" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

109–733 

House Calendar No. 254 

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED 

TO IMPROPER CONDUCT INVOLVING MEMBERS AND CURRENT OR FORMER HOUSE 

PAGES 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 

OFFICIAL CONDUCT 

MR. HASTINGS FROM THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON 

STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT 

DECEMBER 19, 2006.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

31–490 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2006

109–733 

House Calendar No. 254 

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED 

TO IMPROPER CONDUCT INVOLVING MEMBERS AND CURRENT OR FORMER HOUSE 

PAGES 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF 

OFFICIAL CONDUCT 

MR. HASTINGS FROM THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON 

STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT 

DECEMBER 19, 2006.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Chairman 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Ranking 

Minority Member 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

WILLIAM V. O’REILLY, Chief Counsel/Staff Director 

ED CASSIDY, Chief of Staff to the Chairman 

BARI SCHWARTZ, Special Counsel to the Ranking Minority Member 

KENNETH E. KELLNER, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee 

C. MORGAN KIM, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee 

PETE VAN HARTESVELDT, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee 

STAN P. SIMPSON, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee 

CAROL DIXON, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT, 

Washington, DC, December 19, 2006. 

Hon. KAREN L. HAAS, Clerk, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. HAAS: Pursuant to Rule 21(a) of the Committee on 

Standards of Official Conduct, and Clauses 3(a)(2) and (b) of Rule 

11 of the House of Representatives, and by direction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we herewith transmit the 

attached Report of the Investigative Subcommittee, ‘‘Investigation 

of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and 

Current or Former House Pages.’’

Sincerely, 

DOC HASTINGS, 

Chairman. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, 

Ranking Minority Member. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... 1 

II. CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY .......................................... 3 

A. Establishment of the Investigative Subcommittee 3 

B. Investigative Process ............................................... 6 

III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ...................................... 10 

A. The Page Program ................................................... 10 

1. Eligibility and Selection Process ...................... 10 

2. Organization of the Page Program .................. 11 

3. The House Page Residence Hall ....................... 11 

4. The House Page School ..................................... 12 

5. The Page Board ................................................. 12 

6. Harassment Policy ............................................ 13 

B. The Office of The Speaker ....................................... 13 

IV. NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE ........................ 15 

A. Rep. Mark Foley ....................................................... 15 

1. Rep. Foley’s Interaction with Pages Generally ................................................................ 15 

2. Rep. Foley’s Reported Page Dorm Visits ......... 16 

3. Former Page Sponsored By Rep. Kolbe ........... 17 

4. Other Foley Conduct Related to Pages or 

Former Pages .................................................. 21 

B. Efforts to Address Rep. Foley’s Conduct ................ 22 

1. Communications Directly to Rep. Foley .......... 22 

2. Communications to Kirk Fordham .................. 23 

3. Communications with Ted Van Der Meid ....... 24 

4. Communications with Scott Palmer ................ 25 

5. Communications with Other Members of the 

Page Board ...................................................... 28 

C. Rep. Foley’s E-Mails to a Former Alexander Page 28 

D. Inquires by the St. Petersburg Times .................... 30 

E. Intervention by Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus ........ 32 

1. Rep. Alexander’s Office Contacts the Speaker’s Office ........................................................ 32 

2. Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus Confront Rep. 

Foley ................................................................ 34 

F. Continuing Press Interest; Rep. Alexander Briefs 

Majority Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds; 

Majority Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds Reportedly Brief Speaker Hastert ............................ 36 

G. The E-Mails Are Published and the Instant Messages Surface ......................................................... 40 

H. Rep. Foley Resigns .................................................. 42 

I. Events After Rep. Foley’s Resignation .................... 43 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
Page

VI 

V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 46 

A. Summary of Findings .............................................. 46 

B. Review of Relevant Standards of Conduct ............. 52 

C. Conclusions Regarding Conduct ............................. 53 

1. Treatment of Foley’s Conduct Unrelated to 

the E-mails ...................................................... 53 

2. The Handling of the 2005 E-Mails ................... 55 

3. Rep. Foley’s Resignation ................................... 58 

D. Recommendations .................................................... 59 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(VII) 

EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit 1: House Resolution 1065, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. (Sept. 29, 2006) ......... 61 

Exhibit 2: Subpoena for documents from Rep. Mark Foley dated Nov. 16, 

2006 ....................................................................................................................... 64 

Exhibit 3: Subpoena for testimony from Rep. Mark Foley dated Nov. 16, 

2006 ....................................................................................................................... 68 

Exhibit 4: Letter from counsel to Rep. Mark Foley to Kenneth E. Kellner, 

Esq., dated Nov. 21, 2006 .................................................................................... 69 

Exhibit 5: Letter from Christopher M. McGaffin to The Honorable Wilson 

Livingood dated Oct. 16, 2006 ............................................................................. 70 

Exhibit 6: Press release by Representative Jim Kolbe dated Oct. 10, 2006 ....... 71 

Exhibit 7: Statement by Scott Palmer to Speaker Dennis L. Hastert dated 

Oct. 4, 2006 ........................................................................................................... 72 

Exhibit 8: Electronic mail messages dated from July 29, 2005 to Sept. 27, 

2005 ....................................................................................................................... 73 

Exhibit 9: Electronic mail message from Royal Alexander to Mike Stokke 

dated June 1, 2006 ............................................................................................... 94 

Exhibit 10: Excerpt from stopsexpredatores.blogspot.com website dated Sept. 

24, 2006 ................................................................................................................. 95 

Exhibit 11: Excerpt from wonkette.com website dated Sept. 27, 2006 ............... 97 

Exhibit 12: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 28, 2006, 3:06 p.m. ............... 99 

Exhibit 13: Transcripts of instant messages ......................................................... 101 

Exhibit 14: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 29, 2006, 3:02 p.m. ............... 205 

Exhibit 15: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 29, 2006, 5:29 p.m. ............... 207 

Exhibit 16: Preliminary report from the Office of the Speaker dated Sept. 

30, 2006 ................................................................................................................. 210 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
31–490 

1 Exhibit 1. 

Calendar No. 254 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–733 

INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO IMPROPER CONDUCT INVOLVING MEMBERS AND CURRENT OR FORMER HOUSE PAGES 

DECEMBER 19, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS, from the Investigative Subcommittee 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct] 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

On Friday, September 29, 2006, Representative Mark Foley resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives. After his resignation, H. Res. 1065 was introduced as a privileged resolution on the 

floor of the House by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. H. Res. 1065 

directed the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to appoint 

a subcommittee to determine facts connected with ‘‘Representative 

Foley’s conduct and the response thereto’’ and directed the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee to make a 

preliminary report within ten days.1

H. Res. 1065 was not adopted by the House. Rather, by unanimous vote of the House, it was referred to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the ‘‘Committee’’). In accordance with 

House and Committee rules, and because the privileged resolution 

was not adopted by the House, the Committee retained discretion 

to determine whether to take action on this matter. In order to 

make that determination, all the Members of the Committee returned to Washington, D.C. during the October recess period to deliberate at a meeting held on Thursday, October 5, 2006 on the appropriate course of action. 

During the October 5, 2006 meeting, the Committee determined 

that the matter warranted immediate Committee review and, by 

unanimous vote on that date, the Committee voted to establish an 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 

Investigative Subcommittee. The Committee’s action was taken in 

accordance with clause 3 of House Rule XI and Committee Rules 

1(c), 14(a)(3), and 18(a), which authorize the Committee to establish an investigative subcommittee on its own initiative. The Investigative Subcommittee was established with jurisdiction to conduct 

a full and complete inquiry and investigation into any conduct of 

House Members, officers, and staff related to information concerning improper conduct involving Members and current and 

former House Pages, and was directed to report to the full Committee at the conclusion of its inquiry with the Investigative Subcommittee’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Investigative Subcommittee are contained in this Report. During the course 

of its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee examined the conduct of former Representative Foley, as well as the conduct of current and former officials and employees of the House. The Investigative Subcommittee did not attempt to make formal findings regarding the conduct of former officials and employees because, as 

non-affiliates of the House, the Investigative Subcommittee lacked 

disciplinary authority over them. The Investigative Subcommittee 

comments upon their conduct, however, as set forth in this Report. 

Regarding the conduct of current Members, officers, and employees of the House, the Investigative Subcommittee considered 

whether such individuals violated the House Code of Official Conduct or other rules and standards applicable to them. In its review 

of this matter, the Investigative Subcommittee was disturbed by 

the conduct of some of those who dealt with allegations regarding 

the conduct of former Representative Foley. When confronted with 

such allegations, the response of some individuals was limited to 

that necessary to shift notice and responsibility to those they believed more responsible for dealing with such matters. Other individuals took more direct action, but declined to probe deeply into 

the nature and scope of the allegations regarding Representative 

Foley or declined to follow-up to see if their efforts to intervene had 

any positive result. Others tried repeatedly to elevate the matter, 

but encountered obstacles in the chain of command that limited the 

effectiveness of their efforts. In all, a pattern of conduct was exhibited among many individuals to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of former Representative Foley’s conduct with 

respect to House pages. 

Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the specific conduct of 

some individuals who learned of certain allegations regarding Representative Foley, based on the specific facts presented, the Investigative Subcommittee did not find that any current House Members or employees violated the House Code of Official Conduct. The 

requirement that Members and staff act at all times in a manner 

that reflects creditably on the House does not mean that every 

error in judgment or failure to exercise greater oversight or diligence establishes a violation of House Rule 23. The Investigative 

Subcommittee therefore recommends no further investigative or 

disciplinary proceedings against any specific person. 

Nonetheless, this Report should serve as a strong reminder to 

Members, officers, and employees of the House that they are obligated to pursue specific and non-specific allegations of improper 

interaction between a Member or House employee and a particiVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
3 

pant in the House Page Program—even if the allegations are not 

readily verifiable or involve the sensitive subject of a Member’s personal relationship with a young person. The same standard applies 

regardless of whether the Member and page are of the same or opposite sex. The failure to exhaust all reasonable efforts to call attention to potential misconduct involving a Member and House 

page is not merely the exercise of poor judgment; it is a present 

danger to House pages and to the integrity of the institution of the 

House. 

The evidence obtained by the Investigative Subcommittee in this 

matter included, but was not limited to, the sworn testimony of 

eight Members of the House, and interviews and sworn testimony 

of 43 other witnesses. During the inquiry, approximately 3,500 

pages of transcribed sworn testimony and witness statements resulted from proceedings before the Investigative Subcommittee or 

interviews with Investigative Subcommittee counsel. In addition, 

the Investigative Subcommittee obtained hundreds of pages of documents supplied by witnesses. 

In addition to the foregoing, a description of the Investigative 

Subcommittee’s investigative efforts, and an explanation of all the 

Investigative Subcommittee’s findings are also contained in this 

Report. The Report also contains certain recommendations regarding the operation of the House of Representatives Page Program. 

II. CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY 

A. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INVESTIGATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE

The introduction of H. Res. 1065 and the empanelment of the Investigative Subcommittee in this matter followed the publication in 

the news media of several allegations related to Representative Foley’s conduct, as described below: 

That Representative Foley sent e-mails to a high school student 

who had formerly served as a House page sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander, and that such e-mails contained content 

that may not have been appropriate; 

That in addition to the e-mails sent to the former House page 

referenced above, Representative Foley sent instant messages over 

the Internet to one or more former House pages that contained sexually explicit and salacious language; 

That prior to the publication of the aforementioned e-mails or instant messages, one or more Members of the staff of Speaker J. 

Dennis Hastert had received information concerning Representative Foley’s e-mail communications with the former House page 

sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander; 

That prior to the publication of the aforementioned e-mails or instant messages, Representative John Shimkus, the Chairman of 

the House Page Board, and Jeff Trandahl, then the Clerk of the 

House and the supervising official of the House Page Program, had 

learned of the e-mails sent to the former page sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander and had taken certain actions in response to that information; and 

That Majority Leader John A. Boehner and Representative 

Thomas M. Reynolds had learned of information related to the emails sent by Representative Foley to the former House page sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander and had, independently 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
4 

2See Rule XI, Rules of the House of Representatives for the 109th Congress. 

3 In a press statement issued on October 3, 2006, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member announced that the full Committee would meet in executive session on October 5, 2006. 

of each other, brought this matter to the attention of Speaker 

Hastert. 

The publication in the news media of information related to the 

e-mails and instant messages sent by Representative Foley occurred during the week of September 25, 2006, and preceded his 

resignation from the House on September 29, 2006. 

During a meeting of the Committee held in executive session 2 on 

October 5, 2006, the Committee determined to establish an Investigative Subcommittee to inquire into this matter.3 The Investigative Subcommittee was established pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Committee during the meeting and in accordance with 

the House and Committee rules referenced in the resolution. In 

subsequent Investigative Subcommittee and Committee proceedings, the Investigative Subcommittee’s inquiry was referred to 

as the ‘‘Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Improper 

Conduct Involving Members and Current or Former House Pages.’’

The resolution adopted by the Committee provided as follows: 

Whereas certain allegations have arisen related to communications and interactions between former Representative Mark Foley and current or former participants in the 

U.S. House of Representatives Page Program; and 

Whereas certain additional allegations have arisen regarding the conduct of certain Members and employees of 

the House related to communications and interactions between former Representative Mark Foley and current or 

former participants in the U.S. House of Representatives 

Page Program; and 

Whereas the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee 

of the House, in connection with the aforementioned allegations, may have violated the Code of Official Conduct or 

one or more law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House in the performance of his or her duties 

or the discharge of his or her responsibilities; and 

Whereas the Committee has authority to investigate 

such conduct pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) 

and (3)(b)(2), and pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) 

and 18; and 

Whereas the Committee has determined pursuant to 

Committee Rule 1(c) that the interests of justice require 

the adoption of special procedures in order for the Committee to carry out its investigative and enforcement responsibilities with respect to the aforementioned allegations; 

It is hereby resolved by the Committee: 

1. That an Investigative Subcommittee be established 

with jurisdiction to conduct a full and complete inquiry 

and investigation into any conduct of House Members, officers and staff related to information concerning improper 

conduct involving Members and current and former House 

Pages; 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
5 

2. That the scope of the inquiry may extend to any matters related to the jurisdiction of the Investigative Subcommittee as set forth in this resolution; 

3. That the Investigative Subcommittee is authorized to 

advise the public at large that it is interested in receiving 

information and testimony from any person with first-hand 

information regarding the matters within the jurisdiction 

of the Investigative Subcommittee; 

4. That at the conclusion of its inquiry, the Investigative 

Subcommittee shall report to the Committee its findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations; 

5. That the Members of the Investigative Subcommittee 

shall be designated pursuant to Committee Rule 19(a); 

6. That Committee Rules 7 (Confidentiality), 8(a) (Subcommittees—General Policy and Structure), 9 (Quorums 

and Member Disqualification), and 10 (Vote Requirements) 

are fully applicable to this inquiry by the Investigative 

Subcommittee; 

7. That the Investigative Subcommittee is authorized to 

obtain evidence and relevant information by the means 

and in the manner set forth in Committee Rules 19(b)–(c), 

except as those rules apply to respondents; 

8. That witnesses before the Investigative Subcommittee 

shall be furnished with a copy of the special procedures for 

this inquiry (as set forth in this resolution), as well as accorded the rights set forth in Committee Rules 26(k)–(o); 

9. That the Committee intends that all witnesses who 

provide testimony before the Investigative Subcommittee 

should be sequestered and should not communicate with 

any other witnesses regarding any aspect of their testimony unless the Investigative Subcommittee permits otherwise; 

10. That except as otherwise provided in this Resolution, the Rules of the Committee shall be applicable in this 

matter and will be interpreted by the Investigative Subcommittee and the Committee in a manner not inconsistent with this Resolution. 

In a public statement issued on October 5, 2006, the Chairman 

and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee announced that 

the Chairman of the full Committee, Representative Doc Hastings, 

would serve as Chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee, and 

that the Ranking Minority Member of the full Committee, Representative Howard L. Berman, would serve as the Ranking Minority Member of the Investigative Subcommittee. It was further announced in the statement that the next most senior members of the 

full Committee, Representative Judy Biggert and Representative 

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, would also serve as Members of the Investigative Subcommittee. 

In a separate statement also made on October 5, 2006 regarding 

the inquiry, Chairman Hastings and Ranking Minority Member 

Berman announced that: 

[S]hortly following the meeting of the full Ethics Committee, our new investigative subcommittee met for the 

first time and unanimously approved nearly four dozen 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
6 

subpoenas for documents and testimony. Many of the individuals we plan to talk with are Members, officers, and 

staff of the House. For that reason, we sincerely hope most 

of the subpoenas we authorized today will prove unnecessary, because we believe that most of those individuals 

share our desire to get quick and truthful answers to the 

questions being asked by so many Americans. 

B. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS

The Investigative Subcommittee was established on October 5, 

2006 and determined to commence work immediately and at a 

rapid pace. As noted, the Investigative Subcommittee authorized 

the issuance of numerous subpoenas even before the Committee’s 

public announcement of its empanelment. The Investigative Subcommittee’s investigative work continued until December 4, 2006, 

the last date that the Subcommittee met to receive sworn testimony from a witness. Each of the four Members of the Investigative Subcommittee returned multiple times to Washington, D.C. 

during the October and November recess periods for the purpose of 

conducting the Subcommittee’s work. In addition, Members of the 

Investigative Subcommittee received updates from staff and deliberated informally with each other in person and by telephone 

throughout this inquiry. The Investigative Subcommittee acknowledges the commitment and effort of staff in assisting the Subcommittee, including William O’Reilly, Ed Cassidy, Bari Schwartz, 

Ken Kellner, Morgan Kim, Pete Van Hartesveldt, Stan Simpson, 

and Carol Dixon. 

The accelerated pace of this inquiry was necessitated for several 

reasons. First, in empanelling the Investigative Subcommittee, the 

Committee recognized the seriousness of a matter involving highly 

improper communications between a Member of Congress and a 

high school student who had served as a congressional page. Second, the Committee and Investigative Subcommittee recognized the 

need to obtain information and testimony from as many witnesses 

as possible as quickly as possible, in order that the testimony and 

recollections of those witnesses would not be impacted either by the 

extraordinary media coverage of this matter, or by communications 

and interactions amongst themselves regarding the events under 

review. 

In this regard, the Committee and Investigative Subcommittee 

took measures to discourage communications between witnesses before the Investigative Subcommittee regarding their testimony. 

These measures were taken for the purpose of maintaining the confidentiality and reliability of information provided by and asked of 

witnesses during this inquiry, and to discourage attempts to deliberately or inadvertently orchestrate or coordinate testimony before 

the Investigative Subcommittee. The Committee addressed these 

concerns directly in the resolution it adopted on October 5, 2006. 

One of the special procedures included in the resolution in accordance with Committee Rule 1(c) provides that, unless the Investigative Subcommittee permitted otherwise, witnesses who provided 

testimony to the Investigative Subcommittee should be sequestered 

from other witnesses. 

Each witness before the Investigative Subcommittee was provided with a copy of the Committee’s resolution containing the seVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
7 

4See Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on the Medicare Prescription 

Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, H. Rep. 108–722, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. 

(Oct. 4, 2004) at 13–14. 5Some Subcommittee Members believe that House Rules should be amended to prohibit such 

multiple representation. 

questration provision. In addition, correspondence to witnesses specifically referenced the sequestration provision and informed witnesses that the Investigative Subcommittee would ‘‘inquire on the 

record’’ regarding witnesses’ compliance with the instruction that 

communications with the Investigative Subcommittee be kept confidential. In addition, nearly every proceeding before the Investigative Subcommittee and its counsel included an ‘‘on the record’’ inquiry regarding communications a witness may have had related to 

his or her contact with the Investigative Subcommittee, and every 

proceeding concluded with an admonishment that the witness 

should continue to comply with the resolution’s sequestration provision. Based on Committee precedent, it was the position of the Investigative Subcommittee that Members and employees of the 

House were obligated to comply with the sequestration rule and 

not discuss any aspect of their testimony with anyone other than 

their counsel, and that failure to comply with this request could 

form the basis of disciplinary proceedings in the House in accordance with House and Committee rules.4

The Investigative Subcommittee encountered representation of 

more than one witness by the same attorney.5 Speaker J. Dennis 

Hastert and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Mike Stokke, were both represented during their depositions by attorney J. Randolph Evans of 

the law firm of McKenna, Long and Aldridge. Mr. Evans also 

served as counsel to Speaker Hastert for the purposes of the preparation an ‘‘Internal Review of Contacts with the Office of the 

Speaker Regarding the Congressman Mark Foley Matter,’’ that will 

be discussed in more detail in the factual narrative of this Report. 

Tim Kennedy, Special Assistant in the Speaker’s Office, was represented by Stefan Passantino, also of the law firm of McKenna, 

Long and Aldridge. Mr. Passantino also attended the deposition of 

Mike Stokke, as co-counsel to Mr. Evans. Finally, both Representative Rodney Alexander and his Chief of Staff, Royal Alexander, 

were represented during their separate depositions by Craig Smith 

and Richard John. The Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude that any attorney had disclosed the specific testimony of a 

witness to any other witness that the same attorney represented. 

As noted, the Investigative Subcommittee began its work on October 5, 2006. One of the first steps taken by the Investigative Subcommittee, in addition to the authorization of subpoenas for documents and testimony, was to issue a ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letter for the 

‘‘immediate and personal attention’’ of all House Members. The letter, signed by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 

Investigative Subcommittee, was distributed to all House offices on 

October 6, 2006, and contained the following text: 

As you may know, an Investigative Subcommittee of the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the ‘‘Committee’’) has been empanelled to conduct an inquiry regarding any conduct of House Members, officers and staff 

related to information concerning improper conduct involving Members and current and former House Pages. We are 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
8 

contacting you now in our capacities as Chairman and 

Ranking Minority Member of that Investigative Subcommittee. 

The purpose of this letter is to notify all Members that 

it is the expectation of the Investigative Subcommittee 

that any Members with information related to the matter 

under investigation will bring such information to the attention of the Investigative Subcommittee. Such information should include, but not be limited to, any information 

related in any way to communications or interactions between former Representative Mark Foley and any current 

or former participants in the House Page Program. In this 

regard, you should inquire of staff under your supervision 

as to relevant information in their possession. 

In order to assist the Investigative Subcommittee with 

its inquiry, we also request that you contact current and 

former House Pages sponsored by your office for the purpose of learning whether any of those individuals had any 

inappropriate communications or interactions with former 

Representative Foley or any other Member of the House. 

You should advise all Pages contacted that any information gained pursuant to your inquiry will be shared with 

the Investigative Subcommittee, and will be maintained by 

the Investigative Subcommittee in a confidential manner 

consistent with House and Committee rules. 

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you 

have any questions, or if you have information to provide 

to the Investigative Subcommittee, please contact Committee Chief Counsel William V. O’Reilly at (202) 225– 7103. 

The Investigative Subcommittee acknowledges here its receipt 

from many House offices of information obtained from efforts to 

contact current and former House pages. Additional information 

was obtained by the Investigative Subcommittee from a designated 

toll-free telephone number established within the Office of the 

Clerk of the House for the purpose of reporting information concerning House Pages or the House Page Program. Some, but not 

all, of the information received from these sources developed into 

leads or formal investigative actions. 

The most critical evidence obtained by the Investigative Subcommittee was the approximately 3,500 pages of transcribed sworn 

testimony and witness statements procured during proceedings before the Investigative Subcommittee or during interviews with Investigative Subcommittee counsel. In addition, hundreds of pages 

of documents were collectively supplied to the Investigative Subcommittee by witnesses. The Investigative Subcommittee also obtained and reviewed publicly-available records, including published 

press releases and news articles. 

In total during its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee formally deposed eight Members of the House, including Speaker J. 

Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Representative 

Rodney Alexander, Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, and Representative Jim Kolbe, as well as the three House Members that 

serve on the House Page Board, Representative Shelley Moore 

Capito, Representative John Shimkus, and Representative Dale 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
9 

6See Committee Rule 19(b)(6). 

7 A copy of the document subpoena is at Exhibit 2. A copy of the subpoena for testimony is 

at Exhibit 3. 

Kildee. Nine current House employees were also deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee, as well as nine individuals not affiliated 

with the House (including some former House employees and 

former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl). The House Sergeant at 

Arms, Wilson Livingood, who is also a member of the House Page 

Board, was also deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee. Each 

of the witnesses who were deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee was placed under oath.6 At least two Members of the Investigative Subcommittee were present at all times for all sworn 

depositions as required by Committee rules. In addition, as authorized by the Investigative Subcommittee, counsel for the Investigative Subcommittee interviewed approximately 30 other individuals, 

including current House Clerk Karen L. Haas, supervising and 

non-supervising employees of the House Page Program, and several 

other current House employees. The majority of the interviews 

were transcribed by a stenographer with the consent of the individual being interviewed. In addition, the Investigative Subcommittee received information informally from several witnesses, 

including information supplied by their counsel. The Committee 

considered statements of witnesses not placed under oath to be 

subject to the ‘‘false statements’’ criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 

as amended in 1996. That statute, among other things, prohibits 

knowingly and willfully making any materially false statement or 

concealing a material fact in ‘‘any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee . . . of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.’’

The Investigative Subcommittee notes the cooperation of Members of the House during the Investigative Subcommittee’s inquiry. 

No Member of the House that was asked to provide voluntary testimony declined to do so, although Representative Kolbe limited the 

scope of his testimony as described in Section V of this Report. 

The Investigative Subcommittee did not obtain testimony from 

former Representative Mark Foley. After Representative Foley resigned from Congress, he left Washington and returned to Florida. 

He then entered a rehabilitation facility in Tucson, Arizona, reportedly for treatment of alcoholism. After thirty days, Representative 

Foley announced that he intended to remain in the rehabilitation 

facility for an additional thirty days. At the same time, several 

state and local law enforcement agencies announced that they were 

beginning preliminary investigations into whether Rep. Foley had 

engaged in criminal activity with former pages or other young men. 

On November 16, 2006, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement announced that it had opened a criminal investigation after 

its preliminary inquiry. On November 16, 2006, the Investigative 

Subcommittee issued subpoenas for documents and testimony to 

Representative Foley.7 Representative Foley’s counsel responded on 

November 21, 2006, asking that the Subcommittee defer the subpoenas in light of the pending criminal investigations. Representative Foley’s counsel also stated that if Representative Foley were 

made to appear for testimony he would invoke the Fifth AmendVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
10 

8 Exhibit 4. 

9 Initially, Members sponsored young boys for the positions, many of whom were destitute or orphaned. By 1842, the number of pages was capped at eight, each of whom earned $2 per day. 

In the period after the Civil War, the number of pages serving each Congress expanded to several dozen. 10Sampson has held her position for just over 20 years. Interview Transcript of Peggy Sampson (hereinafter Sampson Int. Tr.) at 4. Ivester was hired in September 1995. Wren Ivester 

Interview Transcript (hereinafter Ivester Int. Tr.) at 2. 

ment and refuse to testify.8 The Investigative Subcommittee determined that both deferring questioning of Representative Foley until 

resolution of any criminal proceedings and instituting enforcement 

proceedings to compel compliance with the subpoenas would unnecessarily delay the issuance of this report. The Subcommittee has 

therefore chosen to issue this report without the benefit of Representative Foley’s testimony. 

Finally, the Investigative Subcommittee notes the receipt of a 

communication from the Department of Justice advising it that the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting a ‘‘preliminary investigation’’ of the activities of former Representative Mark Foley, and 

requesting that the Investigative Subcommittee conduct its inquiry 

in a manner that would not interfere with federal law enforcement 

interests. Among the requests made by the Department of Justice 

was that that entity be permitted to complete its interviews of any 

current or former House Pages with relevant information before 

such interviews are conducted by the Investigative Subcommittee 

or its counsel. 

III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

A. THE PAGE PROGRAM

The House of Representatives has been employing pages from 

the earliest Congresses. The first three known ‘‘pages’’ served during the 20th Congress (1827–29). Today, there are approximately 

70 pages in each academic year class.9

The duties of a House page consist primarily of delivering correspondence, legislative materials, and small packages within the 

Capitol complex. Pages are also assigned to answer phones in the 

Members’ Cloakrooms, take messages for Members, and prepare 

the House floor for sessions. Pages are paid employees of the House 

and presently earn a gross salary of $1,568.08 per month. Depending on the party affiliation of their sponsoring Member, pages are 

currently supervised either by majority chief page supervisor Peggy 

Sampson or minority chief page supervisor, Wren Ivester.10

1. Eligibility and selection process 

Pages generally serve either during the fall or spring semester, 

or during one of two summer terms. All academic year applicants 

must be high school juniors who will be at least sixteen years old 

on the date they begin their term. In addition, academic year applicants must attend Page School, which requires at least a 3.0 grade 

point average for acceptance. Applicants for the summer program, 

which has no grade point average requirement, may include rising 

high school juniors or rising seniors. Page School is not offered during the summer terms. 

Applicants must be sponsored by a Member of Congress. Because 

of the limited number of page positions, not all Members can sponVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
11 

11Grace Crews Interview Transcript (hereinafter Crews Int. Tr.) at 7–8; John Leekley Interview Transcript (hereinafter Leekley Int. Tr.) at 6; Sampson Int. Tr. at 13; Interview Summary 

of Ellen McNamara (hereinafter McNamara Int. Sum.). 12Karen Haas Interview Transcript (hereinafter Haas Int. Tr.) at 12, 14. Prior to being promoted to the position of Clerk of the House, Haas had worked since June of 1999 as a floor 

assistant under Speaker Hastert. 13 Haas Int. Tr. at 32. 14 Haas Int. Tr. at 31; McNamara Int. Sum. 15McNamara Int. Sum. 16 Crews Int. Tr. at 3. 17Leekley Int. Tr. at 3–4. 

sor a page at the same time. Application requirements vary according to Member and political party, but they may include a written 

essay, resume of extracurricular activities, and letters of recommendation. Once sponsored, selection to participate in the page 

program is made at the discretion of the Speaker of the House or 

the Minority Leader. 

2. Organization of the page program 

The Page Program consists of three components, informally referred to as ‘‘the triangle’’ by those within the program. These components represent the three aspects of page life—living in the 

House Page Residence Hall, attending classes at the House Page 

School, and working on the House floor and throughout the Capitol 

complex.11

The Clerk of the House has the responsibility for administering 

the page program. Karen Haas is the current Clerk and has held 

this position since her appointment by Speaker Dennis Hastert on 

November 18, 2005.12 Although Haas is ultimately responsible for 

the page program, much of the day-to-day activity and operation of 

the program is delegated to the administrators of the triangle components. These individuals include the principal of the Page School, 

the director of the Page Residence Hall, and the majority and minority chief page supervisors, each of whom is required to submit 

a weekly status report to Haas and to attend a regular Tuesday 

morning ‘‘chiefs’’ meeting.13

Reporting directly to the Clerk and assisting with her page program responsibilities is the page program coordinator, currently 

Ellen McNamara.14 McNamara acts as a liaison between the Clerk 

and the page program administrators. Her duties also include processing and maintaining page applications, communicating with 

parents, assisting with the updating and distribution of the page 

handbook.15 McNamara has served as the page program coordinator since January 2006, succeeding Grace Crews, who had held 

the position for approximately eight years.16

3. The House Page Residence Hall 

Pages have been living at the Residence Hall’s present site located three blocks from the Capitol at 501 First Street, SE, since 

it opened in the fall of 2001. Previously, pages were housed in the 

Old Congressional Hotel. John Leekley is the current director of 

the Page Residence Hall. He was promoted to the position in August of 2004 after having spent one year as the Hall’s assistant director and two years as a proctor.17 Reporting directly to Leekley 

are the assistant director, a tutor, an office coordinator, and four 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
12 

18Leekley Int. Tr. at 5. 19Leekley Int. Tr. at 15. 20Leekley Int. Tr. at 13. 21 2 U.S.C. § 88b A092. 

House of Representatives Page Board; establishment and purpose. 

Until otherwise provided by law, there is hereby established a board to be known as 

the House of Representatives Page Board to ensure that the page program is conducted 

in a manner that is consistent with the efficient functioning of the House and the welfare of the pages. 22 2 U.S.C. § 88b A093. 

proctors.18 Leekley and each of his staff live at the Residence 

Hall.19

The Page Residence Hall is governed by strict rules. The first 

floor of the Residence Hall is designated for male residents and the 

second floor for females. The U.S. Capitol Police provide security 

for the building. Officers conduct foot patrols and man a lobby desk 

24 hours per day. Both residents and visitors must present identification and sign in when entering the building. In addition, pages 

are required to sign out each time they leave the building and disclose their destination. They must also have an escort or ‘‘buddy,’’

which may be another page, a parent, or parentally-approved adult 

over the age of 21, at all times when outside the Residence Hall. 

Curfew at the Residence Hall is 10 p.m. from Sunday through 

Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday. A ‘‘bed check’’ is 

performed every night by the proctors. Permission to be away from 

the Residence Hall overnight may be granted by the director upon 

written and verbal consent of the parents. A computer lab that 

pages can utilize to do their homework is located on the second 

floor of the Residence Hall. Like all House employees, pages are assigned a user ID and password. Pages do not, however, have a 

House e-mail account, but they are permitted to use e-mail through 

other Internet service providers.20

4. The House Page School 

Pages were first required to attend school following the passage 

of the 1925 Compulsory School Attendance Act. The first Page 

School consisted of a single room and was located in the Capitol 

basement. In 1949, the Page School was moved into the Jefferson 

Building of the Library of Congress, where it remains today. 

The Page School is fully accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools. Students are entitled to have the 

grades and credits earned at the Page School transferred to their 

home high schools. Because most pages pursue higher education, 

the School provides an honors college preparatory curriculum. 

5. The Page Board 

Oversight of the Page Program is vested with the Page Board. 

Created by statute in 1982 following the Speaker’s Commission on 

Pages, the Page Board was established to ‘‘ensure that the Page 

Program is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the efficient functioning of the House and welfare of the pages.’’ 21 Following the adoption of the statute by the 97th Congress, the first 

members of the Page Board were appointed. The Board consists of 

two Members from the Majority party selected by the Speaker, one 

Member from the Minority party selected by the Minority Leader, 

the Clerk of the House and the House Sergeant at Arms.22


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
13 

23Page Handbook, Fall 2006–Spring 2007. 24 Representative Dale Kildee Deposition (hereinafter Kildee Dep.) at 12–13. 25Kildee Dep. at 5. 26McNamara Int. Sum. 27Kildee Dep. at 13–14. 28Kildee Dep. at 13; Representative John Shimkus Deposition (hereinafter Shimkus Dep.) at 

5. 29Page Handbook, Fall 2006–Spring 2007 at I–26 to I–27. 30Leekley Int. Tr. at 22. 31See generally House Rule I. 

Presently, the Page Board is comprised of Republican Members 

Shelly Moore Capito and John Shimkus, who also serves as Chairman, Democratic Member Dale Kildee, Clerk of the House Karen 

Haas, and Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood. In addition, former 

Clerk of the House Donnald Anderson was appointed Member 

Emeritus of the Page Board following his retirement from the 

House in 1995.23

The Page Board does not have regularly scheduled meetings. 

Rather, it meets on an as-needed basis to deal with any emergencies, page-related issues, or staffing issues that may arise.24 Decisions made by the Page Board are generally reached through consensus rather than by a formal vote of the members.25 As discussed 

more fully below, a Page Board meeting was held on the evening 

of September 29, 2006, following the resignation of Rep. Foley. 

Aside from this meeting, the only other Page Board meeting that 

occurred in 2006 was held on March 14.26 There was only one Page 

Board meeting in 2005 and two in 2004. 

Outside the context of Page Board meetings, communication 

among and between its members is done informally; there are no 

formal rules or procedures.27 There is also a measure of deference 

accorded to the chairman and his decision-making concerning many 

recurring or routine issues. In situations involving the expulsion of 

a page, for example, the chairman works closely with the Clerk of 

the House in reaching such a decision. His subsequent consultation 

with the remaining Page Board members before implementing the 

decision is more of a formality or ‘‘courtesy’’ to the members rather 

than an attempt to seek their input on the matter.28

6. Harassment Policy 

The Page Handbook sets forth a policy on harassment. This policy prohibits not only sexual harassment, but also harassment on 

the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Under the policy, any page who believes that he or she has been subjected to or 

has witnessed actions that violate the harassment policy are advised to promptly report the violation to his or her ‘‘direct supervisor, the next level supervisor, or any other management official 

with whom the employee feels comfortable discussing such 

issues.’’ 29 The harassment policy is discussed and explained to the 

pages at their initial orientation session. In addition, all pages are 

required to attend mandatory sexual harassment training conducted by the Office of House Employment Counsel.30

B. THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

The Speaker’s most prominent role is that of presiding officer of 

the House,31 and in this capacity he is empowered by House rules 

to administer proceedings on the House floor, including the power 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
14 

32See House Rule I, clauses 1, 2. 33See generally House Rule I. 34Scott Palmer Deposition (hereinafter Palmer Dep.) at 5. 35Speaker J. Dennis Hastert Deposition (hereinafter Hastert Dep.) at 17. 36 Hastert Dep. at 17. 37 Hastert Dep. at 17. 38Mike Stokke Deposition (hereinafter Stokke Dep.) at 9. 39 Hastert Dep. at 17. 40 Hastert Dep. at 17. 41 Hastert Dep. at 18; see also Palmer Dep. at 11–12 (‘‘Mike concentrates on sort of the Member services aspect of things, and he also oversees the press operation and he deals with all 

things political.’’). 42Stokke described his duties as ‘‘Member service types of issues. So it could be anything from 

people seeking to be on a committee, to people who wish to forward some sort of legislation, 

to people who have legislation whose legislation isn’t moving in a committee, to any number 

of things that Members would find of interest and wish to seek out the Speaker’s assistance on.’’ Stokke Dep. at 7–8. 43Stokke Dep. at 8–9. 44 Hastert Dep. at 18–19. 45Stokke Dep. at 10. 

to recognize Members on the floor to speak or make motions and 

the power to appoint Members to conference committees.32 The 

Speaker also oversees much of the non-legislative business of the 

House, such as exercising general control over the Hall of the 

House and the House side of the Capitol.33

J. Dennis Hastert became House Speaker on January 6, 1999. 

Scott Palmer has been chief of staff to Speaker Hastert for the entire time Hastert has served as Speaker.34 According to Speaker 

Hastert, Palmer’s ‘‘job is the day-to-day operation of the House.’’ 35

In his capacity as chief of staff to the Speaker, Palmer ‘‘deals with 

other staff—Chiefs of Staff, Senate staff—on issues that are before 

the House, usually policy issues.’’ 36 According to Speaker Hastert, 

Palmer’s ‘‘realm is more in the policy [ ] issues, but he also would 

deal with personnel issues as well. He ostensibly is over all staff, 

our district staff, our staff back in Illinois. So he has a broad responsibility.’’ 37

The deputy chief of staff in the Office of the Speaker is Mike 

Stokke, and he has held that position for approximately eight 

years. 38 According to Speaker Hastert, Stokke ‘‘really is kind of a 

Member management type of situation. People come in and have 

a complaint, they see Mike.’’ 39 In addition, Stokke handles any ‘‘political issues’’ a Member might have.40 ‘‘If it’s political policy, he’s 

out of my office and does that over in the [National Republican 

Congressional Committee]. But that’s also part of Member maintenance, you know. So if somebody has something that they want politically, they go see Mike.’’ 41 In general, Stokke is responsible for, 

among other things, helping Members with issues on which they 

wish to have the Speaker’s assistance.42 In addition to his salary 

for working in the Speaker’s office, Stokke receives compensation 

for work performed for political committees controlled by Speaker 

Hastert.43

Speaker Hastert testified that matters involving a Member’s conduct would be addressed by Palmer, but ‘‘if Scott was overburdened 

with something, Stokke might pick up the loose ends. But, you 

know, if it was something that was important, really needed my attention, it would bubble to me eventually. I mean, that is basically 

the process.’’ 44 Stokke testified that he would report directly to the 

Speaker on most things, but he would report to Palmer on matters 

that were within Palmer’s area of responsibilities.45 ‘‘We speak because we’re in the same office. But I don’t raise things to his attenVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
15 

46Stokke Dep. at 11. 47Ted Van Der Meid Deposition (hereinafter Van Der Meid Dep.) at 8, 185. 48 Hastert Dep. at 21. 49 Hastert Dep. at 21. 50 Van Der Meid Dep. at 9. 51 Van Der Meid Dep. at 14, 18. 52 Hastert Dep. at 60; Van Der Meid Dep. at 24; Palmer Dep. at 12; Tim Kennedy Deposition 

(hereinafter Kennedy Dep.) at 13; Jeff Trandahl Deposition (hereinafter Trandahl Dep.) at 90. 53Stokke Dep. at 18. 54Kirk Fordham Deposition (hereinafter Fordham Dep.) at 5. ‘‘Generally, throughout the 10 

years that I worked with Mr. Foley, there was a fairly common friendliness that he exhibited 

towards all staff. Those of you that have met him probably know he was overly friendly with 

everyone. He talks to Members, he talks to staff, he talks to interns, pages.’’ 55Fordham Dep. at 6–7. 56 Interview Summary of Tim Harroun. 57Trandahl Dep. at 7. 58Gerasimos Vans Interview Transcript (hereinafter Vans Int. Tr.) at 6–8. 

tion, generally speaking, because what I’m doing is often different 

than what he’s doing.’’ 46

Ted Van Der Meid is counsel to the Speaker’s office and director 

of floor operations.47 According to Speaker Hastert, Van Der Meid 

was ‘‘the first red flag guy on anything.’’ 48 Van Der Meid ‘‘deals 

with all the constitutional offices of the Congress, plus things like 

the Architect’s Office and all of the other entities that exist around 

here. So he is kind of the overseer, the liaison with those groups. 

. . . [H]e would be the first person I would go ask a question of 

what is proper to do or what is not proper to do.’’ 49 Among other 

matters, Van Der Meid handles financial disclosure issues and trip 

requests, and he is liaison to the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory 

Group.50 Van Der Meid reports to Scott Palmer, but he can bring 

matters up directly with the Speaker.51 Within the Speaker’s Office, because of his role as liaison to the Office of the Clerk, Van 

Der Meid is assigned matters having to do with the House page 

program.52 Stokke and Van Der Meid share an office, together with 

their shared assistant Tim Kennedy.53

IV. NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

A. REPRESENTATIVE MARK FOLEY

1. Representative Foley’s interaction with pages generally 

Representative Mark Foley was first sworn in as a Member of 

the House of Representatives in January 1995 at the beginning of 

the 104th Congress. From the beginning of his tenure, Representative Foley reportedly showed ‘‘a fairly common friendliness’’ to 

Members and staff alike.54 Various persons also began to observe 

Representative Foley’s particular interest in young male staff, interns, and House pages. Representative Foley’s chief of staff, Kirk 

Fordham, was told by another Member’s office soon after Foley 

took office that Representative Foley had been placing phone calls 

to a young male intern in that Member’s office.55 In another example, a young male custodian complained to cloakroom staff that 

Representative Foley had become ‘‘too friendly’’ towards him.56

Jeff Trandahl began employment in the Clerk’s office in 1995 as 

an assistant clerk, later moving to the position of deputy clerk.57

During this period, even though he was not yet Clerk of the House 

(a position he was elected to in January 1999), Trandahl exercised 

a significant management role over the page program.58 In this capacity, Trandahl became concerned that Representative Foley was 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
16 

59Trandahl Dep. at 12, 14. 60Trandahl Dep. at 13. 61Sampson Int. Tr. at 39, 41–42. 62Sampson Int. Tr. at 31. 63Sampson Int. Tr. at 41–42. 64Trandahl Dep. at 15–16. 65 Van Der Meid Dep. at 94–100. 66Sampson Int. Tr. at 44–46. 

spending too much time with pages, and that his relationship with 

the pages was too familiar.59 He termed Representative Foley a 

‘‘nuisance,’’ which he described as: 

[P]eople who got too involved in the program. They 

didn’t keep a professional distance, they didn’t maintain—

they went to a personal level with relationships, instead of 

holding professional level. And I would have different experiences through my career; but, for example, I would 

have people [Members] come to complain to me because a 

page complained to them about a math test. And it’s so out 

of what I would view the reasonable and normal that 

Members would have that level of interaction or interest. 

And I would have those experiences with him. And I would 

ask him, you know, to maintain that professional distance 

and not to get overinvolved in the personal aspects of the 

kids interacting with each other.60

Trandahl’s concerns in this regard continued following his election as Clerk of the House in 1999. In addition to his own observations, he also began to receive complaints from page program staff. 

For example, Peggy Sampson, the majority chief page supervisor, 

had similarly become concerned with Representative Foley spending too much time with pages on the House floor and generally 

interfering with the performance of their duties.61 Sampson observed Representative Foley to be particularly interested in male 

pages and testified that Representative Foley’s interactions gave 

her a ‘‘creepy feeling.’’ 62 Sampson tried to stay in the vicinity when 

Representative Foley was near the pages, but she did not see Representative Foley inappropriately touch any page or hear him say 

anything inappropriate.63

2. Representative Foley’s reported page dorm visits 

Representative Foley also reportedly appeared at the page residence hall after curfew on at least two occasions. A number of witnesses testified that they had been told about an incident where 

Representative Foley appeared at the page dorm, possibly intoxicated, and was turned away by Capitol Police. Trandahl recalled 

that he had heard about this incident from residence hall staff 

sometime before 2000, possibly before he became Clerk.64 Ted Van 

Der Meid, the Speaker’s counsel and director of floor operations, 

testified that he had heard about this incident from Trandahl 

‘‘many years ago.’’ He recalls that Trandahl told him that he had 

gotten a call from the Capitol Police indicating that Representative 

Foley was outside the page dorm publicly intoxicated and that 

Trandahl may have told him that he had to take Foley home.65

Sampson similarly testified that Trandahl had told her about the 

incident sometime prior to when the new page dorm opened in September 2001.66 Kirk Fordham also recalled hearing about this inciVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
17 

67Fordham Dep. at 19–20. 68Wilson Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms since 1995, who is a member of the House 

Page Board and also a member of the board of the Capitol Police, testified that he had no knowledge of any incident involving Representative Foley appearing outside the page dorm. Wilson 

Livingood Deposition (hereinafter Livingood Dep.) at 14. Livingood also testified that he asked 

the Chief of the Capitol Police to search their files for any record of such an incident. Livingood 

received a letter signed by acting chief of police, Christopher M. McGaffin, dated October 16, 

2006, stating, ‘‘After a comprehensive search of Department reports and record files, no written 

police report has been discovered that addresses any police matter involving former Congressman Foley.’’ Exhibit 5. 69 Janelle Pulis Interview Transcript at 7–9. 70Deposition of the Former Kolbe Page (hereinafter Former Kolbe Page Dep.) at 5, 8–10. 71Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 8. 72Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 18. 73Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 10, 11. 74Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 18, 19. 

dent from Trandahl, but he believes that it occurred in 2002 or 

2003.67 The Investigative Subcommittee heard no testimony from 

any person who actually witnessed this event, nor did the Investigative Subcommittee obtain any other direct evidence reflecting 

any such appearance by Representative Foley at the page dorm.68

An apparently separate incident occurred in June 2000 during 

the pages’ customary end-of-semester ‘‘all night party,’’ during 

which the pages are permitted to stay up past curfew on the residence hall grounds under the supervision of residence hall staff. At 

about 10 or 11 p.m., a man in a convertible appeared in front of 

the residence hall, and before the supervising staff member was 

able to react, two or more pages had gotten into the car with the 

man and driven away. The staff member learned from other pages 

that the man was Representative Foley, and she then contacted the 

residence hall director for guidance. Upon learning that the man 

was Representative Foley, the director was reportedly unconcerned, 

and the pages reportedly returned shortly thereafter.69

3. Former page sponsored By Representative Kolbe 

During the fall of 2001, a former page who had been sponsored 

by Rep. Jim Kolbe contacted Rep. Kolbe to report that he had received an instant message (‘‘IM’’) from Rep. Foley that had made 

him uncomfortable. 

Rep. Foley’s contact with the former page began while he was 

still a page during the 1999–2000 academic year.70 On the last day 

of the program, Rep. Foley gave the former page his e-mail address 

and also told him that the address was also Foley’s ‘‘Instant Messenger sign-in.’’ 71 The former page kept in contact with Rep. Foley 

from the time he left the page program, and he testified that he 

does not recall any inappropriate communications from Rep. Foley 

until the fall of 2001.72 Among other things, the former page requested that Rep. Foley provide a letter of recommendation for college, which Rep. Foley did.73

In approximately October 2001, while he was a freshman in college, the former Kolbe page told Rep. Foley in an IM conversation 

that his girlfriend was coming to visit him. While the former page 

cannot recall the precise wording of the IM he received in response, 

he recalls that Rep. Foley made reference to the size of his penis.74

According to the former Kolbe page, after consulting with his parents, he forwarded Foley’s IM as an attachment to an e-mail directly to Rep. Kolbe through Rep. Kolbe’s personal e-mail account. 

In his e-mail to Rep. Kolbe, the former Kolbe page explained that 

Rep. Foley had said something inappropriate to him and asked 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
18 

75Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 25. 76Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 30. ‘‘And I figured at that point that either Mr. Kolbe had spoken with him because it was overtly—you know, it was overtly apologetic and to a point where 

he must have gotten a scolding since he was speaking like that, not a simple apology.’’ 77Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 31. 78Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 46. 79Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 45–46. 80Kolbe later explained that it was Baugh who contacted the Clerk’s office. Representative 

Jim Kolbe Deposition (hereinafter Kolbe Dep.) at 71–72. 

Rep. Kolbe to ‘‘take care of it.’’ The former Kolbe page did not request any particular resolution, believing that such a request 

would be ‘‘presumptuous.’’ 75

About a week later, the former Kolbe page received another email from Rep. Foley apologizing for making him feel uncomfortable. The former Kolbe page believes that Rep. Foley’s apology may 

have resulted from his communication to Rep. Kolbe.76 The former 

Kolbe page accepted the apology and considered the matter 

closed.77 The former Kolbe page continued to communicate with 

Rep. Foley after the incident, and he told the Subcommittee that 

Rep. Foley did not say or do anything inappropriate again.78 Later 

in the fall of 2001, Rep. Foley and the former Kolbe page had dinner together when they were both in the same city. The former 

Kolbe page stated, ‘‘I went to dinner with him, Dutch, down the 

middle, perfectly acceptable conversation. . . . I considered it a networking issue. I was really happy to do it. I didn’t think it was 

anything inappropriate at that time. I know he was being appropriate at that time.’’ 79

Rep. Kolbe recalls having been contacted by his former page 

about Rep. Foley, but denies having seen the actual IM. Rep. Kolbe 

provided the following account: 

Either [the former page] called me or he called Patrick 

Baugh, my assistant, and said that he had had—and it 

may have been an e-mail or a phone call—and said that 

he had had an e-mail from Congressman Foley, and I cannot tell you the word he used, but the essence of it was 

that it made him feel uncomfortable. 

My best recollection is that it was Patrick Baugh that 

came to me and said, we’ve had this contact from [the 

former page], and he’s asked us to contact Mr. Foley’s office—Mr. Foley—to ask Mr. Foley to cease communications 

with him. I did not see any communication that [the 

former page] had received, and as far as I know Mr. Baugh 

had not either seen that. 

When he came to me and I went to Patrick or Patrick 

got it and came to me, the next step we both agreed upon 

immediately was to contact Mr. Foley’s Chief of Staff, Kirk 

Fordham, who I had known before Mr. Foley came to Congress because he was a staff person for another Member 

of Congress, and suggest to him that he tell his Member 

to cease communications. Within a matter of 2 or 3 minutes, Patrick Baugh came back into my office and said, 

‘‘Message delivered.’’ And I also called the Clerk’s Office to 

tell them what we had done,80 and I said, ‘‘Fine.’’ That was 

the end of it. I do not believe I even called [the former 

page] back to tell him the message had been delivered, but 

there was no—apparently no—as far as I was concerned, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
19 

81Kolbe Dep. at 16–17. 82Patrick Baugh Deposition (hereinafter Baugh Dep.) at 16. 83 Baugh Dep. at 12. 84Frances McNaught Deposition (hereinafter McNaught Dep.) at 8. 85McNaught Dep. at 12. 86 Baugh Dep. at 18. 87 Baugh Dep. at 18. 88 Baugh Dep. at 5. 89 Baugh Dep. at 23. 90 Baugh Dep. at 23–24. 91Kolbe Dep. at 72. 

the issue was closed. [The former page] never contacted me 

again on that matter.81

Baugh says that the former Kolbe page contacted Rep. Kolbe directly, not him, and that he discussed the matter with Rep. Kolbe 

and Kolbe’s chief of staff, Fran McNaught after the page had contacted Rep. Kolbe. He says that Rep. Kolbe directed him to ‘‘talk 

to Kirk Fordham and to ask him to basically ask Mr. Foley or tell 

Mr. Foley to stop whatever communication he was having with’’ the 

former page.82 Baugh testified that Kolbe did not show him an email or IM, or tell him anything other than that the former page 

was made ‘‘uncomfortable’’ because of ‘‘inappropriate e-mails that 

[the former page] had received from Congressman Foley.’’ 83 Similarly, McNaught testified that Rep. Kolbe had mentioned to her 

that ‘‘a page felt uncomfortable . . . because of some action by Mr. 

Foley,’’ 84 but that she did not remember Rep. Kolbe giving any description of why the page felt uncomfortable.85

Baugh testified that he complied with Rep. Kolbe’s request and 

contacted Fordham by telephone and told him that the former page 

was made uncomfortable by messages from Mr. Foley and that the 

former page ‘‘wishes Mr. Foley would go away, would stop whatever actions he’s doing . . . .’’ 86 Baugh testified that Fordham ‘‘said 

he would take care of the problem, and that was the last that I 

heard of it.’’ 87 Baugh said that he ‘‘reported back to either Congressman Kolbe or Ms. McNaught, or perhaps both, that I had spoken to Mr. Fordham and that he’d agreed to take care of the matter.’’ 88

Baugh testified that he also contacted Trandahl regarding Rep. 

Foley’s communication to the former Kolbe page at the request of 

either Rep. Kolbe or McNaught. He testified that he advised 

Trandahl as follows: 

You know, [the former page], came to Congressman 

Kolbe; you know, contacted Congressman Kolbe; was uncomfortable with an e-mail he’d received. We—you know, 

I talked to Kirk Fordham; told him to ask Mr. Foley or tell 

Mr. Foley to stop whatever contact he had with [the 

former page]. Mr. Fordham said he would take care of the 

issue. You know, we think that’s case closed.89

He did not request any action or follow-up from Trandahl, and 

Baugh does not recall Trandahl’s reaction or whether Trandahl expressed any surprise or awareness of Rep. Foley’s behavior.90 Kolbe 

testified that Baugh did not report to him any details of the conversation he had with Trandahl.91


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
20 

92Kolbe Dep. at 24. 93Kolbe Dep. at 24. 94Kolbe Dep. at 25. 95Kolbe Dep. at 34. 96Kolbe Dep. at 31. 97Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35–37. 98Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35. Rep. Kolbe recalls talking to the former page on September 

29, 2006, but the former page believes the conversation took place on September 30, 2006. Kolbe 

Dep. at 91–92; Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 38. 99Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35. 100Kolbe Dep. at 36, 45. 101Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40. See Jonathon Weisman, ‘‘Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages 

in 2000,’’ Washington Post, October 9, 2006. 102Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40. 103Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40–41. The former Kolbe page continues to deny that he was 

the source for this story. 

Rep. Kolbe testified that he ‘‘did not attempt to speculate about 

what it was’’ that made the former page uncomfortable.92 ‘‘I acted 

on the information that we received from [the former page], and he 

asked us as a constituent now, not as a page, to contact Mr. Foley 

and ask him directly to stop communicating with him, and that is 

what we did.’’ 93 Although, according to Rep. Kolbe’s testimony, he 

never asked his former page what had made him uncomfortable, 

Rep. Kolbe said that it had occurred to him that ‘‘it may have been 

some kind of a communication that was sexual in nature.’’ 94 Rep. 

Kolbe did not follow up with his former page or Rep. Foley after 

Baugh had addressed the matter with Fordham.95 Rep. Kolbe testified that he thought the way he addressed the issue was ‘‘sufficient 

and the correct way to handle it.’’ 96

According to the former Kolbe page, on September 29, 2006, after 

Rep. Foley resigned from the House, he called Rep. Kolbe’s cell 

phone to get advice on what he should do if asked about the 2001 

IM by the Committee on Standards or other authority.97 The 

former page left a message and believes Rep. Kolbe called him back 

the next day.98 According to the former page, Rep. Kolbe responded 

that ‘‘I haven’t thought about that in years,’’ and told the former 

page that ‘‘it is best that you don’t even bring this up with anybody. . . . [T]here is no good that can come from it if you actually 

talk about this. The man has resigned anyway.’’99 Rep. Kolbe confirmed that he had spoken to his former page after Rep. Foley’s 

resignation, but says that the page had already decided that he 

was not going to report the IM, and that he merely responded, 

‘‘That’s your decision.’’ 100

Some days after that call, the former Kolbe page recalls receiving 

a phone message from Rep. Kolbe in which he said, ‘‘It looks like 

you did some talking.’’ Rep. Kolbe continued on to say that there 

was going to be a story about him in the Washington Post and 

asked what the former Kolbe page had said.101 According to the 

former Kolbe page, Rep. Kolbe’s message also said that he wanted 

to make sure that the page was represented by counsel in case the 

matter ‘‘blew up,’’ and advised him to call Rep. Kolbe on his home 

phone if he needed anything.102 The former Kolbe page testified 

that he returned Rep. Kolbe’s call and told him that he was not the 

source for the story and referred Rep. Kolbe to his attorney.103 Rep. 

Kolbe acknowledged that he left a message for the former page to 

see what he knew about ‘‘the whole story that was appearing in the 

paper,’’ and that he was ‘‘then informed that since [the former 

page] had informed the Clerk’s Office, he had an attorney. So I 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
21 

104Kolbe Dep. at 66. 105Kolbe Dep. at 46–48. 106 Exhibit 6. 107Fordham Dep. at 12; Lester Int. Tr. at 13. 108Fordham Dep. at 12–13. 109Fordham Dep. at 30–31. 110Dean Lester Interview Transcript at 25–26. 111Fordham Dep. at 32. 112Trandahl Dep. at 37. 

made no further attempt to contact [the page].’’ 104 Rep. Kolbe testified that Baugh had previously spoken with the former page and 

told him to report what he knew about Rep. Foley to the Clerk’s 

office.105

On October 10, 2006, Rep. Kolbe issued a statement that included the following: 

I have been contacted by news organizations about 

former Rep. Foley’s e-mail contacts with former pages. 

This is my best recollection of the single incident I was 

made aware of. 

Some time after the Page program, an individual I had 

appointed as a Page contacted my office to say he had received e-mails from Rep. Foley that made him uncomfortable. I was not shown the content of the messages and was 

not told they were sexually explicit. It was my recommendation that this complaint be passed along to Rep. 

Foley’s office and the Clerk who supervised the Page program. This was done promptly. I assume e-mail communication ceased since the former Page never raised the 

issue again with my office. I believed then, and believe 

now, that this was the appropriate way to handle this incident given the information I had and the fact that the 

young man was no longer a Page and not subject to the 

jurisdiction of the program.106

4. Other Foley conduct related to pages or former pages 

During this period, Rep. Foley’s chief of staff Kirk Fordham also 

observed other conduct that raised concerns with him regarding 

Rep. Foley’s interaction with pages. He observed that pages occasionally showed up at Rep. Foley’s office to have their picture taken 

with him or to get his autograph.107 In approximately 2002, Fordham learned that Rep. Foley had used his own frequent flyer miles 

to fly a former page to Washington to visit him.108 Fordham testified that around this same time, he learned from Rep. Foley’s information technology manager, who maintained both Rep. Foley’s office and home computers, that Rep. Foley had been having e-mail 

communications with former pages.109 The information technology 

manager informed the Investigative Subcommittee that he did not 

recall seeing any such e-mail.110 Fordham did not attempt to view 

the e-mails or investigate the matter.111

Each year the pages vote as to who they would like to appear as 

speaker during their graduation, and in 2002, Rep. Foley was selected to speak.112 During the speech, Rep. Foley referred to a 

number of pages by their nicknames and referred to an instance 

where he had taken a page in his BMW out to dinner. The page 

had purchased a dinner with Rep. Foley in the Member’s dining 

room in the Capitol as part of an auction fundraiser for the page 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
22 

113 Congressional Record H3281 (June 6, 2002). 114Former Page X Int. Tr. at 7–8. After the e-mails and IMs from Rep. Foley became publicly 

known in September 2006, this former page gave an interview to the press in which he referenced this ‘‘warning’’ about Rep. Foley. Former Page X Int. Tr. at 43. 115Trandahl Dep. at 37. 116Trandahl Dep. at 28. 117Trandahl Dep. at 16. 118Trandahl Dep. at 11–13, 16. 119 Trandahl Dep. at 16. 

program, and Rep. Foley instead took the page to Morton’s restaurant.113 Another page testified that upon overhearing a conversation among a number of pages related to the dinner with Rep. 

Foley, Peggy Sampson told the group to ‘‘watch out’’ for Rep. Foley: 

Ms. Sampson, our Republican page supervisor, I can’t remember—I don’t—she never like sat out there with us but she 

was passing by, I guess or whatever, inside her little office 

there, and mentioned in a manner and tone like you would 

mention watch out for the crazy kid down the street, watch out 

for that guy. It didn’t sound like she knew anything, just he’s 

like the weird kid down the street.114

In response to Rep. Foley’s speech, Trandahl deliberately ‘‘rigged’’

the election the following year so that Foley would not speak during graduation.115

B. EFFORTS TO ADDRESS REPRESENTATIVE FOLEY’S CONDUCT

Jeff Trandahl, beginning soon after Rep. Foley took office in 1995 

through the time that Trandahl left office on November 18, 2005, 

repeatedly attempted to address Rep. Foley’s conduct in a variety 

of ways. Trandahl testified that he was not aware of any misconduct of a sexual nature by Rep. Foley, and he did not consider 

Rep. Foley to be a ‘‘threat’’ to the pages.116 Rather, Trandahl described his concerns as two-fold. First, he believed that Rep. Foley 

was taking a political risk by paying too much attention to pages. 

He described this concern as follows: 

Here you had—which I think is appropriate to say—a closeted gay guy who was putting himself in a situation of being 

one on one with young people. And if an accusation is made, 

he would be immediately presumed, in a political light, guilty 

unless he could prove himself innocent. So my counseling to 

him was, one, you don’t need to be in the middle of this community of children; and two, you are creating an enormous political risk for yourself.117

Second, Trandahl was concerned for the integrity of the program 

in that he believed that Rep. Foley’s interaction with the pages was 

a distraction and was interfering with the program. As described 

earlier, Trandahl considered Rep. Foley to be a ‘‘nuisance,’’ or a 

person that failed to keep a professional distance from the 

pages.118

1. Communications directly to Representative Foley 

Trandahl testified that beginning as early as the mid-nineties, he 

repeatedly confronted Rep. Foley personally about becoming too involved with the pages and failing to keep a professional distance.119 Trandahl testified that over the years, he directly conVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
23 

120Trandahl Dep. at 18, 75. 121Trandahl Dep. at 73. 122Trandahl Dep. at 19. 123Trandahl Dep. at 73. 

fronted Foley on the matter approximately ten times at various 

places for various reasons. Trandahl testified as follows: 

The majority of the time [the discussions with Rep. 

Foley] happened because I would see him on the floor 

hanging out by the desk. Other times it would happen because Peggy [Sampson] would say, Jeff, he is back. And 

other times it would be opportunity. To be perfectly frank, 

I would find myself standing in a hallway alone with him, 

or in the lobby, and just trying to reaffirm to him again 

that I thought he was creating a bad perception for himself. 

* * * * * * * 

But again, I would react because Peggy would say something to me that she felt like he was spending too much 

time or he was hanging around too much. Linda Miranda 

from the school would say, well, you know, there was a 

former page reunion, and Mark Foley’s name was widely 

discussed by the kids. You know, he is obviously communicating with them. My antenna would go up again, that 

I needed to go back and try and push him back.120

During these conversations, Rep. Foley would sometimes appear 

to agree with Trandahl and at other times he would tell Trandahl 

that he was being ‘‘too intense or too concerned’’ or that the matter 

was not Trandahl’s concern.121

2. Communications to Kirk Fordham 

In addition to raising his concerns directly with Rep. Foley, 

Trandahl testified that he raised his concerns with Rep. Foley’s 

chief of staff Kirk Fordham on multiple occasions, a fact which 

Fordham confirms. Trandahl testified that he raised the issue with 

Fordham ‘‘a lot more than 10 times,’’ as follows: 

It was pretty much the same thing [as the conversations 

with Rep. Foley], which is I felt uncomfortable that Mark 

[Foley] was spending too much time, I felt he was creating 

a political situation for himself, a terrible perception. And 

to be perfectly frank, I was on Kirk so much I was surprised he didn’t turn around and run every time he saw 

me.122

Trandahl testified that Fordham shared his concerns and was always ‘‘100 percent agreeable’’ to addressing the problem. ‘‘[Fordham] would say, I will sit down and I will talk to Mark. Other 

times he would say: You need to grab Mark and say this to Mark 

and I will try to talk to him separately. So Kirk was always agreeable.’’ 123 Both Trandahl and Fordham testified that these conversations regarding Rep. Foley’s interactions with pages did not 

stem from a specific complaint or allegation but rather a general 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
24 

124Fordham Dep. at 8, 15; Trandahl Dep. at 73. 125Fordham Dep. at 10. 126Trandahl Dep. at 20. 127Fordham Dep. at 4–5, 38. 128 Van Der Meid served as the staff director and chief counsel of the Committee on Standards 

of Official Conduct from 1995–99. Van Der Meid Dep. at 6. 129 Van Der Meid Dep. at 21–22; Trandahl Dep. at 27, 88. Trandahl testified that he discussed 

Rep. Foley’s conduct with respect to pages with the highest authority in the ‘‘chain of command,’’ Van Der Meid, and that although he respected the ‘‘chain of command,’’ he felt constrained by 

it at times. Trandahl Dep. at 88. 130 Van Der Meid Dep. at 40, 59. 131 Van Der Meid Dep. at 94–95. 

concern that pages and Members should keep a professional distance from one another.124

Fordham testified that as a result of Trandahl’s concerns, he also 

confronted Rep. Foley on his relationship with pages on several occasions. Fordham described one of those conversations as follows: 

I went in to the boss and again—very uncomfortable 

conversation to have—and again relayed basically what 

Mr. Trandahl had shared with me. I reminded him that 

because, you know, he is gay—most of his colleagues had 

figured that out, even though he hadn’t announced that he 

was, you know, people were watching what he did. There 

[sic] were paying attention to his behavior, and he needed 

to be more conscious of how he interacted with younger 

staffers, interns, pages. So it was a short conversation. We 

never had long discussions about this stuff. It is not something I look forward to doing.125

After his conversations with Rep. Foley and Fordham, Trandahl 

noticed some positive effects. For example, he would notice that 

Rep. Foley was not hanging around the page desk as much. However, after some time had passed, Rep. Foley would revert back to 

his former conduct.126

Fordham left Rep. Foley’s office in January 2004 and later returned to House employment as chief of staff to Rep. Tom Reynolds 

in September 2005. He did not share with Rep. Reynolds any of his 

concerns, experiences, or observations about Rep. Foley and pages 

or former pages.127

3. Communications with Ted Van Der Meid 

Trandahl testified that he also raised his two-fold concerns regarding Rep. Foley on a number of occasions to the Speaker’s counsel and director of floor operations, Ted Van Der Meid.128 Trandahl 

approached Van Der Meid because, in addition to serving as the 

Speaker’s director of floor operations, Van Der Meid was assigned 

as the Speaker’s liaison with the Clerk’s office, including for matters related to the page program.129 Specifically, as with Rep. Foley 

and Fordham, Trandahl told Van Der Meid that Foley’s conduct 

with pages was distracting them from performing their page program duties and that Rep. Foley’s excessive attention to the pages 

could be perceived as inappropriate and could harm Foley’s reputation.130 As noted previously, Trandahl also informed Van Der Meid 

about the incident in which Rep. Foley allegedly was intoxicated 

outside of the page dorm.131

According to Trandahl, he raised his concerns about Rep. Foley 

to Van Der Meid ‘‘pretty often’’ in the context of raising similar 

concerns he had relative to Van Der Meid’s over-involvement with 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
25 

132Trandahl Dep. at 30–32. Van Der Meid does not recall Trandahl criticizing his interaction 

with pages and testified that his interactions with pages were appropriate. Van Der Meid Dep. 

at 46–54. 133Trandahl Dep. at 30. 134Trandahl Dep. at 30. 135 Van Der Meid Dep. at 112. 136 Van Der Meid Dep. at 56. 137 Van Der Meid Dep. at 62. 138 Van Der Meid Dep. at 82. 139Trandahl Dep. at 33. 140Trandahl Dep. at 36; Fordham Dep. at 18. Fordham’s recollection on this point appears 

incorrect. Other witnesses place this alleged page dorm incident before 2000. 141Trandahl Dep. at 33; Fordham Dep. at 21–22. 142Fordham Dep. at 22–23. 

pages assigned to the Speaker’s office. Trandahl testified, ‘‘So here 

is my point of contact in the Speaker (sic), and I’m trying to have 

the conversation about him specifically, but also in a general 

sense.’’ 132 According to Trandahl, while Van Der Meid understood 

his concerns ‘‘politically,’’ Van Der Meid’s ‘‘pushback’’ was that ‘‘there is nothing wrong with people being mentors and caring 

about the kids.’’ 133 Trandahl responded that the page program had 

paid professionals to serve those functions. Trandahl felt that 

‘‘there needed to be a very clear line between the page program and 

people who worked up here [in leadership].’’ 134

Van Der Meid did not report Trandahl’s concerns about Rep. Foley’s conduct to anyone else in the Speaker’s Office. During his testimony, Van Der Meid stated that the decision as to whether to elevate a matter within the Speaker’s Office was a ‘‘judgment call.’’ 135

He explained that he did not elevate the Foley matter because he 

‘‘got the impression that [Trandahl] was dealing with it.’’ 136 Van 

Der Meid stated, ‘‘I think I just got the impression that [Trandahl] 

had talked to Kirk [Fordham], and that was how he handled it.’’ 137

He further testified that ‘‘[Trandahl] had never asked me to take 

any other action,’’ and in any event, ‘‘I don’t know what I would 

have done.’’ 138

4. Communications with Scott Palmer 

According to both Trandahl and Fordham, in late 2002 or early 

2003 Trandahl again approached Fordham about Rep. Foley’s 

interaction with the pages.139 Trandahl believes this conversation 

may have been in part a reaction to Rep. Foley’s graduation speech 

to the pages, while Fordham believes it may have been precipitated 

by Rep. Foley’s alleged visit to the page dorm while intoxicated.140

Fordham and Trandahl had become frustrated that their previous 

efforts in getting through to Rep. Foley had been unsuccessful, and 

they brainstormed for more effective ways to modify Rep. Foley’s 

behavior. Fordham suggested that the matter be brought to the attention of Speaker Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, with a 

view towards having either Palmer or the Speaker himself talk to 

Rep. Foley. Trandahl agreed.141

Shortly thereafter, according to Fordham, Fordham called Palmer to set up a meeting, and Fordham and Palmer met in a conference room in the Capitol.142

I just put in a call directly to Palmer. I remember it was 

uncomfortable. I just told him I had to talk to him about 

something personal. I told him it was urgent. So I don’t remember if he set a specific time, or just come down now, 

but it was immediately thereafter, within the same day. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
26 

143Fordham Dep. at 22. 144Fordham Dep. at 23. 145Fordham Dep. at 24–25. 146Fordham Dep. at 24. 147Fordham Dep. at 27. 148Fordham Dep. at 27. 149Trandahl Dep. at 38. 

I walked over to his office in the Capitol. Met him at his 

office, and then we walked upstairs to a—I remember it 

was a small room, much smaller than this, but it had a 

table and a few scattered chairs. It was somewhere I had 

never been before. Somewhere up on the 3rd or 4th 

floor.143

Fordham testified that he explained to Palmer that he had received calls from the Clerk’s office regarding Foley’s conduct 

around the pages, that ‘‘there seems to be a chronic problem with 

my boss’s attention to pages and young staffers,’’ and that he was 

looking for assistance in dealing with the problem.144

My plea to him was sort of that we needed to figure out 

a way to send a message to Mark [Foley] that would be 

clear, that there were other eyes keeping an eye on him 

when he was interacting with pages, so that perhaps if he 

knew more than—that it wasn’t just me calling him on 

this, that there were other people in leadership that were 

aware, that this was in fact something that he needed to 

correct. 

And, you know, we had a frank conversation about, you 

know, Mark. He [Palmer] liked Mark. He saw him in the 

whip meetings every week. We were both sort of exasperated about the fact he’s got a bright future, he is a talented Member; and couldn’t understand why he would put 

himself in such a position, that it was sort of reckless behavior. 

And so I asked him if he or the Speaker would speak to 

Congressman Foley and just have a brief conversation 

about this. And it was mainly because I knew that if one 

of them had talked to Mark that the message certainly 

would have gotten through to Mark. That it would have 

shaken him up a bit.145

Fordham says that he did not tell Palmer about the page dorm 

incident he had heard about from Trandahl.146 Fordham testified 

that, at the conclusion of the meeting, Palmer agreed that either 

he or the Speaker would talk to Foley about the matter.147

Fordham testified that a day or two later, he and Palmer had a 

brief follow-up telephone conversation in which Palmer told Fordham that he had spoken to Rep. Foley, they had a good conversation, and that Rep. Foley ‘‘understood the message.’’ Fordham testified that Palmer also said that he had ‘‘brought the Speaker into 

the loop.’’ 148

Trandahl testified that he was not told about the meeting with 

Palmer or invited to attend the meeting. He said that within a few 

days after he and Fordham had decided to bring the matter to 

Palmer, Palmer said to him in a short conversation in the Speaker’s suite, ‘‘I’ve talked to Kirk Fordham. I understand the problem. 

I’m on it.’’ 149 According to Trandahl, he recalls this ‘‘vividly’’ beVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
27 

150Trandahl Dep. at 38, 42. 151Fordham Dep. at 29. 152Palmer Dep. at 44–54, 163–74. Shortly after Foley’s resignation, apparently in response to 

what he believed were statements by Fordham, Palmer issued a one-sentence press statement, 

stating that ‘‘What Kirk Fordham said did not happen.’’ Exhibit 7. 153Palmer Dep. at 163–64, 172. 

cause he had expected to take part in the meeting and he was 

‘‘dumbfounded’’ that the meeting had occurred without him.150

According to Fordham, several months after his meeting with 

Palmer, ‘‘Congressman Foley [ ] made reference about someone 

had given him a warning or something like that. And I let him 

know that I knew that Palmer had talked to him about it.’’ 151

Palmer testified that he does not recall any meeting with Kirk 

Fordham, confrontation with Rep. Foley, or conversation with 

Trandahl after the alleged meeting with Fordham.152 When asked 

about his alleged meetings with Fordham and Rep. Foley, Palmer 

testified as follows: 

A I understand your question. I’ve thought about this 

question just about every minute since that Wednesday 

when this question was raised, and that’s several long 

weeks. I have agonized over this to try to capture any 

recollection of this and the other piece of it, too. I mean, 

trying to remember what he might have said to me, but 

also always combined with whatever it is he thinks he said 

to me is the notion that I would have talked to Mark 

Foley, and I’ve tried to visualize that conversation, and I 

just can’t visualize it. At the time it’s hard to imagine I 

would forget it. 

Q And in trying to visualize the conversation you had 

with Mark Foley about conduct in general with pages, 

however you want to characterize it, inappropriate, overfriendly, any conduct is something that that didn’t happen? 

A I believe it didn’t happen. I don’t have any recollection of it. Again, I’m in the zone of trying to prove a negative, but I just don’t remember it, and I think it would 

have been an awkward conversation. 

* * * * * * * 

I’ve been very careful with the committee, or I’ve tried to be very 

careful, in not saying that I can’t prove a negative. I think I know 

what the limits are. I know what I remember, which unfortunately 

is nothing, or maybe fortunately, because that may be the truth. 

It may never have happened, and I know how I behave well enough 

to know that he could not have come to me, recollection or not, and 

told me about behavioral problems, something that was going to 

put pages in danger, something that was happening without my 

doing something about it. . . . When you add to it the other piece, 

because there are two pieces here, There’s him talking to me, 

which I’m supposed to try to remember, and then talking to the 

Foley. I just can’t get around talking to Foley. I can’t visualize that. 

I can’t craft that in any way.153

As noted in part II of this report, the Committee was unable to 

address with Representative Foley whether this meeting occurred. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
28 

154Trandahl Dep. at 22. 155Trandahl Dep. at 106–07. 156Trandahl Dep. at 23–25. Rep. Shimkus does not recall any conversation with Trandahl 

about Rep. Foley other than the November 2005 matter involving the e-mails. Representative 

John Shimkus Dep. (hereinafter Shimkus Dep.) at 18. 157Trandahl Dep. at 21. 

5. Communications with Other Members of the Page Board 

Trandahl testified that in the late nineties, he also raised the 

matter of Rep. Foley’s conduct around the pages with Rep. Kolbe, 

who was a member of the Page Board from 1995 to 2001. Trandahl 

explained the context of his appeal to Rep. Kolbe as follows: 

Okay. The whole reason it was discussed the way it was 

discussed was because I viewed Jim Kolbe the same way, 

I viewed him as putting himself at risk. He, too, spent far 

too much time socially interacting with the pages. I was 

uncomfortable with it. And, you know, I voiced that to his 

chief of staff; Fran, his administrative assistant; Patrick 

Baugh; and to Jim Kolbe himself. And I do remember discussing and bringing Mark up to him and saying, you 

know, that I felt he was doing the same thing, and that 

I needed it all to stop.154

According to Trandahl, Rep. Kolbe remained involved in the page 

program after his Page Board service and continued to be among 

the people that Trandahl considered a ‘‘nuisance’’ in terms of being 

too involved in the program. Although he apparently did not again 

directly address the conduct of Rep. Foley with Rep. Kolbe, 

Trandahl said he continued to raise his concerns about Rep. Kolbe 

‘‘on multiple occasions’’ directly to Rep. Kolbe and also to 

McNaught and Baugh. Trandahl testified that that while 

McNaught and Baugh were sympathetic ‘‘and would confirm to me 

that they talked to [Kolbe] multiple times as well. . . . Unfortunately, they would tell me that [Kolbe] would tell them to kind of 

mind their own business.’’ 155

Aside from his unsuccessful attempt at addressing the matter 

with Rep. Kolbe in the late nineties, Trandahl did not raise his concerns about Rep. Foley to members of the Page Board. Trandahl 

testified that Rep. Shimkus approached him on the House floor in 

approximately 2004 with general concerns that had been relayed to 

him from another Member regarding Rep. Kolbe’s interaction with 

pages, and Trandahl told him that ‘‘Foley is a bigger problem to 

me.’’ 156 But aside from this brief exchange, Trandahl never raised 

the Foley issue at a Page Board meeting or individually to any 

other member of the Board. Trandahl explained that he did not 

raise the Foley issue with the Page Board because he believed that 

he was dealing only with a ‘‘nuisance’’ or ‘‘distraction,’’ not a threat 

to the pages.157

C. REPRESENTATIVE FOLEY’S E-MAILS TO A FORMER ALEXANDER

PAGE

In July 2005, near the end of his page term, a page sponsored 

by Rep. Rodney Alexander gave thank-you cards to a number of 

Members and staff whom he had come to know during his time as 

a page. One of the Members was Rep. Foley. Rep. Foley asked the 

Alexander page to write his e-mail address on the back of the card, 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
29 

158Former Alexander Page Dep. at 17–18. 159 Exhibit 8. 160 Exhibit 8. 161 In an e-mail the previous day, the former Alexander page had mentioned the approaching 

hurricane but had explained that he lived in northern Louisiana, so the hurricane would not 

hit him. Exhibit 8. 162 Exhibit 8. 163Savoy testified that she told Johnson about contents of the e-mails in some detail, including the request for a picture, and the references to a birthday gift and the other page. Johnson 

recalls only that he was advised that their former page had received some e-mails that made 

him uncomfortable from an unspecified source. Danielle Savoy Deposition (hereinafter Savoy 

Dep.) at 37–44; Jonathan Johnson Interview Transcript at 9–11. 

and he did so.158 On July 29, 2006, at 1 p.m. on the Alexander 

page’s last day as a page, he received the first of seven e-mails he 

would eventually receive from Rep. Foley. That e-mail, sent from 

the e-mail address Maf54@aol.com, contained the single sentence 

‘‘do I have the right email,’’ and concluded with Mark Foley’s 

name.159

After receiving a short response confirming that he had the right 

e-mail address, Rep. Foley sent another e-mail the following day to 

the now former page asking a number of casual questions. The 

former page responded the following afternoon, and that evening 

he received another e-mail from Rep. Foley containing more general conversation, concluding with the question ‘‘how old are you 

now?’’ The former page responded a week later, telling Rep. Foley 

he was then 16 and would be 17 in December. Rep. Foley responded that same day, asking the former page ‘‘what do you want 

for your birthday coming up . . . what stuff do you like to do.’’ The 

former page responded twelve days later, writing among other 

things, ‘‘I don’t know what I want for my birthday’’ and describing 

his hobbies and interests, including that he likes to do ‘‘what generally every other teenager does.’’ He also asked if Rep. Foley was ‘‘keeping up with [the first name of another former page].’’ Rep. 

Foley responded that night asking whether the former Alexander 

page was asking about [the full name of the other former page]. 

Four days later, on August 23, Rep. Foley wrote to the former Alexander page again referring to the other page as ‘‘a nice guy’’ who 

is ‘‘in really great shape.’’ 160

In an e-mail on August 29, Rep. Foley asked the former page 

how he was weathering hurricane Katrina, 161 and also asked him 

to e-mail Rep. Foley a ‘‘pic’’ of himself. This request alarmed the 

former Alexander page, who was already concerned regarding the 

frequency and the tenor of the earlier e-mails. He raised his concerns to Danielle Savoy, an Alexander employee whom he had come 

to know while he was a page. In an e-mail to Savoy, the former 

page described Rep. Foley’s e-mails and said that Rep. Foley ‘‘is 

starting to freak [him] out.’’ At Savoy’s request, the former Alexander page then forwarded portions of Rep. Foley’s e-mails to her, 

characterizing them as ‘‘sick, sick, sick ....’’ On August 31, 2005, 

the former page forwarded to Savoy the entirety of Rep. Foley’s 

portion of five of the actual e-mails and asked her what she 

thought of them.162

On September 1, Savoy discussed the e-mails with another Alexander employee, Jonathan Johnson, who did not think that they 

were particularly significant.163 Savoy, looking for another opinion, 

then forwarded the e-mails, including the e-mails between her and 

the former page, to her girlfriend, Kelley Halliwell, who was a 

former House employee who was then working for a small lobbying 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
30 

164Savoy Dep. at 45–47; Interview Summary of Kelley Halliwell (hereinafter Halliwell Int. 

Sum.). 165 Halliwell Int. Sum. Grisso states that he did not discuss or share the e-mails with anyone. 

Interview Summary of Mike Grisso. 166Matthew Miller Deposition (hereinafter Miller Dep.) at 13–14; Justin Field Interview Transcript (hereinafter Field Int. Tr.) at 8–9. 167Miller Dep. at 14–15. 168Miller Dep. at 10–11, 22–35. Miller believes that he withheld the e-mails between Savoy 

and the former Alexander page from the Miami Herald. Miller Dep. at 26. 169Miller Dep. at 40; Field Int. Tr. at 12. 170Miller Dep. at 21–22. 

firm.164 Late on September 1, the former Alexander page again emailed Savoy and asked, ‘‘Just wondering . . . are you showing 

these e-mails to anyone? I would prefer you not to.’’

Upon receiving the e-mails, Halliwell forwarded them to her boyfriend, Justin Field, who then worked for the House Democratic 

Caucus, and also to her boss, Mike Grisso, a registered lobbyist.165

Field was disturbed by the nature of the e-mails, and shortly after 

he received them, he shared them with his friend and colleague, 

Matt Miller, who was then the communications director for the 

Democratic Caucus. The two discussed the nature of the e-mails 

and possible actions. Miller believed that the e-mails were inappropriate, and suggested that they be given to the press.166 Miller testified that he considered providing the e-mails to the Committee on 

Standards or to the Page Board, but feared that ‘‘nothing would 

come’’ of such action. He says that he also considered providing 

them to law enforcement, but believed that the e-mails, though inappropriate, did not evidence the commission of a crime.167

Miller testified that in approximately November, 2005 he redacted Savoy’s e-mail address and Field’s name from the top of a 

printed copy of the e-mails and faxed them to reporters that he 

knew at both the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times.168

Miller said that later in November or in December, he also provided the e-mails to a reporter from Roll Call. Both Field and Miller testified that neither then-Rep. Menendez, who was then chairman of the Democratic Caucus, nor any other person in the office 

of the Democratic Caucus, was provided with the e-mails or was involved in the decision to provide them to the press.169 Miller testified that also during the fall of 2005, in part as a ‘‘gut check’’ regarding his impression of the e-mails, he provided the e-mails to 

the communications director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (‘‘DCCC’’). Miller testified that he was not aware 

of what actions his DCCC counterpart may have taken with respect 

to the e-mails, but he expected that he would share them with the 

press. Miller testified: 

I think I gave them to him not with any direct expectation, but 

with the understanding that [the DCCC communications director] 

is someone that talks to reporters all day. If there’s something that 

I’m missing, maybe—maybe there’s a way that he could get the—

you know, that he could give them to a reporter; you know, in the 

course of talking to reporters that he might find a way. I didn’t 

have any direct expectation, but in general.170

D. INQUIRIES BY THE ST. PETERSBURG TIMES

Miller testified that he had a number of conversations with the 

Miami Herald reporter after providing her with the e-mails. AcVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
31 

171Miller Dep. at 26–27. Miller testified that he had no communications with the Roll Call 

reporter after he provided the e-mails. 172Miller Dep. at 33–34. 173Miller Dep. at 34; Liz Nicholson Deposition (hereinafter Nicholson Dep.) at 8, 13–14. 174 Alexander Former Page Dep. at 43–47. The former page repeatedly asked the reporter how 

he had obtained the e-mails, but the reporter refused to reveal his source. 175 Adam Terry Interview Transcript (hereinafter Terry Int. Tr.) at 7–9, 20. 176 Representative Rodney Alexander Deposition (hereinafter Rep. Alexander Dep.) at 22–23. 177 Royal Alexander is not related to Rep. Alexander. 178Terry Int. Tr. at 19–20. Terry stated ‘‘You have a reporter calling you from the St. Petersburg Times, so he is about to write a story. Our concern was, he needs to know everything if 

he is going to write about the e-mail dialogue. Let’s get it all to him.’’ Terry Int. Tr. at 19. Rep. 

Alexander testified that the reporter was missing the e-mail from the page to Savoy asking her 

not to share the e-mails, and that they forwarded that e-mail to fend off a claim that they ‘‘were trying to cover something up.’’ Alexander Dep. at 16. 179Terry Int. Tr. at 51. 

cording to Miller, the reporter told him that the Herald did not actively pursue the story out of concern over the authenticity of the 

e-mails and a reluctance to contact the minor page.171 The St. Petersburg Times, however, made a number of inquiries. In mid-November 2005, a reporter from the St. Petersburg Times contacted 

the offices of both Rep. Foley and Rep. Alexander about the emails.172 Rep. Foley spoke with the reporter personally and explained that the e-mails were innocent. He said that he was merely 

checking up on the page after Hurricane Katrina, that he maintained contact with many former interns and pages who often 

sought job recommendations, and that he considered himself to be 

mentoring the former page.173

In November 2005, the former Alexander page received a call on 

his home phone from a reporter at the St. Petersburg Times. The 

reporter told the former page that he had the e-mails Rep. Foley 

had sent to him and explained that the reporter was working on 

a story about them because he thought it ‘‘would be good for the 

people in the District to know what kind of person is representing 

them in Congress.’’ The former Alexander page spoke to the reporter but ‘‘tried to keep it vague.’’ 174

After speaking to the former Alexander page, the St. Petersburg 

Times reporter contacted Rep. Alexander’s press secretary, Adam 

Terry. According to Terry, the reporter described the e-mails, indicated that Savoy was a party to them, and sought comment. The 

reporter asked if Alexander’s office knew anything about the emails, and if so, why Rep. Alexander’s office had not done anything 

about them.175

At Terry’s request, Savoy produced the e-mails, and a discussion 

followed within Rep. Alexander’s office as to how to handle the 

matter. According to Rep. Alexander, at one point he also talked to 

the reporter and opined that although he would not have sent any 

similar e-mails, he could not judge whether they were inappropriate. Rep. Alexander testified that he ‘‘couldn’t really understand 

what the big deal was,’’ and suspected that the reporter ‘‘knew a 

whole lot more than what we were looking at in the e-mails.’’ 176

According to Terry and Rep. Alexander, in the course of these discussions, Terry had noticed that the reporter was missing one of 

the e-mails from the former Alexander page. After discussing this 

with both Rep. Alexander and Rep. Alexander’s chief of staff, Royal 

Alexander,177 he sent the reporter the complete set of the emails.178 Terry did not consult or obtain permission from the 

former page or his family before doing so.179


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
32 

180Father of Former Page Dep. at 13. 181The father testified as follows: 

A I think he said that—he said the Democrats would like to use something like this 

to smear a Republican. 

Q Did he say words like that? 

A He didn’t say the word ‘‘smear’’ but he did mention the Democrats would like to— would love to use something like this; something to that effect. 

Q What did he say about the Democrats? 

A That they would love to have something, to get something—I don’t remember verbatim, but to the effect they would like to get something on a Republican, you know, 

make something out of it. Father of Former Page Dep. at 20. 182Father of Former Page Dep. at 24. 183Mother of Former Page Dep. at 17. 184 Neil Brown, ‘‘Why the Times didn’t publish the Foley e-mails,’’ St. Petersburg Times, October 5, 2006; Miller Dep. at 40. 185Father of Former Page Dep. at 32, 43, 45–46; Terry Int. Tr. at 44. 186Father of Former Page Dep. at 36. 

According to Rep. Alexander and Royal Alexander, at Rep. Alexander’s direction, Royal Alexander called the former page’s parents 

and warned them that they might be contacted by the press about 

the Foley e-mails. The former Alexander page’s father recalls that 

Royal Alexander told him that a reporter might be calling him but 

that he did not have to talk to the reporter.180 The father also recalled that Royal Alexander made a comment to the effect that 

‘‘they were trying to make something of [the e-mails]’’ and that ‘‘the 

Democrats would like to use something like this’’ against a Republican.181 During their conversation, the father did not make any requests or provide any instructions not to disclose the matter to 

other Members of Congress or conduct an investigation into the 

matter.182

The former page’s mother recalls being asked by Rep. Alexander’s staff whether the family wanted to pursue anything in connection with the e-mails, and that she said that she did not feel 

there was anything in the e-mails to pursue. She recalls telling 

them in substance to ‘‘do what you need to do,’’ but that she did 

not want the matter ‘‘blown out of proportion.’’ 183 The parents 

asked that the contact from Rep. Foley stop, and they expressed 

their desire that their son not be involved in a public ordeal. 

The St. Petersburg Times ultimately did contact the former 

page’s parents, who declined to comment and made ‘‘vehement 

pleas to drop the matter.’’ The St. Petersburg Times decided not to 

run a story on the e-mails, concluding that it ‘‘did not have enough 

substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.’’ 184

After Rep. Foley resigned, Alexander’s office contacted the family 

of the former page to suggest that a public statement from the family might help alleviate the media pressure being placed on Alexander’s office and deter further media attention on the family.185 According to the former Alexander page’s father, the family edited a 

suggested statement sent by Rep. Alexander’s office to reflect their 

own language and because the statement provided by Rep. Alexander’s office contained information that the family could not have 

known.186

E. INTERVENTION BY TRANDAHL AND REPRESENTATIVE SHIMKUS

1. Representative Alexander’s office contacts the Speaker’s Office 

In response to the call from the St. Petersburg Times and the 

conversation with the former page’s parents, Rep. Alexander directed Royal Alexander to contact the Speaker’s office to advise 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
33 

187 Royal Alexander Deposition (hereinafter Royal Alexander Dep.) at 50. 188 Royal Alexander Dep. at 48–50, 53. 189 Royal Alexander Dep. at 59–63. 190Stokke Dep. at 55–56. 191Stokke Dep. at 21–46. 192Stokke Dep. at 34–35. 193Stokke Dep. at 55. Similarly, Van Der Meid said that he did not inform the Speaker regarding the e-mails, and could not recall informing Palmer. Van Der Meid Dep. at 142. Kennedy 

Continued 

them of the situation and to seek their assistance in ensuring that 

Rep. Foley stop contacting the former Alexander page. Although 

there were significant differences in the testimony regarding the 

manner in which that contact occurred, there was general agreement that the Speaker’s office was notified, and that the Speaker’s 

office referred the matter to the Clerk of the House to take the lead 

in addressing the issue. 

According to Royal Alexander, on November 17, 2005, he contacted Mike Stokke, the Speaker’s deputy chief of staff, to brief him 

on the matter. Royal Alexander contacted Stokke because he knew 

him personally. Royal Alexander says that he explained the matter 

on the telephone to Stokke and generally described the e-mails as 

overly friendly, although he does not recall the precise words he 

used. He testified that he is certain that he did not share the emails with Stokke or with anyone else, because he was trying to 

protect the privacy of the former page.187 Royal Alexander testified 

that Stokke responded by saying ‘‘we know,’’ or words to that effect, 

and that he was relieved by this response because he thought that 

it meant that the Speaker’s office was aware of the issue and would 

take care of it.188 Royal Alexander also testified that Stokke told 

him that someone from the Clerk’s office would get in touch with 

him on the matter, and the next event he recalls is receiving a call 

from a woman in the Clerk’s office telling him that they were 

‘‘working on addressing the situation.’’ He does not recall the specific person who called or her precise words, but he understood that 

she was referring to the Foley matter. Royal Alexander could not 

place the date of this phone call, but he believes it was within a 

week of his phone call with Stokke.189

Mike Stokke confirms receiving a phone call from Royal Alexander, but he recalls that Royal Alexander then came to Stokke’s 

office to discuss the matter in person. According to Stokke, during 

this meeting in his office, Royal Alexander showed, read, or summarized the e-mails to him, but did not provide him with a copy. 

Stokke, believing that he had no responsibility for the page program, said that his ‘‘intention was to solve the problem that they 

had brought to us, which is how do we prevent this Member from 

having . . . continued inappropriate contact with this page, and 

figure out the right place for this to go, and to have that person’’

prevent future contact with the page.190 He therefore asked his assistant, Tim Kennedy, to consult Van Der Meid as to whom the 

matter should be referred. Van Der Meid advised that the matter 

should be referred to the Clerk of the House, because the page program was under the Clerk’s jurisdiction.191 Accordingly, Stokke recalls that Royal Alexander was put in touch directly with the 

Clerk, Jeff Trandahl. Stokke testified that while he was concerned 

about the request for a picture,192 he did not report the matter to 

either Speaker Hastert or his chief of staff, Scott Palmer.193


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
34 

also testified that within the Speaker’s office, to his knowledge, only he, Van Der Meid, and 

Stokke were aware of the e-mails in November, 2005. Kennedy Dep. at 41. 194Trandahl Dep. at 48–49. 195Trandahl Dep. at 51–52. 196Trandahl Dep. at 50–52. 197Trandahl Dep. at 52. 198Trandahl testified as follows: ‘‘And then I was like, okay, will you read them to me? Will 

you—what are these things? Are they sexually explicit? I must have used the words ‘sexually 

explicit’ about 20 times in that conversation, saying characterize them for me then. And that’s where the famous ‘overly friendly’ came from. It was me saying are they overly friendly, if 

they’re not sexual? Why are people uncomfortable?’’ Trandahl Dep. at 52. 199Stokke Dep. at 69, 78–79, 94–95; Kennedy Dep. at 107. 200Trandahl Dep. at 53–54. 201Trandahl Dep. at 56. 202Trandahl Dep. at 57–58. 

Trandahl testified that he first heard about the e-mails from Tim 

Kennedy, the assistant to Stokke and Van Der Meid, who called 

him and told him generally that there had been an e-mail exchange 

between Rep. Foley and a former page from Rep. Alexander’s office.194 Trandahl testified that he immediately called Rep. Alexander’s office and talked to Royal Alexander. According to Trandahl, 

Royal Alexander explained that one of Rep. Alexander’s former 

pages had been receiving e-mails from Rep. Foley that were making the former page uncomfortable, that the press was calling the 

former page’s family, and that the parents of the former page wanted the contact from Rep. Foley to stop.195 Royal Alexander also reportedly told Trandahl that the family did not want their name in 

the newspaper and ‘‘just wanted it all to go away.’’ 196 Trandahl recalls that he asked several times for copies of the e-mails, but that 

Royal Alexander was unwilling to provide them.197 Trandahl also 

asked repeatedly whether the e-mails were sexually explicit, and 

he was told that they were not, but were merely ‘‘overly friendly’’

or ‘‘too familiar.’’ 198

No notes or memoranda were prepared within the Speaker’s office to record that Alexander’s office had brought the e-mails to 

their attention or that the matter had been referred to the 

Clerk.199

Regardless of how the matter had been referred to Trandahl, 

once the matter had been brought to his attention, Trandahl resolved to confront Rep. Foley in order to get him to stop contacting 

the former Alexander page and to again raise with Rep. Foley the 

concerns he had been raising for years regarding Rep. Foley’s interaction with pages. 

2. Trandahl and Representatives Shimkus confront Representative 

Foley 

Following his conversation with Royal Alexander, Trandahl immediately called Rep. Foley’s chief of staff to set up a meeting with 

Rep. Foley. He then went to the House floor with his deputy clerk, 

Gerry Vans, in search of Rep. Shimkus, the chairman of the Page 

Board, to ask him to accompany him to Rep. Foley’s office.200

Trandahl found Rep. Shimkus on the floor, briefed him on the matter, and explained that a ‘‘Member-to-Member [confrontation with 

Rep. Foley] would be much more effective than just me.’’ 201

Trandahl testified that he further explained to Rep. Shimkus that 

‘‘this is exactly the perception problem I’ve warned Mark Foley 

about multiple times,’’ and that he characterized Rep. Foley to Rep. 

Shimkus as a ‘‘ticking time bomb.’’ 202 Rep. Shimkus describes the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
35 

203Shimkus Dep. at 10. 204Shimkus Dep. at 10. Trandahl does not recall learning anything about the contents of the 

e-mails at this time, including the request for a picture, and he does not recall having any piece 

of paper with him when he met with Shimkus or Foley. Trandahl Dep. at 84, 59. 205Shimkus Dep. at 19. 206Trandahl Dep. at 99–100. Rep. Shimkus testified that he did not ask Rep. Foley if he had 

been in contact with other pages. Shimkus Dep. at 20. 207 However, Nicholson later testified that it might have been Kirk Fordham who said this 

to Foley at a meeting she recalls occurring a few weeks after the November 17 confrontation. 

Nicholson Dep. at 19–20, 26, 98–100. 208Trandahl recalls that the briefing occurred immediately after the meeting, while Van Der 

Meid testified that it occurred that night on the House floor. Trandahl Dep. at 65–67; Van Der 

Meid Dep. at 131–35. 209 Van Der Meid Dep. at 133. 210Stokke Dep. at 69–70. 211 Van Der Meid Dep. at 139–41. 

communication from Trandahl as ‘‘They [the parents of the former 

page] are asking us to approach Congressman Foley and ask him 

to stop contacting their son via e-mail, and they want this kept in 

confidence.’’ 203 According to Rep. Shimkus, Trandahl also had an 

81⁄2 by 11 inch sheet of paper which included words and phrases, 

and which Rep. Shimkus recalls saying something about Hurricane 

Katrina and asking for a ‘‘pic.’’ 204

Rep. Shimkus agreed to accompany Trandahl to confront Rep. 

Foley, and the two of them went to Rep. Foley’s office in the Cannon House Office Building later that day, November 17, 2005. During the meeting, which also included Foley’s new chief of staff Liz 

Nicholson, Rep. Shimkus directed Rep. Foley to cease all communications with the former Alexander page and to stay away from 

the page program in general. Rep. Shimkus recalls that he gave 

Rep. Foley the single sheet of paper that Trandahl had reportedly 

given him. Rep. Shimkus testified that Rep. Foley said that if he 

was being accused of being ‘‘overly friendly,’’ then he was ‘‘guilty,’’ 

and explained that he was ‘‘mentoring’’ the page, as Rep. Foley 

himself had been mentored and encouraged in politics when he was 

young.205 Trandahl recalls that Rep. Shimkus asked Rep. Foley 

whether there were any additional communications with House 

pages, and Rep. Foley ‘‘left the impression’’ that this was the only 

former page that he was actively talking to.206 According to Nicholson, Trandahl may have also told Rep. Foley at the meeting, 

‘‘Mark, you’ve been warned by Scott before.’’ After Trandahl and 

Rep. Shimkus had departed, Nicholson asked Rep. Foley what 

Trandahl was referring to by this comment, and Rep. Foley ‘‘said 

something about—that Scott Palmer had talked to him once before 

about . . . mentoring with youths and things like that.’’ 207

Trandahl briefed Van Der Meid on the confrontation with Rep. 

Foley either in the Speaker’s office immediately after the meeting 

or later that night on the House floor.208 According to Van Der 

Meid, this conversation was the first time he learned any details 

regarding the matter, including that the matter involved Rep. 

Foley.209 According to Stokke, he followed up with Tim Kennedy at 

the end of the week as to whether they had heard anything from 

the Clerk’s office relative to the resolution of the Foley e-mail matter, and Kennedy reported that Trandahl had intervened with Rep. 

Foley and that the matter had been resolved to the satisfaction of 

the former page and the parents.210 Van Der Meid recalls that he 

had a similar wrap-up conversation with Stokke.211 Trandahl’s last 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
36 

212Shimkus Dep. at 12. 213 Representative Shelley Moore Capito Deposition (hereinafter Capito Dep.) at 21. Rep. 

Shimkus confirms that he made such a statement to Rep. Capito in October 2006, but he testified that party affiliation was not a factor in his decision in 2005. He ascribes the statement 

to frustration over the timing of the release of the sexually explicit IMs in late September 2006, 

just prior to the election. Shimkus Dep. at 100. 214 Nicholson Dep. at 36. 215 Rep. Alexander Dep. at 41–42; Mother of Former Page Dep. at 35–38. 216 Exhibit 9. 

day as Clerk of the House was the next day, Friday, November 18, 

2005. 

Rep. Shimkus testified that he did not consider involving other 

members of the Page Board in addressing the matter of the Foley 

e-mails. Rep. Shimkus explained this decision as follows: 

Well, first of all, the excerpts of the e-mail were such 

that this is a former page. They are not a current page. 

It is a request of the parents to intervene. There is nothing 

explicit in these e-mails that would rise to the level of concern that there is anything other than what it says on this 

e-mail. We were asked to address this by the parents in 

confidence, and that is—I weighed on doing something 

that is not easy to do, addressing a colleague on something 

of this nature and keeping confidence with the parents. 

That is why.212

After Rep. Foley resigned, on approximately October 2, 2006, 

Rep. Shimkus told fellow Page Board member Rep. Shelley Moore 

Capito that he believed he had done the right thing in 2005 based 

on the information he had, but added words to the effect of ‘‘Dale’s 

[Rep. Dale Kildee] a nice guy, but he’s a Democrat, and I was 

afraid it would be blown out of proportion.’’ 213

F. CONTINUING PRESS INTEREST; REPRESENTATIVES ALEXANDER

BRIEFS MAJORITY LEADER BOEHNER AND REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS; MAJORITY LEADER BOEHNER AND REPRESENTATIVE REYNOLDS REPORTEDLY BRIEF SPEAKER HASTERT

Over Memorial Day weekend 2006, Matt Miller, the House 

Democratic Caucus communications director, who is himself a 

former page, attended a page reunion in Washington. During the 

reunion, in a conversation with another former page, he mentioned 

the Foley e-mails and his frustration that the press had declined 

to run a story on them. The other former page put him in touch 

with a writer from Harper’s Magazine. The Harper’s writer was interested in the story, and soon thereafter, he contacted the offices 

of both Rep. Foley and Rep. Alexander. Rep. Foley, as he had done 

previously with the St. Petersburg Times, talked to the reporter directly and attempted to explain away the e-mails.214 Rep. Alexander’s office again responded by contacting the former page’s parents 

to warn of possible press calls, and also to confirm that there had 

been no more communication from Rep. Foley.215 Royal Alexander 

also again contacted Stokke to advise him of the renewed press interest in Rep. Foley’s e-mails. On June 1, 2006, Royal Alexander 

e-mailed Stokke, ‘‘I just wanted to give you a heads up that that 

sensitive matter we discussed about 3 months ago re Rep. Foley is 

cropping up again. It may be worth a conversation.’’ 216 According 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
37 

217 Royal Alexander Dep. at 79–81. 218Stokke Dep. at 106–08. 219 Rep. Alexander Dep. at 48–50, 72. 220 Rep. Alexander Dep. at 49. 221Majority Leader John Boehner Deposition (hereinafter Boehner Dep.) at 6–8. 222 Boehner Dep. at 9. 223There was a difference in testimony regarding this sequence of events. Rep. Alexander believes that he first briefed Majority Leader Boehner, and then briefed Rep. Reynolds later that 

same day after Rep. Reynolds came to him on the floor and said that he had been told about 

the e-mails by Leader Boehner. Alexander Dep. at 50–51. Rep. Reynolds testified that Leader 

Boehner advised him on the House floor that Rep. Alexander would be coming to see him on 

an unspecified matter, and that Rep. Alexander eventually approached him as long as a week 

later. Representative Tom Reynolds Deposition (hereinafter Reynolds Dep.) at 15–16. 

to Royal Alexander, Stokke did not respond.217 Stokke testified 

that he does not recall receiving the e-mail.218

Rep. Alexander decided at that point that he personally needed 

to bring the matter to the attention of leadership because he ‘‘felt 

like the story was about to break and just need[ed] somebody to 

know.’’ 219 While on the House floor during a series of votes, Rep. 

Alexander mentioned the matter to Majority Leader Boehner, stating in substance, ‘‘I don’t know how familiar you are with the email story about the page from Louisiana and Congressman Foley. 

But we have gotten another inquiry from a different media source 

about these e-mails. And I wanted you to be aware that they are 

contacting the office again.’’ According to Rep. Alexander, Majority 

Leader Boehner responded with words to the effect of ‘‘Okay, we 

will handle it.’’ 220 Majority Leader Boehner confirmed that this 

conversation occurred. His recollection of the conversation was substantially the same, although he recalls that his response to Rep. 

Alexander was ‘‘thanks for the info.’’ 221 Majority Leader Boehner 

recalls that his conversation with Rep. Alexander lasted for ‘‘less 

than a minute.’’ 222 According to both Rep. Alexander and Rep. Tom 

Reynolds, Rep. Alexander also similarly briefed Rep. Reynolds during the same time period in a short conversation on the House 

floor.223 Rep. Alexander did not show the e-mails to either Majority 

Leader Boehner or Rep. Reynolds. 

Majority Leader Boehner testified that within half an hour of 

being briefed by Rep. Alexander, he believes that he briefed Speaker Hastert on the matter on the House floor, and that Speaker 

Hastert said that the matter ‘‘has been taken care of.’’ Majority 

Leader Boehner testified as follows: 

Q Now, you say later on—how soon after [talking to Alexander] did you speak with the Speaker? 

A You know, some—I would say sometime within a 

half-hour, an hour, as best I can recall. Best I can recall, 

I believe that I found the Speaker on the floor and told 

him what Alexander had told me, and I believe that he 

said to me it had been taken care of. 

Q Now, when you had heard this news from Mr. Alexander, and the conversation concluded, I mean, did you 

make a decision to talk to the Speaker, or how you were 

going to handle it? 

A No. No. The Speaker and I have conversations all 

day every day, and I routinely pass information to him, 

and he routinely passes information to me. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
38 

224 Boehner Dep. at 11–13. 225Paula Nowakowski Deposition (hereinafter Nowakowski Dep.) at 9–11, 17. 226 Hastert Dep. at 8, 54. 227 Reynolds Dep. at 18. 228 Reynolds Dep. at 18–19. 

Q So to the best of your recollection, what of this information that was told from Mr. Alexander did you communicate to the Speaker? 

A As best I can recall that Alexander talked to me, 

that there had been some contact between Foley and a 

former page, and that the parents didn’t want it pursued. 

I don’t know whether I told him that Reynolds told me he 

had talked to—or Alexander—I don’t know whether I told 

him that Alexander had told Reynolds. I may have. I don’t 

know. 

* * * * * * * 

Q So the Speaker communicated that it had been taken 

care of? 

A Yes, to the best I can recall. 

Q Can you testify that those were his exact words, or 

you are characterizing? 

A No. I believe that those were the exact words. 

Q What did you take that to mean? 

A That it had been taken care of. The Speaker—the 

Speaker is a friend of mine. We’ve known each other a 

long time. We’ve worked close together. We work well together, and this is something—an issue in his purview, 

and he tells me it has been taken care of, I believe it has 

been taken care of.224

The conversation was apparently brief. Paula Nowakowski, Majority Leader Boehner’s chief of staff, testified that Boehner briefed 

her on what he had heard from Rep. Alexander, but that Majority 

Leader Boehner did not mention that he had briefed the Speaker.225

Speaker Hastert testified that he does not recall this conversation. ‘‘What I’m saying is I don’t remember having that conversation with Boehner on the House floor; and probably the House floor 

would not be the place to have that conversation, in my point of 

view.’’ 226

Similarly, Rep. Reynolds testified that ‘‘more than a day’’ after 

he was briefed by Alexander, he also informed Speaker Hastert, 

probably in Speaker Hastert’s office, of the information he had 

learned from Rep. Alexander. Specifically, Rep. Reynolds testified 

that he told Speaker Hastert that he had had a conversation with 

Rep. Alexander ‘‘that indicated that he had a page that received 

some overly friendly e-mails from Mark Foley. But that the parents 

were aware, and didn’t want anything further to happen or to be 

dealt with on the issue.’’ 227 According to Rep. Reynolds, the Foley 

e-mails were just one briefing item out of many at that meeting, 

and Speaker Hastert did not comment on the matter.228 A Reynolds aide, Sally Vastola, recalls a brief discussion in a car outside 

the Capitol during this time period in which Rep. Reynolds, who 

was late for an appearance at a campaign event, explained to her 

that he was late because he had to go see the Speaker about a conVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
39 

229Sally Vastola Deposition (hereinafter Vastola Dep.) at 15. Rep. Reynolds does not recall 

mentioning his meeting with the Speaker to Vastola. Reynolds Dep. at 20–21. 230 Hastert Dep. at 7. The Speaker’s office released a document entitled ‘‘Internal Review of 

Contacts with the Office of the Speaker Regarding the Congressman Mark Foley Matter’’ on September 30, 2006, which is discussed later in this report. The ‘‘Internal Review’’ states in 

part, ‘‘During a meeting with the Speaker [Rep. Reynolds] says he noted the issue which had 

been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker than an investigation was conducted by the 

Clerk of the House and Shimkus.’’ Reynolds denies that he advised the Speaker regarding any 

investigation or other resolution of the matter. According to Rep. Reynolds, at the time he notified the Speaker of the matter, he had ‘‘no idea there was an investigation done by Mr. Shimkus 

or the Clerk of the House.’’ Reynolds Dep. at 58–59. 231On this point, the Speaker testified as follows: 

A I stated that I don’t recollect that conversation taking place. I carry these little note 

cards with me all the time. Usually if I have something, I take it down. I wrote it down. 

I have never done that. 

Q With respect to Mr. Boehner or Mr. Reynolds’ conversation? 

A That’s correct. 

Q What types of matters do you take down on your note cards? 

A If a Member asks me to do something, I write it down. More than two things, 

I can’t remember it anymore. 

Q What if a Member just passes on information or keeps you informed or keeps you 

in the loop, would you write that down on your note cards? 

A Depends on what the information is. I’m not trying to be coy, it just depends what 

it is. 

Q So if it requires you to take an affirmative step or to do something — A If they are asking me to do something or take an action or provide a resource, 

I would—I would make note of it on the floor. 

Hastert Dep. at 8–9. 232Stokke Dep. at 94–102. 233Stokke Dep. at 98. Nicholson testified that beginning in early 2006, Rep. Foley began to 

express serious reservations about running for reelection, and that she had difficulty getting 

him to focus on what appeared to be a significant election challenge. Nicholson testified that 

Rep. Foley was ‘‘down’’ and was a ‘‘whole different guy’’ for a long period, and it was not until 

early summer that he began to get energized about the election. Nicholson Dep. at 42–45. 234Ken Silverstein, ‘‘Republicans Want to Turn Over a New Page,’’ Harper’s Magazine online, 

Oct. 10, 2006. 

versation he had with Rep. Alexander regarding Rep. Foley. Rep. 

Reynolds did not elaborate on the content of that conversation.229

Speaker Hastert testified that he does not recall any conversation with Rep. Reynolds regarding the Foley e-mails.230 Speaker 

Hastert testified that it is his practice to make notes regarding significant matters brought to his attention, particularly if action is 

required by his office, and that he does not recall recording the alleged conversations with Majority Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds.231

Stokke testified that in May 2006, Rep. Reynolds also raised the 

Foley issue with him as a potential political problem during the 

course of a discussion on political matters in Stokke’s office. Stokke 

told Rep. Reynolds that he was aware of the issue and that he 

thought that it had been ‘‘handled.’’ 232 Stokke described the exchange as follows: 

I believe he [Rep. Reynolds] raised it as part of a discussion of 

a number of Member[s]; and the issue there was, as I recall it, he 

was going to run again, Mr. Foley, but there has been this issue 

raised about Mr. Foley. And my recollection is that I indicated that 

we were aware of this issue and that this issue had been dealt 

with. Not in a press sense, because I don’t know where the press 

state was, but in a solve-the-problem sense.233

Ultimately, as with the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg 

Times, Harper’s declined to run a story on the e-mails because they ‘‘did not have absolute proof that Foley was, as one editor put it, 

‘anything but creepy.’ ’’ 234 Nevertheless, the e-mails continued to 

circulate throughout the spring and summer of 2006. According to 

the Harper’s reporter, he was disappointed with the decision not to 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
40 

235Ken Silverstein, ‘‘Republicans Want to Turn Over a New Page,’’ Harper’s Magazine online, 

Oct. 10, 2006. 236 Jason Kello Interview Transcript (hereinafter Kello Int. Tr.) at 19–20 (emphases added). 237 Nicholson Dep. at 40–41. 238The Justice Department has reportedly stated, ‘‘The e-mails, while inappropriate, did not 

contain a criminal predicate to allow the FBI to move forward with an investigation.’’ Dan 

Eggen, ‘‘Watchdog Group Disputes FBI’s Claims on E-Mails,’’ Washington Post, Oct. 6, 2006. 239 Exhibit 10. Subsequent press reports identified the blogger as former Democratic congressional aide Lane Hudson. Hudson reportedly provided the e-mails to the Los Angeles Times in 

July 2006 and later established the blog after being frustrated that the Times had not published 

an article. Hudson would not identify the source of the e-mails but said that they ‘‘weren’t hard 

to come by.’’ Hudson was then employed by the Human Rights Campaign, but he was later terminated for violating the organization’s policy against using its computers for blogging. Noam 

Levey, ‘‘Anti-Foley Blogger Speaks Out,’’ Los Angeles Times, Nov. 10, 2006. 240 Exhibit 11. (‘‘This is one in a series of emails some anonymous and semi-literate blogger 

claims are from Representative Mark Foley (R–FL) to a 16-year-old male House page. Oh, of 

course they’re not real. But let’s all pretend, ok? ’Cause it’s better than another damn plagiarism 

‘scandal’’’). 

publish, and he ‘‘passed along the emails and related materials to 

several people who were in a position to share them with other 

media outlets,’’ and he ‘‘subsequently learned that other people had 

the same information and were also contacting reporters.’’ 235 Jason 

Kello, Rep. Foley’s communications director, testified that by the 

summer of 2006, his assumption was that every reporter he dealt 

with had the e-mails, and he repeatedly raised the issue with Liz 

Nicholson and Rep. Foley in an effort to develop a plan to respond 

to the issue. In his view, ‘‘it was not an if these e-mails came out, 

that it was more along the lines of when these e-mails came 

out.’’ 236 According to Nicholson, in July of 2006, the Foley campaign received word that Foley’s Democratic opponent, Tim 

Mahoney, intended to use the e-mails in his campaign.237 According to an organization called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics 

in Washington (‘‘CREW’’), it received the e-mails from an undisclosed source on July 21, 2006, and forwarded them to the FBI the 

same day. The FBI apparently declined to pursue the matter at 

that time.238

G. THE E-MAILS ARE PUBLISHED AND THE INSTANT MESSAGES

SURFACE

On Sunday, September 24, 2006, the e-mails were posted on an 

apparently recently established weblog, 

stopsexpredators.blogspot.com. The postings included the comment, 

‘‘This is absolutely amazing. I just received these emails. They were 

sent by Congressman Mark Foley to a 16-year-old male page. I 

have removed his name to protect his identity. But how shocking 

is this? I can’t believe this was emailed to me? There must be even 

more out there. Email me at stopsexpredators@gmail.com and let 

me know what we should do!!!! Something must be done!!!!’’ 239 Another weblog, wonkette.com, subsequently linked to the 

stopsexpredators weblog on September 27, 2006, although 

wonkette.com was skeptical that the e-mails were real.240

The next day, Monday, September 25, Rep. Foley and his staff 

had a conference call to discuss the e-mails. During the call, at 

least two staff members pressed Rep. Foley on whether there was 

‘‘anything else out there,’’ and Rep. Foley told them that there was 

not. The conclusion after the meeting was to wait and see if anything else happened. As the week went on, Rep. Foley’s office conVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
41 

241Kello Int. Tr. at 31–33. 242 Nicholson Dep. at 59–60. Nicholson became Foley’s chief of staff in May 2005. Nicholson 

Dep. at 6. 243 Rhonda Schwartz and Maddy Sauer, ‘‘Sixteen-Year Old Who Worked as Capitol Hill Page 

Concerned About E-mail Exchange with Congressman.’’ The post indicates that it was posted 

at 3:06 p.m. on September 28, 2006. Exhibit 12. 244Stokke Dep. at 115–16. 245Stokke Dep. at 121. 246 Van Der Meid Dep. at 155–56. 247 Van Der Meid Dep. at 156–58. 248 Bradley Schreiber Interview Transcript (hereinafter Schreiber Int. Tr.) at 29. 249Schreiber Int. Tr. at 28–33. 

tinued to get inquiries from a number of media outlets and others, 

including the Washington Post and ABC news.241

On Thursday, September 28, 2006, Rhonda Schwartz of ABC 

News contacted Foley’s chief of staff, Liz Nicholson, regarding the 

e-mails, and Nicholson commented at length on the record.242 Later 

that day, ABC News posted a story on the e-mails on the Brian 

Ross page of its website. Nicholson was quoted in the article as 

saying that Rep. Foley’s office believed that the e-mail exchange 

was totally innocent, and that the e-mails were released by the opposition as part of an ‘‘ugly smear campaign.’’ Nicholson also was 

reported to have said that Rep. Foley’s office ‘‘believed the e-mail 

exchange began when the page asked Rep. Foley for a recommendation.’’ The article also reported that ‘‘Foley’s office says it 

is their policy to keep pictures of former interns and anyone who 

may ask for a recommendation on file so they can remember 

them.’’ 243

The ABC News report came to the attention of Stokke in the 

Speaker’s office, who testified that he recalled getting an e-mail 

from Royal Alexander telling him that the issue regarding the emails had ‘‘come up again.’’ 244 Stokke thought that the issue had 

previously been ‘‘raised and addressed,’’ and that it was now a ‘‘political/media’’ issue, and said that he did not discuss the matter 

with anyone in the Speaker’s office that day.245 Van Der Meid also 

recalls hearing about the e-mails on September 28, and understanding that these were the same e-mails that he had known 

about earlier.246 He does not recall talking to anyone about the emails on that day.247

On that same date, Rep. Foley authorized Bradley Schreiber, an 

attorney on his congressional staff, to put together a legal team for 

the purpose of considering whether to file a defamation lawsuit 

against ABC News. ‘‘I believe, given the e-mails that we had reviewed and the way that the story was written, that it made an 

inference that [Rep. Foley] was a sexual predator. I suggested to 

[Rep. Foley] that that would affect not only his campaign, but 

would—not only affect his campaign, but as an individual and as 

a sitting Member of Congress, and that we consider filing a lawsuit 

against ABC News.’’ 248 Discussion of a possible defamation lawsuit 

continued within Rep. Foley’s office on September 29, 2006. On 

that date, Schreiber contacted Elliot Berke, counsel to Speaker 

Hastert, to consult with him on the merits of filing such a lawsuit.249

ABC News included a ‘‘tip line’’ on its website, and on the 

evening of September 28 a former page (‘‘Former Page X’’) contacted ABC News and reported that he had information regarding 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
42 

250Former Page X Int. Tr. at 36. 251Former Page X Int. Tr. at 13–19. 252Former Page X Int. Tr. at 26–27. 253Former Page X Int. Tr. at 60–61. 254Former Page X Int. Tr. at 35–40. Former Page X provided the Investigative Subcommittee 

with copies of all of the e-mails and instant messages he had in his possession, which included 

the IMs published by ABC News, as well as many additional IMs with similar content. A copy 

of the material provided to the Committee is included as Exhibit 13, with personal information 

regarding the recipient page redacted. 255Former Page X Int. Tr. at 38, 43–44. 256Former Page X Int. Tr. at 47–49. 

Rep. Foley’s interaction with former pages.250 In 2003, Former 

Page X had received copies of multiple sexually explicit IM conversations from Rep. Foley to two other former pages. He received 

the IMs from one of the recipient former pages with whom he had 

kept in contact since they were pages in 2001 and 2002.251 Former 

Page X did not forward the IMs to anyone or take any other action 

when he first received them in 2003, but he stored the IMs on his 

computer where they remained until September 28, 2006.252

Former Page X testified that he did not consider bringing the IMs 

to the attention of the page program at the time he received copies 

of them, explaining as follows: 

Personally, you know, it’s I guess up to the victim to, 

you know, deal with that kind of stuff. You know, I 

didn’t—I guess didn’t feel it was my responsibility. You 

know, it was up to [the recipients] to bring it forward if 

they wanted to.253

On the evening of September 28, Former Page X was alerted to 

the ABC story by another former page, and he remembered the 

IMs that he had received in 2003. He was able to recover them 

from his computer, and he forwarded them to the former page who 

had alerted him to the ABC story. The two of them discussed the 

IMs and what they should do, and they concluded that they should 

contact ABC News. Former Page X contacted ABC through the tip 

line, and he forwarded the IMs on the evening of September 28 and 

the morning of September 29.254 Former Page X believes that the 

other page also provided the IMs to ABC independently.255

Prior to September 28 and 29, 2006 the IMs were apparently 

known to a number of pages and close friends of the IM recipients. 

According to Former Page X, after he had provided the IMs to ABC 

News, he and the IM recipient discussed the identity of the ABC 

News source. Former Page X did not admit that he was the source, 

and the IM recipient told Former Page X that he had shared them 

with as many as 12 people.256 In addition, according to Former 

Page X and another former page, the IMs were a topic of discussion 

during a February 2003 page reunion in Washington. 

The Investigative Subcommittee uncovered no evidence that the 

IMs were provided to, or were possessed by, any House Member, 

officer or employee, the press, or any political organization prior to 

September 28 and 29, 2006. 

H. REPRESENTATIVE FOLEY RESIGNS

On the morning of September 29, ABC News called Rep. Foley’s 

communications director and said that ABC had 36 pages of sexually explicit IMs purportedly written by Rep. Foley to a former 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
43 

257Kello Int. Tr. at 40–41. 258Fordham Dep. at 58. 259Fordham Dep. at 60. 260Fordham Dep. at 60. 261Fordham Dep. at 61. 262Fordham Dep. at 62; Hastert Dep. at 10–12. 263 Hastert Dep. at 11; Vastola Dep. at 40. 264Fordham Dep. at 67. 265 Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer, ‘‘Foley Resigns Over Sexually Explicit Messages to Minors’’ The post indicates that it was posted at 3:02 p.m. on September 29, 2006. Exhibit 14; Brian 

Ross, Rhonda Schwartz, and Maddy Sauer, ‘‘Exclusive: The Sexually Explicit Internet Messages 

That Led to Fla. Rep. Foley’s Resignation.’’ The post indicates that it was posted at 5:59 p.m. 

on September 29, 2006. Exhibit 15. 266Shimkus Dep. at 25. 267Shimkus Dep. at 25. 

page.257 The communications director called Fordham, who, though 

no longer Rep. Foley’s chief of staff, was still a Foley campaign advisor, and was then at Rep. Foley’s Capitol Hill home for lunch, 

along with Rep. Foley and his current chief of staff, Nicholson. The 

communications director described the phone call from ABC.258

Fordham then asked Rep. Foley whether the IMs were authentic, 

and Foley responded, ‘‘Probably.’’ 259 Fordham told Rep. Foley that 

the IMs could not be defended and suggested to Rep. Foley that he 

resign.260

Fordham then walked from Rep. Foley’s house to the offices of 

the National Republican Congressional Committee (‘‘NRCC’’), 

where a number of people, including Fordham, Vastola, Rep. Reynolds, and a number of other NRCC staff gathered to discuss the 

matter.261 Speaker Hastert and Stokke were at the NRCC on another matter, and they were brought into the meeting as well.262

Some of those present at the meeting recall that statements were 

made that Rep. Foley intended to resign, while others recall that 

the meeting participants concluded that Rep. Foley had to resign.263 In any event, there was general agreement that Rep. Foley 

needed to resign immediately, and the NRCC staff drafted a onesentence letter of resignation. Fordham left the NRCC with the 

proposed letter of resignation, and went back to Rep. Foley’s house 

by way of Rep. Foley’s office in the Cannon House Office Building. 

Rep. Foley signed the letter of resignation and, in anticipation of 

a press onslaught, left town.264

ABC News ran two stories later that day regarding the IMs and 

Foley’s resignation.265 Excerpts from the IMs were posted on the 

ABC website with the second story. 

I. EVENTS AFTER REPRESENTATIVE FOLEY’S RESIGNATION

As September 29 progressed, word of Rep. Foley’s resignation filtered through the Capitol. Rep. Shimkus was summoned to the 

Speaker’s office mid-afternoon just prior to a scheduled enrollment 

ceremony where Rep. Foley’s sudden resignation was being discussed. Speaker Hastert let Rep. Shimkus know that he would invoke Rep. Shimkus’ name if asked about the Foley matter by the 

press after the ceremony, and suggested that perhaps the Page 

Board should initiate an investigation.266 Rep. Shimkus was initially ‘‘clueless,’’ because this was the first he had heard about Rep. 

Foley’s resignation and, unaware of the IMs, he could not believe 

that Rep. Foley would resign over the e-mails that he had known 

about a year earlier.267


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
44 

268Shimkus Dep. at 39–40. 269Shimkus Dep. at 44. 270 Capito Dep. at 9–10; Kildee Dep. at 8–9; McNamara Int. Sum. 271 Capito Dep. at 26. 272 Boehner Dep. at 16. 273Palmer Dep. at 78–80. 274 Nowakowski Dep. at 16. Nowakowski also testified that Majority Leader Boehner later told 

her that he was ‘‘99%’’ certain he had talked to the Speaker. Nowakowski Dep. at 49. 275 Boehner Dep. at 17. 276 Boehner Dep. at 31. 277 Exhibit 1. 

Later that day, Rep. Shimkus went to see Rep. Dale Kildee, who 

was a member of the Page Board, and for the first time disclosed 

to Rep. Kildee his knowledge of the e-mails in November 2005 and 

his confrontation with Rep. Foley.268 Rep. Shimkus then had a 

similar meeting with Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, who was also unaware of the events of November 2005.269 A Page Board meeting 

was held later that day with all of the members except for the 

emeritus member, Donnald Anderson.270 The Board briefly discussed and dismissed the possibility of an investigation, as they did 

not believe that they had investigative authority. After the meeting, Rep. Shimkus, Rep. Capito, and the current Clerk of the 

House, Karen Haas, visited the page dorm to reassure the current 

pages that they were committed to their safety.271

Sometime on the evening of September 29, Majority Leader 

Boehner told a Washington Post reporter that Rep. Alexander had 

approached him regarding the Foley e-mails during the spring of 

2006, and that he, in turn, had informed Speaker Hastert of the 

situation and that Speaker Hastert had said that the matter ‘‘had 

been taken care of.’’ 272 Palmer later contacted Nowakowski regarding the perceived inconsistency between Majority Leader Boehner’s 

and Speaker Hastert’s statements, as Speaker Hastert had stated 

that he had no knowledge regarding the e-mails.273 Nowakowski, 

along with press secretary Kevin Madden, asked Majority Leader 

Boehner whether he was absolutely sure that he spoke with Speaker Hastert on the matter. Majority Leader Boehner explained to 

them that although he believed that he had spoken with Speaker 

Hastert, he could not be certain.274 Madden and Majority Leader 

Boehner subsequently contacted the Post reporter to relate Majority Leader Boehner’s position.275 In his testimony to the Subcommittee, Majority Leader Boehner explained that his recollection 

of receiving a response from the Speaker makes him believe that 

he did have a conversation with Speaker Hastert: ‘‘And that’s why, 

while I can’t be certain that I talked to him or where I talked to 

him, I do believe that I talked to him, because I remember the response.’’ 276

Speaker Hastert departed for Illinois by air with Stokke on the 

evening of the September 29. After the Speaker had departed, Minority Leader Pelosi introduced H. Res. 1065, a privileged resolution directing that the Committee on Standards ‘‘immediately appoint an investigative subcommittee . . . to fully and expeditiously 

determine the facts connected with Representative Foley’s conduct 

and the response thereto.’’ The resolution included the language, ‘‘Whereas Rep. Alexander has said ‘We also notified the House 

leadership that there might be a potential problem.’ ’’ 277 The resolution was referred to the Committee on Standards by vote of the 

full House. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
45 

278Palmer Dep. at 91. 279 Nowakowski Dep. at 29. 280 Reynolds Dep. at 45–50, 84. 281 Reynolds Dep. at 82, 86. 282Palmer Dep. at 93. Nowakowski recalls that ‘‘we were trying to be very careful that we 

not get ourselves in the issue—the situation where, you know, we might be seen as manipulating someone’s testimony or that kind of thing.’’ Nowakowski Dep. at 29. 283Palmer Dep. at 95–96. Rep. Alexander recalls that this clarification was made to the press 

outside the meeting. Rep. Alexander Dep. at 59. 284Palmer Dep. at 96. 285 Nowakowski Dep. at 29–30. 286Palmer Dep. at 112. 287Palmer Dep. at 113. 

Sometime before midnight, a meeting was held in Majority Leader Boehner’s office to talk about the matter.278 Among those 

present, at least at some point, were Majority Leader Boehner, 

Rep. Shimkus, Rep. Pryce, Rep. Alexander, Rep. Cantor, Rep. 

Blunt, Palmer, and Nowakowski. Since the meeting was convened 

after the referral to the Committee on Standards, some participants questioned whether it was appropriate to conduct the meeting.279 Rep. Reynolds chose not to attend the meeting on the advice 

of his counsel, Randy Evans, after suspecting that Rep. Alexander 

and others who had prior knowledge of the Foley matter might be 

in attendance.280 Rep. Reynolds testified: 

I’m not inclined to go in and collaborate or memorialize 

anything that would deal with this based on the fact that, 

previous to this, we had voted to send it to the Ethics 

Committee. 

* * * * * * * 

I made a decision not to go, based on a discussion with 

Randy Evans’ counsel [sic], because I had previously voted 

to engage the ethics committee to review this. Not being 

a lawyer, there are not many things I know about the legal 

side of this, but I do know that discussions of recollecting 

anything is not preferred.281

Nevertheless, the conclusion was reached by others involved that 

the meeting should proceed in the interest of being able to answer 

press calls regarding the matter, and, according to Palmer, Majority Leader Boehner opened the meeting by explaining that the 

meeting was not intended to influence recollections.282 During the 

meeting, Rep. Alexander explained what he knew about the e-mails 

and the family’s wishes. He also clarified that he had not talked 

to the Speaker about the e-mails and apologized that a previous 

statement that he had made had left that impression.283 Rep. 

Shimkus described his confrontation with Rep. Foley the previous 

November.284 The group discussed the difference between the emails and the IMs, and Majority Leader Boehner went around the 

room asking whether anyone had known about the IMs, and it was 

stressed that any statements on the matter should be precise in 

differentiating between the e-mails and the IMs.285

At about two or three a.m. on September 30, Palmer, upon returning to his office, was reportedly told by one of the Speaker’s attorneys, Elliott Berke, that Palmer should talk to Tim Kennedy.286

Palmer testified that in speaking with Kennedy, he first learned 

that Stokke had been made aware of the e-mails in November 

2005, and had referred the matter to the Clerk.287 Palmer directed 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
46 

288 Haas Int. Tr. at 66. 289 A copy of the ‘‘Internal Review’’ is attached as Exhibit 16. 

Berke to conduct an internal review of the matter with a view towards issuing a statement. 

During the day of September 30, Elliott Berke and Randy Evans 

interviewed Kennedy, Stokke, Van Der Meid, and Karen Haas. According to Haas, she had been called by Van Der Meid who said 

‘‘that he was trying to put together a timeline, you know, kind of 

what had happened, and so if there was anything that, you know, 

I could provide, that would be helpful, either, you know, past conversations I had with Jeff or anything else that, you know, he 

would appreciate it.’’ 288 She called Jeff Trandahl and later that 

day reported the results of that conversation to Berke and others 

in the Speaker’s office. 

Palmer drafted a report based on input from Berke and Evans. 

Before the statement was released, Palmer read the report during 

a conference call among leadership staff, including Boehner’s chief 

of staff, Paula Nowakowski. The Speaker’s office released the ‘‘Internal Review of Contacts with the Office of the Speaker Regarding 

the Congressman Mark Foley Matter’’ (‘‘Internal Review’’) on September 30, characterizing the release as a ‘‘preliminary report.’’ 289

On October 5, 2006, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct met and passed the resolution creating the Investigative Subcommittee. 

V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The Investigative Subcommittee was established to conduct a 

broad inquiry into whether Members, officers, and employees of the 

House of Representatives acted properly with respect to any knowledge or information they had regarding improper conduct involving 

Members and pages or former pages. At the time the Investigative 

Subcommittee was established, in the week after Rep. Foley’s resignation, little was known about the facts regarding Rep. Foley’s 

conduct (or the conduct of any other Member) with pages or former 

pages, who knew about any aspects of that conduct, and what they 

did with that knowledge. The facts that were known raised important issues regarding the safety and well-being of congressional 

pages, and caused sufficient concern about the oversight and management of the page program that the Committee concluded an immediate investigation was necessary. 

As a result of its investigation, the Investigative Subcommittee 

concludes that the evidence available to it does not establish a 

basis to recommend additional proceedings to determine whether 

any particular House Member, officer or employee subject to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct violated House rules or standards of conduct. The Investigative Subcommittee therefore does not recommend further investigative or 

disciplinary proceedings against any Member, officer or employee. 

The Investigative Subcommittee’s conclusion that the evidence 

does not support further investigative or disciplinary proceedings 

should not be read as a conclusion that the Members, officers and 

employees whose conduct was reviewed acted properly at all times 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
47 

in connection with their knowledge or handling of information concerning improper conduct involving Members and current and 

former House pages. To the contrary, the Investigative Subcommittee finds a significant number of instances where Members, 

officers or employees failed to exercise appropriate diligence and 

oversight, or should have exercised greater diligence and oversight, 

regarding issues arising from the interaction between former Rep. 

Mark Foley and current or former House pages. But the requirement that Members and staff act at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House does not mean that every error in 

judgment or failure to exercise appropriate oversight and sufficient 

diligence establishes a violation of House Rule 23. The Subcommittee is mindful of the ease with which decisions and conduct 

can be questioned in hindsight with the benefit of later-discovered 

facts. The danger of hindsight is particularly significant in this 

matter, given the nature of the instant messages that never surfaced until late September 2006 and led to Rep. Foley’s resignation. 

The Subcommittee has reviewed the conduct of the various individuals involved in this matter based on the information they had 

available to them at the time. 

As a general matter, the Subcommittee observed a disconcerting 

unwillingness to take responsibility for resolving issues regarding 

Rep. Foley’s conduct. Rather than addressing the issues fully, some 

witnesses did far too little, while attempting to pass the responsibility for acting to others. Some relied on unreasonably fine distinctions regarding their defined responsibilities. Almost no one followed up adequately on the limited actions they did take. 

With respect to the e-mails to the former Alexander page, a number of Members, officers and staff had opportunities to inquire further into Rep. Foley’s conduct, to elevate the issues raised by the 

e-mails to more senior Members or staff, or to otherwise take steps 

consistent with knowledge of inappropriate e-mails from a middleaged Member of Congress to a 16-year-old boy one month removed 

from the House page program. While some did fulfill their responsibilities, the Investigative Subcommittee finds that too many exhibited insufficient diligence or willingness to take the steps necessary to ensure that the matter was being appropriately handled. 

No one in the House who was involved in addressing Rep. Foley’s 

conduct, other than Rep. Alexander and his staff, actually saw the 

e-mails. Several people were told about the e-mails and were asked 

to take action regarding them, including confronting Rep. Foley 

and telling him to stop communicating with the former page, but 

none of those people saw—or insisted on seeing—the e-mails prior 

to taking such action. A number of witnesses testified that they 

were not given copies of the e-mails because of the family’s request 

for privacy, but all of those witnesses knew at the time that a 

newspaper already had the e-mails. Almost no one followed up to 

make sure that the action they had taken had been successful. 

The Investigative Subcommittee cannot determine conclusively 

the motivation for those who failed to fulfill their responsibilities. 

However, the Investigative Subcommittee identified several factors 

that may have been in play. Some may have been concerned that 

raising the issue too aggressively might have risked exposing Rep. 

Foley’s homosexuality, which could have adversely affected him 

both personally and politically. There is some evidence that politVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
48 

ical considerations played a role in decisions that were made by 

persons in both parties. The wishes of the page’s family for privacy 

could have also provided a convenient justification for failing to 

pursue the matter more aggressively for those who were already so 

inclined. 

Some or all of these factors (as well as others) may have played 

a role in decisions that were made about how this matter should 

have been handled, but in the Investigative Subcommittee’s view 

none of these factors mitigated the need for those involved to learn 

all the relevant facts and communicate those facts candidly and 

freely to those with authority to address the issues raised by the 

e-mails. 

The Investigative Subcommittee did not address whether the 

various matters involving former Rep. Foley would necessarily 

have been resolved differently had greater diligence or oversight 

been exercised, including whether disclosure of the instant messages that led to Rep. Foley’s resignation would have happened 

sooner, later, or not at all. Reaching such conclusions would require 

constructing a chain of uncertain and unpredictable events, and 

would therefore involve inappropriate speculation. So, for example, 

even had one or more of the witnesses discussed below successfully 

demanded to see the actual e-mails sent to the former Alexander 

page prior to or after confronting Rep. Foley in November 2005, the 

Investigative Subcommittee cannot conclude that the outcome of 

that meeting with Rep. Foley would have been different. The inability to predict different outcomes, however, does not prevent the 

Investigative Subcommittee from reaching conclusions regarding 

the conduct that was the subject of the inquiry. 

As described elsewhere in this Report, Rep. Foley resigned from 

the House on September 29, 2006, after he learned that the media 

had copies of certain sexually graphic instant messages he had sent 

to one or more former House pages. The disclosure of the instant 

messages reportedly triggered a number of state and federal criminal inquiries. The Committee lost jurisdiction over Rep. Foley upon 

his resignation, and through his counsel Rep. Foley refused to testify before the Subcommittee, citing the pending criminal investigations against him and asserting his constitutional right to refuse 

to testify against himself. As a result, the Investigative Subcommittee did not seek to investigate fully all instances in which 

former Rep. Foley may have had improper communications with 

pages or former pages, or to determine the complete facts and circumstances surrounding the instant messages that were the cause 

of his resignation. Based on the evidence it did collect, however, the 

Investigative Subcommittee unanimously concludes that had Rep. 

Foley not resigned there would have been a substantial basis to 

find a violation by Rep. Foley of House rules or standards of conduct. 

The evidence before the Subcommittee establishes that Rep. 

Foley on more than one occasion established contact with House 

pages before the end of their page service and secured e-mail addresses or other contact information for the pages. That evidence 

also suggests that at or after their departure from the House, Rep. 

Foley began contacting some former pages with increasingly familiar communications. As the former pages responded, the messages 

from Rep. Foley at times turned to sexually graphic topics, includVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
49 

290 Investigation Pursuant to House Resolution 12 Concerning Alleged Improper or Illegal Sexual Conduct By Members, Officers, or Employees of the House, H. Rep. 98–297, 98th Cong., 1st 

Sess. (July 14, 1983) at 37 (emphasis added). 291 Id. at 37. 292 Id. at 14. 

ing messages that could be read as sexual solicitation. Although 

the recipients were former pages by the time the sexually graphic 

messages were sent, the fact that the initial contact began when 

the young men were pages suggests that Rep. Foley may have been 

using the page program to in part at least to identify possible future recipients of graphic communications. 

At its core, such conduct is an abuse of power, and an abuse of 

trust of the pages, their parents or guardians, and the Congress 

itself. Behavior of this kind cannot be excused or tolerated, as it 

undermines the integrity of the House. A Member engaging in such 

conduct violates House Rule 23, Clause 1, which mandates that 

Members conduct themselves ‘‘at all times in a manner that shall 

reflect creditably on the House.’’ In the case of former Rep. Foley, 

a 54-year-old-man who made unwelcome communications with 

teenage former House pages, the evidence adduced by the Investigative Subcommittee would almost certainly have subjected him 

to disciplinary proceedings had he not resigned. As described in a 

report of the Committee in an earlier matter involving the relationship between Members and House Pages: 

[T]here is a difference between a 17-year-old page away from 

home and a 44-year-old Member of the House of Representatives 

in terms of responsibility, maturity, judgment, and fiduciary obligation. The House has always regarded pages as its wards and has 

always accepted a special responsibility to them.290

In that same report, the Committee emphasized, and this Investigative Subcommittee concurs, ‘‘the House does have [] a duty to 

the American people who have a right to expect the highest standards from the House as an institution and from its individual Members,’’ 291 and ‘‘any sexual advance or relationship of any kind involving a Page and a Member, officer or employee potentially entails an element of either preferential treatment or coercion, and 

hence an abuse of office or position.’’ 292 The issue before this Investigative Subcommittee is not whether a Member of the House is 

free to have a consensual relationship with a young person; the 

issue is the obligation of Members to act appropriately and professionally at all times with House pages who are in Washington, D.C. 

for a limited time to attend school and to assist the House with its 

work, and to whom the House has a ‘‘special responsibility.’’

Some of the Investigative Subcommittee’s specific factual findings are set forth below, followed in the next sections of this Report 

by a review of the relevant standards of conduct and the Investigative Subcommittee’s conclusions regarding the application of those 

standards to its factual findings. 

* * * * * * * 

The Investigative Subcommittee devoted substantial effort to determining whether any House Member, officer or employee was 

aware of or saw the sexually graphic instant messages possessed 

by ABC News prior to their publication by ABC News and others 

following Foley’s resignation on Friday, September 29, 2006. Much 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
50 

of the initial press coverage of this matter did not distinguish between those instant messages and the e-mails sent in 2005 to the 

former Alexander page, which had been published by ABC News on 

Thursday, September 28, 2006 after they had been posted on at 

least one website earlier that week. 

The distinction between the e-mails and the instant messages is 

an important one, because the e-mails do not contain the graphic 

or explicit sexual content of the instant messages. The Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude, however, that the e-mails 

sent to the former Alexander page were merely ‘‘overly friendly,’’ as 

they have often been described both by the few who saw them in 

2005 and some who saw them for the first time after Rep. Foley’s 

resignation. When read carefully and in context, the e-mails reflect 

inappropriate communications between a middle-aged congressman, through his private e-mail account, and a young male who 

had just left the employ of the House. The e-mails included references to the ‘‘great shape’’ of another former male page, a question about the age of the page and what he wanted for his birthday 

(although Rep. Foley had been told by the former page that his 

birthday was five months away), and a request for a picture, all of 

which could fairly be read as inappropriately personal and excessively familiar, and which some could read as implicitly sexual. The 

Investigative Subcommittee finds no merit to any of the suggested 

justifications by Rep. Foley or anyone on his staff for the tone or 

content of the e-mails. 

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the e-mails clearly 

provided a sufficient basis to at the very least confront Rep. Foley, 

demand an explanation for both the content of the e-mails and the 

reason for sending them, insist that Rep. Foley stop such communications with former pages, and make him aware that he could 

face serious consequences if the conduct did not stop. There is evidence that some of those things were done, although (as discussed 

more fully below) the Investigative Subcommittee concludes that a 

number of persons with knowledge of the existence of the e-mails 

should have done more to learn of both their contents and their 

context. 

However, the content of the instant messages is materially different, and far more reprehensible, and had any House Member, officer or employee known about the instant messages they would 

have been obligated to do far more than was done in response to 

the e-mails. The Investigative Subcommittee finds no evidence, 

based on the testimony before the Subcommittee, that any Member, 

officer or employee had such knowledge of the instant messages 

prior to their publication on September 29, 2006. Each of the House 

Members and employees who testified that they were aware of the 

e-mail messages prior to September 28, 2006, testified that they 

were unaware of the instant messages prior to September 29, 2006, 

and the Subcommittee received no evidence contradicting that testimony. The instant messages were known to a number of former 

pages well before that date, but none of the pages that the Investigative Subcommittee contacted who had known of the instant 

messages stated that they had disclosed their existence to any 

House Member, officer, or employee. The instant messages were 

published by ABC News within 24 hours after ABC News had been 

given copies of the instant messages by a former page. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
51 

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that a number of House 

Members, officers, staff and others, including several newspapers 

and other media, were aware of the e-mails from former Rep. Foley 

to the former Alexander page before those e-mails were published 

by ABC News on September 28, 2006. Those in the House who 

were made aware of the e-mails included House Speaker Dennis 

Hastert and several members of his staff; Majority Leader John 

Boehner; Rep. Tom Reynolds; Rep. Rodney Alexander and several 

members of his staff; Rep. John Shimkus; House Clerk Jeff 

Trandahl and his deputy; and Rep. Foley and his chief of staff Liz 

Nicholson as well as his former chief of staff Kirk Fordham. The 

communications directors for both the House Democratic Caucus 

and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also had 

copies of the e-mails in the fall of 2005. 

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that persons and organizations outside the House who were aware of the e-mails before their 

publication in September 2006 includes a friend of the Alexander 

staff member who forwarded the e-mails, as well as two people to 

whom she, in turn, forwarded the e-mails; multiple media organizations who received the e-mails from Matt Miller, the House Democratic Caucus staff member who had received the forwarded emails, including the St. Petersburg Times, the Miami Herald, Roll 

Call, Harper’s Magazine and possibly others; and reportedly at 

least one public interest group which claims to have forwarded 

them to the FBI. At least some of these persons or organizations 

had the e-mails from as early as November 2005, but none chose 

to publish the e-mails. 

Several Members and staff were also aware of other conduct by 

Rep. Foley regarding pages or former pages, including concerns 

raised by former Clerk Jeff Trandahl and former Foley chief of staff 

Kirk Fordham about Foley’s close interaction with pages. Those 

concerns were raised directly with Rep. Foley on multiple occasions, and were also brought to the attention of at least two persons in the Office of the Speaker, chief of staff Scott Palmer and 

counsel Ted Van Der Meid. 

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the reports that 

House pages were generally or as a group warned about Rep. Foley 

are not supported by the record. None of the staff associated with 

the page program or former pages who were interviewed by the 

Subcommittee recalls any such warning being given. 

The Investigative Subcommittee’s inquiry was not limited to Rep. 

Foley and his interaction with current or former House pages. Witnesses were asked to provide any information they had regarding 

potentially improper conduct involving House pages and any Member, officer or employee of the House. Other than as described 

below, the Subcommittee received no information that warranted 

further inquiry regarding any other Member, or any officer or employee of the House. 

The Investigative Subcommittee was provided with information 

concerning certain allegations made regarding Rep. Jim Kolbe and 

his interaction with former House pages. The Subcommittee was 

told that those allegations are the subject of a preliminary inquiry 

by federal law enforcement officials. The Committee Rules include 

provisions that address the handling of a complaint that alleges a 

violation of a law or rule that is enforced by law enforcement or 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
52 

regulatory authorities. Committee Rule 15(f) provides that the 

Committee ‘‘may defer action on a complaint against a Member’’ where either of two circumstances is present— ‘‘when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law enforcement or 

regulatory authorities,’’ or ‘‘when the Committee determines that it is appropriate for the 

conduct alleged in a complaint to be reviewed initially by law enforcement or regulatory authorities.’’ A 1975 Committee report explained the Committee’s approach in 

the circumstance of an ongoing investigation by law enforcement 

authorities as follows: 

[W]here an allegation involves a possible violation of 

statutory law, and the committee is assured that the 

charges are known to and are being expeditiously acted 

upon by the appropriate authorities, the policy has been to 

defer action until the judicial proceedings have run their 

course. This is not to say the committee abandons concern 

in statutory matters—rather, it feels it normally should 

not undertake duplicative investigations pending judicial 

resolution of such cases. 

The Subcommittee concludes that the allegations regarding Rep. 

Kolbe are within its jurisdiction, because they involve knowledge or 

information of Members, officers or employees regarding potentially 

improper conduct involving Members and pages or former pages. 

The Subcommittee heard some testimony regarding the allegations, 

but Rep. Kolbe did not provide full and complete testimony regarding the allegations, citing the pending federal inquiry. The Investigative Subcommittee therefore makes no findings and draws no 

conclusions regarding the allegations. 

Rep. Kolbe is retiring from the House at the end of this term, 

and will no longer be within the Committee’s jurisdiction after his 

retirement. In light of Rep. Kolbe’s imminent retirement, as well 

as the preliminary federal inquiry and the Committee’s frequent 

practice of deferring matters involving parallel criminal investigations or proceedings, the Investigative Subcommittee does not recommend further investigative or disciplinary proceedings by the 

House against Rep. Kolbe. 

B. REVIEW OF RELEVANT STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

Pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and (3)(b)(2), and pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18, the Committee has the 

authority to investigate any alleged violation by a Member, officer, 

or employee of the House, of the Code of Official Conduct or one 

or more law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee of the House 

in the performance of his or her duties or the discharge of his or 

her responsibilities. 

The Code of Official Conduct of the House of Representatives is 

set forth in House Rule 23. The Investigative Subcommittee determined that only Clause 1 of House Rule 23 would be applicable to 

this matter. House Rule 23, Clause 1 (the ‘‘Code of Official Conduct’’) provides that ‘‘[a] Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
53 

293 House Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (April 1992) at 12 (quoting 114 Cong. Rec. 8778 

(Apr. 3, 1968); In the Matter of Representative Earl F. Hilliard, H. Rep. 107–130, 107th Cong., 

1st Sess. (July 10, 2001) at 12; In the Matter of Representative E.G. ‘‘Bud’’ Shuster, H. Rep. 

106–979, 106th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 16, 2000) at 9. 294 Inquiry into the Operation of the Bank of the Sergeant-At-Arms of the House of Representatives, H. Rep. 102–452, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (March 10, 1992) at 22 (citing H. Rep. 90–1176, 

90th Cong., 2d Sess. at 17 (1968). 295See In the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., H. Rep. 107–594, 107th Cong., 

2d Sess. Vol. 1 (July 19, 2002) (Violations of the Code of Ethics for Government Service, along 

with violations of the Code of Official Conduct, formed the basis of a Statement of Alleged Violations adopted by an Investigative Subcommittee against a Member, and that led to the expulsion from the House of that Member.). 

all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.’’ As noted previously by the Committee, this provision (House Rule 

23, Clause 1) is the most comprehensive provision of the Code of 

Official Conduct and was adopted in part so that the Committee, 

in applying the Code, would retain ‘‘the ability to deal with any 

given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgment of the 

committee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on the Congress.’’ 293 This provision serves ‘‘as a safeguard for [ ] the House 

as a whole.’’ 294

The Investigative Subcommittee concluded that the Code of Ethics for Government Service, which is applicable to Members and 

employees of the House, is also implicated in this matter.295 In particular, Clause 9 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service provides that ‘‘[a]ny person in Government service should . . . 

[e]xpose corruption wherever discovered.’’

Just as in the case of evidence of corruption, the Investigative 

Subcommittee believes that Members and House officials must act 

in a responsible manner in any case of any allegation involving 

House pages. At a minimum, House Members and officials are obligated not to withhold any information from any appropriate governmental or supervisory authority that relates, or even possibly 

relates, to the education, care, or safety of House pages. 

C. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING CONDUCT

Broadly stated, the conduct reviewed by the Investigative Subcommittee fell into three general categories: Conduct prior to the 

discovery of the e-mails from Rep. Foley to the former Alexander 

page in November 2005; the response to the e-mails beginning in 

November 2005 and continuing into 2006; and conduct surrounding 

the resignation of Rep. Foley in September 2006. The Investigative 

Subcommittee’s analysis and conclusions are set forth below. 

1. Treatment of Foley’s conduct unrelated to the e-mails 

The evidence establishes that concerns began to arise about Rep. 

Foley’s interactions with pages or other young male staff members 

shortly after Rep. Foley took office in 1995. Both Kirk Fordham 

and Jeff Trandahl acknowledged that they had such concerns, and 

that they raised their concerns with Rep. Foley directly on multiple 

occasions. These concerns, as explained by these witnesses, were 

not the result of either knowledge or suspicion that Foley was engaged in improper contact with pages or other young staffers, but 

were instead based upon the possibility that any close interaction 

between Foley and pages or other young male staff could create an 

appearance problem for Foley in light of his status as a closeted homosexual. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
54 

The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Kirk Fordham talked to Scott Palmer about Fordham’s concerns about Rep. 

Foley’s conduct, and that Palmer later talked to Rep. Foley. Similarly, the evidence shows that Jeff Trandahl raised his concerns 

with Ted Van Der Meid on several occasions, but Van Der Meid 

testified that those discussions did not conclude with any requests 

or decisions to take any action. 

Absent any evidence that Rep. Foley was engaging in improper 

contact with pages or other young male employees, the Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude that those employees who 

were nevertheless concerned that Rep. Foley’s conduct presented 

possible appearance problems acted unreasonably in not taking further action at that time. In fact, the evidence shows that both 

Fordham and Trandahl took steps to bring their concerns about 

Rep. Foley’s conduct to the attention of others who they thought 

might be able to help address their concerns. The Subcommittee 

similarly finds that, given the nature of the concerns, those who 

were made aware of such concerns did not act unreasonably in not 

taking further action at that time. 

The incident involving the former Kolbe page and the handling 

of his communications from Rep. Foley presents a more difficult 

question. The Investigative Subcommittee deliberated extensively 

over whether the evidence supports a finding that Rep. Kolbe saw 

a copy of the sexually graphic instant message allegedly received 

by his former page, or whether, as Rep. Kolbe testified, he was only 

told by the former page that Rep. Foley had sent an e-mail or instant message that made the former page ‘‘uncomfortable.’’ The Investigative Subcommittee found the former page to be credible and 

his testimony to be plausible, but given the absence of documentary 

evidence, the denial by Rep. Kolbe of having seen the communication, and the possibility that the instant message could have been 

attached to an e-mail sent to Rep. Kolbe but not opened and read, 

the Investigative Subcommittee cannot definitively conclude whether Rep. Kolbe saw the instant message. 

In the end, however, the Investigative Subcommittee did not consider the answer to the question of whether Rep. Kolbe actually 

saw the instant message sent by Rep. Foley to be dispositive in addressing the conduct of Rep. Kolbe and others in his office. If Rep. 

Kolbe was not shown the instant message he should have asked for 

it. He knew that Rep. Foley was gay, knew that the communication 

made the former page (who by this time was only a college freshman and was less than two years removed from the page program) 

uncomfortable, and recognized that the communication may have 

been sexual in nature. He also knew that he was being asked to 

confront another Member about the Member’s conduct on a potentially extremely sensitive issue. In light of those facts, the Investigative Subcommittee believes that Rep. Kolbe should have asked 

for the instant message (if he did not already have it) in order to 

make sure that his response was the correct one. 

The Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude that Rep. 

Kolbe’s handling of this matter supports a conclusion that Rep. 

Kolbe violated any House rule or standard of conduct. Although 

Rep. Kolbe says that he did not see the contents of the message, 

he did take steps to address the former page’s complaint by asking 

his administrative assistant to contact both Rep. Foley’s chief of 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
55 

staff Kirk Fordham and the Clerk. The former page received an 

apology from Rep Foley, which indicates that Rep. Foley was told 

that his communication to the former page had made the former 

page uncomfortable. The Investigative Subcommittee therefore does 

not recommend to the full Committee either that the Investigative 

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction be expanded or that another Investigative Subcommittee be established to name Rep. Kolbe or others on 

his staff as respondents. 

2. The handling of the 2005 e-mails 

The former Alexander page’s decision to send the Foley e-mails 

to his acquaintance on Rep. Alexander’s staff in August 2005 triggered a complicated series of events that led eventually to Rep. Foley’s resignation over a year later. The Investigative Subcommittee 

finds that few of the individuals who ultimately came to participate 

in those events handled their roles in the manner that should be 

expected given the important and sensitive nature of the issues involved. 

Rep. Alexander’s Office. The Investigative Subcommittee first reviewed the facts surrounding the initial contact with Rep. Alexander’s office by its former page, which occurred in late August contemporaneously with the e-mailed request from Rep. Foley for a 

picture. The junior staff member who received copies of the e-mails 

is no longer a House employee, and the Investigative Subcommittee 

therefore did not attempt to reach a conclusion regarding whether 

her conduct could provide a basis for disciplinary action. While the 

preferred course of action would have been to bring the e-mails to 

the attention of her chief of staff or Rep. Alexander rather than 

sharing them with sources outside the House, it is not possible to 

presume what Rep. Alexander would have done had he been notified of the content of e-mails any sooner. Accordingly, the Investigative Subcommittee focused its inquiry on the conduct of Rep. 

Alexander and his staff following their discovery that the news 

media had copies of the e-mails. 

The Investigative Subcommittee next carefully reviewed the evidence surrounding the November 2005 press inquiry regarding the 

e-mails, which soon led to the notification to the Speaker’s office, 

referral to the Clerk’s office, and the subsequent intervention with 

Rep. Foley by Jeff Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus. The Investigative 

Subcommittee was particularly interested in understanding the 

wishes of the parents of the former Alexander page regarding how 

the matter was to be handled, because a number of witnesses testified that they had decided against taking certain actions because 

of the family’s desire for privacy, as conveyed by Rep. Alexander’s 

office. 

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the family did wish 

that the matter be handled in a way that maintained their and 

their son’s privacy, but we also conclude that the family’s desire for 

privacy could have been accommodated while still investigating the 

matter more aggressively. The family did not provide any instructions or directions not to share the e-mails with appropriate House 

Members or staff. By the time of the initial press inquiry in November 2005, the former page believed that the e-mails had 

stopped after the former page had stopped responding to Rep. Foley’s messages. Neither the former page nor his parents were seekVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
56 

ing to have Rep. Alexander’s office or anyone else address the matter, and the only reason the family was faced with a question about 

how the matter should be handled was because of the press inquiry. Understandably, they did not want to see any publicity regarding their son, but their testimony is clear that they did not impose any conditions on how Rep. Alexander’s office should proceed. 

The refusal of Rep. Alexander’s office to provide copies of the emails to the Clerk is not supported by the stated concerns for the 

family’s privacy. Although at least one member of Rep. Alexander’s 

staff had been aware of the e-mails for over two months, Rep. Alexander and his chief of staff learned of the e-mails only because at 

least one newspaper reporter had them and called both the family 

of the page and Rep. Alexander’s office. The staff’s refusal to give 

those e-mails to an officer of the House based on concerns for the 

family’s privacy defies logic given that the reporter already had 

copies of them, and that Rep. Alexander’s office gave a copy of one 

of the former page’s e-mails to the reporter. 

Rep. Alexander’s office took steps to bring the existence of the emails to the attention of others in the House in an effort to make 

sure that Rep. Foley’s communications to the former page ceased. 

They contacted the Speaker’s office and were directed to the Clerk. 

Those steps brought the e-mails to the attention of Rep. Shimkus 

and Trandahl, who then confronted Rep. Foley in November 2005. 

Office of the Speaker. The Speaker’s Office responded to the request by Rep. Alexander’s office by directing the inquiry to the 

Clerk. The Speaker’s office had no defined procedure for addressing 

matters such as this that were brought to their attention. 

The Investigative Subcommittee deliberated over whether the 

Speaker’s counsel Ted Van Der Meid should have undertaken a 

more active response to the e-mails, including demanding to see 

their contents and following up as appropriate, and whether his 

failure to do anything after learning about the e-mails could be a 

violation of House rules or standards of conduct. The Investigative 

Subcommittee concludes that Van Der Meid, as the Speaker’s liaison with the Clerk, and therefore as the staff person within the 

Speaker’s office with responsibility for page-related issues, showed 

an inexplicable lack of interest in the e-mails and the resolution of 

the matter with Rep. Foley, particularly in light of his prior knowledge regarding concerns raised by Jeff Trandahl about Foley’s close 

(albeit not sexual) interaction with pages. Van Der Meid had also 

heard from Trandahl about the alleged incident involving Rep. 

Foley being intoxicated outside the page dorm. 

Given Van Der Meid’s knowledge regarding Foley’s past conduct, 

as well as his role within the Speaker’s office, the Subcommittee 

believes that he should have done more to learn about the e-mails 

and how they had been handled. The general concerns he had 

heard about Rep. Foley had now become more specific and tied to 

a particular incident. He knew that the matter involved e-mails 

and a former page, which should have raised a sufficient concern 

to trigger further inquiry on his part. The new incident involving 

the e-mails also should have been sufficient to cause Van Der Meid 

to share what he knew with more senior staff in the Speaker’s office, or with the Speaker directly. The Subcommittee concludes, 

however, that Van Der Meid’s conduct does not support a finding 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
57 

that he acted in a way that violated House Rules or standards of 

conduct. 

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, at 

least in passing, about the e-mails by both Majority Leader 

Boehner and Rep. Reynolds in spring 2006. Rep. Alexander did not 

ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do anything—

each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on his own initiative. Like too many others, neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. 

Reynolds showed any curiosity regarding why a young former page 

would have been made uncomfortable by e-mails from Rep. Foley. 

Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker 

to take any action in response to the information each provided to 

him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action. 

The Speaker’s reported statement in response to Majority Leader 

Boehner that the matter ‘‘has been taken care of’’ is some evidence 

that the Speaker was aware of some concern regarding Rep. Foley’s 

conduct prior to his conversation with the Majority Leader in 

spring 2006. Although the Speaker testified that he does not recall 

ever hearing about the e-mails prior to Foley’s resignation in late 

September, he may have been aware of the matter and believed it 

had been taken care of prior to spring 2006, given the involvement 

of his office by Ted Van Der Meid, Mike Stokke and Tim Kennedy 

in November 2005. The Subcommittee notes, however, that each of 

those witnesses has testified under oath that they did not tell the 

Speaker or anyone else in the office about their knowledge of the 

Foley e-mails until after Rep. Foley’s resignation on September 29, 

2006. 

Clerk Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus. As discussed above, Clerk 

Jeff Trandahl had concerns about Rep. Foley’s close interaction 

with pages for almost a decade by the time the e-mails were 

brought to his attention in November 2005. Trandahl had taken 

numerous steps to protect the integrity of the page program and 

to try to define and enforce limits on the interaction between pages 

and Members, officers, and staff. The Investigative Subcommittee 

concludes that much of Trandahl’s conduct when he heard about 

the e-mails was reasonable: He took responsibility for confronting 

Rep. Foley, he brought in Rep. Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page 

Board, to confront Rep. Foley directly as a fellow Member, and he 

notified his liaison in the Speaker’s Office, Ted Van Der Meid, after 

the meeting with Foley. He also, according to his testimony, 

pressed Rep. Alexander’s chief of staff for copies of the e-mails, but 

the staff member reportedly refused to provide copies, citing the 

wishes of the parents for privacy. 

The Investigative Subcommittee attempted unsuccessfully to determine why Trandahl had not sought support from the Speaker’s 

office or the members of the Page Board to obtain a copy of the emails. Trandahl testified that he followed a ‘‘chain of command’’ by 

dealing solely with his liaison, Van Der Meid, in his dealings with 

the Speaker’s office, and Trandahl may not have felt that such support would have been available. The Investigative Subcommittee 

believes that given the importance of the need to protect the safety 

and well-being of the pages, in the future the Clerk, as an officer 

of the House, should not feel constrained by a chain of command 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
58 

or other reporting structure from bringing any such matters directly to the attention of the Speaker. 

The Investigative Subcommittee similarly concludes that Rep. 

Shimkus should have demanded copies of all relevant e-mails or 

other documents, if not before he confronted Rep. Foley, then after. 

Although there is conflicting testimony on whether Rep. Shimkus 

had excerpts or phrases from the e-mail, there is no suggestion by 

any witness that he had copies of the actual e-mails. The Investigative Subcommittee concludes that confronting a Member in such a 

matter without having access to all relevant information was imprudent, but the action did not constitute conduct failing to reflect 

creditably on the House. 

The Investigative Subcommittee also considered whether Rep. 

Shimkus should have informed others on the Page Board about 

Rep. Foley’s conduct toward the former page. The Page Board is 

charged by federal statute with ensuring that the page program is 

managed to provide for the welfare of the pages. As the Page Board 

Chairman, Rep. Shimkus was the logical person for Trandahl to 

contact regarding an issue related to a former page. But once made 

aware of such a concern, Rep. Shimkus also had an obligation to 

determine whether the issue brought to him by Trandahl was one 

that should be addressed by the Page Board rather than by him 

individually. The Investigative Subcommittee was not persuaded by 

the argument that the Page Board did not have jurisdiction over 

the matter because it involved a former page rather than a current 

one. Rep. Foley’s e-mails to the former Alexander page began while 

he was still a page, and the e-mails the former page characterized 

as ‘‘sick’’ were sent within a month after he left the page program. 

The Subcommittee finds that at a minimum Rep. Shimkus had an 

obligation to learn more facts regarding the e-mails before concluding that he should handle the matter himself without informing the other members of the Page Board or seeking their input. 

3. Rep. Foley’s resignation 

Rep. Foley’s resignation and the events that caused it were the 

focus of substantial attention in the U.S. media in the following 

days. Understandably, many of those who may have had some 

knowledge about Rep. Foley’s conduct felt the need to make public 

statements as their roles began to be scrutinized by the press and 

others. Beginning the evening after the resignation, several Republican Members and staff met in the Capitol for the purpose of discussing what they knew in order to respond to the media. At least 

one of the Members who was invited to the meeting, Rep. Tom Reynolds, decided not to attend after consulting with his counsel, 

Randy Evans, who advised him that attending such a meeting was 

inadvisable given that there likely would be an Ethics Committee 

investigation into the matter. 

By the next day, however, Evans who was then acting as counsel 

to Speaker Hastert and others in the Speaker’s office, was coordinating the effort to prepare a statement to be issued by the Speaker’s office describing the office’s knowledge regarding Rep. Foley’s 

conduct. The Investigative Subcommittee understands the need in 

a political environment to respond quickly to perceived negative 

press reports. Such a need is particularly acute where, as here, 

much of the early reporting failed to make the important distincVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 031490 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR733.XXX HR733

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
59 

tion between the e-mails to the former Alexander page and the sexually graphic instant messages which caused Rep. Foley to resign. 

As explained above, the Investigative Subcommittee heard no evidence that anyone in the House—from either party—was aware of 

the instant messages before they were published on September 29, 

and the Investigative Subcommittee does not fault the Speaker’s office for attempting to explain that distinction on September 30. 

However, in the Investigative Subcommittee’s view, the efforts by 

the Speaker’s office to prepare a statement under the direction of 

counsel could have had the additional effect of inhibiting the Investigative Subcommittee’s ability to secure evidence from witnesses 

without interference resulting from efforts to compare and contrast 

recollections prior to testimony before the Committee. This effect 

was compounded by the appearance of Evans and a law partner as 

counsel for the Speaker, Stokke and Kennedy during their testimony before the Subcommittee. 

D. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Investigative Subcommittee makes the following recommendations: 

The current operation of the page program should be reviewed to 

ensure that its structure and management remain sound. The program was restructured previously after the page scandal in the 

early 1980’s, and a review should be undertaken to determine 

whether the changes made at that time remain appropriate and 

sufficient to protect the safety and well-being of pages in the page 

program. 

The Page Board should meet on a regularly-scheduled basis to 

ensure that the page program is being managed appropriately and 

that the Clerk and others who work to administer the program 

have the necessary resources to address any issues that might 

arise. Regular meetings would also make it easier for the Clerk and 

others who are more involved with the day-to-day management of 

the program to bring any issues they may be aware of to the attention of the Page Board. 

Consideration should be given to constituting the Page Board 

with equal representation from both parties, in order to lessen the 

potential for political considerations to influence the handling of 

issues regarding the safety and well-being of pages. 

The Clerk, as an Officer of the House, should have a clear ability 

to bring matters regarding the safety and well-being of the pages 

directly to the attention of the Speaker as well as the Page Board. 

Members and staff should be better educated regarding the management and structure of the page program, so that all Members 

and staff understand the role of pages in the House and understand the appropriate ways to address any concerns regarding the 

welfare of pages. 

All Members, officers, and employees of the House must pursue 

specific and non-specific allegations of improper interaction between a Member or House employee and a participant in the House 

Page Program—even if the allegations are not readily verifiable or 

involve the sensitive subject of a Member’s personal relationship 

with a young person. This obligation applies regardless of whether 

the Member and page are of the same or opposite sex. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(61) 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here HR733.001
62 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here HR733.002
63 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here HR733.003
64 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here HR733.004
65 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here HR733.005
66 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here HR733.006
67 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here HR733.007
68 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here HR733.008
69 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here HR733.009
70 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here HR733.010
71 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here HR733.011
72 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here HR733.012
73 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here HR733.013
74 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here HR733.014
75 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here HR733.015
76 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here HR733.016
77 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here HR733.017
78 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here HR733.018
79 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here HR733.019
80 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here HR733.020
81 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here HR733.021
82 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here HR733.022
83 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here HR733.023
84 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here HR733.024
85 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here HR733.025
86 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here HR733.026
87 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here HR733.027
88 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here HR733.028
89 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here HR733.029
90 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here HR733.030
91 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here HR733.031
92 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here HR733.032
93 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here HR733.033
94 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here HR733.034
95 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here HR733.035
96 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here HR733.036
97 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here HR733.037
98 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here HR733.038
99 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here HR733.039
100 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here HR733.040
101 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here HR733.041
102 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here HR733.042
103 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here HR733.043
104 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here HR733.044
105 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here HR733.045
106 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here HR733.046
107 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here HR733.047
108 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here HR733.048
109 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here HR733.049
110 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here HR733.050
111 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here HR733.051
112 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here HR733.052
113 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here HR733.053
114 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here HR733.054
115 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here HR733.055
116 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here HR733.056
117 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here HR733.057
118 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here HR733.058
119 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here HR733.059
120 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here HR733.060
121 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here HR733.061
122 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here HR733.062
123 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here HR733.063
124 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here HR733.064
125 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here HR733.065
126 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here HR733.066
127 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here HR733.067
128 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here HR733.068
129 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here HR733.069
130 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here HR733.070
131 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here HR733.071
132 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here HR733.072
133 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here HR733.073
134 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here HR733.074
135 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here HR733.075
136 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here HR733.076
137 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here HR733.077
138 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here HR733.078
139 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here HR733.079
140 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here HR733.080
141 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here HR733.081
142 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here HR733.082
143 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here HR733.083
144 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here HR733.084
145 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here HR733.085
146 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here HR733.086
147 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here HR733.087
148 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here HR733.088
149 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here HR733.089
150 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here HR733.090
151 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here HR733.091
152 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here HR733.092
153 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here HR733.093
154 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here HR733.094
155 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here HR733.095
156 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here HR733.096
157 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here HR733.097
158 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here HR733.098
159 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here HR733.099
160 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here HR733.100
161 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here HR733.101
162 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here HR733.102
163 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here HR733.103
164 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here HR733.104
165 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here HR733.105
166 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here HR733.106
188 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here HR733.128
167 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here HR733.107
168 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here HR733.108
169 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here HR733.109
170 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here HR733.110
171 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here HR733.111
172 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here HR733.112
173 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here HR733.113
174 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here HR733.114
175 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here HR733.115
176 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here HR733.116
177 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here HR733.117
178 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here HR733.118
179 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here HR733.119
180 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here HR733.120
181 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here HR733.121
182 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here HR733.122
183 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here HR733.123
184 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here HR733.124
185 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here HR733.125
186 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here HR733.126
187 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here HR733.127
189 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here HR733.129
190 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here HR733.130
191 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here HR733.131
192 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here HR733.132
193 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here HR733.133
194 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here HR733.134
195 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here HR733.135
196 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here HR733.136
197 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here HR733.137
198 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here HR733.138
199 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here HR733.139
200 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here HR733.140
201 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here HR733.141
202 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here HR733.142
203 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here HR733.143
204 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here HR733.144
205 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here HR733.145
211 

Æ 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here HR733.151
206 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here HR733.146
207 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here HR733.147
208 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here HR733.148
209 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here HR733.149
210 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here HR733.150