[House Report 114-239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
House Calendar No. 53
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-239
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF
OFFICIALLY-CONNECTED TRAVEL BY
HOUSE MEMBERS TO AZERBAIJAN IN 2013
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 31, 2015.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-006 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
Chairman Ranking Member
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York*
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TED DEUTCH, Florida
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
Report Staff
Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Patrick McMullen, Director of Investigations
Clifford C. Stoddard, Jr., Counsel to the Chairman
Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member
David W. Arrojo, Counsel
Christopher R. Tate, Senior Counsel
Molly N. McCarty, Investigative Clerk
----------
*Representative Yvette Clarke did not participate in the Committee's
proceedings in this matter pursuant to Committee Rule 9(d).
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2015.
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 Officially-
Connected Travel by House Members to Azerbaijan in 2013.''
Sincerely,
Charles W. Dent,
Chairman.
Linda T. Sanchez,
Ranking Member.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT....3
A. Jurisdiction of the Committee....................... 3
B. Gifts from Foreign Governments...................... 3
C. Ethics in Government Act............................ 5
D. Ethics Reform Act................................... 6
E. House Rule XXIV..................................... 6
F. House Rule XXV, clause 5............................ 7
1. Gifts Generally................................... 7
2. Privately-Sponsored Travel........................ 8
3. Impermissible Gifts............................... 10
III.BACKGROUND.......................................................11
A. Committee Preapproval of Privately-Sponsored
Officially-Connected Travel........................ 11
B. Initial Press Reports............................... 12
C. OCE Review.......................................... 13
D. Committee Investigation............................. 15
E. Unauthorized Disclosure of Investigation............ 16
IV. FINDINGS.........................................................18
A. Scope of Findings................................... 18
B. What Did the House Members and Employees Receive?... 18
C. Was the Acceptance Permissible?..................... 19
1. Travel Expenses................................... 19
2. Tangible Gifts.................................... 22
D. Was There Any Evidence of Official Action Taken in
Connection with the Things Received?............... 23
E. Is Any Corrective Action Necessary?................. 23
1. Travel Expenses................................... 23
2. Tangible Gifts.................................... 25
V. CONCLUSION.......................................................26
VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C).....................27
House Calendar No. 53
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-239
======================================================================
IN THE MATTER OF OFFICIALLY-CONNECTED TRAVEL BY HOUSE MEMBERS TO
AZERBAIJAN IN 2013
_______
July 31, 2015.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Dent, 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)\1\ hereby submits the
following Report to the House of Representatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Committee notes that Representative Yvette Clarke, a Member
of the Committee, recused herself from this matter before the Committee
took any action in the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. INTRODUCTION
In May 2013, 10 House Members and 32 House employees took
part in officially-connected travel to Turkey and/or Azerbaijan
(the ``Trips''), which included attendance at a conference in
Baku, Azerbaijan, entitled ``U.S.-Azerbaijan: Vision for the
Future'' (the ``Conference''). Though the Conference had
several corporate sponsors, Conference agendas provided to
travelers before the event listed two American non-profit
organizations--the Turquoise Council of Americans and Eurasians
(TCAE) and the Assembly of the Friends of Azerbaijan (AFAZ)--as
the Conference's organizers. Several American non-profit
organizations with Turkic affiliations, including TCAE,
separately invited the Members to travel to Azerbaijan. The
itineraries of those trips also included attendance at the
Conference.
Each of the House Members and employees who took part in
the Trips sought and received the Committee's approval to
accept the Trips as privately-sponsored, officially-connected
travel prior to accepting the travel invitations. Each of the
non-profits, in required disclosure forms filed with the
Committee, certified that it was the sole sponsor of its trips.
Each non-profit also stated that it had not accepted funding
from any other source to directly or indirectly finance any
portion of the Trips. Those statements were made on disclosure
forms containing multiple clear warnings, in bold text, that
``[w]illful or knowing misrepresentations on this form may be
subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1001.''
The Committee approved the Trips for each Member based on
the travelers' submissions, which included the sponsors'
statements and representations. Nothing in those submissions
gave the Committee reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the
purported sponsors' representations regarding the sources of
the Trips' funding. However, more than a year after the Trips
occurred, questions arose about whether the Trips complied with
the requirements for privately-sponsored officially-connected
travel.
Soon after the start of the 114th Congress, the Chairman
and Ranking Member authorized Committee staff to investigate
these and other related allegations pursuant to Committee Rule
18(a). Separately, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE)
initiated a review of allegations surrounding the Trips. On May
8, 2015, OCE referred to the Committee allegations that the
nine Members received impermissible gifts of travel and
tangible gifts in connection with the Trips.
The Committee conducted an extensive investigation. Each
Member fully cooperated with the Committee. The Committee
issued 12 subpoenas and 18 voluntary requests for information,
and collected nearly 190,000 pages of materials, including
supplemental materials provided by OCE. The Committee also
interviewed ten witnesses. However, the Committee could not
complete its investigation, because many potential witnesses
refused to cooperate with the investigation and were outside of
the Committee's authority to compel because they were in
Azerbaijan or other foreign countries. In addition, Kemal
Oksuz, who was in many respects the central witness to most of
the substantive allegations in question, invoked his Fifth
Amendment right to refuse to testify. Mr. Oksuz also refused to
comply with a subpoena for documents issued to him by the
Committee.
Despite these limitations, the Committee's investigation
uncovered evidence of concerted, possibly criminal, efforts by
various non-House individuals and entities to mislead the House
travelers and the Committee about the Trips' true sponsors and
the funding sources used to pay for Member and House employee
travel to Azerbaijan. However, the evidence was inconclusive as
to who actually funded the travel expenses.
The evidence demonstrates that the House travelers
submitted their forms in good faith, and there is no evidence
that the House travelers knew, or should have known, of the
sponsors' false statements regarding the true source of funding
for the travel. Because the House travelers acted in good
faith, and the evidence was inconclusive as to the true source
of funds for the travel, the Committee concluded that the Trips
did not constitute an impermissible gift of travel, and decided
that no further action is required regarding the House
travelers' acceptance of any trip expenses.
Separate and apart from the travel expenses that were the
subject of the Committee's preapproval process, evidence
indicates that many House travelers received various tangible
gifts during the Trips. In general, Committee approval to
accept privately-sponsored, officially-connected travel is
limited to accepting costs related to the trip, not to tangible
gifts that may be offered to a traveler.
The tangible gifts received by House travelers on the Trips
in this matter may have been permissible under the House Gift
Rule. However, the various provisions of the Gift Rule that may
have permitted acceptance of these gifts require knowledge of
the donor to assess whether a particular provision of the Gift
Rule applies.
The Committee could not determine the source of these
gifts. Since the donor was unknown, it is unlikely that many of
the tangible gifts could be accepted under any provision of the
House Gift Rule. However, either on their own initiative or at
the Committee's recommendation, all Members have voluntarily
remedied, or committed to remedy, any impermissible gifts
received in connection with the Trips. In addition, the
Committee has contacted House staff who participated in the
trips and provided guidance to them about tangible gifts they
may have received. Therefore, the Committee will take no
further action with respect to any House Member or employee in
this matter.
II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
A. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE
Article 1, Section 5, of the United States Constitution
vests with the House the authority to ``punish its Members for
disorderly behavior.''\2\ To implement its Constitutional duty,
the House has adopted a Code of Official Conduct (Code) and has
given the Committee exclusive jurisdiction over the
interpretation of the Code.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\U.S. CONST. art. I, Sec. 5.
\3\House Rule XXIII; House Rule X, clause 1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is authorized to investigate any alleged
violation by a Member or employee of the House ``of the Code of
Official Conduct or of a law, rule, regulation, or other
standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member .
. . or employee in the performance of the duties or the
discharge of the responsibilities of such individual.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to its investigative jurisdiction, the
Committee is also authorized by House Rules\5\ and various
federal statutes\6\ to enforce various standards of conduct
applicable to House Members, officers, and employees and to
promulgate and enforce related regulations, including with
respect to gifts from foreign governments, financial
disclosure, and privately-sponsored, officially-connected
travel, as described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\House Rule X, clause 1(g), 11(g)(4); House Rule XI, clause 3;
House Rule XXV, clause 5(h).
\6\See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 7342, 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C. app. 4
Sec. Sec. 101 et seq., 503(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 to the acceptance of
certain emoluments through the vehicles of the Foreign Gifts
and Decorations Act (FGDA)\7\ and Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act (MECEA).\8\ The House Gift Rule also
expressly permits acceptance of a gift the acceptance of which
is authorized by the FGDA, MECEA, or any other statute.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342.
\8\22 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2451 et seq.
\9\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(N).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MECEA 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 . . . .''\10\ Travel
subject to an approved MECEA program is not subject to
Committee preapproval. However, all expenses must be paid by
the foreign government host of the MECEA trip, and none may be
paid by any private source.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\22 U.S.C. Sec. 2452(a)(2)(i).
\11\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual
(2008) at 110-111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Committee.\12\ The FGDA defines
``foreign government'' to include not only foreign governments
per se, but also international or multinational organizations
whose membership is composed of units of foreign governments,
and any agent or representative of such a government or
organization while acting as such.\13\ The FGDA also covers
gifts from ``quasi-governmental'' organizations closely
affiliated with, or funded by, a foreign government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\House Ethics Manual at 109.
\13\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Member, officer, or employee may accept travel expenses
from a unit of a foreign government only under one of these two
statutory grants of authority.
In addition to its travel provisions, the FGDA also
authorizes House Members, officers, and employees to accept ``a
gift of minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or
mark of courtesy.''\14\ The FGDA also expressly authorizes the
Committee to prescribe regulations to permit the receipt of
gifts of foreign travel or expenses for foreign travel.\15\
Under the Act and the implementing regulations issued by the
Committee, ``minimal value'' is redefined every three years by
the General Services Administration.\16\ In 2013, ``minimal
value'' for FGDA purposes was $350.\17\ This provision on
minimal value gifts clearly applies to gifts of tangible items.
In addition, the Committee has interpreted this provision to
permit Members and staff to accept, from a foreign government,
meals, entertainment, and local travel in the United States
when related to official duties. However, the Committee's
interpretation does not allow the acceptance of such meals,
entertainment, or local travel offered by a lobbyist or agent
of a foreign government, because such gifts are not properly
deemed as having been ``tendered as a souvenir or mark of
courtesy'' as required by the FGDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Id. Sec. 7342(c)(1)(A).
\15\Id. Sec. 7342(c)(1)(B)(ii); Comm. on Standards of Official
Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and Gifts; House
Ethics Manual at 389-93.
\16\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(a)(5); House Ethics Manual at 391.
\17\Federal Management Regulation; Change in Consumer Price Index
Minimal Value, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,550 (May 26, 2011). Effective January 1,
2014, ``minimal value'' increased to $375. Federal Management
Regulation; Change in Consumer Price Index Minimal Value, 79 Fed Reg.
18,477 (Apr. 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FGDA further allows a Member or staff person to accept
(but not to retain) a gift of more than minimal value when
refusal of the gift ``would likely cause offense or
embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign
relations of the United States.''\18\ Such gifts, however, are
deemed to be accepted on behalf of the United States and become
the property of the United States. Within 60 days of accepting
such a gift, a Member or staff person must turn the gift over
to the Clerk of the House for disposal or, with the consent of
this Committee, the recipient may retain the gift for display
in his or her office or other official use.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(c)(1)(B).
\19\Id. Sec. 7342(c)(2), (a)(6)(A). There is a process by which a
Member may purchase with their personal funds an item worth more than
minimal value that has been presented to them by a foreign government.
However, this is a complicated multi-part process involving the Clerk,
the General Services Administration, and the Department of State, and
in any event the Member must first turn the item over to the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time such a gift is deposited for disposal or
official use, the recipient must also complete and sign a
foreign gifts disclosure form, and file it with the
Committee.\20\ If a Member or employee is uncertain whether the
value of a gift exceeds ``minimal value,'' the Clerk's office
can arrange for an appraisal.\21\ Under the Committee's foreign
gifts regulations, the disclosure statements filed by Members
and employees are publicly available at the Committee's office,
and their contents are published annually in the Federal
Register.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Id. 7342(c)(3).
\21\ Id. 7342(g)(2)(B), (a)(6)(A).
\22\House Ethics Manual at 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA), as amended,
mandates annual financial disclosure by all senior federal
personnel, including all Members and some employees of the
House.\23\ The EIGA designates the Committee as the
``supervising ethics office'' of House Members, officers, and
employees for purposes of financial disclosure and provides
that the Committee is to administer the Act with regard to
those individuals.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 5 U.S.C. app. 4 Sec. Sec. 101 et seq. House Rule XXVI, clause
2, adopts Title I of EIGA as a rule of the House.
\24\5 U.S.C. app. 4 Sec. 111(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to gifts, financial disclosure filers must
disclose on an annual Financial Disclosure Statement ``[t]he
identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of
all gifts aggregating more than the minimal value[.]''\25\ With
respect to travel, financial disclosure filers also must
disclose ``[t]he identity of the source and a brief description
(including a travel itinerary, dates, and nature of expenses
provided) of reimbursements received from any source
aggregating more than the minimal value[.]''\26\ For both
disclosures, ``minimal value'' is established by the same
formula as in the FGDA.\27\ As noted above, in 2013, ``minimal
value'' for FGDA purposes was $350.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Id. 102(a)(2)(A).
\26\Id. 102(a)(2)(B).
\27\Id. 102(a)(2)(A), (B).
\28\Supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. ETHICS REFORM ACT
Pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the Committee's
nonpartisan staff is charged with ``providing information and
guidance to Members, officers and employees of the House
regarding any laws, rules, regulations, and other standards of
conduct applicable to such individuals in their official
capacities, and any interpretations and advisory opinions of
the committee.''\29\ The Ethics Reform Act prohibits the
Committee from initiating an investigation based on
``information provided to the [Committee] by a Member, officer
or employee of the House of Representatives when seeking advice
regarding prospective conduct . . . if such Member, officer or
employee acts in accordance with the written advice of the
committee.''\30\ ``The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 guarantees
that no one may be put in jeopardy by making such a
request.''\31\ The Committee formalized these requirements in
its own rules, noting the procedures for obtaining a written
advisory opinion, and confirming that it would ``take no
adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been
undertaken in reliance on a written opinion if the conduct
conforms to the specific facts addressed in the opinion.''\32\
Such protections apply equally to requests for approval of
privately-sponsored travel.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\2 U.S.C. Sec. 4711(i).
\30\Id.
\31\House Ethics Manual at 21.
\32\Committee Rule 3(k).
\33\Committee Rule 3(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. HOUSE RULE XXIV
House Rule XXIV prohibits a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner from maintaining an unofficial office account.
This prohibition applies to accounts maintained by third
parties for a Member's benefit, even if they are not maintained
for the Member's direct use. It further extends to any process
whereby funds are received or expended regardless of whether an
actual account or repository is maintained.\34\ Thus, private,
in-kind contribution of goods or services for official purposes
are banned under House Rule XXIV.\35\ However, one exception to
this rule allows Members to use funds from their principal
campaign accounts for official expenses with some
restrictions.\36\ For example, expenses for officially-
connected travel may be reimbursed out of the principal
campaign account and not violate the unofficial office account
prohibition.\37\ Additionally, a Member may use personal funds
to pay any official expenses.\38\ However, House employees may
not reimburse official expenses from their own funds. For this
reason, although Members may repay the costs for privately-
sponsored travel out of their personal or campaign funds, were
employees to do so, they might run afoul of House Rule XXIV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ House Ethics Manual at 328.
\35\ Id.
\36\House Rule XXIV, clause 1(b)(1).
\37\House Ethics Manual at 176.
\38\ Id. at 329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. HOUSE RULE XXV, CLAUSE 5
1. Gifts Generally
House Rule XXV, clause 5 (the Gift Rule), governs the
acceptance of gifts by Members, officers, and employees of the
House. The Gift Rule provides that a Member, officer, or
employee may not knowingly accept any gift except as provided
in the rule. The rule is comprehensive, i.e., a House Member or
staff person may not accept anything of value from anyone--
whether in one's personal life or one's official life--unless
acceptance is allowed under one of the rule's provisions.
The Gift Rule defines the term ``gift'' in an extremely
broad manner: ``. . . a gratuity, favor, discount,
entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item
having monetary value.''\39\ This provision goes on to state,
``[t]he term includes gifts of services, training,
transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind,
by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement
after the expense has been incurred.''\40\ Accordingly, when a
Member, officer, or employee is offered a tangible item, a
service, or anything else, he or she must first determine
whether the item has monetary value. If it does, then the
individual may accept it only in accordance with provisions of
the Gift Rule. This is so even if the donor obtained the gift
without charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(2)(A).
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gift Rule includes one general provision on acceptable
gifts, and 23 provisions that describe additional, specific
kinds of gifts that may be accepted. The general provision of
the Gift Rule allows a Member, officer, or employee to accept a
gift, other than cash or cash equivalent, having a value of
less than $50, provided that the source of the gift is not a
registered lobbyist, foreign agent, or private entity that
retains or employs such individuals.\41\ The cumulative value
of gifts that may be accepted under the general provision from
any one source in a calendar year must be less than $100.\42\
Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward this
annual limit.\43\ While the rule does not require Members and
staff to maintain formal records of the gifts accepted under
this provision, the rule does require that Members and staff
make a good faith effort to comply with its terms.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(1)(B).
\42\ Id.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the 23 specific provisions in the Gift Rule are
unlikely to be applicable in this matter.\45\ However, a few
could be applicable. For example, Members, officers, and
employees may accept ``[a]n item of nominal value such as a
greeting card, baseball cap, or a T-shirt.''\46\ A Member,
officer, or employee may also accept ``[i]nformational
materials that are sent to the office of the Member, Delegate,
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House in the
form of books, articles, periodicals, other written materials,
audiotapes, videotapes, or other forms of communication.''\47\
Finally, Members, officers and employees may accept any gift
authorized by the FGDA.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\See e.g., House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(C) (permitting
acceptance of gifts from a relative).
\46\Id. clause 5(a)(3)(W).
\47\ Id. clause 5(a)(3)(I). The intent of the phrase ``sent to the
office'' is that a Member or staff person may not accept, under this
provision, an additional courtesy copy of a publication that is sent to
his or her home. The intent of that language is not to preclude
acceptance of a book or other appropriate informational material at,
for example, a reception or other event. See House Ethics Manual at 55.
\48\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(N).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Privately-Sponsored Travel
In addition to the provisions discussed above, the Gift
Rule also permits Members and staff to accept unsolicited
travel expenses paid for by a private source under certain
circumstances.\49\ 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. The Gift Rule provides 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.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id. clause 5(c)-(d).
\50\Id. clause 5(b)(1)(A) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is also authorized by House Rules to develop
and revise as necessary guidelines and regulations governing
the acceptance of privately-sponsored, officially-connected
travel by House Members, officers, and employees.\51\ The
Committee issued initial travel regulations in a pair of
memoranda dated February 20 and March 14, 2007. At the end of
the 112th Congress, the Committee adopted new travel
regulations (Travel Regulations). The new Travel Regulations
were issued on December 27, 2012, and were effective for all
trips beginning on or after April 1, 2013.\52\ Those revised
Travel Regulations were in effect for the trips at issue in
this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\Id. clause 5(i).
\52\ Comm. on Ethics, Travel Guidelines and Regulations (Travel
Regulations), Dec. 27, 2012, available at http://ethics.house.gov/
sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/travel%20regs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Travel Regulations define three different types of trip
sponsors: (1) Primary Trip Sponsors,\53\ (2) Grantmaking
Sponsors,\54\ and (3) Non-Grantmaking Sponsors.\55\ The
Committee requires trip sponsors to complete a form in advance
of a trip. The Committee has separate forms for each type of
trip sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\Travel Regulations Sec. 104(u).
\54\ Id. Sec. 104(i).
\55\ Id. Sec. 104(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Primary Trip Sponsor ``must have some bona fide role in
planning, organizing, conducting, or participating in the
trip.''\56\ A Primary Trip Sponsor may pay for trip expenses
with its own funds, accept outside funds to pay for trip
expenses, or both.\57\ If a Primary Trip Sponsor accepts
outside funds to pay for trip expenses, the individual or
entity giving the funds will also be considered a trip sponsor
if the grant is ``based on a request or award that expressly
mentioned the participation or attendance, or possible
participation or attendance, of House Members or
employees.''\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Id. Sec. 202.
\57\ Id. Sec. 104(u).
\58\ Id. Sec. 104(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Grantmaking Sponsor is a public charity or private
foundation that underwrites, in whole or in part, a trip
expense, ``with express or implicit knowledge or understanding
that one or more House Members or employees may participate or
attend that trip or event, or otherwise may be beneficiaries of
the gift or donation.''\59\ If a Grantmaking Sponsor does not
have a direct role in the organizing, planning, or conducting
of a trip or event, it must ``certify that it conducts an audit
or review of its grant, gift, or donation to ensure that the
funds are spent in accordance with the terms of its grant or
donation.''\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Id. Sec. 104(i).
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Non-Grantmaking Sponsor is an individual or entity that
underwrites, in whole or in part, a trip expense, ``with
express or implicit knowledge or understanding that one or more
House Members or employees may participate or attend that trip
or event, or otherwise may be beneficiaries of the gift or
donation.''\61\ If a Non-Grantmaking Sponsor does not have
direct involvement in planning, organizing, conducting, or
participating in the trip, it must ``provide contributions in
exchange for a tangible benefit[.]''\62\ A ``tangible benefit''
may include booth rental space, advertising at an event, or
public designation as a sponsor of an event. Individuals or
entities that provide contributions in exchange for a tangible
benefit ``at an event that would occur without regard to
congressional participation are not considered a trip
sponsor.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Id. Sec. 104(s).
\62\ Id.
\63\ Id. Sec. 104(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Committee's Travel Regulations, a trip ``without
regard to congressional participation'' is defined as a trip
``that would occur even without the attendance of one or more
House Members or employees.''\64\ The Travel Regulations go on
to state that ``[s]uch events may include, but are not limited
to, an annual meeting of a trade group, a trade show, or a
conference that is open to the public.''\65\ Conversely, a trip
``with regard to congressional participation'' is a trip ``that
would not occur without, or is otherwise dependent upon, the
attendance of one or more House Members or employees.''\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Id. 104(hh).
\65\ Id.
\66\ Id. Sec. 104(gg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the trip sponsor forms and the Committee's Travel
Regulations include very clear warnings about the seriousness
with which the Committee views the truthfulness of statements
made to it during the travel review process, and the
possibility of criminal penalties for false statements. All of
the Committee's trip sponsor forms include at least one warning
that ``[w]illful or knowing misrepresentations on this form may
be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1001.'' (emphasis in original.) In addition, the signature
block of each type of sponsor form is preceded by the
statement, ``I certify by my signature that the information
contained in this form is true, complete, and correct to the
best of my knowledge.'' A similar warning also appears in the
Travel Regulations, which state that ``Any individual, acting
on behalf of a prospective or past trip sponsor, who makes
materially false or misleading statements to the Committee
concerning a trip sponsor or any trip that is being, or was,
offered pursuant to these regulations may be subject to
criminal penalties under the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1001).''\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Id. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)(1)(A)(ii) requires that all
House Members and employees who accept privately-sponsored
travel must disclose the expenses to the Clerk of the House
within 15 days after the travel is completed. The Committee has
created forms for the purposes of these disclosures. The post-
travel disclosures must include copies of (1) the Traveler Form
submitted to the Committee prior to the trip; (2) the trip
sponsor forms submitted to the Committee prior to the trip; (3)
the list of House Members and employees who were invited; (4)
the actual agenda and description of activities in which the
traveler participated during the trip; (5) a copy of the
approval letter or other written communication from the
Committee authorizing the traveler's participation in the trip;
and (6) a copy of the Sponsor Post-Travel Disclosure Form,
certifying the actual costs incurred by the traveler. It is the
responsibility of a trip sponsor to certify on the Sponsor
Post-Travel Disclosure Form the actual amount of travel costs
paid on behalf of, or reimbursed to, a traveler, and to provide
that form to the traveler within 10 days of their return from
travel.\68\ The Sponsor Post-Travel Disclosure Form contains
the same ``false statements'' warning and certification warning
as the pre-travel approval forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Id. Sec. 603.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All post-travel disclosures for privately-sponsored travel
are made available on the Clerk's Web site shortly after
filing.\69\ The Clerk's easy to use database allows the public
to search privately-sponsored trips by Member name, travel
dates, private sponsor name, destination, or any combination of
those fields. A user also has the option of downloading all
private travel reports by year, going back to 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ At no point in the post-travel disclosure process does the
Committee provide anything to the Clerk's office. All components of the
post-travel filing are provided by the traveler. Any incompleteness in
a post-travel disclosure by a traveler is simply an indication that the
traveler did not submit all of the required paperwork, not an
indication that the traveler did not submit the appropriate pre-travel
paperwork to the Committee or that the Committee approved a trip
without having received and reviewed the appropriate forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Impermissible Gifts
The restrictions of the Gift Rule also do not apply to
anything that a Member, officer, or employee ``does not use and
promptly returns to the donor.''\70\ The Gift Rule also
provides that a Member, officer, or employee may accept
``[a]nything for which the [official] pays the market
value.''\71\ Thus, when a Member or employee receives a gift
that is unacceptable under the Gift Rule, the recipient
generally must either return the gift or pay the market value
of the gift.\72\ The Gift Rule provides additional options with
regard to perishable items: ``[w]hen it is not practicable to
return a tangible item because it is perishable, the item may,
at the discretion of the recipient, be given to an appropriate
charity or destroyed.''\73\ By extension, if the return of a
gift is impossible--e.g., if the identity of the donor is
unknown--the recipient may ``return'' the item by donating it
to charity or destroying it, or the recipient may keep the item
by paying the fair market value to the U.S. Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(A).
\71\Id. Generally, for the purpose of the Gift Rule, items are
valued at their retail, rather than wholesale prices. Often an item may
be priced differently at different stores. A gift may be valued at the
lowest price at which the item is available to the general public.
(Other valuation criteria apply to certain items, such as tickets to
entertainment events that do not have a listed face value and travel on
private aircraft.) See House Ethics Manual at 73.
\72\ Id. At times when a Member, officer, or employee is
unexpectedly presented with a gift at an event, he or she may be
uncertain whether it can be accepted under the Gift Rule. In that
circumstance, the individual may receive the gift and wait until after
the event to review the provisions of the Gift Rule and make a decision
on the gift's acceptability.
\73\ House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. BACKGROUND
A. COMMITTEE PREAPPROVAL OF PRIVATELY-SPONSORED OFFICIALLY-CONNECTED
TRAVEL
Since the House rule changes regarding privately-sponsored
travel in 2007, the Committee has conducted a thorough review
of each proposed privately-sponsored trip. The Committee's
nonpartisan, professional staff recommends changes where
necessary to bring a proposed trip into compliance with
relevant laws, rules, or regulations and, on occasion, informs
House Members and employees that a proposed trip is not
permissible. 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.
In April and May 2013, the Committee received pre-travel
approval requests for at least 10 House Members and 32 House
employees to accept reimbursement of privately-sponsored travel
expenses for the Trips. Each House traveler submitted all of
the required pre-travel approval forms to the Committee prior
to traveling. The review and approval process required the
travelers to fill out and submit separate forms detailing the
Trips' itineraries (which were often customized for each
traveler), and information about the organization and funding
of the Trips. One of the forms each traveler submitted to the
Committee was a Primary Trip Sponsor Form.
Five different sponsors were identified as sponsors on the
forms. In particular, the Members and some staff were invited
by TCAE, the Council of Turkic American Associations (CTAA),
and the Turkic American Federation of the Midwest (TAFM). The
remaining House employees were invited by two other
organizations: the Turkic American Alliance (TAA) and the
Turkic American Federation of the Southeast (TAFS).
Each named sponsor completed a Primary Trip Sponsor Form,
and on that form the sponsor stated that it was the sole
sponsor of its trips. Each named sponsor also certified that,
as the primary trip sponsor, it had ``not accepted from any
other source funds intended directly or indirectly to finance
any aspect of the trip.'' As noted previously, the Primary Trip
Sponsor Form includes multiple clear warnings that ``[w]illful
or knowing misrepresentations on this form may be subject to
criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001.''
(emphasis in original.) The signature block of each type of
sponsor form is also preceded by the statement, ``I certify by
my signature that the information contained in this form is
true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge.''
Committee staff reviewed these forms and asked Members and
sponsors for additional information where necessary.
While there were some similarities between the 42 Primary
Trip Sponsor Forms submitted to the Committee, they were not
all identical. For example, each sponsor submitted different
itineraries for their trips. All of the itineraries included a
visit to the ``U.S.-Azerbaijan: Vision for Future'' conference
(the Conference). One of the sponsors, TCAE, was also listed as
one of two organizers of the Conference. However, the
Conference was not the only item on the different itineraries.
Even on the days of the Conference, and on Trips sponsored by
TCAE, the House travelers were scheduled both to attend
portions of the Conference but also to participate in numerous
non-Conference activities, such as meetings with the U.S.
Ambassador to Azerbaijan, various Azeri government officials,
and officials from the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan
Republic (SOCAR).
Ultimately, 10 Members and 32 House employees received
approval from the Committee, in the form of a letter from the
Chairman and Ranking Member, to participate in the Trips. After
the Trips, the sponsors provided each of the travelers with a
completed sponsor post-travel disclosure form--which as noted
above includes a clear warning about the False Statements Act
and a certification about the truthfulness of the disclosures--
confirming the expenses paid by the private sponsors in
connection with the Trips. The House travelers then included
this information provided by the sponsors in the post-travel
disclosure paperwork they filed with the Clerk of the House.
B. INITIAL PRESS REPORTS
On July 26, 2014, a press report alleged that the
Conference was ``sponsored'' by entities other than the two
named organizers of the Conference.\74\ The evidence for this
``sponsorship'' was that the Conference was ``festooned with
the logos of SOCAR's powerful energy allies, including BP and
ConocoPhillips,'' and a statement from BP that it paid $10,000
for the Conference and paid more again for a follow up event
that was scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. the next
year. The article further noted: that the two organizers of the
Conference, TCAE and AFAZ, were both led by Mr. Oksuz and
shared an address in Houston, Texas; that TCAE had ``bare
bones'' tax filings; and that, according to Foreign Agent
Registration Act filings in 2014, AFAZ received significant
funding from SOCAR. The article also included a statement from
an ``expert in congressional ethics'' asserting that corporate
sponsorship of the Conference was ``game over for whoever
signed the House pre-trips forms stating falsely that there was
no such sponsorship.''\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\Will Tucker & Lise Olsen, ``Lawmakers' Trips to Baku Conference
Raise Ethics Questions,'' Houston Chron., July 26, 2014, available at
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/
Lawmakers-trips-to-Baku-conference-raise-ethics-5649142.php.
\75\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the initial press report was published, Committee
staff reviewed the allegations. The staff noted that
allegations of corporate ``sponsorship'' only referred to
support for the Conference itself, not the Trips more
generally, and that the Conference was only one part of the
Trips. Further, the mere corporate sponsorship of a large
event, such as the Conference, is not a per se violation of the
Travel Regulations. Nor is the failure to note such sponsors,
necessarily, problematic. The Travel Regulations plainly state
that entities that provide financial support for an event, in
exchange for a tangible benefit--such as advertising or named
sponsorship at an event--are not ``sponsors'' for purposes of
the Travel Regulations, if the event is held without regard to
congressional participation. Indeed, House travelers routinely
attend large conferences with dozens of corporate sponsors.
Consistent with the Travel Regulations, the Committee does not
automatically treat each corporate sponsor as a sponsor of the
travel to such large conferences.
C. OCE REVIEW
On January 29, 2015, OCE notified the Committee that it had
initiated preliminary reviews of ten Members regarding the
Trips. One of those ten Members did not travel to Azerbaijan on
private sponsorship, but rather as part of a larger officially-
connected trip paid for by the Oversight Committee. OCE did not
move to a second-phase review for that Member. However, on
March 2, 2015, OCE notified the Committee that it was moving to
a second-phase review for the other nine Members. OCE did not
initiate a review of any of the House staffers who participated
in the Trips.
Under House rules, upon receipt of a notification from OCE
that it is undertaking a review of a matter, ``if the [Ethics
Committee] is investigating such matter, the committee may at
any time so notify [OCE] and request that [OCE] cease its
review and refer the matter to the committee for its
consideration.''\76\ This procedure, referred to as ``cease-
and-refer,'' has been included in OCE's organizing resolution
since the House created OCE and has been retained in every
Congress since when the House renewed OCE's charter. The
Special Task Force for Ethics Enforcement (Task Force) that
recommended creation of OCE explained two reasons why it
included the cease-and-refer mechanism in OCE's organizing
resolution. First, the Task Force noted there may be ``certain
cases where a matter may already be the subject of an
undisclosed Standards Committee investigation in which the OCE
may wish to avoid interference.''\77\ Second, in some matters
``the Committee may possess more complete information than OCE
regarding an alleged violation and may be better equipped to
handle the matter.''\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\See House Rule XI, clause 3(r).
\77\Report of the Democratic Members of the Special Task Force on
Ethics Enforcement, H. Rep. 110-1, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. at 17
(December 2007).
\78\Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Task Force further intended that ``[t]he board of the
OCE must cooperate with such requests from the . . . Committee
at any point in the process.''\79\ Accordingly, Section 1(d)(1)
of House Resolution 895 from the 110th Congress (H. Res. 895),
the resolution that founded OCE, makes OCE's compliance with a
``cease-and-refer'' request mandatory. H. Res. 895 further
states that, when responding to a cease-and-refer request, OCE
``shall send a written report to the committee containing a
statement that, upon the request of that committee, the matter
is referred to it for its consideration, but no findings.''\80\
Although OCE may not refer ``findings'' to the Committee
following a cease-and-refer request, no provision of its
organizing resolution would preclude OCE from sharing any
materials it has gathered to date with the Committee as
``supporting documentation.'' Those materials could aid the
Committee's ongoing investigation, and the Committee would
retain the ability to publish those materials in any public
report or other statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\Id. at 17.
\80\See H. Res. 895 Sec. 1(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the cease-and-refer mechanism, once the Committee has
requested that OCE cease its review of a matter and refer it to
the Committee, the review of that matter by the Committee is
subject to the same deadlines and public reporting requirements
as any other matter referred to the Committee by OCE.\81\ One
additional requirement applies: if the Committee is unable to
reach ``final resolution'' of a matter received from OCE
pursuant to a cease-and-refer request within the applicable
timeframes and notifies OCE that it has been unable to resolve
the matter, OCE resumes its review of the matter.\82\ For
purposes of determining whether the Committee has resolved a
matter received following a cease-and-refer request or must
return it to OCE, the Task Force intended that ``final
resolution shall include dismissal of the matter the Committee
requested early from the OCE, establishment of an investigative
subcommittee regarding the matter, or a conclusion or action
which clearly indicates that the matter will no longer be
considered by the Committee.''\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\Despite unsupported statements to the contrary, a request from
the Committee that OCE ``cease-and-refer'' a matter is not an attempt
by the Committee to ``bury'' the matter. Indeed, referrals to the
Committee under the ``cease-and-refer'' rules come with their own
strict time deadlines and mandatory public disclosure requirements. In
fact, when a matter is the subject of a ``cease-and-refer'' request,
House rules require that the referral eventually be made public. In
contrast, one option available to OCE while reviewing a matter is to
refer the matter to the Committee with a recommendation that the
Committee dismiss the matter. In such a case, if the Committee agrees
with the recommendation to dismiss a matter there is no public
disclosure requirement. Since the start of the 111th Congress, OCE has
referred 85 matters to the Committee--34 of which included a
recommendation that the Committee dismiss the matter. The Committee's
``cease-and-refer'' request in this case thus actually ensured that
there would be public disclosure of the matter, and foreclosed the
possibility that there would be no public disclosure of the matter.
\82\See House Rule XI, clause 3(r); H. Res. 895 Sec. 1(d)(2).
\83\Report of the Democratic Members of the Special Task Force on
Ethics Enforcement, H. Rep. 110-1, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. at 17-18
(December 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee unanimously voted to make a cease-and-refer
request with regard to the nine separate OCE reviews related to
the Trips because both rationales articulated by the Task Force
as the basis for creating the cease-and-refer provision were
present in this matter. First, the Committee had an ongoing
investigation, and had already requested information from
relevant parties. Second, the Committee possessed more complete
information than OCE and is uniquely qualified to handle the
matter. The Committee already had in its possession significant
additional information (e.g., materials generated during the
trip approval process) and as discussed above is the only
entity authorized to issue and enforce regulations for the
House regarding privately-sponsored, officially-connected
travel and the acceptance of gifts under the FGDA.
Finally, any recommendation from OCE to the Committee in
these matters would have necessarily been superfluous. An OCE
referral simply provides a recommendation to the Committee that
it further review a matter or dismiss it--the referral may not
include ``any conclusions regarding the validity of the
allegations upon which it is based or the guilt or innocence of
the individual who is the subject of the review.''\84\ Here,
any recommendation would have been redundant because the
Committee had already decided to investigate the matter and had
begun that investigation. The Committee voted to make a cease-
and-refer request in order to conserve significant House
resources and to ensure a more effective, efficient
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\See H. Res. 895 Sec. 1(c)(2)(C). OCE may also inform the
Committee that its review of the matter is unresolved due to a tie vote
of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 4, 2015, the Chairman and Ranking Member sent a
letter to OCE formally requesting that OCE cease its review of
the Trips, and refer the matter immediately to the Committee.
OCE did not immediately refer the matter to the Committee.\85\
On April 21, 2015, the Committee further requested that when
OCE referred the matter to the Committee, OCE should send the
Committee all the evidence that OCE had gathered to date, again
in the interest of efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\OCE received the Committee's cease and refer request on March
4, but did not respond until March 10, when the Co-Chairs informed the
Committee by letter that its Board would not even discuss the
Committee's request until March 27, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 8, 2015, OCE referred nine Reports to the Committee
regarding the Trips and approximately 10,000 pages of evidence
it had collected. In its referral, OCE noted that it had
requested documentary, and in some cases testimonial,
information from dozens of sources, including the House
travelers, the named trip sponsors, other attendees of the
Conference, the corporate sponsors of the Conference, the
travel agent who arranged travel for the approximately 350
attendees of the Conference, and the hotels at which Conference
attendees stayed.\86\ OCE noted in its referral that there were
several sources from which it could not obtain information,
including Mr. Oksuz, TCAE, and AFAZ.\87\ In addition, OCE sent
the Committee nine documents that it labeled as its
``findings.'' However, as discussed earlier, due to the
Committee's cease-and-refer request, OCE had no authority to
send findings to the Committee. On June 17, 2015, the Committee
unanimously voted to treat OCE's referrals as referrals
pursuant to the cease-and-refer rules. The Committee reviewed
and considered the information included in the ``findings'' as
supporting documentation, which OCE's charter does not
expressly prohibit it from providing to the Committee with a
referral pursuant to a cease-and-refer request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\Indeed, much of this review occurred after OCE received the
Committee's cease-and-refer request. The materials transmitted by OCE
to the Committee include citations to 21 interviews of witnesses,
including the dates of those interviews. Of those 21 interviews, only 1
interview had been conducted prior to March 4, 2015, when the Committee
informed OCE that it had voted to make a cease and refer request for
these matters.
\87\OCE also asserted that of the Members who went on the Trips
refused to cooperate with OCE. However, each of those Members only did
so after learning that the Committee had made a cease-and-refer request
to OCE. Each Member fully cooperated with the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
The Committee issued 12 subpoenas and 18 voluntary requests
for information, and collected nearly 190,000 pages of
materials, including supplemental materials provided by OCE.
The Committee also interviewed ten witnesses, including one
witness under oath. The Committee subpoenaed an eleventh
person: Kemal Oksuz, who was in many respects the central
witness to most of the substantive allegations in question. On
June 9, 2015, Mr. Oksuz, through counsel, invoked his Fifth
Amendment right to refuse to testify, as discussed further
below. Mr. Oksuz also refused to comply with a subpoena for
documents issued to him by the Committee.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\As discussed in Section III.E. of this report, infra, shortly
after OCE referred the nine matters regarding the Azerbaijan Trips to
the Committee, public reports indicated that the press had received at
least part of one of OCE's referrals to the Committee regarding the
Trips. The public reports about the matter came after the Committee had
sought information from Mr. Oksuz, but before it could actually
interview him. It was only after the public reports regarding OCE's
review that Mr. Oksuz invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee obtained evidence from several sources from
which OCE was unable to obtain evidence, or did not seek
evidence. For example, TCAE and AFAZ both produced documents to
the Committee. In addition, the Committee received bank records
from Wells Fargo for both TCAE and AFAZ and documentary and
testimonial evidence from Resul Aksoy, who worked with Mr.
Oksuz at TCAE.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\Mr. Aksoy, who one witness told OCE was Mr. Oksuz's ``number
two person,'' told the Committee he was not interviewed by OCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in addition to documentary and testimonial
evidence not obtained from Mr. Oksuz, other potentially
relevant evidence was also unavailable. Such evidence included
documents and testimony from: the Azerbaijan offices of
Practical Solutions Group (PSG); several possible corporate
sponsors of the Conference (Azeri MI Drilling Fluids, Ltd.,
Caspian Drilling Company, Ltd., BP, and M-I SWACO); various
hotels that allegedly provided accommodations to Members,
including the Four Seasons Baku; and BAKIAD, a non-profit
entity based in Turkey, similar to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, that may have been involved in travel for Members and
staff who traveled to Turkey as part of the Trips.
On June 22, 2015, the Committee announced that it had voted
to extend its review of OCE's nine referrals for an additional
45-day period.
On July 16, 2015, the Committee sent letters to six of the
nine Members who participated in the Trips, recommending that
they return or otherwise remedy certain tangible gifts they
received while on the Trips.\90\ All six Members complied
immediately and took or committed to take the corrective action
the Committee recommended in its letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\Prior to that date, the other three Members who received gifts
during the Trips returned or otherwise disposed of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 2015, the Committee unanimously voted to
release this Report and take no further action with respect to
the Members in question. Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause
3(a)(3) and Committee Rules 7(d) and 28, the Committee also
voted to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for
further investigation of the purported sponsors of the Trips,
who are outside the Committee's jurisdiction. Finally, the
Committee, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(r), voted to
release OCE's Reports as required under the cease-and-refer
procedure. Because the cease-and-refer rules only require the
Committee to release OCE's Reports, any release of other
materials sent by OCE is within the discretion of the
Committee. The Committee decided not to release publicly any
other materials, because those materials contain evidence of
possible criminal misconduct by several non-House individuals
and entities, and the Committee determined that any such
release could interfere with a potential investigation by the
Department of Justice.
E. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATION
Although the Committee is required to make public the
materials transmitted to it by OCE in certain circumstances,
the Committee is the only entity either required or authorized
to make those materials public.\91\ In addition, those public
disclosures are subject to certain conditions, such as a
requirement that the Committee provide notice of a public
release to the subject of an investigation. Unfortunately, that
was not the case in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8); H. Res. 895, Sec. 1(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any matter referred to the Committee by OCE either (1)
following a cease and refer request from the Committee to OCE
or (2) after OCE has completed a second-phase review and
referred a matter to the Committee with a recommendation that
the Committee further review the matter, the Committee must
make a public statement acknowledging its review of the matters
in the OCE referral after an initial review period.\92\
However, in the event that the Committee has extended its
review for an initial 45-day review period--as was the case
here--although the Committee would be required to make a public
statement, it would not be required to disclose additional
substantive details of the investigation at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\Committee Rule 17A(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 13, 2015, five days after OCE transmitted the nine
referrals in this matter to the Committee, The Washington Post
published a lengthy story on its Web site reporting that OCE
had reviewed allegations related to privately-sponsored travel
by House Members and staffers to Azerbaijan in 2013 and had
referred the matters to the Committee.\93\ The newspaper's
story was based on and quoted from materials transmitted to the
Committee by OCE. The Committee did not authorize the release
of those materials, and such an unauthorized release may have
violated House Rules and other standards of conduct. Moreover,
the unauthorized disclosure of the materials directly impacted
the Committee's investigation, which began well before OCE
transmitted the materials to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\The next day, a similar story was published on the newspaper's
front page. Scott Higham, Steven Rich, & Alice Crites, Lawmakers Took
Trip Paid for by Foreign Firm, Wash. Post, May 14, 2015, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time The Washington Post published its story, it was
more than five weeks before the Committee would have to make
any public disclosure of the OCE referral. In addition, the
Committee had issued a number of subpoenas to various
individuals, and had issued requests for information to a
number of entities in foreign countries. Discussions with all
of those parties about their cooperation with the Committee's
investigation were ongoing.
The story in The Washington Post quoted extensively from
materials prepared by OCE, named the Members under review, and
included numerous allegations about American and foreign
entities and individuals outside the House. Following
publication of the story, Kemal Oksuz, who was in many respects
the central witness to most of the substantive allegations in
question, invoked his Fifth Amendment right and refused to
comply with Committee subpoenas seeking his testimony and
documents. Foreign entities outside of the Committee's
jurisdiction to compel cooperation also subsequently declined
to cooperate with the Committee's investigation.
As such, the unauthorized disclosure of the material to The
Washington Post impeded the Committee's ongoing investigation,
and prevented it from gathering information critical to its
investigation.
Anonymous leaks of ongoing ethics investigations are
damaging to the Members involved, the ethics process, and the
whole House. This is particularly true in this case. The
Committee takes this matter very seriously. It is regrettable
that the unauthorized disclosure impaired the Committee's
investigation and impacted the notice rights that are mandated
by House Rules for all subjects of an OCE referral.
IV. FINDINGS
A. SCOPE OF FINDINGS
The Committee's investigation was broader in scope than
OCE's review. OCE's reviews concerned House Members who
traveled to Azerbaijan in May 2013. The Committee's
investigation included not just Members, but also the 32 House
employees who traveled to Azerbaijan during this timeframe. In
addition to reviewing the conduct of House Members, OCE also
spent considerable time and resources looking at the conduct of
individuals and entities other than Members, officers, and
employees of the House. However, this review did not uncover
any evidence of wrongdoing by any House Member, officer, or
employee; OCE noted in its Reports that the nine subjects of
its referrals ``did not knowingly accept'' any impermissible
gift of travel.
The Committee's investigation also uncovered additional
evidence of criminal activity by the non-House individuals and
entities. As it has done in the past, the Committee has
determined that the evidence of criminal activity should be
forwarded to the Department of Justice for further
investigation.\94\ However, the Committee's investigation was
primarily concerned with: (1) what things of value did the
House Members and employees receive; (2) was the acceptance of
these items permissible under the applicable laws, rules,
regulations, and other standards of conduct; (3) was there any
evidence that the House Members and employees took any official
action in connection with the receipt of these things of value;
and (4) based on the foregoing facts, is any corrective action
necessary. The Committee's investigation and its findings only
looked at the conduct of non-House individuals and entities to
the extent that it impacted the answers to these questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\See Comm. 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, H. Rep.
111-422, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Committee's extensive investigation, the
Committee made the following findings.
B. WHAT DID THE HOUSE MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES RECEIVE?
In 2013, 10 House Members and 32 House employees accepted
privately-sponsored travel to Azerbaijan. Some of those House
travelers also traveled to Turkey. This travel was accepted
after review and approval by the Committee. On the Trips, the
Members and employees accepted airfare to and from the U.S.,
and in some cases between Turkey and Azerbaijan. The Members
and employees also accepted local transportation, lodging, and
meals. The airfare, local transportation, lodging, and meals
accorded with the expenses that were preapproved by the
Committee.
While in Azerbaijan, several of the House travelers also
accepted tangible gifts. Among other things, Members received
some combination of small and medium-sized rugs, tea sets,
briefcases, CDs, DVDs, picture books, and scarves. Such items
were not preapproved by the Committee. In fact, each of the
Committee's preapproval letters included a standard warning
regarding the possible receipt of gifts from foreign
governments while on official travel.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\Those warnings read, in relevant part, ``House Members may
accept, under the [FGDA], gifts of minimal value [currently $350]
tendered as a souvenir or mark of courtesy' by a foreign government.
Any tangible gifts valued in excess of $350 received from a foreign
government must, within 60 days of acceptance, be disclosed on a Form
for Disclosing Gifts from Foreign Governments and either turned over to
the Clerk of the House, or, with the written approval of the Committee,
retained for official use.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. WAS THE ACCEPTANCE PERMISSIBLE?
1. Travel Expenses
All House travelers sought and received preapproval from
the Committee to accept the various travel expenses accepted
while on the Trips. This preapproval came in the form of a
letter signed by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee. By both statute and Committee rule, such a written
letter from the Committee providing advice regarding a House
traveler's prospective conduct acts as a shield against later
adverse actions from the Committee against that traveler if
such Member, officer, or employee acts in accordance with the
written advice of the Committee. Such protections do not attach
if the travel does not conform to the facts underlying the
Committee's approval.
The Committee's investigation uncovered evidence that
raised significant questions as to the true source of the
funding for the travel expenses related to the Trips. Neither
the Committee nor OCE found any evidence that any House
travelers knew of issues regarding the true source of the
funding for the travel expenses. Indeed, even following an
extensive investigation, the Committee could not establish the
actual source of funding for the travel expenses.
Much of the relevant evidence regarding this question is
outside of the Committee's authority to compel, either because
it resides outside of the U.S. or may be protected by the
Constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Thus, no
additional investigating could resolve these questions.
The pre-travel approval forms identified five American non-
profit organizations as the sole sources of funding for the
Trips. These non-profit groups supplied the travelers with
itineraries and other documents relating to the Trips'
logistics. The named trip sponsors prepared and signed
disclosure forms that the House travelers provided to the
Committee when seeking the Committee's approval for the Trips.
In those forms, each non-profit stated that it was the sole
sponsor of its trips and that it had not accepted any funds
intended to finance any aspect of the trip, either directly or
indirectly, from any other source.
The evidence indicates that many of the American non-
profits named as sponsors did not actually pay for the House
Members' and employees' travel expenses. Instead, the vast
majority of funding for the travel expenses appears to have
come from TCAE, and possibly AFAZ. Those two entities, which
operated out of the same office suite in Houston, Texas, and
were both led by Mr. Oksuz, paid for and arranged the airfare
for approximately 350 attendees of the Conference, including 10
House Members and 32 House employees. These entities made
large, undifferentiated payments to Tursan Travel, a travel
agent, which then booked the airfare for the 350 travelers to
Azerbaijan. There is no evidence that any of the other non-
profit entities reimbursed TCAE or AFAZ for these expenses.
During the investigation, Tursan Travel produced a number
of invoices purporting to show separate airfare expenditures by
AFAZ and TCAE, with travel for House Members and staff
attributed to TCAE and non-House travel paid by AFAZ. However,
evidence gathered by the Committee indicates that the travel
agency did not create the invoices based on the actual tickets
purchased. Notably, the amounts listed on those invoices match
neither the amounts listed in the Sponsor Post-Travel
Disclosures as amounts paid for the Members' transportation,
nor the amounts listed in flight itineraries sent to the
Members before the Trips.\96\ When asked why airfare amounts
listed on those invoices did not match airline itinerary
documents, the travel agent said that he created the invoices
based on directions from Mr. Oksuz and TCAE's Executive
Director, Resul Aksoy. The travel agent said that the TCAE
staff told him what amounts to invoice for each traveler's
flights and whether each ticket purchase should be invoiced to
TCAE or AFAZ. Mr. Aksoy, however, has denied any knowledge of
or involvement with the invoices, stating that this was all
handled by Mr. Oksuz, and Mr. Oksuz has refused to testify. The
investigation did not reveal any credible documentary evidence
to support the travel agent's assertions.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\In some cases, the differences between the invoiced amount and
the fare listed on airline itineraries and post-travel forms submitted
to the Committee are substantial. Airline itineraries list fares for
Member travel ranging from $530 more than the Tursan Travel invoice
fare to $1,000 less. The differences with the post-travel forms are
even greater: for one Member, the invoiced fare is $5,270 less than the
ticket price indicated on the post-travel form.
\97\AAFAZ did produce one document that purported to show that
Tursan Travel invoiced AFAZ for some Member airfares, but given Mr.
Oksuz's refusal to testify, and his central role in controlling AFAZ,
the Committee could not determine whether AFAZ actually paid any
invoiced amounts. The Committee also noted that Tursan Travel did not
produce this invoice to the Committee, and the airfare amounts listed
on the invoice to AFAZ do not match amounts listed on invoices Tursan
Travel produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the month leading up to the Conference, TCAE and AFAZ
received large payments from PSG and SOCAR, respectively.\98\
PSG is a consulting firm based in Azerbaijan with connections
to SOCAR. SOCAR is an energy company that is wholly owned by
the Republic of Azerbaijan. Without these cash infusions,
neither TCAE nor AFAZ would have had sufficient funds to cover
the payments to the travel agent. The payments from PSG were
tied to a ``Consulting Agreement'' with TCAE for the
Conference. The payments from SOCAR to AFAZ were tied to a
``Sponsorship Agreement'' for the Conference between AFAZ and
SOCAR.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\In the materials submitted to the Committee, OCE noted that
both TCAE and AFAZ used Wells Fargo bank and that OCE could not
determine whether the entities had separate bank accounts. The
Committee obtained records showing that the entities had separate bank
accounts.
\99\There is some evidence that payments by PSG were, in fact,
directed by SOCAR. PSG and SOCAR have a longstanding relationship.
Also, SOCAR engaged PSG to plan and organize the U.S.-Azerbaijan
Conference. Three days later, PSG entered into a separate Consulting
Agreement with TCAE, whereby TCAE would work on ``convention
organization'' and ``[s]ponsorship for International Flights for
Speakers/Panelists and Guests.'' However, there is no evidence that
SOCAR actually paid PSG for services with regard to the Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Consulting Agreement and the Sponsorship Agreement
included provisions whereby a majority of the fees would go
towards paying an ``International Preparation Fee (structure,
employees, transportation).'' Further, the Sponsorship
Agreement between AFAZ and SOCAR specifically states that
``[t]he Funding shall cover accommodation, traveling expenses,
venue rental and all other related expenses and fees.''
However, the agreements also provided that PSG and SOCAR would
receive a tangible benefit--i.e., named sponsorship rights and
advertising.
No such parallel provision appeared in the Consulting
Agreement between TCAE and PSG. TCAE produced an invoice it
sent to PSG, listing services under their Consulting Agreement
that included ``Congressional Member Trips to Azerbaijan'' and
``Congressional Staff Trips to Azerbaijan,'' in addition to a
number of activities not related to the Conference. However,
this document merely indicates that TCAE may have worked on
Member and staff travel to the Conference as part of its
agreement with PSG; it does not establish that PSG directed
TCAE to invite Members and staff, and does not indicate whether
PSG's payment for TCAE's work was funded by PSG or came from
another source. Moreover, that invoice is dated for several
months after the Conference, so it is not clear what level of
knowledge, if any, PSG had with respect to TCAE inviting
Members and staff to the Conference at the time of the
Conference. And the Committee could not compel testimony from
either Mr. Oksuz or any PSG employees in Azerbaijan to clarify
these issues.
Even if there was sufficient evidence that the fees from
PSG and SOCAR did contemplate congressional travel, PSG and
SOCAR both received a tangible benefit in exchange for their
sponsorship fees. Congressional travelers made up only 42 of
the 350 Conference attendees who traveled to Azerbaijan. And
there is no direct evidence that the Conference would not have
occurred without, or was otherwise dependent upon, the
attendance of one or more House Members or employees.
Thus, there is some evidence that some of the named trip
sponsors did not pay for the airfare related to the Trips.
However, the evidence as to which entity or entities actually
funded the airfare expenses is inconclusive. There is even less
evidence with regard to other travel expenses related to the
Trips.
Regarding hotel expenses, there is no evidence of payments
made by any entity for accommodations provided to House Members
or employees while on the Trips. There is evidence that SOCAR
had longstanding contracts and discounted rate agreements with
two hotels where Conference attendees stayed: the Hilton Baku
and the Four Seasons Baku. However, Counsel for SOCAR testified
that the company's internal review did not reveal any payments
by SOCAR that specifically referenced the Conference. With one
exception,\100\ none of the documentary evidence produced by
any of the named trip sponsors included receipts, reservation
confirmations, or any other records evidencing hotel stays paid
for by those entities for House Members or employees during the
U.S.-Azerbaijan Conference. Though the Committee subpoenaed
every hotel where congressional travelers stayed while
attending the Conference, the Committee obtained no evidence
regarding the source of the funds used to pay for the Members'
hotel stays in Azerbaijan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\TCAE's and TAFM's productions to the Committee included
invoices from the Four Seasons Hotel Baku for Member room stays in
Azerbaijan, yet the Committee found no bank records evidencing payment
of the invoices amount by any of the non-profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, there is a complete lack of evidence concerning
the source of the funds used for food and in-country travel
expenses.
2. Tangible Gifts
The Gift Rule prohibits the acceptance of any gift unless
it qualifies for one of the enumerated exceptions in the rule.
Moreover, unlike the travel expenses, the House travelers did
not seek or receive preapproval for receipt of the tangible
gifts. In fact, the travel approval letters each included a
standard warning regarding the travelers' responsibilities with
respect to gifts from foreign governments.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\See n. 95, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several House travelers told the Committee that the gifts
were left in their hotel rooms with no indication of who
provided them. When the travelers inquired, they were
apparently given different answers about the origins of similar
gifts. For example, one Member received two rugs while in Baku.
That Member contacted Mr. Oksuz to determine where the rugs
came from. Mr. Oksuz told the Member that the rugs were a gift
from AFAZ. By contrast, another Member received a small rug
from Mr. Oksuz shortly after the Trip, but when that Member
asked Mr. Oksuz who provided it, he said it was a gift from the
``people of Azerbaijan.'' Mr. Oksuz, of course, has refused to
testify before the Committee. Thus, on the limited evidence
available, the Committee could not determine who provided the
gifts to the Members. Some of the travelers returned or
otherwise disposed of their gifts on their own initiative,
either before or after the Committee's investigation began.
The lack of clarity with regard to the donor or donors of
the gifts is problematic for some exceptions to the Gift Rule,
but irrelevant to others. For example, the Gift Rule exceptions
with respect to gifts worth less than $50 and for those
authorized by the FGDA require knowledge of the donor's
identity before accepting the gift since those provisions
permit acceptance of gifts from donors who meet certain
criteria. The provision that permits acceptance of a gift worth
less than $50 does not apply to gifts from registered lobbyists
or agents of a foreign principal or private entities that
retain or employ registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign
principal.\102\ The FGDA permits acceptance of certain gifts,
but only from foreign governments, as defined in the statute
and Committee regulations.\103\ Other Gift Rule exceptions,
such as those that permit acceptance of nominal value gifts and
informational materials, apply regardless of the identity of
the donor, since they are not limited to certain types of
donors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(1)(B)(i).
\103\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the tangible gifts that are items of nominal value or
information materials, such as the CDs, DVDs, and picture
books, appear to qualify for a Gift Rule exception. However,
some of the larger gifts, such as the rugs, tea sets, scarves,
and jewelry would likely only be acceptable under one of the
Gift Rule exceptions that require knowledge of the donor's
identity, and are thus not acceptable in this case.
D. WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF OFFICIAL ACTION TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH
THE THINGS RECEIVED?
The Committee uncovered no evidence that any House Member
or employee took any official action in connection with either
the travel expenses or tangible gifts received during the
Trips.
E. IS ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION NECESSARY?
1. Travel Expenses
The Committee has publicly addressed the appropriate remedy
for the acceptance of potentially improper privately-sponsored
travel expenses four times.
In the 96th Congress, the Committee investigated
allegations that House Members and staff had accepted travel
expenses from both the South African government and foreign
non-profit entities that may have been directed by the South
African government.\104\ The Committee decided to take no
further action, despite some evidence that Members and staff
accepted travel paid for by the South African government and
the foreign non-profits. The Committee's staff report noted
that, although acceptance of the travel expenses would
otherwise be a violation of applicable rules or statutes, no
further action was appropriate for two reasons. First, the
Committee could not conclude its investigation because several
witnesses were unavailable and one refused to testify without a
grant of immunity. Second, the Committee found that Members and
staff were not aware, when the travel occurred, that it was
paid for by the South African government. The report stated
that ``common sense and the legislative history of the Code of
Official Conduct lead to the conclusion that an essential
predicate for finding a violation is knowledge by the recipient
of the gift that it came from an improper source.''\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct (Comm. Print) South
African Investigation, (1980) (South African Investigation).
\105\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 111th Congress, the Committee investigated
allegations that Members accepted impermissible travel expenses
for attendance at two conferences in the Caribbean. In that
matter, the Committee had clear evidence that improper trip
sponsors, including foreign governments and corporations that
employed or retain lobbyists, paid for the Members' travel
expenses.\106\ This evidence included testimony that one or
more foreign governments paid for portions of the Member travel
and documentary evidence that other improper, undisclosed
sponsors paid for other parts of the travel. Moreover, there
was evidence that those travel expenses had been intended
specifically for Members of Congress, and not provided more
broadly to other attendees of the conferences. The Committee
requested that the Members pay back the travel expenses,
despite having received written preapproval from the Committee,
and despite the fact that most of the travelers had no
knowledge of the improper funding sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\See Carib News (2010) at 107-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 113th Congress, the Committee issued two public
reports regarding privately-sponsored travel.
In one matter, the Committee found that several staffers
went on a multiday privately-sponsored trip to Turkey.\107\ The
staffers sought and received the Committee's written
preapproval, but it was later discovered that one of the two
trip sponsors employed or retain a lobbyist. The involvement of
a sponsor that employed or retained a lobbyist thus made the
trip improper under House Rules and the Committee's Travel
Regulations. However, there was no evidence of any undisclosed
foreign government or other foreign entity paying for travel
expenses of the staffers. Given that the staffers had sought
and received the Committee's approval and gone on the trip in
good faith, the Committee decided not to require repayment of
the expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Staff Travel Provided by the Turkish Coalition of America in August
2008, H. Rep. 113-176, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another matter, the Committee investigated two different
privately-sponsored trips taken by Members to Taiwan and
ostensibly paid for by a private university in Taiwan.\108\
Both Members sought and received the Committee's written
preapproval of the trips. Evidence was later uncovered that the
government of Taiwan may have paid for the Members' travel.
However, the Committee could not conclusively determine whether
the Taiwanese government paid for the travel. This was
partially because neither the Taiwanese university nor the
government of Taiwan cooperated with the Committee's
investigation. Thus, the Committee determined that ``such
inconclusive evidence [was] insufficient to hold either Member
accountable for reimbursement on that basis alone.''\109\
However, the Committee also found that one Member's trip was
improper under House Rules and the Committee's Travel
Regulations because of the ongoing involvement of a foreign
agent in the trip. The Committee noted that the Member should
have known the travel was improper because of the foreign
agent's continued involvement. However, the Committee noted
that the Member had already paid back the travel expenses, and
thus, the Committee took no further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matters of Allegations Relating to
Travel to Taiwan by Representatives William Owens and Peter Roskam in
2011, H. Rep. 113-266, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (2013).
\109\Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, each House traveler sought and received the
Committee's written preapproval to participate in the Trips.
Neither the Committee nor OCE found that any of the House
travelers knew, or had reason to know, that there were any
issues with the travel. OCE informed the Committee that ``there
is no evidence that the Members of Congress knew that
additional, impermissible sponsors and organizers may have been
involved in organizing and sponsoring the trip'' and that
``Members of Congress relied on the sponsors' representations
to them and the Committee on Ethics in good faith, and also
relied in good faith on trip approval from the Committee on
Ethics.'' That is consistent with the Committee's findings
following an extensive investigation.
The Committee has uncovered some evidence that not all of
the named sponsors paid all of the travel expenses related to
Trips. However, after an extensive investigation, the Committee
was unable to determine conclusively which entity or entities
did ultimately fund the travel. As discussed above, following
an unauthorized public disclosure and newspaper story about
aspects of the investigation, the central witness to most of
the substantive allegations in question invoked his Fifth
Amendment right to refuse to testify and refused to comply with
a subpoena for documents issued to him by the Committee. In
addition, a number of other potential foreign witnesses also
subsequently refused to cooperate with the investigation and
are outside of the Committee's authority to compel cooperation.
The Committee has exhausted its options for gathering
additional information from these parties.
The Committee has considered allegations relating to
involvement in privately-sponsored travel by foreign
governments and other entities that would have made such travel
impermissible. Where the Committee has found direct,
uncontroverted evidence that a foreign government paid for
travel, and did so with the express intent that travel benefits
be provided to House Members, the Committee has recommended
that Members repay the cost of such travel--even where the
Members acted in good faith, had appropriately sought and
received Committee approval to accept the travel beforehand,
and had no reason to be aware of the foreign government
involvement.
Where: (1) Members sought and received Committee approval
to accept travel and in good faith relied on the Committee's
approval; (2) the Committee was unable to establish that a
foreign government or other source had involvement with the
trip that would have rendered it impermissible; and (3) third
parties beyond the Committee's authority to compel cooperation
refused to cooperate with the Committee's investigation, the
Committee has declined to recommend or require that House
Members or employees repay the cost of the travel they accepted
following Committee approval.
Therefore, consistent with the Committee's precedent, the
Committee has determined that the House Members and employees
do not need to repay any of the travel expenses they accepted
during the Trips.
2. Tangible Gifts
Recently, the Committee found that a Member accepted
numerous gifts, including both tangible gifts and gifts of
travel over many years.\110\ The Committee further found that,
in many instances, the Member should have known that gifts were
improper. Thus, the Committee directed the Member to repay the
value of the improper trips and gifts, to the total of
$59,063.74.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Don Young, H. Rep. 113-487, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014).
\111\Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remedy of repayment is consistent with how the
Committee has historically treated impermissible gifts.\112\
Indeed, the Committee has required repayment of improper gifts,
even where the Member was initially unaware that they had
received an improper gift.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\See e.g., Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the
Matter of Representative Jay Kim, H. Rep. 105-797, 105th Cong. 2d Sess.
26-27 (1998).
\113\See e.g., Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations
Relating to Representative Jean Schmidt, H. Rep. 112-195, 112th Cong.
1st Sess. 16-17 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 16, 2015, the Committee, by letter to the six
Members who received tangible gifts during the Trips and still
had them in their possession, recommended that they return or
otherwise remedy certain gifts. All six Members complied
immediately, and took or committed to take the corrective
action recommended by the Committee with respect to any
impermissible tangible gifts.
V. CONCLUSION
In general, when a House Member, officer, or employee
receives a gift that is not acceptable under the Gift Rule, the
options for handling the unacceptable gift including paying the
donor the gift's fair market value, returning the gift to the
donor, donating the item to charity, turning the gift over to
the Clerk, or destroying it, depending on the nature of the
gift and the donor.\114\ All Members have voluntarily remedied,
or committed to remedy, any impermissible tangible gifts
received in connection with the Trips, and no further action
with respect to those gifts is required. In addition, the
Committee has contacted House staff who participated in the
trips and provided guidance to them about tangible gifts they
may have received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\House Ethics Manual at 57-59, 73-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a House Member, officer, or employee seeks and
receives advance written permission to accept a gift, that
permission acts as a shield protect the individual from future
action by this Committee, if the individuals conduct conforms
to the Committee's written permission.
In this matter, the evidence was inconclusive as to the
true source of travel expenses for the House travelers who
accepted privately-sponsored travel to Azerbaijan. Although the
Committee conducted a thorough and extensive investigation, its
efforts to obtain testimony and evidence from key individuals
and entities were impeded by the unauthorized public disclosure
of materials relating to its investigation. This disclosure
occurred prior to any public disclosure of the investigation by
the Committee. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to overcome
to protections afforded by the Committee's advance written
approval.
However, the Committee's investigation uncovered evidence
of concerted, possibly criminal efforts by various non-House
individuals and entities to mislead the House travelers and the
Committee about the Trips' true sponsors and the funding
sources used to pay for Member and House employee travel to
Azerbaijan. The Committee has jurisdiction to investigate
allegations of misconduct by current House Members, officers,
and employees. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously voted
pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(3) and Committee Rule 28
to refer the matter of third parties' conduct to the U.S.
Department of Justice for such action as the Department deems
necessary.
Through the issuance of 12 subpoenas and 18 voluntary
requests for information, the Committee's investigation
collected nearly 190,000 pages of materials, including about
10,000 pages of supplemental materials provided by OCE.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d), the Committee hereby
authorizes the release of materials in the Committee's
possession to the Department of Justice, as necessary for any
further action the Department of Justice pursues as a result of
this matter's referral.
The Committee intends to take no further action regarding
this matter and thus considers it closed. This Report
constitutes a final resolution of this matter under House Rule
XI, clause 3(r).
The Chair is directed, upon providing the notices required
pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Committee
Rule 17A(b)(2), to file this report with the House. The filing
of this report, along with its publication on the Committee's
Web site, shall serve as publication of the OCE's Reports in
these matters, pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(b)(8)(A)
and 3(r), and Committee Rules 17A(b)(3) and 17A(c)(2).
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.
[all]