```

[House Report 113-663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress 
 2d Session             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 Report
                                                                113-663
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 151

                      IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS

                              RELATING TO

                    REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               __________

                               R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

 December 11, 2014.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            LINDA T. SANCHEZ, 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

                      Christopher R. Tate, Counsel
                  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 Alcee L. Hastings.''
            Sincerely,
                                   K. Michael Conaway,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
 I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.....2
III.BACKGROUND........................................................3

IV. FINDINGS..........................................................5
        A. EVIDENCE..............................................     5
        B. TESTIMONY.............................................    10
        C. REPRESENTATIVE HASTINGS' TESTIMONY....................    12
        D. THE CAA AND HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 9................    13
        E. HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 1 AND 2......................    14
 V. CONCLUSION.......................................................16
VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C).....................16
APPENDIX A: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL 
  ETHICS (Review No. 11-6736)....................................    17

                                                 House Calendar No. 151
113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     113-663

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

 
   IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE ALCEE L. 
                                HASTINGS

                                _______
                                

                           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 October 13, 2011, the Office of Congressional Ethics 
(OCE) referred to the Committee on Ethics (Committee) a Report 
and Findings (OCE's Referral) concerning allegations that 
Representative Alcee L. Hastings had sexually harassed an 
employee (Complainant) of the United States Commission on 
Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission),\1\ 
and that Complainant faced retaliatory employment action in 
response to reporting these allegations.\2\ OCE's referral in 
this matter was unique, insofar as it recommended that the 
Committee further review the allegations, even though OCE was 
unable to conclude that there was ``substantial reason to 
believe'' the alleged violations had occurred, which is its 
typical standard for recommending that the Committee further 
review an allegation. In this case, OCE referred the matter to 
the Committee upon concluding that its investigation had 
revealed ``probable cause'' to believe that a violation had 
occurred, a lower standard which only suffices in cases where, 
such as here, OCE concluded that it was ``unable to obtain 
information necessary to reach'' the ``substantial reason to 
believe'' standard.\3\ OCE notes that either a finding of 
``probable cause'' or a finding of ``substantial reason to 
believe'' that an alleged violation occurred ``does not 
constitute a finding that a violation has actually 
occurred.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The Helsinki Commission is an independent agency of the federal 
government charged with monitoring compliance with the Helsinki Final 
Act; the Commission consists of nine Members of the House, nine 
Senators, and one member each from the Departments of State, Defense, 
and Commerce.
    \2\The Committee published OCE's Referral on January 11, 2012.
    \3\OCE Rule 9(A).
    \4\OCE Rules 8(A), 9(A) (commentary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee did conduct further review of the allegations 
in the OCE Referral. Its independent inquiry involved reviewing 
not only the OCE Referral, but more than one thousand pages of 
documents and interviewing eight witnesses, some more than 
once. These interviews included both the Complainant and 
Representative Hastings. In addition, OCE identified four 
witnesses as non-cooperative during its own review. The 
Committee interviewed all four of those witnesses, who fully 
cooperated with the Committee. Further, during the entirety of 
OCE's review and much of the Committee's review, the 
allegations in this matter were also the subject of ongoing 
litigation initiated by Complainant.
    At the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee found 
no additional evidence supporting Complainant's allegations. In 
fact, a significant amount of evidence reviewed by the 
Committee cast further doubt on Complainant's allegations. 
Accordingly, the Committee concurred in OCE's determination 
that there was not ``substantial reason to believe'' the 
allegations, much less the standard of ``clear and convincing 
evidence'' necessary to recommend a sanction to the House. For 
this reason, the Committee unanimously voted to release this 
Report and take no further action in this matter.5
    Importantly, while the most serious allegations in this 
case were not supported by the evidence, Representative 
Hastings has admitted to certain conduct that is less than 
professional. That conduct, as well as the Committee's 
explanation for concluding that it does not rise to the level 
of a violation of House Rules, laws, regulations, or other 
standards of conduct, is described below. We hope that this 
description serves as a necessary corrective for Representative 
Hastings in the future, and a reminder to all Members of the 
importance of these issues. Sexual harassment in the workplace 
is an extremely serious problem, in part because it is often 
perpetrated by very powerful people--supervisors, managers, 
owners, etc.--against people with significantly less power, 
such as subordinate employees. This power imbalance surely 
could exist in the relationship between a Member and his 
employees, and Members must be held to account if they abuse 
that imbalance of power, especially in a fashion that 
discriminates on the basis of gender. In cases where such 
discrimination can be proven, this Committee will hold those 
who engage in such misconduct accountable.
    In this case, there is simply not sufficient proof of such 
discrimination. Accordingly, upon publication of this Report, 
the Committee will take no further action on this matter, and 
considers it closed.

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

    Sexual harassment and, other forms of employment 
discrimination are prohibited in the House both by statute and 
by House Rule. The CAA, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1311 et seq., 
prohibits discrimination based on sex, and it also prohibits 
intimidation, reprisal, or other discrimination against a 
person in relation to their opposition to sexual harassment. 
House Rule XXIII, clause 9 states that ``[a] Member . . . may 
not discharge and may not refuse to hire an individual, or 
otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to 
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, 
because of the race, color, religion, sex (including marital or 
parental status), disability, age, or national origin of such 
individual, but may take into consideration the domicile or 
political affiliation of such individual.''
    The CAA created the Office of Compliance as a forum for 
resolving claims of discrimination. The Office of Compliance's 
guidance defines sexual harassment as ``[u]nwelcome sexual 
advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or 
physical conduct of a sexual nature if the implication is that 
submission to such conduct is expected as part of the job.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Office of Compliance, CAA Handbook at 44 (2010), available at 
http://www.compliance.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CAA-Handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sexual harassment, if proven, would also likely violate the 
basic parameters of House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2, which 
state that ``[a] Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in 
a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House,'' and that 
``[a] Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter 
of the Rules of the House. . . .''

                            III. BACKGROUND

    Complainant worked as a policy advisor for the Helsinki 
Commission from May 2007 until approximately June 2014. 
Representative Hastings was instrumental in Complainant's 
hiring. After he learned that Complainant, who had previously 
been employed by the House Committee on Homeland Security, was 
looking for work, Representative Hastings arranged for the 
Complainant to apply for a position with the Helsinki 
Commission. She was subsequently hired after going through the 
typical hiring process. Eventually, in 2008, Complainant moved 
to Vienna, Austria, where she handled duties for the Helsinki 
Commission and the State Department. She returned to 
Washington, D.C., permanently in July 2010.
    In August 2010, Complainant filed a request for counseling 
with the Office of Compliance, asserting claims of sexual 
harassment and retaliation against the Helsinki Commission. The 
Office of Compliance's dispute resolution processes established 
by the CAA begin with mandatory counseling and mediation 
phases, both of which are confidential. If the parties are 
unable to resolve their disagreement through counseling or 
mediation, an employee may then either pursue a non-judicial 
administrative hearing or file suit in federal district court. 
In this matter, after the mandatory counseling and mediation 
phases did not resolve the dispute, on or about March 7, 2011, 
Complainant filed a complaint in the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia based on the same 
allegations. Complainant named the Helsinki Commission, 
Representative Hastings, and the Helsinki Commission Chief of 
Staff (Chief of Staff) as defendants. Complainant also 
announced the filing of her lawsuit at a public news conference 
on March 7.
    OCE began its preliminary review of the matter on May 3, 
2011. Complainant provided information about her allegations to 
OCE on or about May 26, 2011. The OCE Board voted to refer the 
matter to the Committee and adopted its Findings on September 
27, 2011. The OCE Referral was transmitted to the Committee on 
October 13, 2011.
    Representative Hastings and the Helsinki Commission Chief 
of Staff were dismissed as parties to Complainant's suit on 
February 14, 2012. However, the litigation against the Helsinki 
Commission continued until that lawsuit was ultimately 
dismissed on June 5, 2014, following a confidential settlement 
between the Complainant and the Commission. Thus, throughout 
OCE's review and until June 2014, civil litigation regarding 
these issues was ongoing in federal court.
    Throughout this time period, Complainant's allegations have 
taken slightly different forms when stated in various forums, 
but the basic narrative is consistent between her statements to 
OCE, the Committee, and in her lawsuit. In essence, her 
allegations can be separated into four distinct categories.
    First, Complainant alleged that, on a number of occasions 
beginning shortly after she was hired until approximately 
January 2010, Representative Hastings made a number of 
unwelcome sexual or intimate advances towards her, at times 
connecting those advances to her career. Specifically, 
Complainant alleged that Representative Hastings asked to visit 
her personal residence in the Washington, D.C., area and her 
apartment in Vienna, which Complainant interpreted as a request 
for a sexual liaison. Complainant also alleged that, on a trip 
to Kazakhstan in July 2008, Representative Hastings told 
Complainant that he wanted to help advance her career, and told 
her that nobody would treat her less than professionally if she 
had a relationship with him. Complainant also alleged that, on 
a trip to Lisbon, Portugal, in 2009, Representative Hastings 
met Complainant in the lobby of their hotel, stated that he was 
coming to Complainant ``as a man comes to a woman,'' and asked 
Complainant to accompany him to his hotel room, or, 
alternatively, asked for her room number. Finally, Complainant 
alleged that a number of senior members of the Helsinki 
Commission staff conspired with Representative Hastings to 
place Complainant and Representative Hastings in proximity to 
one another. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Chief 
of Staff engineered the encounter between Complainant and 
Representative Hastings in Portugal in 2009, and she also 
alleged that a Helsinki Commission staffer cancelled her trip 
from Kiev, Ukraine, to Odessa, Ukraine, so that she would be in 
Kiev when Representative Hastings arrived there.
    Second, Complainant alleged that, on at least three 
occasions during this period, Representative Hastings touched 
her in an inappropriately sexual way. Specifically, Complainant 
alleged that on at least two occasions, Representative Hastings 
hugged her and pressed his body against her. Complainant also 
alleged that, in February 2010, Representative Hastings greeted 
her with the European ``air-kiss,'' and asked her to pose for a 
photo with him.
    Third, Complainant alleged that, on a number of occasions 
during this period, Representative Hastings made inappropriate 
comments of a suggestive or sexual nature. While not 
propositions for sexual activity like those discussed above, 
Complainant nevertheless alleged that these comments 
contributed to a hostile work environment. Specifically, 
Complainant alleged that, while they were in a car together in 
Vienna in 2008, Representative Hastings told her that he was 
unable to sleep after having sex. Complainant also alleged 
that, while in a hotel bar with a number of other Helsinki 
Commission staffers, Representative Hastings stated that he 
does not understand how male and female Members of Congress, 
but especially female Members, can wear the same underwear all 
day; Complainant further alleged that Representative Hastings 
followed that comment by asking Complainant what kind of 
underwear she was wearing.
    Fourth, Complainant alleged that Representative Hastings 
and senior members of the Helsinki Commission staff retaliated 
against her in response to her complaints about the above 
mentioned allegations. Specifically, Complainant alleged that 
the Chief of Staff reassigned work in her portfolio to other 
employees, failed to keep Complainant informed of information 
necessary to do her job, and delayed approval of her requests 
to travel.
    As noted above, the Committee began its inquiry after OCE 
referred the matter to the Committee on October 13, 2011. The 
Committee recognized the importance of not interfering with 
parallel proceedings, including the civil lawsuit, and 
consequently its inquiry took somewhat longer than other 
investigations, but it was still thorough and complete. The 
Committee interviewed eight witnesses, including the 
Complainant, Representative Hastings, and other witnesses--both 
those witnesses previously identified by OCE, and others. The 
Committee reviewed over 1,000 pages of written evidence, 
including emails and internal memoranda.

                              IV. FINDINGS

    Complainant's allegations are quite serious. If proven, 
those allegations would almost certainly constitute a series of 
violations of House Rules, federal statutes, and other 
standards of conduct, and the Committee would not hesitate to 
take action against such violations.
    Accordingly, the Committee conducted a thorough 
investigation into these allegations. That investigation 
yielded no additional credible evidence supporting 
Complainant's claims. In fact, much of the evidence reviewed 
cast further doubt on many of the most serious allegations. 
Because the Committee was unable to substantiate the claims, it 
concurred with OCE's determination that there was not a 
substantial reason to believe the allegations in question. This 
section of the Report details the evidence that the Committee 
reviewed in its inquiry, and analyzes it in light of existing 
law and precedent.

  A.    EVIDENCE

    OCE noted in its Report and Findings that ``most of the 
information obtained by the OCE was testimonial evidence from 
Representative Hastings and [Complainant.]''\7\ The Committee 
found a similar paucity of independent corroborating evidence, 
although it, unlike OCE, was able to obtain information from 
other Helsinki Commission staffers. Put simply, there is very 
little non-testimonial evidence that corroborates the 
Complainant's allegations at all, and a significant number of 
materials that call at least some of Complainant's allegations 
into question. In fact, the Committee identified only two 
documents in which it can be said definitively that Complainant 
(a) was at the time alleging sexual harassment, and (b) was at 
the time reporting that sexual harassment to others at the 
Helsinki Commission. Both of these documents were created in 
February 2010, after the bulk of the allegations are purported 
to have occurred. First, on February 5, 2010, the General 
Counsel of the Helsinki Commission (General Counsel) emailed 
Complainant to memorialize a meeting with the Chief of Staff, 
General Counsel, and Complainant, held a few days prior to the 
email. The General Counsel stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\OCE Referral at 3.

        [The Chief of Staff] described his conversation with 
        Mr. Hastings regarding the issues you had raised and 
        indicated that, while Mr. Hastings said he had a 
        different assessment of the situation, Mr. Hastings is 
        sensitive to your concerns and will proceed 
        accordingly. [The Chief of Staff] also indicated that 
        both he and Mr. Hastings are satisfied with your job 
        performance and support your decision to leave Vienna 
        and resume your work full-time in Washington before the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        end of the year--most likely in July.

        It is our hope and expectation that if you have any 
        further concerns regarding the matters we discussed, or 
        any other issues, you will contact us immediately.

    In interviews with the Committee, both the Chief of Staff 
and General Counsel stated that the meeting discussed in the 
February 5, 2010, email above was the first such meeting either 
of them had with Complainant regarding her allegations, and 
both stated that they learned of Complainant's allegations, at 
most, a few weeks prior to the meeting. The Chief of Staff 
confirmed that, prior to this meeting, he met with 
Representative Hastings to discuss (for the first time) 
Complainant's allegations; at that time, Representative 
Hastings vehemently denied having sexually harassed the 
Complainant. Regardless, however, the Chief of Staff advised 
Representative Hastings to refrain from any behavior that the 
Complainant might perceive as harassment.
    Complainant responded the same day to the General Counsel's 
email:

        Most of what you say below has my concurrence, but I 
        completely disagree with the statement that Mr. 
        Hastings ``had a different assessment of the 
        situation.'' What [the Chief of Staff] said was that he 
        had a different assessment of some of the issues, which 
        [the Chief of Staff] did not elaborate on. I completely 
        stand by the fact that Mr. Hastings has sexually 
        harassed me since December 2007, after I was offered 
        the position in Vienna, and I have no intention of 
        sugar-coating what has happened to me.

    This email, again, is the first instance the Committee 
could definitively conclude that Complainant explicitly alleged 
sexual harassment in writing.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Complainant provided OCE with handwritten notes that Complainant 
contends to have written during her service in Vienna, purportedly 
memorializing her allegations contemporaneously. But the document bears 
no evidence of the date of its creation, and no witness can attest to 
having seen it. Similarly, the Complainant sent the Committee text that 
purported to be an email she sent to friends in 2009, detailing her 
allegations. The Committee contacted the supposed recipients of the 
email, who testified that they were not in possession of a copy of the 
email. When the Committee asked the Complainant to authenticate the 
email's date by providing it in a native form, she failed to respond. 
Accordingly, the Committee could not conclude that either of these 
materials were truly contemporaneously dated with the allegations. And 
in any event, neither document was ever shared with anyone at the 
Helsinki Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A second email from Complainant to the General Counsel and 
the Chief of Staff dated February 19, 2010, detailed 
Complainant's interactions with Representative Hastings earlier 
that week, accusing Representative Hastings of acting in 
apparent contravention of the conversation between him and the 
Chief of Staff a few weeks earlier:

        First of all, even though I specifically asked you and 
        [General Counsel] to advise Mr. Hastings that I do not 
        want him to hug me in greeting me or saying good bye, 
        when he entered the control room . . . on Wednesday, he 
        came over to where I was seated at the table and 
        briefly placed his cheek against mine. [OSCE Staffer] 
        was sitting there with me and can attest to it. As I 
        stressed to you and [General Counsel], I do not want 
        Mr. Hastings to hug me because I am uncomfortable with 
        it and I insist at this point that it is not repeated.

        Second, this evening, [a military officer] and I had 
        just discussed tomorrow's itinerary and I was walking 
        toward the control room to look it over when [a 
        Helsinki Commission staffer] called out that I was 
        needed. I paused, and he said that Mr. Hastings wanted 
        to take a photograph with me. Mr. Hastings walked over 
        to where I was standing, stood extremely close to me, 
        and held out both of his arms in a pose while I kept 
        mine at my side. He looked at me and said, ``We have to 
        do our favorite pose,''\9\ indicated that I too should 
        hold out my arms. I did and [the Helsinki Commission 
        staffer] took the picture. The situation made me feel 
        extremely uncomfortable and I am suspicious as to why I 
        was placed in this awkward and ridiculous circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Representative Hastings and a variety of other witnesses 
indicated that the pose in the photograph was one that Representative 
Hastings commonly performs, stretching his arms to represent ``having 
the world in his hands.'' He did not actually touch Complainant in the 
photograph.

    Other than these two emails in which Complainant made her 
position clear, the rest of the written record contained no 
mention of the allegations as they were happening.
    Complainant contended in her testimony before the Committee 
that a number of emails should be read to imply her 
allegations. However, the Committee reviewed additional 
evidence alongside those emails, which cast doubt on an 
interpretation that would constitute evidence of sexual 
harassment. For example, one of Complainant's more troubling 
allegations pertained to a trip to Ukraine to monitor elections 
in January 2010. Complainant was originally scheduled to 
observe the elections in Odessa, but Representative Hastings, 
through a staffer (Helsinki Commission Staffer 1), requested 
that she (and other observers) stay in Kiev, where 
Representative Hastings was scheduled to observe the election. 
Complainant alleges that she believed Representative Hastings 
was, through this request, attempting to keep Complainant close 
to him, where he could continue to harass her.
    As evidence of her concerns, Complainant pointed to an 
email she sent the Chief of Staff, stating, ``I wanted to ask 
your advice on what to do because at this point I think if I 
went to Odessa Mr. Hastings will be upset.'' The Chief of Staff 
responded, ``for reasons previously discussed, I think you 
should still go to Odessa. I'm not on the ground with you and 
don't really understand what's going on, but that would still 
be my suggestion. I will help explain the issue to 
[Representative Hastings] if he is upset.'' Complainant alleged 
in her testimony that the ``reasons previously discussed'' were 
her allegations of sexual harassment, which she claimed to have 
repeatedly reported to the Chief of Staff by this time.
    If an observer were to pick these statements out of context 
and rely solely on Complainant's characterization of them, one 
might conclude that the statements are evidence of the truth of 
Complainant's allegations. But when read in context, and when 
coupled with the testimony of multiple witnesses, a different, 
more innocuous picture emerged. In fact, while Complainant 
asserted in her interviews with OCE and with the Committee that 
the prospect of staying in Kiev, so close to Representative 
Hastings, caused her to ``hyperventilate,'' her own words in 
emails around the same time suggest that Complainant was at 
least indifferent about the change in plans, if not outright 
pleased. When notified that she might be staying in Kiev, 
Complainant emailed Helskinki Commission Staffer 1 saying ``I 
really prefer to observe in Kiev but [Chief of Staff] suggested 
the staff spread out. I also was not looking forward to flying 
on a tiny Ukrainian plane to Odessa.'' So Complainant's 
allegations about this trip to Ukraine simply do not conform 
with her own contemporaneous statements on the matter.
    Additionally, many other witnesses and documents in the 
record show that the justification for changing Complainant's 
travel plans in Ukraine was wholly unrelated to Representative 
Hastings' alleged interest in her. Representative Hastings did 
ask that election observers (including Complainant) remain in 
Kiev, as opposed to fanning out across Ukraine. But the 
evidence suggests that this request may not have been motivated 
by a desire to be close to Complainant; rather, Representative 
Hastings knew that a winter storm was expected acrossmuch of 
the country and was concerned about his staff traveling on Ukrainian 
flights through the snow. And the ``reasons previously discussed'' 
between Complainant and the Chief of Staff were not Complainant's 
allegations, but instead the Chief of Staff's belief that, inclement 
weather notwithstanding, the task of monitoring Ukraine's elections 
required staff to travel to a variety of voting stations around the 
country.
    Many of the documents that Complainant proffered as support 
for her claims followed this pattern: Complainant wrote or said 
something vague that, in hindsight, could be tied to her 
allegations, but only by ignoring other written and testimonial 
evidence to the contrary. Indeed, there are a number of 
alternative explanations for the correspondence between 
Complainant and others that do not imply sexual harassment. For 
example, as discussed above, Complainant claimed that her 
cancelled trip from Kiev to Odessa in 2010 was an instance of 
sexual harassment, and she relied on her email to the Chief of 
Staff to support that claim, but that email is equally open to 
the interpretation that both parties were discussing the bad 
weather in Ukraine, as opposed to Representative Hastings' 
alleged sexual interest. Furthermore, in many cases, the 
alternative reading of these vague emails was supported by the 
evidence, for at least two reasons.
    First, in most other situations, Complainant was not vague 
when writing emails. Complainant regularly updated other 
Helsinki Commission staffers on her work in Vienna via email. 
Complainant repeatedly wrote paragraphs of prose to the Chief 
of Staff regarding difficulties she was having with colleagues. 
One such email detailed Complainant's struggle to locate 
``personal hygiene items'' as an explanation for a report of 
poor performance. And, like her email expressing a desire to 
stay in Kiev, many of Complainant's contemporaneous writings 
directly or implicitly contradict her allegations.
    Once, around the time that Complainant's allegations were 
supposed to have occurred, Complainant emailed, ``I don't know 
what I would do without [Chief of Staff]. I cannot believe what 
a comfort you are to me and the sense of security and calm you 
provide every time I come to you in anxiety about something.'' 
Complainant also wrote, at other times when the sexual 
harassment was purportedly occurring, that having spoken with 
Representative Hastings, she felt ``100 percent better than she 
began the week,'' and that Representative Hastings was ``truly 
amazing.'' And, in another email, she told the Chief of Staff 
that she ``had a crush on [Representative Hastings] since I 
first met him . . .'' Complainant's own communications at the 
time these events allegedly took place, therefore, call into 
question the claims Complainant made thereafter.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\OCE did not ask Complainant about either of these emails, 
although they are discussed in the OCE Referral. For each email, OCE 
indicated that it was ``unable to interview [Complainant] about this 
statement because the production containing this email came to the OCE 
well after the OCE had interviewed [Complainant].'' OCE Referral, at 
10, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, while Complainant alleges that she was constantly 
reporting her allegations to the Chief of Staff and the General 
Counsel for years prior, the response of both the Chief of 
Staff and General Counsel as reflected in the written record 
changed dramatically after their meeting in January 2010. 
Before the meeting, the Committee found no evidence that either 
the Chief of Staff or the General Counsel had ever discussed 
the allegations in writing, but after the meeting, both the 
Chief of Staff and General Counsel openly acknowledged having 
heard the allegations from Complainant and reflected their 
attempts to develop an action plan in response. To believe 
Complainant's version of events, one must also believe that 
both the Chief of Staff and General Counsel avoided discussion 
of these allegations for years, only to meticulously and 
professionally respond to them, as if hearing them for the 
first time, in February 2010.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\While the Committee did not believe it directly relevant to the 
allegations, Representative Hastings--in his testimony before the 
Committee and elsewhere--has repeatedly referred to the fact that 
Complainant authored a novel in 2006, and that novel contains themes 
and storylines with remarkable similarities to the allegations that 
Complainant made. The Committee found no evidence that Complainant's 
allegations were manufactured to generate publicity for her book, but 
it did note the similarities between characters and events in the book 
and persons and events in her allegations, and believes those 
similarities cast additional doubt on Complainant's credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  B.    TESTIMONY

    OCE's referral to the Committee was rooted in a lower 
standard for referral than is usually the case, in large part 
because OCE was unable to speak with a number of witnesses 
identified by Complainant. As discussed above, civil litigation 
regarding this matter was pending in federal court before OCE 
began its review and continued throughout the entirety of its 
review. The Committee spoke with all such witnesses, all of 
whom cooperated with the Committee's review, but those 
witnesses (as well as others interviewed by the Committee) did 
not provide any additional evidence supporting the 
Complainant's allegations.
    No witness could testify to having directly observed a 
single specific allegation made by Complainant. Those witnesses 
who were purportedly in the same room when the misconduct 
occurred denied having seen anything of the sort. Some 
witnesses testified that they had heard rumors related to the 
allegations, but when pressed, every single such witness 
admitted that the sole source of those rumors was Complainant 
herself. Credible witnesses described Representative Hastings 
as a genial and familiar, but ultimately professional, 
supervisor, and noted that they observed nothing at all 
untoward about his relationship with Complainant.
    Similar to the issues described above regarding the written 
record in proper context, witness testimony provided 
perspective that cast additional doubt on Complainant's 
allegations. For example, on a trip to Portugal in 2009, 
Complainant attended a dinner for the OSCE Parliamentary 
Assembly, along with Representative Hastings and the Chief of 
Staff. Complainant alleged that, after the dinner, in the 
hotel, Representative Hastings expressed a sexual interest in 
her, told her she was not a ``sport,'' told her that he had 
come to her ``as a man comes to a woman,'' and asked her to 
come to his hotel room. These are among the most explicit and 
troubling allegations made by Complainant. But while no third 
parties witnessed this interaction, the Chief of Staff provided 
context regarding the evening that brought Complainant's story 
into doubt. The Chief of Staff testified that, as is 
Representative Hastings' custom, he left the Parliamentary 
Assembly dinner very early--before most of the courses had been 
served. When he left, Complainant came to Chief of Staff and 
insisted that they should accompany Representative Hastings 
back to the hotel. The Chief of Staff disagreed:

        And I said . . . you know, you don't know this because 
        you haven't traveled with him a whole lot, but our job 
        is to stay here and make sure that people aren't 
        saying, oh, the Americans left. He's leaving because he 
        hates, you know, these 3-hour dinners, you know. So 
        we're going to sit right here and eat our dinner and 
        socialize with the other parliamentary staff and all 
        these kind of, and sort of show the flag, you know.

        And she said to me, she's like, I really don't think 
        it's responsible for both of us to be here when he's 
        leaving or he's left. And she says, I really think one 
        of us ought to go back to the hotel and make sure, you 
        know, if he needs us to work on remarks or whatever. 
        And I said, I disagree. I said, I've staffed him long 
        enough to know I'm not skipping dinner just to go back 
        to the hotel and do nothing.

        I think it's important for you to understand how, you 
        know, how we got to that point and why I wasn't there. 
        Now, why somebody who is alleging all this crazy stuff 
        solicited the trip to Lisbon and then, when there's no 
        requirement for her to actually be alone with the 
        Congressman, she gets up from a dinner when I'm sitting 
        there, telling her stay put, and goes back to the hotel 
        and puts herself in a position to be alone with the 
        Congressman and then allegedly all this stuff happens.

    When the Committee asked Complainant about leaving the 
dinner early, Complainant admitted that Representative Hastings 
left the dinner early, but characterized such a departure as 
highly irregular, and stated that the Chief of Staff's decision 
to stay at the dinner was a conspiracy between the Chief of 
Staff and Representative Hastings to ensure additional 
harassment:

        I just didn't know what was going on. I really didn't. 
        But in retrospect, I believe it was contrived. I 
        believe that [the Chief of Staff] and Mr. Hastings had 
        agreed to this scenario and that is why [the Chief of 
        Staff] didn't blink when Mr. Hastings said he was 
        leaving. I think it was all engineered.

        Q: To do what?

        A: That he would leave and that I would probably feel 
        like--because one of the things I noticed with Mr. 
        Hastings is that he did, he created these situations 
        under the guise of some other justification to lead a 
        conversation or to get a--to prompt a reaction.

    To believe Complainant's interpretation, therefore, one 
must believe not only that the Chief of Staff ignored or 
marginalized Complainant's allegations for years, but that he 
actively aided Representative Hastings in a ploy to sexually 
harass Complainant. This leap in logic is simply not credible 
when viewed next to the Chief of Staff's more cogent and 
reasonable explanation.
    Other witnesses interviewed by the Committee provided a 
similar perspective, stating that while Complainant's 
allegations arose from circumstances rooted in fact, the 
operative parts of Complainant's allegations simply did not 
accord with the witnesses' understanding of events. Put another 
way, the Committee, despite interviewing witnesses in a 
position to observe the events related to the allegations, 
obtained no additional direct testimony corroborating 
Complainant's allegations, and was left in much the same 
position as OCE--evaluating the testimony of the Complainant 
and Representative Hastings against one another.

C.    REPRESENTATIVE HASTINGS' TESTIMONY

    Representative Hastings appeared before OCE during its 
inquiry, and Committee staff interviewed him with the Chairman 
and Ranking Member present. Representative Hastings' statements 
in both forums were consistent. Specifically, Representative 
Hastings stated that he has never had a physical or personal 
relationship with Complainant, and has never expressed a sexual 
or physical interest in Complainant. He stated that the events 
Complainant described in which he allegedly propositioned 
Complainant, or asked to visit her living quarters, or invited 
her to his hotel room, simply never happened. He stated that, 
far from taking action to retaliate against Complainant after 
she made her allegations, he urged the Chief of Staff to 
approve every travel request she made, and was careful to make 
clear to Complainant that he was satisfied with her 
performance. He admitted that he hugged Complainant ``every 
time she said I did,'' but stated that these hugs were not 
intimate or sexual in nature; rather, Representative Hastings 
noted that hugs are his preferred form of greeting for everyone 
male or female, and that he did not press his body against 
Complainant or touch her sexually during any of those hugs. 
Other than Complainant, none of the witnesses that the 
Committee interviewed contradicted Representative Hastings' 
testimony on these matters, and a number of witnesses confirmed 
his statements in their own recollection.
    Representative Hastings did admit that he made two comments 
that the Committee found to be less than professional. First, 
Representative Hastings admitted that while in a car with 
Complainant and a driver on the way to the International Atomic 
Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna in 2008, he stated that he had 
difficulty sleeping after sex. Representative Hastings noted 
that this comment was part of a nearly 45-minute conversation 
between himself and Complainant, and that the topic came up 
because he was tired. Representative Hastings noted that 
Complainant went on in the conversation, talking about how she 
danced in her apartment when she was unable to sleep. 
Representative Hastings noted that he did not at this time, nor 
at any other time, ask Complainant to have sex, but was talking 
to Complainant casually because he considered her a friend.
    Representative Hastings also admitted that, on the same 
2008 trip to Vienna, while in the bar at the Marriott hotel, he 
stated that he could not understand how male and female Members 
of Congress, but especially female Members, can stay in their 
own clothing, specifically their underwear, for 16 hours at a 
time. Representative Hastings noted that this conversation was 
partof a three to four hour social gathering with a number of 
other Helsinki Commission staffers, including Complainant, as well as 
other American and foreign officials. He explained that he had drank at 
least two double Courvoisier cocktails over this period. Representative 
Hastings stated that he had moved into a home in the Capitol Hill 
neighborhood of Washington, D.C., away from his previous home in 
Alexandria, Virginia, and was explaining to the group that his move was 
motivated in part by a desire to be able to shower and change in the 
middle of a long congressional session. He noted that he has made this 
observation on a number of other occasions to other individuals. 
However, he stated that, contrary to Complainant's allegations, he did 
not follow that observation by asking Complainant what kind of 
underwear she was wearing. He admitted that, looking back on the 
conversation, he regretted making the comment.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\Representative Hastings also admitted telling Complainant that 
she ``looked nice'' while on a trip to Kazakhstan in 2008. He explained 
that he made this comment upon seeing Complainant in the CODEL room, 
and that it was a pleasantry, not accompanied by any other comments 
about Complainant's appearance or comments of a sexual or intimate 
nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  D.  THE CAA AND HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 9

    Sexual harassment is strictly prohibited by the Code of 
Official Conduct\13\ as well as the CAA, which made Congress 
subject to a number of federal laws governing employee rights 
in the workplace--including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964.\14\ Furthermore, several years prior to enactment of 
the CAA, the Committee found that a member who had sexually 
harassed two employees on his personal staff had violated House 
Rule XXIII, clause 9, under which a Member ``. . . may not 
discharge and may not refuse to hire an individual, or 
otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect to 
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, 
because of the race, color, religion, sex (including marital or 
parental status), disability, age, or national origin of such 
individual . . . .''.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\House Ethics Manual (Ethics Manual) at 268-69 (2008) (citing 
House Rule XXIII, cl. 9).
    \14\Id. at 269-70.
    \15\In the Matter of Representative Jim Bates, H. Rep. 101-293, 
101st Cong. 1st Sess. 8-10 (1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under current applicable law and precedent, a claimant may 
demonstrate harassment ``in either of two circumstances: the 
grant or denial of an economic quid pro quo in exchange for 
sexual favors, or discrimination that has created a hostile or 
abusive work environment.''\16\ ``The gravamen of a quid pro 
quo claim is that a tangible job benefit or privilege is 
conditioned on an employee's submission to sexual black-mail 
and that adverse consequences follow from the employee's 
refusal.''\17\ Where the actions of an employer do not rise to 
an explicit quid pro quo, sexual acts by a supervisor may 
nevertheless be actionable where the ``workplace is permeated 
with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult'' and 
these behaviors are ``sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter 
the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive 
working environment.''\18\ In addition to a direct claim of 
sexual harassment on either of these two grounds, a claimant 
may have a claim for retaliation where she can demonstrate 
``(1) that [s]he opposed a practice made unlawful by Title VII; 
(2) that the employer took a materially adverse action against 
[her]; and (3) that the employer took the action `because' the 
employee opposed the practice.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1395 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citations 
omitted); see also Bates, H. Rep. 101-293 at 10 (defining sexual 
harassment, by reference to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
regulation, as ``when (1) submission to such conduct is made either 
explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's 
employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an 
individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such 
individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of 
unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or 
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment'').
    \17\Gary, 59 F.3d at 1395 (citation omitted).
    \18\Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); see also 
Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, 712 F.3d 572, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (per 
curiam).
    \19\McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The facts in the record in this case do not support a 
finding that sexual harassment occurred under any of these 
definitions. While Complainant alleged that Representative 
Hastings sexually propositioned her, and alleged that those 
propositions carried the implication that her acceptance or 
refusal would have consequences professional consequences for 
Complainant, the Committee found no evidence of these alleged 
propositions or quid pro quos save Complainant's own testimony. 
Moreover, to the extent that the written materials and the 
testimony of third parties illuminated the circumstances 
surrounding Complainant's allegations at all, it mostly served 
to exonerate Representative Hastings of these charges. In 
short, the evidence does not support these allegations, much 
less prove them.
    Complainant's allegations of a hostile work environment 
face similar weaknesses. While it is true that Representative 
Hastings admitted to making two comments that troubled the 
Committee (and which this Report analyzes below), the 
allegations supported by the evidence, without more, do not 
constitute sufficiently pervasive or severe conduct to render 
the work environment discriminatory. And the evidence tended to 
show that the occasions on which Representative Hastings 
touched Complainant were not sexual or intimate in nature.
    Finally, Complainant's claims of retaliation also fail. Not 
only are her allegations in this regard not supported by the 
evidence (insofar as there is no evidence that Complainant 
reported her allegations to her superiors before January 2010), 
the Committee cannot find even a theoretical basis for 
concluding that they would constitute actionable retaliation. 
Many of Complainant's retaliation claims revolve around the 
delay in her return to Washington from Vienna in 2010, and 
requests to travel while she remained in Vienna, for which she 
alleged that the Chief of Staff delayed approval. As the United 
States District Court stated in an opinion dismissing part of 
Complainant's suit, ``Reluctance to approve travel requests 
that are subsequently approved is not the type of action that 
`could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or 
supporting a charge of discrimination.'''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\No. 11-cv-485, Docket # 60 at 9 (June 7, 2013) (order granting, 
in part, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings) (citations 
omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E.    HOUSE RULE XXIII, CLAUSE 1 AND 2

    As stated in previous reports, the Committee observes two 
basic principles when applying the first two clauses of the 
Code of Conduct. First, Members must at all times act in a 
manner that reflects creditably upon the House. This standard 
was created to provide the Committee ``the ability to deal with 
any given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgment of 
the [C]ommittee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on the 
Congress.''\21\ Clause 1 ``encompass[es] violations of law and 
abuses of one's official position.''\22\ It is a ``purposefully 
. . . subjective'' standard.\23\ In fact, misconduct of the 
sort alleged in this case could violate clauses 1 or 2 without 
forming the basis for a more formal violation of clause 9 or 
the CAA. The Committee has previously found that a Member who 
committed sexual harassment violated Clause 1.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of Representative 
Price).
    \22\Ethics Manual at 16.
    \23\114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of Representative 
Price).
    \24\House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of 
Representative Gus Savage, H. Rept. 101-397, 101st Cong. 2d Sess 
(1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the Committee notes the proposition that the Code 
of Conduct and other standards of conduct governing the ethical 
behavior of the House community are not criminal statutes to be 
construed strictly, but rather--under clause 2 of House Rule 
XXIII--must be read to prohibit violations not only of the 
letter of the rules, but of the spirit of the rules. Ethical 
rules governing the conduct of Members were created to assure 
the public of ``the importance of the precedents of decorum and 
consideration that have evolved in the House over the 
years.''\25\ The standard ``provide[s] the House with the means 
to deal with infractions that rise to trouble it without 
burdening it with defining specific charges that would be 
difficult to state with precision.''\26\ The practical effect 
of Clause 2 is to allow the Committee to construe ethical rules 
broadly, and prohibit Members, officers and employees of the 
House from doing indirectly what they would be barred from 
doing directly. The Ethics Manual states that ``a narrow 
technical reading of a House Rule should not overcome its 
`spirit' and the intent of the House in adopting that and other 
rules of conduct.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Report under the 
Authority of H. Res. 418, H. Rept. 90-1176, 90th Cong. 2d Sess. 17 
(1968).
    \26\114 Cong. Reg. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968) (Statement of Representative 
Price).
    \27\Ethics Manual at 17 (citing House Select Comm. on Ethics, 
Advisory Opinion No. 4, H. Rept. 95-1837, 95th Cong. 2d Sess. app. 61 
(1979)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Applying these principles to this case is difficult. If the 
Committee had found a substantial reason to believe that 
Representative Hastings had engaged in the more egregious 
allegations leveled by Complainant, it would be an easier 
matter. If proven, those allegations would almost certainly 
constitute a series of violations of House Rules, federal 
statutes, and other standards of conduct, and the Committee 
would not hesitate to take action against such violations.
    But that is not this case, based on the record before the 
Committee following a lengthy and thorough investigation of the 
allegations. Indeed, Complainant's credibility is strained by 
the incongruity of her own statements when placed in context. 
Without more, the Committee cannot believe Complainant's 
version of events, and so not only is there not sufficient 
proof of sexual harassment, there is also not sufficient proof 
of violations of clauses 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct. Nor is 
there sufficient proof of retaliation against Complainant.
    Despite the fact that the conduct in this case does not 
rise to the level of actionable violations of the rules, the 
Committee does not want to leave the impression that 
Representative Hastings' behavior was at all times appropriate. 
He admitted to some conduct that, while not wrongful per se, 
certainly could be misunderstood. For example, Representative 
Hastings admitted that he hugged Complainant on a number of 
occasions. It is true that a hug, on its own, is not sexual 
harassment, and that a number of witnesses testified that (1) 
Representative Hastings hugs many people frequently; (2) when 
hugging others (including Complainant), Representative Hastings 
did not place his hands or body in such a fashion that 
indicated the hug was sexual or intimate in nature; and (3) 
given Representative Hastings' work with Complainant often 
occurred in Europe, such contact was within the customary forms 
of greeting for the relevant locale. Nevertheless, hugging is 
not the most professional way to greet coworkers, and different 
individuals have different comfort levels for touching others.
    Similarly, Representative Hastings admitted to making two 
comments in the presence of Complainant: one about not being 
able to sleep after sex, and another about female Members of 
Congress wearing the same underwear all day. It is true that 
Complainant attempted to make more of these comments than 
appears to be supported by the evidence, and that on their own, 
they do not constitute sexual harassment. Nevertheless, the 
Committee finds it concerning that in the year 2014 it has to 
remind a Member that such comments show poor judgment.
    So long as the office environment complies with House 
Rules, laws, and other standards of conduct, the Committee is 
not in the business of regulating that office environment for 
each of the nearly 500 separate employers in the House. At the 
same time, the Committee fervently hopes that those employers, 
charged as they are with the duty of upholding the honor of 
this august institution, would be an example for how workplaces 
should function professionally in the modern world. While the 
conduct proven in this case does not constitute misconduct 
violating the standards under the Committee's jurisdiction, it 
is far from perfectly professional. The Committee advises 
Members and others in a supervisory role to scrupulously avoid 
even the impression of a workplace tainted by sexism.

                             V. CONCLUSION

    The OCE Referral that began this investigation did not find 
``substantial reason to believe'' the allegations in question. 
Instead, because OCE was unable to obtain certain information--
specifically, statements from four witnesses that it identified 
as non-cooperative--OCE referred the matter to the Committee 
based on a lower ``probable cause'' standard. The Committee 
interviewed all four of those witnesses, who fully cooperated 
with the Committee as part of its own thorough investigation, 
and did not find any proof of the allegations beyond what OCE 
had already discovered. In fact, the Committee's investigation 
revealed additional evidence that cast further doubt on 
Complainant's claims. The Committee's review took time, given 
that the allegations were so serious and that litigation was 
ongoing in federal court. But it could not find evidence of the 
critical facts underlying Complainant's contentions. Without 
such evidence, the Committee cannot conclude that further 
action is warranted, and so upon the issuance of this Report, 
considers the 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.
```