[House Report 114-687]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                House Calendar No. 137

  114th Congress   }                                   {  Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES        
  2d Session       }                                   { 114-687
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                


                 IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED 
                     TO REPRESENTATIVE ED WHITFIELD

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS




          July 14, 2016.--Referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed


                                _________ 

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                  
 20-740                  WASHINGTON : 2016       




  
                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania        LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
  Chairman                             Ranking Member
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana             TED DEUTCH, Florida
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

                              REPORT STAFF

              Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
            Patrick M. McMullen, Director of Investigations
           Clifford C. Stoddard, Jr., Counsel to the Chairman
            Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member

                        David W. Arrojo, Council
                     Molly N. McCarty, Investigator
                   Michael Koren, Investigative Clerk
                   
                   
                   
                   
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                     Washington, DC, July 14, 2016.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of Rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith 
transmit the attached Report, ``In the Matter of Allegations 
Related to Representative Ed Whitfield.''
            Sincerely,
                                   Charles W. Dent,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                            C O N T E N T S

                               __________
                                                                   Page
  I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
 II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND............................................2
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................3
 IV. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(c) OF THE RULES OF THE 
     HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.........................................8
     APPENDIX A: REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE.............9
     APPENDIX B: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
     ETHICS (REVIEW NO. 14-2940)....................................457
     APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE WHITFIELD'S SUBMISSION TO OCE......1067
     APPENDIX D: REPRESENTATIVE WHITFIELD'S SUBMISSIONS TO THE 
     COMMITTEE AND INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE......................1103







                                                 House Calendar No. 137
                                                 
114th Congress   }                                            {   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                            {   114-687

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



 
  IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE ED WHITFIELD

                                _______
                                

   July 14, 2016.--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) hereby submits the 
following Report to the House of Representatives:

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    On July 12, 2016, the Committee considered the Report 
adopted by the Investigative Subcommittee (ISC) in this matter. 
This Report memorializes the Committee's conclusions based on 
the ISC Report.
    The Committee agrees with the findings and conclusions the 
ISC reached following its thorough thirteen-month 
investigation.\1\ Specifically, the Committee finds that 
Representative Ed Whitfield failed to prohibit lobbying 
contacts between his staff and his wife, Constance Harriman, 
and dispensed special privileges to Ms. Harriman, but that he 
did not violate the rule against improperly using his position 
for his own interest. The Committee also found, as the ISC did, 
that Representative Whitfield did not intend to violate the 
House Rules or other standards of conduct, or to benefit 
himself or his spouse by doing so. However, the Committee 
agreed with the ISC's conclusion that Representative Whitfield 
did not take sufficient care to familiarize himself with the 
applicable rules and other standards of conduct, or to ensure 
that his office complied with them, and that the resulting 
violations were significant and numerous enough to warrant a 
reproval by the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The Committee thanks the Members of the ISC for their efforts 
and attention to this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Accordingly, the Committee hereby adopts the ISC's Report, 
which will serve as a reproval to Representative Whitfield. The 
ISC's Report is transmitted as an appendix to this Report.

                       II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

    On June 10, 2014, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) 
transmitted a Report and Findings (Referral) relating to 
Representative Whitfield to the Committee. OCE's Referral 
recommended that the Committee further review allegations that 
Representative Whitfield failed to prohibit lobbying contacts 
between his staff and his wife (who was at the time a 
registered lobbyist), and that he dispensed special favors or 
privileges to either his wife or her employers, the Humane 
Society of the United States (HSUS), or its lobbying arm, the 
Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\A referral from the OCE to the Committee may include a 
recommendation that the Committee further review an allegation or 
dismiss it and provide the Committee with certain types of information 
regarding the allegation, but not the names of any cooperative 
witnesses or any conclusions regarding the validity of the allegations 
or the guilt or innocence of the individual who is the subject of the 
review. See H. Res. 895 1(c)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee agreed with OCE's recommendation and did 
further review the allegations in its Referral. On November 10, 
2014, the Committee published OCE's Referral and a response 
from Representative Whitfield, and publicly announced that the 
Committee would investigate the matter under Committee Rule 
18(a). Shortly after the commencement of the 114th Congress, on 
March 25, 2015, the Committee unanimously voted to establish an 
ISC to continue the Committee's investigation of the 
allegations in OCE's referral.
    The ISC issued requests for information to Representative 
Whitfield, HSUS, and HSLF. In response to those requests, the 
ISC obtained and reviewed over 140,000 pages of documents. The 
ISC interviewed eleven witnesses, including current and former 
House staff, employees of HSUS and HSLF, a Member who was a 
witness to the allegations, Ms. Harriman, and Representative 
Whitfield. In addition, the ISC reviewed Representative 
Whitfield's written submissions regarding the allegations in 
this matter.
    On April 20, 2016, the ISC voted to adopt its Report, 
finding that Representative Whitfield had violated the House 
Rule concerning lobbying contacts between a Member's spouse and 
his staff, as well as rules regarding the dispensation of 
special privileges. The ISC did not believe that a sanction 
requiring floor action by the House of Representatives was 
warranted in this case. However, the ISC did recommend that the 
Committee reprove Representative Whitfield, a sanction which 
the Committee is authorized by House Rules to issue on its own 
authority.\3\ As the Committee has noted previously, reproval 
by the Committee is ``intended to be a clear public statement 
of rebuke of a Member's conduct issued by a body of that 
Member's peers acting . . . on behalf of the House of 
Representatives.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2).
    \4\House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of 
Representative E.G. ``Bud'' Shuster, H. Rep. 106-979, 106th Cong., 2d 
Sess. (Oct. 16, 2000) at 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2), which provides 
that the Committee may report to the House its findings and 
conclusions for final disposition of investigative matters 
after ``notice and hearing,'' the Committee provided 
Representative Whitfield with a copy of the ISC Report on April 
29, 2016, and offered him the opportunity to be heard by the 
full Committee. Representative Whitfield responded to the ISC's 
Report through an extensive written submission and by appearing 
before the Committee.
    Following Representative Whitfield's appearance before the 
Committee, the ISC met again to discuss Representative 
Whitfield's remarks and submission. After further consideration 
of those views and materials, the ISC unanimously agreed to 
make minor revisions to its Report, and transmitted the Report 
to the Committee. As described further below, the ISC still 
concluded that the violations were significant and numerous 
enough to warrant a reproval by the Committee, and the full 
Committee unanimously agreed with that recommendation.

                     III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

    On July 12, 2016, the Committee voted unanimously to 
release this public Report finding that Representative 
Whitfield violated House Rules and other standards of conduct. 
Specifically, beginning in January 2011 and continuing until at 
least 2015, Representative Whitfield permitted Ms. Harriman, 
who was at that time registered as a lobbyist for HSLF, to 
contact his staff regarding federal legislation in which HSLF 
had an interest. This contact took many forms, from Ms. 
Harriman's participation in the planning and strategy of 
arranging meetings between other Members and outside advocates 
for the Prevent All Soring Tactics Act (PAST Act), a bill that 
Representative Whitfield sponsored and HSLF supported, to 
discussing communications and parliamentary strategy for the 
PAST Act and other animal welfare bills, to directly advocating 
that Representative Whitfield vote for certain animal welfare 
bills or amendments, or that his staff alter the language of 
such bills. These contacts, the ISC concluded, illustrated Ms. 
Harriman's unique level of access to, and influence on, 
Representative Whitfield's staff.
    With respect to the conduct described above, Representative 
Whitfield violated House Rule XXV, clause 7, which requires 
that Members ``prohibit all staff employed by that Member . . . 
from making any lobbying contact . . . with that individual's 
spouse, if that spouse is a lobbyist . . .'' Representative 
Whitfield also violated the Code of Ethics for Government 
Service, Section 5, which states that Members shall ``never 
discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or 
privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not . . .'' 
Finally, this conduct also violated Clauses 1 and 2 of House 
Rule XXIII, which provide that a Member ``shall behave at all 
times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,'' 
and ``shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of 
the House . . .''
    The ISC noted that these violations were not caused by any 
corrupt or willful intent to violate House Rules or other 
standards of conduct.\5\ However, the ISC recognized that 
Representative Whitfield failed to establish clear guidelines 
and limits for his staff, which resulted in numerous lobbying 
contacts between his staff and Ms. Harriman over an extended 
period of time.\6\ The ISC further found that Ms. Harriman's 
unique access to and influence on Representative Whitfield's 
staff constituted a special privilege to her, which other 
lobbyists were not and would not have been granted.\7\ The ISC 
concluded that these violations did not require a House 
sanction, such as a reprimand or censure, largely because they 
were due to Representative Whitfield's negligence, rather any 
intent to violate the applicable rules and other standards of 
conduct.\8\ However, the ISC observed that, consistent with the 
Committee's prior precedents, even unintentional violations, if 
significant and sustained over time, can merit a reproval by 
the Committee.\9\ Based on the totality of the circumstances, 
the ISC concluded that a public reproval was appropriate in 
this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ISC Report at 32-33.
    \6\Id.
    \7\Id. at 30.
    \8\Id. at 32-33.
    \9\Id. at 33 & n.222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After reviewing the ISC's Report, Representative Whitfield 
acknowledged that his ``oversights led to unintentional 
violations'' of the House Rule regarding lobbying contacts 
between a Member's staff and a lobbyist spouse.\10\ However, 
Representative Whitfield asserts that his spouse did not have 
special access to his staff, and that there was thus no 
violation of the rule against providing a ``special privilege'' 
to any person. Representative Whitfield also contends that his 
actions did not fail to ``reflect creditably on the House,'' 
and that a reproval is not appropriate, given his lack of 
intent to violate the rules and other circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Representative Whitfield Submission (May 31, 2016) (Appendix D) 
at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee has accepted the ISC's findings regarding the 
lack of any intent by Representative Whitfield to violate the 
rules. However, the Committee found that Representative 
Whitfield failed to take the proper care to avoid violations of 
the applicable rules. In particular, the Committee was troubled 
by Representative Whitfield's assertions that he was unaware of 
both the lobbying contacts rule and his spouse's registration 
as a lobbyist until another Member's staff raised questions 
about Ms. Harriman in October 2013, nearly three years after 
Ms. Harriman registered as a lobbyist.\11\ As the Committee has 
previously stated, ``Members have both the duty and 
responsibility to be aware of relevant House Rules and to 
conform their actions accordingly.''\12\ The Committee has thus 
refused to accept claims of mitigation that ``would effectively 
result in the condonation of improper action based upon a 
defense of ignorance of House Rules,'' stating that ``[s]uch an 
approach is clearly untenable on its face.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Representative Whitfield characterized his lack of knowledge of 
the rule and of Ms. Harriman's lobbying registration as mitigating 
circumstances, in response to the ISC Report.
    \12\See House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter 
of Representative Richard H. Stallings, H. Rept. 100-382, 100th Cong. 
1st Sess. 6 (1987) (hereinafter Stallings).
    \13\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Likewise, and for the same reasons, the Committee believes 
that a Member bears some responsibility to be aware of 
significant changes in factual circumstances--such as a 
spouse's action to register as a lobbyist--that could implicate 
House Rules. The Committee also questioned Representative 
Whitfield's assertion that he ``did not even know that his wife 
had become a registered lobbyist'' until October 2013.\14\ In 
fact, Ms. Harriman sent a statement to Representative 
Whitfield's House BlackBerry device in December 2012, which 
referred to a Washington Post reporter's ``inquiry regarding 
the lobbying work of Connie Harriman-Whitfield on behalf of the 
Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF).''\15\ The email to 
Representative Whitfield noted that Ms. Harriman was a 
registered lobbyist for HSLF, and was paid ``for her lobbying 
work.''\16\ Further, several of Representative Whitfield's 
staff, including his chief of staff, testified that they knew 
Ms. Harriman was a registered lobbyist for the Humane Society 
well before October 2013.\17\ This raises questions about how 
Representative Whitfield's staff was aware of Ms. Harriman's 
change in status around the time it occurred, yet 
Representative Whitfield remained unaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Representative Whitfield Submission (May 31, 2016) (Appendix D) 
at 11.
    \15\ISC Report at 27 (citing Ex. 56).
    \16\Id.
    \17\Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite Representative Whitfield's claim that he was 
unaware of the lobbying contacts rule until late 2013, and his 
admission that he did, in fact, violate the rule, 
Representative Whitfield argues that there is more than one 
reasonable interpretation of the rule, and that his actions 
were consistent with one such interpretation. Representative 
Whitfield has made this point previously, in written 
submissions and in extensive testimony before the ISC. The ISC 
considered Representative Whitfield's interpretation of the 
rule, along with his characterization of the contacts between 
his staff and Ms. Harriman regarding legislation that HSLF 
supported or lobbied on, and found them to be without 
merit.\18\ The Committee agreed with the ISC's thoughtful and 
detailed analysis, and notes that the ISC took care to 
highlight and address both exculpatory and inculpatory evidence 
in its Report. Given the Committee's confidence in the ISC's 
Report, the Committee will not issue an extended response to 
Representative Whitfield's most recent submission. However, a 
few of Representative Whitfield's legal and factual arguments 
merit brief discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\See, e.g., id. at 23-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the proper interpretation of the lobbying contacts rule, 
Representative Whitfield admits that he violated the rule, but 
asserts that it would have been reasonable for him to believe 
that Ms. Harriman's communications with his staff were only 
``lobbying contacts'' if she intended to influence the staff or 
Representative Whitfield, and that there was no public guidance 
from the House or Committee that would have led him to view the 
rule differently.\19\ Putting aside Representative Whitfield's 
admission that he did not have any interpretation of the 
lobbying contacts rule during the period at issue here--because 
he was unaware the rule existed--the Committee disagrees with 
Representative Whitfield's contention.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\In October 2013, Ms. Harriman contacted Committee staff after 
another Member's staff objected to Ms. Harriman's participation in 
legislative meetings arranged by Representative Whitfield's staff. 
Representative Whitfield asserts that Ms. Harriman received ``unclear 
responses'' from Committee staff, and that Committee staff acknowledged 
that the issue was ``complicated.'' See Representative Whitfield 
Submission (May 31, 2016) at 9-10 (Appendix D). The ISC considered 
these assertions, and found that, at a minimum, Committee staff 
informed Ms. Harriman that she should not ``talk about any bill with 
[Representative Whitfield's] office that HSUS supports,'' as Ms. 
Harriman's own notes of the call state. See ISC Report, Ex. 32. Yet Ms. 
Harriman continued to have those conversations long after speaking with 
Committee staff.
    \20\Representative Whitfield's written response to the ISC report 
asserts that he was ``unaware of the lobbying contacts rule.'' The 
prohibition in House Rule XXV, clause 7, was created in the 110th 
Congress by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 
(``HLOGA''), Pub. L. 110-81, Sec. 302, 121 Stat. 735, 121 Stat. 735, 
752 (Sept. 14, 2007), which passed the House on a vote of 411-8. It has 
been included in House Rules in each of the four successive Congresses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the ISC explained, the definition of a ``lobbying 
contact,'' which is included in the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
1995 (LDA) contains no reference to, or requirement for, a 
lobbyist's intent to influence anyone.\21\ As a matter of 
common sense and practice, lobbyists often work with Members 
and their staff on issues where the lobbyist and the Member or 
staff already agree; the point of those contacts is not to 
influence the Member or staff, but to work together to pass or 
modify legislation. These interactions fall squarely within the 
statutory definition of a lobbying contact. Further, as the ISC 
Report explained, the House has published guidance which makes 
clear that if a lobbyist's client would view its lobbyist's 
communication with a Member or staff as advancing the client's 
interests in legislation, the communication is a lobbying 
contact.\22\ As the ISC detailed, Ms. Harriman's client, HSLF, 
viewed her as acting on its behalf when she contacted Member 
offices--including Representative Whitfield's office.\23\ Thus, 
based on the publicly available guidance issued by the House, 
Ms. Harriman's contacts with Representative Whitfield's staff 
regarding legislation that she and her client, HSLF, were 
registered to lobby on would be ``lobbying contacts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ISC Report at 24-25.
    \22\Id. at 24 & n.166 (citing Office of the Clerk, Lobbying 
Disclosure Act Guidance (Dec. 15, 2014) (section titled ``Is it 
Lobbying Contact/Lobbying Activity?'')).
    \23\Id. at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Whitfield acknowledges that by at least 
October 2013, he knew that his wife was a registered lobbyist 
and knew of the rule regarding lobbying contacts by a Member's 
spouse who is a registered lobbyist, but asserts that he lacked 
guidance from the Committee about how to interpret the 
rule.\24\ Yet, as discussed at greater length in the ISC 
Report, the Committee's Chief Counsel spoke to Ms. Harriman 
about the rule. In that conversation, the Chief Counsel offered 
to speak to Representative Whitfield directly and advised Ms. 
Harriman that the best way to obtain a formal opinion from the 
Committee would be for Representative Whitfield himself to 
request such an opinion. Representative Whitfield never made 
that request. Moreover, well after that time, Ms. Harriman 
continued to make similar contacts and requests to his office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\As noted above, the rule regarding a spouse's lobbying contacts 
was created by enactment of HLOGA in 2007. The House Ethics Manual 
issued in 2008 notes that, ``Special caution must be exercised when the 
spouse of a Member or staff person, or any other immediate family 
member, is a lobbyist. At a minimum, such an official should not permit 
the spouse to lobby either him- or herself or any of his or her 
subordinates . . . . Furthermore, a recently enacted provision of the 
House rules (House Rule 25, clause 7) requires that the Member prohibit 
his or her staff from having any lobbying contacts with that spouse if 
such individual is a registered lobbyist or is employed or retained by 
a registered lobbyist to influence legislation.'' House Ethics Manual 
(2008) at 245-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Representative Whitfield also attempts to characterize his 
spouse's interactions with his staff regarding legislation that 
HSLF supported as mere ``reminders'' to take actions 
Representative Whitfield already intended to take, and 
suggests, as he did throughout the ISC's investigation, that he 
and Ms. Harriman were completely aligned on all the issues that 
Ms. Harriman contacted his staff about. The ISC found that 
these claims were based on a mischaracterization or incomplete 
presentation of the facts,\25\ and the Committee agreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\See, e.g., ISC Report at 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to the ISC's finding that Representative 
Whitfield granted Ms. Harriman a special privilege of access to 
his staff, Representative Whitfield argues that Ms. Harriman's 
access to, and influence on, his staff did not change when Ms. 
Harriman registered as a lobbyist. This is precisely the point. 
Representative Whitfield's staff granted Ms. Harriman unique 
access to the office, and treated her in a deferential matter, 
because she was the Member's spouse.\26\ When she registered to 
lobby for HSLF, and later joined HSLF as a paid lobbyist, her 
access to Representative Whitfield's staff, and the staff's 
treatment of her, should have changed accordingly. But by all 
accounts, nothing changed. To cite just one example, in May 
2011, five months after Ms. Harriman registered as a lobbyist 
for HSLF, Ms. Harriman's supervisor at HSLF told Ms. Harriman 
that an HSUS publication wanted quotes from Representative 
Whitfield, supporting a horse racing bill that HSUS wanted 
Congress to pass.\27\ The HSLF supervisor asked ``Do you want 
me to just go through the office?,'' to which Ms. Harriman 
responded, ``I do not need to tell YOU that going through a 
spouse is usually more efficient than going through the office! 
. . . I will get a couple of quotes from him.''\28\ Ms. 
Harriman's supervisor responded 90 minutes later: ``Oh, I know 
you're the one to ask! I just think we ask A LOT! And, thank 
you, I already heard from [Representative Whitfield's press 
secretary]--you work fast!''\29\ As the ISC's Report detailed, 
HSLF and HSUS employees regularly followed this practice, using 
Ms. Harriman as a go-between to obtain prompt action from 
Representative Whitfield on a variety of requests.\30\ Based on 
these and other interactions between Ms. Harriman and 
Representative Whitfield's office, the ISC found, and the 
Committee agreed, that Representative Whitfield granted Ms. 
Harriman a ``special privilege'' that was not available to 
other lobbyists--not through any decision he made, but due to a 
failure to alter the office's policies as the House Rules 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\As the ISC explained, it is neither unusual nor inappropriate 
for a Member's spouse to have a particularly close relationship with 
the Member's staff. See ISC Report at 33. However, the appropriateness 
of this relationship changes where the spouse is a registered lobbyist, 
and is communicating with the Member's staff concerning legislation the 
lobbyist is registered to lobby on. That was the circumstance here, and 
explains why the ISC and Committee did not view Ms. Harriman's status 
as a Member's spouse to be a mitigating factor.
    \27\ISC Report, Ex. 3.
    \28\Id.
    \29\Id.
    \30\See ISC Report at 5 & n.22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, Representative Whitfield contends that his 
violations were not severe enough to implicate House Rule 
XXIII, clause 1, which provides that a Member ``shall behave at 
all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the 
House.'' But Representative Whitfield has acknowledged that his 
staff's interactions with Ms. Harriman raised improper 
appearances, and that he would handle the change in Ms. 
Harriman's status differently today, knowing what he does 
now.\31\ In the Committee's view, given the number, duration, 
and significance of the violations the ISC found, 
Representative Whitfield's actions were not consistent with 
House Rule XXIII, clause 1. The Committee also found that, 
although Representative Whitfield offered technical defenses to 
the allegations in this matter, his actions did not comport 
with the spirit of the lobbying contacts and ``special 
privileges'' rules.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\Id. at 32.
    \32\See House Rule XXIII, clause 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based on these findings, the Committee found that 
Representative Whitfield violated House Rule XXV, clause 7, the 
Code of Conduct, section 5, and House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 
2. While the Committee agreed with the ISC's assessment that 
these violations were not intentional, they only occurred 
because Representative Whitfield ``failed to comprehend the 
importance of setting boundaries and limits on the interactions 
between Ms. Harriman and his staff,''\33\ and thus did not take 
the proper precautions to avoid either improper interactions or 
the appearance of impropriety. Therefore, consistent with prior 
precedent, the Committee has adopted the ISC's Report in this 
matter, which shall serve as a reproval of Representative 
Whitfield. This recommendation is consistent with the 
Committee's treatment of prior matters, in which the Committee 
issued a reproval even where a Member's violations were 
unintentional.\34\ Following the publication of this Report, 
the Committee will take no further action in this matter, and 
considers it closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ISC Report at 29.
    \34\See Gingrey at 25 (finding violations of House Rules, and 
issuing a reproval, even though ``the Committee credited Representative 
Gingrey's assertion that he believed his actions were consistent with 
House Rules.''); Berkley at 10 (reproval was appropriate even though 
``[t]he ISC found that Representative Berkley mistakenly believed the 
rules governing what assistance her office could provide to her 
husband's practice required only that they treat him in the same manner 
by which they treated any other constituent.''); see also Stallings at 
5-6 (Committee recommended a reprimand where the Member was unaware of 
the applicable House Rule and did not intend to violate it).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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