1 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

113–666 

House Calendar No. 154 

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS 

RELATING TO 

REPRESENTATIVE TOM PETRI 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS 

DECEMBER 11, 2014.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEE:\Seals\Congress.#13

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

91–777 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2014

113–666 

House Calendar No. 154 

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS 

RELATING TO 

REPRESENTATIVE TOM PETRI 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS 

DECEMBER 11, 2014.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSEE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

Chairman 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

Ranking Member 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

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 

CHRISTOPHER R. TATE, Counsel 

NADIA A. KONSTANTINOVA, Counsel 

C. TUCKER CARR, Investigative Clerk 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
(III)

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 Tom Petri.’’ 

Sincerely, 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, 

Chairman. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, 

Ranking Member. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 

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

OF CONDUCT .............................................................................................. 2 

III. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 3 

A. THE COMMITTEE’S ADVISORY FUNCTION ................................. 3 

B. REPRESENTATIVE PETRI’S INVESTMENTS ................................ 4 

C. OCE’S REFERRAL ............................................................................... 5 

IV. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 5 

A. REPRESENTATIVE PETRI’S CONTACT WITH THE COMMITTEE .............................................................................................. 5 

B. THE EFFECT OF REPRESENTATIVE PETRI’S CONSULTATIONS WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF ...................................... 6 

V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 9 

VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C) ........................ 10 

APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDING OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS (Review No. 14–1891) ........................................................... 11 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
House Calendar No. 154 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–666 

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO 

REPRESENTATIVE TOM PETRI 

DECEMBER 11, 2014 

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 

On July 2, 2014, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) transmitted to the Committee a Report and Findings (OCE’s Referral) 

regarding Representative Tom Petri. OCE reviewed allegations 

that Representative Petri or his congressional office improperly 

performed official acts on behalf of four companies in which he had 

a significant financial interest. OCE did not recommend that the 

Committee further review allegations related to his official actions 

related to two of the companies. OCE also found that with respect 

to his actions relating to the other two companies, in many instances Representative Petri sought and relied upon Committee advice. However, OCE’s Referral found substantial reason to believe 

that Representative Petri did not seek Committee guidance in several specific instances, and improperly performed official acts on 

behalf of the two companies in which he had a financial interest. 

This Report, adopted by the Committee on December 9, 2014, resolves the allegations OCE transmitted on July 2, 2014. The Committee unanimously determined that it would be inequitable to 

issue a sanction to Representative Petri based on the facts of this 

matter. Over the course of several years, Representative Petri’s 

staff proactively and repeatedly consulted with the Committee’s 

staff on whether and how Representative Petri could lawfully and 

properly engage in official actions on behalf of entities in which he 

had a financial interest. Representative Petri or his office also conVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:05 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091777 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
2 

1 Committee Rule 3(k) states that the Committee ‘‘may 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.’’ See also Committee Rule 3(l) (‘‘[i]nformation provided to the Committee by a Member, officer, or employee seeking advice may not be used as 

the basis for initiating an investigation . . . if such Member, officer or employee acts in good 

faith in accordance with the written advice of the Committee.’’). 2 Code of Ethics for Government Service ¶ 5; House Ethics Manual at 27 (2008) (hereinafter 

Ethics Manual). 3 Ethics Manual at 237 (2008). 4 Id. 

sistently followed the informal advice and guidance they received 

from the Committee. OCE acknowledged in its Referral that Representative Petri did seek this guidance, but found that his efforts 

in this regard in several specific instances were unsatisfactory and 

incomplete. The Committee disagreed with that interpretation of 

the evidence. Representative Petri repeatedly sought guidance on 

substantially all matters under review, and should have been entitled to rely on that guidance, particularly in a matter where the 

rules governing the conduct require a fact-specific analysis, as is 

the case with the rules governing conflicts of interest in the House. 

Although the Committee acknowledges that its informal, stafflevel advice is not a categorical shield from future adverse actions, 

such advice is nevertheless necessary to enable the House community to successfully navigate standards of conduct.1 Members and 

their staff are encouraged to diligently request the Committee’s advice and, upon doing so, rely on the advice to engage in the vetted 

official actions. In this case, Representative Petri repeatedly sought 

advice from the Committee staff on the official actions in question, 

and appears to have substantially complied with that advice. The 

Committee concluded that, on these facts, Representative Petri was 

entitled to rely on the staff-level analysis of his conduct and their 

contemporaneous advice, and it would be inequitable to subject his 

conduct to an additional review at this later date. Therefore, the 

Committee will take no further action in this matter. 

II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER 

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 

The Code of Ethics, section 5, provides that any person in government service should ‘‘never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or his family, favors 

or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.’’ The House Ethics Manual notes that the Committee ‘‘has cautioned all Members ‘to avoid situations in which 

even an inference might be drawn suggesting improper action.’ ’’ 2

Additionally, the Ethics Manual cautions that when a Member considers taking official action that may affect his or her financial interest, such as ‘‘sponsoring legislation, advocating or participating 

in an action by a House committee, or contacting an executive 

branch agency,’’ the Member’s decision to engage in this action requires ‘‘added circumspection.’’ 3 The Ethics Manual further urges 

a Member to contact the Committee for guidance to assist him or 

her with this decision.4

House Rule XXIII, clause 3 states that a Member ‘‘may not receive compensation and may not permit compensation to accrue to 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
3 

5 2 U.S.C. § 4711. 

6 Id. 

7 Committee Rule 3(k). 

8See, e.g, Committee Rule 3(d), 3(e), 3(g), 3(i). 9See Comm. on Ethics, Summary of Activities: 112th Congress, H. Rept. 112–739, 112th Cong. 

2d Sess at 1 (2012). 

the beneficial interest of such individual from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position of such individual in Congress.’’ 

Finally, House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2, 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.’’ 

III. BACKGROUND 

A. THE COMMITTEE’S ADVISORY FUNCTION 

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.’’ 5 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.’’ 6 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.’’ 7

Written advisory opinions, with their specific guidelines for form, 

process, and due diligence,8 are only one method that the Committee’s staff uses to give counsel to Members on the compliance of 

their prospective conduct. In addition to the more than 900 formal 

advisory opinions drafted by the Committee’s staff during the previous Congress, the staff fielded more than 40,000 informal requests for guidance, including telephone calls, emails, and in-person requests for guidance on ethics issues during that two-year period.9 While the Committee’s staff takes notes on these informal requests, the staff’s notes are not intended to be a verbatim record 

of the dialogue and, especially where prepared years prior, will not 

be an exact transcript of the discussion. Instead, the notes kept by 

Committee staff are intended to give staff context as they advise 

the House community on ongoing matters, to assist the staff with 

providing consistent advice, and to refresh the staff’s recollection 

should a matter require their attention at a later date. 

Although informal staff-level guidance does not obtain the same 

protections as written advisory opinions, informal guidance is not 

purposeless. These daily dialogues between the House community 

and the Committee’s staff are a vital part of the Committee’s advisory function. The informal contact between the Committee staff 

and Members allows Members to take advantage of the CommitVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:05 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091777 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
4 

10OCE also investigated allegations regarding actions taken by Representative Petri and his 

staff on behalf of Plum Creek Timber Company, but did not recommend further investigation 

of those actions, because all of those actions affected a large class of similarly situated companies, rather than Plum Creek Timber Company in particular. The Committee concurs in that 

recommendation. 

tee’s guidance where an official action is too routine or simple for 

a formal written letter to be practical or, alternatively, where an 

official action requires a faster response than is afforded by the 

often time-consuming process of obtaining a formal advisory opinion. If Members were unable to rely on this informal contact with 

the Committee to obtain advice on their day-to-day activities, they 

would be left without the full-time expert staff counsel required by 

the Ethics Reform Act, and would lack certainty about how their 

daily, official actions comply with the applicable rules and laws. 

B. REPRESENTATIVE PETRI’S INVESTMENTS 

Representative Petri was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1979. He has served the 6th congressional district of Wisconsin ever since. 

OCE’s Referral concluded that Representative Petri and his congressional office performed official actions on behalf of two companies in which he had a financial interest: Oshkosh Corporation 

(Oshkosh) and Manitowoc Company (Manitowoc).10

Oshkosh and Manitowoc are two large, publicly-owned companies 

headquartered in Representative Petri’s congressional district. Oshkosh is a manufacturing company focusing in part on vehicles used 

in military applications. Manitowoc is a manufacturing company 

that makes cranes and foodservice equipment. Representative Petri 

purchased stock in both companies in 2006. Since that time, the 

value of his investment fluctuated, and at times has been in excess 

of $500,000 in Oshkosh, and $250,000 in Manitowoc. 

Much of Representative Petri’s actions on behalf of Oshkosh concerned a contract awarded to Oshkosh in 2009 to produce vehicles 

from the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles for the United States 

Army. The losing bidders for that contract protested the contract 

award with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). At least 

some Members from the Texas congressional delegation interceded 

on behalf of one of those losing bidders, a Texas corporation, by 

sending a letter to the Secretary of Defense, as well as seeking legislative action on the Texas company’s behalf. In response, Oshkosh 

sought intercession from the Wisconsin congressional delegation, 

including Representative Petri, to protect the contract award. As a 

result, Representative Petri took a number of official actions on 

Oshkosh’s behalf with respect to the 2009 contract bid and relating 

to other issues. 

Representative Petri’s casework for Manitowoc involved a 2012 

hardship exemption from diesel fuel regulations the company 

sought from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

When Manitowoc contacted Representative Petri’s office regarding 

the hardship exemption, his staff contacted the EPA by email and 

telephone seeking a status update on the process. Later, in August 

2013, Representative Petri wrote to the EPA Regional Administrator, urging full consideration of Manitowoc’s hardship exemption. That exemption is still under consideration by the EPA.11


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
5 

12The May 21, 2014, letter responded to a request from Representative Petri that Committee 

staff share their guidance to him with OCE. 13OCE Referral at 28. 14 As noted more fully below, it appears that Representative Petri and his staff did take official action on behalf of Oshkosh and Manitowoc in situations where they had not explicitly 

sought the advice of the Committee staff. However, the advice Representative Petri did receive, 

beginning in 2009, can be read to cover the vast majority of the relevant actions in this matter 

for which advice would have been required. 

C. OCE’S REFERRAL 

OCE undertook a preliminary review of this matter on February 

28, 2014. OCE voted to extend its review on March 28, 2014, and 

The OCE Board voted to refer the matter to the Committee and 

adopted its Findings on June 27, 2014. The OCE Referral was 

transmitted to the Committee on July 2, 2014. OCE provided additional relevant documents in this matter to the Committee on September 30, 2014. 

The Committee published OCE’s Referral on September 30, 2014, 

and announced that it would continue its own review of the allegations contained in OCE’s Referral pursuant to Committee Rule 

18(a). 

With respect to the actual official actions taken by Representative Petri and his office on behalf of Oshkosh and Manitowoc, as 

well as Representative Petri’s interest in those two firms, no facts 

were in dispute. Representative Petri and his staff stated that they 

had taken the actions alleged. Nevertheless, Representative Petri 

and his staff also stated that they had only taken those actions 

based on advice received from Committee staff. 

In support of this assertion, Representative Petri provided to 

OCE a letter sent to him by the Committee’s Chief Counsel and 

Staff Director on May 21, 2014.12 This letter detailed the records 

of the Committee and its staff regarding the advice provided to 

Representative Petri about the matters in question. OCE reviewed 

that letter and additional documents provided by Representative 

Petri. OCE found that Representative Petri’s consultations with the 

Committee staff were unsatisfactory and incomplete. Specifically, 

OCE found that, ‘‘in several instances, advice was not sought or the 

advice provided was based on incomplete or inaccurate information.’’ 13

IV. FINDINGS 

A. REPRESENTATIVE PETRI’S CONTACT WITH THE 

COMMITTEE 

In an interview with OCE, Representative Petri’s Chief of Staff 

stated that, over the course of five years, she repeatedly contacted 

the Committee staff for ethics guidance when Representative Petri 

considered taking an official action that involved Oshkosh.14 E-mail 

messages the Chief of Staff prepared contemporaneously with her 

consultations with the Committee staff reflect that she did, in fact, 

seek the Committee’s informal staff-level guidance on a regular 

basis regarding Representative Petri’s contemplated official actions 

related to Oshkosh. Each time the Chief of Staff asked the Committee staff to review an official action, the Committee staff ultimately approved it. The Chief of Staff’s contemporaneous e-mail 

records document the type of information she shared with the Committee staff during their consultations. A review of these docuVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:05 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091777 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
6 

15OCE Referral at 22. 16 Committee Rule 3(k) states that the Committee ‘‘may 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.’’ See also Committee Rule 3(l) (‘‘[i]nformation provided to the Committee by a Member, officer, or employee seeking advice may not be used as 

the basis for initiating an investigation . . . if such Member officer or employee acts in good 

faith in accordance with the written advice of the Committee.’’). 

ments reveals that nearly every time the Chief of Staff sought 

staff-level guidance from the Committee, she reminded the Committee staff that Representative Petri owned stock in Oshkosh. On 

occasions when the proposed official action was a letter, the Chief 

of Staff requested that the Committee staff review drafts of the letter. And every time the Committee’s staff dispensed advice, the 

Chief of Staff simultaneously documented that advice via e-mail to 

Representative Petri’s congressional staff. 

Notwithstanding this evidence, the OCE’s Referral notes that 

Representative Petri did not always disclose his financial interest 

when he took official action on behalf of Oshkosh. When asked during her OCE interview, the Chief of Staff stated that she did not 

ask the Committee staff why disclosures of stock ownership were 

required in some official actions but not in others. She stated that 

she ‘‘looked at each instance based on what their [the Committee 

staff’s] advice was for that. . . . If they’d said do it I would have 

done it as we did do when they said to do it.’’ 15

Despite this regular and consistent contact between Representative Petri’s staff and the Committee staff, OCE identified five occasions on which Representative Petri’s staff failed to contact the 

Committee staff for advice prior to acting. Specifically, the evidence 

suggests that Representative Petri’s staff did not seek informal 

staff-level guidance advice prior to (1) Representative Petri’s meetings with Oshkosh officials and Egyptian government representatives in 2006 and 2008; (2) Representative Petri’s December 9, 

2009, telephone conversation with the Secretary of the Army; (3) 

Representative Petri’s Chief of Staff’s communications in November 

2011 with the staff of the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit regarding 

truck weight limits; (4) Representative Petri’s communications with 

the staff of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in July 2012 

regarding Oshkosh’s sale of vehicles to the United Arab Emirates; 

and (5) Representative Petri and his staff’s efforts with respect to 

Manitowoc in February 2007, November 2012, and August 2013. 

B. THE EFFECT OF REPRESENTATIVE PETRI’S CONSULTATIONS WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF 

The rules governing conflicts of interest require a fact-specific 

analysis, and Members are encouraged to conduct that analysis 

with the guidance of the Committee’s nonpartisan, professional 

staff. Although staff-level advice is not a categorical shield from future adverse actions by this Committee, such advice is nevertheless 

necessary to enable the House community to successfully navigate 

standards of conduct.16 Members and their staff are encouraged to 

diligently request the Committee’s advice and, upon doing so, may 

rely on the advice to engage in the vetted official actions. The Committee reviewed the record in this case, and determined that Representative Petri repeatedly sought guidance on the matters under 

review, and that he substantially complied with that guidance. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
7 

17See OCE Referral at Ex. 10. 

Representative Petri should be entitled to rely on that guidance for 

such fact-specific analysis. Therefore, the Committee declines to decide at this time whether, in the absence of that advice, the actions 

would constitute a violation. 

OCE, when confronted with Representative Petri’s evidence of 

consultation with the Committee staff, examined that consultation 

to determine whether it completely and accurately disclosed the 

facts of his proposed actions. This is a proper avenue of inquiry. 

Neither formal advice from the Committee nor informal staff-level 

guidance will suffice to protect a Member when that advice is 

based on inaccurate facts, or when that advice endorses a course 

of action fundamentally different from the course actually taken. 

Nevertheless, the Committee believes that OCE may have failed to 

consider some evidence in its proper context, and mistakenly considered some other evidence, when it found that Representative 

Petri did not fully and accurately disclose the facts of his proposed 

actions. 

OCE relied, in part, on a letter the Committee’s Chief Counsel 

and Staff Director sent to Representative Petri on May 21, 2014, 

detailing the records maintained by Committee staff regarding advice it provided to Representative Petri on these matters from 2009 

through 2013.17 These records, as noted above, are not a verbatim 

record of the communication between the Committee’s staff and a 

Member’s staff. The notes kept by Committee staff are intended to 

give staff context as they advise the House community on ongoing 

matters, to assist the staff with providing consistent advice, and to 

refresh the staff’s recollection should a matter require their attention at a later date. In fact, the informality of these notes is one 

of the differences between staff-level guidance and formal advisory 

opinions, which have a more robust memorialization of the facts 

surrounding a proposed action. But in this case, the notes of Committee staff are not the only evidence pertaining to the advice Representative Petri received. 

For example, OCE found that Representative Petri’s staff improperly represented to the Committee staff that the October 9, 

2009, letter would not specifically mention Oshkosh when, in fact, 

the letter did name the company. On this issue, OCE’s finding was 

based on the Committee’s May 21, 2014, letter to Representative 

Petri, in which it memorialized its staff’s notes. But the context of 

the October 9, 2009, letter itself makes it unlikely that the Committee staff’s notes accurately reflected the nature of the letter. Because that letter was about a bid protest against a contract won 

by Oshkosh, it does not stand to reason that the letter would not 

mention Oshkosh. Moreover, even if it did not explicitly mention 

Oshkosh, given the contract in question and the authors of the letter, the company’s identity would be readily apparent. Finally, on 

a number of other occasions, Representative Petri sought advice 

from the Committee staff on correspondence that did explicitly 

name Oshkosh, and took no pains to hide it. Suggesting that he hid 

that fact this one time appears inconsistent with his course of dealing. 

OCE also found that at times, Representative Petri disclosed his 

ownership of Oshkosh stock in some correspondence with third parVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:05 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091777 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
8 

18OCE Referral at 23. 19See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Representative Sam Graves, 

H. Rept. 111–320, 111th Cong. 1st Sess. at 17 (2009). 

ties, and failed to disclose it in other correspondence. But the Committee staff approved the precise wording of some of that correspondence, at times recommending disclosure and at other times 

not recommending it. It appears that Representative Petri acted 

only in response to that advice. 

Finally, as noted above, OCE found no evidence that Representative Petri or his staff contacted the Committee or its staff for advice with respect to five discrete issues. This may be true. As a 

threshold matter, however, it is not a violation of the rules not to 

seek advice from the Committee or its staff. 

The lack of a requirement to seek advice notwithstanding, in all 

five circumstances, the Committee believes that either the conduct 

was consistent with the Committee staff’s previously issued advice, 

or the conduct was not of the sort that would raise concerns about 

conflicts of interest. The first action—Representative Petri’s telephone call—was one of many quite similar contacts for which Representative Petri and his staff had sought informal staff-level guidance repeatedly and contemporaneously. The Committee does not 

expect, once Members, officers, and employees have received and 

comprehended advice received from the Committee or its staff, that 

they will need to call back for duplicative and redundant conversations about the same topic. The same analysis applies with equal 

force to the simple status check performed when Representative 

Petri’s staff contacted the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

With respect to the truck weight limits, no evidence exists to suggest that this dialogue requested a specific allowance for Oshkosh’s 

subsidiary, but rather that it affected the entire industry. The 

Chief of Staff noted that, ‘‘my understanding is this wasn’t just 

Oshkosh, it was in general the fire and emergency vehicle association, the whole community. . . . I think it affected the emergency 

vehicle industry.’’ 18

Finally, with respect to the meetings with Egyptian government 

representatives, these meetings apparently did not discuss Oshkosh business or Egyptian contracting opportunities specifically. In 

another case, the Committee decided that, where there was no indication that the Member received a financial benefit from congressional testimony provided by a business colleague, the conflicts of 

interest rules did not condemn such action.19 So too is the case 

here. 

And, while the contact with EPA for Manitowoc involved a different company facing a different issue, the contact amounted to a 

single letter and a status check, similar in many ways to Representative Petri’s work for Oshkosh, only less substantial. 

OCE was correct to consider potential flaws in Representative 

Petri’s consultations with the Committee and its staff, because substantial compliance with those consultations protected Representative Petri from a substantive review of his conduct. However, in 

light of all the available evidence, the Committee concluded that 

Representative Petri’s actions related to Manitowoc substantially 

conformed to advice he received from the Committee staff, and that 

while not entitled to a rule-based safe harbor for such conformity, 

it would be inequitable to punish him when he relied on that adVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:05 Dec 18, 2014 Jkt 091777 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR666P1.XXX HR666P1

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
9 

20 Representative Petri is retiring from the House at the conclusion of this Congress, and had 

announced his intention to retire several months before the Committee receive the referral from 

OCE. While it is not always possible for the Committee to conclude its inquiries into allegations 

before a Member departs from the House (thus depriving the Committee of jurisdiction), the 

Committee does attempt to do so in every case. In this matter, there were not significant facts 

in dispute, conflicting witness testimony, or a sizeable volume of documents to review. Moreover, 

the supporting documents provided to the Committee by OCE included a substantial record of 

consistent efforts by Representative Petri or his official staff to seek—and follow—the Committee’s informal advice and guidance. After receiving those supporting documents, the Committee 

was able to resolve this matter in just over two months. In addition, the Committee appreciates 

Representative Petri’s cooperation with the Committee’s investigation, which also contributed to 

its swift resolution. 

vice. Taken together, the concerns OCE identified with Representative Petri’s consultations are not sufficient to remove this inequity. 

The Committee notes, however, that the more comprehensive and 

consistent one’s consultation with the Committee or its staff, the 

more protection the Committee can offer in response to actions related to that consultation. As stated above, the Member is personally responsible for identifying that he may have a conflict of interest. The Member must then exercise due diligence to collect and 

provide to the Committee accurate and complete information to enable the Committee to appropriately vet the issue and render advice. 

V. CONCLUSION 

The Committee’s nonpartisan staff handles, on average, over 50 

informal requests for advice each day of the year. In the last Congress, the Committee fielded more than 40,000 informal requests 

for guidance. This is in addition to the other work of the Committee—approving travel requests, issuing formal advisory opinions, and investigating matters like the one that makes up the subject of this Report. The informal advice is no less important than 

the rest of these activities. Such advice requires Members and staff 

to provide the Committee staff with complete and accurate disclosures of facts and proposed action. Where advice-seekers do not 

provide complete and accurate disclosure, they should not expect 

the Committee’s advice to shield them from further inquiry. 

In this case, the supporting documents and other evidence show 

that Representative Petri repeatedly sought guidance from the 

Committee staff and, as evidenced by the contemporaneous email 

messages, engaged in a substantially complete and accurate—albeit 

imperfect—level of disclosure in seeking such informal advice. Representative Petri or his office also consistently followed the informal advice and guidance they received from the Committee. The 

Committee concluded that, on these facts, Representative Petri was 

entitled to rely on the staff-level analysis of his conduct and their 

contemporaneous advice, and his conduct appears to have substantially complied with the staff’s guidance. Therefore, it would be inequitable to subject his conduct to an additional review at this later 

date, and the Committee will take no further action in this matter.20


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE
10 

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. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS-HSE