[House Report 113-266]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


 113th Congress  }   HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES    {        Report 
   1st Session   }                               {        113-266
                                                                 
======================================================================
                                                House Calendar No. 74
 
                     IN THE MATTERS OF ALLEGATIONS 

RELATING TO TRAVEL TO TAIWAN BY REPRESENTATIVES WILLIAM OWENS AND PETER 

                             ROSKAM IN 2011

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS




 November 15, 2013.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed
     IN THE MATTERS OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO TRAVEL TO TAIWAN BY 
         REPRESENTATIVES WILLIAM OWENS AND PETER ROSKAM IN 2011


113th Congress 
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                113-266
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                  House Calendar No. 74


                     IN THE MATTERS OF ALLEGATIONS 
RELATING TO TRAVEL TO TAIWAN BY REPRESENTATIVES WILLIAM OWENS AND PETER 
                             ROSKAM IN 2011

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS




 November 15, 2013.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed



                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas,           LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California,
  Chairman                             Ranking Member
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana             TED DEUTSCH, Florida

                              Report Staff

          Thomas A. Rust, Interim Chief Counsel/Staff Director
               Jackie M. Barber, Counsel to the Chairman
            Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member

               Clifford C. Stoddard, Jr., Senior Counsel
                Brittany M. Bohren, Investigative Clerk
                          LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                 Washington, DC, November 15, 2013.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: 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 Matters of Allegations 
Relating to Travel to Taiwan by Representatives William Owens 
and Peter Roskam In 2011.''
            Sincerely,
                                   K. Michael Conaway,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
 I.  INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
II.  HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT....3
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND...............................................6

IV.  ANALYSIS........................................................16
 V.  CONCLUSION......................................................19
VI.  STATEMENT UNDER RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE 
    OF REPRESENTATIVES...............................................20

APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS RELATED TO REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM OWENS (Review No. 12-
  8236)..........................................................    21
APPENDIX B: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE ROSKAM (Review No. 13-9784)..   175
APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE OWEN'S RESPONSE TO THE REPORT AND 
  FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS (Review No. 12-
  8236)..........................................................   311
APPENDIX D: REPRESENTATIVE ROSKAM'S RESPONSE TO THE REPORT AND 
  FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS (Review No: 13-
  9784)..........................................................   327
113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    113-266

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




     IN THE MATTERS OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO TRAVEL TO TAIWAN BY 
         REPRESENTATIVES WILLIAM OWENS AND PETER ROSKAM IN 2011

                                _______
                                

  November 15, 2013--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Conaway, from the Committee on Ethics, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    In 2011, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative 
Office (TECRO), the representative of the Government of Taiwan 
in the United States, extended invitations to Representatives 
Bill Owens and Peter Roskam to travel to Taiwan as part of 
approved programs under the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
Exchange Act (MECEA). After TECRO extended the initial 
invitations, it was decided that the trips should be conducted 
under the House's privately-sponsored travel rules and not 
MECEA. Shortly thereafter, the Chinese Culture University 
(CCU), a private university, agreed to sponsor separate trips 
for both Members and their wives. In this way, each Member's 
trip was changed from a MECEA program to travel subject to the 
House's officially-connected, privately-sponsored travel rules. 
Despite the change in the nature of the trips, TECRO--now 
apparently assisting CCU in TECRO's capacity as the 
representative of the Government of Taiwan--remained involved 
in the planning and conduct of the trip.
    It is not improper for a private entity in a foreign 
country to rely on their government's representative in 
Washington to assist them in communicating with the House of 
Representatives and this Committee, particularly where 
significant time differences and language barriers may exist. 
Therefore, the simple request for the Committee to work with 
TECRO did not, at that time, raise any particular red flags.
    Following the change in the nature of the trip, both 
Members sought and received approval from the Committee on 
Ethics (Committee) for themselves and their wives to 
participate in these privately-sponsored trips to Taiwan 
sponsored by CCU. However, it was not clear to the Committee at 
that time that the trips had initially been planned and 
organized under the MECEA programs. It was only after the 
conclusion of the trip that the Committee became aware of this 
fact.
    The change from a MECEA program to a privately-sponsored 
trip was potentially problematic. The late change in the nature 
of the trips, without a significant change in the itinerary or 
involvement of the original sponsor, suggested that CCU may not 
have been a proper sponsor as defined under the privately-
sponsored travel rules. Under the rules, sponsors must be 
involved in the planning and organizing of a trip. So called 
``money-only'' sponsors are not permitted.
    Additionally, in the case of Representative Owens, Park 
Strategies, LLC was involved at various stages of the trip. At 
the time, Park Strategies was a registered foreign agent of 
TECRO. Lobbyists and foreign agents may assist with organizing 
MECEA trips. However, under the House's privately-sponsored 
travel rules, lobbyists and foreign agents may only have de 
minimis involvement in the planning, organization, request, or 
arrangement of a one-day privately-sponsored travel and may 
have no involvement in multi-day trips. After the trip was 
changed to privately-sponsored travel, Park Strategies reduced 
its involvement in the trip, but not sufficiently to comply 
with the privately-sponsored travel rules. In any event, the 
trip that they helped to plan, organize, request, and arrange 
as a MECEA trip was in fact the same trip that CCU was brought 
on to sponsor, with only minor variations. Shortly after these 
allegations became public, and before the Committee or the 
Office of Congressional Ethics initiated its review of the 
matter, Representative Owens personally paid back the costs of 
the trip.
    Beginning in the last Congress, the Committee undertook 
reviews of these two trips. The Office of Congressional Ethics 
(OCE) also reviewed the trips. On August 30, 2012, the OCE 
referred a report and findings to the Committee regarding 
Representative Owens' trip. In its referral, the OCE 
recommended further review of the allegation that 
Representative Owens accepted travel expenses from an 
impermissible source. On February 6, 2013, the Committee 
published the OCE's report and findings regarding 
Representative Owens as required by House Rule and continued 
its review of the allegations. On June 13, 2013, the OCE 
referred a report and findings to the Committee regarding 
Representative Roskam's trip. In its referral, the OCE 
recommended further review of the allegation that 
Representative Roskam accepted travel expenses from an 
impermissible source. On September 11, 2013, the Committee 
published the OCE's report and findings regarding 
Representative Roskam as required by House Rule and continued 
its review of the allegations.
    The Committee has completed its review of the allegations 
and unanimously concluded the following:
    1. The presently-available evidence is inconclusive as to 
whether CCU was a proper sponsor for the trips. Both 
Representatives Owens and Roskam, as well as Park Strategies, 
fully cooperated with the Committee's investigation. 
Unfortunately, neither TECRO nor CCU agreed to cooperate with 
the Committee. Both entities possess information that is 
material to the Committee's investigation. However, both 
entities are also outside of the Committee's power to compel 
testimony.
    2. Representative Owens or his staff repeatedly sought 
guidance from the Committee regarding the trip to Taiwan. The 
presently-available evidence shows that Park Strategies was 
involved in a more than de minimis manner in the planning, 
organizing, requesting, and arranging of his trip, and that 
they remained involved in the trip, even after it changed from 
a MECEA program to privately-sponsored travel. Representative 
Owens should have known that the trip was not a proper 
privately-sponsored trip because of the lobbying firm's 
continued involvement, which the Committee was unaware of. For 
this reason, the payments by CCU for Representative Owens' 
travel expenses were improper. When a Member or employee 
receives an impermissible gift, one appropriate remedy is 
repaying the market value of the gift. As noted previously, 
Representative Owens has already refunded the costs of his 
trip.
    3. As always, the Committee can only approve privately 
sponsored travel when the sponsors cooperate with the 
Committee's oversight responsibilities. If a sponsor or its 
agent refuses to cooperate, the Committee will have no choice 
but to deny approval of a trip. However, the Committee has no 
jurisdiction over the MECEA programs and, therefore, any 
determinations regarding MECEA travel is a matter for the State 
Department to decide. Members are simply urged to exercise 
extreme caution when the nature or sponsor of a trip changes or 
is uncertain in any way. Indeed, the Committee notes that there 
are several different types of permissible official and 
officially-connected travel, each governed by a different set 
of rules and requirements. The differences between these types 
of travel can be confusing, and which set of rules apply to any 
particular trip may not be clear, particularly when outside 
groups are involved. Members and staff are encouraged to not 
necessarily rely on sponsors' claims regarding compliance with 
the ethics rules, but instead to contact the Committee with all 
questions about such travel.
    The Committee's review was incomplete because the 
information necessary to conduct a complete review was outside 
of the Committee's reach. Therefore, because Representative 
Owens has voluntarily remedied the impermissible gift and there 
is insufficient evidence to show that Representative Roskam's 
travel was improper, and after careful consideration, the 
Committee has unanimously voted to close the matter referred by 
the OCE; and agreed to end its review of this matter with the 
publication of this Report.

   II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT


                      A. HOUSE RULE XXV, CLAUSE 5

    House Rule XXV, clause 5 (the Gift Rule), permits Members 
and staff to accept unsolicited travel expenses paid for by a 
private source under certain circumstances and only after pre-
approval by the Committee.\1\ In 2007, the House Rules were 
amended to require House Members and employees to seek prior 
written approval of the Committee before accepting travel paid 
for by a private source, and the Committee adopted regulations 
to implement this new requirement. Pursuant to those rules and 
regulations, the Committee has conducted a thorough review of 
each proposed privately-sponsored trip. Committee staff 
recommends changes where necessary to bring trips into 
compliance with relevant laws, rules, or regulations and, on 
occasion, informs House Members and employees that a proposed 
trip is not permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\House Rule XXV, clause 5(d)(2); see also, House Ethics Manual 
(2008) at 89. N.B., the guidance in the House Ethics Manual applied to 
the trips under review in this report. However, that guidance was 
superseded when the Committee adopted new travel regulations at the end 
of the 112th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A private sponsor is required to complete a Private Sponsor 
Travel Certification Form (Sponsor Form) and must certify that 
the information on the form is true, complete, and correct to 
the best of their knowledge. The Committee relies on the 
representations made on the travel forms as certified by the 
trip sponsor. The Committee recognizes both the significant 
benefit the public receives when their Representatives and 
their Representatives' staff receive hands-on education and 
experience, as well as the mandate that outside groups be 
appropriately limited in what gifts and support they are 
allowed to provide to Members of Congress and congressional 
staff.
    The House Rules provide that if the traveler receives 
advance authorization from the Committee, the necessary travel 
costs ``shall be considered a reimbursement to the House and 
not a gift prohibited by'' the Gift Rule.\2\ One of the 
restrictions to the acceptance of such travel is that 
federally-registered lobbyists or registered foreign agents are 
banned from being involved in the planning, organizing, 
requesting, or arranging of most trips.\3\ Additionally, travel 
paid for by private sponsors who retain or employ lobbyists or 
foreign agents is limited to one day of officially-connected 
activity.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)(1)(A) and (C).
    \3\House Rule XXV, clause 5(c)(2); see also, House Ethics Manual 
(2008) at 89.
    \4\House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)(1)(C)(ii). See also, House Ethics 
Manual (2008) at 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A further factor the Committee considers when reviewing 
requests from Members and staff to accept privately sponsored 
travel is the source of funding for the trip. The House Ethics 
Manual states that

          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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\See Ethics Manual at 97.

    When a Member or employee receives a gift that is 
unacceptable under the Gift Rule, and for which a gift waiver 
is not available, the recipient generally must either return 
the gift or pay the market value of the gift.\6\ With regard to 
travel, when the Committee approves Members and staff to take 
privately-sponsored travel that is later determined to be 
impermissible, a variety of remedies may be appropriate. When 
neither the Committee nor the traveler had any reason to know 
of the factors that made the trip impermissible, and the 
violation was only of House rules, then reimbursement may not 
be necessary.\7\ However when either the violation is of a 
statute or constitutional provision beyond the jurisdiction of 
the Committee, or when the Member or staff had reason to know 
of the impermissible factors and did not bring them to the 
attention of the Committee, then reimbursement or disgorgement 
of the cost of the trip or the specific impermissible 
reimbursements may be necessary to remedy the violation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\House Ethics Manual (2008) at 73.
    \7\See Report of the Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of 
Allegations Relating to Staff Travel Provided by the Turkish Coalition 
of America in August 2008, available at www.ethics.house.gov.
    \8\See Report of the Committee on Ethics, 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, available at www.ethics.house.gov (Carib News).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   B. GIFTS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States 
Constitution, commonly referred to as the Emoluments Clause, 
prohibits federal government officials, including House Members 
and employees, from accepting ``any present . . . of any kind 
whatever, from any . . . foreign State,'' without the consent 
of Congress. Congress has consented through the vehicles of the 
Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (FGDA)\9\ and Mutual 
Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (MECEA).\10\ A Member, 
officer, or employee may accept travel expenses from a unit of 
foreign government only under one of these two statutory grants 
of authority. Any gift permitted by these statutes is also 
permitted by the House gift rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342.
    \10\22 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2451 et seq.
    \11\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(N).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to travel, the FGDA allows House Members and 
employees to accept travel paid for by a foreign government 
only if the travel takes place entirely outside the United 
States. Such travel must also be consistent with the interests 
of the United States and must be permitted under FGDA 
regulations issued by the Ethics Committee.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\House Ethics Manual at 109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MECEA, on the other hand, authorizes the Secretary of State 
to approve cultural exchange programs that finance ``visits and 
interchanges between the United States and other countries of 
leaders, experts in fields of specialized knowledge or skill, 
and other influential or distinguished persons . . . .''\13\ 
However, the statute expressly states that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\22 U.S.C. Sec. 2452(a)(2)(i).

          [T]he Congress does not consent to the acceptance by 
        any Federal employee of any portion of any such grant 
        or other form of assistance which provides assistance 
        with respect to any expenses incurred by or for any 
        member of the family or household of such Federal 
        employee.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\22 U.S.C. Sec. 2458a(1).

Travel subject to an approved MECEA program is not subject to 
Committee pre-approval. However, all expenses must be paid by 
the foreign government host of the MECEA trip and none may be 
paid by any private source.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\House Ethics Manual at 110-111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is the responsibility of a House Member or employee who 
accepts an invitation to travel to a foreign country to confirm 
that the expenses for travel to and from the United States are 
not paid by a foreign government unless the trip is consistent 
with an approved MECEA program. To that end, the House Ethics 
Manual advises House Members and employees traveling on MECEA 
programs to ask for a copy of the letter from the State 
Department approving the program.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Id. at 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND


                   A. TRAVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE OWENS

1. Invitation to travel to Taiwan from TECRO

    During August 2011, Sean King, Vice President of Park 
Strategies, LLC, a lobbying firm, contacted Jon Boughtin, 
Senior Legislative Assistant to Representative Owens, to 
discuss the possibility of Representative Owens traveling to 
Taiwan. Park Strategies represented TECRO as a registered 
foreign agent. TECRO had an interest in Members of Congress 
visiting Taiwan. Representative Owens' office began considering 
the travel proposal but did not commit at the time. Mr. King 
continued to contact Mr. Boughtin about the travel invitation 
into the fall.
    According to the OCE Report and Findings, Representative 
Owens told the OCE that the first time his traveling to Taiwan 
was mentioned was in July 2011 during ``an introductory meeting 
with representatives from the Taiwan government.''\17\ 
Representative Owens told the OCE that he had no further 
discussions about traveling to Taiwan until the fall of 2011 
when he had a conversation with another Member about the 
possibility of traveling to Taiwan together.\18\ He recalled 
his having conversations with Park Strategies about traveling 
to Taiwan.\19\ Representative Owens told the OCE that it was 
explained that the trip was related to the ``Marcy Project'' 
near his congressional district.\20\ Representative Owens 
explained to the OCE that the Marcy Project was, at the time, 
attempting to recruit the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing 
Company (TSMC) to open a facility in Madison County, New York, 
near Representative Owens' congressional district.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\See Appendix A, OCE Findings, Review No: 12-8236, Exhibit 2, 
page 1.
    \18\Id.
    \19\Id.
    \20\Id.
    \21\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Owens also told the OCE that he believed he 
had a telephone conversation with former Senator Alphonse 
D'Amato, the Founder and Managing Director of Park Strategies, 
LLC, on October 6, 2011, during which Senator D'Amato inquired 
if he had any interest in going to Taiwan to meet with 
TSMC.\22\ Representative Owens told the OCE that after 
reviewing his calendar about the telephone call he believed 
Senator D'Amato's firm represented Madison County in New 
York.\23\ Representative Owens was interested in the travel 
because Madison County would benefit from TSMC opening a 
facility there and would create jobs for Representative Owens' 
constituents.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Id.
    \23\Id.
    \24\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Mr. Boughtin, Representative Owens became very 
interested in the prospect of TSMC opening such a facility and 
this resulted in his accepting the invitation from Park 
Strategies on behalf of TECRO to travel to Taiwan.
    At some point Mr. Boughtin contacted the Committee to 
ascertain if such a trip was permissible and was advised by 
Committee staff of the different ways in which a Member or 
employee may be permitted to travel. It was during this 
communication that Mr. Boughtin first learned of the MECEA 
program. On October 20, 2011, Mr. King sent Mr. Boughtin an 
email describing a trip recently completed by another 
Congressman as an example of a trip that could be taken by 
Representative Owens.\25\ On October 26, 2011, Mr. Boughtin 
emailed Mr. King and asked him if the trip would be covered 
under the MECEA program. Mr. King replied ``yes.'' Mr. Boughtin 
told the Committee that because of the TSMC issue, 
Representative Owens decided to accept the invitation and was 
planning on traveling to Taiwan later in the year. Mr. Boughtin 
told the Committee that the TSMC issue was the driving force in 
Representative Owens deciding to travel to Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Based on public disclosures, this trip appears to have been 
conducted pursuant to MECEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Invitation to travel to Taiwan from CCU

    Mr. King told the Committee that sometime between November 
15 and 21, 2011, the idea of Mrs. Owens traveling with 
Representative Owens was brought up. Mr. King told the 
Committee that he knew the travel would have to be handled 
through a different process if Mrs. Owens traveled as well. At 
some point Mr. Boughtin inquired of the Committee if a personal 
friend of Representative Owens could pay for Mrs. Owens to 
travel along with her husband. He recalled that either 
Representative Owens or his Chief of Staff, Bradley Katz, asked 
him to research the question. Since Representative Owens was 
traveling under MECEA, Mr. Boughtin was instructed to discuss 
Mrs. Owens' travel with the State Department.
    An email from Mr. Boughtin to Representative Owens dated 
November 14, 2011, noted that he had been working with a 
Committee attorney on the trip and contained a draft request 
for an advisory opinion\26\ from the Committee regarding 
whether Representative Owens may accept an unsolicited offer 
from a personal friend to cover the cost of Mrs. Owens' travel 
while Representative Owens is on a MECEA trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\Owens Production 04-000002. There is no record that the request 
for the advisory opinion was ever received by the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 29, 2011, CCU sent an invitation to 
Representative Owens and his wife to travel to Taiwan from 
December 27 to 31, 2011, as guests of CCU. There was no 
evidence presented to the Committee that CCU had contacted 
Representative Owens or any member of his staff before this 
invitation was sent.
    Representative Owens told the OCE that he understood the 
role of TECRO was ``working to establish the agenda'' for the 
trip and he assumed the government of Taiwan was paying for the 
trip.\27\ He realized that the payment arrangements for the 
trip had changed once he received the invitation letter from 
CCU.\28\ He did not have any communications with CCU regarding 
the trip but did recall participating in a lunch during the 
trip in which four CCU officials attended and that one of the 
CCU deans attended a dinner the following night hosted by the 
Taiwan Foreign Minister.\29\ Representative Owens was escorted 
throughout his visit by an official of the Taiwan Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs (MOFA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Id.
    \28\Id.
    \29\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a written submission to the Committee, Park Strategies 
told the Committee that, once the decision was made to change 
the trip to privately sponsored travel, they were no longer 
involved in the travel planning, even though they maintained 
contact with Mr. Boughtin to see how the planning was going. 
Contrarily, in an interview with the Committee, Mr. King said 
that he reported to Benson Wang from TECRO that he met with 
Representative Owens on December 5, 2011, specifically to 
discuss the trip. Mr. Boughtin remembered Mr. King's visit on 
December 5, 2011, and stated it was a limited discussion about 
the trip and the TSMC meeting but that Representative Owens 
just stopped by to say hello.

3. Itinerary and TSMC

    Mr. Boughtin told the Committee that he met frequently with 
Frank Lee and Mr. Wang to plan the itinerary for the trip. He 
indicated that early on in the process Representative Owens 
made it clear that he wanted to visit with TSMC officials while 
he was in Taiwan.\30\ TECRO officials, through MOFA, were 
attempting to arrange the meeting between TSMC and 
Representative Owens, but explained that due to the holidays it 
may not be possible. According to Mr. Boughtin, Representative 
Owens made it very clear that the TSMC meeting was the most 
important part of the trip and that either Representative Owens 
or Bradley Katz instructed Mr. Boughtin to contact Mr. King and 
Park Strategies to assist in arranging the meeting. Mr. 
Boughtin stated that it was known by Representative Owens that 
Park Strategies had a relationship with TSMC. A review of 
emails between Mr. Boughtin and Mr. King and Mr. Boughtin and 
Representative Owens indicated that the TSMC meeting was still 
in question on December 26, 2011, the day before Representative 
Owens was to travel to Taiwan. On December 20, 2011, Mr. 
Boughtin forwarded an email from TECRO official Li-Chih Cheng 
indicating that her colleague in Taipei was unable to set up 
the meeting with TSMC. Mr. King responded that he would ``see 
what our Taipei staff can work out, stay tuned.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\While Representative Owens did request from the sponsor that 
they add this meeting to the itinerary, there is no indication that the 
meeting, which occurred in Taipei on a day that he was already there, 
added any cost to the trip. Therefore, there is no apparent 
solicitation issue with this request.
    \31\Owens Production at 03-000061.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Boughtin told the Committee that the meeting with TSMC 
was very important, as indicated in Representative Owens' email 
to Mr. Boughtin on December 25, 2011, in which he asks why the 
meeting with TSMC (``the chip comp'') is not on the schedule. 
After Mr. Boughtin responds that Mr. King is waiting to hear 
back from TSMC, Representative Owens responds, ``TSMC is really 
important.''\32\ When asked if Representative Owens would have 
cancelled the trip if the TSMC meeting could not be arranged 
Mr. Boughtin replied that he would not have cancelled it the 
day before the trip. When asked if Representative Owens would 
have cancelled the trip if it was known a couple of weeks 
before the trip that the meeting with TSMC could not be 
arranged, he responded that it was possible. Mr. Boughtin 
emphasized that the meeting with TSMC was the reason for 
Representative Owens taking the trip.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Owens Production at 02-001128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Committee review

    On December 7, 2011, Representative Owens' office submitted 
the travel forms necessary for the Committee to review his 
travel to Taiwan. On the final version of the Privately 
Sponsored Travel: Traveler Form (Traveler Form) dated December 
16, 2011, Representative Owens' explanation for why the travel 
was related to his official duties was that he was ``interested 
in engaging a company that has expressed interest in hiring 
employees in my district. This Taiwanese company stands to 
benefit my constituents by relocating to a site near my 
district and I would like to engage them to help promote this 
opportunity.'' On the initial version of the Traveler Form 
dated December 6, 2011, Representative Owens' explanation as to 
why the travel is related to his official duties was 
``Opportunity to explore economic development opportunities for 
upstate New York, as well as defense and security related 
issues.''
    The package also included a Sponsor Form which indicates 
the sponsor for the Taiwan trip from December 27, 2011, through 
January 1, 2012, was CCU. CCU's organizational interest in 
sponsoring the trip, entered in question 13 of the Sponsor 
Form, was ``The Chinese Culture University aims to promote 
international, cultural exchanges in order for it to thrive in 
a world increasingly engineered by an irresistible thrust 
towards globalization.''
    Neither of these forms asks if lobbyists or foreign agents 
were ever involved in the trip, or if lobbyists or registered 
foreign agents employed and retained by another party were 
involved in the trip. Therefore, there were no false 
representations in the forms that concealed the involvement of 
Park Strategies. Given the additional information the Committee 
now has, it is questionable whether CCU fits within the 
definition of a permissible sponsor under the Committee's 
travel regulations, but there are no clear or unambiguous false 
statements on these forms.
    Representative Owens or his staff repeatedly sought 
guidance from the Committee regarding the trip to Taiwan. 
However, Committee Counsel assigned to the trip who had spoken 
with Representative Owens' staff about the MECEA trip and 
whether a personal friend could pay for Mrs. Owens' travel, did 
not realize when he happened to be assigned the privately 
sponsored trip approximately one month later, that this was in 
essence the same trip with little or no attenuation.\33\ All 
the representations the Committee received from CCU and on the 
sponsor forms, including that CCU did not retain or employ a 
registered lobbyist or foreign agent, indicated this was a 
permissible privately sponsored trip. The Committee was not 
aware at the time of the role Park Strategies played in the 
proposed MECEA trip or of the lobbying firm's continued 
involvement after it became a privately sponsored trip, nor did 
it have any reason in December 2011 to question whether CCU was 
a ``money only'' sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\At any one time, it is not unusual for the Committee to be 
reviewing separate, unrelated requests for travel to the same country 
offered by different sponsors. The Committee's staff of advice and 
education attorneys reviewed over 2,000 requests for privately 
sponsored travel in 2011, and handled over 20,000 phone calls and 
emails seeking informal guidance for a wide variety of situations, 
including the many ways Members and staff can accept travel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Representative Owens' travel to Taiwan

    Representative Owens went on the trip to Taiwan, which 
followed the itinerary submitted to the Committee for pre-
travel approval. The events listed on the trip itinerary 
provided to the Committee by Representative Owens for the pre-
travel review are not dissimilar to events on other itineraries 
for privately sponsored travel to Taiwan that have been 
approved by the Committee. However, it was determined only 
during this investigation that TECRO, with the assistance of 
Park Strategies, developed the initial itinerary for the trip 
and that itinerary, except for the visit to CCU, remained 
essentially the same when submitted to the Committee.

6. Questions regarding funding of the trip

    The OCE reported interviewing one or more witnesses who 
claimed that the Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs actually 
paid for the airfare and hotel of Representative Owens.\34\ 
Notwithstanding this testimony, on numerous prior, similar 
trips to Taiwan sponsored by private entities, the Committee 
has inquired and been assured that the private sponsor was 
paying all expenses out of its general funds, with no grants or 
reimbursements. These assurances came from the private sponsors 
for each trip and, with regard to one trip, also from TECRO's 
representative, Gordon Yang. It also appears that at least some 
of the information provided to the OCE regarding this question 
was recanted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\See Appendix A, Exhibits 17, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As discussed more fully below, the Committee was unable to 
receive clarifying information from either TECRO or CCU with 
regards to the trips taken by Representatives Roskam and Owens. 
At best, the current evidence regarding whether the Taiwanese 
government may have funded part or all of these trips is 
contradictory and therefore inconclusive. While disturbing with 
regard to the actions of TECRO and the private sponsors, such 
inconclusive evidence is insufficient to hold either Member 
accountable for reimbursement on that basis alone.

                   B. TRAVEL BY REPRESENTATIVE ROSKAM

1. Invitation to travel to Taiwan from TECRO

    Mike Dankler, Legislative Assistant to Representative 
Roskam, told the OCE that he has discussed Representative 
Roskam traveling to Taiwan with officials from TECRO since 
2009. On May 13, 2011, Mr. Yang sent a blanket email of which 
Mr. Dankler was a recipient, inviting various Members of 
Congress to travel to Taiwan during June or July, 2011. The 
invitation, shown below, did not invite any particular Members, 
but made it clear that the invitation was for Members and staff 
and would be organized under the MECEA program. 


2. Invitation to travel to Taiwan from CCU

    Shortly after the TECRO extended the invitation to 
Representative Roskam, the idea of Mrs. Roskam traveling with 
Representative Roskam was brought up. On May 16, 2011, Mr. Yang 
sent an email to Mr. Dankler stating, ``We welcome Congressman 
and Mrs. Roskam to visit Taiwan. In that case, we need to go 
through priovate [sic] sponsor and the House ethics committee 
for clearance, which require your confirmation to join the trip 
at least ONE month ahead of its departure . . .''
    After receiving Mr. Yang's email, Mr. Dankler sent another 
email asking if the trip was the same as the one Representative 
Roskam had been invited to attend earlier by another Member. 
Mr. Yang, in a response email, confirmed it was the same trip 
that TECRO worked together with other Members to organize. Mr. 
Yang told Mr. Dankler that only one Member and that Member's 
spouse attended the previous trip during the April recess.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\As that Member is no longer a Member of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee did not review his travel to Taiwan for 
potential violations, and makes no findings or conclusions regarding 
that trip.


    A review\36\ of Committee records disclosed travel to 
Taiwan taken by that Member in 2011, which was sponsored by Fu 
Jen Catholic University. Mr. Dankler sent an email to 
Representative Roskam regarding Mr. Yang's response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\THPR_000314.

     
    
    Following this email,\37\ on May 27, 2011 Mr. Dankler 
emailed Mr. Yang: ``Congressman Roskam's daughter will be 
teaching English in Taiwan for about 6 months beginning in June 
and asked if they could adjust the itinerary to include a trip 
to visit his daughter in Tsaoton, Nantou County, Taiwan.''\38\ 
Mr. Yang responded: ``Mike--That will be no problem at all. We 
can make any arrangement to accommodate the Congressman's 
interests.''\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\THPR_000317.
    \38\THPR_000319. While Representative Roskam did request from the 
sponsor that they add this meeting to the itinerary, there is no 
indication that the meeting, which occurred in a town that other 
members had travelled to as part of similar trips, added any cost to 
the trip. Therefore, there is no apparent solicitation issue with this 
request.
    \39\THPR_000323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Roskam told the OCE he recalled indicating 
that he wanted to visit his daughter who was teaching in Taiwan 
at the time and that his wife accompanied him on the trip but 
did not recall when that was decided.\40\ Representative 
Roskam, through his staff, also indicated that he wanted his 
daughter to accompany him and his wife in Taipei. While Mr. 
Yang offered to pay for the expenses of Representative Roskam's 
daughter, Mr. Dankler, much to his and Representative Roskam's 
credit, replied that he had checked on that issue with the 
Ethics Committee and that Representative Roskam was required to 
and would personally pay for any added expense resulting from 
his daughter's presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Dankler continued to communicate and meet with Mr. Yang 
in June 2011. On June 7, 2011, Representative Roskam asked Mr. 
Dankler to move the dates of the Taiwan trip to July 17-23, 
2011. Mr. Dankler passed this request on to Mr. Yang and the 
trip dates were changed. In Mr. Dankler's email to Mr. Yang, 
Mr. Dankler wrote, ``Great news! I just got the green light to 
move forward with the trip. Whenever you have the ethics 
paperwork, just let me know.''\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\THPR_000373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Dankler subsequently asked Mr. Yang for an itinerary 
for the trip. After he received it, Mr. Dankler sent 
Representative Roskam the following email. Representative 
Roskam's daughter's name is Gracey.



    After this email, there continued to be communication 
between Mr. Dankler and Mr. Yang about the trip, and Mr. Yang 
pressed Mr. Dankler to find a couple of other Members who would 
be interested in going on the trip.
    CCU provided a letter dated June 15, 2011, inviting 
Representative Roskam and his wife to travel to Taiwan in July 
and then sent a subsequent letter dated September 2, 2011, 
inviting Representative Roskam and his wife to travel to Taiwan 
on October 15, 2011. Representative Roskam told the OCE that he 
did not recall having any discussions with anyone about the 
source of funding for his trip to Taiwan, and believed that 
there were two sponsors for the trip, the Government of Taiwan 
and the Chinese Culture University.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\See Appendix B, OCE Findings, review No. 13-9784, Exhibit 3 at 
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even after CCU officially became the sponsor on June 15, 
2011, all communications regarding the trip were between TECRO 
and Mr. Dankler. Other than the two general letters of 
invitation, there were no other communications between 
Representative Roskam's office and CCU regarding the travel. 
Both Mr. Dankler and Representative Roskam told the OCE that 
they had no contact with anyone from CCU other than the time 
Representative Roskam spent with CCU officials during the 
actual trip.
    In early July 2011 the trip was postponed due to changes in 
the congressional schedule. Mr. Dankler sent Mr. Yang an email 
on July 8, 2011, notifying him of the change and the need to 
postpone the trip. Initially the trip was rescheduled for 
September 2011 but again was postponed at the request of 
Representative Roskam until October 15 through 22, 2011. A new 
letter from CCU dated September 2, 2011, was submitted to the 
Committee along with the required travel forms. During this 
time Mr. Dankler continued to communicate with Mr. Yang about 
the trip while there does not appear to be any communication 
between Representative Roskam's office and CCU. In fact, on 
August 5, 2011, Mr. Yang sent the following email indicating 
that TECRO, and not CCU, was still the primary entity involved 
in scheduling the trip. No one at CCU is included on this or 
any other email discussing the trip.



3. Committee review

    Prior to participating in the trip Representative Roskam 
sought and received the Committee's approval of the trip. 
Following the Committee's privately-sponsored travel 
regulations, Representative Roskam submitted to the Committee 
both the Traveler Form and the Sponsor Form. The Sponsor Form, 
which allegedly was prepared by CCU, was provided to 
Representative Roskam's office by officials at TECRO. CCU's 
organizational interest in sponsoring the trip, entered in 
question 13 of the Sponsor Form, was ``The Chinese Culture 
University pays much attention to international culture 
exchanges so that it could thrive in a world increasingly 
engineered by an irresistible thrust towards globalization.'' 
In question 8 of the Traveler Form, Representative Roskam 
explained why his participation in the trip is related to his 
official duties: ``Taiwan is an important trade partner of the 
U.S. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, this trip 
will further my understanding of the trade relationship and the 
security issues that affect it.'' Given the additional 
information the Committee now has, it is questionable whether 
CCU fits within the definition of a permissible sponsor under 
the Committee's travel regulations, but there are no clear or 
unambiguous false statements on these forms.
    The Sponsor Form indicates CCU was the sponsor of the trip. 
However, Gordon Yang was identified to the Committee by Mr. 
Dankler as his point of contact for the trip.\43\ Committee 
staff scrutinized the itinerary to make sure that the cultural 
experiences had a sufficient and permissible officially 
connected purpose and asked TECRO's representative several 
questions regarding that part of the trip. The purpose for 
travelling to Tsaoton Township was described as seeing a small 
rural county like the heartland of the Midwest and that it has 
a relationship with his constituents in the U.S. including that 
teachers were connected with constituents and that 
Representative Roskam had a particular interest in education. 
TECRO did mention that Representative Roskam's daughter was 
also a teacher. Committee Counsel did not understand TECRO's 
representative to be stating that Representative Roskam's 
daughter was teaching in Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\It is not improper for a private entity in a foreign country to 
rely on their governent's representative in Washington to assist them 
to communicate with the House of Representatives and this Committee, 
particularly where significant time difference and language barriers 
may exist. Therefore the simple request for the Committee to work with 
TECRO did not, at that time, raise any particular red flags.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The purposes of visiting the Sun Moon Lake National Scenic 
Area and its surroundings were described to Committee staff as 
seeing water conservation work being done there and relations 
with minority groups, respectively. These are legitimate 
reasons for private sponsors to include these types of visits 
on officially connected itineraries if the sponsor so chooses. 
Indeed, awareness of such issues across the world is an 
important part of any Member's fact finding to assist them in 
considering similar or connected issues in their own district 
and our nation at large. Not only are these legitimate 
purposes, but another trip sponsored with TECRO's assistance by 
a different Taiwanese private university in April of 2011, and 
several earlier trips, had the same visits to Sun Moon Lake 
National Scenic area on their itinerary, with no known 
connection to the children of that Member. In fact almost every 
trip sponsored (nominally at least) by CCU and another private 
university in Taiwan since 2007 has included a high speed rail 
journey to an area outside of Taipei, including several to Sun 
Moon Lake.
    Still, the rationale of having ``leisure'' or ``quality 
time'' with one's family in ``a very nice resort area'' as 
discussed in the background on the trip is not a permissible 
officially connected purpose for privately sponsored travel and 
if Committee staff had been aware of that connection and 
intent, additional questions would have been asked, at 
least.\44\ The Committee, however, was not aware of that 
possible piece of the rationale until it reviewed the email 
described above in the materials provided to the Committee by 
Representative Roskam as part of this investigation. In the 
end, Representative Roskam did certify on his post-travel 
paperwork that he did attend all of the legitimate and regular 
educational and fact-finding locations on the itinerary, as had 
Members before him. The mere fact that his wife and daughter 
were with him does not diminish the value of the fact finding 
activity or make the activities impermissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\If Representative Roskam had simply been left on his own to 
spend time with his family for two days, Committee staff would have 
simply advised that such activity was personal and not officially 
connected. Members may include such personal activity, but must pay 
lodging, meals, and all other expenses on their own, and if the period 
of personal travel exceeds official travel, then the traveler must pay 
half of the roundtrip airfare themselves. However, after inquiring 
further, it appears that Representative Roskam did always intend to 
engage in the officially connected activity, but to have his wife and 
daughter accompany him, as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Representative Roskam's travel to Taiwan

    Representative Roskam went on the trip to Taiwan, which 
followed the itinerary submitted to the Committee for pre-
travel approval. As with Representative Owens, the itinerary 
provided to the Committee by Representative Roskam also 
included events similar to other privately sponsored travel to 
Taiwan. Again, the Committee determined only during this 
investigation that the itinerary appears to have been prepared 
by TECRO. Representative Roskam told the OCE that he only 
recalled meeting with CCU officials for about three hours on 
one day of the trip, when he met with the President of CCU and 
toured the campus and a museum on the campus.\45\ 
Representative Roskam indicated Frank Lee, from TECRO, escorted 
him and his wife for part of the trip. He added there were 
``many people'' who escorted his party during the trip but did 
not know if any of them were from CCU.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\Id. at 4.
    \46\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               C. TECRO'S AND CCU'S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE

    Both CCU and TECRO declined to participate in the OCE's and 
the Committee's investigations of these matters. On June 30, 
2012, CCU sent an email to the OCE in which CCU claimed that it 
asked for TECRO's assistance in arranging the trips.\47\ TECRO 
declined to participate with the Committee's investigation 
citing their agreement with the American Institute in Taiwan. 
The Committee requested CCU's cooperation with its 
investigation. CCU Director of Public Relations, Hsing-Hsia 
Yuan responded via email. In his response to the Committee, CCU 
declined to cooperate with the Committee's investigation noting 
as part of the reason that they were aware that TECRO would not 
cooperate with the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Id. at Exhibit 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              IV. ANALYSIS


1. Money-only sponsor

    The Committee provides guidance to members and staff 
related to the acceptance of travel from private sources in the 
House Ethics Manual. One of the factors the Committee considers 
when reviewing requests from Members and staff to accept 
privately sponsored travel is the source of funding for the 
trip. The Ethics Manual states that

          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.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\See Ethics Manual at 97.

    It is clear based on the evidence reviewed by the Committee 
that both of these trips began as an invitation to participate 
in travel under the MECEA program from TECRO, the 
representative of the Government of Taiwan in the United 
States. At the time of the trips, the Government of Taiwan had 
an agreement with the State Department to provide such travel 
under the MECEA program. The Government of Taiwan still has 
such an agreement. Both Representative Roskam and 
Representative Owens were invited by TECRO officials, and the 
invitations made it clear that it was the Government of Taiwan, 
and not any private party, that was making the invitations. 
While the Committee was aware that TECRO was involved in each 
trip, the Committee had been given the impression by TECRO and 
CCU or other Taiwanese sponsors, on numerous occasions, that 
such assistance was the kind of perfectly appropriate 
assistance that a nation's embassy, or a state's representative 
may provide to their citizens who are not physically located in 
this country and who may have significant communications 
hurdles.
    However, after Committee reviewing these two trips, it 
appears to the Committee that TECRO and the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs remained completely involved in the planning and 
organization of these trips. CCU's only involvement with the 
actual itinerary appears to have been meeting with the Members 
during a few hours of the trips. CCU claims to have been the 
source of funding for the trip, but due to their refusal to 
cooperate with the Committee's investigation it is unclear if 
the funding actually came from CCU. Even if CCU paid for the 
trips for both Representative Roskam and Representative Owens 
and their wives, due to their lack of involvement in the 
planning, organization or even conduct of the trip, CCU's 
involvement appears to be little more than providing the 
funding for the trips.
    Based on the evidence before the Committee, and the fact 
that both TECRO and CCU refused to cooperate with the 
Committee's investigation, the Committee cannot determine 
whether CCU's involvement in both trips was significant enough 
for CCU to be considered a legitimate sponsor.
    At the same time, this is the kind of information the 
Committee seeks directly from sponsors to carry out its role 
assigned by House Rules to review and approve requests to 
accept privately sponsored travel. Indeed, there are several 
different types of permissible official and officially-
connected travel, each governed by a different set of rules and 
requirements. The differences between these types of travel can 
be confusing, and which set of rules apply to any particular 
trip may not be clear, particularly when outside groups are 
involved. While the Committee would hope that Members and staff 
be alert enough to raise any red flags or abnormalities to the 
Committee, and thus avoid the need for investigations such as 
these after the fact, without a careful reading of the 
Committee's manual and travel regulations, the Members and 
staff are not normally alerted to this issue. For this reason 
it is not fair to say that the Members in this circumstance had 
reason to know that CCU might not be a permissible sponsor, 
particularly given the Committee's own difficulty with reaching 
a conclusion on the question with the available facts and 
evidence.

2. Lobbyist involvement in travel

    During the 110th Congress, the travel provisions of the 
House gift rule were substantially revised to impose new 
restrictions and requirements on officially-connected travel 
paid for by a private source. Included in these changes is 
House Rule XXV, clause 5(c)(3), which states:

          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 for a trip (other than a 
        trip permitted under paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this 
        clause) if such trip is in any part planned, organized, 
        requested, or arranged by a registered lobbyist or 
        agent of a foreign principal.

    While entities that retain or employ a lobbyist or a 
foreign agent may sponsor one-day trips, the involvement of 
lobbyists or foreign agents must be de minimis, which was 
defined by the Committee at the time of these trips as ``only 
negligible or otherwise inconsequential in terms of time and 
expense of the overall planning and purpose of the trip.''\49\ 
Lobbyist involvement in planning, organizing, requesting or 
arranging multiple-day trips is also prohibited.\50\ In 
addition, the Rule does not limit the prohibition on planning, 
organizing, requesting or arranging only to lobbyists or 
foreign agents retained by the primary sponsor of the trip. 
However MECEA trips, which are regulated and overseen by the 
State Department and not the Committee or the House, do permit 
the involvement of lobbyists and foreign agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\See House Ethics Manual (2008), at 89, 401.
    \50\Id. at 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The evidence in Mr. Owens' trip demonstrates that 
registered lobbyists and foreign agents from Park Strategies 
were intimately involved in planning, organizing, requesting, 
and arranging the trip. This involvement was most prominent 
when the trip was still supposed to be conducted pursuant to 
MECEA. As noted above, at the time this trip was a MECEA trip, 
such involvement was permitted by the Department of State. 
However, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the evidence 
suggests that there was no real attenuation of the organization 
of the trip when it was altered from a MECEA trip, to a 
privately sponsored trip. Therefore the work that Park 
Strategies did to plan, organize, request and arrange the trip 
as a MECEA trip carried over to the privately-sponsored trip, 
making the private sponsorship impermissible.\51\ Furthermore, 
despite the testimony of a Park Strategies employee that, in 
substance, they knew they could not be involved in the planning 
and organizing of a privately-sponsored trip and therefore 
stepped back from that role, the evidence indicates that they 
were still engaged in setting specific meetings on the 
itinerary, and they were still billing TECRO for their 
involvement with this trip. For all of these reasons, Mr. 
Owens' trip was impermissible pursuant to House Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\As with other elements of these trips, the Committee had no 
knowledge of or reason to suspect Park Strategies' involvement at the 
time the trip was approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             V. CONCLUSION

    When the Committee approves and Members and staff attend 
privately-sponsored travel that is later determined to be 
impermissible, a variety of remedies may be appropriate. When 
neither the Committee nor the traveler had any reason to know 
of the factors that made the trip impermissible, and the 
violation was only of House rules, then reimbursement may not 
be necessary.\52\ However when either the violation is of a 
statute or constitutional provision beyond the jurisdiction of 
the Committee, or when the Member or staff had reason to know 
of the impermissible factors and did not bring them to the 
attention of the Committee, then reimbursement or disgorgement 
of the cost of the trip may be necessary to remedy the 
violation.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\See Report of the Committee on Ethics, In the Matter of 
Allegations Relating to Staff Travel Provided by the Turkish Coalition 
of America in August 2008, available at www.ethics.house.gov.
    \53\See Report of the Committee on Ethics, 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, available at www.ethics.house.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Owens or his staff repeatedly sought 
guidance from the Committee regarding the trip to Taiwan. The 
presently-available evidence shows that Park Strategies was 
involved in a more than de minimis manner in the planning, 
organizing, requesting, and arranging of his trip, and that 
they remained involved in the trip, even after it changed from 
a MECEA program to privately-sponsored travel. Representative 
Owens should have known that the trip was not a proper 
privately-sponsored trip because of the lobbying firm's 
continued involvement, which the Committee was unaware of. For 
this reason, the payments by CCU for Representative Owens' 
travel expenses were improper. When a Member or employee 
receives an impermissible gift, one appropriate remedy is 
repaying the market value of the gift. As noted previously, 
Representative Owens has already refunded the costs of his 
trip.
    Because Representative Owens has voluntarily remedied the 
impermissible gift and there is insufficient evidence to show 
that Representative Roskam's travel was improper, the Committee 
will consider this matter closed.
    Finally, both TECRO and CCU were notified that for the 
Committee to fulfill its responsibilities to review offers of 
privately-sponsored travel, the Committee must have the 
cooperation of the sponsors. Both TECRO and CCU declined to 
provide such cooperation. As always, the Committee can only 
approve privately sponsored travel when the sponsors cooperate 
with the Committee's oversight responsibilities. If a sponsor 
or its agent refuses to cooperate, the Committee will have no 
choice but to deny approval of a trip. However, the Committee 
has no jurisdiction over the MECEA programs and, therefore, any 
determinations regarding MECEA travel is a matter for the State 
Department to decide. Members are simply urged to exercise 
extreme caution when the nature or sponsor of a trip changes or 
is uncertain in any way and to contact the Committee with all 
questions about such travel.
    The Chair is directed, upon providing the notices required 
pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Committee 
Rule 17A(a)(2), to file this report with the House, together 
with copies of the OCE's Reports and Findings in this 
matter.\54\ The filing of this report, along with its 
publication on the Committee's Web site, shall serve as 
publication of the OCE's Reports and Findings in these matters, 
pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Committee 
Rule 17A(b)(3) and 17A(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. STATEMENT UNDER RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF 
                            REPRESENTATIVES

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




