[House Report 113-665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                       House Calendar No. 153

113th Congress     }                               {           Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                
2d Session         }                               {            113-665
_______________________________________________________________________
                                 
                                                 

    IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE JUDY CHU

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS




 December 11, 2014.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed
                                
                                
                                
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
  49-006                        WASHINGTON : 2014
  
  
                        
                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            LINDA T. SAANCHEZ, 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 DEUTCH, Florida

                              REPORT STAFF

              Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
             Deborah Sue Mayer, Director of Investigations
               Jackie M. Barber, Counsel to the Chairman
            Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member

                    Patrick McMullen, Senior Counsel
                    Brittany M. Bohren, Investigator
                  C. Tucker Carr, Investigative Clerk
                  
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
                                                

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                 Washington, DC, December 11, 2014.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, 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 Matter of Allegations 
Relating to Representative Judy Chu.''
            Sincerely,
                                   K. Michael Conaway,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Linda T. Saanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
  I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
 II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT...2
III. BACKGROUND.......................................................2
 IV. FINDINGS.........................................................3
          A. USE OF HOUSE RESOURCES FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES........     3
            1. PREPARATION OF CAMPAIGN-RELATED MEMORANDA.........     3
            2. REVIEW OF CAMPAIGN-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS.........     5
            3. PREPARATION FOR AND DOCUMENTATION OF CAMPAIGN 
                EVENTS...........................................     5
            4. VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND HOUSE REGULATIONS...........     5
          B. INTERFERENCE WITH THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION.....     7
  V. CONCLUSION......................................................11
 VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)....................11
     APPENDIX A: LETTER OF REPROVAL..................................13
     
     
                                                 House Calendar No. 153
                                                 
                                                 
113th Congress  }                                    {          Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session     }                                    {          113-665

======================================================================
 
    IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE JUDY CHU

                                _______
                                

 December 11, 2014.--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

    In accordance with House rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b), 
the Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the 
following Report to the House of Representatives:

                            I. INTRODUCTION 

    In June 2011, the Committee received information that 
Representative Chu's Chief of Staff and Legislative Director 
had required other staff to perform campaign-related work in 
the House office, during regular working hours. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 18(a), the Committee investigated these 
allegations. This investigation uncovered evidence that 
Representative Chu's Chief of Staff and Legislative Director 
directed members of Representative Chu's staff to perform 
campaign-related work using official resources on a sporadic 
and limited basis, but did not reveal any evidence that 
Representative Chu was aware of any improper use of official 
resources for campaign purposes. However, the Committee did 
find that Representative Chu took actions that interfered with 
the Committee's investigation of this matter.
    Representative Chu has expressed regret for her 
inappropriate communications with two of her staff members, 
during the Committee's investigation, regarding matters the 
Committee was investigating. The Committee finds, however, that 
Representative Chu's expression of regret, while commendable, 
does not overcome the need for a letter of reproval regarding 
her interference with the Committee's investigation. For her 
violations of House Rules, the Committee has issued a public 
letter of reproval to Representative Chu.

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

    The following House Rules, laws, regulations, and other 
standards of conduct are implicated in this matter.
    First, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a) and implementing regulations 
of the Committee on House Administration prohibit the use of 
appropriated funds for purposes other than for which the 
appropriations were made.
    Second, House rule XXIII, clause 1 provides that ``[a] 
Member . . . of the House shall behave at all times in a manner 
that shall reflect creditably on the House.''

                            III. BACKGROUND 

    Based on information the Committee obtained regarding the 
improper use of official resources in Representative Chu's 
office, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee in the 
112th Congress issued a Request for Information (RFI) to 
Representative Chu on March 6, 2012 (March 6, 2012 RFI). The 
March 6, 2012, RFI included several requests related to the use 
of official resources, including staff time, for campaign 
purposes. On April 3, 2012, Representative Chu provided 
information and documents in response to this RFI. Following 
the receipt of that response, Committee staff interviewed a 
member of Representative Chu's staff (Staffer A). In August 
2011, Staffer A drafted a memo at the direction of 
Representative Chu's Legislative Director for a fundraising 
lunch that Representative Chu attended with owners of grocery 
stores that participated in the Women, Infants, and Children 
(WIC) program (WIC Event). Staffer A felt required to draft the 
``WIC Memo,'' and did so during regular working hours, using a 
House computer and other official resources. During its 
investigation, the Committee obtained emails, from the August 
2011 period, between Staffer A and Representative Chu's Chief 
of Staff and Legislative Director related to the WIC Memo. 
Although these documents appeared to be responsive to the 
Committee's March 6, 2012 RFI, Representative Chu did not 
provide them to the Committee in her April 3, 2012 response.
    The Chairman and Ranking Member issued a second RFI to 
Representative Chu on August 23, 2012 (August 23, 2012 RFI). 
This RFI requested all documents related to the WIC Event, 
including emails from ``personal, campaign, and official email 
accounts.''\1\ In response, Representative Chu produced emails 
from and between her official and campaign staff related to the 
WIC Event, but did not produce any emails from her own personal 
email account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Letter from former Chairman Bonner and Ranking Member Saanchez 
to Representative Chu, Aug. 23, 2012, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On September 19, 2012, the Committee obtained an email, 
dated March 20, 2012, from Representative Chu to her Chief of 
Staff, discussing concerns Staffer A had expressed that the 
work on the WIC Memo was improper. In that email, 
Representative Chu directed the Chief of Staff to explain 
Representative Chu's view of the work to Staffer A. 
Representative Chu did not produce this email exchange in 
response to either the March 6, 2012, or the August 23, 2012, 
RFI.
    On February 6, 2013, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Committee for the 113th Congress issued a third RFI (February 
6, 2013 RFI) to Representative Chu, which included a number of 
requests specifically intended to capture Representative Chu's 
March 20, 2012, email to her Chief of Staff.\2\ Representative 
Chu finally produced that document to the Committee on March 6, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Letter from Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Saanchez to 
Representative Chu, Feb. 6, 2013, at 1 (``Please provide any previously 
unproduced emails, with attachments, from any of your personal or 
campaign-related email accounts, that are (1) responsive to any of the 
Committee's requests of March 6, 2012, or August 23, 2012; (2) related 
to any event concerning the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program 
which you attended on or around August 25, 2011 (the WIC event); or (3) 
related to [Staffer A]'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, pursuant to Committee rule 18(a), Committee 
staff conducted interviews of 13 persons, including 
Representative Chu, her Chief of Staff, and her Legislative 
Director.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\The Chairman and Ranking Member participated in the interview of 
Representative Chu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before the Committee decided how to resolve this matter, 
Representative Chu was invited to address the full Committee, 
and did so. The Committee carefully considered all of 
Representative Chu's written submissions and oral remarks in 
resolving the matter.

                             IV. FINDINGS 

    Following the Committee's investigation, the Committee 
reached the following findings and conclusions.

            A. USE OF HOUSE RESOURCES FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES

    The Committee determined that Representative Chu's Chief of 
Staff and Legislative Director directed several other members 
of Representative Chu's official staff to engage in campaign-
related activities, while on official time, including (1) 
preparing background memoranda for a campaign fundraising 
event; (2) reviewing campaign-related communications; and (3) 
preparing for and documenting campaign events. This work, while 
sporadic and limited, involved improper uses of official 
resources, including staff time. However, as discussed below, 
the Committee obtained no evidence that Representative Chu was 
aware that her staff was engaged in this improper campaign 
work.

1. Preparation of campaign-related memoranda

    The Committee obtained evidence that established at least 
one instance of use of House staff and other official resources 
to research and draft background materials for Representative 
Chu's use at a campaign fundraising event.\4\ Through 
interviews and review of email documents, the Committee 
determined that on Monday, August 22, 2011, Representative 
Chu's campaign consultant sent an email to her Legislative 
Director stating: ``Did you get the info from [Representative 
Chu's Scheduler] for Judy's fundraising lunch with the WIC 
people on Thursday? If not, Judy is supposed to talk about WIC 
issues. It will be an informal lunch.'' The next morning, 
Tuesday, August 23 at 9:11 AM, the Legislative Director 
forwarded this email to the Chief of Staff and Staffer A, and 
added: ``This is an `informal' talk on the calendar. I am 
assuming that she would just need background, since she has 
expressed to me that at these types of things she can't really 
work off a written speech. But what do you think?'' The 
Committee is not aware of any response by the Chief of Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Representative Chu provided the Committee with talking points 
and background memos for multiple campaign events, which her staff 
emailed to her from personal email accounts, during regular working 
hours. The Committee had substantial questions about these documents, 
but could not determine whether they were drafted in House offices, 
during official time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Staffer A stated that on the morning of the Legislative 
Director's email, the Legislative Director came to Staffer A's 
desk and told Staffer A to prepare background materials for a 
fundraising lunch for Representative Chu, where the other 
attendees would be owners of grocery stores that participated 
in the WIC program. Staffer A had never done any campaign-
related work for Representative Chu previously, and had never 
attended any of her campaign events. Staffer A was asked to 
work on the WIC Memo because Staffer A's legislative portfolio 
included the WIC program. Staffer A did not feel free to 
decline the request, as the Legislative Director was Staffer 
A's supervisor.
    Staffer A began working on the WIC Memo shortly after 
discussing it with the Legislative Director, and created an 
initial draft from Representative Chu's House office, during 
regular working hours. The work was interrupted by an 
earthquake, which struck Washington, DC, just before 2 PM. The 
House office buildings were then closed, and Staffer A went 
home, logged into an official computer remotely, and finished 
the WIC Memo. At 6:14 PM, Staffer A emailed the Legislative 
Director: ``Sorry, I had trouble logging into my work computer 
from home (maybe because everyone is trying to do that right 
now). I think this is the kind of thing you needed--let me know 
what you think.'' Staffer A attached two documents to this 
email--a memorandum with background information on the WIC 
program, and a copy of Representative Chu's remarks on the 
House floor regarding the program. The Legislative Director 
replied ``this looks great! I will make some small changes 
tomorrow and send to J.C.'' The Legislative Director forwarded 
Staffer A's email and documents to the Chief of Staff that 
night, then sent the materials to Representative Chu on 
Wednesday, August 24, at 1:24 PM. The Legislative Director 
wrote, in relevant part: ``Judy--In preparation for the 
Thursday luncheon with WIC store owners [Staffer A] and I have 
prepared a background memo, with overall talking points, on 
cuts to WIC and your record on WIC.'' The Committee is not 
aware of any email response from Representative Chu.
    Representative Chu confirmed for the Committee that the WIC 
Event was a fundraising event, and that she always knew that 
was the case. She also confirmed that the event had no official 
component or purpose. However, Representative Chu stated that 
she ``never asked for a memo'' from her staff, and explained 
that she did not expect any background materials from staff 
because ``I thought this would be more casual, and also I know 
the subject pretty well.''\5\ She stated that she read the WIC 
Memo when the Legislative Director sent it to her, and though 
she was ``puzzled at the time,'' she did not tell the 
Legislative Director that she did not need the memo.\6\ 
Representative Chu stated that she had no idea, at the time she 
received the WIC Memo, how, where, or when it was created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\18(a) Interview of Representative Chu.
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Review of campaign-related communications

    The Committee determined that a member of Representative 
Chu's staff (Staffer B) was told by both the Chief of Staff and 
Legislative Director to access Representative Chu's campaign 
email account, [email protected], in order to review, 
sort, and ``tag'' responses to an email sent from that account 
regarding Representative Chu's efforts to reduce hazing in the 
U.S. military. Staffer B did this work in Representative Chu's 
House office, using a House computer, during regular working 
hours. The work was done on three or four occasions, and 
totaled several hours.
    Representative Chu has asserted that the initial ``military 
hazing'' email was not a campaign communication because it did 
not advocate for Representative Chu's reelection or solicit 
campaign contributions, and the email was not sent exclusively 
to campaign donors. However, the initial email was drafted by a 
campaign consultant, and sent from Representative Chu's 
campaign email account. Thus, Representative Chu's Chief of 
Staff and Legislative Director should not have directed other 
staff to do work related to the email in the House office 
during regular working hours. There is no evidence, however, 
that Representative Chu directed any of her staff to do 
anything with the campaign email account, or was aware that 
staff members were accessing or working with the account 
improperly.

3. Preparation for and documentation of campaign events

    The Committee obtained information that several members of 
Representative Chu's staff prepared for and participated in 
campaign events while on official House time and/or directed 
other staff to do so. Some of this conduct involved or was 
observed by multiple members of Representative Chu's staff. 
Specifically, it appears that Representative Chu's Chief of 
Staff asked staff to place candy in envelopes to be given to 
attendees at a Chinese New Year fundraising event, and that 
staff did so on House grounds (either in the House office or in 
the House parking garage). The evidence also showed that the 
Chief of Staff asked a staff member to photograph a campaign 
event, and the staff member used a camera purchased with funds 
from the MRA. The Chief of Staff also asked the staff member to 
transmit the campaign event photos to one of Representative 
Chu's campaign consultants--who was not a House employee--and 
the staff member did so during regular House working hours, 
using a House email address and computer.\7\ However, it does 
not appear that the staff member was required to attend the 
campaign event or take or transmit photos; the staff member was 
asked to volunteer their time, and willingly agreed to do so. 
Further, to the extent any staff were required to assist in 
preparations for campaign events, or to attend such events, the 
Committee found no evidence that Representative Chu directed, 
or was aware of, such conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\The Chief of Staff stated that she assumed the staff member 
would transmit the photographs from home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Violations of law and House regulations

    As discussed in Section II, the use of official resources 
for non-official purposes, including campaign-related purposes, 
can be a violation of federal law.\8\ Regulations of the 
Committee on House Administration also provide that House funds 
and resources may not be used for any campaign or political 
purposes.\9\ Regarding these laws and regulations, the Ethics 
Manual states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 641; 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a).
    \9\See Ethics Manual at 125 (``The Members' Handbook provides that 
`[o]nly expenses the primary purpose of which [is] official and 
representational' are reimbursable from the MRA, and that the MRA may 
not pay for campaign expenses or political expenses.'') (emphasis in 
original).

          The misuse of the funds and other resources that the 
        House of Representatives entrusts to Members for the 
        conduct of official House business is a very serious 
        matter. Depending on the circumstances, such conduct 
        may result in not only disciplinary action by the 
        House, but also criminal prosecution.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Id. at 124.

    Thus, it is clear that to the extent Representative Chu's 
Chief of Staff or Legislative Director directed other staff to 
do campaign-related work during regular office hours, in the 
House office and using House email accounts and equipment,\11\ 
those directions were improper.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Id. at 126 (while ``the Members' Handbook permits the 
incidental personal use of House equipment and supplies `when such use 
is negligible in nature, frequency, time consumed, and expense,' . . . 
this policy applies only to incidental personal use of those resources, 
and not to their use for campaign or political purposes.'') (emphasis 
in original).
    \12\The Ethics Manual states that staff may engage in only limited 
and expressly defined campaign-related tasks while in House offices, 
during regular working hours. Staff may (1) ``coordinate with those in 
the campaign office who schedule the Member's campaign appearances;'' 
(2) ``refer to the campaign office letters and other communications and 
inquiries that it receives concerning the campaign;'' and (3) ``provide 
a campaign office with a copy of any materials that the congressional 
office has issued publicly, such as press releases, speeches, and 
newsletters.'' Id. at 132-33. The Ethics Manual also states that 
``[t]he press secretary in the congressional office may answer 
occasional questions on political matters, and may also respond to such 
questions that are merely incidental to an interview focused on the 
Member's official activities. However, while in the congressional 
office, the press secretary should not give an interview that is 
substantially devoted to the campaign, or initiate any call that is 
campaign-related.'' Id. at 133. None of the campaign-related work at 
issue here falls into these categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It bears emphasis that the Committee found no evidence that 
Representative Chu was aware that members of her staff were 
using official resources for campaign-related purposes, or were 
directing other staff to do so. Instead, it appears that the 
Chief of Staff and Legislative Director, who acted as 
supervisors of other staff, directed the improper use of 
official resources. However, as the Ethics Manual explains, 
``each Member should be aware that he or she may be held 
responsible for any improper use of House resources that occurs 
in the Member's office.''\13\ Consistent with this caution, in 
some instances the Committee has held Members responsible for 
their staff's improper use of official resources, even when the 
Members were not aware of their staff's actions.\14\ In doing 
so, the Committee has distinguished between cases where a 
Member knew, or had reason to know, of improper conduct and 
instances where a Member reasonably believed that staff was 
acting properly.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Id.
    \14\See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of 
Rep. E.G. ``Bud'' Shuster, H. Rpt. 106-979, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. 64 
(2000) (holding Member accountable for improper use of official 
resources even though the Committee found ``no direct evidence that 
[the Member] was aware that this activity was taking place.''); see 
also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation Into 
Officially Connected Travel of House Members to Attend the Carib News 
Foundation Multi-National Business Conferences in 2007 and 2008, H. 
Rpt. 111-422, 111th Cong. 2d Sess. 192-93 (2010) (``[B]ased upon the 
Standards Committee's longstanding precedent . . . 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. . . . In this case, Representative 
Rangel acted . . . through [his Chief of Staff's] actions of completing 
and signing the forms necessary for the approval to attend the 
conference. Representative Rangel authorized his Chief of Staff . . . 
to complete and sign the traveler forms on his behalf. Representative 
Rangel, therefore, can and should be held responsible for the knowledge 
[his staff] had regarding the corporate sponsors.'')
    \15\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Laura Richardson, H. Rpt. 112-642, 112th Cong. 2d Sess. 
97 (hereinafter Richardson) (``The ISC recognizes that misconduct in a 
Member office can range on a spectrum between subordinates following 
orders despite their wrongfulness, and `rogue' agents acting outside 
the authority granted to them by a Member.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this case, Representative Chu has stated that she did 
not know of any misuse of official resources for campaign-
related purposes, and there is no evidence to the contrary. 
Further, Representative Chu has said that she took steps to 
ensure that staff understood the prohibition on using official 
resources for campaign-related purposes, including requiring 
staff to certify that they had read the office manual, which 
explained the relevant rules, and having her Chief of Staff 
reiterate the rules in conversations with other staff.\16\ In 
light of the evidence, the Committee did not find that 
Representative Chu failed to properly supervise her staff, or 
that she is otherwise responsible for any of her staff's 
violations of laws, rules, or other standards of conduct. 
However, the Committee emphasizes the responsibility of staff 
in supervisory positions to both ensure that other staff 
members are using official resources appropriately and to 
inform their employing Members of any improper or questionable 
uses of such resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\After the Committee commenced its investigation, Representative 
Chu revised her office policies to ensure that campaign-related events 
are clearly indicated on official schedules and make certain that any 
staff members who participate in campaign-related work or events do so 
voluntarily and on personal time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           B. INTERFERENCE WITH THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION

    As previously discussed, the Chairman and Ranking Member 
issued a total of three RFIs to Representative Chu. The first 
RFI, sent on March 6, 2012, stated that ``the Committee has 
authorized investigation into allegations that members of your 
staff have performed campaign work while on official House time 
and/or used official House resources for campaign-related 
purposes.''\17\ The RFI further stated that the ``Committee 
also requests that you inform your congressional staff that 
they are to fully and honestly cooperate with the Committee's 
requests for information,'' and explained that ``[o]ther than 
[this] notification . . . we request that you not discuss this 
matter with anyone other than your own legal counsel.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Mar. 6, 2012, RFI at 1.
    \18\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Shortly after Representative Chu received this RFI, her 
Chief of Staff held a meeting to inform other staff of the 
Committee's investigation and its focus. Following this 
meeting, Staffer A approached the Chief of Staff and expressed 
concern that the work Staffer A had done to prepare the WIC 
Memo involved an improper use of official resources. The Chief 
of Staff stated that she relayed this concern to Representative 
Chu, and described Representative Chu's response:

          A. I actually did talk to the Congresswoman a little 
        bit about [Staffer A's concern], too.
          Q. And what was that discussion?
          A. It was just that, you know, this was [Staffer A's] 
        concern. [Staffer A] was really worried and, you know, 
        and just letting her know and giving her an update. 
        Pretty much it.
          Q. What did she say?
          A. She just said, you know, well that's unfortunate 
        and you know, nothing's happened, nothing wrong has 
        gone on so you know, to the extent that you can make 
        [Staffer A] feel better about the situation, you know, 
        that was kind of it, yeah.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\18(a) Interview of Chief of Staff (emphasis added).

It appears that, following this exchange, Representative Chu 
re-reviewed Staffer A's memo for the WIC Event and emailed 
additional comments to the Chief of Staff. In a March 20, 2012, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
email to her Chief of Staff, Representative Chu wrote:

          Here is [Staffer A's] background memo for the event 
        of August 25, 2011.
          In the schedule, the event is referred to as a 
        luncheon of WIC owners, and is not referred to as a 
        fundraiser.
          I wish [Staffer A] hadn't referred to the event [in 
        the background memo]. [Staffer A] didn't need to in 
        order to produce the memo, which was on what I've done 
        on WIC since I've been in Congress.
          You might point that out to [Staffer A]. No where 
        [sic] in the memo nor in the calendar does it refer to 
        a fundraiser.

The Chief of Staff responded by email: ``Okay, good to know. I 
will let [Staffer A] know tomorrow.'' The Chief of Staff stated 
that after receiving this email, she spoke to Staffer A again, 
and explained that the WIC Memo was for an event with both 
official and fundraising components, and that the memo related 
to the official component.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\The Chief of Staff stated: ``Well, yeah, I did talk to [Staffer 
A, after discussing Staffer A's concerns with Representative Chu] and 
just [said] that there was this two-part that we hadn't realized that 
there was just to clarify for [Staffer A]. But that was pretty much 
that. You know. Just [so] that [Staffer A] wasn't so stressed out about 
it.'' 18(a) Interview of Chief of Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This sequence of events is troubling in several respects. 
First, Representative Chu's oral and written comments to the 
Chief of Staff could be viewed as an attempt to shape Staffer 
A's testimony to the Committee. Representative Chu stated that 
she believed Staffer A went to the Chief of Staff because the 
Committee had requested an interview, and Staffer A was anxious 
about potential questions regarding the work on the WIC 
Memo.\21\ In these circumstances, Representative Chu should 
have recognized that it was inappropriate to communicate with a 
potential material witness in a manner suggestive of an 
interpretation of events that the Committee was investigating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\In fact, the Committee had not contacted Staffer A regarding an 
interview at this time. But Staffer A was interviewed in June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, to the extent Representative Chu communicated to 
Staffer A, through the Chief of Staff, that the WIC Event had 
any official component or purpose, that suggestion was 
incorrect. In her interview with the Chairman and Ranking 
Member, Representative Chu stated unequivocally that ``from the 
time that the [WIC] event was planned,'' she understood ``that 
this was to be a fundraising event, with no official component 
to it.''\22\ Further, on the day of the WIC Event, 
Representative Chu received several thousands of dollars in 
campaign contributions from individuals who attended the event. 
Thus, it is clear that Representative Chu knew that the WIC 
event was a campaign fundraiser--with no separate official 
component--when she wrote her March 20, 2012, email, even if 
her official calendar did not describe it as such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\18(a) Interview of Representative Chu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In an interview with the Chairman and Ranking Member, 
Representative Chu was asked about her actions in response to 
Staffer A's initial meeting with the Chief of Staff. 
Representative Chu first explained that her intention was to 
``relieve [Staffer A's] anxiety,'' because Staffer A ``was 
very, very concerned about the whole interview, about being 
interviewed at all.''\23\ Representative Chu was asked whether, 
in directing her Chief of Staff to speak with Staffer A again, 
she had ``any intention to influence what Staffer A would tell 
the Committee on Ethics about the memo?'' She explained: ``I 
thought this [March 20, 2012, email to the Chief of Staff] 
might clarify things, but, of course, it--it didn't. And it was 
based on a mistaken assumption. And I shouldn't have had any 
communication with [Staffer A] at all.''\24\ Representative Chu 
continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Id.
    \24\Id.

        Well, I shouldn't have written the [email] at all. I 
        truly regret it. I shouldn't have had any communication 
        at all with [Staffer A]. And it would have been better 
        if I knew exactly how this [WIC] memo was produced. But 
        I wrote this [email] impulsively, and so I didn't know 
        at the time what the true circumstances were, that 
        [Staffer A had] actually done [the WIC memo] on 
        [Staffer A's] own volunteer time.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Id. To the extent Representative Chu believed, when she spoke 
to and emailed her Chief of Staff about the WIC Memo, that Staffer A 
drafted the memo on Staffer A's ``own volunteer time,'' without using 
any official resources, that belief is incorrect. Staffer A stated, and 
contemporaneous emails indicate, that Staffer A started working on the 
WIC Memo in Representative Chu's House office, during regular working 
hours, then went home after the House office buildings were closed due 
to earthquake, logged onto an office computer remotely, again during 
regular working hours, and completed the memo.

    The Committee has noted in the past that the support of the 
Members, officers and employees of the House for its work is 
crucial to its continuing effectiveness.\26\ In the Matter of 
Allegations Relating to Representative Laura Richardson, the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee stated:

    \26\See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Korean Influence 
Investigation, H. Rpt. 95-1817, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 122 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Representative Richardson also violated clauses 1 and 
        2 of House Rule XXIII by engaging in a pattern of 
        behavior intended to obstruct this investigation. This 
        is among the most troubling aspects of the case, and 
        the easiest to see the manner in which it would bring 
        discredit to the House: if a Member has such little 
        respect for the internal discipline of the House that 
        she would attempt to evade its questioning, rather than 
        submitting to the fact gathering process in good faith, 
        it raises the question of why the American people 
        should believe that the House does a sufficient job 
        policing itself. For the House to have the trust of the 
        people, it must vigorously protect its ability to 
        investigate wrongdoing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Richardson at 95.

    One part of the ``pattern'' of obstructive behavior 
Representative Richardson engaged in involved discussing with 
her staff questions the Committee might ask them about 
campaign-related work, and providing self-serving answers that 
would vindicate Representative Richardson.\28\ Representative 
Richardson was reprimanded by the House for her repeated 
improper use of official resources and obstruction of the 
Committee's investigation of her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\Id. at 14 (discussing a staff meeting where Representative 
Richardson ``began a mock dialogue with herself, stating some of the 
questions she expected the Committee to ask, such as `did you feel that 
your campaign work was mandatory or you were compelled in some way?' 
and then an answer--`no.''')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The underlying conduct at issue in Richardson--compelled 
use of House staff for campaign work--was much more egregious 
than the limited, though still impermissible, use of official 
resources for campaign purposes here.\29\ The Committee 
determined that Representative Richardson herself regularly 
compelled her official staff to perform campaign work, 
obstructed the Committee's investigation by altering or 
destroying evidence, failed to produce documents responsive to 
requests for information and a subpoena, and repeatedly 
attempted to influence the testimony of witnesses. However, 
with respect to the charge of interference with the Committee's 
investigation, Representative Chu's actions here were 
nonetheless improper, and the Committee was troubled by them. 
Representative Chu interfered with the Committee's 
investigation by incorrectly advising two material witnesses, 
Staffer A and the Chief of Staff, that the production of the 
WIC Memo did not involve improper use of official resources for 
campaign-related purposes--the very conduct the Committee was 
investigating. The fact that Representative Chu's advice was 
incorrect--even if Representative Chu believed it to be true--
only amplifies the concerns regarding it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\This matter is also distinguishable in that, in Richardson, the 
Committee found that Representative Richardson herself was both aware 
of and personally directed the compelled use of official resources for 
campaign purposes. Id. at 5-14. That is not the case here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is also concerning that Representative Chu failed to 
produce her March 20, 2012, email exchange with the Chief of 
Staff to the Committee, in response to the Committee's August 
23, 2012, RFI. That RFI specifically asked for documents 
related to the WIC Event, including emails from ``personal, 
campaign, and official email accounts.''\30\ Representative Chu 
stated that she read this request as referring to staff email 
accounts, not her own, but admitted that, in preparing a 
response to the August 23, 2012, RFI, she ``searched for 
`WIC''' and ``inputted the words `WIC''' in her personal email 
account.\31\ She did not explain how that search would not have 
produced her March 20, 2012, email to the Chief of Staff, which 
includes the word ``WIC.'' Indeed, Representative Chu told the 
Committee that in searching her personal email account in 
response to the August 23, 2012, RFI, she found the email from 
her Legislative Director transmitting the WIC Memo to her on 
August 24, 2011, but not the email Representative Chu sent to 
her Chief of Staff on March 20, 2012, regarding Staffer A's 
concerns about the WIC Memo. However, it appears that any 
search which produced the August 24, 2011, email would have 
also produced the March 20, 2012, email. Representative Chu 
only produced the March 20, 2012, email in response to the 
Committee's third RFI, dated February 6, 2013, which 
specifically asked for previously unproduced documents 
concerning the WIC Memo and all documents, including all 
emails, concerning Representative Chu's responses to the 
Committee's investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\Aug. 23, 2012, RFI at 1.
    \31\18(a) Interview of Representative Chu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Chu has stated that she responded to Staffer 
A's communication of concerns ``impulsively,'' and explained 
that she intended only to ease Staffer A's anxiety regarding 
the Committee's investigation.\32\ She has further stated that 
she regrets her actions, and understands that she should not 
have communicated with Staffer A at all during the Committee's 
investigation. Regardless of Representative Chu's intentions, 
interference with a Committee investigation is a very serious 
matter, and Representative Chu's actions here were clearly 
improper and reflected very poor judgment on her part. Thus, 
the Committee found that Representative Chu violated clause 1 
of House rule XXIII, by not acting in a manner that 
``reflect[ed] creditably on the House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             V. CONCLUSION 

    For Representative Chu's violations of House Rules, the 
Committee has determined to publicly reprove her. The Committee 
recognizes and appreciates that Representative Chu has 
expressed regret for her inappropriate communications with two 
of her staff members, during the Committee's investigation, 
regarding matters the Committee was investigating. The 
Committee finds, however, that Representative Chu's expression 
of regret, while commendable, does not overcome the need for a 
letter of reproval regarding her interference with the 
Committee's investigation. Therefore, the Committee has issued 
a letter of reproval to Representative Chu for her conduct in 
this matter. Following the publication of this Report, the 
Committee will consider this matter closed.

           VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C) 

    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.