever dealt with the 
        Carib News travel before. Is that right?
          A. It says: Have you--it is to Susan. Have you dealt 
        with the Carib News travel before? I have a hazy memory 
        of looking at this trip last year. Can you review this 
        and work with Dawn or the chairwoman to answer any 
        questions they have. Bill O'Reilly.
          Q. Now, earlier you had testified that you didn't do 
        anything with Carib News until Mr. O'Reilly asked you 
        to. But doesn't this email make it appear that you 
        actually brought this trip up to Mr. O'Reilly first?
          A. No, it doesn't. Actually, he came by my desk with 
        the little sticky saying he had gotten a call and he 
        wanted me to return the phone call to Carib News. And 
        he had talked with them.
          Q. Do you recall when that was?
          A. No, I don't recall the exact date or time.
          Q. Was it before these emails?
          A. It was before I talked with them.
          Q. So it was actually before the phone call that she 
        is referring to in the first email?
          A. It was before I spoke with them. Yes.
          Q. The first call where she is talking about in the 
        very first email, it was before that?
          A. It was before I ever spoke with them. 
        Correct.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \179\Id. at 15-17.

    Ms. Mobley told the Subcommittee that she had spoken with 
Ms. Louis on several occasions, but that she had never spoken 
with Karl or Faye Rodney.\180\ She stated she had asked Ms. 
Louis several times if there was someone else she could discuss 
the trip with and was not put in contact with anyone else:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \180\Id. at 51.

          Q. Do you recall any conference calls that you held 
        with Karl, Faye Rodney, and Patricia Louis, and you and 
        Susan?
          A. No.
          Mr. Butterfield. That was precisely the question. 
        Throughout this whole process, did you ever have any 
        contact with Karl or Faye Rodney either by email or by 
        telephone?
          The Witness. No. And the reason I can say that is 
        because I asked Ms. Louis if she would put us in 
        contact with someone else. Ms. Louis was--for the 
        record, I don't think we said this at all. Ms. Louis in 
        the email says, ``It's the first time I have done this. 
        I really don't understand what I am doing.'' When I 
        shared the rules with her, she had never worked on 
        these travels herself.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \181\Id.

    Ms. Olson told the Subcommittee staff that she was unaware 
of any communication between Ms. Mobley and Ms. Louis after the 
initial email, and a phone call Ms. Mobley referenced in an 
email sent to Ms. Olson and Mr. O'Reilly.\182\ Ms. Olson did 
not know that Ms. Mobley had sent the internal email she wrote 
to Ms. Louis nor did she ever suggest to Ms. Louis that the 
corporations were ``participants'' and not ``sponsors.''\183\ 
Ms. Olson was unaware that American Airlines provided the 
tickets used for the Members' transportation or that the 
Government of Antigua paid for the rooms.\184\ Had she been 
aware of these two facts she would have required American 
Airlines and the Government of Antigua, at a minimum, to be 
identified as sponsors.\185\ Ms. Olson added that the 
Government of Antigua's payment for the Members' lodging would 
have also raised FGDA reporting requirements.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \182\Olson Tr. at 24. See also Olson Tr. at 52.
    \183\Id. at 52.
    \184\Subcommittee staff interview of Susan Olson, December 2, 2009.
    \185\Id.
    \186\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Interviews of Patricia Louis

    Subcommittee counsel interviewed Patricia Louis on 
September 22, 2009. During the interview, Ms. Louis stated that 
she contacted Dawn Mobley in September 2007 because 
Representative Tubbs Jones told the Rodneys that the travel 
rules had changed and Ms. Mobley would be the Foundation's 
point of contact at the Standards Committee to assist with the 
pre-approval process.\187\ She explained that the Foundation 
sent Representative Tubbs Jones a letter informing her of the 
upcoming 2007 conference, and Representative Tubbs Jones 
replied with a letter discussing the travel rules and 
identifying Ms. Mobley as the point of contact.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\Subcommittee staff interview of Patricia Louis on September 
22, 2009. Ms. Louis, through her attorney, would not consent to the 
interview being transcribed.
    \188\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis is the executive assistant to both Karl and Faye 
Rodney at Carib News. She began working for them in 2005, after 
retiring from her position as a Foreign Service officer with 
the government of St. Lucia at its consulate in New York.\189\ 
During her interview with Subcommittee staff, Ms. Louis 
explained that part of her duties is to work on projects 
associated with the Carib News Foundation.\190\ She stated the 
Foundation holds workshops and other outreach programs each 
year, including a Mother-of-the-Year program.\191\ She further 
stated that the annual Multi-National Business Conference is 
the Foundation's biggest event and the only event for which the 
Foundation seeks contributions.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\Id.
    \190\Id.
    \191\Id.
    \192\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis said she does administrative work and was 
familiar with the solicitation letters sent by the Foundation 
to potential contributors to the 2007 and 2008 
conferences.\193\ She stated Mr. Rodney drafts the letters and 
she types them and mails them.\194\ When asked why some 
solicitation letters contained a carbon copy (cc:) at the 
bottom with Representative Rangel's name, she stated that she 
was directed to send Representative Rangel a copy of those 
particular letters by Mr. Rodney.\195\ She also said that if a 
name appeared as a ``cc:'', she would send that person a 
copy.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\Id.
    \194\Id.
    \195\Id.
    \196\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis was unfamiliar with any bank accounts for Carib 
News or the Foundation, but stated that if contributions were 
received, she would give the contributions to Mr. Rodney.\197\ 
She also stated that any bills received for the conferences 
would also be provided to Mr. Rodney.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \197\Id.
    \198\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis stated that she filled out the initial Private 
Sponsor Travel Certification Form for 2007 that was sent to the 
Standards Committee containing the names of the corporations in 
question 12, as well as the subsequent form for 2007 on which 
only Carib News was listed in question 12.\199\ Ms. Louis also 
acknowledged that she completed the sponsor form for the 2008 
conference.\200\ She related that the information she used when 
typing the forms came from Mr. Rodney.\201\ In addition, Ms. 
Louis indicated that she completed the post-travel memos for 
the 2007 and 2008 conferences that she emailed to the Members, 
and that the information she typed into the memos also came 
from Mr. Rodney.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \199\Id.
    \200\Id.
    \201\Id.
    \202\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis did not recall why she continued to contact Ms. 
Mobley after she was told that Ms. Olson would be the counsel 
working on the trip.\203\ She added that Mr. Rodney would give 
her the language to use on the responses she sent to Ms. 
Olson.\204\ She told the Subcommittee staff during the 
interview that no one told her to send the email that stated 
``the answer to your question is NO.''\205\ After her 
interview, Ms. Louis' attorney sent a letter on her behalf that 
indicated she did not specifically recall anyone telling her 
how to respond, but that Ms. Louis discussed all of the emails 
with Mr. Rodney and that Mr. Rodney provided the language for 
her to use in her responses.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \203\Id.
    \204\Id.
    \205\Id.
    \206\Letter from David Laufman, see Exhibit 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 18, 2009, Ms. Louis appeared before the 
Subcommittee to provide sworn testimony. During her interview 
with the Subcommittee, Ms. Louis stated that among her 
responsibilities as Executive Assistant to Karl and Faye 
Rodney, she assists with the annual conference each year.\207\ 
She stated that she is responsible for arranging the travel of 
the Members and types the letters that go to the various 
participants or contributors.\208\ She told the Subcommittee 
that Mr. Rodney drafts the letters by hand and she types them:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \207\Louis November 18, 2009, Tr. at 7 and 15.
    \208\Id. at 15-17.

          Q. Now, when you talk about the letters, are you 
        drafting and typing the letters?
          A. No.
          Q. What do you do?
          A. I am typing.
          Q. Okay. And where do you get the draft to type from?
          A. Mr. Rodney.
          Q. And does Mr. Rodney always write the draft?
          A. Yes, he does.
          Q. And does he do it by handwriting or transcription?
          A. Hand.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \209\Id. at 16.

    Ms. Louis also told the Subcommittee that she completed the 
travel forms that were provided to the invitees.\210\ She 
explained that Mr. Rodney drafted the information that he 
wanted and then she typed the information on the forms.\211\ 
She also indicated that once she was told a Member or other VIP 
planned to attend, she helped arrange their 
transportation.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \210\Id. at 18.
    \211\Id. at 50.
    \212\Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis told the Subcommittee that, prior to the 2007 
conference, she was informed that new rules had been 
established that required new forms to be completed.\213\ She 
was told that Dawn Mobley would assist the Foundation with 
completing the new forms:\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \213\Id. at 21-22.
    \214\Id.

          Q. What occurred in 2007? Did anyone give you a name 
        or instruct you that the rules have changed and you 
        have to contact the committee?
          Mr. Laufman. Are you asking her how she learned 
        that----
          Mr. Stoddard. No, I am asking her if anybody 
        contacted you in any way and told you that because of 
        the new rules that you are going to have to contact the 
        committee to get preapproval for the 2007 conference 
        travel.
          The Witness. We sent the letter in, and the response 
        came saying that there are new forms that have to be--
        that there are new rules that have to be completed.
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. Do you recall any contact from Representative 
        Tubbs Jones about the new rules and the conference?
          A. There was a letter from her saying that she would 
        assign somebody to work with us to----
          Q. And do you remember who that person was that she 
        assigned that she identified?
          A. Kelly Mobley.
          Q. Was it Dawn Kelly Mobley?
          A. Yes. Dawn Kelly Mobley.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\Id.

    Ms. Louis also verified that she had received several 
emails from Ms. Olson regarding the corporate sponsors and 
would share the emails with Mr. Rodney, who would draft a 
response to Ms. Olson.\216\ She recalled the one email exchange 
in which Ms. Olson asked if any of the corporations were paying 
for any of the expenses of the Members.\217\ Ms. Louis told the 
Subcommittee that she forwarded Ms. Olson's email to Ms. Mobley 
and requested her advice because she had been dealing with Ms. 
Mobley on the trip.\218\ She also stated that Mr. Rodney 
instructed her to send the email answering Ms. Olson's 
questions regarding the listed entities paying for any of the 
costs for the Members.\219\ She was aware of the agreement with 
the Government of Antigua to pay for the lodging and meals of 
the Members as well as the use of the airline tickets donated 
by American Airlines for the transportation of the 
Members.\220\ She agreed that based on Ms. Olson's question 
asking whether any of the listed entities were paying for 
Members' costs, the answer should have been ``yes'' and not 
``no,'' but she was responding based on what she and Mr. Rodney 
believed the definition of ``sponsor'' was.\221\ She also 
stated that she did not know if the government actually paid 
for the rooms:\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \216\Id. at 34-38.
    \217\Id. at 27.
    \218\Id. at 36.
    \219\Id. at 49.
    \220\Id. at 47-48.
    \221\Id.
    \222\Id. at 48.

          Q. I asked you before we broke--again, I'm sorry for 
        dropping that ball. Before we broke, I asked you 
        specifically in accordance with the email response to 
        Ms. Olson about did any other of these entities pay for 
        anything. And the one question I asked you is did 
        anyone pay for the lodging costs, and wasn't it true 
        that the Antigua Government agreed to pay for those 
        lodging costs? Did you have a chance to reflect on that 
        issue?
          A. I don't know if they actually paid, but I sent the 
        letter to the minister. And in the past some 
        governments have not paid, so I don't know if Antigua 
        did, in fact, pay because I don't--I didn't correspond 
        with them. Mr. Rodney was the one who dealt with the 
        Prime Minister or the minister, spoke with them. And if 
        the checks came in or--I don't know.
          Q. Now, you've been there for four years; is that 
        right?
          A. Right.
          Q. So you were there for the 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 
        conference?
          A. Yes.
          Q. And this year the 2009 conference?
          A. Yeah.
          Q. You say in the past some countries didn't pay. Was 
        it standard practice for the foundation to make an 
        agreement for the host country to pay for rooms for 
        congressional travelers?
          A. It's my understanding, because I wasn't there for 
        the others, but----
          Q. Now, you were there for the 2008 conference. Did 
        St. Maarten's government agree to pay for congressional 
        travelers, to the best of your recollection?
          A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
          Q. Okay.
          A. As to if they did, I don't know.
          Q. Okay. But you recall that they agreed that they 
        were going to pay part of the cost. And that was for 
        Members of Congress and anybody else?
          A. VIPs.
          Q. And who would be the VIPs?
          A. I don't know. Former speakers, Dinkins, Mayor 
        Dinkins, Harry Belafonte, the President of----
          Q. Would the VIP also include the representative of 
        the contributing corporation?
          A. The representative of----
          Q. Of a corporation, such as AT&T, that they were 
        coming to speak to----
          A. No, elected officials.
          Q. So mostly elected officials and Harry Belafonte 
        and celebrities?
          A. The speakers and David Dinkins and----\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \223\Id. at 54-55.

    Ms. Louis also told the Subcommittee that she participated 
in a couple of telephone conferences with Ms. Mobley during 
which Karl and Faye Rodney also participated.\224\ One such 
conference included a discussion of the identification of the 
corporations as ``participants:''\225\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \224\Id. at 53.
    \225\Id. at 58-59.

          Q. This appears to be a fax to Dawn Kelly Mobley from 
        you on October 11th, which I will show it to you and 
        ask you if you recognize it. But basically it says, 
        further to our conversation this morning recalling the 
        travel certification form, the conference has paid for 
        the Carib News Foundation. The companies are 
        participants, are not sponsors or cosponsoring the 
        partnership?
          Can you look at that and see if you recognize that 
        fax? Have you seen that fax?
          A. Yes, I did.
          Q. Have you seen that before?
          A. Yes.
          Q. Did you type that fax?
          A. Yes, I did.
          Q. Did anyone provide you with the text for you to 
        type into that fax or provide you with a draft of what 
        to say?
          A. The draft, Mr. Rodney.
          Q. And you indicate in that--in that fax that there 
        was a conversation earlier that day. Do you recall who 
        that conversation was with?
          A. A conversation with Dawn Kelly Mobley.
          Q. So you spoke to Dawn.
          You indicate in that fax that the company--that the 
        corporations we were talking about that contributed, 
        that were previously identified sponsors, are actually 
        participants?
          A. Right.
          Q. That's the first time we see the use of the word 
        ``participants'' in any of the communications, in that 
        fax. Did anyone tell you to use the word 
        ``participants'' or call these companies participants 
        to your recollection?
          A. In the conversation, the conference call with the 
        Rodneys, and Ms. Mobley, and Ms. Olson. And then we 
        went over what the company--what the sponsors did, the 
        planning of the conference by the sponsor. It was--the 
        interpretation was that they were participating and not 
        the sponsor, because the official sponsor was Carib 
        News.
          Q. And do you recall what Mr. Rodney or you or 
        anybody on the Carib News side of the telephone 
        conversation told Ms. Mobley as to what their 
        participation was, which is why they reached the 
        conclusion they were participants, not cosponsors? Do 
        you remember that part of the conversation at all? I 
        realize it was two years ago and you may not recall.
          A. No.
          Q. Do you remember what caused them to come up with 
        the fact they were called--that they should be called 
        participants?
          A. [Nonverbal response.]
          Q. Now, are you sure that Ms. Olson was--took part in 
        that conversation?
          A. I know there was a conference call, and Ms. Mobley 
        was on it. Ms. Olson I am not sure, because this was 
        two years ago.
          Q. Right.
          A. But I spoke with her because it says ``our 
        conversation.''
          Q. So it's possible that it was only with Ms. Mobley; 
        is that right?
          A. It was a conference call.
          Q. Sure. But all--Mr. and Mrs. Rodney were both 
        present; is that right?
          A. Yes.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \226\Id. at 58-60.

    Ms. Olson verified that she did not participate in any 
conference calls with Patricia Louis, Dawn Mobley and the 
Rodneys, but had spoken individually to Ms. Louis.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \227\Subcommittee counsel follow-up question to Ms. Olson, December 
2, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis also verified that she was responsible for 
providing the Members who attended the trips with a memorandum 
containing the costs for their post-travel reports.\228\ She 
testified that Mr. Rodney would give her the draft of the 
memorandum and she would type it and send it to the 
Members.\229\ She did not know where the information on the 
draft came from.\230\ Ms. Louis also verified that she 
forwarded the charitable contribution form that was signed by 
Mr. Rodney to Verizon, one of the entities that donated money 
to the 2008 conference.\231\ This form indicated that the 
conference registration and meals (not including lodging) was 
$650.00 per person for the 2008 conference.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \228\Louis November 18, 2009, Tr. at 67.
    \229\Id. at 67-68.
    \230\Id. at 67.
    \231\See Exhibit 35.
    \232\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Louis was asked if anyone instructed her to tell Ms. 
Olson that the corporations contributed to the general fund of 
the Foundation and not specifically to the conference.\233\ She 
responded that Mr. Rodney gave her that instruction:\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \233\Louis Tr. at 91.
    \234\Id.

          Q. Now, does the Carib News conference--or, I'm 
        sorry, the Carib News Foundation receive contributions 
        for other events during the year?
          A. I don't know. I'm not--the finances I'm not a part 
        of, so I don't know.
          Q. Can you tell us who instructed you to tell Ms. 
        Olson that the funds contributed by these corporations 
        for the conference were contributed to the general fund 
        of the foundation and not specifically for the 
        conference?
          A. Mr. Rodney gave me the information.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\Id. at 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Subcommittee Interviews of Karl Rodney

    Karl Rodney was interviewed by the Investigative 
Subcommittee on October 28, 2009, and again on December 1, 
2009. Mr. Rodney is the publisher and CEO of Carib News, 
Inc.\236\ Mr. Rodney explained that at the time he began the 
publication he had no experience with publishing and is an 
economist by trade.\237\ Before starting Carib News, he worked 
for a life insurance company.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 11 and 34.
    \237\Id. at 10.
    \238\According to New York Department of State, Division of 
Corporations records, Carib News Inc. was incorporated on June 8, 1982. 
See Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney also told the Subcommittee that he and his wife 
started Carib News Charities in 1988.\239\ The purpose of Carib 
News Charities was to ``do what we saw as a community outreach 
activities [sic] that were not necessarily relevant to the 
publication itself; that we want to do within the community 
programs to encourage young people, programs to encourage 
mothers, programs that we thought an immigrant community would 
be well served by.''\240\ He identified the officers of the 
Carib News Charities to the Subcommittee.\241\ Michele Rodney, 
their daughter, is the President and he, Mrs. Rodney, Bernice 
Rodney, and Karlisa Rodney, also their daughters, are Directors 
of the Foundation.\242\ Mr. Rodney told the Subcommittee that 
they re-designated Carib News Charities in 2006 as the Carib 
News Foundation because they wanted to do more with education 
and the word ``foundation'' was more in line with current 
``jargon.''\243\ Mr. Rodney did not know whether the Foundation 
was a public charity or private foundation and further related 
he did not know the tax law regarding private foundations or 
the limitations on a private foundation paying for a 
disqualified person's travel expenses.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \239\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 10.
    \240\Id. at 13.
    \241\Id. at 19.
    \242\Id.
    \243\Id. at 13. According to New York Department of State, Division 
of Corporations records, the Carib News Charities was renamed the Carib 
News Foundation in 2001. See Exhibit 6.
    \244\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney told the Subcommittee that the Foundation does 
not have a budget for hosting events.\245\ When asked the total 
cost for the hosting the 2007 conference, Mr. Rodney answered 
that the 2007 conference cost approximately $400,000 and the 
2008 conference cost just a little over $400,000.\246\ Mr. 
Rodney told the Subcommittee that the Foundation did not 
receive sufficient contributions to cover the entire cost of 
the conference so the balance was paid out of the Carib News 
newspaper's operating budget, which he indicated was 
approximately $1 million per year.\247\ Initially, Mr. Rodney 
stated that he had records showing the breakdown of costs for 
each conference and would provide them to the 
Subcommittee.\248\ Mr. Rodney revealed during his second 
interview on December 1, 2009, that he did not have the 
document that detailed the costs for the conferences, but that 
he constructed one for his attorney.\249\ His counsel argued 
that the document would be protected by attorney-client 
privilege and the Subcommittee agreed not to request that 
document, but did demand Mr. Rodney turn over any source 
documents he used to construct it.\250\ Mr. Rodney ultimately 
did not provide the records. Mr. Rodney's counsel informed the 
Subcommittee that he did not believe the records existed.\251\ 
Although subpoenaed to produce them, Mr. Rodney has never 
turned over any records detailing the Foundation's or Carib 
News's costs for either the 2007 or 2008 conference that he 
indicated he had.\252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \245\Id. at 21.
    \246\Id. at 21-22 and 35.
    \247\Id. at 21-22.
    \248\Id. at 22.
    \249\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 46-50.
    \250\Id. at 50 and 145.
    \251\Committee counsel telephone conversation with David Laufman on 
December 7, 2009.
    \252\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney was unable to tell the Subcommittee how much of 
the costs for the 2007 conference were recovered from 
contributions and conference and lodging fees paid by the 
attendees.\253\ However, Mr. Rodney indicated that 
approximately $160,000 was received in contributions from 
corporations in 2007 and approximately $200,000 in 2008.\254\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \253\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 23.
    \254\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney confirmed that each year he solicited 
contributions specifically for the conference from various 
corporations he had dealt with before.\255\ Mr. Rodney verified 
that he drafted the letters to the various corporations 
soliciting the contributions.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \255\Id. at 25-26.
    \256\Id. at 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When asked why he had indicated a carbon copy should go to 
Representative Rangel and other Members of Congress on two of 
the letters, he indicated it was for informational purposes 
because he knew they had an interest in those issues, such as 
transportation to the Caribbean.\257\ Representative Rangel's 
name appeared on a letter to AT&T that solicited AT&T to become 
a sponsor for the 2007 conference:\258\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \257\Id.
    \258\See Exhibit 36.

          Q. I'm going to show you what I've marked as Exhibit 
        KR-1. It is a letter dated April 23, 2007. Sir, have 
        you had a chance to review that document?
          A. Yes.
          Q. Do you recognize that document?
          A. Yes.
          Q. What is that document, sir?
          A. It is a letter to Marie Long at AT&T Foundation 
        soliciting support for the conference.
          Q. For which conference was this soliciting support?
          A. The 2007 conference.
          Q. Can you tell the Subcommittee who sent this 
        letter? First of all, who signed this letter?
          A. That is my signature.
          Q. Did you review this letter prior to signing it?
          A. I think I did.
          Q. Is this the language that you approved of to go to 
        Ms. Long?
          A. Yes, it appears that way.
          Q. Okay. And I want to put your attention to the 
        second page of the letter at the bottom. Do you see 
        where it says--has a carbon copy indication there? Can 
        you tell us whose name appears for a carbon copy?
          A. Congressman Charles Rangel.
          Q. Can you please tell the Subcommittee for what 
        purpose does Mr. Rangel's name appear at the bottom for 
        receiving a copy of this letter to AT&T?
          A. Well, Mr. Rangel through the years has been very 
        supportive of the--(interrupted by Mr. Rodney's 
        counsel).\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \259\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 26-27.

    After a conversation with Mr. Rodney's counsel regarding 
the topics of the inquiry, Representative Miller also asked why 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rodney sent a copy of the letter to Representative Rangel:

          Mr. Miller. Why did you think Mr. Rangel would be 
        interested? You say you sent him this letter for his 
        information?
          The Witness. As I mentioned in my response to counsel 
        that Mr. Rangel has always had an interest in the 
        conference, and through the years we worked with his 
        staff as we have gone through the planning of the 
        conference. We sent it to him strictly for his 
        information. He didn't instruct us to. We didn't ask 
        him to. We sent it strictly as information.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \260\Id. at 29-30.

    Representative Rangel's name, along with other Members of 
Congress who did not attend the conference, also appeared on 
the letter soliciting airline tickets from American Airlines 
for the 2007 conference.\261\ Mr. Rodney was questioned 
regarding this letter as well:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \261\See Exhibit 37.

          Q. Now, I have handed you, as I have said, 2, 3 and 
        4, and KR-1 actually had a ``cc'' to Congressman 
        Rangel. If you look at KR-2, there are additional cc's. 
        There is Congressman Rangel, Congressman Meeks, 
        Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, and Congresswoman 
        McMorris. And this letter was written the same day, and 
        it was sent to American Airlines.
          Can you tell the committee, if you know, why you 
        included more than just Mr. Rangel or included the 
        other parties on this particular letter?
          A. On this particular letter, this addresses the 
        issues of tourism and travel in the region. Congressman 
        Meek has had several conferences, particularly 
        displayed particular interest in that subject, travel 
        and tourism, and he had his own interest in that. 
        Congress Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, again, she was 
        interested in transportation. So it was all information 
        that we sent out.
          Q. What you were sending them was a letter where 
        you're requesting American Airlines to donate tickets 
        for the 2007 conference?
          A. To participate in the conference.
          Q. Aren't you asking them on the second page to 
        donate tickets?
          A. As part of our sponsor, the sponsor package, we 
        asked American Airlines to provide Carib News with X 
        number of tickets.
          Q. And in this case you were asking for 50 coach 
        tickets round trip, 35 first-class round trip, 35 coach 
        tickets for the purpose of the site and inspection and 
        planning; is that correct?
          A. That is correct.
          Q. And again, I'll ask you why was it important in 
        your mind for Carib News to notify Members of Congress 
        who had an interest in transportation that you were 
        asking an airline for free tickets?
          A. We're writing a company to participate in the 
        conference, and the company--in a particular area of 
        interest. American Airlines is critical to the 
        Caribbean, and so we are writing them for their 
        participation, which we had several years.
          The Members have a particular interest in the area 
        that American Airlines participates, travel and 
        tourism, and it was informational. The Members didn't 
        ask us to do it. They didn't ask us to do anything. As 
        far as I know, they did nothing. It was strictly 
        informational.
          Q. All right. Thank you, sir.
          Now, on letters that you wrote that we have 
        identified as KR-3, KR-4 and KR-5, I note for the 
        record that no Congress Member was included as a 
        recipient of any of these letters. Is it your 
        impression, based on your previous testimony, that 
        those Members were not interested in technology for the 
        region, or why would you not include them in those 
        letters?
          A. Would you repeat?
          Q. On letters marked KR-3, KR-4 and KR-5, again 
        written on April 23rd and subsequently April 30th, you 
        did not include a copy, a carbon copy, to any Member of 
        Congress. Can you tell the Subcommittee why you left 
        those Members off of those letters if it was just 
        informative? And obviously there is a technology 
        component with IBM. There are bank issues. Why did you 
        not feel it was necessary to send copies of those 
        letters?
          A. The vast majority of letters we send does not have 
        carbon copy, and those two were two that we sent for 
        informational purposes. We had no need or reason to 
        send copies.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \262\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 35-38.

    The Subcommittee asked Mr. Rodney about the contract the 
Foundation had signed with Unique Vacations, Inc., for the 2007 
conference.\263\ Mr. Rodney explained that Unique Vacations was 
the marketing company for Sandals Resort.\264\ He acknowledged 
meeting with Sandals Resort officials and negotiating the terms 
of the contract.\265\ He further acknowledged reviewing the 
contract before it was signed by Faye Rodney.\266\ He verified 
that Faye Rodney's signature appeared on the contract.\267\ Mr. 
Rodney verified the amounts for lodging on the contract were 
the amounts the Foundation agreed to pay.\268\ Mr. Rodney 
acknowledged the contract with Unique Vacations was signed on 
May 5, 2007.\269\ He did not know if the amounts were the 
actual amounts paid without seeing the final bill, but did not 
believe the amounts had changed.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \263\Id. at 38-39.
    \264\Id. at 38.
    \265\Id. at 43-44.
    \266\Id. at 40.
    \267\Id. at 40-41, 43-44.
    \268\Id. at 44.
    \269\Id. at 56.
    \270\Id. at 46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney initially told the Subcommittee that the 
Foundation had its own checking account, but later discussed 
how contributions for the conference are deposited in the Carib 
News publications ``projects'' account, along with donations 
for other projects.\271\ He was asked specifically about one of 
the checks written as a deposit to Unique Vacations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \271\Id. at 55.

          Mr. Dent. Is that check from the foundation, or is 
        that a check from the news organization? Is that from 
        the newspaper or from the foundation?
          The Witness. That's newspaper.
          Mr. Miller. What is project account?
          The Witness. In the running of our business, our 
        accountant decided to, our newspaper account where you 
        have revenue from the newspaper, and then the same 
        company, an account that is for when we have funds for 
        projects, so you can manage or get a better sense as to 
        which newspaper, which project. It is the same company, 
        same ID. It is just he felt at that time it was one way 
        to help us to manage.
          Mr. Miller. And this was a separate bank account with 
        Citibank?
          The Witness. Separate bank account with the same 
        bank?
          Mr. Miller. And what projects were run through this 
        account?
          The Witness. Projects such as a conference, any 
        project, any nonrelated----
          Mr. Miller. To publishing.
          The Witness. Right?
          Mr. Miller. And were all of the funds for this 
        conference run through the project account?
          The Witness. To the best of my recollection, yes.
          Mr. Dent. If the foundation was sponsoring the trip, 
        why would the foundation not write the--why would not 
        the check be drawn from the foundation as opposed to 
        the newspaper?
          The Witness. The foundation, as I tried to indicate, 
        the foundation was something new that we were, the 
        funds that were coming were coming into the newspaper. 
        At times, you have to get from cash flow funds out to 
        cover costs. But it was not that the news foundation 
        had funds that it wasn't used for. It was really what 
        is our--and the advice of our accountant, if the funds 
        come into Carib News, it is in Carib news, and you 
        account for it in that sense. And that is how we would 
        have done it. And it had nothing to do with any 
        foundation.\272\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \272\Id. at 54-56.

    Mr. Rodney further discussed how funds were deposited and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
handled:

          Mr. Miller. You may have answered this already, but 
        did you have a bank account for the foundation?
          The Witness. Yes.
          Mr. Miller. What sorts of--what did you pay out of 
        that account?
          The Witness. We pay out of that account, funds that 
        were in that account, any expenses that could be 
        related to the conference that we were undertaking.
          Mr. Miller. Say that again?
          The Witness. We paid out of that account when funds 
        were available any expense that are conference related.
          Mr. Miller. Out of the foundation?
          The Witness. Right.
          Mr. Miller. There was another foundation account, in 
        addition to this project account that was also a 
        foundation account?
          The Witness. That's correct. The project is the main 
        company, the same ID, same accountant, and all that 
        comes together as one.
          Mr. Miller. And on what bank was the foundation 
        account?
          The Witness. At Citibank. All the accounts had been 
        in one bank, Citibank.
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. Now, you indicated that if a check came in written 
        to Carib News and it was for the conference, it would 
        be put in the Carib News project account; is that 
        correct?
          A. That is usually, yeah.
          Q. And what other funds were deposited into the Carib 
        News project account?
          A. My recollection is that project funds were 
        deposited in project accounts.
          Q. So there were no funds other than funds that were 
        contributed for the conference, no other funds were 
        deposited?
          A. Oh, no, we have other funds that are not 
        contribution. They are project related.
          Q. And what kind of--where would those funds come 
        from?
          A. They would come from individuals who contribute to 
        a particular project that we have under our 
        management.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \273\Id. at 57-58.

    Mr. Rodney also confirmed that when a corporation agreed to 
contribute to the conference, he would send them an 
invoice.\274\ The invoice would clearly indicate that it was 
for payment of the agreed upon contribution specifically for 
the conference and not the general fund of the foundation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \274\Id. at 58.

          Q. And in fact, in the description of the invoice, 
        the language appears, sponsor for the 12th annual 
        Caribbean Multi-National Business Conference, is that 
        correct?
          A. That is correct.
          Q. And do you know who typed that into the invoice?
          A. The bookkeeper.
          Q. And would anyone tell the bookkeeper to use that 
        language to identify the purpose as a sponsor for the 
        12th annual conference?
          A. My sense is that is the traditional way we have 
        always done it.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \275\Id.

    Mr. Rodney was asked about his communications with the 
Standards Committee before the 2007 conference and the new 
travel rules that went into effect that would change the manner 
in which the Foundation invited Members to attend.\276\ He 
indicated that he had been in contact with the Standards 
Committee's former Chair, Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, 
before the conference and she indicated to him that the travel 
rules had changed and she assigned her designated counsel to 
communicate with the Foundation.\277\ Representative Tubbs 
Jones told Mr. Rodney that Dawn Kelly Mobley would assist the 
Foundation with understanding the new rules and processing the 
trip request.\278\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \276\Id. at 61.
    \277\Id.
    \278\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney verified an email sent on September 17, 2007, 
was sent from [email protected], which he indicated is an 
email address used by both Carib News and the Foundation.\279\ 
He reviewed the draft agenda that was attached to the email and 
verified it was the draft agenda for the 2007 conference.\280\ 
He further verified the email and agenda was sent to George 
Dalley and Shelley Thomas.\281\ Mr. Rodney was asked about the 
agenda and the fact that it identified sponsors for various 
events:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \279\Id. at 62.
    \280\Id. at 63.
    \281\Id.

          Q. I'm going to show you a--my next exhibit is KR-8, 
        and this is in tab 8. And it is an email that was sent 
        from [email protected]. Who, what email is Carib--
        [email protected]?
          A. That's an email address that we use.
          Q. Is that for the newspaper or the foundation?
          A. That is for the newspaper and foundation. We have 
        no----
          Q. And this is an e-mail sent to [Shelley Thomas] and 
        George Dalley; Subject: Draft Agenda, 2007 Conference; 
        Program Working Copy--edited Sept 13.doc; and the 
        signature block at the bottom says Patricia Louis. And 
        if you could look over that.
          Mr. Dent. Which tab is that again? I'm sorry.
          Mr. Stoddard. Eight.
          Mr. Laufman. This is a multipage document.
          Mr. Stoddard. That's correct. It's a cover mail, 
        email with an attachment?
          Mr. Laufman. Do you want him to look at all the 
        documents now?
          Mr. Stoddard. If you could. I expect that Mr. Rodney 
        will recognize the documents that were attached.
          The Witness. It appears to be a draft of one of our 
        programs.
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. Of the agenda for the 2007 conference, is that 
        correct?
          A. Yes.
          Q. And did you instruct Ms. Louis to send a draft 
        copy to Shelley Thomas and George Dalley?
          A. I don't recall having done this specifically, but 
        I would not be at all surprised if I did.
          Q. And do you know why you would want George Dalley 
        and Shelley Thomas to receive a copy of a draft agenda, 
        a working copy?
          A. Shelley Thomas is staff to Donna Christensen. 
        George Dalley is staff to Mr. Rangel. As I mentioned 
        earlier, Donna Christensen represented the Virgin 
        Islands, and this conference has been of particular 
        interest to her, and so we worked very closely with her 
        from time to time. The same thing is true of Mr. 
        Dalley. I think it was informational, to tell them 
        where we were, and as far as I know, that was the 
        reason.
          Q. Were you seeking any input from them as to the 
        agenda?
          A. We never do.
          Q. So you just felt that you needed to send those two 
        a draft agenda?
          A. That's correct.
          Q. Now, looking at that draft agenda, if you look at 
        the very first page, you notice at the bottom of the 
        page, you talk about an opening reception, from 6:30 to 
        7:30, where the venue was, and it says, ``Sponsor: 
        AT&T,'' is that correct?
          A. Yes, sir.
          Q. Okay, and so, AT&T at this point was identified as 
        a sponsor of a particular event at your conference, is 
        that correct?
          A. This was September 17th, based on information we 
        had, and I know where we are going with this in terms 
        of issue of sponsor because I know it's key to why I'm 
        here and----
          Q. Let me help you with this, now prior to 2007 
        conference, you would have been able to identify these 
        companies as sponsors; is that correct?
          A. That is correct. And when we applied for 
        permission from Ethics, we also in our initial 
        application identified every one of these as sponsors. 
        And this was, we were down to October now, when we are 
        trying to make some kind of decision, and we had not 
        previously had rulings as to the difference in 
        sponsorship. So, when we get to the point of sponsors, 
        and I know you gave me those letters, the sponsors, 
        those letters went out May, April, we were not even in 
        conversation with Ethics about approval.
          When it came to the point that we were asked the 
        questions, based on the form and the new requirement, 
        we clearly pointed out; they said, based on our 
        understanding and the old form, these were sponsors. We 
        were then given and guided by a definition of Ethics 
        staff that by the new definition, Carib News Foundation 
        by definition of their rules is the sponsor. And as 
        such, we didn't align our position as Carib News to 
        match that definition.
          It was what we were doing in general, organizing, 
        having complete control of the program that we, they--
        the committee agreed, Carib News is your sponsor, and 
        so that was when the issue of sponsors came up.
          We were clearly guided by the staff. We were very 
        diligent in seeking out this definition, and we made 
        sure we had nothing to hide. These sponsors that you 
        are putting out and making reference to, they were 
        identified by us in the document that we sent to 
        Ethics.
          Q. Sir, on the staff, you refer to the committee and 
        to the committee staff as telling you the definition of 
        sponsor, who was that person or persons who identified, 
        who told you that those companies would not be 
        sponsors?
          A. Sir, it's Dawn Kelly--Mobley Kelly. She also, in 
        instruction, had pointed out that you must have 
        meaningful connection, instructions on the definition, 
        and she reinforced that. In fact, sir, we were talking 
        to three different people on the staff; Dawn Kelly 
        Mobley, Susan Olson, Hilary Smith. We were talking to 
        everybody who had an input, trying to sort where we 
        were. We made every deliberate effort to comply with 
        their definition. They were the expert in the field. We 
        knew this was new; the chairman said to us, she had 
        personally said to us, these are the people who will 
        help you. We worked with them. We relied on them. And 
        we had absolutely, absolutely no reason not to rely on 
        and go by what they were saying.
          So when you point to sponsors in a letter, we talk 
        about sponsors in April and May, we hadn't even gotten 
        close to those decisions by the counsel. When we had 
        this draft program in December, as you point out, these 
        are your sponsors, we had not come to the conclusion 
        with Ethics staff the definition of sponsor and how it 
        would guide anything we do.
          Q. Now you just mentioned, sir, that Representative 
        Tubbs Jones told you, these are the people you deal 
        with, but isn't it true the only name she gave you was 
        Dawn Kelly Mobley?
          A. If I said ``these,'' I correct myself. The only 
        one she gave me. What I did say is that we were not 
        only talking to Dawn, and I don't know how they 
        interloop within the decision.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \282\Id. at 62-66.

    Mr. Rodney told the Subcommittee that he relied on the 
guidance from the Standards Committee staff in filling out the 
travel forms for the 2007 conference and it was with their 
guidance that the Foundation did not identify the corporate 
contributors to the 2007 conference as sponsors.\283\ He stated 
that he had ``diligently'' worked to identify the sponsors 
under the ``old definition of sponsors'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \283\Id. at 67.

          The Witness. No. My position is, sir, the Chairperson 
        directed us to expect the guidance from Dawn Kelly 
        Mobley. We were contacted by Susan Olson. We were 
        contacted by Hilary Smith. They were all a part of, my 
        understanding and then based on their--they're a part 
        of the Ethics Committee, and all were interlooped in 
        helping or directing or guiding us to make these 
        decisions. So we were listening to three people in 
        Ethics at one time, trying to sort out in their minds 
        and in providing us with guidance around some critical 
        issue that we now have come to face.
          And what I can tell you is, in terms of the timing 
        and in terms of what happened and what I know and what 
        we participated, is we diligently disclosed the Ethics 
        and their staff all these persons that were supposedly 
        sponsors in the old definition of sponsors. We--it was 
        their problem to--if, because Carib News was sponsored 
        by their definition, then Macy's, CitiBank and those 
        other corporations could not be sponsors because they 
        are an entirely different definition. And so there was, 
        how do you handle these? It went back and forth.
          I'm sure you have access to the reams of email going 
        back and forth to try to determine, how do we come to 
        this understanding? And you should know that we were 
        very forthright. All the information we provided, at no 
        point did we attempt to hide the new, who were 
        contributors, who were sponsors, and we were clear, 
        very clear, and very diligent as to how we provided 
        information or we reacted to information and how we 
        came to whatever decision and conclusions.\284\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \284\Id. at 66-67.

    After a recess requested by Mr. Rodney's attorney, Mr. 
Rodney told the Subcommittee that he recalled speaking with 
Susan Olson and that she reinforced the position that the 
Foundation would be the sponsor for the purposes of the trip 
and the corporate contributors would be listed as 
participants.\285\ He testified that he had conversations with 
Ms. Olson, which he claimed was supported by the emails, and 
that Ms. Olson decided the corporations would be 
participants:\286\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \285\Id. at 70-71.
    \286\Id.

          Q. Now I asked you earlier if you had ever spoken to 
        Susan Olson. You don't recall speaking to her?
          A. I recall speaking with her. Yes, I do.
          Q. Do you recall her asking you any questions about 
        the companies, Pfizer, Macy's, AT&T, Verizon, those 
        companies and what their role with the conference was?
          A. Yes.
          Q. Now, what did she tell you, or what did you tell 
        her as far as their role?
          A. Their roles, as far as we--the issue was, with 
        Susan, as best I can recall, is that it was reinforced 
        that Carib News and Carib News Foundation, based on the 
        facts, would be considered the sponsor. What label----
          Q. Excuse me, you are saying Susan Olson reaffirmed 
        that with you?
          A. That is my recollection. The issue, and I think 
        the emails will confirm that, the issue was, how do you 
        now characterize those companies that we had originally 
        listed on the form as sponsors and in the traditional 
        pre-2007, how do you then characterize them? What is 
        their label? And that was the issue going back and 
        forth with Susan Olson. And the memos, the emails 
        should--it was in those conference conversations that 
        Susan Olson decided that the proper label for those 
        non-sponsoring entities would be ``participants.'' The 
        email will confirm that Susan sent to us, these are 
        participants, change the program so that it reflects 
        participants, and it is fine. We changed the program 
        that we were sending back and forth, listing those 
        entities as participants. And that was where we left 
        the--that was the decision that we were guided to 
        eventually.
          Q. And these emails that you were referring to, were 
        they emails that were between you and someone on the 
        committee, or the committee and Patricia Louis?
          A. It was primarily between Patricia Louis and the 
        Members of the committee. But we meet regularly in 
        planning the conference.
          Q. You say ``we,'' who do you mean, sir.
          A. Patricia Louis, myself, and Mrs. Rodney, to go 
        over all aspects of the planning, and so we are made 
        aware of these issues, and we determine responses as we 
        go along, and on phone calls when necessary.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \287\Id. at 70-72.

    Mr. Rodney stressed during his testimony that there was 
confusion as to the definition of ``sponsor.''\288\ He stated 
that prior to 2007 they had always identified the corporations 
who contributed to the conference as sponsors.\289\ In 2007, 
the rules had changed and he believed there was a different 
definition for ``sponsor'' that he received from Ms. Mobley and 
Ms. Olson.\290\ He further stated that based on their guidance, 
Carib News Foundation would be the only sponsor because the 
Foundation planned and organized the trip and none of the 
corporations were involved in the planning or organizing.\291\ 
He was asked to verify emails that were initially received from 
Ms. Mobley to Ms. Louis:\292\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \288\Subcommittee Interview of Karl Rodney on October 28, 2009 and 
December 1, 2009. See also Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 64-65.
    \289\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 64.
    \290\Id. at 71.
    \291\Id. at 70-71.
    \292\Id. at 72-74.

          Q. Does he recall any conversation or email since he 
        was involved in conversations and emails and he is 
        aware of them--do you recall Patricia Louis' response 
        to Dawn Kelly Mobley as to who the sponsors were on 
        September 18?
          A. All right. I was aware of that.
          Q. And so you understood that at that point you were 
        identifying the sponsors of the trip as those 
        individuals, is that correct?
          A. We were identifying the sponsors of the trip in 
        the traditional sense, which we want to be very clear 
        on.
          Q. Just as far as, there is nothing about traditional 
        sense. It says, ``these are my sponsors,'' is that 
        correct?
          A. These are my sponsors as I understood it----
          Q. And that's all I'm asking.
          A. Okay.
          Q. Now the next email, which is right above that on 
        the very first page, is a little broader. Can you read 
        that to us? Put it on the record. Who is that email 
        from?
          A. Which is this, sir?
          Q. It is the lot of text spot in the middle. It is 
        right above with Patricia Louis responds with, ``these 
        are our sponsors.''
          Mr. Laufman. What are you asking?
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. Read that email. Who it is from, and who is it to?
          A. From Kelly Mobley.
          Q. And to?
          A. To P. Louis.
          Q. And what date?
          A. September 19th.
          Q. And what is the text of that email?
          A. I understand that several of these will take part 
        in sponsoring food and other parts of the Antigua 
        travel. However, I need clarification on the official 
        sponsor, that organization providing travel, lodging, 
        and organizing trip. Am I to assume it is Carib News? 
        The official sponsoring organization must not retain, 
        employ a registered lobbyist or a registered foreign 
        agent. And the sponsor must have a direct and immediate 
        relationship with the event or location being visited. 
        To assist with this, I'm scanning information, 
        guidelines, emails in just a moment. Please provide a 
        fax number if method of submittal will be more helpful. 
        If there is someone handling this matter, please 
        provide me their direct contact information, as I must 
        ensure adherence to these new guidelines for travel. In 
        any event, I do not need to know who the official 
        sponsor will be, I will assign a staff attorney to 
        review your documents and remain in contact with you 
        until this matter is finalized. Please respond today or 
        tomorrow at the latest. I will be traveling for a while 
        thereafter and must ensure my staff attorney has all 
        the necessary information for a safe review.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \293\Id. at 73-74.

    Mr. Rodney continued to explain that he had identified the 
sponsors to the 2007 conference as they had in the past, but 
``the Committee'' told him that these corporations could not be 
listed as sponsors but had to be listed as participants.\294\ 
On December 1, 2009, during the continuation of his testimony 
before the Subcommittee, Mr. Rodney again stressed that he 
reported the corporations as sponsors, but was told by ``the 
Committee'' that under the rules those corporations could not 
be sponsors and they would have to be changed to 
``participants.''\295\ When asked who on the Standards 
Committee told him this, he was unable to identify the 
individual.\296\ He argued that this information was in the 
email sent from Susan Olson that instructed them to change the 
identification from sponsor to participant.\297\ The 
Subcommittee asked Mr. Rodney to verify he had seen the emails 
from Susan Olson regarding the sponsor issue, as well as the 
emails sent between Patricia Louis and Dawn Mobley.\298\ After 
he indicated that he was familiar with the emails, the emails 
and the responses from Patricia Louis were discussed and Mr. 
Rodney was asked questions regarding the emails and his 
interpretation of what Ms. Olson was asking.\299\ However, Mr. 
Rodney would not directly answer any of the questions regarding 
this issue:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \294\Id. at 119.
    \295\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 6.
    \296\Id. at 81-82.
    \297\Id. at 77.
    \298\Id. at 75-98.
    \299\Id.

          Q. Okay. Now, you said that you only responded, you 
        only listed--eliminated these corporations and the 
        government as sponsors because you were directed to do 
        so by someone on the committee. They were no longer 
        sponsors. Someone here told you that. But from Ms. 
        Olson's email she clearly didn't say that in this 
        email. Would you agree?
          A. What email?
          Q. In the email you have right in front of you. There 
        is nothing in here that says these aren't sponsors. In 
        fact, she is asking what is their role. They were 
        sponsors last year. Clarify their role. And this was on 
        October 10th, right?
          Mr. Laufman. What is the pending question?
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. The pending question is, is it clear from this 
        email that she did not say these people are not 
        sponsors? In fact, wanted to know what their role was, 
        because the previous year they were sponsors--from the 
        advice of the committee. The committee said ``These are 
        sponsors, they have to be listed,'' the year before. 
        She provided that.
          So is it clear to you on this email that she still 
        thinks they are sponsors; and, in fact, is saying they 
        are still sponsors, please advise as to what their role 
        is?
          A. I am not clear as to the internal----
          Q. I am only asking you about this email and what 
        your conclusion is from it. She is telling you in this 
        email--she is asking what their role is, and she is 
        saying because last year when you asked us this 
        question, our advice said they were sponsors and should 
        be listed because they are underwriting some of the 
        costs.
          Is it clear to you from her email here that those 
        corporations still need to be sponsors until you 
        clarify their further role?
          A. My answer is we were getting--we have three people 
        in the Ethics Committee that we are dealing with. And I 
        am sure you have emails to the effect from the same 
        Susan Olson that says, Change those names from 
        sponsors.
          [Interruption by Mr. Rodney's counsel] . . .
          Q. I am asking you here, does that email indicate 
        from Susan Olson that those corporations are not 
        sponsors?
          [Interruption by Mr. Rodney's counsel] . . .
          A. You need to be fair. And you have information in 
        here that would suggest that Susan Olson, the same 
        Susan Olson says to me these people have to be listed 
        as participants. And I don't see why it is coming back 
        here when you have email to the effect--I mean I don't.
          Q. We will get to that email, I guarantee you. But 
        right now I am asking you, on October 10th, did Susan 
        Olson indicate to you in that email that those 
        corporations were not sponsors?
          A. It certainly is in conflict with everything that 
        they have told us before that they were sponsors; which 
        is your definition, not mine. And to my thinking, and 
        to answer your--in my mind, we were designating the 
        sponsors. But based on the committee's own definition, 
        they could not be sponsors because none of these are 
        providing a value, doing the content, determining the 
        operation. So my understanding is that they could not 
        be sponsors based on all we have had before.
          And so to your question as to whether or not Susan 
        Olson--for me, the definitive action is when we have 
        gone through this and it comes back to us, they 
        couldn't be sponsors, they need to be participants.
          Q. Sir, you stated over and over that Ms. Olson told 
        you that they weren't sponsors. I am asking you 
        specifically about this email. And you are saying that 
        all the advice they gave you was they weren't sponsors. 
        Here she is actually saying that they are sponsors, 
        please advise as to their role. Is that not what her 
        email indicates to you?
          From this email can you determine if at this point in 
        time--we are not talking about later, at this point in 
        time--did Ms. Olson still believe these corporations to 
        be sponsors?
          A. Sir, on the private sponsors form where it says 
        sponsors, the definition of sponsors is there. That 
        does not fit this.
          Q. Can you just answer the question about that email? 
        That is all I am asking you. In that email, she says: 
        According to the committee's advisory opinion dated 
        October 27th, 2006, provided that all the organizations 
        that provided financial underwriting for the trip, 
        along with the Foundation, were required to be listed 
        as the trip sponsors.
          That is a pretty clear definition--if they provided 
        financial underwriting for the Foundation, along with 
        the Foundation. At this point from her email, was Ms. 
        Olson telling you these companies were not sponsors?
          A. But you would agree with me that this is in total 
        conflict with advice I have gotten from the same 
        committee earlier with respect to the definition of 
        sponsors. Because I want to be clear in my head what I 
        am being asked.
          Q. You are being asked, according to Susan Olson on 
        October 10th with this email, that she still considered 
        those companies and was telling you these companies are 
        sponsors.
          [Interruption by Mr. Rodney's counsel] . . .
          Q. The question is, based on this email, was it clear 
        or did Susan Olson still not understand whether or not 
        those corporations were sponsors? Was that your 
        interpretation of her email, that she is asking you to 
        provide additional information to verify what the role 
        of these companies is?
          A. All right. Based on this, she is asking for 
        additional information.
          Q. To verify what the role of these companies is?
          A. Yes.
          Q. And so at this point she did not say they weren't 
        sponsors. She is asking what they were; isn't that 
        right? At this point?
          A. At this point. But it just goes back to my 
        recollection that the definition of sponsors was made, 
        counsel, prior to this, prior to October 10th.
          Q. But that was not by Susan Olson, was it?
          A. It was a Member of the Ethics Committee that we 
        were dealing with.
          Q. And who was that?
          A. My recollection is it might have been Dawn Mobley.
          Q. And the reason I am asking these questions is 
        before you said Susan Olson told you this. And at this 
        point she is asking you a specific question: What are 
        the roles of these companies? I don't know what they 
        are. We said they were sponsors last year because they 
        helped pay. So what is the role?
          In fact, she sends another email. After that response 
        that I read earlier that they contribute to the overall 
        function, she sent another email. And this email was 
        sent on October 12th to Ms. Louis that says, please 
        explain in more detail your email message below 
        relative to the ``sponsors contribute to the overall 
        expense of the trip.'' In this regard, do the following 
        entities pay for any of the expenses of the trip for 
        the invited House Members? And she lists the Antigua 
        Government and Sandals and Royal Caribbean Bakery, et 
        cetera, Citibank. She lists all those companies that 
        are on that email. And she says, do they pay for any of 
        the expenses of the trip including round-trip air 
        transportation? That is one of them.
          Now, at that time she was asking specifically if any 
        of those companies--American Airlines is listed--paid 
        for any of the expenses for round-trip air 
        transportation. Is that correct? Do you recall seeing 
        that email?
          A. Yes.
          Q. And did in fact a corporation pay for air 
        transportation? This is on October 12th. This is before 
        the trip. This is what your understanding was, who was 
        getting what. This is before even the issue with the 
        Antigua Government came up. This is back in early 
        October. Did any corporation, any of those corporations 
        listed, pay for round-trip air transportation--or were 
        going to pay for air transportation?
          A. No corporation paid for any round trip.
          Q. Did American Airlines provide tickets?
          A. Not on October 12th and not for any Members.
          Q. Did you ask if American Airlines would provide you 
        with tickets and they said they were providing tickets?
          A. You want me to answer you now as to American 
        Airlines? American Airlines has a barter agreement with 
        Carib News over the years where we have an agreement we 
        barter tickets for their participation in the 
        conference. They get--we have an arrangement, we have 
        an agreement. There is consideration for the tickets we 
        get from American Airlines. Allow me to--because these 
        tickets are not earmarked for Members. They are not 
        given to us to give to Members. We can do with them as 
        we see fit. We can sell those tickets. This has been a 
        tradition with American Airlines through the years.
          There was no intent on our part to use--to use any 
        tickets in violation of any rules. In fact, you should 
        have in your documentation a memorandum from Ms. Louis 
        to American Airlines and to Donna, to say we do not 
        want to be in violation of any regulation. And counsel, 
        if you allow me to----
          Q. No, I am not going to allow you. That is more than 
        the question.
          [Interruption by Mr. Rodney's counsel] . . .
          Mr. Stoddard. I am asking, on October 12th did you 
        have an agreement with American Airlines to provide 
        airline tickets?
          A. Not for Members.
          Q. Can I finish the question? To Carib News.
          [Interruption by Mr. Rodney's counsel] . . .
          Q. Did American Airlines agree to provide Carib News 
        with 25 tickets for the 2007 conference?
          A. I am not even clear what date that happened. I 
        would have to check my records.
          Q. And were tickets that were provided by American 
        Airlines eventually used for congressional Members?
          A. Tickets were used.
          Q. Were tickets that were provided by American 
        Airlines used?
          A. Tickets that were used at our discretion. Counsel, 
        it comes to the heart of what you are trying to--that 
        we had some intention of--there is no motivation for us 
        to be using American Airlines tickets to pay for 
        Members. We are talking about $2,000.
          Counsel, go back and do your arithmetic and you will 
        see those tickets that are used for American Airlines. 
        Why would we jeopardize a relationship for $2,000 with 
        American Airlines? Our relationship with American 
        Airlines went back 12 years, and we have that 
        agreement. It is not anything we concocted for Members 
        or anything concocted to deceive or mislead. Counsel, 
        we have no motivation for that. Absolutely none. And I 
        know it is to the heart of the issue. And I want to 
        have you understand our position, that we consider 
        American Airlines to have a contract. We gave them 
        value for it, tremendous value. We could do with those 
        tickets what we feel like, and we are not using that to 
        get around any regulations in Congress.
          Q. Mr. Rodney, did American Airlines provide tickets 
        for the 2007 conference?
          A. Yes, sir.
          Q. And were any of those tickets used for any Members 
        of Congress' travel?
          A. Yes.
          Q. Thank you. On October 12th when this email was 
        asked, she also asked, did any of the following Members 
        pay for lodging costs? And at this point you had an 
        agreement with the Government of Antigua to pay for 
        Members' lodging costs. Isn't that true? Is that true 
        or not?
          A. No.
          Q. That is not true? Okay. Thank you. We will move 
        on.

                  [Subcommittee recess and discussion]

          Q. But you indicate that that was after it was all 
        worked out and Ms. Olson had said change these 
        participants, which was later in the month. And I'll 
        get to that email later. But on October 12th before 
        that point on this email it seems that Ms. Olson is 
        still trying to figure out what their role is as 
        sponsors. So we can infer from this email, and if you 
        disagree with me please tell me that, that at this 
        particular point when she sent this email on October 
        12th, she was still trying to determine are these 
        entities sponsors or not. She's asking are they paying 
        for anything, is that right?
          A. That is right. Counsel, remember that prior to 
        this, though, we had settled on what action what the 
        sponsor would be.
          Q. In fact from that email Ms. Louis on October 15th 
        responded. So on the 12th which was Friday at 2:41 p.m. 
        Ms. Olson sent that email and said I'm still confused, 
        based on your response what's their role, do they pay 
        for any of these things, at that point you would have 
        known that American Airlines was paying for some of the 
        tickets, however they were going to be used, or that 
        the Antigua Government had agreed at that point to pay 
        for lodging, and should they have based on just this 
        email, before you get further into the sponsor and 
        participant issue, should the response then been, well, 
        yeah, they could be sponsors, they are paying for that. 
        Do you know why that was not provided or why the 
        response--let me tell you what the response was. On 
        October 15th--well, before I get that, did you discuss 
        Ms. Olson's email, this October 12th email, with anyone 
        else on the committee or with Mr. Dalley or Ms. Thomas 
        before sending a reply on Monday the 15th?
          A. I don't recall having that conversation.
          Q. On the 15th at 10:00 in the morning there was a 
        response sent from Ms. Louis to Ms. Olson that said in 
        response to your email the answer to your question is 
        no regarding this thing. In other words, the response 
        is, no, none of these people pay for anything. But we 
        know that they did. Should that actually have been, 
        well, yes, they do but that's all they do?
          A. No, no, no, I'm very clear on that.
          Q. Okay.
          A. On that it was our understanding that once we 
        decided to be sponsors none of these could pay, not 
        that they would pay or should pay or might have paid, 
        none could pay. And that's when the answer to it was if 
        this is the definition that we are the sponsor then 
        these sponsors, participants, could not pay. And as we 
        said, we were very clear in our understanding no, 
        because the definition that we are the sponsors we are 
        to take up the Members' costs and therefore no. Working 
        from that we then put that into effect that these 
        Members, these companies were participants and that we 
        would take it on. And that was our intention.
          Q. Okay. So that was on October 15th. But 
        subsequently American Airlines tickets were actually 
        given to Members, that Carib News didn't pay for those 
        tickets, that they were actually given those free 
        tickets from American Airlines, isn't that right?
          A. You want to shorten this. We have gone through 
        this before. We explained to you American Airlines----
          Q. I understand that.
          A. We did that.
          Q. Right. But what I'm saying is you just said that 
        at this point on October 15th you knew at that point 
        that none of these companies could pay. And so that's 
        why the answer was no, they didn't pay for costs, 
        lodging costs, they did not pay for meal costs?
          A. Or they will not be paying.
          Q. Fine. And I accept that. But in fact after October 
        15th American Airlines donated free tickets that had 
        zero amount on them because they were donated tickets, 
        they were promotional tickets from American Airlines, 
        were actually given for Members. So I guess the 
        confusion I have from your answer is that you knew that 
        they couldn't pay, but in fact those tickets because 
        they were given to congressional Members rather than 
        you charging the tickets to a Carib News credit card or 
        something, that you in fact did pay or allow American 
        Airlines through the tickets they donated to the Carib 
        News to pay for that transportation. Isn't that a fair 
        assessment?
          A. Would you like my assessment now?
          Q. Yes.
          A. And I thought we had done this prior to the break. 
        That we consider American Airlines to be a participant 
        with gaining benefits. American Airlines not only has a 
        speaking opportunity, American Airlines had the worst 
        public relation[s] record in the Caribbean. And it was 
        through this conference and their participation that 
        they rehabilitate their image and they said it over and 
        over. So American Airlines wasn't giving us anything. 
        American Airlines, we had an agreement with them. They 
        were our tickets. Counsel, we could have sold those 
        tickets and paid for the Members. It was a clear 
        understanding that these tickets were not earmarked for 
        Members, we did not, we were not deliberately--because 
        again I have to take you back to the memorandum from 
        Patricia Louis to Donna at American Airlines. It 
        specifically said I do not want to be in violation of 
        any rules and regulations. Why would we be saying that? 
        Because it's clear in her mind that there is no intent, 
        there is no motivation to be using that. And in fact 
        American Airlines must have had the same interpretation 
        and their counsel. We did not have counsel. We were 
        doing the interpretation as guided by the Ethics 
        Committee.
          So in terms of American Airlines, again, let us look 
        at the proportionality. You are talking about $2,000. 
        Why would we as a company endanger or even try to 
        deceive Congress or provide false information for 
        $2,000? Counsel, there has to have some proportionality 
        to it. I mean there is no motivation to do that because 
        we can't afford that. I mean there is no enrichment on 
        our part. And we tried to be as clear as we can, as 
        honest as we can, that we were not using American 
        Airlines tickets to deceive Members.
          Mr. Laufman. Let him ask his next question.
          The Witness. I'm sorry.
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. I mentioned earlier that Ms. Olson sent an email 
        internal to this committee to Bill O'Reilly and Donna 
        [sic] Kelly Mobley talking about your response. Bill 
        and Dawn, please note the following response to Ms. 
        Louis at Carib News. The portion appears that if each 
        sponsor contributes funding directly to the trip and 
        did not--and earmarked the funds and not simply to the 
        general funds at Carib News, then the assumption is 
        that all of these entities are cosponsors of the trip 
        for purposes of the House travel rules. If that is the 
        case it is likely that at least one of these cosponsors 
        hired--retained a federally registered lobbyist the 
        trip can only be a one day event trip. Thus the 
        committee can't approve the trip as it currently 
        exists. This was on October 12, 2007, at 9:29, on a 
        Friday. This is before she sent the email asking for 
        the additional clarification. She's saying basically 
        here that if they contribute to the trip and not to the 
        general fund of the Carib News that they must be listed 
        as cosponsors. That's her interpretation on October 
        12th.
          Now, Ms. Mobley sent you this internal email. Do you 
        recall reading it?
          A. What email?
          Mr. Laufman. Can you show him.
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. I'll show you. It's the one at the very bottom.
          A. I remember seeing this memo.
          Q. And so Ms. Mobley sent that to you and said here's 
        the issue Susan is raising. So that memo clearly makes 
        the case that if they contribute to the conference they 
        have to be cosponsors. Is there anything that you 
        didn't understand about that issue?
          A. I didn't know and I don't recall the category of 
        cosponsors in the private form. I know the category of 
        sponsors and the responsibility of the sponsors. And 
        this is a--again, gentlemen, we are getting three 
        different voices from Ethics. We're really not counsel, 
        we're not professional. We are a simple group trying to 
        get an approval. We had no expertise in the matter. 
        We're being followed by the guidance. As you go through 
        emails back and forth, and I don't know what internals 
        are, we try to go by what we have been advised. At this 
        point in time she's raising a question. As a counsel I 
        wouldn't know because I don't remember the cosponsors. 
        I know what we were defined as and our responsibility. 
        So that is my understanding that we go back and forth.
          Q. You indicated that you relied on the committee's 
        definition of sponsor and what those corporations were. 
        But that email clearly shows that Ms. Olson, the 
        counsel who was handling the review, believed at that 
        point that because the companies, the corporations 
        contributed to the conference and not the general fund 
        they would have to be listed as sponsors. Now, is that 
        true, the corporations, that corporations did in fact 
        contribute for the purpose of the conference, right, 
        not to the general fund?
          A. This is Ms. Olson's interpretation.
          Q. Ms. Olson's opinion as counsel to this committee 
        whether they should be sponsors. Did the corporations 
        contribute to the general fund of the Foundation or to 
        the conference specifically? And I know we've already 
        asked that question, but I just want to clear it up.
          A. These foundations--the participants contributed to 
        the general fund of the conference.
          Q. Of the conference and not to the general fund of 
        the Foundation?
          A. Conference, and to the extent that the Foundation 
        is the sponsor of the Foundation also.
          Q. But for their contributions it was invoiced and 
        specifically to be paid for the 2007 conference, isn't 
        that true? You invoiced each one of those corporations 
        for the conference, they paid you for the conference? 
        And American Airlines gave you tickets that only could 
        be used for the conference?
          A. No, that's not true.
          Q. Well, I will tell you, sir--I don't want you to 
        say that's not true. But I did in fact interview 
        American Airlines and they said that they specifically 
        stated that you have to use it for the conference. You 
        are right that you could use them for any purpose, but 
        they could only be used for the conference. That was 
        the restriction they placed on those. In fact Ms. Louis 
        attempted to use some of the unused tickets for another 
        event and American Airlines said no, you cannot do 
        that. So I don't want you to say anything that's not 
        true. I want you to say that I know that American 
        Airlines only contributed to the conference as did the 
        other corporations. Based on that knowledge and reading 
        Ms. Olson's email would you not based on your reading 
        of the email believe that at that point those companies 
        were sponsors?
          And it doesn't mean that you couldn't hold a 
        conference. I want to make that point. It's just saying 
        if they were sponsors then it's limited to a one day 
        event. But based on Ms. Olson saying, hey, if they 
        contribute only to the conference then they have to be 
        sponsors. Isn't that your understanding of her email?
          Mr. Laufman. Are you asking what his understanding is 
        reading it now or what it meant at the time?
          Mr. Stoddard. Well, now. He said he read it before 
        and your interpretation shouldn't have changed. If you 
        received that email back in 2007, from that email she's 
        basically saying if they contributed to the conference 
        and not the general fund of the Foundation they're 
        sponsors. Isn't that really what she's saying?
          The Witness. Clearly you understand that's in 
        conflict with what was our understanding.
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. I understand that. I'm just asking what's your 
        interpretation of what she said?
          A. That's her interpretation, one voice in the 
        Committee of Ethics with another interpretation with 
        another Committee of Ethics. You know, we were looking 
        for a simple answer.\300\

    \300\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 75-98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the beginning of his second interview, Mr. Rodney asked 
to address the issue regarding the Government of Antigua 
agreeing to pay for the lodging and meals used by Members 
during the 2007 conference.\301\ Mr. Rodney explained that the 
Foundation always signs a basic agreement with the host country 
for each year's conference that required the host country to 
pay for lodging of Members and some VIPs.\302\ During his first 
interview on October 28, 2009, Mr. Rodney told the Subcommittee 
that the Foundation paid for the rooms and did not acknowledge 
the agreement with the Government of Antigua until it was shown 
to him.\303\ At that point, he stated he did not know if the 
Government of Antigua actually paid.\304\ During his second 
interview, Mr. Rodney stated he had reviewed the matter and 
determined that once he learned from the Standards Committee 
that the other corporations could not be sponsors or pay for 
the Members' travel, he notified the Government of Antigua and 
advised them they would not be paying for the lodging of the 
Members.\305\ He did not recall who he spoke to in Antigua, nor 
did he provide any record of this communication:\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \301\Id. at 4.
    \302\Id. at 3-5.
    \303\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 102-103.
    \304\Id.
    \305\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 4-5.
    \306\Id. at 39-40.

          The Witness. Thanks very much.
          I would like to supplement my previous testimony 
        regarding the 2007 conference in Antigua. At my 
        deposition on October 28th I said at that time I wasn't 
        sure whether the Government of Antigua had made a 
        payment for the conference. After reviewing the matter 
        further, I confirmed the Government of Antigua did in 
        fact make a payment of $31,500 to Sandals Resort in 
        connection with a conference there. To the best of my 
        knowledge, that payment occurred or was made on or 
        about October 31, 2007, as shown in a November 28, 
        2007, statement from Unique Vacations for which we have 
        provided this committee.
          But, contrary to what is indicated in the terms of 
        the basic agreement with the Government of Antigua, 
        that payment did not go towards the cost of Members' 
        lodging. After we came to the understanding from our 
        communication with the Ethics Committee and the Ethics 
        staff that Carib News was the official sponsor and had 
        responsibility to pay for Members' lodging. We 
        understood that that payment had to be made by Carib 
        News.
          Subsequently, circumstances around the Members 
        attending further reinforced that. We got word from 
        Members' staff in Antigua that because of a pending 
        bill in Congress that those Members who were scheduled 
        to come to Antigua would not be coming; the vote was 
        going to be taken that Friday or that Saturday. Any 
        rooms that were reserved for the Members were then 
        released, because, as you know, we had two hotels, one 
        was a preferred, and there were a number of people who 
        wanted to come to the preferred hotel, so those 
        Members' rooms were released.
          Just in the middle of the conference, on the Friday, 
        we were advised again that some Members the vote was 
        taken on a Friday and some Members would in fact be 
        coming in on that Saturday, and arrangements were made 
        for the Members to then arrive on Saturday. We had to 
        then rearrange the rooms for those Members, and we're 
        grateful that those Members came because they were able 
        to make a contribution, but they came at the very last 
        day.
          At the end of the conference, we settled with the 
        hotel which Carib News issued a check for $39,000 
        including approximately $3,000 for Members' lodging. It 
        is our understanding and we believe that payments 
        applied to Members' lodging, especially since they 
        arrived at the end of the conference and their previous 
        rooms were cancelled, that Carib News in fact paid for 
        the Members' lodging.
          Mr. Stoddard. Does that complete your statement, sir?
          The Witness. That completes my statement.
          Chairman Butterfield. All right, Mr. Stoddard.
          Mr. Stoddard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
          EXAMINATION
          BY MR. STODDARD:
          Q. Mr. Rodney, you stated that you learned--in your 
        statement you learned that Carib News had to pay for 
        those rooms. When did you learn that precisely?
          A. It's between--the best of my recollection, we were 
        in conversation back and forth with the Ethics 
        Committee, as you know, as to the definition of 
        sponsors and as to the definition of participation. So 
        we learned between October 12th and October 15th that 
        the definition of sponsor as defined by the Ethics 
        Committee was in fact determined. And that is [when] we 
        determined the venue, we determined the content, we 
        selected the country and we were responsible for all 
        the planning and operation of the conference.
          Q. And so your testimony is that you actually paid 
        for the rooms prior to the conference, or you knew you 
        were going to pay for the rooms prior to the 
        conference, is that correct?
          A. I am not clear on the question.
          Q. The conference was held in November, is that 
        correct?
          A. That is correct.
          Q. And you indicated that on October 31st the 
        Government of Antigua paid the amount that you had told 
        them they needed to pay for the rooms for Members of 
        Congress and VIPs, is that correct?
          A. In the basic agreement it was stated October 3 and 
        October 5--those were the numbers you showed us--that 
        Antigua, like several other sponsors, were listed by us 
        as sponsors. We were being very transparent. They were 
        listed as sponsors.
          The Ethics Committee then determined and advised us 
        that Carib News was the sponsor because of the 
        conditions that they determined. We took that to mean 
        we were to sponsor it back in October between the 12th 
        and the 15th, as I mentioned. When that happened and we 
        became the sponsor, the same companies that we listed 
        originally in our application to say these are, in 
        layman terms, sponsors, Ethics said they are no longer 
        sponsors. You are. Those same companies were then 
        determined by the same committee that there are no[t] 
        participants.
          That is our understanding, and that is how we 
        operated from there on in. That we were the sponsor, 
        the others were participants. This is clarified and 
        determined in the Members going back and forth with 
        Ethics.
          Ethics then said to us, they are participants. They 
        are not cosponsors. The determination now goes forward, 
        you are responsible for the Members' lodging.
          That is our understanding, and that's how we operated 
        with all the ones we listed and were told that they had 
        to be participants.
          Q. When the Government of Antigua paid for the rooms 
        on October 31st, what was your understanding as to 
        their responsibility to pay for the rooms?
          A. The Government of Antigua paid that amount, 
        $31,500, for--we used the word ``VIPs''. October 5th 
        and 2nd we added the word ``Members''. On October 31st, 
        it was clear that we are paying for VIPs.
          Gentlemen, we have 50 speakers at this conference. I 
        said it over and over, we have something like 23 
        sessions, we have 50 speakers, and so then five who are 
        Members of Congress. The Government of Antigua attempts 
        to pick up some of the expenses of those speakers. 
        Before October 3rd and 5th, Members were included in 
        those. After that, they're removed from that because 
        that was our understanding; and that's what we 
        proceeded from there.
          Q. So at the time--to ask my question again, maybe 
        I'm not making it clear--at the time that the 
        Government of Antigua paid for rooms for lodging of 
        Members and VIPs to the conference, under the agreement 
        that you reached with them you had known at that point 
        that they were no longer able to do that, is that 
        correct?
          A. Counsel, I'm not clear that I understand your 
        question.
          Q. I want you to for a second forget your 
        conversation with the committee and forget the 
        discussion you had about sponsors and participants. I 
        want to deal only with the Government of Antigua. You 
        had an agreement with the Government of Antigua that 
        they would pay for the rooms of Members of Congress and 
        VIPs, is that not correct?
          A. October 5th and October 2nd the reference that you 
        gave to us suggested at that time there was this 
        agreement or requirement that Antigua would pay for 
        Members and VIPs.
          Q. So that was the agreement you had with them prior 
        to the conference?
          A. Prior to the 12th of October.
          Q. And they subsequently paid on the 31st of October, 
        is that correct? According to your statement you just 
        provided us, on October 31st the government paid for 
        those rooms?
          A. That's correct.\307\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \307\Id. at 3-8.

    In his testimony as quoted above, Mr. Rodney stated that 
``Ethics'' told him that the corporations and the Government of 
Antigua were not co-sponsors and therefore could not pay for 
the Members expenses.\308\ He stated he informed the Government 
of Antigua of this decision.\309\ However, Mr. Rodney could not 
produce emails or other records of any communication containing 
any language that would support this statement.\310\ In fact, a 
review of the emails sent by Ms. Olson clearly contradicted 
this statement as she continued to ask what role the 
corporations and the Government of Antigua had in regard to the 
conference.\311\ The only email from anyone on the Standards 
Committee directing the Foundation to change the title of the 
corporations from sponsor to participant was in relation to the 
advertising for the conference in late October, after the 
Foundation made it clear that none of the corporations were 
providing funding or other support to the conference.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \308\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 6-7.
    \309\Id. at 6.
    \310\Id. at 39-40.
    \311\See Exhibits 15 and 23.
    \312\See Exhibit 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 3. Contributors to the 2007 Conference

    The Subcommittee received records from American Airlines, 
Pfizer, Macy's East, Verizon, HSBC Bank, and AT&T regarding 
their support of the 2007 and 2008 conferences. The 
Subcommittee also received records from the Carib News 
Foundation pursuant to a subpoena. The records, including the 
unsigned sponsor form, agenda, and Web site advertisement, 
indicated that before the 2007 conference, the Foundation 
listed several corporations as ``sponsors'' for the 2007 
conference.\313\ Among those listed were CITI, Pfizer, Macy's 
East, AT&T, Verizon, HSBC Bank, IBM, and American 
Airlines.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \313\See Exhibits 8, 12 and 13.
    \314\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Solicitations for Contributions

    Beginning in April 2007, Karl Rodney sent letters to 
corporations soliciting financial or other support for the 2007 
conference to be held in Antigua.\315\ Language in each of the 
letters invites the corporations to ``become one of the 
corporate sponsors for this history--making event,'' which 
refers to the ``very special conference of international 
significance'' scheduled for November 8-11, 2007, in Antigua & 
Barbuda.\316\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \315\See Exhibits 36-37, 39-47
    \316\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An April 23, 2007, letter to Marie Long, Vice President 
Constituency Relations, AT&T Foundation, stated that the 
Foundation will ``always highlight AT&T's role and position 
AT&T to get the full advantage of all aspect[s] of the 
Conference.''\317\ The second page of the letter it stated, 
``As a Prime Sponsor, AT&T will be highlighted in conference 
marketing materials, advertising, brochures, invitation letters 
and public placement banners both in the U.S., Panama, and 
Other Caribbean countries.''\318\ In the following paragraph, 
it continues to discuss the benefits of becoming a sponsor, 
stating, ``Prime Sponsors get prime access to key elected 
officials through [a] private reception, seating at Luncheon 
and Dinner, photo opportunities, etc. AT&T will be able to host 
special receptions, conduct workshops and chat rooms on topics 
that are strategic to your business and industry.''\319\ This 
letter contained the text ``cc: Congressman Charles Rangel'' at 
the bottom.\320\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \317\See Exhibits 36.
    \318\Id.
    \319\Id.
    \320\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The letters to Citibank, dated April 30, 2007; IBM 
Corporation, dated April 23, 2007; Macy's East, dated April 23, 
2007; HSBC Bank, dated April 30, 2007; and Pfizer, dated April 
30, 2007, all contained the same language quoted above.\321\ 
The letters differed only in details related specifically to 
the particular recipient corporation.\322\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \321\See Exhibits 39-43.
    \322\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the solicitation letter to American Airlines, dated 
April 23, 2007, the letter contained the same language on the 
first page as the other letters; however, the second page was 
significantly different.\323\ In this letter, Karl Rodney told 
American Airlines that he expected ``20 Members of Congress'' 
to attend the 2007 conference.\324\ He also stated he would 
position American Airlines as the ``main carrier to the 
Caribbean transporting the elected officials and 
celebrities.''\325\ The letter also asked American Airlines to 
participate as a Gold Sponsor of the event and indicated that 
American Airlines ``would be recognized as a 
mainsponsor.''\326\ In return for being named a Gold Sponsor, 
the Foundation asked American Airlines to provide 50 roundtrip 
coach class tickets and 35 round trip first-class tickets to be 
used for the conference, and five coach and five first-class 
tickets to be used for site inspection and pre-conference 
planning.\327\ The letter also contained a carbon copy 
annotation at the bottom with copies apparently going to 
Representatives Rangel, Gregory Meeks and Eddie Bernice 
Johnson, in addition to an individual named Dale Morris.\328\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \323\See Exhibits 37.
    \324\Id.
    \325\Id.
    \326\Id.
    \327\Id.
    \328\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Contributions by Sources that Employ or Retain Lobbyists

    As indicated in the chart below, corporations that employ 
or retain lobbyists contributed funds to the Foundation or 
Carib News for the 2007 conference. As the records received 
from Carib News indicated, these corporations were solicited by 
Karl Rodney to donate funds expressly for the conference.\329\ 
Karl Rodney sent invoices to the corporations for payment of 
their contributions that specified the contributions were for 
the 2007 conference.\330\ The invoices sent by Karl Rodney to 
each of the corporations that pledged to donate funds clearly 
state ``Sponsor for the Twelfth Annual Caribbean Multi-National 
Business Conference.''\331\ In addition to the funds 
contributed to the conference, each corporation sent 
representatives to participate in presentations during the 
conference.\332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \329\See Exhibits 36-37, 39-47.
    \330\See Exhibits 48-55.
    \331\Id.
    \332\Correspondence from Karl Rodney to each of the corporate 
sponsors indicating which sessions they would participate in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on documents provided by the Foundation pursuant to 
subpoena, the following corporations contributed the amounts 
indicated below to Carib News for the 2007 conference:

     TABLE 1.--CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE 2007 CONFERENCE\333\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T.......................................................      $25,000
CITI.......................................................      $50,000
IBM........................................................      $18,000
Macy's East................................................      $17,500
HSBC Bank..................................................      $15,700
Pfizer.....................................................      $25,000
Preferred Health Partners..................................      $10,000
GWI Consulting.............................................      $10,000
Golden Krust Bakeries......................................       $5,000
Royal Caribbean Bakeries...................................      $5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\333\Subcommittee review of checks from the listed corporations payable
  to Carib News, Inc. for 2007 conference.

    According to these documents, Carib News received 
contributions of $181,200 for the 2007 conference.\334\ These 
companies were also listed on the advertising Web site for the 
2007 conference and identified as ``sponsors.''\335\ The figure 
does not include the value of any airline ticket received from 
American Airlines or lodging and meals paid for by the 
Government of Antigua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \334\Id.
    \335\See Exhibit 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) American Airlines Donated Airline Tickets for the 2007 Conference

    American Airlines, a corporation that employs or retains 
federally registered lobbyists, donated 25 airline tickets to 
Carib News specifically for the 2007 conference.\336\ These 
tickets consisted of 5 coach class tickets for the pre-site 
inspection and 20 tickets--10 first-class and 10 coach 
tickets--for the conference itself.\337\ American Airlines did 
not specifically instruct Carib News to use the tickets for 
congressional travel, Carib News' use of the donated tickets 
was restricted to travel related to the 2007 conference.\338\ 
The solicitation letter and subsequent emails between Patricia 
Louis and American Airlines personnel clearly indicate that 
many of the tickets were to be used by Members of 
Congress.\339\ For example, the following section of an email 
was sent from Donna Eisenman of American Airlines to Patricia 
Louis on October 24, 2007:

    \336\See Exhibit 56.
    \337\Id.
    \338\Subcommittee counsel telephone conference with William Farah, 
Counsel for American Airlines in November 2009. See also Exhibit 64.
    \339\See Exhibits 57-58 and 64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From: Eisenman, Donna
        Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 9:12 AM
        To: `plouis'
        Cc: Guerrero, MarieFrance
        Subject: RE: Congressional reservations

        Patricia,
        Recap for promotional free tickets:
        10 First Class/Business
        (1.) Karl Rodney
        (2.) Faye Rodney
        (3.) Charles Rangel
        (4.) Eric Eve (11/3--confirmed coach since business 
        class sold out/11/11 return business class)
        (5.) Maxine Waters
        (6.) Sydney Williams
        (7.) Bennie Thompson
        (8.) Dr. London Thompson
        (9.) Stephen Rangel
        (10.) Eddie Bernice Johnson (10/24--authorized per your 
        email)\340\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \340\See Exhibit 58.

    The above excerpt from an email sent on October 24, 2007, 
confirms that both American Airlines and Patricia Louis were 
aware that the free promotional tickets provided by American 
Airlines were going to be used for at least some congressional 
travel at the time the Private Sponsor Travel Certification 
form was completed and forwarded to Members.\341\ Even though 
some of the Members listed in the email did not actually attend 
the conference or utilize the tickets, it is clear that Mr. 
Rodney and Ms. Louis intended to use the free promotional 
tickets for some Members. Regardless of Karl Rodney's belief 
that he could use the tickets as he chose, because his intent 
was to use some of the tickets for Members' travel, that intent 
should have been reported to Ms. Olson during the review 
process.\342\ In fact, an earlier email sent on September 21, 
2007, also identified Members of Congress who were to be issued 
donated free tickets.\343\ Even though Mr. Rodney testified 
before the Subcommittee that he could use the donated airline 
tickets any way he wanted to, it is clear that as early as 
September 21, 2007, he intended to use them for congressional 
travel.\344\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \341\It should be noted that several of the Members identified in 
the email did not travel to the conference as planned. Additional 
emails between Patricia Louis and American Airlines provided the final 
identification of the congressional Members who actually used the 
promotional tickets.
    \342\See Exhibits 57-58 and 64.
    \343\See Exhibit 58.
    \344\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American Airlines provided the Subcommittee with copies of 
the tickets assigned to congressional travelers for the 2007 
conference.\345\ The tickets were specifically donated for the 
2007 conference, although not designated for congressional 
travel.\346\ After the 2007 conference, Ms. Louis inquired 
about some of the promotional tickets that were not used and 
whether they could be used for a different event.\347\ American 
Airlines' response indicated that the 25 tickets were donated 
only for the 2007 conference and could not be used for any 
other event.\348\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \345\See Exhibits 59-63.
    \346\See Exhibit 64.
    \347\Id.
    \348\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Lodging and Meals Paid for by the Government of Antigua

    The Subcommittee received documents from Unique Vacations, 
Inc., the U.S. representative for Sandals Resorts, which 
included a contract for the lodging, meals, and conference 
facilities for the 2007 conference. This contract was signed by 
Faye Rodney on behalf of the Foundation on May 5, 2007.\349\ 
Also included in the materials provided by Unique Vacations was 
a copy of a memorandum dated October 3, 2007, which was sent 
from Karl Rodney to the Honorable Dr. Errol Cort, Minister of 
Finance and the Economy, Government of Antigua.\350\ The 
memorandum stated that the Foundation had an agreement with the 
Government of Antigua, which was to pay $31,500 for 25 rooms 
for Members of Congress and other VIPs.\351\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \349\See Exhibit 2.
    \350\See Exhibit 3.
    \351\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unique Vacations subsequently sent an invoice for $31,500 
to Dr. Cort on October 16, 2007.\352\ On October 25, 2007, the 
Government of Antigua wire transferred $31,500 to the account 
belonging to Unique Vacations, Inc., as indicated in a wire 
transfer record provided to the Subcommittee by Unique 
Vacations, Inc.\353\ Mr. Rodney testified that the payment made 
by the Government of Antigua was not used for Members' lodging 
and that he informed them that they could not be sponsors for 
the event.\354\ However, the total cost paid by the Government 
of Antigua was not reduced after Mr. Rodney allegedly informed 
the Government of Antigua that it could not pay for the 
Members' lodging.\355\ Mr. Rodney told the Subcommittee that 
the Government of Antigua understood that it would not be 
paying for the Members' lodging.\356\ Mr. Rodney testified that 
he had no records supporting his assertion that he gave such 
instructions to Antigua.\357\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \352\See Exhibit 65.
    \353\See Exhibit 66.
    \354\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 4, 8 and 12.
    \355\Id. at 8-9 and 12.
    \356\Id.
    \357\Id. at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 4, 2010, the Subcommittee received a letter 
from Deborah Mae-Lovell, Ambassador to the United States for 
the Government of Antigua.\358\ In her letter, Ambassador Mae-
Lovell referenced her consultation with Dr. Cort regarding the 
payments made by the Government of Antigua for the 2007 
conference.\359\ The letter indicated the agreement between 
Carib News and the Government of Antigua was for the government 
to be responsible for the cost of the rooms used for Members of 
Congress who attended the conference.\360\ Carib News had 
informed the Government that there would be approximately 25 
Members in attendance.\361\ The Ambassador further indicated 
that it was ``always the intention of the Government of Antigua 
and Barbuda to cover the cost of accommodation for the Members 
of Congress.''\362\ Additionally, the Ambassador stated, ``The 
agreement with the Government and Carib News was specific to 
covering the cost of accommodation for the Members of Congress. 
They played an integral role in the Conference.''\363\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \358\Exhibit 133.
    \359\Id.
    \360\Id. at 1.
    \361\Id.
    \362\Id.
    \363\Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Truthfulness of the Information Provided to Members and the 
                          Standards Committee

    In addition to accurately and truthfully identifying all 
sponsors for privately-sponsored travel, a sponsor must also 
provide a good faith estimate or the actual amount of the 
expenses the sponsor plans to pay for each traveler on the 
Private Sponsor Travel Certification Form.\364\ The sponsor 
provides this form to each Member to enable them to complete 
their own traveler forms.\365\ The signatory must certify that 
the information provided on the forms submitted to the Members 
is ``true, complete, and correct to the best of [his or her] 
knowledge.''\366\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \364\Instructions for Completing the Private Sponsor Travel 
Certification Form. http:// ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/
Instructions_Sponsor_Certification_Form_2008.pdf (last visited February 
23, 2010). See also House Rule XXV, Clause 5(b)(3).
    \365\Id.
    \366\Certification language from page 3 of the Private Sponsor 
Travel Certification Form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the 2007 sponsor form submitted to Members for the 2007 
conference, Karl Rodney certified to the truthfulness and 
completeness of the information on the form.\367\ In the spaces 
for expenses, the block ``good faith estimate'' was checked and 
the amounts provided in the spaces were $320.00 for 
transportation, $330.00 for lodging, and $195.00 for meals for 
each person.\368\ Patricia Louis forwarded the form to the 
Members in October 2007.\369\ Staff who completed the traveler 
form for their respective Members all told the Subcommittee 
staff that they relied on the information provided by the 
Foundation in completing the forms and had no reason to believe 
the information was incorrect.\370\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \367\See Exhibit 67.
    \368\Id. at 3.
    \369\From the facsimile record on the form, it appears the form was 
sent to Members on October 5, 2007. See Exhibit 90.
    \370\Murray Tr. at 15, Scott Tr. at 10, and Campbell Tr. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A review of the documents received from the Foundation 
pursuant to subpoena indicated that Faye Rodney signed a 
contract with Unique Vacations, Inc., on May 5, 2007.\371\ The 
contract provided the actual rates for the rooms for the 
conference.\372\ It listed the rates as $350.00 per night per 
single room, $420.00 per night per double room and $420.00 per 
night for ``comp concierge upgrade'' room.\373\ Since the 
conference was scheduled for four days and three nights, the 
lowest cost for lodging would have been $1,050.00 if a Member 
attended all three days of the conference.\374\ The 
Subcommittee learned that some Members attended the conference 
for fewer than the total three nights as indicated in Table 2 
below, and that Mr. Rodney knew this fact prior to the 
conference.\375\ Despite this knowledge, Mr. Rodney still 
estimated the cost of lodging and meals for those Members 
staying fewer than three nights to be $330.00, the same cost as 
those Members who planned to stay for the full three night 
duration.\376\ In fact, the total lodging cost of $330.00 
estimated by Mr. Rodney was actually lower than the actual cost 
of lodging for one night.\377\ During his Subcommittee 
interview, Mr. Rodney stated that he believed the $330.00 
entered on the form was for a single night's lodging and meals 
rather than the total cost for the entire conference.\378\ 
However, Mr. Rodney had also entered the amount of $110.00 in 
response to question 19 of the sponsor form, which asks for the 
per night lodging cost.\379\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \371\See Exhibit 2.
    \372\Id.
    \373\Id.
    \374\Id.
    \375\See Subcommittee interviews of Representatives Rangel, 
Thompson, Clarke, and Christensen. See also Karl Rodney December 1, 
2009, Tr. at 110.
    \376\See Exhibit 67.
    \377\See Exhibit 2.
    \378\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 94.
    \379\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is clear that Mr. Rodney would have known the actual 
lodging and meals rates for the Members several months before 
he completed the Private Sponsor Travel Certification Form, as 
he had reviewed the contract prior to its acceptance.\380\ He 
also sent the October 3, 2007, memorandum to the Minister of 
Finance at the same time he signed the Private Sponsor Travel 
Certification Form.\381\ In the memo, Mr. Rodney indicated the 
total cost per room for Members and VIPs was $1,260.00, even 
though he was aware that some Members would not be staying for 
three nights.\382\ Even if he still chose to use the good faith 
estimate, the amount should have been $1,260.00, rather than 
the $330.00 he entered on the sponsor form.\383\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \380\Subcommittee interview of Karl Rodney on October 28, 2009.
    \381\See Exhibits 3 and 67.
    \382\See Exhibit 3.
    \383\See Exhibit 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney identified meal costs separately on the sponsor 
form as $195.00. Even adding this amount to the $330.00 lodging 
cost, the sum of $525.00 is still less than half of $1,260.00, 
the amount he actually agreed to pay under the terms of the 
contract. It is also less than the $1,260.00 per room he 
advised Dr. Cort that the Government of Antigua was responsible 
for paying. However, the actual rate on the sponsor form for 
lodging and meals should have been zero, because only the 
Foundation was identified as the sponsor. Because the 
Government of Antigua had agreed to pay for the rooms used by 
the Members before Mr. Rodney completed the sponsor form, Mr. 
Rodney was aware that the Foundation would not be responsible 
for the lodging payment. Additionally, the amount listed on the 
sponsor form for transportation should also have been only 
$22.00, because American Airlines provided the tickets used by 
the Members and the family Members that accompanied them. The 
Foundation was only responsible for the $22.00 in taxes for 
each ticket.
    Mr. Rodney certified that the Carib News Foundation was the 
sole sponsor of the event, despite his knowledge that other 
entities had paid for aspects of the trip, including 
transportation, lodging, meals and conference fees for the 
congressional travelers.\384\ Mr. Rodney provided the Private 
Sponsor Travel Certification Form containing false or 
misleading information to the Members he invited to attend the 
2007 conference. In turn, Members forwarded the form submitted 
to them from Mr. Rodney along with their own travel forms to 
the Standards Committee for review. The Members also certified 
the information contained in the forms submitted to the 
Standards Committee was true, based on the certification from 
Mr. Rodney. This placed the Members in an unwitting position of 
submitting false or incorrect information to the Standards 
Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \384\See Exhibit 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney also failed to list the conference fees that he 
waived for each Member. Since he had waived this fee for the 
past conferences, this figure should have been anticipated and 
included.
    Additionally, in November 2007, the Foundation provided the 
congressional travelers to the 2007 conference with 
documentation that indicated the final value of transportation, 
lodging and meals, per Member, for the trip.\385\ This 
information is normally provided by private sponsors to be used 
by Members to complete the required Post-Travel Disclosure 
Forms. Staff Members testified that they relied on the 
information provided by the Foundation to complete the Post-
Travel Disclosure Forms for their respective Members. According 
to the Post-Travel Disclosure Forms submitted to the Clerk's 
office by each Member,\386\ the cost of transportation, 
lodging, and meals for each Member for the 2007 conference 
were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \385\See Exhibit 68.
    \386\See Exhibits 69-72.

               TABLE 2.--TOTAL COSTS PER MEMBERS FOR THE 2007 CONFERENCE ACCORDING TO KARL RODNEY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Member/Family Member                     Transportation        Lodging             Meals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Charles Rangel....................................               $490               $410           Included
Rep. Bennie Thompson...................................            $364.30               $410               $195
Dr. London Thompson....................................            $364.30                 $0               $195
Rep. Yvette Clarke.....................................               $370               $330               $195
Del. Donna Christensen.................................               $490               $410           Included
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, according to the records provided by the 
Foundation pursuant to subpoena, the actual expenses paid by 
the Foundation on behalf of each Member are indicated in the 
table below. These figures are based on the lodging (which 
included the meals) having been paid for by the Government of 
Antigua, and the use of the American Airlines tickets. 
Additionally, Mr. Rodney failed to report the conference fee 
for each Member.

         TABLE 3.--ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION PER MEMBER FOR THE 2007 CONFERENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Member/Family Members             Transportation\387\     Lodging\388\         Meals         Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Charles Rangel.......................                  $22        $0 (1 night)        Included  ...........
Rep. Bennie Thompson......................                  $22       $0 (2 nights)        Included  ...........
Dr. London Thompson.......................                  $22                  $0        Included  ...........
Rep. Yvette Clarke........................                  $22       $0 (2 nights)        Included  ...........
Del. Donna Christensen....................                  $22        $0 (1 night)        Included  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\387\The Foundation was only responsible for paying the $22 tax per ticket for the tickets provided by American
  Airlines. American Airlines advised the Subcommittee that an actual value for the tickets could not be
  determined because of the nature of the promotional tickets. However, they subsequently provided the walk-up
  fare that would have been charged if the tickets were purchased the day of travel at the ticket counter.
  American Airlines explained that it does not claim any value for tax purposes. See Exhibits 26-31.
\388\The lodging costs were paid by the Government of Antigua and should have been reported at the rate paid and
  the Government of Antigua should have been identified as the source.

    Had American Airlines been properly identified as a co-
sponsor for the 2007 conference, the Foundation would have had 
to report the costs paid on behalf of the Members as well as 
the amounts indicated in the chart below.\389\ The 
transportation costs as indicated in the table below should 
have been reported to the Members by American Airlines at the 
fair market value pursuant to the gift rule because the tickets 
had no actual face value.\390\ The lodging rates identified in 
the table below should have been reported as paid by the 
Government of Antigua:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \389\These figures are based on correspondence between Subcommittee 
counsel and William Farrah, Counsel for American Airlines on February 
2, 2010.
    \390\House Rule 25, clause 5(a)(1)(B)(ii).

        TABLE 4.--LODGING COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANTIGUA PER MEMBER FOR THE 2007 CONFERENCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Member/Family Member              Transportation\391\     Lodging\392\         Meals         Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Charles Rangel.......................               $2,018      $420 (1 night)        Included  ...........
Rep. Bennie Thompson......................               $2,165     $840 (2 nights)        Included  ...........
Dr. London Thompson.......................               $2,165                  $0        Included  ...........
Rep. Yvette Clarke........................               $1,358     $840 (2 nights)        Included  ...........
Rep. Donna Christensen....................               $1,358      $420 (1 night)        Included  ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\391\These figures were provided in correspondence from William Farrah, counsel for American Airlines. To the
  Investigative Subcommittee on February 2, 2010.
\392\Even though the Government of Antigua paid for rooms based on the full stay, these figures represent the
  cost of meals and lodging for each Member based on the actual number of nights each Member stayed.

    Based on the amounts for lodging in the contract, the 
payment made by the Government of Antigua, and the actual 
number of nights each Member stayed in Antigua, Mr. Rodney and 
Ms. Louis provided incorrect information regarding the actual 
expenses in the post-travel memo.\393\ This placed the Members 
in the unwitting position of filing false or incorrect 
information with the House Clerk's Office.\394\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \393\See Exhibits 86, 89, 91, and 92.
    \394\See Exhibits 69-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  B. THE 2008 CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCE

                   1. Attendance by Members and Staff

    The 13th Annual Carib News Foundation Multi-National 
Business Conference was held in St. Maarten, N.A., during 
November 2008.\395\ The Investigative Subcommittee confirmed 
through interviews and a review of documents filed with the 
Standards Committee and the Office of the Clerk of the House 
that Members and staff who received reimbursement for privately 
sponsored travel to attend the 2008 Carib News Foundation 
conference were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \395\See Exhibit 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Representative Charles Rangel;
            Representative Bennie Thompson, accompanied 
        by his wife, Dr. London Thompson;
           Delegate Donna Christensen;
           Representative Carolyn Kilpatrick; and
           Representative Donald Payne.\396\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \396\See Exhibits 97-98, 105, 108, and 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee also interviewed Representative Sheila 
Jackson Lee regarding her attendance at the 2008 
conference.\397\ Representative Jackson Lee did not accept 
reimbursement for travel expenses from the Carib News 
Foundation for her travel.\398\ She attended the 2008 
conference but did not attend the 2007 conference, although she 
had attended four to five conferences prior to 2007.\399\ 
Representative Jackson Lee stated that she normally attends 
only one day of the multi-day conferences.\400\ She said she 
ordinarily makes a presentation during that day and attends the 
round table, closed-door session with the ministers and heads 
of state from the Caribbean nations.\401\ As was her custom, 
Representative Jackson Lee only attended one day at the 2008 
conference.\402\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \397\Subcommittee interview of Representative Jackson Lee on 
October 8, 2009.
    \398\Jackson Lee Tr. at 6-8.
    \399\Id.
    \400\Id.
    \401\Id. at 6.
    \402\Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prior to 2007, the Rules allowed Members to accept travel 
without prior approval, and Representative Jackson Lee had 
accepted travel to the conference from the Foundation.\403\ In 
2008, she thought the same rules applied and did not submit a 
pre-travel request to the Standards Committee.\404\ As a 
result, she did not receive approval for the trip so she paid 
for the trip herself.\405\ Representative Jackson Lee indicated 
that she used campaign funds to pay for the airfare and 
personal funds to pay for the lodging.\406\ She spent one night 
at the resort and the room was initially paid for as part of 
the Foundation's package, so she requested an invoice from the 
Foundation and paid them directly for the room.\407\ 
Representative Jackson Lee told the Subcommittee that she paid 
the Foundation $310.00 for one night's lodging, which included 
meals.\408\ This amount was actually more than the amount the 
Foundation contracted for with the Sonesta Maho Resort.\409\ 
The highest rate she should have paid for meals and lodging for 
the one night stay would have been $196.00.\410\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \403\Id. at 7.
    \404\Id.
    \405\Id. at 6-7.
    \406\Id. at 6-8.
    \407\Id. at 14.
    \408\Id.
    \409\See Exhibit 91.
    \410\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     2. Pre-travel Approval Process

    On August 20, 2008, Patricia Louis sent a facsimile to Dawn 
Kelly Mobley regarding the 2008 Multi-National Business 
Conference.\411\ The facsimile indicated it included a 
completed form and several attachments regarding travel for 
Members of Congress to the 2008 conference.\412\ On August 22, 
2008, Standards Committee staff assistant Hilary Smith 
responded to the facsimile by email to Karl Rodney.\413\ In her 
email response to Mr. Rodney, Ms. Smith informed him that under 
new travel rules, the Standards Committee no longer approved 
trips in general for privately sponsored travel.\414\ Ms. Smith 
explained that each congressional invitee must obtain 
individual permission to attend the trip by submitting the 
Private Sponsor Travel Certification Form.\415\ She further 
explained that the sponsor completes this form and submits it 
to each invitee, along with a detailed agenda for the 
invitee.\416\ The invitee must forward the sponsor form along 
with the agenda and a traveler form completed by the invitee to 
the Standards Committee for review.\417\ Ms. Smith further 
informed Mr. Rodney in the email that the Standards Committee 
would review the trip paperwork and if everything was in order 
the invitee would receive a letter from the Standards Committee 
approving the trip.\418\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \411\See Exhibit 73.
    \412\See Exhibit 74.
    \413\See Exhibit 75.
    \414\Id.
    \415\Id.
    \416\Id.
    \417\Id.
    \418\See Exhibit 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Information Provided by Margaret Perl

    On September 24, 2008, Margaret Perl, counsel to the 
Standards Committee, sent an email to [email protected] 
regarding the 2008 conference.\419\ Ms. Perl indicated in her 
email that she had received the sponsor form for the 2008 
conference and needed to speak with someone at the Foundation 
because she had several questions.\420\ Ms. Perl stated during 
her interview with Subcommittee counsel that she had concerns 
about the conference based on problems encountered the year 
before.\421\ Ms. Perl stated that after she had been assigned 
to review the trip, she looked up the sponsor in the Standards 
Committee's database and saw that the Carib News Foundation had 
sponsored similar trips in previous years.\422\ She spoke to 
Susan Olson, who had reviewed the 2007 trip.\423\ Since Ms. 
Perl had only been with the Standards Committee a short period 
of time, she explained that it was her normal practice to speak 
with whomever reviewed prior trips from the requesting 
sponsor.\424\ Ms. Perl stated that she performed this process 
to see if there were any problems that she should be aware of 
regarding the sponsor or trip.\425\ Ms. Perl further stated 
that the Carib News ``folk'' were difficult to contact.\426\ As 
a result, she had to send several emails or make numerous phone 
calls to obtain the information she needed to review the 
trip.\427\ She stated that she had to ``kind of pull'' 
information out of them.\428\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \419\See Exhibit 76.
    \420\Id.
    \421\Perl Tr. at 6.
    \422\Id. at 5.
    \423\Id.
    \424\Id. at 4-5.
    \425\Id.
    \426\Id. at 7.
    \427\Id. at 6.
    \428\Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl stated that the majority of the conversations she 
had with Ms. Olson dealt with the agenda and not the 
possibility of corporate sponsors.\429\ The agenda caused 
concerns because of the trip to Montserrat, West Indies, during 
the 2007 conference that was not approved in advance.\430\ Ms. 
Perl indicated one of the issues she wanted to speak with the 
Foundation about involved the location of the conference events 
and whether local transportation would be used.\431\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \429\Id. at 7.
    \430\Id. at 9.
    \431\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl indicated that when she first received the 
assignment to work on the Carib News Foundation conference for 
2008, she reviewed the packets submitted by a few of the 
Members as they came in to verify the information provided in 
the packets was complete.\432\ This was her customary 
practice.\433\ She explained the required information included: 
the traveler form--filled out by the Member's office; the 
sponsor form--filled out by the sponsor; the agenda for the 
event--that would describe the agenda for the particular Member 
submitting it; and an invitee list that would identify all 
House Members or staff who have been invited by the 
sponsor.\434\ Ms. Perl stated that it was her normal procedure 
to contact the submitting invitee if the packets are not 
complete and advise them as to what information they are 
missing.\435\ Ms. Perl did not recall if there was any 
information missing from the initial packets she reviewed in 
2008.\436\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \432\Id. at 10.
    \433\Id.
    \434\Id.
    \435\Id. at 10-11.
    \436\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl explained the next step in her review included a 
substantive review of the information contained on the 
forms.\437\ She explained that this review included ensuring 
that the information on the Member's travel form was filled out 
correctly, verifying that the dates corresponded with the 
event, and determining if the Member planned to take any 
additional days at his or her own expense.\438\ Ms. Perl then 
reviewed the forms to determine if the Member was taking a 
spouse or family Member.\439\ She also looked to see if all the 
dates matched up throughout the forms and if there was any 
contradictory information on the forms.\440\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \437\Id. at 11.
    \438\Id.
    \439\Id.
    \440\Id. at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl stated her next step in the review process was to 
review the private sponsor certification form and ensure all of 
the questions on the form were answered and there was internal 
consistency in the answers.\441\ This step included checking 
the total cost for lodging against the daily rate to make sure 
they were consistent.\442\ Then, Ms. Perl routinely reviewed 
the agenda to ensure it included information showing that the 
Members' activities constituted officially connected 
travel.\443\ She explained that there cannot be excessive free 
time.\444\ The agenda should have demonstrated substantial 
sessions or that Members were speaking at certain times.\445\ 
She would also look to see if all of the events that Members 
participated in had locations and times associated with 
them.\446\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \441\Id. at 12.
    \442\Id.
    \443\Id.
    \444\Id.
    \445\Id.
    \446\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl indicated that the Foundation had provided each 
invitee with a three-page private sponsor form as well as a 
two-page attachment used to answer two of the questions on the 
form regarding the sponsor.\447\ She said that this was not 
unusual because many sponsors want to use the ``regular blurb'' 
they use on press releases.\448\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \447\Id. at 13.
    \448\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During her review, Ms. Perl routinely made notes on the 
forms for issues that required follow-up.\449\ Ms. Perl 
contacted the person responsible for the particular form to get 
additional information from them or clarify the information 
already provided.\450\ In addition, she would use the invitee 
list to verify that anyone submitting a request to attend the 
trip is included as an invitee by the sponsor and are not just 
adding themselves to the trip.\451\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \449\Id. at 14.
    \450\Id.
    \451\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl clarified that the entire packet is submitted by 
Members [or travelers] although she has learned that Members 
are not necessarily familiar with the information contained in 
their packet, as it is normally completed by a member of their 
staff.\452\ Therefore, if she notices a problem with the 
sponsor form during her review, she usually contacts the 
sponsor directly.\453\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \452\Id. at 15.
    \453\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl indicated that whenever she has questions about 
information provided on the Member's form, she usually contacts 
the Member's staff person identified on that form.\454\ If the 
Member signs the form himself or herself and does not identify 
a staff person, she would call the Member's office and ask to 
speak with a staff person who is familiar with the trip.\455\ 
She has very rarely contacted a Member directly about a 
trip.\456\ In connection with the 2008 Carib News trip, Ms. 
Perl did not recall talking directly with any Member.\457\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \454\Id.
    \455\Id.
    \456\Id. at 16.
    \457\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After reviewing the forms, Ms. Perl also checks two public 
Web sites.\458\ Ms. Perl checks the sponsor's Web site to see 
how they describe themselves and what information is listed 
about the event.\459\ Ms. Perl also checks the IRS' Web site 
for the tax status of the sponsor.\460\ Thus, if the sponsor 
identifies itself as a non-profit entity or organization 
(exempt from paying federal taxes), Ms. Perl checks the IRS Web 
site to verify that status.\461\ Ms. Perl recalled checking 
both sites in her review of the Foundation's 2008 
conference.\462\ In doing so, she discovered that the 
Foundation did not have a public Web site, and any search for 
the Foundation linked to the Carib News, Inc., Web site.\463\ 
Ms. Perl believed that Carib News, Inc., was a for-profit 
newspaper.\464\ On its Web site, she found information related 
to the conference and knew it to be the Foundation's premier 
event.\465\ The Web site included information about the 
Foundation and the Rodneys.\466\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \458\Id.
    \459\Id. at 16-17.
    \460\Id.
    \461\Id.
    \462\Id.
    \463\Id. at 17.
    \464\Id.
    \465\Id.
    \466\Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl verified that the Carib News Foundation was listed 
as a Sec. 501(c)(3) entity on the IRS' Web site.\467\ Since the 
Foundation was listed as a non-profit, she did not do any 
further research.\468\ Ms. Perl stated that after the trip she 
learned additional information about section 501(c)(3) entities 
that she did not know previously: there are two types of 
section 501(c)(3) organizations; one is a private foundation 
and the other a public charity.\469\ Because tax status as 
either a private foundation or a public charity did not affect 
the travel rules, she did not look at this information before 
approval of the 2008 trip.\470\ However, subsequent to the 
trip, Ms. Perl learned that there are certain tax rules that 
may be implicated when a private foundation (versus a public 
charity) provides international travel to government 
officials.\471\ Ms. Perl learned that when a private foundation 
(versus a public charity) provides international travel to 
government officials, tax penalties may be assessed against the 
traveler, as well as the foundation.\472\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \467\Id. at 18-19.
    \468\Id. at 19-20.
    \469\Id. at 19-20.
    \470\Id. at 21.
    \471\Id. at 21-22.
    \472\Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl stated that when she reviewed the conference Web 
site, she noted there was a page that indicated corporate 
sponsors were involved in the trip.\473\ She saw a list with 
logos of several corporations that were identified as 
sponsors.\474\ Based on seeing the corporate logos on the Web 
site and understanding that there were corporate sponsors 
listed for the 2006 conference, Ms. Perl asked Karl and Faye 
Rodney directly if corporations were to be involved in the 2008 
conference as they were in the past.\475\ She stated that this 
occurred during a phone conversation with both Karl and Faye 
Rodney during which Mrs. Rodney did 90% of the talking.\476\ 
Ms. Perl recalled that Mrs. Rodney told her that the 
information on the Web site was outdated and still listed 
corporate sponsors for the 2008 conference but stated that 
there were no corporate sponsors for the 2008 conference. 
According to Ms. Perl, Mrs. Rodney explained that the 
Foundation received funds from corporations and individuals who 
made donations for the Foundation's work all year long.\477\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \473\Id. at 22.
    \474\Id.
    \475\Id. at 23-25.
    \476\Id. at 24.
    \477\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl stated her understanding that the House travel 
rules do not prohibit a corporation from paying for a 
particular event at a conference.\478\ The issue is whether the 
corporate donations are used to pay for congressional travel 
expenses.\479\ The fact that there were corporate sponsors only 
requires that further questions be asked and information 
verified about what the corporate donations are being used 
for.\480\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \478\Id. at 26-27.
    \479\Id.
    \480\Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl also explained that her understanding of the term 
``earmark'' is when a corporation donates funds to a conference 
intending or resulting in those funds being used for travel 
expenses of Members or House staff.\481\ She further explained 
that if the corporation contributes to a foundation generally, 
and the contribution is comingled with other contributions, 
even if it is used later in the year for congressional travel, 
it would not be an earmark under the House travel rules.\482\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \481\Id. at 26. Ms. Perl used the term ``staffer'' generically for 
Members, officers, and employees.
    \482\Id. at 26-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl explained that her understanding of the term 
``trip'' is impacted by the different House rules.\483\ The 
first rule for attendance at a conference falls under the gift 
rule.\484\ Generally, mere attendance at conferences is allowed 
and does not require Standards Committee pre-approval under the 
``widely attended event'' exception in the gift rule.\485\ 
Standards Committee pre-approval for attendance at a conference 
is ``triggered'' when the sponsor also offers to pay the 
transportation and lodging costs for the Member or House 
staffer to attend the conference.\486\ Based on the two rules, 
Ms. Perl opined that a ``trip'' only includes the 
transportation and lodging, as those are the two components 
that require pre-approval.\487\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \483\Id. at 27.
    \484\Id. at 28.
    \485\Id. at 27-28.
    \486\Id. at 28.
    \487\Id. at 28-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    She further added that once the conference falls under the 
pre-approval requirements of the travel rules, the Standards 
Committee forms and regulations require that all the 
information about the transportation, lodging, conference fees, 
and meals be disclosed and included in the pre-approval 
package.\488\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \488\Id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 30, 2008, Ms. Perl spoke with Karl and Faye 
Rodney over the telephone to discuss the Private Sponsor Travel 
Certification Form and agenda for the 2008 conference.\489\ She 
asked them specifically about contributions made to the 
Foundation for the conference.\490\ In a memorandum she wrote 
after the conversation, Ms. Perl memorialized Mr. and Mrs. 
Rodney's responses to her questions.\491\ She wrote that the 
Rodneys explained that corporations which retain lobbyists 
donate funds generally to the Foundation throughout the 
year.\492\ These contributions, according to Mr. and Mrs. 
Rodney, were placed into a general fund and then used for 
multiple program activities.\493\ Mr. and Mrs. Rodney told Ms. 
Perl that there was no designation or earmarking of the funds 
for the conference and no requests to the sponsors to pay for 
congressional travel.\494\ Mr. and Mrs. Rodney told her that 
there were no parts of the conference sponsored by any 
corporation and that any information contained on the Web site 
suggesting otherwise was incorrect.\495\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \489\Id. at 9.
    \490\Id. at 36-37.
    \491\See Exhibit 77.
    \492\Id.
    \493\Id. at 24.
    \494\Id. at 25.
    \495\Id. at 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Rodney, the two 
told Ms. Perl that they had negotiated a room rate of around 
$110.00 per night for the most basic room and commercial 
flights were approximately $410 per Member.\496\ Meals were 
included in the room rate except for special event dinners, 
which would have cost an additional $145.00 for the entire 
conference.\497\ Ms. Perl asked Mr. and Mrs. Rodney about 
whether there were any expenses that had not been identified on 
the sponsor form.\498\ In response, she was assured that the 
Foundation was paying for everything out of funds that had been 
contributed to the Foundation's general fund throughout the 
year.\499\ Mr. and Mrs. Rodney also told Ms. Perl that the host 
country cultural program was an event at the hotel paid for by 
Carib News.\500\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \496\Perl Interview of Karl and Faye Rodney, September 24, 2008.
    \497\Id.
    \498\Perl Tr. at 35-36.
    \499\Id. See also Perl Interview of Karl and Faye Rodney, September 
24, 2008 at 42-45.
    \500\Perl Interview of Karl and Faye Rodney, September 24, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl stated that she read each item on the conference 
agenda provided by the Foundation so that Mr. and Mrs. Rodney 
could verify the location of each event.\501\ Mr. and Mrs. 
Rodney assured Ms. Perl that each of the events would be held 
at the resort and that no ground transportation would be 
used.\502\ Thereafter, Ms. Perl instructed Mr. and Mrs. Rodney 
to resubmit an agenda with the locations for each of the events 
listed.\503\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \501\Perl Tr. at 23-25.
    \502\Id. at 25.
    \503\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl asked the Rodneys to verify that no corporate 
sponsors would be sponsoring an event at the conference.\504\ 
Mrs. Rodney responded that the logos on the Web site were a 
mistake and that they would not be having sponsors ``this 
year.''\505\ Ms. Perl believed that Ms. Rodney's response 
indicated there had been corporate sponsors at past 
conferences.\506\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \504\Id. at 24.
    \505\Id.
    \506\Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl did not explain to the Rodneys the different 
scenarios about when a corporation should be listed as a 
sponsor because the Rodneys made ``broad representations'' that 
they weren't going to have any conference sponsors for the 2008 
conference.\507\ They told Ms. Perl that because of what they 
learned from past conferences, they were going to do things 
differently for the 2008 conference and made the representation 
both on the phone and in writing that there would not be any 
corporate sponsors for the event itself, only corporations that 
contributed to the Foundation's general fund throughout the 
year.\508\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \507\Id.
    \508\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl explained to Subcommittee counsel that the 
definition of ``sponsor'' is an entity that is actually 
organizing, sponsoring, ``putting together the logistics'' of 
an event, not an entity that is merely providing financial 
support.\509\ If an entity is solely donating funds to an event 
but does not have a role in organizing it, then the traveler 
cannot accept the trip.\510\ However, Ms. Perl stated that any 
entity that is providing financial support and organizing a 
trip must be listed as a sponsor.\511\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \509\Id. at 51.
    \510\Id. at 51-52.
    \511\Id. at 52-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl stated that based on her conversation with the 
Rodneys and the repeated assurances they provided, she was 
reasonably confident that the Foundation was not using sources 
of funding solicited specifically for the conference but that 
they were using general funds they received throughout the 
year.\512\ When asked why she was confident of this fact, she 
replied it was because Mr. and Mrs. Rodney were ``pretty 
strong'' about this issue on the phone and had written it on 
the form.\513\ Ms. Perl also did not see anything that 
suggested or indicated sponsorship opportunities for the 
conference.\514\ She stated that her questions about the 
sponsorship could not be misinterpreted and the Rodneys were 
clear in their responses.\515\ After receiving the assurances 
from Mr. and Mrs. Rodney that no other sponsors were involved 
in the 2008 conference, Ms. Perl recommended the travel for 
Members be approved.\516\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \512\Id. at 73.
    \513\Id.
    \514\Id.
    \515\Id. at 73-74.
    \516\Id. at 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl stated that she became aware of information after 
the conference that made her believe that Mr. and Mrs. Rodney 
were not truthful in their responses to her questions.\517\ She 
read news articles that indicated events, such as travel 
offsite to attend a luau, occurred at the conference that were 
not included in the agenda.\518\ She also discovered that the 
Foundation was not a public charity and based on the tax filing 
she questioned whether it was a legitimate company.\519\ She 
obtained and reviewed the IRS Form 990PF filed by Karl Rodney 
for 2005 that listed zero expenses and zero contributions for 
the Foundation during that tax year.\520\ Because she was aware 
that the Foundation held a conference in 2005, it was not 
possible that the Foundation would not have received any 
contributions or not have had any expenses in 2005.\521\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \517\Id. at 74-75.
    \518\Id.
    \519\Id. at 76.
    \520\See Exhibit 78.
    \521\Perl Tr. at 76-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ms. Perl explained that the sponsor would send the final 
expenses paid on behalf of each Member to the Member after the 
trip because the Members do not receive the actual bills or 
invoices.\522\ The sponsor provided the Members the only 
information that was required to complete their post-travel 
forms.\523\ She explained the amounts should be different for 
the Members because each Member would have different flight 
itineraries and varying lengths of stay.\524\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \522\Id. at 85.
    \523\Id.
    \524\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           3. Corporate Contributors to the 2008 Conference 

    As with the 2007 conference, Mr. Rodney began soliciting 
donations specifically for the 2008 conference from several 
corporations. Mr. Rodney sent a letter to American Airlines on 
June 6, 2008, soliciting sponsorship of the 2008 
conference.\525\ The letter mentioned that elected officials 
from the U.S. and Caribbean would be present.\526\ The letter 
stated, ``We are open to our customary barter of tickets for 
sponsorship levels, and have enclosed a proposed arrangement 
guide similar to last year.''\527\ Mr. Rodney did not provide 
the proposed arrangement guide, which was enclosed in the 
letter to American Airlines, with his subpoena return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \525\See Exhibit 79.
    \526\See Exhibit 79.
    \527\See Exhibit 79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney sent a letter to AT&T on April 4, 2008, 
soliciting its sponsorship for the 2008 conference.\528\ The 
letter states, ``We can assure you that all the key 
stakeholders, Members of Congress, Heads and Ministers of 
Government, elected Officials, Community and Business Leaders 
are all aware and appreciative of yours [sic] and AT&T's 
participation in this very important mission.''\529\ On 
September 10, 2008, Carib News, Inc. sent AT&T Foundation an 
invoice for $25,000 and included ``Multi-National Business 
Conference'' in the description.\530\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \528\See Exhibit 80.
    \529\See Exhibit 80.
    \530\See Exhibit 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney sent a letter to Citigroup, Inc. on April 4, 
2008, soliciting its sponsorship for the 2008 conference.\531\ 
The letter contained the same language regarding Members of 
Congress, etc., as did the letter to AT&T and the other 
corporations.\532\ Mr. Rodney sent an invoice on behalf of 
Carib News, Inc. to Citigroup on May 22, 2008, for $75,000 and 
included ``Sponsor for the Thirteenth Annual Caribbean Multi-
National Business Conference'' in the description.\533\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \531\See Exhibit 82.
    \532\Id.
    \533\See Exhibit 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From records provided to the Subcommittee by Representative 
Rangel's counsel, it appears that HSBC Bank was also solicited 
to contribute to the 2008 conference and had initially agreed 
to do so.\534\ Subsequently, HSBC apparently informed Faye 
Rodney that they were withdrawing their support as a result of 
an article in the New York Post regarding the 2007 
conference.\535\ On September 25, 2008, Faye Rodney contacted 
Representative Rangel's district office regarding HSBC Bank's 
withdrawal of support from the 2008 conference.\536\ Mrs. 
Rodney's communication with Representative Rangel's district 
office was reported to Representative Rangel in a memorandum 
from Ms. Sherwood, counsel to Representative Rangel.\537\ The 
memorandum stated that Faye Rodney called to ``express her 
distress, displeasure, and great concern that executives from 
HSBC Bank informed her that they intend to pull their financial 
support from the 2008 Carib News Foundation Conference.''\538\ 
According to the memo, Mrs. Rodney spoke with Ms. Sherwood, Jim 
Capel and Elbert Garcia (all staffers of Representative Rangel) 
regarding HSBC Bank's decision and informed them that the 
Foundation's ``other major sponsor ATT [sic] is holding strong, 
but the revelation that HSBC is pulling out might well rattle 
other sponsors and put the future of the Conference in 
jeopardy.''\539\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \534\See Exhibit 84. Ms. Sherwood is described as Counsel to 
Representative Rangel at his New York District office. She advised 
Subcommittee staff that she does have a J.D. degree, but is not a 
member of a bar and is not licensed to practice law.
    \535\See Exhibit 84.
    \536\Id.
    \537\Id.
    \538\Id.
    \539\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The memorandum suggested possible solutions to prevent 
HSBC's withdrawal of sponsorship.\540\ It stated, ``After 
conferring with George and Emile, we determined that there are 
several options we might explore to preserve HSBC's commitment 
to the Conference.''\541\ Ms. Sherwood suggested that Bill 
Thompson (then Comptroller of the City of New York) be asked to 
contact HSBC.\542\ The memo stated that Mr. Thompson was 
previously recognized at a luncheon sponsored by Carib News and 
was praised by HSBC Bank executives.\543\ It also noted that 
Mr. Thompson ``has consistently indicated'' that he would ``do 
whatever is necessary'' to support Representative Rangel.\544\ 
According to the memorandum, Ms. Sherwood suggested that Mr. 
Thompson be asked to reach out to HSBC to see if 
``reconsideration is an option.''\545\ Ms. Sherwood also 
suggested that Mr. Thompson might go through ``back channels'' 
with Mayor Bloomberg or the ``Council Speaker'' to see if HSBC 
would reconsider its withdrawal of support.\546\ The memorandum 
to Representative Rangel concludes, ``Please advise how you 
wish to proceed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \540\Id.
    \541\Id.
    \542\Id.
    \543\Id.
    \544\Id.
    \545\Id.
    \546\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite evidence indicating HSBC's withdrawal of support, 
documents provided to the Investigative Subcommittee by HSBC 
indicated that it provided a check payable to Carib News, Inc., 
dated October 14, 2008, in the amount of $25,000.\547\ This 
amount was $10,000 more than the amount HSBC provided to Carib 
News, Inc. for the 2007 conference.\548\ A copy of the 2007 
check was included in the materials provided by the Foundation 
to the Subcommittee pursuant to the subpoena.\549\ During a 
telephone conference with Subcommittee staff, HSBC officials 
stated that they chose to pay for advertising in the conference 
materials.\550\ The officials stated they were never contacted 
by anyone from Representative Rangel's office, Mr. Thompson, or 
Mayor Bloomberg.\551\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \547\See Exhibit 85.
    \548\Copy of check from HSBC to Carib News provided by Karl Rodney. 
See Exhibit 85.
    \549\Id.
    \550\Subcommittee counsel telephone interview of HSBC employee, 
Javier Evans, on October 22, 2009.
    \551\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on a review of the documents provided by the 
Foundation pursuant to subpoena, it appears the following 
corporations contributed the listed amounts to the Foundation 
for the 2008 conference:

   TABLE 4.--CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 2008 CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION
                 MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCE\552\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T.......................................................      $25,000
CITI.......................................................      $75,000
IBM........................................................      $20,000
Macy's East................................................      $20,000
Pfizer.....................................................      $25,000
Verizon....................................................      $35,000
Turner Construction Co.....................................       $5,000
HSBC Bank..................................................      $25,000
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................    $230,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\552\Copies of checks from the companies listed for the 2008 conference
  provided by Karl Rodney.

    According to the records obtained by Subcommittee counsel, 
including the HSBC contribution, Carib News, Inc. received 
contributions of $230,000 for the 2008 conference as indicated 
in Table 4, above.\553\ The amount does not include the value 
of any airline tickets received or payments made by the 
Government of St. Maarten, pursuant to the standard agreement 
with Carib News, Inc.\554\ American Airlines indicated it 
provided ten promotional tickets to Carib News, Inc. for the 
2008 conference.\555\ None of these tickets were used for 
congressional travel.\556\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \553\Id.
    \554\See Exhibit 86-87.
    \555\See Exhibit 88.
    \556\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A copy of an invoice from the Sonesta Maho Beach Resort & 
Casino, dated November 4, 2008, indicates the total cost for 
the 2008 conference, including conference facilities and 
lodging, came to $111,001.40.\557\ This amount included 
$86,272.00 for lodging, which consisted of an all-inclusive 
package including meals.\558\ It also included $23,229.40 for a 
welcome reception, private event fee, and coffee break for 196 
persons.\559\ Also included was an estimated fee of $1,500.00 
for audiovisual support.\560\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \557\See Exhibit 89.
    \558\Id.
    \559\Id.
    \560\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is clear that Karl Rodney paid for the 2008 conference 
with corporate donations even though he told Ms. Perl that no 
corporate funds would be used.\561\ According to Ms. Perl, Karl 
and Faye Rodney were ``pretty strong'' in their statements to 
Ms. Perl about not having corporate sponsors and certified that 
no corporate funding would be used for the conference.\562\ 
However, contrary to the Rodneys' assertions to Ms. Perl, the 
record clearly indicates that corporations were solicited and 
received invoices for payments from Mr. Rodney specifically to 
support the 2008 conference, as opposed to contributing 
generally to the Foundation.\563\ In addition, the record 
indicates that the contributions from the corporations were 
actually made to Carib News, Inc. and not to the 
Foundation.\564\ In light of this information, the contributing 
corporations, including Carib News, Inc. should have been 
identified as sponsors of the 2008 conference.\565\ It is also 
clear that Mr. and Mrs. Rodney provided false information to 
Ms. Perl and their assertions to the contrary were patently 
false.\566\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \561\See Exhibits 35, 81, 83, 85.
    \562\Perl Tr. at 73.
    \563\See Exhibits 79-83.
    \564\Copies of checks for the 2008 conference payable to Carib News 
and deposited in Carib News, Inc. corporate bank accounts provided by 
Karl Rodney. These checks are not included as Exhibits to protect the 
account information.
    \565\Id.
    \566\Perl Tr. at 73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Truthfulness of the Information Provided to Members and the 
                          Standards Committee

    As noted above, in addition to accurately and truthfully 
identifying all sponsors for privately-sponsored travel, the 
sponsor must also provide a good faith estimate or the actual 
amounts paid for each traveler on the Private Sponsor Travel 
Certification Form.\567\ The sponsor provides this information 
to each Member to enable the Member to complete his or her own 
travel form.\568\ The sponsor must certify that the information 
provided on the form they submit to the Member is ``true, 
complete, and correct to the best of [their] knowledge.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \567\Instructions for Completing the Private Sponsor Travel 
Certification Form, http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/
Instructions_Sponsor_Certification_Form_2008.pdf (last visited February 
23, 2010). See also House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)(3).
    \568\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Information Provided on the Private Sponsor Travel Certification 
        Form

    On the 2008 Private Sponsor Travel Certification Form 
submitted to Members for the 2008 conference, Karl Rodney 
certified to the truthfulness of the information on that 
form.\569\ In his response to question 19 on the Private 
Sponsor Travel Certification Form, which related to the cost 
per night for lodging, the amount entered was $110.00.\570\ In 
the space for expenses, the following amounts were entered: 
$410.00 for transportation; $260.00 for lodging; $145.00 for 
meals; $150.00 for ``other''--conference registration; and 
$25.00 for ``other''--transportation.\571\ This form was 
submitted by facsimile to the Members in late October 
2008.\572\ House staffers who completed the 2008 Traveler forms 
on behalf of their Member or themselves all stated that they 
relied on the information provided by the Foundation in 
completing the forms and had no reason to believe the 
information was incorrect because Karl Rodney signed the 
certification statement on the form.\573\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \569\See Exhibit 90.
    \570\Id.
    \571\Id.
    \572\Id.
    \573\See Exhibit 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Contracted Cost of Lodging and Meals

    A review of the documents received from the Foundation 
pursuant to subpoena indicates that Mr. Rodney signed a 
contract with Sonesta Maho Beach Resort and Casino on June 12, 
2008.\574\ The contract provided the agreed-upon rates for the 
rooms for the conference.\575\ These rates included meals. The 
contract listed the rates for lodging as $196.00 per night per 
single room, $135.00 per person per night, $145.00 per person 
per night for a junior suite and $155.00 per person per night 
for a suite, based on double occupancy.\576\ Mr. Rodney 
reserved 130 rooms for the conference, which included 125 
standard rooms and five junior suites.\577\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \574\Id.
    \575\Id.
    \576\Id.
    \577\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since the conference was scheduled for four days and three 
nights, the lowest cost for lodging would have been $588.00 per 
person for a single room and between $810.00 and $930.00 for 
the double rooms and suites; not the $260.00 entered on the 
travel forms.\578\ Since Mr. Rodney had agreed to these 
contracted amounts several months before he completed the 
Private Sponsor Travel Certification Form, he should have 
provided the actual amount.\579\ At a minimum, his estimate 
could have been more accurate. Mr. Rodney identified meals 
separately, indicating the total as $145.00 per person.\580\ 
Even adding this amount to the room rate he claimed on the 
form, since meals were included in the contract rate, the rate 
of $405.00 was still less than half of what he actually agreed 
to pay in the contract.\581\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \578\See Exhibit 90.
    \579\See Exhibit 91.
    \580\See Exhibit 90.
    \581\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Post-Travel Cost Information

    In November 2008, Patricia Louis provided the Members who 
attended the conference with the final cost per Member for the 
2008 conference.\582\ Ms. Louis told the Subcommittee that she 
received the information from Mr. Rodney.\583\ House staffers 
who filled out the Post-Travel Disclosure Forms for Members who 
attended the 2008 conference told Subcommittee staff that they 
relied on the information provided by Ms. Louis to complete the 
Post-Travel Disclosure Forms.\584\ The memorandum Ms. Louis 
emailed to each of the Members indicated the same rates for 
each Member even though Mr. Rodney knew the Members stayed for 
differing numbers of days and traveled from different 
locations.\585\ The rates listed in the memorandum were: 
Airfare--$410.00; Hotel--$405.00; and Registration/
Transportation--$175.00.\586\ The memorandum indicated a total 
cost of $990.00.\587\ According to the Post-Travel Disclosure 
Forms submitted to the Clerk's office for each Member, the 
transportation, lodging, meals, and other costs each Member 
listed for the 2008 conference were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \582\See Exhibit 92.
    \583\Louis Tr. at 69 and 78.
    \584\Dalley Tr. at 58, Murray Tr. at 23-24, Scott Tr. at 20, 
Campbell Tr. at 17-18, Thomas Tr. at 17-18.
    \585\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 95-96.
    \586\See Exhibit 92.
    \587\Id.

                      TABLE 5.--TOTAL COSTS PER MEMBER AS REPORTED TO THE HOUSE CLERK\588\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member/Family Member                Transportation        Lodging            Meals         Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Charles Rangel..........................               $410               $260            $145         $175
Rep. Bennie Thompson.........................               $410               $405        Included         $175
Dr. London Thompson..........................               $410           Included        Included          n/a
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick...............               $410               $405        Included         $175
Marsha Cheeks................................               $410               $405        Included         $175
Rep. Donald Payne............................               $410               $405        Included         $175
Del. Donna Christensen.......................               $410               $270        Included        $175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\588\See Exhibits 97, 98, 105, 108, 113.

    According to the records provided by Carib News, Inc. and 
the Foundation pursuant to subpoena, the actual expenses that 
should have been reported were:

                    TABLE 6.--ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR MEMBERS ATTENDING THE 2008 CONFERENCE\589\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Member/Family Member                Transportation        Lodging            Meals         Other
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Charles Rangel..........................            $752.15    $290 (2 nights)        Included         $175
Rep. Bennie Thompson.........................            $800.15               $870        Included         $175
Dr. London Thompson..........................            $800.15                n/a        Included          n/a
Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick...............            $626.15               $870        Included         $175
Marsha Cheeks................................            $626.15                n/a        Included         $175
Rep. Donald Payne............................            $412.15               $465        Included         $175
Del. Donna Christensen.......................            $585.35               $465        Included        $175
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\589\Air transportation and lodging information obtained from records provided by Karl Rodney.

    Based on the amounts for lodging listed in the contract, 
Mr. Rodney and Ms. Louis incorrectly reported the 
transportation and lodging expenses to the Members.\590\ This 
false information may have placed the Members at risk of 
submitting inaccurate information to the Clerk's office. Karl 
Rodney also overcharged Representative Jackson Lee for her one-
night stay by charging her $310.00, when the actual cost, as 
indicated in the contract, would have been no more than $196.00 
for a single night's stay.\591\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \590\See Exhibit 92.
    \591\See Exhibit 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, if the Government of St. Maarten paid for the 
rooms used by the Members, as was the standard agreement with 
Carib News, Inc., the costs reported to the Members should have 
been zero for lodging.\592\ The Subcommittee has been unable to 
obtain information directly from either the Sonesta Maho Resort 
or the Government of St. Maarten regarding this possible 
payment.\593\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \592\See Exhibit 86.
    \593\Subcommittee counsel contacted the Sonesta Maho Hotel and the 
Government of St. Maarten and requested information regarding the 2008 
conference. Neither entity has responded to the Subcommittee's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   C. INTERVIEWS OF MEMBERS WHO ATTENDED THE 2007 OR 2008 CONFERENCES

    In addition to Representative Jackson Lee, the Subcommittee 
interviewed Representatives Bennie Thompson, Carolyn Cheeks 
Kilpatrick, Donald Payne, Yvette Clarke, Charles Rangel, and 
Delegate Donna Christensen regarding their attendance at the 
2007 and/or 2008 conferences.

                   1. Representative Bennie Thompson

    Representative Bennie G. Thompson was interviewed under 
oath by the Investigative Subcommittee on October 7, 2009.\594\ 
Representative Thompson verified that he attended both the 2007 
and 2008 Carib News Foundation conferences.\595\ He also told 
the Subcommittee that he had attended four to five conferences 
prior to 2007.\596\ He knew both Karl and Faye Rodney because 
of the conferences, but had no interaction with either of them 
outside the conferences.\597\ He stated that he learned of each 
year's conference when he received an invitation.\598\ He 
normally reviews all of the invitations he receives weekly but 
only attends a few events because of other commitments.\599\ He 
told the Subcommittee that he is invited to the conference each 
year because of his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security 
Committee and the issues he deals with involving the Caribbean 
such as drug trafficking, travel, and visas.\600\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \594\Thompson Tr. at 3.
    \595\Id. at 7.
    \596\Id. at 7-8.
    \597\Id. at 6 and 23.
    \598\Id. at 8-9.
    \599\Id.
    \600\Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Thompson stated that the Carib News 
Foundation paid for his and his wife's expenses for both 
conferences.\601\ He was shown a copy of the Private Sponsor 
Travel Certification forms and the Private-Sponsor Travel: 
Traveler Forms for each year.\602\ He told the Subcommittee 
that his scheduler normally fills out the forms and submits 
them to the Standards Committee once he decides to accept an 
invitation.\603\ He had not seen any of the forms provided by 
the sponsor before seeing them in the OCE referral material 
provided to him by the Standards Committee.\604\ He 
acknowledged reviewing and signing the traveler forms prior to 
their submission to the Standards Committee.\605\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \601\Id. at 18-19.
    \602\See Exhibit 93-94.
    \603\Thompson Tr. at 15, 25-27.
    \604\Id. at 11.
    \605\Id. at 11-12, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Thompson was shown a copy of the Standards 
Committee's letter approving his travel to and attendance at 
the 2007 conference.\606\ He stated he had seen the letter 
before and understood it to be the approval from the Standards 
Committee for him to attend the 2007 conference.\607\ 
Representative Thompson told the Subcommittee that he believed 
that, because the information was submitted to the Standards 
Committee and the Standards Committee approved both trips, he 
did not violate any rules.\608\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \606\See Exhibit 95.
    \607\Thompson Tr. at 12.
    \608\Id. at 19-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Thompson was not aware that the airline 
tickets provided to him for the 2007 conference were actually 
provided by American Airlines and not paid for by the 
Foundation.\609\ He told the Subcommittee that officials at 
Carib News told him they had paid for the airfare.\610\ 
Representative Thompson discussed the value of the conferences 
for Members and especially for him as Chairman of the Homeland 
Security Committee.\611\ He stated that he spent most of the 
time at the conference meeting on Homeland Security 
issues.\612\ Representative Thompson said that he noticed 
corporate logos on banners and signs but did not pay much 
attention to them.\613\ He did not recall corporate sponsors 
being mentioned during any opening remarks or at other 
events.\614\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \609\Id. at 19.
    \610\Id.
    \611\Id. at 6-7.
    \612\Id.
    \613\Id. at 18 and 20.
    \614\Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Thompson also reviewed the Post-Travel 
Disclosure Forms filed with the Clerk's office after the two 
conferences.\615\ He stated he reviewed and signed the 
forms.\616\ He told the Subcommittee that he checked to see if 
the amounts were on the forms because he would not have signed 
the forms without the amounts.\617\ He also stated that he had 
no reason to doubt the accuracy of the amounts provided to him 
by the Foundation.\618\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \615\See Exhibit 96-97.
    \616\Thompson Tr. at 22-23.
    \617\Id.
    \618\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Thompson was not aware of the tax penalties 
for accepting travel from a private foundation until he read 
about them in OCE's report.\619\ He also did not know that the 
Carib News Foundation was a private foundation, or even what 
the difference was between a private foundation and a public 
charity.\620\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \619\Id. at 23-24.
    \620\Id. at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              2. Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick

    Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick was interviewed 
under oath by the Investigative Subcommittee on October 6, 
2009.\621\ Representative Kilpatrick verified she attended the 
2008 conference but did not attend the 2007 conference.\622\ 
She also indicated she had attended a few conferences prior to 
2007.\623\ During her interview, Representative Kilpatrick also 
discussed the value of the conference.\624\ Representative 
Kilpatrick made some remarks at the conference about the 
support of various ``sponsors'' to the event but did not know 
that any entity other than Carib News Foundation paid for any 
part of the conference.\625\ She explained her use of the word 
``sponsor'' referred to the participation of the various 
businesses in working with issues in the Caribbean.\626\ 
Representative Kilpatrick described her lodging as a one 
bedroom suite.\627\ Representative Kilpatrick verified that her 
sister, Marcia Cheeks, attended the conference, and that she 
believed her sister's expenses were paid for by the Carib News 
Foundation.\628\ She also stated that her daughter and 
granddaughter attended the conference and that their expenses 
were paid using personal funds.\629\ Representative Kilpatrick 
said she knew the Rodneys from the conferences but had no other 
affiliation with them.\630\ In fact, she referred to the 
Rodneys as Karl and Faye ``Ramsey.''\631\ She noted the 
presence of the corporate logos on banners and other materials 
but saw nothing that would indicate they sponsored any part of 
the travel.\632\ Representative Kilpatrick indicated there were 
approximately 200-300 attendees at the conference.\633\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \621\Kilpatrick Tr. at 4.
    \622\Id. at 7.
    \623\Id.
    \624\Id. at 9.
    \625\Id. at 22-23.
    \626\Id. at 22.
    \627\Id. at 24.
    \628\Id. at 25.
    \629\Id. at 24-25.
    \630\Id. at 8.
    \631\Id. at 7.
    \632\Id. at 21.
    \633\Id. at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Kilpatrick did not recall seeing the Private 
Sponsor Travel Certification Form\634\ prior to its submission 
to the Standards Committee.\635\ She believed that the sponsor 
submitted it directly to the Standards Committee.\636\ However, 
Representative Kilpatrick reviewed the Post-Travel Disclosure 
Form\637\ and signed it prior to its submission to the Clerk's 
office.\638\ Representative Kilpatrick stated that the 
information inserted on the Post-Travel Disclosure Form was 
provided by the Foundation and she had no reason to question 
the amounts.\639\ Representative Kilpatrick did not review her 
airline ticket receipt to verify the amount listed for 
transportation by the Foundation was the same as indicated on 
the ticket.\640\ When Subcommittee staff explained that the 
amounts were different, Representative Kilpatrick stated she 
would review the information more carefully in the future.\641\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \634\See Exhibit 90.
    \635\Kilpatrick Tr. at 14.
    \636\Id.
    \637\See Exhibit 98.
    \638\Kilpatrick Tr. at 19-20.
    \639\Id.
    \640\Id.
    \641\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    3. Representative Yvette Clarke

    Representative Yvette Clarke was interviewed under oath by 
the Investigative Subcommittee on October 21, 2009.\642\ 
Representative Clarke confirmed that she attended the Carib 
News Foundation conference held in 2007, and that she did not 
attend the conference held in 2008.\643\ She related that she 
did not recall the exact number of conferences she had 
attended, but believed she has attended more than four similar 
conferences before 2007.\644\ Representative Clarke told the 
Subcommittee that she is familiar with the Carib News 
Foundation.\645\ She explained that the Foundation is an 
organization that was established to create opportunities for 
elected officials and business leaders to meet with heads of 
government and business leaders of the Caribbean.\646\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \642\Clarke Tr. at 4.
    \643\Id. at 7.
    \644\Id. at 12.
    \645\Id. at 7.
    \646\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Clarke told the Subcommittee that she knew 
Karl Rodney because of his leadership in the Caribbean 
community in New York, his ownership of the Carib News 
publication and that he was also a family friend.\647\ She 
explained she has known Mr. Rodney for most of her life because 
he attended high school with her father in Jamaica.\648\ She 
also told the Subcommittee that she knows Faye Rodney, whom she 
explained was Karl Rodney's wife.\649\ She was also familiar 
with the Rodney's executive assistant, Patricia Louis, whom she 
understood coordinated and scheduled meetings of Carib News, 
Inc. and the conference.\650\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \647\Id. at 8.
    \648\Id.
    \649\Id. at 9.
    \650\Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Clarke explained to the Subcommittee that 
the Carib News publication and the Carib News Foundation are 
two different entities run by the Rodneys.\651\ She further 
explained the Foundation was established so they could do more 
nonprofit-type work to raise the issues of Caribbean nationals 
in the United States.\652\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \651\Id. at 10-11.
    \652\Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Clarke awaits the invitation to the 
conference each year because of its importance to her 
community.\653\ She was not aware of when she received the 
invitation to the 2007 conference, but indicated that an 
announcement about the conference is also published in the 
Carib News publication, which she receives.\654\ She recalled 
that at the time of the 2007 conference, new travel rules were 
in effect.\655\ Representative Clarke also recalled a number of 
briefings for Members to learn about the new travel rules.\656\ 
Based on those briefings, she knew that she needed to receive 
prior approval from the Standards Committee for the 2007 
conference travel.\657\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \653\Id. at 14-15.
    \654\Id.
    \655\Id. at 15.
    \656\Id. at 15.
    \657\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Clarke told the Subcommittee that the 
information on the sponsor form\658\ came from Karl 
Rodney.\659\ She stated the sponsor would have to provide the 
information on the sponsor form in order to complete the 
traveler form.\660\ She verified that the traveler form\661\ 
was filled out by her then Chief of Staff, Ian Campbell.\662\ 
Representative Clarke also verified that she authorized Mr. 
Campbell to sign her name on the traveler form.\663\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \658\See Exhibit 67.
    \659\Clarke Tr. at 16-17.
    \660\Id.
    \661\See Exhibit 99.
    \662\Clarke Tr. at 17.
    \663\Clarke Tr. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Clarke told the Subcommittee that she was 
aware of corporations that had sponsored the conferences before 
2007.\664\ She did not recall noticing any of the corporations 
present at the 2007 conference; but she stated that, if they 
were there, she did not interact with them.\665\ The following 
exchange occurred between Representative Clarke and counsel to 
the Subcommittee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \664\Id. at 18-19.
    \665\Id. at 19.

          Q. On the forms, can you go to the first question on 
        Exhibit 1 [Private Sponsor Travel Certification Form 
        submitted to the Standards Committee]? The first 
        question asked who the sponsor is, and what is written 
        there?
          A. Carib News Foundation.
          Q. If you go to question 12 on the second page, there 
        is a question that deals with sponsors. Could you read 
        that question for us?
          A. ``Private sponsors must have a direct and 
        immediate relationship to the purpose of the trip or 
        location being visited.''
          Q. Who does it list as a private sponsor?
          A. Carib News Foundation.
          Q. Now, if you were aware that companies such as 
        Macy's, Pfizer, [and] Verizon were present and actually 
        paid for the conference, would that alert you that 
        maybe other names should be listed there as well?
          A. Not necessarily.
          Q. Why is that?
          A. Because I'm assuming--and maybe I should not--that 
        those donations are made directly to the Carib News 
        Foundation perhaps in some sort of general fund to be 
        able to make sure that the conference goes off well.
          Q. If you learned that those contributions were made 
        directly for the payment of the conference, would that 
        change your understanding?
          A. Most likely.\666\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \666\Id. at 19-20.

    Representative Clarke reviewed the post-travel form\667\ 
and verified it was the form completed by her Chief of 
Staff.\668\ She believed he obtained the information regarding 
the expenses from the Rodneys.\669\ Representative Clarke also 
verified that she only spent one day at the conference and had 
two travel days for the 2007 conference. She believed she spent 
two nights at the conference.\670\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \667\See Exhibit 100.
    \668\Clarke Tr. at 23.
    \669\Id.
    \670\Id. at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Clarke indicated she did not review the 
ticket\671\ provided to her for her travel by the 
Foundation.\672\ She stated she was not aware that American 
Airlines provided the ticket for her travel.\673\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \671\See Exhibit 101.
    \672\Clarke Tr. at 25.
    \673\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     4. Delegate Donna Christensen

    Delegate Donna Christensen was interviewed under oath by 
the Subcommittee on October 22, 2009.\674\ Delegate Christensen 
verified that she attended both the 2007 and 2008 Carib News 
Foundation conferences.\675\ She was aware that the Carib News 
Foundation is located in New York and that its main activity is 
the annual Multi-National Business conference.\676\ She also 
was aware that Carib News Foundation holds smaller events in 
New York. She has never attended any of those events.\677\ 
Delegate Christensen also stated that she met Karl and Faye 
Rodney in 1997 when she began attending the conferences. She 
said she had little contact with them outside of the 
conferences.\678\ She did recall having the Rodneys as guests 
at her table at a prayer breakfast and that they also attended 
some of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) legislative 
conferences.\679\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \674\Christensen Tr. at 4.
    \675\Id. at 7.
    \676\Id. at 6.
    \677\Id.
    \678\Id.
    \679\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen told the Subcommittee that she arrived 
at the 2007 conference Thursday afternoon and left Friday, 
midday.\680\ She did not recall any other Members of Congress 
at the conference at that time.\681\ However, she knew that 
other Members came after she left.\682\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \680\Id. at 7.
    \681\Id.
    \682\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen stated that when she receives 
invitations to events, her scheduler, Shelley Thomas, reviews 
them and works with her to set up travel.\683\ She verified the 
sponsor forms for the 2007 and 2008 conferences\684\ and 
believed they were completed by Karl Rodney.\685\ She also 
reviewed the traveler forms submitted to the Standards 
Committee for the 2007 and 2008 conferences\686\ and stated 
they were filled in and signed by Shelley Thomas.\687\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \683\Id. at 8.
    \684\See Exhibits 67 and 90.
    \685\Christensen Tr. at 9-10.
    \686\See Exhibits 102-103.
    \687\Christensen Tr. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen was aware that corporations were 
present at the conferences but believed they contributed to the 
Foundation and not specifically to the conference.\688\ She 
noticed signs that contained logos of corporations that were 
present at the conferences.\689\ Delegate Christensen stated 
there were always such signs present at the conferences.\690\ 
She did not recall any public statements thanking any corporate 
sponsor.\691\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \688\Id. at 11.
    \689\Id. at 12.
    \690\Id.
    \691\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen told the Subcommittee that there was a 
reception held in a downtown hotel hosted by the Government of 
St. Maarten during the 2008 conference.\692\ She stated that 
the reception was open to all participants and the ones that 
attended the reception were transported by bus from the Sonesta 
Maho Resort.\693\ She stated it took approximately 20 minutes 
to travel to the reception by bus.\694\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \692\Id. at 13.
    \693\Id.
    \694\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen verified that she signed the post-
travel forms for the 2007 and 2008 conferences.\695\ She 
believed she filled out the forms herself.\696\ She also told 
the Subcommittee that the Foundation would send a form each 
year to the congressional travelers indicating the cost for the 
Members' room and travel.\697\ She used that information to 
complete the post-travel form.\698\ She did not realize that 
the form for the 2007 conference was sent to all the Members, 
and she believed that the amount on the form was for her one-
night lodging.\699\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \695\See Exhibits 104-105.
    \696\Christensen Tr. at 15.
    \697\Id.
    \698\Id.
    \699\Id. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen was not aware of the tax status of the 
Foundation or the tax rules regarding private foundations at 
the time of the two conferences.\700\ She stated that she now 
had a better understanding of the tax issue after meeting with 
her attorneys when the issue was raised in the OCE 
referral.\701\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \700\Id. at 17-18.
    \701\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen told the Subcommittee that it was her 
practice to remind other Members about upcoming Carib News 
conferences during CBC meetings and that she would give them 
information about the upcoming conferences.\702\ She stated 
that she considered her office a point of contact for the 
conference.\703\ Shelley Thomas would have forms for Members 
who decided to attend the conference.\704\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \702\Id. at 20-21.
    \703\Id. at 21 and 25.
    \704\Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen stated that she used the information 
provided by the Foundation in filling out her forms and had no 
reason to question the information the Foundation 
provided.\705\ She assumed that the corporations present at the 
conferences donated to the Foundation generally and not 
specifically to the conference.\706\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \705\Id. at 27-28.
    \706\Id. at 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     5. Representative Donald Payne

    Representative Donald Payne was interviewed under oath by 
the Investigative Subcommittee on October 21, 2009.\707\ 
Representative Payne confirmed that he did not attend the Carib 
News Foundation conference held in 2007, but did attend 
conferences in 2008 and prior to 2007.\708\ He stated he has 
attended a total of seven to nine conferences.\709\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \707\Payne Tr. at 4.
    \708\Id. at 8.
    \709\Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne stated that he knew Karl Rodney as the 
editor or owner of the Carib News newspaper and assumed the 
Carib News Foundation was a foundation that was related to the 
newspaper.\710\ He also said that he was told the conference 
was sponsored by the Carib News Foundation.\711\ Representative 
Payne stated he did not know the Foundation's tax exempt 
status.\712\ Representative Payne told the Subcommittee that he 
had no contact or social relationship with either Karl or Faye 
Rodney outside the annual conferences.\713\ He sees them at the 
conferences and knows who they are.\714\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \710\Id.
    \711\Id. at 9-10.
    \712\Id. at 10.
    \713\Id. at 10-11.
    \714\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne told the Subcommittee that he attends 
the conferences because, as co-chair of the Caribbean Caucus 
and Member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, he deals 
with issues related to the Caribbean and believes it is 
important to attend the conferences and discuss issues 
affecting those countries.\715\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \715\Id. at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne stayed for all three days of the 2008 
conference and stayed an extra two days, which he paid for 
personally, an arrangement that was pre-approved by the 
Standards Committee.\716\ He stated he did not notice who else 
attended the conference but was aware that Representatives 
Thompson, Rangel, and Kilpatrick, and Delegate Christensen were 
there because of his review of the OCE report.\717\ He said 300 
to 500 people attended the conference.\718\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \716\Id. at 14.
    \717\Id. at 13.
    \718\Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne reviewed and verified the sponsor 
form\719\ for the 2008 Carib News Foundation conference.\720\ 
He did not recall reviewing the specific form filled out by 
Karl Rodney.\721\ Representative Payne verified that Karl 
Rodney signed the certification on the third page of the form 
and stated that he would have relied on the information being 
correct because of the certification language.\722\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \719\See Exhibit 90.
    \720\Payne Tr. at 17-18.
    \721\Id. at 18.
    \722\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne next verified the traveler form\723\ 
submitted to the Standards Committee for the 2008 conference 
and explained that his signature on the form was probably made 
by his scheduler, Darlene Murray.\724\ Ms. Murray has his 
authorization to sign his name.\725\ Representative Payne also 
verified the approval letter\726\ sent by the Standards 
Committee for the 2008 conference.\727\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \723\See Exhibit 106.
    \724\Payne Tr. at 20.
    \725\Id.
    \726\See Exhibit 107.
    \727\Payne Tr. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne stated that he assumed that companies 
contributed to the Foundation, but believed the Foundation was 
sponsoring the conferences.\728\ He had no reason to question 
the information provided by Carib News regarding the trip.\729\ 
Representative Payne did not recall thanking any corporation 
for sponsoring the trip.\730\ He stated he thanked the people 
who support the Foundation.\731\ He did not hear anyone 
identifying themselves as prime sponsors of the conference 
because he was not paying attention to their remarks.\732\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \728\Id. at 22.
    \729\Id. at 18.
    \730\Id. at 23-24.
    \731\Id. at 24.
    \732\Id. at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne reviewed and verified the Post-Travel 
Disclosure Form\733\ that was completed on his behalf by Ms. 
Murray.\734\ He recalled reviewing the form before its 
submission to the Clerk's office but did not know where the 
listed amounts for transportation, lodging, and meals came 
from.\735\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \733\See Exhibit 108.
    \734\Payne Tr. at 27.
    \735\Id. at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne did not know the differences between 
different types of non-profit organizations, did not know that 
the Carib News Foundation was a private foundation, and did not 
know that there was a tax provision that specifically dealt 
with private foundations.\736\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \736\Id. at 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne said there was no difference between 
the 2008 conference and the previous conferences that he 
attended.\737\ All of the conferences were run in the same 
manner and had the same types of corporate logos and banners 
posted.\738\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \737\Id. at 23.
    \738\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne told the Subcommittee that he had 
submitted a letter and other materials to OCE and had requested 
to make a presentation before OCE's Board before OCE made its 
referral to the Standards Committee.\739\ OCE informed him that 
his only opportunity to make a presentation to the Board was 
over the Memorial Day recess.\740\ Representative Payne asked 
to reschedule the meeting for a time when Congress would be in 
session and when he would be in town.\741\ However 
Representative Payne said that Leo Wise, OCE's Staff Director 
and Chief Counsel, denied Representative Payne's request, and 
told Representative Payne that the meetings were scheduled to 
accommodate OCE's Board and not Members of Congress.\742\ 
Representative Payne also stated that OCE's report and findings 
did not mention or reference the letter he submitted to OCE 
documenting his request.\743\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \739\Id. at 34.
    \740\Id.
    \741\Id. at 34-35.
    \742\Id.
    \743\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    6. Representative Charles Rangel

    Representative Charles Rangel was interviewed under oath by 
the Investigative Subcommittee on November 4, 2009.\744\ 
Representative Rangel told the Subcommittee that he has known 
Karl and Faye Rodney for over twenty years.\745\ He stated that 
he did not know them intimately and but came in contact with 
them once or twice per year.\746\ Representative Rangel stated 
that, outside of the annual conferences, he may have seen them 
at events in New York.\747\ He said he has not met with them 
officially.\748\ He knows the Rodneys have contacted his New 
York district office on occasion.\749\ He knows of their 
daughter, Michele Rodney, but has never met her.\750\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \744\Rangel Tr. at 4.
    \745\Id. at 6.
    \746\Id.
    \747\Id.
    \748\Id.
    \749\Id. at 7.
    \750\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rangel told the Subcommittee that he had not 
seen the sponsor form\751\ for the 2007 conference before the 
investigation.\752\ He also stated that he did not see the 
traveler form\753\ for the 2007 conference.\754\ Representative 
Rangel told the Subcommittee that he did not sign the form but 
that a member of his staff signed it on his behalf.\755\ He 
also stated that he did not authorize anyone to sign his name 
specifically, but George Dalley, Representative Rangel's former 
Chief of Staff, had permission to sign his name to documents on 
his behalf.\756\ Representative Rangel further stated he did 
not see the Post-Travel Disclosure Form\757\ filed for the 2007 
conference but that Mr. Dalley would have filled it in and 
signed his name to it.\758\ Representative Rangel knew it was 
Mr. Dalley who had filled out the form because he had been with 
Representative Rangel for about thirty years and Representative 
Rangel recognized his handwriting.\759\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \751\See Exhibit 67.
    \752\Rangel Tr. at 11-12.
    \753\See Exhibit 109.
    \754\Rangel Tr. at 13.
    \755\Id. 13-14.
    \756\Id. at 14-15.
    \757\See Exhibit 110.
    \758\Rangel Tr. at 15.
    \759\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rangel did not recall having a meeting with 
Karl and Faye Rodney regarding holding an event for visiting 
Caribbean ministers in New York.\760\ He was shown a 
memorandum\761\ written by Karl Rodney and forwarded to Mr. 
Dalley to memorialize the meeting, but still did not recall 
ever having had such a meeting.\762\ He stated he had spoken to 
the Rodneys about some of the issues in the memorandum, but 
that other information in the memorandum was new to him.\763\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \760\Id. at 15-16.
    \761\See Exhibit 111.
    \762\Rangel Tr. at 15-16.
    \763\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rangel stated there were several derogatory 
news articles written about him and his association with the 
Foundation, and that caused him some concern before the 2008 
conference.\764\ He initially decided not to attend the 2008 
conference.\765\ He further told the Subcommittee that he did 
not recall a memorandum written by Michelle Sherwood\766\--who 
he identified as a lawyer in his New York office--that 
discussed the conference and the New York Post article.\767\ 
Representative Rangel stated he decided to attend the 
conference without staff because of his position in 
Congress.\768\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \764\Id. at 18-19.
    \765\Id. at 19.
    \766\See Exhibit 112.
    \767\Rangel Tr. at 19-22.
    \768\Id. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rangel was asked if he was aware of any 
corporate sponsor of the conferences and he stated he was 
not.\769\ He also told the Subcommittee that he did not read 
another memorandum\770\ written by Michelle Sherwood that 
discussed Faye Rodney and her contact with Representative 
Rangel's New York district office.\771\ In that memorandum, 
which is addressed to Representative Rangel, Ms. Sherwood wrote 
that Faye Rodney called Representative Rangel's district office 
and was agitated that HSBC Bank had decided to withdraw its 
support to the 2008 conference.\772\ The memorandum states that 
HSBC's decision to withdraw support was the result of the 
negative press about the conference and that Mrs. Rodney was 
concerned that other sponsors might withdraw their support as 
well.\773\ In the memorandum, Ms. Sherwood mentions that AT&T 
was continuing its support.\774\ Representative Rangel stated 
he did not see the memorandum and opined that George Dalley may 
have received it.\775\ He also stated that he did not know what 
HSBC Bank was.\776\ Representative Rangel denied discussing the 
matter with any Member or his staff.\777\ He further denied 
recommending any of the actions suggested by Ms. Sherwood in 
the memo.\778\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \769\Id. at 20.
    \770\See Exhibit 84.
    \771\Rangel Tr. at 21-22.
    \772\See Exhibit 84.
    \773\Id.
    \774\Id.
    \775\Rangel Tr. at 21.
    \776\Id.
    \777\Id. at 21.
    \778\Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rangel reviewed the Post-Travel Disclosure 
Form\779\ for the 2008 conference and acknowledged that he 
signed and dated the form prior to its submission to the 
Clerk's office.\780\ He stated that it was his opinion that the 
information for the expenses on the form came from the 
Foundation.\781\ He did not know who typed the information onto 
the form.\782\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \779\See Exhibit 113.
    \780\Rangel Tr. at 26-27.
    \781\Id. at 27.
    \782\Id. at 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rangel was also shown solicitation 
letters\783\ from the Carib News Foundation that indicated a 
carbon copy had been sent to him.\784\ He stated that he had 
never seen those letters before and did not know why his name 
would appear on them.\785\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \783\See Exhibits 36-37.
    \784\Rangel Tr. at 30.
    \785\Id. at 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              IV. FINDINGS


A. COMMITTEE APPROVAL OF THE 2007 AND 2008 CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION MULTI-
                     NATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCES

                         1. Travel Regulations

    A House Member or employee may accept reimbursement ``for 
necessary transportation, lodging, and related expenses for 
travel to a meeting, speaking engagement, factfinding trip, or 
similar event in connection with the duties of such individual 
as an officeholder'' when the payment (including payment in 
kind) ``is from a private source other than a registered 
lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal or a private entity 
that retains or employs registered lobbyists or agents of a 
foreign principal,'' except in certain, limited circumstances, 
if such individual: a) in the case of an employee, receives 
advance authorization from the employee's employing authority, 
and b) discloses the expenses reimbursed or to be reimbursed, 
along with the travel authorization, to the Office of the Clerk 
within 15 days after the travel is completed.\786\ All House 
invitees must obtain ``prior approval'' from the Standards 
Committee before accepting reimbursement for officially-
connected travel expenses from a private source.\787\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \786\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(b)(1).
    \787\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d)(2). House rules deem reimbursement of 
travel expenses to a Member or employee to be ``a reimbursement to the 
House and not a gift prohibited'' by the gift rule when a reimbursement 
or a payment for travel expenses is received in accordance with the 
House's travel rule and the Standards Committee's travel regulations. 
H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal may 
be a private source for the payment of travel expenses.\788\ 
Any other ``private source'' may sponsor a trip, except that 
private sources, other than institutions of higher education, 
that retain or employ registered lobbyists or agents of a 
foreign principal may only be sponsors for one-day events.\789\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \788\H. Rule XXV, cls. 5(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (b)(1)(A). The term 
``registered lobbyist'' may include individuals required to register as 
lobbyists. Select Committee on Ethics, Final Report, H. Rpt. No. 95-
1837, 74 (Jan. 3, 1979) (finding that the House adopted language 
relating to registered lobbyists based upon a recommendation relating 
to those required to register).
    \789\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To be permissible, a private source\790\ must ``both 
organize and conduct the trip, rather than merely pay for a 
trip that is in fact organized and conducted by someone 
else.''\791\ A private source (i.e., sponsor) must have a 
``direct and immediate relationship with the event or location 
being visited.''\792\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \790\Under the House travel rules, the test is whether private 
sources are funding any expenses, directly or indirectly, for travel 
connected to a Member's or employee's official duties. Comm. on 
Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of the House of Representatives on 
Gifts and Travel at 75 (Apr. 2000). The term sponsor is not used in the 
travel rule itself. Popularly, many use the term ``sponsor'' to 
identify private sources. However, the term ``sponsor,'' in the context 
of the House travel rule and the Standards Committee's travel 
regulations, is properly used to distinguish permissible private 
sources from impermissible private sources. Comm. on Standards of 
Official Conduct, Rules of the House of Representatives on Gifts and 
Travel at 75 (Apr. 2000). As such, the term ``sponsor'' will be used 
herein to mean a permissible private source for travel expense 
reimbursement.
    \791\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, ``New Travel Rules for 
Officially-Connected Travel Paid for by a Private Source'' (Mar. 14, 
2007), reprinted in Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, ``Summary 
of Activities One Hundredth Tenth Congress,'' H. Rpt. No. 110-938, 48 
(Jan. 3, 2009) (citing Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of 
the House of Representatives on Gifts and Travel at 76 (Apr. 2000)); 
see also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
97-98 (2008).
    \792\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of the House of 
Representatives on Gifts and Travel at 75 (Apr. 2000) (citing Comm. on 
Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of Financial Transactions 
participated in and Gifts of Transportation Accepted by Representative 
Fernand J. St Germain, H. Rpt. No. 100-46, 5-6 (Apr. 9, 1987)); see 
also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 97 
(2008) (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Standards Committee's policy on permissible private 
sources served as a basis for the new travel rule. The policy 
pre-dated the adoption of the new travel rules in the 110th 
Congress.\793\ The language used in the new House rule closely 
tracked the language used in the Standards Committee policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \793\See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Standards Committee's long established policy regarding 
permissible private sources for reimbursement of travel 
expenses is as follows:

          The rule is concerned with the organization(s) or 
        individual(s) that actually pay for travel. Thus, for 
        example, where a non-profit organization pays for 
        travel with donations that were earmarked, either 
        formally or informally, for the trip, each such donor 
        is deemed a ``private source'' for the trip and (1) 
        must be publicly disclosed as a trip sponsor on the 
        applicable travel disclosure forms and (2) may itself 
        be required to satisfy the above standards [requiring 
        ``a direct and immediate relationship with the event or 
        location being visited''] on proper sources of travel 
        expenses.\794\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \794\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of the House of 
Representatives on Gifts and Travel at 75 (Apr. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ``In addition, the concept of the rule is that a 
        private entity that pays for officially connected 
        travel will both organize and conduct the trip, rather 
        than merely pay for a trip that is in fact organized 
        and conducted by someone else.''\795\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \795\Id. at 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The Standards Committee has determined that ``a major 
        donor to a non-profit organization'' must have ``a 
        significant role in organizing or conducting a trip to 
        which the non-profit issues invitations.''\796\ ``The 
        rule requires that a private entity (or entities) that 
        pays for officially-connected travel will organize and 
        conduct the trip, rather than merely pay for a trip 
        that is in fact organized and conducted by another 
        entity.''\797\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \796\Id. at 75, n. 89.
    \797\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
98 (2008).

    The House travel rule requires each private source (i.e., 
sponsor) to certify, before a House invitee accepts travel, 
that the ``source will not accept from another source any funds 
earmarked directly or indirectly for the purpose of financing 
any aspect of the trip.''\798\ ``Members and staff must provide 
the Standards Committee with written certification from the 
private source'' that ``no earmarked funds from another source 
for any aspect of the trip were accepted.''\799\ ``Expenses may 
not be accepted from a source that has merely donated monetary 
or in-kind support to the trip but does not have a significant 
role in organizing and conducting the trip.''\800\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \798\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d)(1)(C).
    \799\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, ``New Travel Rules for 
Officially-Connected Travel Paid for by a Private Source,'' (Mar. 14, 
2007), reprinted in Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, ``Summary 
of Activities One Hundred Tenth Congress,'' H. Rpt. 110-938, 110th 
Cong., 2d Sess., 44, 47 (Jan. 3, 2009).
    \800\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, ``Travel Guidelines 
and Regulations'' (Feb. 20, 2007), reprinted in Comm. on Standards of 
Official Conduct, ``Summary of Activities One Hundred Tenth Congress,'' 
H. Rpt. 110-938, 110th Cong., 2d Sess., 34, 36 (Jan. 3, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Each private source must provide its written certification 
in item 3 of the Private Sponsor Travel Certification 
Form.\801\ Item 3 asks the sponsor to ``represent that the trip 
sponsor(s) has not accepted from any other source funds 
earmarked directly or indirectly to finance any aspect of the 
trip.''\802\ The instructions for item 3 indicate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \801\See Exhibits 68 and 90. See House Rule XXV(5)(d)(1)(C) which 
requires the Member, Delegate, resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House to provide the Standards Committee a written 
certification signed by the source or an officer of the source that the 
``source will not accept from any other source any funds earmarked 
directly or indirectly for the purpose of financing any aspect of the 
trip,'' before accepting the trip. This requirement has been 
incorporated into the Private Sponsor Travel Certification Form 
developed by the Standards Committee and provided to potential sources.
    \802\Id.

          3. I represent that the trip sponsor(s) has not 
        accepted from any other source funds earmarked directly 
        or indirectly to finance any aspect of the trip: All 
        financial contributors to the trip must qualify as 
        sponsors and should be listed as a sponsor in response 
        to Question 1 [requiring identification of ``Sponsor(s) 
        (who will be paying for the trip)'']. Check the box to 
        indicate that no such outside funding has been 
        accepted.\803\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \803\Id.

    The Standards Committee has long held that ``a major donor 
to a non-profit [sic] organization'' may be considered a 
private source.\804\ Where it ``has a significant role in 
organizing or conducting a trip to which the non-profit [sic] 
issues invitations,'' a donor to a nonprofit entity would need 
to be listed as a sponsor of a trip.\805\ In such case, a donor 
may be considered to have ``earmarked'' funds ``directly or 
indirectly for the purpose of financing any aspect of the 
trip.''\806\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \804\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of the House of 
Representatives on Gifts and Travel at 75, n. 89 (Apr. 2000); Comm. on 
Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 98, n. 16 (2008).
    \805\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d)(1)(C); see Comm. on Standards of 
Official Conduct, Rules of the House of Representatives on Gifts and 
Travel at 75 (Apr. 2000); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House 
Ethics Manual at 97-98 (2008).
    \806\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d)(1)(C); see Comm. on Standards of 
Official Conduct, Rules of the House of Representatives on Gifts and 
Travel at 75 (Apr. 2000); Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House 
Ethics Manual at 97-98 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A donor who has earmarked funds ``directly or indirectly 
for the purpose of financing any aspect'' of a trip who does 
not also have ``a direct and immediate relationship with the 
event or location being visited'' and ``a significant role in 
organizing or conducting a trip to which the non-profit [sic] 
issues invitations,'' is an impermissible source.\807\ In such 
a case, no other private source for the trip will be able to 
make the required certification for the trip.\808\ The 
Standards Committee would be unable to approve the trip.\809\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \807\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d)(1)(C).
    \808\Id.
    \809\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d) (requiring House invitees to submit a 
written certification signed by the private source(s) as a precondition 
to approval of travel).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, where there is evidence that a donor has provided 
funds (including in-kind donations) to a private source seeking 
to sponsor congressional travel, the Standards Committee must 
address the following issues:
    1. Whether the donor is a private source for the trip, 
which may include the event to which the trip is intended to 
travel. That is, did or will the donor earmark funds directly 
or indirectly for the purpose of financing any aspect of the 
trip, including the event to which the travel is destined.\810\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \810\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of the House of 
Representatives on Gifts and Travel at 75, n. 89 (Apr. 2000); Comm. on 
Standards of Official Conduct, Recent Gift Rule Amendments, (April 11, 
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. If so, whether the donor is a permissible source (i.e., 
sponsor) for the trip, which may include the event to which the 
trip is destined. That is, does the donor have: a) ``a direct 
and immediate relationship with the event or location being 
visited;'' and b) ``a significant role in organizing or 
conducting a trip to which the non-profit issues 
invitations.''\811\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \811\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
97-98 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. If the donor is a permissible source, whether it would 
be able to certify that it will not accept, or has not 
accepted, funds earmarked directly or indirectly for the 
purpose of financing any aspect of the trip.\812\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \812\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Should a donor qualify as a permissible private source and 
be able to make the certification required of a trip sponsor, 
the Standards Committee would be able to approve the trip, 
assuming that all other factors permitting approval have been 
established.\813\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \813\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As noted above, each private source must certify, among 
other things, ``that the source will not accept from another 
source any funds earmarked directly or indirectly for the 
purpose of financing any aspect of the trip,'' before a House 
Member or employee may accept reimbursement or payment of 
otherwise permissible travel expenses from the private 
source.\814\ The private source must provide the certification 
to the invitee.\815\ If the source is a corporate person, the 
certification must be signed by an officer of the source.\816\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \814\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d)(1)(C).
    \815\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d).
    \816\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A ``trip'' encompasses all necessary aspects of travel by 
congressional participants.\817\ It includes transportation, 
meals, lodging, and the event or events to which the 
congressional participants are destined.\818\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \817\H. Rule XXV, cls. 5(b)(1)(A) (permitting acceptance of 
reimbursement for travel expenses for ``travel to a meeting, speaking 
engagement, factfinding trip, or similar event'') and 5(b)(4) (defining 
necessary travel expenses).
    \818\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The phrase, ``the source will not accept from another 
source any funds earmarked directly or indirectly for the 
purpose of financing any aspect of the trip,'' has never been 
defined in either the House rules or the Standards Committee's 
published regulations or guidance. This has led to inconsistent 
interpretations of the phrase and confusion as to its 
meaning.\819\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \819\Dixon Tr. at 26 (an earmark is a donation of money from a 
secondary entity to a primary entity to pay for congressional travel or 
help underwrite the costs of the event that Members are going to). Perl 
Tr. at 26 (the term ``earmark'' is not specifically defined but it is 
when money is given specifically for congressional travel). Olson Tr. 
at 9 (funds that are contributed for a specific purpose and not to the 
general fund of the sponsor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As indicated above, significant elements of the phrase 
derive from the Standards Committee's longstanding guidance in 
place at the time the 110th Congress adopted the travel 
rules.\820\ Therefore, one may look to the Standards 
Committee's previous guidance to aid in the interpretation of 
the phrase. To the extent the House selected different words, 
one may presume that the choice of different language was 
intentional.\821\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \820\See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of the House 
of Representatives on Gifts and Travel at 75 (Apr. 2000).
    \821\See United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 
1972) ``[Where] Congress includes particular language in one section of 
a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is 
generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in 
the disparate inclusion or exclusion.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before the adoption of the travel rules in the 110th 
Congress, the Standards Committee's previous guidance 
prohibited ``donations that were earmarked, either formally or 
informally,'' for payment of expenses of congressional 
participants.\822\ The term ``earmark'' applies to funds\823\ 
given under an oral or written agreement that the funds will be 
used for specific purposes.\824\ Although never expressly 
stated, the plain import of the words ``formal or informal'' 
appears to prohibit donations where the donor and the donee 
have an explicit or tacit agreement that funds will be used for 
a trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \822\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of the House of 
Representatives on Gifts and Travel at 75, n. 89 (Apr. 2000); Comm. on 
Standards of Official Conduct, Recent Gift Rule Amendments, (April 11, 
2003). (emphasis added)
    \823\The term ``funds'' includes any funds used to reimburse a 
House traveler or finance any part or aspect of a trip, including in-
kind contributions. See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House 
Ethics Manual at 98.
    \824\See, e.g., ``Earmarked grants to individuals, http://
www.irs.gov/charities/foundations/article/0,,id=137407,00.html (last 
visited February 5, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The new travel rules adopted in the 110th Congress used the 
words ``directly or indirectly,'' rather than ``formally or 
informally'' to modify the term ``earmarked.''\825\ This 
phraseology appears to broaden the scope of agreements that may 
be considered earmarks.\826\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \825\H. Rule XXV, cl. 5(d)(1)(C).
    \826\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the new travel rules also broadened the scope 
of the purposes for which an earmark may be made.\827\ The rule 
now applies to agreements to finance ``any aspect'' of a 
trip.\828\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \827\Id.
    \828\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The definition of a direct earmark is straightforward. 
Under its ordinary meaning, a direct earmark would exist where 
there is an oral or written agreement to use a donation or 
contribution for a specific, named purpose.\829\ Under 
Standards Committee precedent in place at the time the House 
adopted the new travel rules, an agreement could be considered 
an earmark if it was made ``formally or informally.''\830\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \829\Internal Revenue Service, Grants to Intermediaries, http://
www.irs.gov/charities/foundations/article/0,,id=160666,00.html (last 
visited February 16, 2010).
    \830\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Rules of the House of 
Representatives on Gifts and Travel at 75 (Apr. 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The definition of an indirect earmark is far less clear and 
appears, in the absence of formal guidance, to have been 
interpreted inconsistently.\831\ The natural import of the 
phrase ``earmarked . . . indirectly'' prohibits a donor from 
providing funds that the donor understands are to be applied by 
the recipient to finance any aspect or part of a trip.\832\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \831\Dixon Tr. at 26 (an earmark is a donation of money from a 
secondary entity to a primary entity to pay for congressional travel or 
help underwrite the costs of the event that Members are going to). Perl 
Tr. at 26 (the term ``earmark'' is not specifically defined but it is 
when money is given specifically for congressional travel). Olson Tr. 
at 9 (funds that are contributed for a specific purpose and not to the 
general fund of the sponsor).
    \832\Cf. 26 CFR 53.4941(d)-1, (b)(2) (2009) (indirect self-dealing 
does not include grants made to intermediary organizations that the 
grantor knows or should know will be used for the benefit of government 
officials).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee finds that the donations by the 
corporations to Carib News, Inc. were funds directly earmarked 
for congressional travel. Mr. Rodney solicited contributions 
specifically for each conference in 2007 and 2008. The 
corporations that contributed specifically intended their 
contributions to be used for the 2007 and 2008 conferences. 
Thus, each donor had to independently qualify as a permissible 
source (i.e., sponsor) of the Members' travel. In addition, the 
Government of Antigua made it clear that it was paying the 
Members' cost of lodging for the 2007 conference. Such payment 
would have been impermissible under the FGDA.

               2. Tax Prohibitions on Private Foundations

    The Internal Revenue Code provides a tax penalty under the 
self-dealing provisions of Sec. 4941 for payments made by 
private foundations to elected officials for travel.\833\ The 
statute also provides a tax penalty on the traveler if the 
traveler knew that the sponsor was a private foundation under 
the I.R.C. and knew that there was such a penalty 
provision.\834\ Prior to February 2009, it had not been the 
consistent practice of the Standards Committee to review the 
tax filing status of private sponsors. This issue was not one 
that the Standards Committee considered during its review of 
either the 2007 and 2008 conferences, nor is it an issue that 
is contemplated in the current House travel regulations.\835\ 
The Subcommittee understands that in 2009, the Standards 
Committee began reviewing privately sponsored travel by private 
foundations after it was raised during the review of an 
unrelated matter. Since February 2009, the Standards Committee 
now verifies the tax status of private sponsors during its 
travel review process.\836\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \833\26 U.S.C. Sec. 4941(a). See Exhibit 78.
    \834\Id. at (a)(1).
    \835\Olson Tr. at 65, Perl Tr. at 21-22; see also, H. Rule XXV, cl. 
5.
    \836\Olson Tr. at 65, Perl Tr. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee considered this issue in the instant 
matter. The Carib News Foundation is a private foundation as 
defined by the I.R.C.\837\ The Carib News Foundation was the 
only sponsor identified on the travel forms for the 2007 and 
2008 conferences. However, the Subcommittee finds that it does 
not have to make a determination as to a potential violation of 
the I.R.C. in this matter based on the overwhelming evidence 
that the Foundation did not actually pay for or reimburse the 
travel costs of the Members who attended the 2007 and 2008 
conferences. The evidence is clear that corporations 
contributed funds directly to each conference and not to the 
general fund of the Foundation. The evidence is also clear that 
once the corporations agreed to provide financial support, the 
invoices sent to the corporate contributors came from Carib 
News Inc., the publishing company.\838\ Additionally, the 
checks sent for the financial contributions, with the exception 
of the Verizon payment for the 2008 conference,\839\ were 
payable to Carib News, Inc., and not the Carib News 
Foundation.\840\ The Verizon check was payable to Carib News 
Charities. Finally, the checks submitted to the resorts for 
payment of the conference fees, lodging and meals, with only 
two exceptions, came from the Carib News bank accounts, and not 
the Foundation's bank account.\841\ Karl Rodney also testified 
that the funds received from corporations for each conference 
were deposited in the Carib News ``project account'' and only a 
few were deposited into the Foundation's account.\842\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \837\26 U.S.C. Sec. 509.
    \838\See Exhibits 48-55, 81, and 83.
    \839\See Exhibit 131.
    \840\See Exhibit 132.
    \841\Id.
    \842\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Contributions from Corporations that Retained or Employed Federally 
                          Registered Lobbyists

    The Subcommittee finds that the two conferences were 
sponsored by corporations that employed or retained federally 
registered lobbyists. Regardless of the position taken by the 
Rodneys and Ms. Louis, these corporate entities funded both 
conferences and should have been identified to the Standards 
Committee as co-sponsors for these two events. The Foundation 
solicited and Carib News received donations from these 
corporations specifically for the purpose of holding these two 
conferences. As previously indicated in tables 1 and 4, these 
corporations contributed enough funds to pay the full costs for 
each conference. Carib News, Inc., sent invoices to the 
corporations for their contributions that specifically 
indicated the contributions were going to be used for the 
conferences and not the general fund of the Foundation.\843\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \843\See Exhibits 81 and 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because these corporations retained or employed federally 
registered lobbyists, the rules implemented in March 2007 
limited attendance of the Members to a one-day event, with 
allowances for travel time to and from the conference, provided 
each entity qualified individually as a sponsor.\844\ However, 
even though Standards Committee staff asked specific questions 
of the Rodneys, the Rodneys withheld the true nature of the 
corporate contributions from the Standards Committee during its 
review of the proposed travel. Had the Foundation disclosed the 
nature of these contributions during questioning by Standards 
Committee counsel, neither trip would have been authorized. 
Unfortunately, because the Standards Committee must rely on 
assertions and certifications made by potential sponsors, it is 
difficult to ascertain the true nature of funding for offers of 
travel by private sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \844\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
96 (2008). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel 
Guidelines and Regulations, at 4 (Feb. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Payments for Lodging from the Governments of Antigua and St. Maarten

    Based on the agreement the Foundation had with the 
Government of Antigua, the government paid for the lodging of 
Members of Congress and other VIPs at the 2007 conference. The 
agreement was in effect at the time Ms. Louis submitted the 
sponsor forms to the Standards Committee and during the time 
Ms. Olson was inquiring about the trip sponsors. A foreign 
government may only pay for the travel of Members under 
Standards Committee Rules and the Foreign Gifts and Decorations 
Act (FGDA) if the trip takes place ``entirely'' outside the 
United States.\845\ Because the 2007 trip included travel from 
the United States, lodging in Antigua, and return travel to the 
United States, it would not have been authorized under 
Standards Committee Rules or the FGDA.\846\ Therefore, the 2007 
conference would not have been approvable based on the 
agreement and subsequent payment by the Government of Antigua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \845\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii). See also Comm. on Standards 
of Official Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and 
Gifts Sec. 6(e).
    \846\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because the lodging was paid for by a foreign government, 
the lodging should have also been reported in accordance with 
the FGDA to the Standards Committee.\847\ The FGDA, codified at 
5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(c)(1)(B)(ii), allows for the acceptance of 
transportation, lodging and meals as provided for by the House 
of Representatives (for House Members and employees). The House 
allows receipt of travel expenses under regulations established 
by the Standards Committee. Section 6(e) of the Regulations for 
the Acceptance of Decorations and Gifts from Foreign 
Governments provides that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \847\Id.

          A Member, officer or employee of the House may accept 
        gifts of travel or expenses for travel taking place 
        entirely outside of the United States offered by a 
        foreign government when such travel or expenses for 
        travel relate directly to the official duties of the 
        Member, officer or employee. Gifts of travel or 
        expenses for travel include food, lodging, 
        transportation and entertainment relating to the 
        official duties of the Member, officer or employee. 
        This provision allows a Member, officer or employee to 
        take advantage of opportunities such as for on-site 
        inspection or fact-finding while in a foreign 
        country.\848\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \848\Id.

    A spouse or dependent of a Member, officer, or employee of 
the House may accept such travel or expenses when accompanying 
the Member, officer, or employee of the House.\849\ Such travel 
or expenses for travel may not be accepted merely for the 
personal benefit, pleasure, enjoyment, or financial enrichment 
of the individual or individuals involved.\850\ The acceptance 
of any such travel or expenses for travel shall be reported 
within 30 days after acceptance to the Standards Committee, 
providing information required in section 7(b) of the 
regulations.\851\ For the purposes of the regulations, travel 
or expenses for travel are deemed accepted upon departure from 
the donor country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \849\Id.
    \850\Id.
    \851\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The payment by the Government of Antigua for the lodging 
expenses of the congressional travelers was impermissible under 
this regulation pursuant to the FGDA.\852\ The lodging costs 
were part of the trip, which began when the Members departed 
the United States, and continued until they returned to the 
United States.\853\ Since the lodging was part of the planning 
and organization of the conference, it cannot be severed from 
the trip.\854\ The regulation allows payment for travel, 
lodging, meals, etc., for travel that takes place ``entirely'' 
outside the United States.\855\ Since the lodging was part of 
the trip, as evidenced by the lodging being reserved as part of 
the conference by the Foundation, the Government of Antigua 
could not pay for the costs for the congressional travelers 
under any provision of this regulation.\856\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \852\Id. See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, 
Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and Gifts Sec. 6(e).
    \853\See H. Rule XXV, cls. 5(b)(4) (defining aspects of a trip).
    \854\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii).
    \855\Id.
    \856\See Exhibits 86, 89; see also 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee finds that the payment by the Government 
of Antigua for the Members' lodging and meals would not have 
been permissible even if properly reported. However, because 
neither Mr. Rodney nor Ms. Louis notified the Members that 
their lodging was paid for by the Government of Antigua, the 
Members were not aware of the payment. Each Member told the 
Subcommittee that he or she believed the Foundation paid for 
their transportation and lodging as it was reported to them, 
and no one indicated he or she had reason to disbelieve or 
doubt the information provided to them by the Foundation.
    The FGDA allows for ``civil prosecution'' of a government 
employee who ``knowingly'' fails to report a gift as required 
under section (h) of the Act.\857\ However, there is no 
evidence that the Members who attended the 2007 conference knew 
or should have known that their lodging was paid for by the 
Government of Antigua.\858\ Even so, because the payment by the 
Government of Antigua would have been impermissible under any 
circumstances, the Members would not have been allowed to 
accept these expenditures even if properly reported.\859\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \857\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(h).
    \858\See Thompson Tr. at 19-20; Clarke Tr. at 19-20; Christensen 
Tr. at 11.
    \859\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Regulations for the 
Acceptance of Decorations and Gifts Sec. 6(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the Subcommittee understands from both Karl 
Rodney's and Patricia Louis' testimony that the same agreement 
was in effect for the 2008 conference, although there is no 
evidence that the Government of St. Maarten actually paid for 
the lodging used by Members in 2008.\860\ However, an email 
sent on September 28, 2008, from Helen Bayne, Sonesta Maho 
Beach and Resort General Manager, to Ms. Louis states that the 
Government of St. Maarten indicated it would be paying for a 
``select number of VIP rooms. . . .''\861\ There is also a June 
25, 2008, memorandum from Karl Rodney to Commissioner Sara 
Wescot-Williams that indicates the ``local host committee'' 
should use the ``basic requirement as the basis for their 
planning.''\862\ The basic requirement requires the host 
government to pay for 25 rooms for ``VIPs and members of 
Congress.''\863\ Had this agreement been disclosed during the 
2008 travel review process, the trip requests would have been 
denied based on this potential FGDA violation alone.\864\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \860\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 121, and Louis Tr. at 55.
    \861\See Exhibit 114.
    \862\See Exhibit 115.
    \863\See Exhibit 87.
    \864\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Regulations for the 
Acceptance of Decorations and Gifts Sec. 6(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2007 AND 2008 MULTINATIONAL BUSINESS 
            CONFERENCES BY REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE G. THOMPSON

    Representative Thompson traveled to and attended both the 
2007 conference in Antigua and 2008 conference in St. Maarten. 
His wife, Dr. London Thompson, accompanied him to both 
conferences. Representative Thompson believed that the 
Foundation paid for his and his wife's transportation, lodging, 
meals, and conference fees to attend both conferences. The 
information on the travel forms for each conference submitted 
by his office to the Standards Committee was based on 
information provided to his office by Karl Rodney and the Carib 
News Foundation. Representative Thompson provided sworn 
testimony to the Investigative Subcommittee regarding his 
attendance at both conferences.
    On October 9, 2007, Representative Thompson's former 
scheduler, Megan Pittman, completed the traveler form on his 
behalf and submitted it to the Standards Committee for review 
prior to the 2007 conference.\865\ The sponsor form signed by 
Karl Rodney was attached to the traveler form.\866\ Both forms 
indicated that the Carib News Foundation was the only sponsor 
of the 2007 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \865\See Exhibit 93.
    \866\See Exhibit 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 16, 2007, the Standards Committee sent 
Representative Thompson a letter approving his travel to attend 
the conference sponsored by the Foundation based on the 
information provided to the Standards Committee by the 
Foundation.\867\ The Standards Committee also approved 
Representative Thompson's wife to accompany him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \867\See Exhibit 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 29, 2007, Representative Thompson properly 
filed his Post-Travel Disclosure Form with the Office of the 
Clerk.\868\ According to his Post-Travel Disclosure Form, 
Representative Thompson traveled to attend the 2007 conference 
from November 10 through November 12, 2007, with his wife, Dr. 
London Thompson. The information entered on the form was 
provided to him by the Foundation. Representative Thompson 
testified that he reviewed and signed the form prior to its 
submission to the Clerk's office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \868\See Exhibit 96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 16, 2008, Representative Thompson's former 
scheduler, Jennifer Jimerson, completed and signed the traveler 
form\869\ and submitted it to the Standards Committee along 
with the sponsor form\870\ signed by Karl Rodney for review for 
the 2008 conference.\871\ The sponsor form indicated that the 
Foundation was the only sponsor for the 2008 conference.\872\ 
The traveler form indicated that Representative Thompson's wife 
would accompany him to the conference.\873\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \869\See Exhibit 94.
    \870\See Exhibit 90.
    \871\Avant Tr. at 7-8.
    \872\See Exhibit 90.
    \873\See Exhibit 94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 20, 2008, the Standards Committee sent 
Representative Thompson a letter approving travel to St. 
Maarten to attend the conference sponsored by the Foundation 
for both him and his wife.\874\ The approval was based on 
information provided to both Representative Thompson and the 
Standards Committee regarding the sponsor to the 2008 
conference. Representative Thompson filed his post-travel 
form\875\ with the House Clerk's office on December 5, 2008. 
According to the post-travel form, Representative Thompson 
traveled from November 6 through November 9, 2008, with his 
wife, to attend the 2008 conference.\876\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \874\See Exhibit 116.
    \875\See Exhibit 97.
    \876\See Exhibit 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Thompson testified that he was not aware of any 
corporation contributing to either the 2007 or the 2008 
conferences, and if he had noticed any banners with corporate 
logos, it would not have raised any flags.
    The Investigative Subcommittee conducted an extensive and 
thorough investigation, which included interviews of witnesses 
and review of documents and records provided by Representative 
Thompson, the Carib News Foundation, corporations identified as 
contributors to the conferences in 2007 and 2008, and Unique 
Vacations. The Subcommittee found no evidence that 
Representative Bennie G. Thompson knew that any entity other 
than the Carib News Foundation sponsored any part of 
Representative Thompson's travel to attend either the 2007 or 
2008 conference.
    From the documents submitted and reviewed by the Standards 
Committee for both the 2007 and 2008 conferences, the 
Subcommittee finds that Representative Thompson followed the 
procedures in place at the time for pre-travel approval and 
did, in fact, receive approval from the Standards Committee to 
attend both the 2007 and 2008 conferences. He was therefore 
entitled to rely upon the Standards Committee's approval of his 
trip under Standards Committee Rule 3(k), which provides, ``The 
Committee may take no adverse action in regard to any conduct 
that has been undertaken in reliance on a written opinion if 
the conduct conforms to the specific facts addressed in the 
opinion.''\877\ The Standards Committee's opinion regarding 
Representative Thompson's travel was based on facts believed to 
be true by both Representative Thompson and the Standards 
Committee at the time of the opinion. Reliance upon a Standards 
Committee advisory opinion, including travel advisory opinions, 
shields the Member or House staffer from the Standards 
Committee taking any adverse action against him or her in 
regard to conduct undertaken by that person in good faith 
reliance upon the advisory opinion.\878\ However, the Member or 
House staffer is only shielded so long as he or she has 
presented a complete and accurate statement of all material 
facts relied upon in the advisory opinion, and the proposed 
conduct in practice conforms with the information provided, as 
addressed in the opinion.\879\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \877\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \878\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \879\Committee Rule 3(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even though Representative Thompson properly followed 
procedures and received approvals from the Standards Committee 
to attend both conferences, the payments for travel expenses 
made on his and his wife's behalf were impermissible. Payments 
for lodging by a foreign government would have been 
impermissible under the FGDA and Standards Committee 
Rules.\880\ Additionally, because corporations that retained or 
employed lobbyists contributed funds specifically in support of 
the conference, but did not participate in the planning or 
organization of the trip as required under House travel 
regulations, the trip would have been impermissible on that 
basis as well.\881\ Under any of these scenarios, 
Representative Thompson unknowingly received impermissible 
payments for travel and lodging to attend the 2007 and 2008 
conferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \880\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii). See also Comm. on Standards 
of Official Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and 
Gifts 6(e).
    \881\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
96-97 (2008). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel 
Guidelines and Regulations, at 4 (Feb. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because Representative Thompson did not have any knowledge 
of the true source of funding for these two trips, the 
Subcommittee does not find that he violated any law, House 
Rule, regulation, or any other standard of conduct. However, 
because he received impermissible gifts proscribed by House 
Rules, other remedies are necessary. Representative Thompson 
should return or pay for any gifts or benefits he received that 
were impermissible. These would include the airline tickets 
donated by American Airlines for the 2007 conference, 
transportation costs paid by the Foundation, conference fees, 
and lodging and meals paid for by the governments of Antigua 
and St. Maarten or the Foundation.

C. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2007 AND 2008 MULTINATIONAL BUSINESS 
               CONFERENCES BY DELEGATE DONNA CHRISTENSEN

    Delegate Christensen traveled to and attended both the 2007 
conference in Antigua and the 2008 conference in St. Maarten. 
The information on the travel forms submitted in both years by 
her office to the Standards Committee was based on the 
information received from Karl Rodney and the Carib News 
Foundation. Delegate Christensen provided sworn testimony to 
the Investigative Subcommittee regarding her attendance at both 
conferences.
    On October 5, 2007, Delegate Christensen's scheduler, 
Shelley Thomas, completed and signed the traveler form\882\ on 
Delegate Christensen's behalf and submitted it to the Standards 
Committee for review for the 2007 conference.\883\ Attached to 
the traveler form was the sponsor form signed by Karl 
Rodney.\884\ Both forms identified the Carib News Foundation as 
the only sponsor for the 2007 conference held in Antigua. Ms. 
Thomas told the Subcommittee staff that she relied on the 
information provided on the sponsor form in completing the 
traveler form.\885\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \882\See Exhibit 102.
    \883\Thomas Tr. at 9.
    \884\See Exhibit 67.
    \885\Thomas Tr. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 16, 2007, the Standards Committee sent a letter 
to Delegate Christensen approving her travel to attend the 2007 
conference sponsored by the Carib News Foundation.\886\ Her 
child, Christian, was also approved to attend as requested on 
her traveler form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \886\See Exhibit 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On December 6, 2007, Delegate Christensen filed her Post-
Travel Disclosure Form with the House Clerk's office.\887\ Her 
form indicated that she traveled from November 8 through 
November 9, 2007, to attend the 2007 conference and that she 
was unaccompanied.\888\ Delegate Christensen testified that 
although she had obtained approval to bring her son, she 
traveled alone to the 2007 conference.\889\ She also testified 
that she completed and signed the form prior to its submission 
to the Clerk.\890\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \887\See Exhibit 104.
    \888\See Exhibit 104.
    \889\Christensen Tr. at 10.
    \890\Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 19, 2008, Delegate Christensen's scheduler, 
Shelley Thomas, completed and signed the traveler form\891\ on 
Delegate Christensen's behalf and submitted it to the Standards 
Committee for review for the 2008 conference.\892\ Attached to 
the traveler form was the sponsor form signed by Karl 
Rodney.\893\ Both forms indicated that the Carib News 
Foundation was the only sponsor of the 2008 conference held in 
St. Maarten. Ms. Thomas told Subcommittee staff that she relied 
on the information provided on the sponsor form to complete the 
traveler form.\894\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \891\See Exhibit 103.
    \892\Christensen Tr. at 18.
    \893\See Exhibit 90.
    \894\Thomas Tr. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 16, 2008, the Standards Committee sent a letter 
to Delegate Christensen approving her travel to attend the 2008 
conference in St. Maarten accompanied by her spouse.\895\ On 
December 22, 2008, Delegate Christensen submitted her Post-
Travel Disclosure Form for the travel to the House Clerk's 
office.\896\ Her post-travel form indicates Delegate 
Christensen traveled from November 6 through November 8, 2008, 
to attend the 2008 conference and was unaccompanied.\897\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \895\See Exhibit 118.
    \896\See Exhibit 105.
    \897\See Exhibit 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Delegate Christensen testified that she did not know if any 
specific corporation contributed to the conference.\898\ She 
believed that corporations may have donated to the Foundation 
generally.\899\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \898\Christensen Tr. at 21.
    \899\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From the documents submitted and reviewed by the Standards 
Committee for both the 2007 and 2008 conferences, the 
Subcommittee finds that Delegate Christensen followed the 
procedures in place at the time for pre-travel approval and 
did, in fact, receive approval from the Standards Committee to 
attend both the 2007 and 2008 conferences. She was therefore 
entitled to rely upon the Standards Committee's approval of her 
trip under Standards Committee Rule 3(k), which provides, ``The 
Committee may take no adverse action in regard to any conduct 
that has been undertaken in reliance on a written opinion if 
the conduct conforms to the specific facts addressed in the 
opinion.''\900\ The Standards Committee's opinion regarding 
Delegate Christensen was based on facts believed to be true by 
both Delegate Christensen and the Standards Committee at the 
time of the opinion. Reliance upon a Standards Committee 
advisory opinion, including travel advisory opinions, shields 
the Member or House staffer from the Standards Committee taking 
any adverse action against him or her in regard to conduct 
undertaken by that person in good faith reliance upon the 
advisory opinion.\901\ However, the Member or House staffer is 
only shielded so long as he or she has presented a complete and 
accurate statement of all material facts relied upon in the 
advisory opinion, and the proposed conduct in practice conforms 
to the information provided, as addressed in the opinion.\902\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \900\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \901\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \902\Committee Rule 3(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, even though Delegate Christensen properly followed 
procedures and received approvals from the Standards Committee 
to attend both conferences, the payments made on her behalf 
were impermissible. Payments for lodging by a foreign 
government would have been impermissible under the FGDA and 
Standards Committee Rules.\903\ Additionally, because 
corporations that retained or employed lobbyists contributed 
funds specifically for the conference, but did not participate 
in the planning or organization of the trip as required under 
House travel regulations, the trip would have been 
impermissible.\904\ Under any of these scenarios, Delegate 
Christensen unknowingly received impermissible payments for 
travel and lodging to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \903\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii). See also Comm. on Standards 
of Official Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and 
Gifts Sec. 6(e).
    \904\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
96-97 (2008). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel 
Guidelines and Regulations, at 4 (Feb. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because Delegate Christensen did not have any knowledge of 
the true source of funding for these two trips, the 
Subcommittee finds that she did not violate any law, House 
Rule, regulation, or any other standard of conduct. However, 
because she received impermissible gifts proscribed by House 
Rules, other remedies are necessary. Delegate Christensen 
should return or pay for any gifts or benefits she received 
that were impermissible. These would include the airline 
tickets donated by American Airlines for the 2007 conference, 
transportation costs paid by the Foundation, conference fees, 
and lodging and meals paid for by the governments of Antigua 
and St. Maarten or the Foundation.

    D. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2007 MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS 
               CONFERENCE BY REPRESENTATIVE YVETTE CLARKE

    Representative Clarke traveled to and attended the 2007 
conference in Antigua. The information on the travel forms 
submitted by her office to the Standards Committee was based on 
the information received from Karl Rodney and the Carib News 
Foundation. Representative Clarke provided sworn testimony to 
the Investigative Subcommittee regarding her attendance at the 
2007 conference in Antigua.
    On October 4, 2007, Representative Clarke's then Chief of 
Staff, Ian Campbell, completed and signed the traveler 
form\905\ on her behalf and submitted it to the Standards 
Committee for review for the 2007 conference.\906\ Attached to 
the traveler form was the sponsor form signed by Karl 
Rodney.\907\ Both forms identified the Carib News Foundation as 
the only sponsor for the 2007 conference held in Antigua. Mr. 
Campbell told Subcommittee staff that he relied on the 
information provided on the sponsor form in completing the 
traveler form.\908\ He further stated that the Foundation had 
held the conference for several years and they were the only 
sponsor of the event.\909\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \905\See Exhibit 99.
    \906\Campbell Tr. at 6.
    \907\See Exhibit 67.
    \908\Campbell Tr. at 11.
    \909\Campbell Tr. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 16, 2007, the Standards Committee sent a letter 
to Representative Clarke approving her travel to attend the 
2007 conference sponsored by the Carib News Foundation.\910\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \910\See Exhibit 119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 19, 2007, Representative Clarke filed her Post-
Travel Disclosure Form with the House Clerk's office.\911\ 
Representative Clarke verified she spent only two nights and 
one full day at the conference.\912\ On her post-travel form, 
Representative Clarke indicated she traveled to the 2007 
conference from November 10 through November 12, 2007. She also 
testified that her staff completed and signed the form on her 
behalf prior to its submission to the Clerk.\913\ She stated 
that she reviewed and discussed the form prior to its 
submission. Representative Clarke testified that she did not 
know if any corporations donated to the conference.\914\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \911\See Exhibit 100.
    \912\Id. See also Clarke Tr. at 23.
    \913\Clarke Tr. at 23.
    \914\Clarke Tr. at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From the documents submitted and reviewed by the Standards 
Committee for the 2007 conference, the Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Clarke followed the procedures in place at the 
time for pre-travel approval and did, in fact, receive approval 
from the Standards Committee to attend the 2007 conference. She 
was therefore entitled to rely upon the Standards Committee's 
approval of her trip under Standards Committee Rule 3(k), which 
provides, ``The Committee may take no adverse action in regard 
to any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a 
written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts 
addressed in the opinion.''\915\ The Standards Committee's 
opinion regarding Representative Clarke was based on facts 
believed to be true by both Representative Clarke and the 
Standards Committee at the time of the opinion. Reliance upon a 
Standards Committee advisory opinion, including travel advisory 
opinions, shields the Member or House staffer from the 
Standards Committee taking any adverse action against him or 
her in regard to conduct undertaken by that person in good 
faith reliance upon the advisory opinion.\916\ However, the 
Member or House staffer is only shielded so long as he or she 
has presented a complete and accurate statement of all material 
facts relied upon in the advisory opinion, and the proposed 
conduct in practice conforms with the information provided, as 
addressed in the opinion.\917\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \915\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \916\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \917\Committee Rule 3(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even though Representative Clarke properly followed 
procedures and received approvals from the Standards Committee 
to attend both conferences, the payments made on her behalf 
were impermissible. Payments for lodging by a foreign 
government would have been impermissible under the FGDA and 
Standards Committee Rules.\918\ Additionally, because 
corporations that retained or employed lobbyists contributed 
funds specifically in support of the conference, but did not 
participate in the planning or organization of the trip as 
required under House travel regulations, the trip would have 
been impermissible.\919\ Under any of these scenarios, 
Representative Clarke unknowingly received an impermissible 
payment for travel and lodging to attend the 2007 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \918\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii). See also Comm. on Standards 
of Official Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and 
Gifts Sec. 6(e).
    \919\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
96-97 (2008). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel 
Guidelines and Regulations, at 4 (Feb. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because Representative Clarke did not have any knowledge of 
the true source of funding for this trip, the Subcommittee does 
not find that she violated any law, House Rule, regulation, or 
any other standard of conduct. However, because she received 
impermissible gifts proscribed by House Rules, other remedies 
are necessary. Representative Clarke should return or pay for 
any gifts or benefits she received that were impermissible. 
These gifts or benefits would include the airline tickets 
donated by American Airlines for the 2007 conference, 
transportation costs paid by the Foundation, conference fees, 
and lodging and meals paid for by the governments of Antigua or 
the Foundation.

    E. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2008 MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS 
               CONFERENCE BY REPRESENTATIVE DONALD PAYNE

    Representative Payne traveled to and attended the 2008 
conference in St. Maarten. The information on the travel forms 
submitted by his office to the Standards Committee was based on 
the information received from Karl Rodney and the Carib News 
Foundation. Representative Payne provided sworn testimony to 
the Investigative Subcommittee regarding his attendance at the 
2008 conference in St. Maarten.
    On October 15, 2008, Representative Payne's scheduler, 
Darlene Murray, completed and signed the traveler form\920\ on 
Representative Payne's behalf and faxed it to the Standards 
Committee for review for the 2008 conference.\921\ Attached to 
the traveler form was the sponsor form signed by Karl 
Rodney.\922\ Both forms identified the Carib News Foundation as 
the only sponsor for the 2008 conference held in St. Maarten. 
Ms. Murray told Subcommittee staff that she relied on the 
sponsor form in completing the traveler form.\923\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \920\See Exhibit 106.
    \921\Murray Tr. at 14.
    \922\See Exhibit 90.
    \923\Murray Tr. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 16, 2008, the Standards Committee sent a letter 
to Representative Payne approving his travel to attend the 2008 
conference sponsored by the Carib News Foundation with an 
additional two days after the conference that Representative 
Payne was paying for out of personal funds.\924\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \924\See Exhibit 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 19, 2008, Representative Payne filed his Post-
Travel Disclosure Form with the House Clerk's office.\925\ 
Representative Payne verified he spent a total of five days in 
St. Maarten, two of which he paid for out of personal 
funds.\926\ His post-travel form indicates he traveled from 
November 6 through November 11, 2008, and his stay from 
November 10 to November 11, 2008, was at his personal expense. 
He testified that Ms. Murray completed and likely signed the 
post-travel form on his behalf prior to its submission to the 
clerk.\927\ He stated that he reviewed the form prior to its 
submission.\928\ Representative Payne testified that he did not 
know if any corporations donated to the conference.\929\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \925\See Exhibit 108.
    \926\Payne Tr. at 14.
    \927\Payne Tr. at 26.
    \928\Id.
    \929\Payne Tr. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Payne did not recall any remarks 
``thanking'' the sponsors at the conference but thought that 
corporate sponsors contributed to the Foundation generally and 
not to the conference specifically.\930\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \930\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From the documents submitted and reviewed by the Standards 
Committee for the 2008 conference, the Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Payne followed the procedures in place at the 
time for pre-travel approval and did, in fact, receive approval 
from the Standards Committee to attend the 2008 conference. He 
was therefore entitled to rely upon the Standards Committee's 
approval of his trip under Standards Committee Rule 3(k), which 
provides, ``The Committee may take no adverse action in regard 
to any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a 
written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts 
addressed in the opinion.''\931\ The Standards Committee's 
opinion regarding Representative Payne was based on facts 
believed to be true by both Representative Payne and the 
Standards Committee at the time of the opinion. Reliance upon a 
Standards Committee advisory opinion, including travel advisory 
opinions, shields the Member or House staffer from the 
Standards Committee taking any adverse action against him or 
her in regard to conduct undertaken by that person in good 
faith reliance upon the advisory opinion.\932\ However, the 
Member or House staffer is only shielded so long as he or she 
has presented a complete and accurate statement of all material 
facts relied upon in the advisory opinion, and the proposed 
conduct in practice conforms with the information provided, as 
addressed in the opinion.\933\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \931\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \932\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \933\Committee Rule 3(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, even though Representative Payne properly followed 
procedures and received approvals from the Standards Committee 
to attend the 2008 conference, the payments made on his behalf 
were impermissible. Payments for lodging by a foreign 
government would have been impermissible under the FGDA and 
Standards Committee Rules.\934\ Additionally, because 
corporations that retained or employed lobbyists contributed 
funds specifically in support of the conference, but did not 
participate in the planning or organization of the trip as 
required under House travel regulations, the trip would have 
been impermissible.\935\ Under any of these scenarios, 
Representative Payne unknowingly received an impermissible 
payment for travel and lodging to attend the 2008 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \934\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii). See also Comm. on Standards 
of Official Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and 
Gifts Sec. 6(e).
    \935\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
96-97 (2008). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel 
Guidelines and Regulations, at 4 (Feb. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because Representative Payne did not have any knowledge of 
the true source of funding for this trip, the Subcommittee does 
not find that he violated any law, House Rule, regulation, or 
any other standard of conduct. However, because he received 
impermissible gifts proscribed by House Rules, other remedies 
are necessary. Representative Payne should return or pay for 
any gifts or benefits he received that were impermissible. 
These gifts or benefits would include transportation costs, 
conference fees, lodging, meals and any other costs paid on his 
behalf by the Foundation, or lodging and meals paid for by the 
Government of St. Maarten.

    F. TRAVEL TO AND ATTENDANCE AT THE 2008 MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS 
         CONFERENCE BY REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK

    Representative Kilpatrick traveled to and attended the 2008 
conference in St. Maarten. The information on the travel forms 
submitted by her office to the Standards Committee on October 
3, 2008, was based on the information received from Karl Rodney 
and the Carib News Foundation. Representative Kilpatrick 
provided sworn testimony to the Investigative Subcommittee 
regarding her attendance at the 2008 conference in St. Maarten.
    On October 15, 2008, Representative Kilpatrick's scheduler, 
Roxanne Scott, completed the traveler form\936\ and faxed it to 
the Standards Committee for review for the 2008 
conference.\937\ Representative Kilpatrick told the 
Subcommittee that she reviewed and signed the form before its 
submission.\938\ Attached to the traveler form was the sponsor 
form signed by Karl Rodney.\939\ Both forms identified the 
Carib News Foundation as the only sponsor for the 2008 
conference held in St. Maarten. Ms. Scott told Subcommittee 
counsel that she relied on the information provided on the 
sponsor form in completing the traveler form.\940\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \936\See Exhibit 126.
    \937\Scott Tr. at 8.
    \938\Kilpatrick Tr. at 18.
    \939\See Exhibit 90.
    \940\Scott Tr. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 16, 2008, the Standards Committee sent a letter 
to Representative Kilpatrick approving her travel to attend the 
2008 conference sponsored by the Carib News Foundation.\941\ 
Representative Kilpatrick subsequently notified the Standards 
Committee that she would be accompanied by her sister, Marsha 
Cheeks, by submitting a revised traveler form.\942\ The 
Standards Committee sent a letter on October 21, 2008, 
approving both her and her sister's travel to attend the 2008 
conference.\943\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \941\See Exhibit 128.
    \942\See Exhibit 127.
    \943\See Exhibit 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 20, 2008, Representative Kilpatrick filed her 
Post-Travel Disclosure Form with the House Clerk's office.\944\ 
Representative Kilpatrick verified she spent a total of three 
days in St. Maarten, traveling from November 6, 2008, through 
November 9, 2008. She indicated on the post-travel form that 
she was accompanied by her sister, Marsha Cheeks, whose 
expenses were also paid for by the Foundation.\945\ During her 
testimony before the Subcommittee, she also noted that her 
daughter and infant granddaughter were also present at the 
conference, but she had paid for their expenses out of personal 
funds.\946\ She testified that Ms. Scott completed the form, 
which Representative Kilpatrick reviewed and signed prior to 
its submission to the Clerk.\947\ Representative Kilpatrick 
testified that she did not know if any corporations contributed 
to the conference and even though she noted corporate logos on 
banners and materials, she believed they contributed to the 
Foundation generally and not specifically to the conference or 
for travel.\948\ She also stated that when she thanked 
``sponsors'' she was referring to the support they provided to 
the ``caucus'' and not the conference.\949\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \944\See Exhibit 98.
    \945\See Exhibit 98.
    \946\Kilpatrick Tr. at 22.
    \947\Kilpatrick Tr. at 17-18.
    \948\Kilpatrick Tr. at 27.
    \949\Kilpatrick Tr. at 20.

          Q. Were they at any time identified as sponsors for 
        the event?
          A. You've got my quote as Chair of the Caucus, 
        bringing greetings. I think of them as sponsors. Again, 
        in my mind, partners, as supporters of the--which I 
        think is a synonym for sponsors--are supporters. I 
        wasn't thinking like our Ethics rules now say someone 
        who gives it or helps plan it and all that.
          I was thinking more of representing our caucus, 
        thanking them for working with us to get to know one 
        another. Heads of states are there. You know, it is 
        really a good conference for us in the work that we do 
        here in the Congress. That is how I look at it.
          If you said I used the wording--and I did--I meant 
        more as supporters of Carib as well as supporters of 
        us, not knowing at all what they did for that 
        particular conference.
          Q. So when you used the term ``sponsors,'' it wasn't 
        meant that you knew they had funded the conference or 
        anything?
          A. I had no idea, no.

    From the documents submitted and reviewed by the Standards 
Committee for the 2008 conference, the Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Kilpatrick followed the procedures in place at 
the time for pre-travel approval and did, in fact, receive 
approval from the Standards Committee to attend the 2008 
conference. However, even though Representative Kilpatrick 
properly followed procedures and received approvals from the 
Standards Committee to attend both conferences, the payments 
made on her behalf were impermissible. Payments for lodging by 
a foreign government would have been impermissible under the 
FGDA and Standards Committee Rules.\950\ Additionally, because 
corporations that retained or employed lobbyists contributed 
funds specifically in support of the conference, but did not 
participate in the planning or organization of the trip as 
required under House travel regulations, the trip would have 
been impermissible.\951\ Under any of these scenarios, 
Representative Kilpatrick unknowingly received an impermissible 
payment for travel and lodging to attend the 2008 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \950\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii). See also Comm. on Standards 
of Official Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and 
Gifts Sec. 6(e).
    \951\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual at 
96-97 (2008). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel 
Guidelines and Regulations, at 4 (Feb. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because Representative Kilpatrick did not have any 
knowledge of the true source of funding for this trip, the 
Subcommittee does not find that she violated any law, House 
Rule, regulation, or any other standard of conduct. She was 
therefore entitled to rely upon the Standards Committee's 
approval of her trip under Standards Committee Rule 3(k), which 
provides, ``The Committee may take no adverse action in regard 
to any conduct that has been undertaken in reliance on a 
written opinion if the conduct conforms to the specific facts 
addressed in the opinion.''\952\ The Standards Committee's 
opinion regarding Representative Kilpatrick was based on facts 
believed to be true by both Representative Kilpatrick and the 
Standards Committee at the time of the opinion. Reliance upon a 
Standards Committee advisory opinion, including travel advisory 
opinions, shields the Member or House staffer from the 
Standards Committee taking any adverse action against him or 
her in regard to conduct undertaken by that person in good 
faith reliance upon the advisory opinion.\953\ However, the 
Member or House staffer is only shielded so long as he or she 
has presented a complete and accurate statement of all material 
facts relied upon in the advisory opinion, and the proposed 
conduct in practice conforms to the information provided, as 
addressed in the opinion.\954\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \952\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \953\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \954\Committee Rule 3(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, because she received impermissible gifts 
proscribed by House Rules, other remedies are necessary. 
Representative Kilpatrick should return or pay for any gifts or 
benefits she received that were impermissible. These gifts or 
benefits would include transportation costs, conference fees, 
lodging, meals and any other costs paid on his behalf by the 
Foundation, or lodging and meals paid for by the Government of 
St. Maarten.

 G. TRAVEL TO THE 2007 AND 2008 MULTI-NATIONAL BUSINESS CONFERENCES BY 
                     REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES RANGEL

    Representative Rangel attended both the 2007 conference in 
Antigua and the 2008 conference in St. Maarten. The Foundation 
paid for the transportation, lodging, meals, and conference 
fees for him to attend each conference. The information on the 
travel forms for each conference submitted by his office to the 
Standards Committee was based on information provided to his 
office by Karl Rodney and the Carib News Foundation. 
Representative Rangel provided sworn testimony to the 
Investigative Subcommittee regarding his attendance at both 
conferences.
    On October 5, 2007, Representative Rangel's former Chief of 
Staff, George Dalley, completed and signed the traveler 
form\955\ on Representative Rangel's behalf and submitted it to 
the Standards Committee for review prior to the 2007 
conference.\956\ The form signed by Karl Rodney was attached to 
the traveler form.\957\ Both forms indicated that the Carib 
News Foundation was the only sponsor of the 2007 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \955\See Exhibit 109.
    \956\Dalley Tr. at 13-14.
    \957\See Exhibit 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 16, 2007, the Standards Committee sent 
Representative Rangel a letter approving his travel to attend 
the conference sponsored by the Foundation based on the 
information provided to the Standards Committee by the 
Foundation.\958\ The Standards Committee also approved 
Representative Rangel's son, Steven Rangel, to accompany him. 
However, his son did not travel to the conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \958\See Exhibit 122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 30, 2008, Representative Rangel filed his 
Post-Travel Disclosure Form for the 2007 conference with the 
Office of the Clerk.\959\ This form was not submitted as 
required within 15 days after travel. Mr. Dalley explained that 
they forgot to file it and once notified of that fact they then 
filed the form.\960\ Representative Rangel's post-travel form 
indicated he traveled from November 10, 2007, through November 
11, 2007, to attend the 2007 conference. The information 
provided on the form was provided to Mr. Dalley by the 
Foundation.\961\ Representative Rangel indicated that he had 
not seen the form prior to it being included in the OCE 
referral materials provided to him by the Standards 
Committee.\962\ Representative Rangel testified that he only 
stayed one or two days at the 2007 conference.\963\ According 
to his post-travel disclosure, he stayed two days in 2007.\964\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \959\See Exhibit 69.
    \960\Dalley Tr. at 19.
    \961\Dalley Tr. at 19-20.
    \962\Rangel Tr. at 13.
    \963\Rangel Tr. at 17-18.
    \964\See Exhibit 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2008, Mr. Dalley completed and signed the travel 
form\965\ and submitted it to the Standards Committee along 
with the form signed by Karl Rodney for review for the 2008 
conference.\966\ The sponsor form indicated that the Foundation 
was the only sponsor for the 2008 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \965\See Exhibit 124.
    \966\Dalley Tr. at 51-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 23, 2008, the Standards Committee sent 
Representative Rangel a letter approving his travel to St. 
Maarten to attend the conference sponsored by the 
Foundation.\967\ The approval was based on information provided 
to both Representative Rangel and the Standards Committee 
regarding the sponsor to the 2008 conference. On November 23, 
2008, Mr. Dalley completed the Post-Travel Disclosure Form\968\ 
and signed Mr. Rangel's name.\969\ The form was then filed with 
the House Clerk's office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \967\See Exhibit 123.
    \968\See Exhibit 113.
    \969\Dalley Tr. at 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rangel testified that he was not aware of any 
corporations contributing to either of the conferences.\970\ 
Mr. Rangel also stated he did not notice any corporate logos or 
banners at either conference.\971\ However, documents provided 
to the Standards Committee by Representative Rangel included a 
memorandum written on September 25, 2008, by Michelle 
Sherwood--Representative Rangel's counsel in his New York 
district office discussed corporate sponsors for the 2008 
conference.\972\ The memorandum was addressed to Representative 
Rangel, requested direction from him, and discussed a telephone 
conversation between Ms. Sherwood and Faye Rodney. The 
memorandum indicated that Mrs. Rodney was very upset that HSBC 
Bank, one of the contributors to the 2008 conference, was 
withdrawing its support due to a negative New York Post article 
regarding the 2007 conference.\973\ The memorandum indicated 
that Ms. Sherwood discussed the issue with George Dalley and 
other Members of Representative Rangel's New York staff.\974\ 
The memorandum also discussed that other sponsors such as AT&T 
were ``holding strong'' but Ms. Rodney was concerned that AT&T 
may also withdraw its financial support to the conference 
because of the negative press regarding the 2007 
conference.\975\ Ms. Sherwood provided some suggested actions 
to regain HSBC Bank's support and asked for Representative 
Rangel's guidance.\976\ HSBC Bank subsequently provided support 
to the 2008 conference.\977\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \970\Rangel Tr. at 20.
    \971\Id.
    \972\See Exhibit 84.
    \973\Id.
    \974\Id.
    \975\Id.
    \976\Id.
    \977\See Exhibit 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Rangel told the Subcommittee he did not 
recall the memorandum and did not know what HSBC Bank was.\978\ 
He also stated he never provided any guidance for dealing with 
the issue.\979\ Mr. Rangel was also shown the Foundation's 
letter to American Airlines regarding tickets for the 2007 
conference which contained a line indicating a copy was sent to 
Representative Rangel.\980\ Representative Rangel testified 
that he had never seen the letter and did not know why he would 
have been copied.\981\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \978\Rangel Tr. at 21.
    \979\Rangel Tr. at 21-22.
    \980\See Exhibit 36.
    \981\Rangel Tr. at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is clear from the memorandum written by Ms. Sherwood 
that both she and Mr. Dalley were aware of AT&T's and HSBC 
Bank's sponsorship of the 2008 conference. Additionally, Mr. 
Dalley completed and signed the travel forms on behalf of 
Representative Rangel for the 2008 conference. The forms 
indicated that the Carib News Foundation was the only sponsor 
of the 2008 conference. Mr. Dalley knew that the information on 
the travel forms was incorrect and should have listed the other 
sponsors. Mr. Dalley's knowledge that HSBC Bank and AT&T were 
sponsors to the 2008 conference should have been shared with 
Representative Rangel. It is unproven whether Representative 
Rangel in fact received the memorandum written by Ms. Sherwood 
regarding Mrs. Rodney's concerns about HSBC Bank. However, the 
Investigative Subcommittee also cannot prove that 
Representative Rangel did not receive this memorandum.
    Ms. Sherwood had also prepared a memorandum on October 23, 
2008, addressed to Representative Rangel discussing an article 
in the New York Post critical of the 2007 conference.\982\ In 
this memorandum, she discussed the allegations in the Post 
article regarding corporate sponsorship of the 2007 
conference.\983\ Representative Rangel told the Subcommittee 
that he initially was not going to attend the 2008 conference 
because of the negative press surrounding the conference, but 
subsequently decided to attend.\984\ It is likewise unproven 
that Representative Rangel received this memorandum. However, 
the Investigative Subcommittee likewise cannot prove that 
Representative Rangel did not receive this memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \982\See Exhibit 112.
    \983\Id.
    \984\Rangel Tr. at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on previous decisions by the Standards Committee, it 
is unnecessary to determine whether Representative Rangel 
received the memoranda and therefore had actual knowledge that 
the conferences were being sponsored by or had multiple sources 
of funding.\985\ It is clear that his staff knew that the 
conferences were supported by corporate donations.\986\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \985\Comm. On Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of 
Representative Austin J. Murphy (hereinafter Murphy), Report 100-485, 
100th Congress, 1st Sess. (1987); Comm. On Standards of Official 
Conduct, Statement of the Standards Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct Regarding Complaints Against Representative Newt Gingrich 
(hereinafter Gingrich 1990), 101st Congress (March 8, 1990); Comm. On 
Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative E.G. 
``Bud'' Shuster (hereinafter Shuster), Report 106-979, 106th Congress, 
2nd Sess. (2000).
    \986\See Exhibits 84 and 112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Members are responsible for the knowledge and acts acquired 
or committed by their staff within the course and scope of 
their employment.\987\ In Gingrich, the Standards Committee 
held Representative Gingrich responsible for letters mailed by 
his staff in violation of the Franking Privilege despite his 
lack of personal knowledge.\988\ Furthermore, in Shuster, the 
Standards Committee stated, ``Members of the House are 
ultimately responsible for ensuring their offices function in 
accordance with applicable standards. In this regard, Members 
must not only ensure that their offices comply with appropriate 
standards, but also take account in the manner in which their 
actions may be perceived.''\989\ Representative Shuster's 
former Chief of Staff, after she left his employment, continued 
to provide advisory and scheduling services to the House 
office. Representative Shuster condoned her conduct through his 
inaction.\990\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \987\Murphy at 8 and 85.
    \988\Gingrich at 57, 60, and 78.
    \989\Shuster at 49.
    \990\Id. at 3F-3G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Murphy's response to the allegations that he 
allowed a law firm to use House supplies and property was that 
he did not know or did not approve of the use.\991\ Counsel to 
the Select Committee argued that ``a Member must bear 
responsibility for the actions which are under his ultimate 
authority and should not escape liability by attempting to 
blame his staff.''\992\ The Committee agreed with this position 
and held that Representative Murphy was ``responsible to the 
House for assuring that resources provided in support of his 
official duties are applied to the proper purposes,'' 
regardless of his claim that he had no knowledge of their 
use.\993\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \991\Murphy at 4.
    \992\Id. at 85.
    \993\Murphy at 5, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee's long-standing precedent has support in 
decisions of the courts, as well. In federal criminal pattern 
jury instructions, the various circuits provide instructions 
related to the criminal liability of corporations that arise 
out of the conduct of their agents. For example, the Eighth 
Circuit's Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 5.04 provides,

          A corporation may be found guilty of a criminal 
        offense.
          A corporation can act only through its agents--that 
        is, its directors, officers, employees, and other 
        persons authorized to act for it.
          To find a corporate defendant guilty you must find 
        beyond a reasonable doubt that:
          One, each element of the crime charged against the 
        corporation was committed by one or more of its agents; 
        and
          Two, in committing those acts the agent[s] intended, 
        at least in part, to benefit the corporation; and
          Three, each act was within the scope of employment of 
        the agent who committed it.
          For an act to be within the scope of an agent's 
        employment it must relate directly to the performance 
        of the agent's general duties for the corporation. It 
        is not necessary that the act itself have been 
        authorized by the corporation.
          If an agent was acting within the scope of his 
        employment, the fact that the agent's act was illegal, 
        contrary to his employer's instructions or against the 
        corporation's policies will not relieve the corporation 
        of responsibility for it.\994\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \994\Jud. Comm. On Model Jury Instructions for the Eighth Circuit, 
Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions, http://
www.juryinstructions.ca8.uscourts.gov/criminal_instructions.htm (last 
visited February 4, 2010).   
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * * *

    Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First 
Circuit discussed the issue regarding a corporation's liability 
based on the collective knowledge of its employees in its 
decision in U.S. v. Bank of New England, holding that a 
corporation cannot:

        plead innocence by asserting that the information 
        obtained by several employees was not acquired by any 
        one individual who then would have to comprehend its 
        full import. Rather, the corporation is considered to 
        have acquired the collective knowledge of its employees 
        and is held responsible for their failure to act 
        accordingly.\995\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \995\821 F. 2d 844 (1st Cir. 1987). See also, e.g., Spurr v. United 
States, 174 U.S. 728 (1899) (approving a jury instruction that wilful 
ignorance of a fact satisfies a mens rea of knowledge when there is a 
specific statutory duty to ascertain the fact); People v. Brown, 16 P. 
1 (Cal. 1887) (using wilful ignorance to infer actual knowledge); 
Bosley v. Davies, 1 Q.B.D. 84 (1875) (holding that wilful ignorance 
satisfies the mens rea of ``suffering'' illegal activity).

    The First Circuit also found that the trial judge properly 
instructed the jury that it could infer knowledge if the 
``defendant consciously avoided learning about the reporting 
requirements.''\996\ In this case, the Bank of New England was 
prosecuted for criminal violations of the Bank Records and 
Foreign Transactions Act (BRFTA) for failing to report certain 
transactions. Bank employees were prosecuted for structuring 
deposits in a manner to avoid triggering the currency reporting 
requirements under BRFTA.\997\ The trial judge gave the 
following instruction to the jury regarding collective 
knowledge:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \996\821 F.2d 844, 855.
    \997\Id. at 847.

          In addition, however, you have to look at the bank as 
        an institution. As such, its knowledge is the sum of 
        the knowledge of all of the employees. That is, the 
        bank's knowledge is the totality of what all of the 
        employees know within the scope of their employment. 
        So, if Employee A knows one facet of the currency 
        reporting requirement, B knows another facet of it, and 
        C a third facet of it, the bank knows them all. So if 
        you find that an employee within the scope of his 
        employment knew that CTRs had to be filed, even if 
        multiple checks are used, the bank is deemed to know 
        it. The bank is also deemed to know it if each of 
        several employees knew a part of that requirement and 
        the sum of what the separate employees knew amounted to 
        knowledge that such a requirement existed.\998\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \998\Id.

    The trial judge also gave the jury instructions on the 
issue of specific intent and how it could be applied to the 
bank through the conduct of the bank's employees. The trial 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
judge instructed the jury:

          There is a similar double business with respect to 
        the concept of willfulness with respect to the bank. In 
        deciding whether the bank acted willfully, again you 
        have to look first at the conduct of all employees and 
        officers, and, second, at what the bank did or did not 
        do as an institution. The bank is deemed to have acted 
        willfully if one of its employees in the scope of his 
        employment acted willfully. So, if you find that an 
        employee willfully failed to do what was necessary to 
        file these reports, then that is deemed to be the act 
        of the bank, and the bank is deemed to have willfully 
        failed to file.
          Alternatively, the bank as an institution has certain 
        responsibilities; as an organization, it has certain 
        responsibilities. And you will have to determine 
        whether the bank as an organization consciously avoided 
        learning about and observing CTR requirements. The 
        Government to prove the bank guilty on this theory, has 
        to show that its failure to file was the result of some 
        flagrant organizational indifference. In this 
        connection, you should look at the evidence as to the 
        bank's effort, if any, to inform its employees of the 
        law; its effort to check on their compliance; its 
        response to various bits of information that it got in 
        August and September of '84 and February of '85; its 
        policies, and how it carried out its stated policies.
          If you find that the Government has proven with 
        respect to any transaction either that an employee 
        within the scope of his employment willfully failed to 
        file a required report or that the bank was flagrantly 
        indifferent to its obligations, then you may find that 
        the bank has willfully failed to file the required 
        reports.\999\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \999\Id. at 855.

    The First Circuit found that the collective knowledge 
instruction was ``entirely appropriate'' and that the 
``knowledge obtained by corporate employees acting within the 
scope of their employment is imputed to the 
corporation.''\1000\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1000\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, according to the Restatement of Agency 
regarding actual or constructive knowledge of an agent:\1001\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1001\3 Am Jur 2d Agency 277.

          The rule charging the principal with an agent's 
        knowledge is not necessarily restricted to matters of 
        which the agent has actual knowledge, and according to 
        some courts, the principal is charged with the 
        knowledge of that which the agent, by ordinary care, 
        could have known,\1002\ especially where the agent has 
        received sufficient information to awaken 
        inquiry.\1003\ According to other courts, however, the 
        principal is not affected by knowledge which the agent 
        should have acquired in the performance of his or her 
        duties unless the principal has a duty to others that 
        care will be exercised in obtaining information.\1004\ 
        Also, in this regard, the Restatement Second of Agency 
        provides that the principal is not affected by the 
        knowledge which an agent should have acquired in the 
        performance of the agent's duties to the principal or 
        to others, except where the principal or master has a 
        duty to others that care shall be exercised in 
        obtaining information.\1005\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1002\Fleming v. U.S., 648 F.2d 1122, 61 A.L.R. Fed. 307 (7th Cir. 
1981); Neal v. Pender-Hyman Hardware Co., 122 N.C. 104, 29 S.E. 96 
(1898).
    \1003\Wittenbrock v. Parker, 102 Cal. 93, 36 P. 374 (1894).
    \1004\State v. One (1) Certain 1969 Ford Van, V. I. N.-E15AHD98177, 
191 N.W.2d 662 (Iowa 1971); Linwood State Bank v. Lientz, 413 S.W.2d 
248 (Mo. 1967).
    \1005\Restatement of Agency 277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          The law imputes the agent's knowledge to the 
        principal, even if the principal does not actually know 
        what the agent knows.\1006\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1006\AutoXchange.com, Inc. v. Dreyer and Reinbold, Inc., 816 
N.E.2d 40 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), as amended, (Nov. 19, 2004).

    Therefore, based upon the Standards Committee's 
longstanding precedent regarding the responsibilities Members 
have for the conduct and actions of their staff, the 
Subcommittee finds that it would not well serve the House as an 
institution to allow its Members to escape responsibility by 
delegating authority to their staff to take actions and hide 
behind their lack of knowledge of the facts surrounding those 
actions. Members choose their own staff and should expect their 
staff to provide them with all the information necessary to 
carry out their responsibilities, as well as to stay within the 
boundaries established by law, regulations, and standards of 
conduct. Many times Members act through the actions of their 
staff and, therefore, should be held liable for those actions 
in certain circumstances. In this case, Representative Rangel 
acted when he attended the conference through Mr. Dalley's 
actions of completing and signing the forms necessary for the 
approval to attend the conference. Representative Rangel 
authorized his Chief of Staff, Mr. Dalley, to complete and sign 
the traveler forms on his behalf. Representative Rangel, 
therefore, can and should be held responsible for the knowledge 
Mr. Dalley and Ms. Sherwood had regarding the corporate 
sponsors.
    As a result of these precedents, Representative Rangel must 
be held responsible for the knowledge of his employees acting 
within the scope of their employment. Because of this imputed 
knowledge, the Investigative Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Rangel knowingly accepted an impermissible gift 
of travel and that he failed to comply with the House travel 
regulation's requirement that he indicate these additional 
sponsors on his post-travel disclosures.
    Therefore, after an extensive and thorough investigation, 
including interviews of witnesses and the review of records and 
documents provided by Representative Rangel, Carib News, Inc., 
and the Carib News Foundation, various corporations and other 
entities that participated in the 2007 and 2008 conferences, 
the Investigative Subcommittee finds that Representative 
Charles Rangel should have ensured that the sponsor form and 
the traveler form had, at a minimum, properly identified HSBC 
Bank and AT&T as corporate sponsors for the 2008 Carib News 
Multi-National Business Conference prior to their submission to 
the Standards Committee. The Subcommittee believes that, 
because Mr. Dalley was aware of the corporate sponsorship for 
the 2008 conference, and the fact that the New York Post 
article had caused Representative Rangel to consider not 
attending the 2008 conference, both Mr. Dalley and 
Representative Rangel had a duty to inquire further into the 
funding of the 2008 conference before submitting the traveler 
form to the Standards Committee.
    In addition to the memorandum written by Michelle Sherwood 
before the 2008 conference, which indicated knowledge of 
corporate sponsorship for the 2008 conference, the Subcommittee 
also found evidence that indicated Representative Rangel was 
aware of corporate sponsorships to previous conferences when it 
was not prohibited under House rules preceding the 2007 rule 
changes. On June 5, 2006, Mr. Dalley submitted a request on 
behalf of Representative Rangel seeking the Standards 
Committee's advice. The request contained a draft letter that 
Representative Rangel wanted to send to potential corporate 
sponsors. Representative Rangel asked for the Standards 
Committee's advice regarding his being able to solicit 
``private sector support and sponsorship'' for the 2006 Multi-
National Business Conference. Based on the request from Mr. 
Dalley, on behalf of Representative Rangel, it is clear that 
Mr. Dalley was aware of corporate sponsorship for the 
conferences as early as 2006. This knowledge should have been 
considered when Mr. Dalley prepared the travel request for the 
2007 conference on behalf of Representative Rangel.\1007\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1007\Most of the sponsors of the 2006 conference also contributed 
to the 2007 and 2008 conferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, the Subcommittee finds that Mr. Dalley's 
submission to the Standards Committee was false or misleading 
in both 2007 and 2008. Mr. Dalley submitted these forms in the 
performance of his official duties as Representative Rangel's 
Chief of Staff, and with full authorization from Representative 
Rangel.
    If the true information regarding the corporate sponsorship 
of the 2007 and 2008 conferences had been disclosed to the 
Standards Committee, the trips would likely not have been 
approved. Therefore, Representative Rangel knowingly received 
impermissible gifts of travel to attend the 2007 and 2008 
conferences in violation of House Rule XXIII, Clause 4 and 
House Rule XXV. Additionally, Representative Rangel did not 
adhere to the spirit and letter of the rules by knowingly 
allowing the incorrect or misleading information regarding the 
trip sponsors to be submitted to the Standards Committee in 
violation of House Rule XXIII, clause 2.
    Additionally, payments for lodging by a foreign government 
would have been impermissible under the FGDA and Standards 
Committee Rules.\1008\ Finally, because corporations that 
retained or employed lobbyists contributed funds specifically 
in support of the conference, but did not participate in the 
planning or organization of the trip as required under House 
travel regulations, the trip would have been 
impermissible.\1009\ Under any of these scenarios, 
Representative Rangel received impermissible payments for 
travel and lodging to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1008\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7432(c)(1)(B)(ii). See also Comm. on Standards 
of Official Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and 
Gifts Sec. 6(e).
    \1009\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual 
at 96-97 (2008). See also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, 
Travel Guidelines and Regulations, at 4 (Feb. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     H. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DAWN KELLY MOBLEY AND THE CARIB NEWS 
                FOUNDATION REGARDING THE 2007 CONFERENCE

    Beginning in March 2007, Dawn Kelley Mobley was employed by 
the late Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones and served as her 
designated counsel (shared staff) to the Standards Committee. 
House Rule X, clause 9(a)(2)(A) allows for the use of ``shared 
staff'' on committees. As defined in the Rule, shared staff are 
those staff members who are not paid exclusively by the 
committee. Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(g)(4), the Chair 
and Ranking Member of the Standards Committee ``may appoint one 
individual from their personal staff to perform service for the 
committee.'' The designated counsel positions came about as a 
result of revisions to the House and Standards Committee rules 
by the Ethics Reform Task Force in June 1997. One suggested 
revision required all Standards Committee staff to be non-
partisan. However, the designated counsels are not required to 
be non-partisan, except in the performance of their duties for 
the Standards Committee.\1010\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1010\Standards Committee Rule 7(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Traditionally, the role of the designated counsels has been 
to review letters, subpoenas, reports, travel approval letters, 
advisory opinions, and other documents prepared by Standards 
Committee staff before they are submitted to the Chair and 
Ranking Member for signature.\1011\ Their interaction with 
Standards Committee staff usually involves asking and answering 
questions on behalf of the Chair and/or Ranking Member or 
providing information to the Chair and Ranking Member regarding 
issues of interest.\1012\ They have normally not intervened or 
communicated with private sponsors for congressional travel or 
other events that needed prior Standards Committee review. 
Historically, all such communications were the responsibility 
of the Standards Committee's professional staff who was 
assigned to work on the particular issue. Until a few years 
ago, the designated counsels did not reside in Standards 
Committee space, but worked from their respective Members' 
offices. Eventually the designated counsels were given 
temporary desk space to use while they were at the Standards 
Committee, but most of their time was spent outside Standards 
Committee space. The use of temporary desks evolved into more 
permanent desk space by the time Ms. Mobley was hired as the 
Chair's designee, to correspond with the increased workload of 
the Standards Committee as a result of the new travel rules 
requiring the Standards Committee to approve privately-
sponsored travel in advance. Ms. Mobley worked from Standards 
Committee space more than previous designees, but it was still 
on a part-time basis.
    Currently, the designees work full-time in Standards 
Committee space and have their own offices. This is reflective 
of an ever-increasing workload as a result of both Standards 
Committee initiated reviews of matters, as well as referred 
matters from the newly established Office of Congressional 
Ethics. Designated counsels have day-to-day interaction with 
the professional staff as a result of the increased workload 
from pre-travel reviews, training requirements for House staff, 
and reviews of conduct related issues. As with Ms. Mobley's 
influence over the Standards Committee staff's review of the 
Carib News conference in 2007, the potential for involvement in 
the professional staff's work is even greater with such a 
permanent placement of the designees in the Standards Committee 
space, alongside the professional staff.
    House rules require that shared staff receive a portion of 
their salaries from the Standard Committees to which they are 
assigned and the rest from their Member's representation 
allowance. They are required to work in each location based on 
the percentage of the salary they receive. Currently, the 
shared staff received over 95% of their salary from Standards 
Committee funds, meaning that 95% of their work must be related 
to Standards Committee business. At this ratio, the designees 
are almost full-time employees of the Standards Committee.
    The utilization of the designated counsels to conduct 
Standards Committee business changed with the introduction of 
Ms. Mobley as the Chair's designee and the changes made to the 
travel rules in 2007. Karl Rodney, Faye Rodney, and Patricia 
Louis each stated that Representative Tubbs Jones told them 
that because of the new rules regarding privately sponsored 
travel, which took effect in March 2007, she had assigned Dawn 
Kelly Mobley to be their point of contact to help them 
understand and follow the new rules and procedures for the 2007 
conference.\1013\ Ms. Mobley told the Subcommittee that she was 
unaware of that communication.\1014\ In a letter she sent to 
the Subcommittee, Ms. Mobley stated that she only became 
involved in the 2007 conference at the request of Mr. 
O'Reilly.\1015\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1011\O'Reilly Tr. at 21-22.
    \1012\O'Reilly Tr. at 21-22.
    \1013\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 7-8, Louis Tr. at 22, 
Faye Rodney Tr. at 45-46.
    \1014\Mobley December 15, 2009, Tr. at 11-12.
    \1015\See Exhibit 33 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee reviewed numerous emails that indicated 
Ms. Mobley was in initial contact with the Foundation and 
remained in communication, even after Susan Olson was assigned 
to review the travel request. Ms. Mobley received and sent 
several emails that were not addressed to Ms. Olson, and did 
not make Ms. Olson aware of those emails or the continuing 
communications with Carib News.\1016\ In some emails, Ms. Louis 
solicited Ms. Mobley's advice about how to respond to Ms. 
Olson's queries.\1017\ Ms. Mobley provided guidance to Ms. 
Louis about the definition of sponsors that contradicted the 
definition given by Ms. Olson.\1018\ In some emails, Ms. Mobley 
referenced telephone conversations she had with the Foundation. 
When asked by Subcommittee counsel of these conversations, Ms. 
Mobley did not recall many of these communications.\1019\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1016\See Exhibits 10, 16-17, 20, 31-32.
    \1017\See Exhibit 20.
    \1018\See Exhibits 31-32.
    \1019\Mobley August 11, 2009, Tr. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, Ms. Mobley provided Patricia Louis with 
internal Standards Committee communications without proper 
authority from the Standards Committee. Ms. Mobley acknowledged 
that she sent a copy of an internal email sent by Ms. Olson to 
her and Mr. O'Reilly that was sent to Ms. Louis.\1020\ This 
email contained Ms. Olson's analysis and concerns regarding Ms. 
Louis' response regarding the 2007 corporate sponsors. This was 
an internal Standards Committee communication covered under 
Standards Committee Rule 7(d), which states in part, ``Members 
and staff of the Committee shall not disclose to any person or 
organization outside the Committee, unless authorized by the 
Committee, any information regarding the Committee's or a 
subcommittee's investigative, adjudicatory or other 
proceedings. . . .''\1021\ Ms. Mobley explained that she 
provided this email to Ms. Louis to assist her in understanding 
Ms. Olson's concerns.\1022\ However, Ms. Mobley never received 
authorization from the Standards Committee to release this 
email as required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1020\Mobley August 11, 2009, Tr. at 29-30.
    \1021\Rule 7(d), Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct, Amended June 9, 2009, 111th Congress.
    \1022\Mobley December 15, 2009 Tr. at 40-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After a thorough review of the communications between Ms. 
Mobley and the Foundation, and interviews of witnesses 
including Ms. Mobley, the Subcommittee finds that Dawn Kelley 
Mobley's communication with the Foundation improperly 
influenced the Foundation's submissions and responses to Ms. 
Olson and the Standards Committee before the 2007 
conference.\1023\ The Subcommittee also finds that Ms. Mobley 
released internal Standards Committee communications and staff 
work product without proper authorization in violation of 
Standards Committee Rule 7(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1023\Ms. Mobley was not involved in the review or approval of the 
2008 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      I. THE CARIB NEWS FOUNDATION

    Officers and agents of the Carib News Foundation provided 
false and misleading information to the Standards Committee 
regarding the true sponsors of the 2007 and 2008 conferences 
when they submitted the sponsor forms for approval before the 
conferences, responded to queries from Standards Committee 
staff, and testified before the Subcommittee regarding the two 
conferences. Patricia Louis acknowledged that she forwarded the 
forms and conducted almost all of the communications between 
the Foundation and the Standards Committee staff for both 
conferences.\1024\ However, Ms. Louis testified that she only 
provided the information that Mr. Rodney formulated or drafted 
and instructed her to provide.\1025\ Mr. Rodney confirmed that 
he reviewed all of the communications between Ms. Louis and the 
Standards Committee and formulated the responses.\1026\ Mr. 
Rodney additionally withheld records and other documentation 
from the Investigative Subcommittee that he was properly 
subpoenaed to provide. Mr. Rodney provided some materials after 
the Subcommittee disclosed that it had already received copies 
of the subpoenaed documents from other sources. Mr. Rodney also 
acknowledged to the Subcommittee that he had not provided other 
records and promised to provide them, which he subsequently 
failed to do.\1027\ Mr. Rodney's withholding of documents and 
delay in providing other documents obstructed the 
Subcommittee's investigation of this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1024\Subcommittee interview of Patricia Louis on November 18, 
2009.
    \1025\Id. at 38.
    \1026\Subcommittee Interview of Karl Rodney on December 1, 2009.
    \1027\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 143-146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Carib News Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit private 
foundation as defined by the I.R.C. and as such was prohibited 
from paying for or reimbursing the travel costs of Members of 
Congress to attend the 2007 and 2008 Multi-National Business 
Conferences under the I.R.C.'s self-dealing provisions.\1028\ 
However, the Subcommittee does not find any evidence to support 
the proposition that the Foundation paid for any of the travel 
for the Members to attend the 2007 or 2008 conferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1028\Internal Revenue Code 4941(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney claimed that the Carib News paid for the entire 
travel costs for the Members to attend both the 2007 and 2008 
conferences. If true, the payments would not be prohibited 
under the I.R.C. Copies of the checks used to pay the lodging, 
meals and conference costs for each conference were written on 
Carib News, and not the Foundation's, accounts.\1029\ However, 
only the Foundation was identified as the sponsor of the travel 
forms submitted by Mr. Rodney to the Standards Committee for 
both the 2007 and 2008 conferences, implicating the I.R.C. 
self-dealing provisions.\1030\ Based on the evidence, the 
Subcommittee does not find Mr. Rodney to be credible concerning 
payments for the Members' travel to attend the 2007 conference. 
In addition to the checks used to pay Unique Vacations and 
Sonesta Maho Resorts for the conferences and lodging, American 
Airlines provided the airline tickets that were used by Members 
to travel to the 2007 conference. Other records indicate the 
Government of Antigua paid for the lodging and meals used by 
Members at the 2007 conference. Additional evidence indicates 
that the Government of St. Maarten paid for the lodging and 
meals used by Members during the 2008 conference, although the 
Subcommittee cannot confirm this fact. Mr. Rodney has failed to 
provide any evidence that contradicts this evidence. While the 
Foundation solicited the corporate contributions for the 
conferences, the contributions were deposited into the Carib 
News bank accounts and the contributions were made specifically 
for the conferences and not to the general fund of the 
Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1029\See Exhibit 130.
    \1030\See Exhibits 67 and 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee finds that the contributed airline 
tickets, which were provided specifically for the conferences, 
were ``earmarks'' under the travel rules. Earmarked funds are 
those contributed with a specific intent or purpose. Because 
these tickets were not given to the Foundation to be used for 
any other purpose of the Foundation, but specifically for the 
2007 conference, the Subcommittee finds the tickets were 
``earmarked.'' Therefore, American Airlines should have been 
identified as a sponsor for the 2007 conference. However, even 
if American Airlines was identified as a sponsor, approval for 
Members to attend the conference trip would have been denied 
because American Airlines took no part in the planning or 
organization of the trip. House travel regulations require that 
a sponsor must have a significant role in planning or 
organizing the trip or an interest in the trip location.\1031\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1031\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel Guidelines and 
Regulations, at 3 (Feb. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee also found evidence that the Foundation 
had an agreement with the Government of Antigua, the 2007 
conference host country, to pay for the lodging and meals of 
the Members of Congress who attended the conference.\1032\ 
During his initial interview before the Subcommittee, Mr. 
Rodney claimed that he had paid for Members' lodging and meals. 
However, when confronted with a memorandum that he had written 
to the Government of Antigua Minister of Finance in October 
2007, which informed the Minister of the amount the Government 
of Antigua was to pay to Unique Vacations for Members and VIPs, 
Mr. Rodney appeared shocked and claimed he did not know if the 
Government of Antigua made the payment.\1033\ The memorandum 
was provided to the Subcommittee by Unique Vacations and was 
not included in any of the materials received from the 
Foundation or Carib News, Inc. pursuant to the Standards 
Committee subpoena served on Mr. Rodney. This document was 
responsive to the subpoena, which asked for any and all records 
relating to the travel of any member, delegate, officer or 
employee of the House including invoices and the indicia of 
payments and other documents relating to travel. The original 
agreement between the Foundation and A the Government of 
Antigua required the Government of Antigua to pay for a fixed 
number of rooms for VIPs and Members.\1034\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1032\See Exhibit 3.
    \1033\Id.
    \1034\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After his initial interview with the Subcommittee, Mr. 
Rodney, through counsel, produced additional documents 
regarding the 2007 and 2008 conferences that, although not 
previously provided pursuant to the subpoena authorized by the 
Subcommittee, were responsive to the Subpoena and within the 
Foundation's possession and control. Among these documents was 
a copy of the memorandum to the Minister of Finance of the 
Government of Antigua.\1035\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1035\See Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Rodney asserted, during his second interview before the 
Subcommittee, that he recalled the agreement with the 
Government of Antigua and that he notified the Antiguan 
government they would not be responsible for the lodging of the 
Members after he learned from the ``committee'' that the 
Government of Antigua could not be sponsors.\1036\ Mr. Rodney 
could not specifically identify anyone from the Standards 
Committee whom he purportedly had this conversation with.\1037\ 
Mr. Rodney also could not provide any memorandum or email 
communication with the government that supported his 
claim.\1038\ In fact, when he was asked about this issue during 
his first interview before the Subcommittee, he did not mention 
that he informed the Government of Antigua they could not pay 
for the Members' lodging.\1039\ Additionally, the Government of 
Antigua still paid the agreed upon $31,500, which was not 
reduced to reflect the alleged non-payment of the Members' 
lodging.\1040\ Mr. Rodney attempted to explain the unreduced 
payment by the Government of Antigua. Mr. Rodney stated that he 
paid for the Members' lodging and the Government of Antigua's 
payment covered the lodging for additional VIPs.\1041\ However, 
there is no evidence that Mr. Rodney amended the agreement in 
this manner. The Subcommittee does not find Mr. Rodney to be 
credible on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1036\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 8.
    \1037\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 14.
    \1038\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 38-40.
    \1039\Karl Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 101-103.
    \1040\See Exhibit 66.
    \1041\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 40-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee believes that Mr. Rodney intentionally 
withheld subpoenaed documents until he realized that the 
Subcommittee had obtained them from another source. The 
memorandum to Dr. Cort was not provided by Mr. Rodney until 
after he had been shown the same memorandum that the 
Subcommittee received from Unique Vacations. During the brief 
period between interviews, while Mr. Rodney was allegedly 
extremely busy with the 2009 conference, he was able to 
``find'' the memorandum along with additional records that he 
had not previously provided, but that had already been provided 
to the Standards Committee by other sources. Because no 
evidence indicated that Mr. Rodney modified the agreement with 
the Government of Antigua, and the evidence showed that the 
Government of Antigua did in fact pay the agreed upon amount 
which included the Members' lodging, the Subcommittee finds 
that the Government of Antigua paid for the lodging and meals 
of the Members who attended the 2007 conference.
    The Subcommittee found no evidence that the Members were 
aware of the agreement between the Foundation and the 
Government of Antigua. Because the Members believed their 
lodging and meals were paid for by the Foundation, based on the 
assertions and certifications of Karl Rodney, it was only 
logical to identify the Carib News Foundation as the source for 
the payment of their travel expenses. Had the Members known of 
the payment by the Government of Antigua, they would have been 
required to report it to the Standards Committee under the 
House travel rules related to the FGDA. Once the Standards 
Committee learned of the payment by the Government of Antigua, 
it would have notified the Members that the payment was 
improper, similar to the notification about the trip to 
Montserrat, and required the Members to reimburse the 
Government of Montserrat for their lodging out of other funds.
    The same agreement was in place with the Government of St. 
Maarten for the 2008 conference to pay for the Members' 
lodging.\1042\ The agreement document provided by Mr. Rodney 
for the 2008 conference is the same as the previous agreement 
with the Government of Antigua .\1043\ A memorandum from Mr. 
Rodney to the Government of St. Maarten omits the word 
``Members.''\1044\ The fact that the word ``Members'' was no 
longer in the memorandum, even though the rest of the wording 
was the same as the 2007 memorandum, and was an issue raised by 
Mr. Rodney without prompting during his testimony\1045\ before 
the Subcommittee, causes the Subcommittee to believe that Mr. 
Rodney created the document in preparation for his testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1042\See Exhibits 86-87.
    \1043\See Exhibit 87.
    \1044\See Exhibit 86.
    \1045\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee does not find Mr. Rodney to be credible 
regarding the payments made by the governments of Antigua or 
St. Maarten for the lodging of Members who attended the 2007 or 
2008 conferences.
    The Subcommittee does not find Mr. Rodney to be credible 
regarding his communications with the Standards Committee staff 
during the pre-travel review of the 2007 and 2008 conferences. 
Mr. Rodney testified over and over again that he identified the 
Foundation as the sole sponsor of the 2007 and 2008 conferences 
only because the Standards Committee's staff instructed him to 
do so.\1046\ The facts show otherwise. Before he communicated 
with Dawn Mobley or Susan Olson in 2007, he listed only the 
Carib News Foundation as the sponsor.\1047\ Mr. Rodney listed 
the other corporations initially, but only in response to a 
question eliciting information about the relationship of 
sponsors to the 2007 conference.\1048\ While he stated he was 
directed to list them as participants and not sponsors, he also 
stated many times during his testimony that the corporations 
could not be sponsors.\1049\ The emails from Susan Olson to 
Patricia Louis clearly indicated that she continued to inquire 
about the nature of the corporations and whether the 
corporations and foreign government were paying for any part of 
the travel or conference.\1050\ Patricia Louis' responses, 
which Mr. Rodney formulated, continued to state that the 
Foundation was the only sponsor and that the corporations 
merely contributed to the general fund of the Foundation.\1051\ 
At best, these statements were misleading. Mr. Rodney 
specifically solicited the corporations to provide funding for 
the conferences, not the Foundation generally.\1052\ Ms. Louis 
also verified that the corporations were solicited only to 
support the conferences and not any other event the Foundation 
held.\1053\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1046\Investigative Subcommittee interview of Karl Rodney on 
December 1, 2009.
    \1047\See Exhibit 13.
    \1048\See Exhibit 13.
    \1049\Investigative Subcommittee interview of Karl Rodney on 
December 1, 2009.
    \1050\See Exhibits 19, 23.
    \1051\See Exhibits 21, 24, 28.
    \1052\See Exhibits 36-37, 39-47, 79-80.
    \1053\Subcommittee interview of Patricia Louis on November 18, 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee finds that the evidence is overwhelming 
that corporations provided donations specifically to support 
the 2007 and 2008 conferences and those corporate funds were 
co-mingled with other funds in the Carib News corporate bank 
accounts. These funds were used to pay the costs of the 
conferences. Mr. Rodney claimed that the conferences cost over 
$400,000 each year. He further claimed that contributions 
amounted to approximately $200,000, and that Carib News paid 
the balance for the conferences. However, the records provided 
by the two resorts and the Foundation indicate that lodging, 
meals and costs for conference facilities were between $90,000 
and $112,000.\1054\ While Mr. Rodney assured the Subcommittee 
he had and would provide a breakout of costs for each 
conference, he did not do so.\1055\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1054\See Exhibits 89 and 129.
    \1055\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 141-145. See also Karl 
Rodney October 28, 2009, Tr. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the corporate donations, the Foundation also 
received fees for lodging, meals, and conference costs from 
most attendees. Based on the total costs of the conferences 
indicated by the invoice from the two resorts, the fees the 
Foundation received would have paid for a significant portion 
of the lodging and meal costs for the conferences.
    Mr. Rodney testified that he believed that the corporations 
he solicited could not be sponsors of the annual conferences 
under the new rules and that only the Foundation could sponsor 
the conference starting in 2007.\1056\ He also believed the 
Foundation was required to pay for the Members' expenses.\1057\ 
However, in preparation for the 2008 conference, Mr. Rodney 
continued to solicit corporations to become ``sponsors'' for 
the upcoming conference.\1058\ He also indicated Members of 
Congress would be present at the 2008 conference, and solicited 
American Airlines to again provide airline tickets for the 
Members to attend the 2008 conference.\1059\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1056\Subcommittee interviews of Karl Rodney on October 28 and 
December 1, 2009. See Exhibits 79-80.
    \1057\Id.
    \1058\See Exhibits 79-80.
    \1059\See Exhibits 79-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee finds that Mr. Rodney submitted false 
information to the Standards Committee and to the Members 
invited to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences on multiple 
occasions. Karl Rodney knowingly and willfully instructed 
Patricia Louis to enter information known to him to be false or 
misleading. Karl Rodney subsequently certified the truth of the 
false or misleading information on forms that were submitted to 
the Standards Committee.\1060\ Mr. Rodney, through Patricia 
Louis, knowingly and willfully provided false information to 
Standards Committee staff during their inquiries into the 
nature of the corporations and requests regarding any outside 
sponsors of the corporations. Mr. Rodney, through Patricia 
Louis, knowingly and willfully provided false information to 
Members of Congress when they submitted the post-travel cost 
information relied upon by Members to file their Post-Travel 
Disclosure Forms.\1061\ Additionally, Mr. Rodney knowingly and 
willfully provided false testimony, under oath, to the 
Subcommittee and withheld subpoenaed documents and other 
materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1060\See Exhibits 67, 90.
    \1061\See Exhibits 68, 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee finds that officers and agents of the 
Foundation, Karl Rodney, and Patricia Louis at Karl Rodney's 
direction, submitted false statements to the Standards 
Committee when they completed and forwarded the Private Sponsor 
Travel Certification Form to the Standards Committee without 
identifying the Government of Antigua as a sponsor to the 2007 
conference, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. Karl Rodney, 
and Patricia Louis at Karl Rodney's direction, provided 
additional false statements to the Standards Committee when 
they were specifically asked about payments for lodging and did 
not disclose the agreement with the Government of Antigua at 
that time in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. The Subcommittee 
further finds that Karl Rodney falsely testified before the 
Subcommittee, under oath, when he stated that he informed the 
Government of Antigua they would not be paying for the lodging 
used by the Members' and that Carib News paid for the Members 
lodging in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512(c).
    The Subcommittee also finds that Karl Rodney, through 
Patricia Louis, submitted a false statement to the Standards 
Committee by certifying that the Foundation was the sole 
sponsor of the conference when they submitted the Private 
Sponsor Travel Certification Form for the 2007 Multi-National 
Business Conference. Ms. Olson inquired of Ms. Louis, who 
testified she passed along the email to Mr. Rodney, as to the 
role of the various corporations and the Government of Antigua. 
Mr. Rodney testified that he formulated all of the responses to 
Ms. Olson.\1062\ There is no evidence that Ms. Olson directed 
Mr. Rodney or Patricia Louis to identify the corporations as 
participants and not sponsors as claimed. The email 
communications show Ms. Olson asked the Foundation to provide 
direct answers regarding any payments by the corporations 
listed in the emails to support the 2007 conference. The 
responses formulated by Mr. Rodney and sent by Ms. Louis 
falsely denied the role of the contributors to the 2007 
conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1062\Karl Rodney December 1, 2009, Tr. at 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee further finds that Karl Rodney, and 
Patricia Louis at Karl Rodney's direction, submitted false 
statements to the Members of Congress who attended the 2007 
conference in the submission of the post-conference memorandum 
indicating the total amounts paid for each Member. This 
information provided, which was relied on by the Members when 
they filed their Post-Travel Disclosure Forms, was known by 
both Patricia Louis and Karl Rodney to be inaccurate. Mr. 
Rodney and Ms. Louis were both aware that American Airlines 
provided the airline tickets used by the Members and therefore 
Carib News Foundation paid only $22.00 each for taxes. Mr. 
Rodney and Ms. Louis also knew that the Government of Antigua 
paid $31,500 for the rooms used by Members and VIPs, as agreed. 
Additionally, Mr. Rodney and Ms. Louis were both aware that the 
room rates agreed to under the contract between the Foundation 
and Unique Vacations provided different rates than those 
claimed in the post-travel memorandum submitted to the Members.
    The Subcommittee finds that Karl Rodney, and Patricia Louis 
at Karl Rodney's direction, submitted false statements to 
Congress when they submitted the Private Sponsor Travel 
Certification Form to invited Members and employees of Congress 
in relation to the 2008 Multi-National Business Conference, 
identifying only the Carib News Foundation as the sole 
sponsor.\1063\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1063\See Exhibit 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee also finds that Karl Rodney and Faye 
Rodney provided false statements to Margaret Perl, Standards 
Committee counsel, when they denied, during her interview of 
them regarding the 2008 conference, that any entity other than 
the Foundation paid for any part of the 2008 conference.\1064\ 
Karl Rodney claimed during the interview with Ms. Perl that the 
corporations provided financial support to the general fund of 
the Foundation and not to the conference specifically.\1065\ 
However, the letters, invoices, and other communication he had 
with the corporations clearly indicate the corporations 
provided financial support specifically to the 2008 conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1064\Perl Tr. at 36.
    \1065\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Subcommittee further finds that Karl Rodney, and 
Patricia Louis at Karl Rodney's direction, submitted false 
statements to Congress when they prepared and forwarded a 
memorandum to Members after the 2008 conference detailing the 
expenses paid on behalf of the Members.\1066\ The amounts 
claimed as paid by the Foundation were contradicted by the 
actual payments made on Mr. Rodney's credit card for airline 
transportation as well as the agreed upon room rate with the 
Sonesta Maho Resort in St. Maarten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1066\See Exhibit 92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           V. RECOMMENDATIONS

    Pursuant to Committee Rule 19(g), the Investigative 
Subcommittee makes the following recommendations:
    1. The Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the 
Standards Committee refer the matters involving Karl Rodney, 
Faye Rodney and Patricia Louis, regarding their providing or 
conspiring to provide, false information to Congress, on 
multiple occasions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 and 18 
U.S.C. Sec. 1505, to the U.S. Department of Justice for such 
action as the Department deems necessary.
    2. The Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the 
Standards Committee authorize the release of materials in 
possession of the Committee and not available through any other 
source, to the U.S. Department of Justice, as necessary for any 
further action the Department of Justice pursues as a result of 
the referral of this matter.
    3. As explained in this Report, the Investigative 
Subcommittee is concerned that violations of House rules and 
other standards of conduct may have occurred. The Investigative 
Subcommittee could pursue these matters only if its 
jurisdiction were expanded pursuant to Standards Committee 
rules and the resolution adopted by the Standards Committee on 
June 24, 2009. The Investigative Subcommittee does not find 
sufficient evidence to conclude, nor does it believe that it 
would discover additional evidence to alter its conclusion, 
that Representative Rangel had actual knowledge of the 
memoranda written by his staff. However, the Investigative 
Subcommittee finds Representative Rangel is responsible for the 
knowledge maintained by his staff. For this reason, the 
Investigative Subcommittee does not recommend that its 
jurisdiction be expanded. Rather, the Investigative 
Subcommittee recommends the Standards Committee adopt this 
Report as the Report of the full Committee and approve its 
dissemination to the House and the public. It is the intention 
of this Investigative Subcommittee that the publication of this 
Report will serve as a public admonishment by the Standards 
Committee to Representative Rangel. The Investigative 
Subcommittee also intends the publication of this report will 
serve as an advisory for all Members, employees, and officials 
of the House that Members may be held responsible for the 
knowledge and official conduct of their staff. Furthermore, the 
Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the Standards 
Committee request Representative Rangel to repay the total cost 
of his trips to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences.
    4. As explained in this Report, the conduct of Dawn Kelly 
Mobley in this matter raises concerns that violations of House 
Rules and other standards of conduct may have occurred. The 
Investigative Subcommittee could pursue these matters only if 
its jurisdiction were expanded pursuant to Standards Committee 
rules and the resolution adopted by the full Standards 
Committee on June 24, 2009. However, the Investigative 
Subcommittee does not recommend that its jurisdiction be 
expanded. Rather, the Investigative Subcommittee recommends the 
Standards Committee adopt this Report as the Report of the full 
Committee and approve its dissemination to the House and the 
public. It is the intention of this Investigative Subcommittee 
that the publication of this Report will serve as a public 
admonishment by the Committee to Ms. Mobley.
    5. Based on its investigation, the Investigative 
Subcommittee recommends that the Standards Committee establish 
written policies and procedures as to the duties and 
responsibilities of the designated counsels to the Chair and 
Ranking Member to ensure that such counsels are performing 
their duties to the Committee consistent with the provisions of 
Committee Rule 6. The interaction of the designated counsels in 
the travel review process or other Standards Committee 
functions performed by the professional staff can result, as 
the Subcommittee believes happened in this case, in improperly 
influencing the actions and recommendations of the staff.
    6. During the course of its review, the Investigative 
Subcommittee encountered areas that could benefit from 
improvement in the current House rules and Standards Committee 
rules regarding travel. The Investigative Subcommittee 
recommends that the Standards Committee conduct a review of the 
current House travel rules and Standards Committee rules as 
necessary to ensure that information submitted by a sponsor 
accurately reflects the source of funding for Congressional 
travel and any other amendments that may be necessary to ensure 
an effective and efficient travel review process. For example, 
sponsors should be required to certify to the accuracy of all 
information provided to invitees, including the post-travel 
cost information. Failure to provide certified post-travel 
information may result in that sponsor being ineligible to 
sponsor future trips. The travel regulations should also be 
amended to clarify the definition of a permissible source and 
to foster the identification and disclosure of such sources in 
connection with congressional travel.
    7. During the course of the investigation, counsel for Karl 
Rodney was also engaged to represent Faye Rodney and Patricia 
Louis. The record indicates that information and questions 
asked during the Subcommittee interviews of one witness were 
disclosed to the other witnesses prior to their testimony or 
that counsel used the testimony of one witness to prepare the 
other witnesses for their testimony. Each witness was given a 
sequestration warning at the conclusion of his or her 
testimony. As addressed by the investigative subcommittee in In 
the Matter of Representative Earl F. Hilliard, multiple 
representation by one counsel is ``inimical to the fact finding 
process.''\1067\ Thus, the Investigative Subcommittee 
recommends that the Standards Committee adopt a rule 
prohibiting or limiting representation of multiple witnesses by 
counsel or counsels within the same firm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1067\See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the 
Matter of Representative Earl F. Hilliard, H. Rep. 107-130, 107th 
Cong., 1st Sess. 98 (July 10, 2001) (describing multirepresentation of 
witnesses as ``inimical to the fact-finding process''); see also House 
Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, 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. 13-14 & n.16 (recommending a ``sequestration of 
witnesses'' requirement be implemented in future inquires by Committee 
rule, policy, or resolution and noting that multirepresentation of 
witnesses by the same attorney ``poses a substantial risk to the 
integrity of an investigation'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    8. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that Representative 
Bennie Thompson did not knowingly violate any provision of the 
House gift rule or other applicable rules of conduct when he 
accepted payment or reimbursement of travel to the 2007 and 
2008 conferences. Additionally, the Investigative Subcommittee 
finds that Representative Bennie Thompson is entitled to rely 
upon the opinion letter issued by the Standards Committee 
approving his travel to the 2007 and the 2008 conferences. 
Therefore, Representative Thompson may not be sanctioned for 
unknowingly violating provisions of the House gift rule and 
other applicable rules or statutes. Nevertheless, the 
Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the Standards 
Committee request Representative Thompson to repay the costs of 
his trips to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences as determined 
by the Standards Committee using its standard practices 
relating to the reimbursement of trips determined to be 
invalid. The Investigative Subcommittee further recommends that 
the Standards Committee dismiss the review of officially 
connected travel by Representative Thompson to the 2007 and 
2008 conferences.
    9. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that Delegate Donna 
Christensen did not knowingly violate any provision of the 
House gift rule or other applicable rules of conduct when she 
accepted payment or reimbursement of travel to the 2007 and 
2008 conferences. Additionally, the Investigative Subcommittee 
finds that Delegate Christensen is entitled to rely upon the 
opinion letter issued by the Standards Committee approving her 
travel to the 2007 and the 2008 conferences. Therefore, 
Delegate Christensen may not be sanctioned for unknowingly 
violating provisions of the House gift rule. Nevertheless, the 
Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the Standards 
Committee request Representative Christensen to repay the costs 
of her trips to attend the 2007 and 2008 conferences as 
determined by the Standards Committee using its standard 
practices relating to the reimbursement of trips determined to 
be invalid. The Investigative Subcommittee further recommends 
that the Standards Committee dismiss the review of officially 
connected travel by Delegate Christensen to the 2007 and 2008 
conferences.
    10. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Yvette Clarke did not knowingly violate any 
provision of the House gift rule or other applicable rules of 
conduct when she accepted payment or reimbursement of travel to 
the 2007 conference. Additionally, the Investigative 
Subcommittee finds that Representative Yvette Clarke is 
entitled to rely upon the opinion letter issued by the 
Standards Committee approving her travel to the 2007 
conference. Therefore, Representative Clarke may not be 
sanctioned for unknowingly violating provisions of the House 
gift rule. Nevertheless, the Investigative Subcommittee 
recommends that the Standards Committee request Representative 
Clarke to repay the costs of her trip to attend the 2007 
conference as determined by the Standards Committee using its 
standard practices relating to the reimbursement of trips 
determined to be invalid. The Investigative Subcommittee 
further recommends that the Standards Committee dismiss the 
review of officially connected travel by Representative Clarke 
to the 2007 conference.
    11. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Donald Payne did not knowingly violate any 
provision of the House gift rule or other applicable rules of 
conduct when he accepted payment or reimbursement of travel to 
the 2008 conference. Additionally, the Investigative 
Subcommittee finds that Representative Donald Payne is entitled 
to rely upon the opinion letter issued by the Standards 
Committee approving his travel to the 2008 conference. 
Therefore, Representative Payne may not be sanctioned for 
unknowingly violating provisions of the House gift rule. 
Nevertheless, the Investigative Subcommittee recommends that 
the Standards Committee request Representative Payne to repay 
the costs of his trip to attend the 2008 conference as 
determined by the Standards Committee using its standard 
practices relating to the reimbursement of trips determined to 
be invalid. The Investigative Subcommittee further recommends 
that the Standards Committee dismiss the review of officially 
connected travel by Representative Payne to the 2008 
conference.
    12. The Investigative Subcommittee finds that 
Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick did not knowingly 
violate any provision of the House gift rule or other 
applicable rules of conduct when she accepted payment or 
reimbursement of travel to the 2008 conference. Additionally, 
the Investigative Subcommittee finds that Representative 
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick is entitled to rely upon the opinion 
letter issued by the Standards Committee approving her travel 
to the 2008 conference. Therefore, Representative Kilpatrick 
may not be sanctioned for unknowingly violating provisions of 
the House gift rule. Nevertheless, the Investigative 
Subcommittee recommends that the Standards Committee request 
Representative Kilpatrick to repay the costs of her trip to 
attend the 2008 conference as determined by the Standards 
Committee using its standard practices relating to the 
reimbursement of trips determined to be invalid. The 
Investigative Subcommittee further recommends that the 
Standards Committee dismiss the review of officially connected 
travel by Representative Kilpatrick to the 2008 conference.
    13. The Investigative Subcommittee recommends that the 
Standards Committee transmit this Report to the House and 
approve its dissemination to the public.
 

