```

[House Report 114-239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                 House Calendar No. 53
114th Congress    }                                    {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                    {       114-239

_______________________________________________________________________

        

                            IN THE MATTER OF

                     OFFICIALLY-CONNECTED TRAVEL BY

                  HOUSE MEMBERS TO AZERBAIJAN IN 2013

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

   July 31, 2015.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed
                                
                                      ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

49-006                         WASHINGTON : 2015                              
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                          COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

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

                              Report Staff

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

                        David W. Arrojo, Counsel
                  Christopher R. Tate, Senior Counsel
                 Molly N. McCarty, Investigative Clerk

----------
*Representative Yvette Clarke did not participate in the Committee's 
proceedings in this matter pursuant to Committee Rule 9(d).

                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                    ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                                       Committee on Ethics,
                                     Washington, DC, July 30, 2015.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of Rule 
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith 
transmit the attached report, ``In the Matter of Officially-
Connected Travel by House Members to Azerbaijan in 2013.''
            Sincerely,
                                   Charles W. Dent,
                                           Chairman.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez,
                                           Ranking Member.
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                                           
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
 I. INTRODUCTION......................................................1
II. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT....3
          A. Jurisdiction of the Committee.......................     3
          B. Gifts from Foreign Governments......................     3
          C. Ethics in Government Act............................     5
          D. Ethics Reform Act...................................     6
          E. House Rule XXIV.....................................     6
          F. House Rule XXV, clause 5............................     7
            1. Gifts Generally...................................     7
            2. Privately-Sponsored Travel........................     8
            3. Impermissible Gifts...............................    10
III.BACKGROUND.......................................................11

          A. Committee Preapproval of Privately-Sponsored 
              Officially-Connected Travel........................    11
          B. Initial Press Reports...............................    12
          C. OCE Review..........................................    13
          D. Committee Investigation.............................    15
          E. Unauthorized Disclosure of Investigation............    16
IV. FINDINGS.........................................................18
          A. Scope of Findings...................................    18
          B. What Did the House Members and Employees Receive?...    18
          C. Was the Acceptance Permissible?.....................    19
            1. Travel Expenses...................................    19
            2. Tangible Gifts....................................    22
          D. Was There Any Evidence of Official Action Taken in 
              Connection with the Things Received?...............    23
          E. Is Any Corrective Action Necessary?.................    23
            1. Travel Expenses...................................    23
            2. Tangible Gifts....................................    25
 V. CONCLUSION.......................................................26
VI. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C).....................27

                                                 House Calendar No. 53
114th Congress    }                                    {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session      }                                    {       114-239

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

 
   IN THE MATTER OF OFFICIALLY-CONNECTED TRAVEL BY HOUSE MEMBERS TO 
                           AZERBAIJAN IN 2013

                                _______
                                

   July 31, 2015.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

                Mr. Dent, from the Committee on Ethics, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

    In accordance with House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b), 
the Committee on Ethics (Committee)\1\ hereby submits the 
following Report to the House of Representatives:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The Committee notes that Representative Yvette Clarke, a Member 
of the Committee, recused herself from this matter before the Committee 
took any action in the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            I. INTRODUCTION

    In May 2013, 10 House Members and 32 House employees took 
part in officially-connected travel to Turkey and/or Azerbaijan 
(the ``Trips''), which included attendance at a conference in 
Baku, Azerbaijan, entitled ``U.S.-Azerbaijan: Vision for the 
Future'' (the ``Conference''). Though the Conference had 
several corporate sponsors, Conference agendas provided to 
travelers before the event listed two American non-profit 
organizations--the Turquoise Council of Americans and Eurasians 
(TCAE) and the Assembly of the Friends of Azerbaijan (AFAZ)--as 
the Conference's organizers. Several American non-profit 
organizations with Turkic affiliations, including TCAE, 
separately invited the Members to travel to Azerbaijan. The 
itineraries of those trips also included attendance at the 
Conference.
    Each of the House Members and employees who took part in 
the Trips sought and received the Committee's approval to 
accept the Trips as privately-sponsored, officially-connected 
travel prior to accepting the travel invitations. Each of the 
non-profits, in required disclosure forms filed with the 
Committee, certified that it was the sole sponsor of its trips. 
Each non-profit also stated that it had not accepted funding 
from any other source to directly or indirectly finance any 
portion of the Trips. Those statements were made on disclosure 
forms containing multiple clear warnings, in bold text, that 
``[w]illful or knowing misrepresentations on this form may be 
subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1001.''
    The Committee approved the Trips for each Member based on 
the travelers' submissions, which included the sponsors' 
statements and representations. Nothing in those submissions 
gave the Committee reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the 
purported sponsors' representations regarding the sources of 
the Trips' funding. However, more than a year after the Trips 
occurred, questions arose about whether the Trips complied with 
the requirements for privately-sponsored officially-connected 
travel.
    Soon after the start of the 114th Congress, the Chairman 
and Ranking Member authorized Committee staff to investigate 
these and other related allegations pursuant to Committee Rule 
18(a). Separately, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) 
initiated a review of allegations surrounding the Trips. On May 
8, 2015, OCE referred to the Committee allegations that the 
nine Members received impermissible gifts of travel and 
tangible gifts in connection with the Trips.
    The Committee conducted an extensive investigation. Each 
Member fully cooperated with the Committee. The Committee 
issued 12 subpoenas and 18 voluntary requests for information, 
and collected nearly 190,000 pages of materials, including 
supplemental materials provided by OCE. The Committee also 
interviewed ten witnesses. However, the Committee could not 
complete its investigation, because many potential witnesses 
refused to cooperate with the investigation and were outside of 
the Committee's authority to compel because they were in 
Azerbaijan or other foreign countries. In addition, Kemal 
Oksuz, who was in many respects the central witness to most of 
the substantive allegations in question, invoked his Fifth 
Amendment right to refuse to testify. Mr. Oksuz also refused to 
comply with a subpoena for documents issued to him by the 
Committee.
    Despite these limitations, the Committee's investigation 
uncovered evidence of concerted, possibly criminal, efforts by 
various non-House individuals and entities to mislead the House 
travelers and the Committee about the Trips' true sponsors and 
the funding sources used to pay for Member and House employee 
travel to Azerbaijan. However, the evidence was inconclusive as 
to who actually funded the travel expenses.
    The evidence demonstrates that the House travelers 
submitted their forms in good faith, and there is no evidence 
that the House travelers knew, or should have known, of the 
sponsors' false statements regarding the true source of funding 
for the travel. Because the House travelers acted in good 
faith, and the evidence was inconclusive as to the true source 
of funds for the travel, the Committee concluded that the Trips 
did not constitute an impermissible gift of travel, and decided 
that no further action is required regarding the House 
travelers' acceptance of any trip expenses.
    Separate and apart from the travel expenses that were the 
subject of the Committee's preapproval process, evidence 
indicates that many House travelers received various tangible 
gifts during the Trips. In general, Committee approval to 
accept privately-sponsored, officially-connected travel is 
limited to accepting costs related to the trip, not to tangible 
gifts that may be offered to a traveler.
    The tangible gifts received by House travelers on the Trips 
in this matter may have been permissible under the House Gift 
Rule. However, the various provisions of the Gift Rule that may 
have permitted acceptance of these gifts require knowledge of 
the donor to assess whether a particular provision of the Gift 
Rule applies.
    The Committee could not determine the source of these 
gifts. Since the donor was unknown, it is unlikely that many of 
the tangible gifts could be accepted under any provision of the 
House Gift Rule. However, either on their own initiative or at 
the Committee's recommendation, all Members have voluntarily 
remedied, or committed to remedy, any impermissible gifts 
received in connection with the Trips. In addition, the 
Committee has contacted House staff who participated in the 
trips and provided guidance to them about tangible gifts they 
may have received. Therefore, the Committee will take no 
further action with respect to any House Member or employee in 
this matter.

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

                    A. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE

    Article 1, Section 5, of the United States Constitution 
vests with the House the authority to ``punish its Members for 
disorderly behavior.''\2\ To implement its Constitutional duty, 
the House has adopted a Code of Official Conduct (Code) and has 
given the Committee exclusive jurisdiction over the 
interpretation of the Code.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\U.S. CONST. art. I, Sec. 5.
    \3\House Rule XXIII; House Rule X, clause 1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee is authorized to investigate any alleged 
violation by a Member or employee of the House ``of the Code of 
Official Conduct or of a law, rule, regulation, or other 
standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member . 
. . or employee in the performance of the duties or the 
discharge of the responsibilities of such individual.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to its investigative jurisdiction, the 
Committee is also authorized by House Rules\5\ and various 
federal statutes\6\ to enforce various standards of conduct 
applicable to House Members, officers, and employees and to 
promulgate and enforce related regulations, including with 
respect to gifts from foreign governments, financial 
disclosure, and privately-sponsored, officially-connected 
travel, as described in greater detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\House Rule X, clause 1(g), 11(g)(4); House Rule XI, clause 3; 
House Rule XXV, clause 5(h).
    \6\See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 7342, 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C. app. 4 
Sec. Sec. 101 et seq., 503(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   B. GIFTS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

    Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States 
Constitution, commonly referred to as the Emoluments Clause, 
prohibits federal government officials, including House Members 
and employees, from accepting ``any present . . . of any kind 
whatever, from any . . . foreign State,'' without the consent 
of Congress. Congress has consented to the acceptance of 
certain emoluments through the vehicles of the Foreign Gifts 
and Decorations Act (FGDA)\7\ and Mutual Educational and 
Cultural Exchange Act (MECEA).\8\ The House Gift Rule also 
expressly permits acceptance of a gift the acceptance of which 
is authorized by the FGDA, MECEA, or any other statute.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342.
    \8\22 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2451 et seq.
    \9\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(N).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MECEA authorizes the Secretary of State to approve cultural 
exchange programs that finance ``visits and interchanges 
between the United States and other countries of leaders, 
experts in fields of specialized knowledge or skill, and other 
influential or distinguished persons . . . .''\10\ Travel 
subject to an approved MECEA program is not subject to 
Committee preapproval. However, all expenses must be paid by 
the foreign government host of the MECEA trip, and none may be 
paid by any private source.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\22 U.S.C. Sec. 2452(a)(2)(i).
    \11\Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, House Ethics Manual 
(2008) at 110-111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to travel, the FGDA allows House Members and 
employees to accept travel paid for by a foreign government 
only if the travel takes place entirely outside the United 
States. Such travel must also be consistent with the interests 
of the United States and must be permitted under FGDA 
regulations issued by the Committee.\12\ The FGDA defines 
``foreign government'' to include not only foreign governments 
per se, but also international or multinational organizations 
whose membership is composed of units of foreign governments, 
and any agent or representative of such a government or 
organization while acting as such.\13\ The FGDA also covers 
gifts from ``quasi-governmental'' organizations closely 
affiliated with, or funded by, a foreign government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\House Ethics Manual at 109.
    \13\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Member, officer, or employee may accept travel expenses 
from a unit of a foreign government only under one of these two 
statutory grants of authority.
    In addition to its travel provisions, the FGDA also 
authorizes House Members, officers, and employees to accept ``a 
gift of minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or 
mark of courtesy.''\14\ The FGDA also expressly authorizes the 
Committee to prescribe regulations to permit the receipt of 
gifts of foreign travel or expenses for foreign travel.\15\ 
Under the Act and the implementing regulations issued by the 
Committee, ``minimal value'' is redefined every three years by 
the General Services Administration.\16\ In 2013, ``minimal 
value'' for FGDA purposes was $350.\17\ This provision on 
minimal value gifts clearly applies to gifts of tangible items. 
In addition, the Committee has interpreted this provision to 
permit Members and staff to accept, from a foreign government, 
meals, entertainment, and local travel in the United States 
when related to official duties. However, the Committee's 
interpretation does not allow the acceptance of such meals, 
entertainment, or local travel offered by a lobbyist or agent 
of a foreign government, because such gifts are not properly 
deemed as having been ``tendered as a souvenir or mark of 
courtesy'' as required by the FGDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Id. Sec. 7342(c)(1)(A).
    \15\Id. Sec. 7342(c)(1)(B)(ii); Comm. on Standards of Official 
Conduct, Regulations for the Acceptance of Decorations and Gifts; House 
Ethics Manual at 389-93.
    \16\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(a)(5); House Ethics Manual at 391.
    \17\Federal Management Regulation; Change in Consumer Price Index 
Minimal Value, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,550 (May 26, 2011). Effective January 1, 
2014, ``minimal value'' increased to $375. Federal Management 
Regulation; Change in Consumer Price Index Minimal Value, 79 Fed Reg. 
18,477 (Apr. 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FGDA further allows a Member or staff person to accept 
(but not to retain) a gift of more than minimal value when 
refusal of the gift ``would likely cause offense or 
embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign 
relations of the United States.''\18\ Such gifts, however, are 
deemed to be accepted on behalf of the United States and become 
the property of the United States. Within 60 days of accepting 
such a gift, a Member or staff person must turn the gift over 
to the Clerk of the House for disposal or, with the consent of 
this Committee, the recipient may retain the gift for display 
in his or her office or other official use.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(c)(1)(B).
    \19\Id. Sec. 7342(c)(2), (a)(6)(A). There is a process by which a 
Member may purchase with their personal funds an item worth more than 
minimal value that has been presented to them by a foreign government. 
However, this is a complicated multi-part process involving the Clerk, 
the General Services Administration, and the Department of State, and 
in any event the Member must first turn the item over to the Clerk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the time such a gift is deposited for disposal or 
official use, the recipient must also complete and sign a 
foreign gifts disclosure form, and file it with the 
Committee.\20\ If a Member or employee is uncertain whether the 
value of a gift exceeds ``minimal value,'' the Clerk's office 
can arrange for an appraisal.\21\ Under the Committee's foreign 
gifts regulations, the disclosure statements filed by Members 
and employees are publicly available at the Committee's office, 
and their contents are published annually in the Federal 
Register.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Id. 7342(c)(3).
    \21\ Id. 7342(g)(2)(B), (a)(6)(A).
    \22\House Ethics Manual at 393.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      C. ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT

    The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (EIGA), as amended, 
mandates annual financial disclosure by all senior federal 
personnel, including all Members and some employees of the 
House.\23\ The EIGA designates the Committee as the 
``supervising ethics office'' of House Members, officers, and 
employees for purposes of financial disclosure and provides 
that the Committee is to administer the Act with regard to 
those individuals.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ 5 U.S.C. app. 4 Sec. Sec. 101 et seq. House Rule XXVI, clause 
2, adopts Title I of EIGA as a rule of the House.
    \24\5 U.S.C. app. 4 Sec. 111(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With respect to gifts, financial disclosure filers must 
disclose on an annual Financial Disclosure Statement ``[t]he 
identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of 
all gifts aggregating more than the minimal value[.]''\25\ With 
respect to travel, financial disclosure filers also must 
disclose ``[t]he identity of the source and a brief description 
(including a travel itinerary, dates, and nature of expenses 
provided) of reimbursements received from any source 
aggregating more than the minimal value[.]''\26\ For both 
disclosures, ``minimal value'' is established by the same 
formula as in the FGDA.\27\ As noted above, in 2013, ``minimal 
value'' for FGDA purposes was $350.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\Id. 102(a)(2)(A).
    \26\Id. 102(a)(2)(B).
    \27\Id. 102(a)(2)(A), (B).
    \28\Supra note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          D. ETHICS REFORM ACT

    Pursuant to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, the Committee's 
nonpartisan staff is charged with ``providing information and 
guidance to Members, officers and employees of the House 
regarding any laws, rules, regulations, and other standards of 
conduct applicable to such individuals in their official 
capacities, and any interpretations and advisory opinions of 
the committee.''\29\ The Ethics Reform Act prohibits the 
Committee from initiating an investigation based on 
``information provided to the [Committee] by a Member, officer 
or employee of the House of Representatives when seeking advice 
regarding prospective conduct . . . if such Member, officer or 
employee acts in accordance with the written advice of the 
committee.''\30\ ``The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 guarantees 
that no one may be put in jeopardy by making such a 
request.''\31\ The Committee formalized these requirements in 
its own rules, noting the procedures for obtaining a written 
advisory opinion, and confirming that it would ``take no 
adverse action in regard to any conduct that has been 
undertaken in reliance on a written opinion if the conduct 
conforms to the specific facts addressed in the opinion.''\32\ 
Such protections apply equally to requests for approval of 
privately-sponsored travel.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\2 U.S.C. Sec. 4711(i).
    \30\Id.
    \31\House Ethics Manual at 21.
    \32\Committee Rule 3(k).
    \33\Committee Rule 3(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           E. HOUSE RULE XXIV

    House Rule XXIV prohibits a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner from maintaining an unofficial office account. 
This prohibition applies to accounts maintained by third 
parties for a Member's benefit, even if they are not maintained 
for the Member's direct use. It further extends to any process 
whereby funds are received or expended regardless of whether an 
actual account or repository is maintained.\34\ Thus, private, 
in-kind contribution of goods or services for official purposes 
are banned under House Rule XXIV.\35\ However, one exception to 
this rule allows Members to use funds from their principal 
campaign accounts for official expenses with some 
restrictions.\36\ For example, expenses for officially-
connected travel may be reimbursed out of the principal 
campaign account and not violate the unofficial office account 
prohibition.\37\ Additionally, a Member may use personal funds 
to pay any official expenses.\38\ However, House employees may 
not reimburse official expenses from their own funds. For this 
reason, although Members may repay the costs for privately-
sponsored travel out of their personal or campaign funds, were 
employees to do so, they might run afoul of House Rule XXIV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ House Ethics Manual at 328.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\House Rule XXIV, clause 1(b)(1).
    \37\House Ethics Manual at 176.
    \38\ Id. at 329.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      F. HOUSE RULE XXV, CLAUSE 5

1. Gifts Generally

    House Rule XXV, clause 5 (the Gift Rule), governs the 
acceptance of gifts by Members, officers, and employees of the 
House. The Gift Rule provides that a Member, officer, or 
employee may not knowingly accept any gift except as provided 
in the rule. The rule is comprehensive, i.e., a House Member or 
staff person may not accept anything of value from anyone--
whether in one's personal life or one's official life--unless 
acceptance is allowed under one of the rule's provisions.
    The Gift Rule defines the term ``gift'' in an extremely 
broad manner: ``. . . a gratuity, favor, discount, 
entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item 
having monetary value.''\39\ This provision goes on to state, 
``[t]he term includes gifts of services, training, 
transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, 
by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement 
after the expense has been incurred.''\40\ Accordingly, when a 
Member, officer, or employee is offered a tangible item, a 
service, or anything else, he or she must first determine 
whether the item has monetary value. If it does, then the 
individual may accept it only in accordance with provisions of 
the Gift Rule. This is so even if the donor obtained the gift 
without charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(2)(A).
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Gift Rule includes one general provision on acceptable 
gifts, and 23 provisions that describe additional, specific 
kinds of gifts that may be accepted. The general provision of 
the Gift Rule allows a Member, officer, or employee to accept a 
gift, other than cash or cash equivalent, having a value of 
less than $50, provided that the source of the gift is not a 
registered lobbyist, foreign agent, or private entity that 
retains or employs such individuals.\41\ The cumulative value 
of gifts that may be accepted under the general provision from 
any one source in a calendar year must be less than $100.\42\ 
Gifts having a value of less than $10 do not count toward this 
annual limit.\43\ While the rule does not require Members and 
staff to maintain formal records of the gifts accepted under 
this provision, the rule does require that Members and staff 
make a good faith effort to comply with its terms.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(1)(B).
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many of the 23 specific provisions in the Gift Rule are 
unlikely to be applicable in this matter.\45\ However, a few 
could be applicable. For example, Members, officers, and 
employees may accept ``[a]n item of nominal value such as a 
greeting card, baseball cap, or a T-shirt.''\46\ A Member, 
officer, or employee may also accept ``[i]nformational 
materials that are sent to the office of the Member, Delegate, 
Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House in the 
form of books, articles, periodicals, other written materials, 
audiotapes, videotapes, or other forms of communication.''\47\ 
Finally, Members, officers and employees may accept any gift 
authorized by the FGDA.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\See e.g., House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(C) (permitting 
acceptance of gifts from a relative).
    \46\Id. clause 5(a)(3)(W).
    \47\ Id. clause 5(a)(3)(I). The intent of the phrase ``sent to the 
office'' is that a Member or staff person may not accept, under this 
provision, an additional courtesy copy of a publication that is sent to 
his or her home. The intent of that language is not to preclude 
acceptance of a book or other appropriate informational material at, 
for example, a reception or other event. See House Ethics Manual at 55.
    \48\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(N).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Privately-Sponsored Travel

    In addition to the provisions discussed above, the Gift 
Rule also permits Members and staff to accept unsolicited 
travel expenses paid for by a private source under certain 
circumstances.\49\ In 2007, the House Rules were amended to 
require House Members and employees to seek prior written 
approval of the Committee before accepting travel paid for by a 
private source. The Gift Rule provides that if the traveler 
receives advance authorization from the Committee, the 
necessary travel costs ``shall be considered a reimbursement to 
the House and not a gift prohibited by'' the Gift Rule.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Id. clause 5(c)-(d).
    \50\Id. clause 5(b)(1)(A) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee is also authorized by House Rules to develop 
and revise as necessary guidelines and regulations governing 
the acceptance of privately-sponsored, officially-connected 
travel by House Members, officers, and employees.\51\ The 
Committee issued initial travel regulations in a pair of 
memoranda dated February 20 and March 14, 2007. At the end of 
the 112th Congress, the Committee adopted new travel 
regulations (Travel Regulations). The new Travel Regulations 
were issued on December 27, 2012, and were effective for all 
trips beginning on or after April 1, 2013.\52\ Those revised 
Travel Regulations were in effect for the trips at issue in 
this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Id. clause 5(i).
    \52\ Comm. on Ethics, Travel Guidelines and Regulations (Travel 
Regulations), Dec. 27, 2012, available at http://ethics.house.gov/
sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/travel%20regs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Travel Regulations define three different types of trip 
sponsors: (1) Primary Trip Sponsors,\53\ (2) Grantmaking 
Sponsors,\54\ and (3) Non-Grantmaking Sponsors.\55\ The 
Committee requires trip sponsors to complete a form in advance 
of a trip. The Committee has separate forms for each type of 
trip sponsor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\Travel Regulations Sec. 104(u).
    \54\ Id. Sec. 104(i).
    \55\ Id. Sec. 104(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Primary Trip Sponsor ``must have some bona fide role in 
planning, organizing, conducting, or participating in the 
trip.''\56\ A Primary Trip Sponsor may pay for trip expenses 
with its own funds, accept outside funds to pay for trip 
expenses, or both.\57\ If a Primary Trip Sponsor accepts 
outside funds to pay for trip expenses, the individual or 
entity giving the funds will also be considered a trip sponsor 
if the grant is ``based on a request or award that expressly 
mentioned the participation or attendance, or possible 
participation or attendance, of House Members or 
employees.''\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Id. Sec. 202.
    \57\ Id. Sec. 104(u).
    \58\ Id. Sec. 104(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Grantmaking Sponsor is a public charity or private 
foundation that underwrites, in whole or in part, a trip 
expense, ``with express or implicit knowledge or understanding 
that one or more House Members or employees may participate or 
attend that trip or event, or otherwise may be beneficiaries of 
the gift or donation.''\59\ If a Grantmaking Sponsor does not 
have a direct role in the organizing, planning, or conducting 
of a trip or event, it must ``certify that it conducts an audit 
or review of its grant, gift, or donation to ensure that the 
funds are spent in accordance with the terms of its grant or 
donation.''\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Id. Sec. 104(i).
    \60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A Non-Grantmaking Sponsor is an individual or entity that 
underwrites, in whole or in part, a trip expense, ``with 
express or implicit knowledge or understanding that one or more 
House Members or employees may participate or attend that trip 
or event, or otherwise may be beneficiaries of the gift or 
donation.''\61\ If a Non-Grantmaking Sponsor does not have 
direct involvement in planning, organizing, conducting, or 
participating in the trip, it must ``provide contributions in 
exchange for a tangible benefit[.]''\62\ A ``tangible benefit'' 
may include booth rental space, advertising at an event, or 
public designation as a sponsor of an event. Individuals or 
entities that provide contributions in exchange for a tangible 
benefit ``at an event that would occur without regard to 
congressional participation are not considered a trip 
sponsor.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Id. Sec. 104(s).
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id. Sec. 104(ee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the Committee's Travel Regulations, a trip ``without 
regard to congressional participation'' is defined as a trip 
``that would occur even without the attendance of one or more 
House Members or employees.''\64\ The Travel Regulations go on 
to state that ``[s]uch events may include, but are not limited 
to, an annual meeting of a trade group, a trade show, or a 
conference that is open to the public.''\65\ Conversely, a trip 
``with regard to congressional participation'' is a trip ``that 
would not occur without, or is otherwise dependent upon, the 
attendance of one or more House Members or employees.''\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Id. 104(hh).
    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id. Sec. 104(gg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All of the trip sponsor forms and the Committee's Travel 
Regulations include very clear warnings about the seriousness 
with which the Committee views the truthfulness of statements 
made to it during the travel review process, and the 
possibility of criminal penalties for false statements. All of 
the Committee's trip sponsor forms include at least one warning 
that ``[w]illful or knowing misrepresentations on this form may 
be subject to criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1001.'' (emphasis in original.) In addition, the signature 
block of each type of sponsor form is preceded by the 
statement, ``I certify by my signature that the information 
contained in this form is true, complete, and correct to the 
best of my knowledge.'' A similar warning also appears in the 
Travel Regulations, which state that ``Any individual, acting 
on behalf of a prospective or past trip sponsor, who makes 
materially false or misleading statements to the Committee 
concerning a trip sponsor or any trip that is being, or was, 
offered pursuant to these regulations may be subject to 
criminal penalties under the False Statements Act (18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1001).''\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Id. 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House Rule XXV, clause 5(b)(1)(A)(ii) requires that all 
House Members and employees who accept privately-sponsored 
travel must disclose the expenses to the Clerk of the House 
within 15 days after the travel is completed. The Committee has 
created forms for the purposes of these disclosures. The post-
travel disclosures must include copies of (1) the Traveler Form 
submitted to the Committee prior to the trip; (2) the trip 
sponsor forms submitted to the Committee prior to the trip; (3) 
the list of House Members and employees who were invited; (4) 
the actual agenda and description of activities in which the 
traveler participated during the trip; (5) a copy of the 
approval letter or other written communication from the 
Committee authorizing the traveler's participation in the trip; 
and (6) a copy of the Sponsor Post-Travel Disclosure Form, 
certifying the actual costs incurred by the traveler. It is the 
responsibility of a trip sponsor to certify on the Sponsor 
Post-Travel Disclosure Form the actual amount of travel costs 
paid on behalf of, or reimbursed to, a traveler, and to provide 
that form to the traveler within 10 days of their return from 
travel.\68\ The Sponsor Post-Travel Disclosure Form contains 
the same ``false statements'' warning and certification warning 
as the pre-travel approval forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Id. Sec. 603.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All post-travel disclosures for privately-sponsored travel 
are made available on the Clerk's Web site shortly after 
filing.\69\ The Clerk's easy to use database allows the public 
to search privately-sponsored trips by Member name, travel 
dates, private sponsor name, destination, or any combination of 
those fields. A user also has the option of downloading all 
private travel reports by year, going back to 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ At no point in the post-travel disclosure process does the 
Committee provide anything to the Clerk's office. All components of the 
post-travel filing are provided by the traveler. Any incompleteness in 
a post-travel disclosure by a traveler is simply an indication that the 
traveler did not submit all of the required paperwork, not an 
indication that the traveler did not submit the appropriate pre-travel 
paperwork to the Committee or that the Committee approved a trip 
without having received and reviewed the appropriate forms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Impermissible Gifts

    The restrictions of the Gift Rule also do not apply to 
anything that a Member, officer, or employee ``does not use and 
promptly returns to the donor.''\70\ The Gift Rule also 
provides that a Member, officer, or employee may accept 
``[a]nything for which the [official] pays the market 
value.''\71\ Thus, when a Member or employee receives a gift 
that is unacceptable under the Gift Rule, the recipient 
generally must either return the gift or pay the market value 
of the gift.\72\ The Gift Rule provides additional options with 
regard to perishable items: ``[w]hen it is not practicable to 
return a tangible item because it is perishable, the item may, 
at the discretion of the recipient, be given to an appropriate 
charity or destroyed.''\73\ By extension, if the return of a 
gift is impossible--e.g., if the identity of the donor is 
unknown--the recipient may ``return'' the item by donating it 
to charity or destroying it, or the recipient may keep the item 
by paying the fair market value to the U.S. Treasury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(3)(A).
    \71\Id. Generally, for the purpose of the Gift Rule, items are 
valued at their retail, rather than wholesale prices. Often an item may 
be priced differently at different stores. A gift may be valued at the 
lowest price at which the item is available to the general public. 
(Other valuation criteria apply to certain items, such as tickets to 
entertainment events that do not have a listed face value and travel on 
private aircraft.) See House Ethics Manual at 73.
    \72\ Id. At times when a Member, officer, or employee is 
unexpectedly presented with a gift at an event, he or she may be 
uncertain whether it can be accepted under the Gift Rule. In that 
circumstance, the individual may receive the gift and wait until after 
the event to review the provisions of the Gift Rule and make a decision 
on the gift's acceptability.
    \73\ House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            III. BACKGROUND

 A. COMMITTEE PREAPPROVAL OF PRIVATELY-SPONSORED OFFICIALLY-CONNECTED 
                                 TRAVEL

    Since the House rule changes regarding privately-sponsored 
travel in 2007, the Committee has conducted a thorough review 
of each proposed privately-sponsored trip. The Committee's 
nonpartisan, professional staff recommends changes where 
necessary to bring a proposed trip into compliance with 
relevant laws, rules, or regulations and, on occasion, informs 
House Members and employees that a proposed trip is not 
permissible. The Committee recognizes both the significant 
benefit the public receives when their Representatives and 
their Representatives' staff receive hands-on education and 
experience, as well as the mandate that outside groups be 
appropriately limited in what gifts and support they are 
allowed to provide to Members of Congress and congressional 
staff.
    In April and May 2013, the Committee received pre-travel 
approval requests for at least 10 House Members and 32 House 
employees to accept reimbursement of privately-sponsored travel 
expenses for the Trips. Each House traveler submitted all of 
the required pre-travel approval forms to the Committee prior 
to traveling. The review and approval process required the 
travelers to fill out and submit separate forms detailing the 
Trips' itineraries (which were often customized for each 
traveler), and information about the organization and funding 
of the Trips. One of the forms each traveler submitted to the 
Committee was a Primary Trip Sponsor Form.
    Five different sponsors were identified as sponsors on the 
forms. In particular, the Members and some staff were invited 
by TCAE, the Council of Turkic American Associations (CTAA), 
and the Turkic American Federation of the Midwest (TAFM). The 
remaining House employees were invited by two other 
organizations: the Turkic American Alliance (TAA) and the 
Turkic American Federation of the Southeast (TAFS).
    Each named sponsor completed a Primary Trip Sponsor Form, 
and on that form the sponsor stated that it was the sole 
sponsor of its trips. Each named sponsor also certified that, 
as the primary trip sponsor, it had ``not accepted from any 
other source funds intended directly or indirectly to finance 
any aspect of the trip.'' As noted previously, the Primary Trip 
Sponsor Form includes multiple clear warnings that ``[w]illful 
or knowing misrepresentations on this form may be subject to 
criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001.'' 
(emphasis in original.) The signature block of each type of 
sponsor form is also preceded by the statement, ``I certify by 
my signature that the information contained in this form is 
true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge.'' 
Committee staff reviewed these forms and asked Members and 
sponsors for additional information where necessary.
    While there were some similarities between the 42 Primary 
Trip Sponsor Forms submitted to the Committee, they were not 
all identical. For example, each sponsor submitted different 
itineraries for their trips. All of the itineraries included a 
visit to the ``U.S.-Azerbaijan: Vision for Future'' conference 
(the Conference). One of the sponsors, TCAE, was also listed as 
one of two organizers of the Conference. However, the 
Conference was not the only item on the different itineraries. 
Even on the days of the Conference, and on Trips sponsored by 
TCAE, the House travelers were scheduled both to attend 
portions of the Conference but also to participate in numerous 
non-Conference activities, such as meetings with the U.S. 
Ambassador to Azerbaijan, various Azeri government officials, 
and officials from the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan 
Republic (SOCAR).
    Ultimately, 10 Members and 32 House employees received 
approval from the Committee, in the form of a letter from the 
Chairman and Ranking Member, to participate in the Trips. After 
the Trips, the sponsors provided each of the travelers with a 
completed sponsor post-travel disclosure form--which as noted 
above includes a clear warning about the False Statements Act 
and a certification about the truthfulness of the disclosures--
confirming the expenses paid by the private sponsors in 
connection with the Trips. The House travelers then included 
this information provided by the sponsors in the post-travel 
disclosure paperwork they filed with the Clerk of the House.

                        B. INITIAL PRESS REPORTS

    On July 26, 2014, a press report alleged that the 
Conference was ``sponsored'' by entities other than the two 
named organizers of the Conference.\74\ The evidence for this 
``sponsorship'' was that the Conference was ``festooned with 
the logos of SOCAR's powerful energy allies, including BP and 
ConocoPhillips,'' and a statement from BP that it paid $10,000 
for the Conference and paid more again for a follow up event 
that was scheduled to take place in Washington, D.C. the next 
year. The article further noted: that the two organizers of the 
Conference, TCAE and AFAZ, were both led by Mr. Oksuz and 
shared an address in Houston, Texas; that TCAE had ``bare 
bones'' tax filings; and that, according to Foreign Agent 
Registration Act filings in 2014, AFAZ received significant 
funding from SOCAR. The article also included a statement from 
an ``expert in congressional ethics'' asserting that corporate 
sponsorship of the Conference was ``game over for whoever 
signed the House pre-trips forms stating falsely that there was 
no such sponsorship.''\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\Will Tucker & Lise Olsen, ``Lawmakers' Trips to Baku Conference 
Raise Ethics Questions,'' Houston Chron., July 26, 2014, available at 
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/
Lawmakers-trips-to-Baku-conference-raise-ethics-5649142.php.
    \75\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the initial press report was published, Committee 
staff reviewed the allegations. The staff noted that 
allegations of corporate ``sponsorship'' only referred to 
support for the Conference itself, not the Trips more 
generally, and that the Conference was only one part of the 
Trips. Further, the mere corporate sponsorship of a large 
event, such as the Conference, is not a per se violation of the 
Travel Regulations. Nor is the failure to note such sponsors, 
necessarily, problematic. The Travel Regulations plainly state 
that entities that provide financial support for an event, in 
exchange for a tangible benefit--such as advertising or named 
sponsorship at an event--are not ``sponsors'' for purposes of 
the Travel Regulations, if the event is held without regard to 
congressional participation. Indeed, House travelers routinely 
attend large conferences with dozens of corporate sponsors. 
Consistent with the Travel Regulations, the Committee does not 
automatically treat each corporate sponsor as a sponsor of the 
travel to such large conferences.

                             C. OCE REVIEW

    On January 29, 2015, OCE notified the Committee that it had 
initiated preliminary reviews of ten Members regarding the 
Trips. One of those ten Members did not travel to Azerbaijan on 
private sponsorship, but rather as part of a larger officially-
connected trip paid for by the Oversight Committee. OCE did not 
move to a second-phase review for that Member. However, on 
March 2, 2015, OCE notified the Committee that it was moving to 
a second-phase review for the other nine Members. OCE did not 
initiate a review of any of the House staffers who participated 
in the Trips.
    Under House rules, upon receipt of a notification from OCE 
that it is undertaking a review of a matter, ``if the [Ethics 
Committee] is investigating such matter, the committee may at 
any time so notify [OCE] and request that [OCE] cease its 
review and refer the matter to the committee for its 
consideration.''\76\ This procedure, referred to as ``cease-
and-refer,'' has been included in OCE's organizing resolution 
since the House created OCE and has been retained in every 
Congress since when the House renewed OCE's charter. The 
Special Task Force for Ethics Enforcement (Task Force) that 
recommended creation of OCE explained two reasons why it 
included the cease-and-refer mechanism in OCE's organizing 
resolution. First, the Task Force noted there may be ``certain 
cases where a matter may already be the subject of an 
undisclosed Standards Committee investigation in which the OCE 
may wish to avoid interference.''\77\ Second, in some matters 
``the Committee may possess more complete information than OCE 
regarding an alleged violation and may be better equipped to 
handle the matter.''\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\See House Rule XI, clause 3(r).
    \77\Report of the Democratic Members of the Special Task Force on 
Ethics Enforcement, H. Rep. 110-1, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. at 17 
(December 2007).
    \78\Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Task Force further intended that ``[t]he board of the 
OCE must cooperate with such requests from the . . . Committee 
at any point in the process.''\79\ Accordingly, Section 1(d)(1) 
of House Resolution 895 from the 110th Congress (H. Res. 895), 
the resolution that founded OCE, makes OCE's compliance with a 
``cease-and-refer'' request mandatory. H. Res. 895 further 
states that, when responding to a cease-and-refer request, OCE 
``shall send a written report to the committee containing a 
statement that, upon the request of that committee, the matter 
is referred to it for its consideration, but no findings.''\80\ 
Although OCE may not refer ``findings'' to the Committee 
following a cease-and-refer request, no provision of its 
organizing resolution would preclude OCE from sharing any 
materials it has gathered to date with the Committee as 
``supporting documentation.'' Those materials could aid the 
Committee's ongoing investigation, and the Committee would 
retain the ability to publish those materials in any public 
report or other statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\Id. at 17.
    \80\See H. Res. 895 Sec. 1(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under the cease-and-refer mechanism, once the Committee has 
requested that OCE cease its review of a matter and refer it to 
the Committee, the review of that matter by the Committee is 
subject to the same deadlines and public reporting requirements 
as any other matter referred to the Committee by OCE.\81\ One 
additional requirement applies: if the Committee is unable to 
reach ``final resolution'' of a matter received from OCE 
pursuant to a cease-and-refer request within the applicable 
timeframes and notifies OCE that it has been unable to resolve 
the matter, OCE resumes its review of the matter.\82\ For 
purposes of determining whether the Committee has resolved a 
matter received following a cease-and-refer request or must 
return it to OCE, the Task Force intended that ``final 
resolution shall include dismissal of the matter the Committee 
requested early from the OCE, establishment of an investigative 
subcommittee regarding the matter, or a conclusion or action 
which clearly indicates that the matter will no longer be 
considered by the Committee.''\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\Despite unsupported statements to the contrary, a request from 
the Committee that OCE ``cease-and-refer'' a matter is not an attempt 
by the Committee to ``bury'' the matter. Indeed, referrals to the 
Committee under the ``cease-and-refer'' rules come with their own 
strict time deadlines and mandatory public disclosure requirements. In 
fact, when a matter is the subject of a ``cease-and-refer'' request, 
House rules require that the referral eventually be made public. In 
contrast, one option available to OCE while reviewing a matter is to 
refer the matter to the Committee with a recommendation that the 
Committee dismiss the matter. In such a case, if the Committee agrees 
with the recommendation to dismiss a matter there is no public 
disclosure requirement. Since the start of the 111th Congress, OCE has 
referred 85 matters to the Committee--34 of which included a 
recommendation that the Committee dismiss the matter. The Committee's 
``cease-and-refer'' request in this case thus actually ensured that 
there would be public disclosure of the matter, and foreclosed the 
possibility that there would be no public disclosure of the matter.
    \82\See House Rule XI, clause 3(r); H. Res. 895 Sec. 1(d)(2).
    \83\Report of the Democratic Members of the Special Task Force on 
Ethics Enforcement, H. Rep. 110-1, 110th Cong. 1st Sess. at 17-18 
(December 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee unanimously voted to make a cease-and-refer 
request with regard to the nine separate OCE reviews related to 
the Trips because both rationales articulated by the Task Force 
as the basis for creating the cease-and-refer provision were 
present in this matter. First, the Committee had an ongoing 
investigation, and had already requested information from 
relevant parties. Second, the Committee possessed more complete 
information than OCE and is uniquely qualified to handle the 
matter. The Committee already had in its possession significant 
additional information (e.g., materials generated during the 
trip approval process) and as discussed above is the only 
entity authorized to issue and enforce regulations for the 
House regarding privately-sponsored, officially-connected 
travel and the acceptance of gifts under the FGDA.
    Finally, any recommendation from OCE to the Committee in 
these matters would have necessarily been superfluous. An OCE 
referral simply provides a recommendation to the Committee that 
it further review a matter or dismiss it--the referral may not 
include ``any conclusions regarding the validity of the 
allegations upon which it is based or the guilt or innocence of 
the individual who is the subject of the review.''\84\ Here, 
any recommendation would have been redundant because the 
Committee had already decided to investigate the matter and had 
begun that investigation. The Committee voted to make a cease-
and-refer request in order to conserve significant House 
resources and to ensure a more effective, efficient 
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\See H. Res. 895 Sec. 1(c)(2)(C). OCE may also inform the 
Committee that its review of the matter is unresolved due to a tie vote 
of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 4, 2015, the Chairman and Ranking Member sent a 
letter to OCE formally requesting that OCE cease its review of 
the Trips, and refer the matter immediately to the Committee. 
OCE did not immediately refer the matter to the Committee.\85\ 
On April 21, 2015, the Committee further requested that when 
OCE referred the matter to the Committee, OCE should send the 
Committee all the evidence that OCE had gathered to date, again 
in the interest of efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\OCE received the Committee's cease and refer request on March 
4, but did not respond until March 10, when the Co-Chairs informed the 
Committee by letter that its Board would not even discuss the 
Committee's request until March 27, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 8, 2015, OCE referred nine Reports to the Committee 
regarding the Trips and approximately 10,000 pages of evidence 
it had collected. In its referral, OCE noted that it had 
requested documentary, and in some cases testimonial, 
information from dozens of sources, including the House 
travelers, the named trip sponsors, other attendees of the 
Conference, the corporate sponsors of the Conference, the 
travel agent who arranged travel for the approximately 350 
attendees of the Conference, and the hotels at which Conference 
attendees stayed.\86\ OCE noted in its referral that there were 
several sources from which it could not obtain information, 
including Mr. Oksuz, TCAE, and AFAZ.\87\ In addition, OCE sent 
the Committee nine documents that it labeled as its 
``findings.'' However, as discussed earlier, due to the 
Committee's cease-and-refer request, OCE had no authority to 
send findings to the Committee. On June 17, 2015, the Committee 
unanimously voted to treat OCE's referrals as referrals 
pursuant to the cease-and-refer rules. The Committee reviewed 
and considered the information included in the ``findings'' as 
supporting documentation, which OCE's charter does not 
expressly prohibit it from providing to the Committee with a 
referral pursuant to a cease-and-refer request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\Indeed, much of this review occurred after OCE received the 
Committee's cease-and-refer request. The materials transmitted by OCE 
to the Committee include citations to 21 interviews of witnesses, 
including the dates of those interviews. Of those 21 interviews, only 1 
interview had been conducted prior to March 4, 2015, when the Committee 
informed OCE that it had voted to make a cease and refer request for 
these matters.
    \87\OCE also asserted that of the Members who went on the Trips 
refused to cooperate with OCE. However, each of those Members only did 
so after learning that the Committee had made a cease-and-refer request 
to OCE. Each Member fully cooperated with the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       D. COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION

    The Committee issued 12 subpoenas and 18 voluntary requests 
for information, and collected nearly 190,000 pages of 
materials, including supplemental materials provided by OCE. 
The Committee also interviewed ten witnesses, including one 
witness under oath. The Committee subpoenaed an eleventh 
person: Kemal Oksuz, who was in many respects the central 
witness to most of the substantive allegations in question. On 
June 9, 2015, Mr. Oksuz, through counsel, invoked his Fifth 
Amendment right to refuse to testify, as discussed further 
below. Mr. Oksuz also refused to comply with a subpoena for 
documents issued to him by the Committee.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\As discussed in Section III.E. of this report, infra, shortly 
after OCE referred the nine matters regarding the Azerbaijan Trips to 
the Committee, public reports indicated that the press had received at 
least part of one of OCE's referrals to the Committee regarding the 
Trips. The public reports about the matter came after the Committee had 
sought information from Mr. Oksuz, but before it could actually 
interview him. It was only after the public reports regarding OCE's 
review that Mr. Oksuz invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee obtained evidence from several sources from 
which OCE was unable to obtain evidence, or did not seek 
evidence. For example, TCAE and AFAZ both produced documents to 
the Committee. In addition, the Committee received bank records 
from Wells Fargo for both TCAE and AFAZ and documentary and 
testimonial evidence from Resul Aksoy, who worked with Mr. 
Oksuz at TCAE.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\Mr. Aksoy, who one witness told OCE was Mr. Oksuz's ``number 
two person,'' told the Committee he was not interviewed by OCE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, in addition to documentary and testimonial 
evidence not obtained from Mr. Oksuz, other potentially 
relevant evidence was also unavailable. Such evidence included 
documents and testimony from: the Azerbaijan offices of 
Practical Solutions Group (PSG); several possible corporate 
sponsors of the Conference (Azeri MI Drilling Fluids, Ltd., 
Caspian Drilling Company, Ltd., BP, and M-I SWACO); various 
hotels that allegedly provided accommodations to Members, 
including the Four Seasons Baku; and BAKIAD, a non-profit 
entity based in Turkey, similar to the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, that may have been involved in travel for Members and 
staff who traveled to Turkey as part of the Trips.
    On June 22, 2015, the Committee announced that it had voted 
to extend its review of OCE's nine referrals for an additional 
45-day period.
    On July 16, 2015, the Committee sent letters to six of the 
nine Members who participated in the Trips, recommending that 
they return or otherwise remedy certain tangible gifts they 
received while on the Trips.\90\ All six Members complied 
immediately and took or committed to take the corrective action 
the Committee recommended in its letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\Prior to that date, the other three Members who received gifts 
during the Trips returned or otherwise disposed of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 29, 2015, the Committee unanimously voted to 
release this Report and take no further action with respect to 
the Members in question. Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 
3(a)(3) and Committee Rules 7(d) and 28, the Committee also 
voted to refer the matter to the Department of Justice for 
further investigation of the purported sponsors of the Trips, 
who are outside the Committee's jurisdiction. Finally, the 
Committee, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(r), voted to 
release OCE's Reports as required under the cease-and-refer 
procedure. Because the cease-and-refer rules only require the 
Committee to release OCE's Reports, any release of other 
materials sent by OCE is within the discretion of the 
Committee. The Committee decided not to release publicly any 
other materials, because those materials contain evidence of 
possible criminal misconduct by several non-House individuals 
and entities, and the Committee determined that any such 
release could interfere with a potential investigation by the 
Department of Justice.

              E. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF INVESTIGATION

    Although the Committee is required to make public the 
materials transmitted to it by OCE in certain circumstances, 
the Committee is the only entity either required or authorized 
to make those materials public.\91\ In addition, those public 
disclosures are subject to certain conditions, such as a 
requirement that the Committee provide notice of a public 
release to the subject of an investigation. Unfortunately, that 
was not the case in this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8); H. Res. 895, Sec. 1(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In any matter referred to the Committee by OCE either (1) 
following a cease and refer request from the Committee to OCE 
or (2) after OCE has completed a second-phase review and 
referred a matter to the Committee with a recommendation that 
the Committee further review the matter, the Committee must 
make a public statement acknowledging its review of the matters 
in the OCE referral after an initial review period.\92\ 
However, in the event that the Committee has extended its 
review for an initial 45-day review period--as was the case 
here--although the Committee would be required to make a public 
statement, it would not be required to disclose additional 
substantive details of the investigation at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\Committee Rule 17A(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 13, 2015, five days after OCE transmitted the nine 
referrals in this matter to the Committee, The Washington Post 
published a lengthy story on its Web site reporting that OCE 
had reviewed allegations related to privately-sponsored travel 
by House Members and staffers to Azerbaijan in 2013 and had 
referred the matters to the Committee.\93\ The newspaper's 
story was based on and quoted from materials transmitted to the 
Committee by OCE. The Committee did not authorize the release 
of those materials, and such an unauthorized release may have 
violated House Rules and other standards of conduct. Moreover, 
the unauthorized disclosure of the materials directly impacted 
the Committee's investigation, which began well before OCE 
transmitted the materials to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\The next day, a similar story was published on the newspaper's 
front page. Scott Higham, Steven Rich, & Alice Crites, Lawmakers Took 
Trip Paid for by Foreign Firm, Wash. Post, May 14, 2015, at A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the time The Washington Post published its story, it was 
more than five weeks before the Committee would have to make 
any public disclosure of the OCE referral. In addition, the 
Committee had issued a number of subpoenas to various 
individuals, and had issued requests for information to a 
number of entities in foreign countries. Discussions with all 
of those parties about their cooperation with the Committee's 
investigation were ongoing.
    The story in The Washington Post quoted extensively from 
materials prepared by OCE, named the Members under review, and 
included numerous allegations about American and foreign 
entities and individuals outside the House. Following 
publication of the story, Kemal Oksuz, who was in many respects 
the central witness to most of the substantive allegations in 
question, invoked his Fifth Amendment right and refused to 
comply with Committee subpoenas seeking his testimony and 
documents. Foreign entities outside of the Committee's 
jurisdiction to compel cooperation also subsequently declined 
to cooperate with the Committee's investigation.
    As such, the unauthorized disclosure of the material to The 
Washington Post impeded the Committee's ongoing investigation, 
and prevented it from gathering information critical to its 
investigation.
    Anonymous leaks of ongoing ethics investigations are 
damaging to the Members involved, the ethics process, and the 
whole House. This is particularly true in this case. The 
Committee takes this matter very seriously. It is regrettable 
that the unauthorized disclosure impaired the Committee's 
investigation and impacted the notice rights that are mandated 
by House Rules for all subjects of an OCE referral.

                              IV. FINDINGS

                          A. SCOPE OF FINDINGS

    The Committee's investigation was broader in scope than 
OCE's review. OCE's reviews concerned House Members who 
traveled to Azerbaijan in May 2013. The Committee's 
investigation included not just Members, but also the 32 House 
employees who traveled to Azerbaijan during this timeframe. In 
addition to reviewing the conduct of House Members, OCE also 
spent considerable time and resources looking at the conduct of 
individuals and entities other than Members, officers, and 
employees of the House. However, this review did not uncover 
any evidence of wrongdoing by any House Member, officer, or 
employee; OCE noted in its Reports that the nine subjects of 
its referrals ``did not knowingly accept'' any impermissible 
gift of travel.
    The Committee's investigation also uncovered additional 
evidence of criminal activity by the non-House individuals and 
entities. As it has done in the past, the Committee has 
determined that the evidence of criminal activity should be 
forwarded to the Department of Justice for further 
investigation.\94\ However, the Committee's investigation was 
primarily concerned with: (1) what things of value did the 
House Members and employees receive; (2) was the acceptance of 
these items permissible under the applicable laws, rules, 
regulations, and other standards of conduct; (3) was there any 
evidence that the House Members and employees took any official 
action in connection with the receipt of these things of value; 
and (4) based on the foregoing facts, is any corrective action 
necessary. The Committee's investigation and its findings only 
looked at the conduct of non-House individuals and entities to 
the extent that it impacted the answers to these questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of the Investigation into 
Officially Connected Travel of House Members to Attend the Carib News 
Foundation Multinational Business Conferences in 2007 and 2008, H. Rep. 
111-422, 111th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following the Committee's extensive investigation, the 
Committee made the following findings.

          B. WHAT DID THE HOUSE MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES RECEIVE?

    In 2013, 10 House Members and 32 House employees accepted 
privately-sponsored travel to Azerbaijan. Some of those House 
travelers also traveled to Turkey. This travel was accepted 
after review and approval by the Committee. On the Trips, the 
Members and employees accepted airfare to and from the U.S., 
and in some cases between Turkey and Azerbaijan. The Members 
and employees also accepted local transportation, lodging, and 
meals. The airfare, local transportation, lodging, and meals 
accorded with the expenses that were preapproved by the 
Committee.
    While in Azerbaijan, several of the House travelers also 
accepted tangible gifts. Among other things, Members received 
some combination of small and medium-sized rugs, tea sets, 
briefcases, CDs, DVDs, picture books, and scarves. Such items 
were not preapproved by the Committee. In fact, each of the 
Committee's preapproval letters included a standard warning 
regarding the possible receipt of gifts from foreign 
governments while on official travel.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\Those warnings read, in relevant part, ``House Members may 
accept, under the [FGDA], gifts of minimal value [currently $350] 
tendered as a souvenir or mark of courtesy' by a foreign government. 
Any tangible gifts valued in excess of $350 received from a foreign 
government must, within 60 days of acceptance, be disclosed on a Form 
for Disclosing Gifts from Foreign Governments and either turned over to 
the Clerk of the House, or, with the written approval of the Committee, 
retained for official use.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   C. WAS THE ACCEPTANCE PERMISSIBLE?

1. Travel Expenses

    All House travelers sought and received preapproval from 
the Committee to accept the various travel expenses accepted 
while on the Trips. This preapproval came in the form of a 
letter signed by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Committee. By both statute and Committee rule, such a written 
letter from the Committee providing advice regarding a House 
traveler's prospective conduct acts as a shield against later 
adverse actions from the Committee against that traveler if 
such Member, officer, or employee acts in accordance with the 
written advice of the Committee. Such protections do not attach 
if the travel does not conform to the facts underlying the 
Committee's approval.
    The Committee's investigation uncovered evidence that 
raised significant questions as to the true source of the 
funding for the travel expenses related to the Trips. Neither 
the Committee nor OCE found any evidence that any House 
travelers knew of issues regarding the true source of the 
funding for the travel expenses. Indeed, even following an 
extensive investigation, the Committee could not establish the 
actual source of funding for the travel expenses.
    Much of the relevant evidence regarding this question is 
outside of the Committee's authority to compel, either because 
it resides outside of the U.S. or may be protected by the 
Constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Thus, no 
additional investigating could resolve these questions.
    The pre-travel approval forms identified five American non-
profit organizations as the sole sources of funding for the 
Trips. These non-profit groups supplied the travelers with 
itineraries and other documents relating to the Trips' 
logistics. The named trip sponsors prepared and signed 
disclosure forms that the House travelers provided to the 
Committee when seeking the Committee's approval for the Trips. 
In those forms, each non-profit stated that it was the sole 
sponsor of its trips and that it had not accepted any funds 
intended to finance any aspect of the trip, either directly or 
indirectly, from any other source.
    The evidence indicates that many of the American non-
profits named as sponsors did not actually pay for the House 
Members' and employees' travel expenses. Instead, the vast 
majority of funding for the travel expenses appears to have 
come from TCAE, and possibly AFAZ. Those two entities, which 
operated out of the same office suite in Houston, Texas, and 
were both led by Mr. Oksuz, paid for and arranged the airfare 
for approximately 350 attendees of the Conference, including 10 
House Members and 32 House employees. These entities made 
large, undifferentiated payments to Tursan Travel, a travel 
agent, which then booked the airfare for the 350 travelers to 
Azerbaijan. There is no evidence that any of the other non-
profit entities reimbursed TCAE or AFAZ for these expenses.
    During the investigation, Tursan Travel produced a number 
of invoices purporting to show separate airfare expenditures by 
AFAZ and TCAE, with travel for House Members and staff 
attributed to TCAE and non-House travel paid by AFAZ. However, 
evidence gathered by the Committee indicates that the travel 
agency did not create the invoices based on the actual tickets 
purchased. Notably, the amounts listed on those invoices match 
neither the amounts listed in the Sponsor Post-Travel 
Disclosures as amounts paid for the Members' transportation, 
nor the amounts listed in flight itineraries sent to the 
Members before the Trips.\96\ When asked why airfare amounts 
listed on those invoices did not match airline itinerary 
documents, the travel agent said that he created the invoices 
based on directions from Mr. Oksuz and TCAE's Executive 
Director, Resul Aksoy. The travel agent said that the TCAE 
staff told him what amounts to invoice for each traveler's 
flights and whether each ticket purchase should be invoiced to 
TCAE or AFAZ. Mr. Aksoy, however, has denied any knowledge of 
or involvement with the invoices, stating that this was all 
handled by Mr. Oksuz, and Mr. Oksuz has refused to testify. The 
investigation did not reveal any credible documentary evidence 
to support the travel agent's assertions.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \96\In some cases, the differences between the invoiced amount and 
the fare listed on airline itineraries and post-travel forms submitted 
to the Committee are substantial. Airline itineraries list fares for 
Member travel ranging from $530 more than the Tursan Travel invoice 
fare to $1,000 less. The differences with the post-travel forms are 
even greater: for one Member, the invoiced fare is $5,270 less than the 
ticket price indicated on the post-travel form.
    \97\AAFAZ did produce one document that purported to show that 
Tursan Travel invoiced AFAZ for some Member airfares, but given Mr. 
Oksuz's refusal to testify, and his central role in controlling AFAZ, 
the Committee could not determine whether AFAZ actually paid any 
invoiced amounts. The Committee also noted that Tursan Travel did not 
produce this invoice to the Committee, and the airfare amounts listed 
on the invoice to AFAZ do not match amounts listed on invoices Tursan 
Travel produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the month leading up to the Conference, TCAE and AFAZ 
received large payments from PSG and SOCAR, respectively.\98\ 
PSG is a consulting firm based in Azerbaijan with connections 
to SOCAR. SOCAR is an energy company that is wholly owned by 
the Republic of Azerbaijan. Without these cash infusions, 
neither TCAE nor AFAZ would have had sufficient funds to cover 
the payments to the travel agent. The payments from PSG were 
tied to a ``Consulting Agreement'' with TCAE for the 
Conference. The payments from SOCAR to AFAZ were tied to a 
``Sponsorship Agreement'' for the Conference between AFAZ and 
SOCAR.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\In the materials submitted to the Committee, OCE noted that 
both TCAE and AFAZ used Wells Fargo bank and that OCE could not 
determine whether the entities had separate bank accounts. The 
Committee obtained records showing that the entities had separate bank 
accounts.
    \99\There is some evidence that payments by PSG were, in fact, 
directed by SOCAR. PSG and SOCAR have a longstanding relationship. 
Also, SOCAR engaged PSG to plan and organize the U.S.-Azerbaijan 
Conference. Three days later, PSG entered into a separate Consulting 
Agreement with TCAE, whereby TCAE would work on ``convention 
organization'' and ``[s]ponsorship for International Flights for 
Speakers/Panelists and Guests.'' However, there is no evidence that 
SOCAR actually paid PSG for services with regard to the Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both the Consulting Agreement and the Sponsorship Agreement 
included provisions whereby a majority of the fees would go 
towards paying an ``International Preparation Fee (structure, 
employees, transportation).'' Further, the Sponsorship 
Agreement between AFAZ and SOCAR specifically states that 
``[t]he Funding shall cover accommodation, traveling expenses, 
venue rental and all other related expenses and fees.'' 
However, the agreements also provided that PSG and SOCAR would 
receive a tangible benefit--i.e., named sponsorship rights and 
advertising.
    No such parallel provision appeared in the Consulting 
Agreement between TCAE and PSG. TCAE produced an invoice it 
sent to PSG, listing services under their Consulting Agreement 
that included ``Congressional Member Trips to Azerbaijan'' and 
``Congressional Staff Trips to Azerbaijan,'' in addition to a 
number of activities not related to the Conference. However, 
this document merely indicates that TCAE may have worked on 
Member and staff travel to the Conference as part of its 
agreement with PSG; it does not establish that PSG directed 
TCAE to invite Members and staff, and does not indicate whether 
PSG's payment for TCAE's work was funded by PSG or came from 
another source. Moreover, that invoice is dated for several 
months after the Conference, so it is not clear what level of 
knowledge, if any, PSG had with respect to TCAE inviting 
Members and staff to the Conference at the time of the 
Conference. And the Committee could not compel testimony from 
either Mr. Oksuz or any PSG employees in Azerbaijan to clarify 
these issues.
    Even if there was sufficient evidence that the fees from 
PSG and SOCAR did contemplate congressional travel, PSG and 
SOCAR both received a tangible benefit in exchange for their 
sponsorship fees. Congressional travelers made up only 42 of 
the 350 Conference attendees who traveled to Azerbaijan. And 
there is no direct evidence that the Conference would not have 
occurred without, or was otherwise dependent upon, the 
attendance of one or more House Members or employees.
    Thus, there is some evidence that some of the named trip 
sponsors did not pay for the airfare related to the Trips. 
However, the evidence as to which entity or entities actually 
funded the airfare expenses is inconclusive. There is even less 
evidence with regard to other travel expenses related to the 
Trips.
    Regarding hotel expenses, there is no evidence of payments 
made by any entity for accommodations provided to House Members 
or employees while on the Trips. There is evidence that SOCAR 
had longstanding contracts and discounted rate agreements with 
two hotels where Conference attendees stayed: the Hilton Baku 
and the Four Seasons Baku. However, Counsel for SOCAR testified 
that the company's internal review did not reveal any payments 
by SOCAR that specifically referenced the Conference. With one 
exception,\100\ none of the documentary evidence produced by 
any of the named trip sponsors included receipts, reservation 
confirmations, or any other records evidencing hotel stays paid 
for by those entities for House Members or employees during the 
U.S.-Azerbaijan Conference. Though the Committee subpoenaed 
every hotel where congressional travelers stayed while 
attending the Conference, the Committee obtained no evidence 
regarding the source of the funds used to pay for the Members' 
hotel stays in Azerbaijan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\TCAE's and TAFM's productions to the Committee included 
invoices from the Four Seasons Hotel Baku for Member room stays in 
Azerbaijan, yet the Committee found no bank records evidencing payment 
of the invoices amount by any of the non-profits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, there is a complete lack of evidence concerning 
the source of the funds used for food and in-country travel 
expenses.

2. Tangible Gifts

    The Gift Rule prohibits the acceptance of any gift unless 
it qualifies for one of the enumerated exceptions in the rule. 
Moreover, unlike the travel expenses, the House travelers did 
not seek or receive preapproval for receipt of the tangible 
gifts. In fact, the travel approval letters each included a 
standard warning regarding the travelers' responsibilities with 
respect to gifts from foreign governments.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\See n. 95, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several House travelers told the Committee that the gifts 
were left in their hotel rooms with no indication of who 
provided them. When the travelers inquired, they were 
apparently given different answers about the origins of similar 
gifts. For example, one Member received two rugs while in Baku. 
That Member contacted Mr. Oksuz to determine where the rugs 
came from. Mr. Oksuz told the Member that the rugs were a gift 
from AFAZ. By contrast, another Member received a small rug 
from Mr. Oksuz shortly after the Trip, but when that Member 
asked Mr. Oksuz who provided it, he said it was a gift from the 
``people of Azerbaijan.'' Mr. Oksuz, of course, has refused to 
testify before the Committee. Thus, on the limited evidence 
available, the Committee could not determine who provided the 
gifts to the Members. Some of the travelers returned or 
otherwise disposed of their gifts on their own initiative, 
either before or after the Committee's investigation began.
    The lack of clarity with regard to the donor or donors of 
the gifts is problematic for some exceptions to the Gift Rule, 
but irrelevant to others. For example, the Gift Rule exceptions 
with respect to gifts worth less than $50 and for those 
authorized by the FGDA require knowledge of the donor's 
identity before accepting the gift since those provisions 
permit acceptance of gifts from donors who meet certain 
criteria. The provision that permits acceptance of a gift worth 
less than $50 does not apply to gifts from registered lobbyists 
or agents of a foreign principal or private entities that 
retain or employ registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign 
principal.\102\ The FGDA permits acceptance of certain gifts, 
but only from foreign governments, as defined in the statute 
and Committee regulations.\103\ Other Gift Rule exceptions, 
such as those that permit acceptance of nominal value gifts and 
informational materials, apply regardless of the identity of 
the donor, since they are not limited to certain types of 
donors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\House Rule XXV, clause 5(a)(1)(B)(i).
    \103\5 U.S.C. Sec. 7342(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thus, the tangible gifts that are items of nominal value or 
information materials, such as the CDs, DVDs, and picture 
books, appear to qualify for a Gift Rule exception. However, 
some of the larger gifts, such as the rugs, tea sets, scarves, 
and jewelry would likely only be acceptable under one of the 
Gift Rule exceptions that require knowledge of the donor's 
identity, and are thus not acceptable in this case.

 D. WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF OFFICIAL ACTION TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH 
                          THE THINGS RECEIVED?

    The Committee uncovered no evidence that any House Member 
or employee took any official action in connection with either 
the travel expenses or tangible gifts received during the 
Trips.

                 E. IS ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION NECESSARY?

1. Travel Expenses

    The Committee has publicly addressed the appropriate remedy 
for the acceptance of potentially improper privately-sponsored 
travel expenses four times.
    In the 96th Congress, the Committee investigated 
allegations that House Members and staff had accepted travel 
expenses from both the South African government and foreign 
non-profit entities that may have been directed by the South 
African government.\104\ The Committee decided to take no 
further action, despite some evidence that Members and staff 
accepted travel paid for by the South African government and 
the foreign non-profits. The Committee's staff report noted 
that, although acceptance of the travel expenses would 
otherwise be a violation of applicable rules or statutes, no 
further action was appropriate for two reasons. First, the 
Committee could not conclude its investigation because several 
witnesses were unavailable and one refused to testify without a 
grant of immunity. Second, the Committee found that Members and 
staff were not aware, when the travel occurred, that it was 
paid for by the South African government. The report stated 
that ``common sense and the legislative history of the Code of 
Official Conduct lead to the conclusion that an essential 
predicate for finding a violation is knowledge by the recipient 
of the gift that it came from an improper source.''\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\See Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct (Comm. Print) South 
African Investigation, (1980) (South African Investigation).
    \105\Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 111th Congress, the Committee investigated 
allegations that Members accepted impermissible travel expenses 
for attendance at two conferences in the Caribbean. In that 
matter, the Committee had clear evidence that improper trip 
sponsors, including foreign governments and corporations that 
employed or retain lobbyists, paid for the Members' travel 
expenses.\106\ This evidence included testimony that one or 
more foreign governments paid for portions of the Member travel 
and documentary evidence that other improper, undisclosed 
sponsors paid for other parts of the travel. Moreover, there 
was evidence that those travel expenses had been intended 
specifically for Members of Congress, and not provided more 
broadly to other attendees of the conferences. The Committee 
requested that the Members pay back the travel expenses, 
despite having received written preapproval from the Committee, 
and despite the fact that most of the travelers had no 
knowledge of the improper funding sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\See Carib News (2010) at 107-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 113th Congress, the Committee issued two public 
reports regarding privately-sponsored travel.
    In one matter, the Committee found that several staffers 
went on a multiday privately-sponsored trip to Turkey.\107\ The 
staffers sought and received the Committee's written 
preapproval, but it was later discovered that one of the two 
trip sponsors employed or retain a lobbyist. The involvement of 
a sponsor that employed or retained a lobbyist thus made the 
trip improper under House Rules and the Committee's Travel 
Regulations. However, there was no evidence of any undisclosed 
foreign government or other foreign entity paying for travel 
expenses of the staffers. Given that the staffers had sought 
and received the Committee's approval and gone on the trip in 
good faith, the Committee decided not to require repayment of 
the expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Staff Travel Provided by the Turkish Coalition of America in August 
2008, H. Rep. 113-176, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In another matter, the Committee investigated two different 
privately-sponsored trips taken by Members to Taiwan and 
ostensibly paid for by a private university in Taiwan.\108\ 
Both Members sought and received the Committee's written 
preapproval of the trips. Evidence was later uncovered that the 
government of Taiwan may have paid for the Members' travel. 
However, the Committee could not conclusively determine whether 
the Taiwanese government paid for the travel. This was 
partially because neither the Taiwanese university nor the 
government of Taiwan cooperated with the Committee's 
investigation. Thus, the Committee determined that ``such 
inconclusive evidence [was] insufficient to hold either Member 
accountable for reimbursement on that basis alone.''\109\ 
However, the Committee also found that one Member's trip was 
improper under House Rules and the Committee's Travel 
Regulations because of the ongoing involvement of a foreign 
agent in the trip. The Committee noted that the Member should 
have known the travel was improper because of the foreign 
agent's continued involvement. However, the Committee noted 
that the Member had already paid back the travel expenses, and 
thus, the Committee took no further action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \108\See Comm. on Ethics, In the Matters of Allegations Relating to 
Travel to Taiwan by Representatives William Owens and Peter Roskam in 
2011, H. Rep. 113-266, 113th Cong. 1st Sess. (2013).
    \109\Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In this case, each House traveler sought and received the 
Committee's written preapproval to participate in the Trips. 
Neither the Committee nor OCE found that any of the House 
travelers knew, or had reason to know, that there were any 
issues with the travel. OCE informed the Committee that ``there 
is no evidence that the Members of Congress knew that 
additional, impermissible sponsors and organizers may have been 
involved in organizing and sponsoring the trip'' and that 
``Members of Congress relied on the sponsors' representations 
to them and the Committee on Ethics in good faith, and also 
relied in good faith on trip approval from the Committee on 
Ethics.'' That is consistent with the Committee's findings 
following an extensive investigation.
    The Committee has uncovered some evidence that not all of 
the named sponsors paid all of the travel expenses related to 
Trips. However, after an extensive investigation, the Committee 
was unable to determine conclusively which entity or entities 
did ultimately fund the travel. As discussed above, following 
an unauthorized public disclosure and newspaper story about 
aspects of the investigation, the central witness to most of 
the substantive allegations in question invoked his Fifth 
Amendment right to refuse to testify and refused to comply with 
a subpoena for documents issued to him by the Committee. In 
addition, a number of other potential foreign witnesses also 
subsequently refused to cooperate with the investigation and 
are outside of the Committee's authority to compel cooperation. 
The Committee has exhausted its options for gathering 
additional information from these parties.
    The Committee has considered allegations relating to 
involvement in privately-sponsored travel by foreign 
governments and other entities that would have made such travel 
impermissible. Where the Committee has found direct, 
uncontroverted evidence that a foreign government paid for 
travel, and did so with the express intent that travel benefits 
be provided to House Members, the Committee has recommended 
that Members repay the cost of such travel--even where the 
Members acted in good faith, had appropriately sought and 
received Committee approval to accept the travel beforehand, 
and had no reason to be aware of the foreign government 
involvement.
    Where: (1) Members sought and received Committee approval 
to accept travel and in good faith relied on the Committee's 
approval; (2) the Committee was unable to establish that a 
foreign government or other source had involvement with the 
trip that would have rendered it impermissible; and (3) third 
parties beyond the Committee's authority to compel cooperation 
refused to cooperate with the Committee's investigation, the 
Committee has declined to recommend or require that House 
Members or employees repay the cost of the travel they accepted 
following Committee approval.
    Therefore, consistent with the Committee's precedent, the 
Committee has determined that the House Members and employees 
do not need to repay any of the travel expenses they accepted 
during the Trips.

2. Tangible Gifts

    Recently, the Committee found that a Member accepted 
numerous gifts, including both tangible gifts and gifts of 
travel over many years.\110\ The Committee further found that, 
in many instances, the Member should have known that gifts were 
improper. Thus, the Committee directed the Member to repay the 
value of the improper trips and gifts, to the total of 
$59,063.74.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \110\Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to 
Representative Don Young, H. Rep. 113-487, 113th Cong. 2d Sess. (2014).
    \111\Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The remedy of repayment is consistent with how the 
Committee has historically treated impermissible gifts.\112\ 
Indeed, the Committee has required repayment of improper gifts, 
even where the Member was initially unaware that they had 
received an improper gift.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\See e.g., Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the 
Matter of Representative Jay Kim, H. Rep. 105-797, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. 
26-27 (1998).
    \113\See e.g., Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations 
Relating to Representative Jean Schmidt, H. Rep. 112-195, 112th Cong. 
1st Sess. 16-17 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 16, 2015, the Committee, by letter to the six 
Members who received tangible gifts during the Trips and still 
had them in their possession, recommended that they return or 
otherwise remedy certain gifts. All six Members complied 
immediately, and took or committed to take the corrective 
action recommended by the Committee with respect to any 
impermissible tangible gifts.

                             V. CONCLUSION

    In general, when a House Member, officer, or employee 
receives a gift that is not acceptable under the Gift Rule, the 
options for handling the unacceptable gift including paying the 
donor the gift's fair market value, returning the gift to the 
donor, donating the item to charity, turning the gift over to 
the Clerk, or destroying it, depending on the nature of the 
gift and the donor.\114\ All Members have voluntarily remedied, 
or committed to remedy, any impermissible tangible gifts 
received in connection with the Trips, and no further action 
with respect to those gifts is required. In addition, the 
Committee has contacted House staff who participated in the 
trips and provided guidance to them about tangible gifts they 
may have received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\House Ethics Manual at 57-59, 73-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When a House Member, officer, or employee seeks and 
receives advance written permission to accept a gift, that 
permission acts as a shield protect the individual from future 
action by this Committee, if the individuals conduct conforms 
to the Committee's written permission.
    In this matter, the evidence was inconclusive as to the 
true source of travel expenses for the House travelers who 
accepted privately-sponsored travel to Azerbaijan. Although the 
Committee conducted a thorough and extensive investigation, its 
efforts to obtain testimony and evidence from key individuals 
and entities were impeded by the unauthorized public disclosure 
of materials relating to its investigation. This disclosure 
occurred prior to any public disclosure of the investigation by 
the Committee. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to overcome 
to protections afforded by the Committee's advance written 
approval.
    However, the Committee's investigation uncovered evidence 
of concerted, possibly criminal efforts by various non-House 
individuals and entities to mislead the House travelers and the 
Committee about the Trips' true sponsors and the funding 
sources used to pay for Member and House employee travel to 
Azerbaijan. The Committee has jurisdiction to investigate 
allegations of misconduct by current House Members, officers, 
and employees. Accordingly, the Committee unanimously voted 
pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(a)(3) and Committee Rule 28 
to refer the matter of third parties' conduct to the U.S. 
Department of Justice for such action as the Department deems 
necessary.
    Through the issuance of 12 subpoenas and 18 voluntary 
requests for information, the Committee's investigation 
collected nearly 190,000 pages of materials, including about 
10,000 pages of supplemental materials provided by OCE. 
Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d), the Committee hereby 
authorizes the release of materials in the Committee's 
possession to the Department of Justice, as necessary for any 
further action the Department of Justice pursues as a result of 
this matter's referral.
    The Committee intends to take no further action regarding 
this matter and thus considers it closed. This Report 
constitutes a final resolution of this matter under House Rule 
XI, clause 3(r).
    The Chair is directed, upon providing the notices required 
pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 3(b)(8)(A), and Committee 
Rule 17A(b)(2), to file this report with the House. The filing 
of this report, along with its publication on the Committee's 
Web site, shall serve as publication of the OCE's Reports in 
these matters, pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(b)(8)(A) 
and 3(r), and Committee Rules 17A(b)(3) and 17A(c)(2).

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

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

                                  [all]
```