[House Report 113-665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
House Calendar No. 153
113th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 113-665
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE JUDY CHU
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
December 11, 2014.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-006 WASHINGTON : 2014
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas LINDA T. SAANCHEZ, California
Chairman Ranking Member
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TED DEUTCH, Florida
REPORT STAFF
Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Deborah Sue Mayer, Director of Investigations
Jackie M. Barber, Counsel to the Chairman
Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member
Patrick McMullen, Senior Counsel
Brittany M. Bohren, Investigator
C. Tucker Carr, Investigative Clerk
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC, December 11, 2014.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith
transmit the attached Report, ``In the Matter of Allegations
Relating to Representative Judy Chu.''
Sincerely,
K. Michael Conaway,
Chairman.
Linda T. Saanchez,
Ranking Member.
CONTENTS
----------
Page
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT...2
III. BACKGROUND.......................................................2
IV. FINDINGS.........................................................3
A. USE OF HOUSE RESOURCES FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES........ 3
1. PREPARATION OF CAMPAIGN-RELATED MEMORANDA......... 3
2. REVIEW OF CAMPAIGN-RELATED COMMUNICATIONS......... 5
3. PREPARATION FOR AND DOCUMENTATION OF CAMPAIGN
EVENTS........................................... 5
4. VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND HOUSE REGULATIONS........... 5
B. INTERFERENCE WITH THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION..... 7
V. CONCLUSION......................................................11
VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)....................11
APPENDIX A: LETTER OF REPROVAL..................................13
House Calendar No. 153
113th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 113-665
======================================================================
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE JUDY CHU
_______
December 11, 2014.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Conaway, from the Committee on Ethics,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
In accordance with House rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b),
the Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the
following Report to the House of Representatives:
I. INTRODUCTION
In June 2011, the Committee received information that
Representative Chu's Chief of Staff and Legislative Director
had required other staff to perform campaign-related work in
the House office, during regular working hours. Pursuant to
Committee Rule 18(a), the Committee investigated these
allegations. This investigation uncovered evidence that
Representative Chu's Chief of Staff and Legislative Director
directed members of Representative Chu's staff to perform
campaign-related work using official resources on a sporadic
and limited basis, but did not reveal any evidence that
Representative Chu was aware of any improper use of official
resources for campaign purposes. However, the Committee did
find that Representative Chu took actions that interfered with
the Committee's investigation of this matter.
Representative Chu has expressed regret for her
inappropriate communications with two of her staff members,
during the Committee's investigation, regarding matters the
Committee was investigating. The Committee finds, however, that
Representative Chu's expression of regret, while commendable,
does not overcome the need for a letter of reproval regarding
her interference with the Committee's investigation. For her
violations of House Rules, the Committee has issued a public
letter of reproval to Representative Chu.
II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
The following House Rules, laws, regulations, and other
standards of conduct are implicated in this matter.
First, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a) and implementing regulations
of the Committee on House Administration prohibit the use of
appropriated funds for purposes other than for which the
appropriations were made.
Second, House rule XXIII, clause 1 provides that ``[a]
Member . . . of the House shall behave at all times in a manner
that shall reflect creditably on the House.''
III. BACKGROUND
Based on information the Committee obtained regarding the
improper use of official resources in Representative Chu's
office, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee in the
112th Congress issued a Request for Information (RFI) to
Representative Chu on March 6, 2012 (March 6, 2012 RFI). The
March 6, 2012, RFI included several requests related to the use
of official resources, including staff time, for campaign
purposes. On April 3, 2012, Representative Chu provided
information and documents in response to this RFI. Following
the receipt of that response, Committee staff interviewed a
member of Representative Chu's staff (Staffer A). In August
2011, Staffer A drafted a memo at the direction of
Representative Chu's Legislative Director for a fundraising
lunch that Representative Chu attended with owners of grocery
stores that participated in the Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC) program (WIC Event). Staffer A felt required to draft the
``WIC Memo,'' and did so during regular working hours, using a
House computer and other official resources. During its
investigation, the Committee obtained emails, from the August
2011 period, between Staffer A and Representative Chu's Chief
of Staff and Legislative Director related to the WIC Memo.
Although these documents appeared to be responsive to the
Committee's March 6, 2012 RFI, Representative Chu did not
provide them to the Committee in her April 3, 2012 response.
The Chairman and Ranking Member issued a second RFI to
Representative Chu on August 23, 2012 (August 23, 2012 RFI).
This RFI requested all documents related to the WIC Event,
including emails from ``personal, campaign, and official email
accounts.''\1\ In response, Representative Chu produced emails
from and between her official and campaign staff related to the
WIC Event, but did not produce any emails from her own personal
email account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Letter from former Chairman Bonner and Ranking Member Saanchez
to Representative Chu, Aug. 23, 2012, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 19, 2012, the Committee obtained an email,
dated March 20, 2012, from Representative Chu to her Chief of
Staff, discussing concerns Staffer A had expressed that the
work on the WIC Memo was improper. In that email,
Representative Chu directed the Chief of Staff to explain
Representative Chu's view of the work to Staffer A.
Representative Chu did not produce this email exchange in
response to either the March 6, 2012, or the August 23, 2012,
RFI.
On February 6, 2013, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee for the 113th Congress issued a third RFI (February
6, 2013 RFI) to Representative Chu, which included a number of
requests specifically intended to capture Representative Chu's
March 20, 2012, email to her Chief of Staff.\2\ Representative
Chu finally produced that document to the Committee on March 6,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Letter from Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Saanchez to
Representative Chu, Feb. 6, 2013, at 1 (``Please provide any previously
unproduced emails, with attachments, from any of your personal or
campaign-related email accounts, that are (1) responsive to any of the
Committee's requests of March 6, 2012, or August 23, 2012; (2) related
to any event concerning the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program
which you attended on or around August 25, 2011 (the WIC event); or (3)
related to [Staffer A]'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, pursuant to Committee rule 18(a), Committee
staff conducted interviews of 13 persons, including
Representative Chu, her Chief of Staff, and her Legislative
Director.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The Chairman and Ranking Member participated in the interview of
Representative Chu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Committee decided how to resolve this matter,
Representative Chu was invited to address the full Committee,
and did so. The Committee carefully considered all of
Representative Chu's written submissions and oral remarks in
resolving the matter.
IV. FINDINGS
Following the Committee's investigation, the Committee
reached the following findings and conclusions.
A. USE OF HOUSE RESOURCES FOR CAMPAIGN PURPOSES
The Committee determined that Representative Chu's Chief of
Staff and Legislative Director directed several other members
of Representative Chu's official staff to engage in campaign-
related activities, while on official time, including (1)
preparing background memoranda for a campaign fundraising
event; (2) reviewing campaign-related communications; and (3)
preparing for and documenting campaign events. This work, while
sporadic and limited, involved improper uses of official
resources, including staff time. However, as discussed below,
the Committee obtained no evidence that Representative Chu was
aware that her staff was engaged in this improper campaign
work.
1. Preparation of campaign-related memoranda
The Committee obtained evidence that established at least
one instance of use of House staff and other official resources
to research and draft background materials for Representative
Chu's use at a campaign fundraising event.\4\ Through
interviews and review of email documents, the Committee
determined that on Monday, August 22, 2011, Representative
Chu's campaign consultant sent an email to her Legislative
Director stating: ``Did you get the info from [Representative
Chu's Scheduler] for Judy's fundraising lunch with the WIC
people on Thursday? If not, Judy is supposed to talk about WIC
issues. It will be an informal lunch.'' The next morning,
Tuesday, August 23 at 9:11 AM, the Legislative Director
forwarded this email to the Chief of Staff and Staffer A, and
added: ``This is an `informal' talk on the calendar. I am
assuming that she would just need background, since she has
expressed to me that at these types of things she can't really
work off a written speech. But what do you think?'' The
Committee is not aware of any response by the Chief of Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Representative Chu provided the Committee with talking points
and background memos for multiple campaign events, which her staff
emailed to her from personal email accounts, during regular working
hours. The Committee had substantial questions about these documents,
but could not determine whether they were drafted in House offices,
during official time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staffer A stated that on the morning of the Legislative
Director's email, the Legislative Director came to Staffer A's
desk and told Staffer A to prepare background materials for a
fundraising lunch for Representative Chu, where the other
attendees would be owners of grocery stores that participated
in the WIC program. Staffer A had never done any campaign-
related work for Representative Chu previously, and had never
attended any of her campaign events. Staffer A was asked to
work on the WIC Memo because Staffer A's legislative portfolio
included the WIC program. Staffer A did not feel free to
decline the request, as the Legislative Director was Staffer
A's supervisor.
Staffer A began working on the WIC Memo shortly after
discussing it with the Legislative Director, and created an
initial draft from Representative Chu's House office, during
regular working hours. The work was interrupted by an
earthquake, which struck Washington, DC, just before 2 PM. The
House office buildings were then closed, and Staffer A went
home, logged into an official computer remotely, and finished
the WIC Memo. At 6:14 PM, Staffer A emailed the Legislative
Director: ``Sorry, I had trouble logging into my work computer
from home (maybe because everyone is trying to do that right
now). I think this is the kind of thing you needed--let me know
what you think.'' Staffer A attached two documents to this
email--a memorandum with background information on the WIC
program, and a copy of Representative Chu's remarks on the
House floor regarding the program. The Legislative Director
replied ``this looks great! I will make some small changes
tomorrow and send to J.C.'' The Legislative Director forwarded
Staffer A's email and documents to the Chief of Staff that
night, then sent the materials to Representative Chu on
Wednesday, August 24, at 1:24 PM. The Legislative Director
wrote, in relevant part: ``Judy--In preparation for the
Thursday luncheon with WIC store owners [Staffer A] and I have
prepared a background memo, with overall talking points, on
cuts to WIC and your record on WIC.'' The Committee is not
aware of any email response from Representative Chu.
Representative Chu confirmed for the Committee that the WIC
Event was a fundraising event, and that she always knew that
was the case. She also confirmed that the event had no official
component or purpose. However, Representative Chu stated that
she ``never asked for a memo'' from her staff, and explained
that she did not expect any background materials from staff
because ``I thought this would be more casual, and also I know
the subject pretty well.''\5\ She stated that she read the WIC
Memo when the Legislative Director sent it to her, and though
she was ``puzzled at the time,'' she did not tell the
Legislative Director that she did not need the memo.\6\
Representative Chu stated that she had no idea, at the time she
received the WIC Memo, how, where, or when it was created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\18(a) Interview of Representative Chu.
\6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Review of campaign-related communications
The Committee determined that a member of Representative
Chu's staff (Staffer B) was told by both the Chief of Staff and
Legislative Director to access Representative Chu's campaign
email account, [email protected], in order to review,
sort, and ``tag'' responses to an email sent from that account
regarding Representative Chu's efforts to reduce hazing in the
U.S. military. Staffer B did this work in Representative Chu's
House office, using a House computer, during regular working
hours. The work was done on three or four occasions, and
totaled several hours.
Representative Chu has asserted that the initial ``military
hazing'' email was not a campaign communication because it did
not advocate for Representative Chu's reelection or solicit
campaign contributions, and the email was not sent exclusively
to campaign donors. However, the initial email was drafted by a
campaign consultant, and sent from Representative Chu's
campaign email account. Thus, Representative Chu's Chief of
Staff and Legislative Director should not have directed other
staff to do work related to the email in the House office
during regular working hours. There is no evidence, however,
that Representative Chu directed any of her staff to do
anything with the campaign email account, or was aware that
staff members were accessing or working with the account
improperly.
3. Preparation for and documentation of campaign events
The Committee obtained information that several members of
Representative Chu's staff prepared for and participated in
campaign events while on official House time and/or directed
other staff to do so. Some of this conduct involved or was
observed by multiple members of Representative Chu's staff.
Specifically, it appears that Representative Chu's Chief of
Staff asked staff to place candy in envelopes to be given to
attendees at a Chinese New Year fundraising event, and that
staff did so on House grounds (either in the House office or in
the House parking garage). The evidence also showed that the
Chief of Staff asked a staff member to photograph a campaign
event, and the staff member used a camera purchased with funds
from the MRA. The Chief of Staff also asked the staff member to
transmit the campaign event photos to one of Representative
Chu's campaign consultants--who was not a House employee--and
the staff member did so during regular House working hours,
using a House email address and computer.\7\ However, it does
not appear that the staff member was required to attend the
campaign event or take or transmit photos; the staff member was
asked to volunteer their time, and willingly agreed to do so.
Further, to the extent any staff were required to assist in
preparations for campaign events, or to attend such events, the
Committee found no evidence that Representative Chu directed,
or was aware of, such conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\The Chief of Staff stated that she assumed the staff member
would transmit the photographs from home.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Violations of law and House regulations
As discussed in Section II, the use of official resources
for non-official purposes, including campaign-related purposes,
can be a violation of federal law.\8\ Regulations of the
Committee on House Administration also provide that House funds
and resources may not be used for any campaign or political
purposes.\9\ Regarding these laws and regulations, the Ethics
Manual states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 641; 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1301(a).
\9\See Ethics Manual at 125 (``The Members' Handbook provides that
`[o]nly expenses the primary purpose of which [is] official and
representational' are reimbursable from the MRA, and that the MRA may
not pay for campaign expenses or political expenses.'') (emphasis in
original).
The misuse of the funds and other resources that the
House of Representatives entrusts to Members for the
conduct of official House business is a very serious
matter. Depending on the circumstances, such conduct
may result in not only disciplinary action by the
House, but also criminal prosecution.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Id. at 124.
Thus, it is clear that to the extent Representative Chu's
Chief of Staff or Legislative Director directed other staff to
do campaign-related work during regular office hours, in the
House office and using House email accounts and equipment,\11\
those directions were improper.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Id. at 126 (while ``the Members' Handbook permits the
incidental personal use of House equipment and supplies `when such use
is negligible in nature, frequency, time consumed, and expense,' . . .
this policy applies only to incidental personal use of those resources,
and not to their use for campaign or political purposes.'') (emphasis
in original).
\12\The Ethics Manual states that staff may engage in only limited
and expressly defined campaign-related tasks while in House offices,
during regular working hours. Staff may (1) ``coordinate with those in
the campaign office who schedule the Member's campaign appearances;''
(2) ``refer to the campaign office letters and other communications and
inquiries that it receives concerning the campaign;'' and (3) ``provide
a campaign office with a copy of any materials that the congressional
office has issued publicly, such as press releases, speeches, and
newsletters.'' Id. at 132-33. The Ethics Manual also states that
``[t]he press secretary in the congressional office may answer
occasional questions on political matters, and may also respond to such
questions that are merely incidental to an interview focused on the
Member's official activities. However, while in the congressional
office, the press secretary should not give an interview that is
substantially devoted to the campaign, or initiate any call that is
campaign-related.'' Id. at 133. None of the campaign-related work at
issue here falls into these categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It bears emphasis that the Committee found no evidence that
Representative Chu was aware that members of her staff were
using official resources for campaign-related purposes, or were
directing other staff to do so. Instead, it appears that the
Chief of Staff and Legislative Director, who acted as
supervisors of other staff, directed the improper use of
official resources. However, as the Ethics Manual explains,
``each Member should be aware that he or she may be held
responsible for any improper use of House resources that occurs
in the Member's office.''\13\ Consistent with this caution, in
some instances the Committee has held Members responsible for
their staff's improper use of official resources, even when the
Members were not aware of their staff's actions.\14\ In doing
so, the Committee has distinguished between cases where a
Member knew, or had reason to know, of improper conduct and
instances where a Member reasonably believed that staff was
acting properly.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Id.
\14\See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of
Rep. E.G. ``Bud'' Shuster, H. Rpt. 106-979, 106th Cong. 2d Sess. 64
(2000) (holding Member accountable for improper use of official
resources even though the Committee found ``no direct evidence that
[the Member] was aware that this activity was taking place.''); see
also Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation Into
Officially Connected Travel of House Members to Attend the Carib News
Foundation Multi-National Business Conferences in 2007 and 2008, H.
Rpt. 111-422, 111th Cong. 2d Sess. 192-93 (2010) (``[B]ased upon the
Standards Committee's longstanding precedent . . . the Subcommittee
finds that it would not well serve the House as an institution to allow
its Members to escape responsibility by delegating authority to their
staff to take actions and hide behind their lack of knowledge of the
facts surrounding those actions. . . . In this case, Representative
Rangel acted . . . through [his Chief of Staff's] actions of completing
and signing the forms necessary for the approval to attend the
conference. Representative Rangel authorized his Chief of Staff . . .
to complete and sign the traveler forms on his behalf. Representative
Rangel, therefore, can and should be held responsible for the knowledge
[his staff] had regarding the corporate sponsors.'')
\15\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Laura Richardson, H. Rpt. 112-642, 112th Cong. 2d Sess.
97 (hereinafter Richardson) (``The ISC recognizes that misconduct in a
Member office can range on a spectrum between subordinates following
orders despite their wrongfulness, and `rogue' agents acting outside
the authority granted to them by a Member.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, Representative Chu has stated that she did
not know of any misuse of official resources for campaign-
related purposes, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
Further, Representative Chu has said that she took steps to
ensure that staff understood the prohibition on using official
resources for campaign-related purposes, including requiring
staff to certify that they had read the office manual, which
explained the relevant rules, and having her Chief of Staff
reiterate the rules in conversations with other staff.\16\ In
light of the evidence, the Committee did not find that
Representative Chu failed to properly supervise her staff, or
that she is otherwise responsible for any of her staff's
violations of laws, rules, or other standards of conduct.
However, the Committee emphasizes the responsibility of staff
in supervisory positions to both ensure that other staff
members are using official resources appropriately and to
inform their employing Members of any improper or questionable
uses of such resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\After the Committee commenced its investigation, Representative
Chu revised her office policies to ensure that campaign-related events
are clearly indicated on official schedules and make certain that any
staff members who participate in campaign-related work or events do so
voluntarily and on personal time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. INTERFERENCE WITH THE COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION
As previously discussed, the Chairman and Ranking Member
issued a total of three RFIs to Representative Chu. The first
RFI, sent on March 6, 2012, stated that ``the Committee has
authorized investigation into allegations that members of your
staff have performed campaign work while on official House time
and/or used official House resources for campaign-related
purposes.''\17\ The RFI further stated that the ``Committee
also requests that you inform your congressional staff that
they are to fully and honestly cooperate with the Committee's
requests for information,'' and explained that ``[o]ther than
[this] notification . . . we request that you not discuss this
matter with anyone other than your own legal counsel.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Mar. 6, 2012, RFI at 1.
\18\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after Representative Chu received this RFI, her
Chief of Staff held a meeting to inform other staff of the
Committee's investigation and its focus. Following this
meeting, Staffer A approached the Chief of Staff and expressed
concern that the work Staffer A had done to prepare the WIC
Memo involved an improper use of official resources. The Chief
of Staff stated that she relayed this concern to Representative
Chu, and described Representative Chu's response:
A. I actually did talk to the Congresswoman a little
bit about [Staffer A's concern], too.
Q. And what was that discussion?
A. It was just that, you know, this was [Staffer A's]
concern. [Staffer A] was really worried and, you know,
and just letting her know and giving her an update.
Pretty much it.
Q. What did she say?
A. She just said, you know, well that's unfortunate
and you know, nothing's happened, nothing wrong has
gone on so you know, to the extent that you can make
[Staffer A] feel better about the situation, you know,
that was kind of it, yeah.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\18(a) Interview of Chief of Staff (emphasis added).
It appears that, following this exchange, Representative Chu
re-reviewed Staffer A's memo for the WIC Event and emailed
additional comments to the Chief of Staff. In a March 20, 2012,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
email to her Chief of Staff, Representative Chu wrote:
Here is [Staffer A's] background memo for the event
of August 25, 2011.
In the schedule, the event is referred to as a
luncheon of WIC owners, and is not referred to as a
fundraiser.
I wish [Staffer A] hadn't referred to the event [in
the background memo]. [Staffer A] didn't need to in
order to produce the memo, which was on what I've done
on WIC since I've been in Congress.
You might point that out to [Staffer A]. No where
[sic] in the memo nor in the calendar does it refer to
a fundraiser.
The Chief of Staff responded by email: ``Okay, good to know. I
will let [Staffer A] know tomorrow.'' The Chief of Staff stated
that after receiving this email, she spoke to Staffer A again,
and explained that the WIC Memo was for an event with both
official and fundraising components, and that the memo related
to the official component.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\The Chief of Staff stated: ``Well, yeah, I did talk to [Staffer
A, after discussing Staffer A's concerns with Representative Chu] and
just [said] that there was this two-part that we hadn't realized that
there was just to clarify for [Staffer A]. But that was pretty much
that. You know. Just [so] that [Staffer A] wasn't so stressed out about
it.'' 18(a) Interview of Chief of Staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This sequence of events is troubling in several respects.
First, Representative Chu's oral and written comments to the
Chief of Staff could be viewed as an attempt to shape Staffer
A's testimony to the Committee. Representative Chu stated that
she believed Staffer A went to the Chief of Staff because the
Committee had requested an interview, and Staffer A was anxious
about potential questions regarding the work on the WIC
Memo.\21\ In these circumstances, Representative Chu should
have recognized that it was inappropriate to communicate with a
potential material witness in a manner suggestive of an
interpretation of events that the Committee was investigating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\In fact, the Committee had not contacted Staffer A regarding an
interview at this time. But Staffer A was interviewed in June 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, to the extent Representative Chu communicated to
Staffer A, through the Chief of Staff, that the WIC Event had
any official component or purpose, that suggestion was
incorrect. In her interview with the Chairman and Ranking
Member, Representative Chu stated unequivocally that ``from the
time that the [WIC] event was planned,'' she understood ``that
this was to be a fundraising event, with no official component
to it.''\22\ Further, on the day of the WIC Event,
Representative Chu received several thousands of dollars in
campaign contributions from individuals who attended the event.
Thus, it is clear that Representative Chu knew that the WIC
event was a campaign fundraiser--with no separate official
component--when she wrote her March 20, 2012, email, even if
her official calendar did not describe it as such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\18(a) Interview of Representative Chu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an interview with the Chairman and Ranking Member,
Representative Chu was asked about her actions in response to
Staffer A's initial meeting with the Chief of Staff.
Representative Chu first explained that her intention was to
``relieve [Staffer A's] anxiety,'' because Staffer A ``was
very, very concerned about the whole interview, about being
interviewed at all.''\23\ Representative Chu was asked whether,
in directing her Chief of Staff to speak with Staffer A again,
she had ``any intention to influence what Staffer A would tell
the Committee on Ethics about the memo?'' She explained: ``I
thought this [March 20, 2012, email to the Chief of Staff]
might clarify things, but, of course, it--it didn't. And it was
based on a mistaken assumption. And I shouldn't have had any
communication with [Staffer A] at all.''\24\ Representative Chu
continued:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Id.
\24\Id.
Well, I shouldn't have written the [email] at all. I
truly regret it. I shouldn't have had any communication
at all with [Staffer A]. And it would have been better
if I knew exactly how this [WIC] memo was produced. But
I wrote this [email] impulsively, and so I didn't know
at the time what the true circumstances were, that
[Staffer A had] actually done [the WIC memo] on
[Staffer A's] own volunteer time.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Id. To the extent Representative Chu believed, when she spoke
to and emailed her Chief of Staff about the WIC Memo, that Staffer A
drafted the memo on Staffer A's ``own volunteer time,'' without using
any official resources, that belief is incorrect. Staffer A stated, and
contemporaneous emails indicate, that Staffer A started working on the
WIC Memo in Representative Chu's House office, during regular working
hours, then went home after the House office buildings were closed due
to earthquake, logged onto an office computer remotely, again during
regular working hours, and completed the memo.
The Committee has noted in the past that the support of the
Members, officers and employees of the House for its work is
crucial to its continuing effectiveness.\26\ In the Matter of
Allegations Relating to Representative Laura Richardson, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee stated:
\26\See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Korean Influence
Investigation, H. Rpt. 95-1817, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. 122 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Richardson also violated clauses 1 and
2 of House Rule XXIII by engaging in a pattern of
behavior intended to obstruct this investigation. This
is among the most troubling aspects of the case, and
the easiest to see the manner in which it would bring
discredit to the House: if a Member has such little
respect for the internal discipline of the House that
she would attempt to evade its questioning, rather than
submitting to the fact gathering process in good faith,
it raises the question of why the American people
should believe that the House does a sufficient job
policing itself. For the House to have the trust of the
people, it must vigorously protect its ability to
investigate wrongdoing.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\Richardson at 95.
One part of the ``pattern'' of obstructive behavior
Representative Richardson engaged in involved discussing with
her staff questions the Committee might ask them about
campaign-related work, and providing self-serving answers that
would vindicate Representative Richardson.\28\ Representative
Richardson was reprimanded by the House for her repeated
improper use of official resources and obstruction of the
Committee's investigation of her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Id. at 14 (discussing a staff meeting where Representative
Richardson ``began a mock dialogue with herself, stating some of the
questions she expected the Committee to ask, such as `did you feel that
your campaign work was mandatory or you were compelled in some way?'
and then an answer--`no.''')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The underlying conduct at issue in Richardson--compelled
use of House staff for campaign work--was much more egregious
than the limited, though still impermissible, use of official
resources for campaign purposes here.\29\ The Committee
determined that Representative Richardson herself regularly
compelled her official staff to perform campaign work,
obstructed the Committee's investigation by altering or
destroying evidence, failed to produce documents responsive to
requests for information and a subpoena, and repeatedly
attempted to influence the testimony of witnesses. However,
with respect to the charge of interference with the Committee's
investigation, Representative Chu's actions here were
nonetheless improper, and the Committee was troubled by them.
Representative Chu interfered with the Committee's
investigation by incorrectly advising two material witnesses,
Staffer A and the Chief of Staff, that the production of the
WIC Memo did not involve improper use of official resources for
campaign-related purposes--the very conduct the Committee was
investigating. The fact that Representative Chu's advice was
incorrect--even if Representative Chu believed it to be true--
only amplifies the concerns regarding it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\This matter is also distinguishable in that, in Richardson, the
Committee found that Representative Richardson herself was both aware
of and personally directed the compelled use of official resources for
campaign purposes. Id. at 5-14. That is not the case here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also concerning that Representative Chu failed to
produce her March 20, 2012, email exchange with the Chief of
Staff to the Committee, in response to the Committee's August
23, 2012, RFI. That RFI specifically asked for documents
related to the WIC Event, including emails from ``personal,
campaign, and official email accounts.''\30\ Representative Chu
stated that she read this request as referring to staff email
accounts, not her own, but admitted that, in preparing a
response to the August 23, 2012, RFI, she ``searched for
`WIC''' and ``inputted the words `WIC''' in her personal email
account.\31\ She did not explain how that search would not have
produced her March 20, 2012, email to the Chief of Staff, which
includes the word ``WIC.'' Indeed, Representative Chu told the
Committee that in searching her personal email account in
response to the August 23, 2012, RFI, she found the email from
her Legislative Director transmitting the WIC Memo to her on
August 24, 2011, but not the email Representative Chu sent to
her Chief of Staff on March 20, 2012, regarding Staffer A's
concerns about the WIC Memo. However, it appears that any
search which produced the August 24, 2011, email would have
also produced the March 20, 2012, email. Representative Chu
only produced the March 20, 2012, email in response to the
Committee's third RFI, dated February 6, 2013, which
specifically asked for previously unproduced documents
concerning the WIC Memo and all documents, including all
emails, concerning Representative Chu's responses to the
Committee's investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Aug. 23, 2012, RFI at 1.
\31\18(a) Interview of Representative Chu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Chu has stated that she responded to Staffer
A's communication of concerns ``impulsively,'' and explained
that she intended only to ease Staffer A's anxiety regarding
the Committee's investigation.\32\ She has further stated that
she regrets her actions, and understands that she should not
have communicated with Staffer A at all during the Committee's
investigation. Regardless of Representative Chu's intentions,
interference with a Committee investigation is a very serious
matter, and Representative Chu's actions here were clearly
improper and reflected very poor judgment on her part. Thus,
the Committee found that Representative Chu violated clause 1
of House rule XXIII, by not acting in a manner that
``reflect[ed] creditably on the House.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. CONCLUSION
For Representative Chu's violations of House Rules, the
Committee has determined to publicly reprove her. The Committee
recognizes and appreciates that Representative Chu has
expressed regret for her inappropriate communications with two
of her staff members, during the Committee's investigation,
regarding matters the Committee was investigating. The
Committee finds, however, that Representative Chu's expression
of regret, while commendable, does not overcome the need for a
letter of reproval regarding her interference with the
Committee's investigation. Therefore, the Committee has issued
a letter of reproval to Representative Chu for her conduct in
this matter. Following the publication of this Report, the
Committee will consider this matter closed.
VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)
The Committee made no special oversight findings in this
Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is
authorized by any measure in this Report.