Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?

109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-733


                                                 House Calendar No. 254



                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                       COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF

                            OFFICIAL CONDUCT


 December 19, 2006.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 


DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Chairman   HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, 
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois                   Ranking Minority Member
                                     STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
           William V. O'Reilly, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
               Ed Cassidy, Chief of Staff to the Chairman
     Bari Schwartz, Special Counsel to the Ranking Minority Member
     Kenneth E. Kellner, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
        C. Morgan Kim, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
    Pete Van Hartesveldt, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
       Stan P. Simpson, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee
         Carol Dixon, Counsel to the Investigative Subcommittee

                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
                                 Washington, DC, December 19, 2006.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to Rule 21(a) of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, and Clauses 3(a)(2) and (b) of 
Rule 11 of the House of Representatives, and by direction of 
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, we herewith 
transmit the attached Report of the Investigative Subcommittee, 
``Investigation of Allegations Related to Improper Conduct 
Involving Members and Current or Former House Pages.''
                                   Doc Hastings,
                                   Howard L. Berman,
                                           Ranking Minority Member.

                            C O N T E N T S

 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................1
II. CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY............................................3
        A. Establishment of the Investigative Subcommittee.......     3
        B. Investigative Process.................................     6
III.BACKGROUND INFORMATION...........................................10

        A. The Page Program......................................    10
            1. Eligibility and Selection Process.................    10
            2. Organization of the Page Program..................    11
            3. The House Page Residence Hall.....................    11
            4. The House Page School.............................    12
            5. The Page Board....................................    12
            6. Harassment Policy.................................    13
        B. The Office of The Speaker.............................    13
IV. NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE....................................15
        A. Rep. Mark Foley.......................................    15
            1. Rep. Foley's Interaction with Pages Generally.....    15
            2. Rep. Foley's Reported Page Dorm Visits............    16
            3. Former Page Sponsored By Rep. Kolbe...............    17
            4. Other Foley Conduct Related to Pages or Former 
                Pages............................................    21
        B. Efforts to Address Rep. Foley's Conduct...............    22
            1. Communications Directly to Rep. Foley.............    22
            2. Communications to Kirk Fordham....................    23
            3. Communications with Ted Van Der Meid..............    24
            4. Communications with Scott Palmer..................    25
            5. Communications with Other Members of the Page 
                Board............................................    28
        C. Rep. Foley's E-Mails to a Former Alexander Page.......    28
        D. Inquires by the St. Petersburg Times..................    30
        E. Intervention by Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus.............    32
            1. Rep. Alexander's Office Contacts the Speaker's 
                Office...........................................    32
            2. Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus Confront Rep. Foley.....    34
        F. Continuing Press Interest; Rep. Alexander Briefs 
            Majority Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds; Majority 
            Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds Reportedly Brief 
            Speaker Hastert......................................    36
        G. The E-Mails Are Published and the Instant Messages 
            Surface..............................................    40
        H. Rep. Foley Resigns....................................    42
        I. Events After Rep. Foley's Resignation.................    43
 V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................46
        A. Summary of Findings...................................    46
        B. Review of Relevant Standards of Conduct...............    52
        C. Conclusions Regarding Conduct.........................    53
            1. Treatment of Foley's Conduct Unrelated to the E-
                mails............................................    53
            2. The Handling of the 2005 E-Mails..................    55
            3. Rep. Foley's Resignation..........................    58
        D. Recommendations.......................................    59
                              Exhibit List

Exhibit 1: House Resolution 1065, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. (Sept. 
  29, 2006)......................................................    61
Exhibit 2: Subpoena for documents from Rep. Mark Foley dated Nov. 
  16, 2006.......................................................    64
Exhibit 3: Subpoena for testimony from Rep. Mark Foley dated Nov. 
  16, 2006.......................................................    68
Exhibit 4: Letter from counsel to Rep. Mark Foley to Kenneth E. 
  Kellner, Esq., dated Nov. 21, 2006.............................    69
Exhibit 5: Letter from Christopher M. McGaffin to The Honorable 
  Wilson Livingood dated Oct. 16, 2006...........................    70
Exhibit 6:  Press release by Representative Jim Kolbe dated Oct. 
  10, 2006.......................................................    71
Exhibit 7: Statement by Scott Palmer to Speaker Dennis L. Hastert 
  dated Oct. 4, 2006.............................................    72
Exhibit 8: Electronic mail messages dated from July 29, 2005 to 
  Sept. 27, 2005.................................................    73
Exhibit 9: Electronic mail message from Royal Alexander to Mike 
  Stokke dated June 1, 2006......................................    94
Exhibit 10: Excerpt from website 
  dated Sept. 24, 2006...........................................    95
Exhibit 11: Excerpt from website dated Sept. 27, 
  2006...........................................................    97
Exhibit 12: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 28, 2006, 3:06 
  p.m............................................................    99
Exhibit 13: Transcripts of instant messages......................   101
Exhibit 14: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 29, 2006, 3:02 
  p.m............................................................   205
Exhibit 15: ABC News Online article dated Sept. 29, 2006, 5:29 
  p.m............................................................   207
Exhibit 16: Preliminary report from the Office of the Speaker 
  dated Sept. 30, 2006...........................................   210

                                                       Calendar No. 254
109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-733




               December 19, 2006.--Ordered to be printed


    Mr. Hastings, from the Investigative Subcommittee submitted the 

                              R E P O R T

          [To the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct]

                          I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    On Friday, September 29, 2006, Representative Mark Foley 
resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives. After his 
resignation, H. Res. 1065 was introduced as a privileged 
resolution on the floor of the House by Minority Leader Nancy 
Pelosi. H. Res. 1065 directed the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct to appoint a subcommittee to determine facts 
connected with ``Representative Foley's conduct and the 
response thereto'' and directed the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee to make a preliminary report 
within ten days.\1\
    \1\ Exhibit 1.
    H. Res. 1065 was not adopted by the House. Rather, by 
unanimous vote of the House, it was referred to the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct (the ``Committee''). In 
accordance with House and Committee rules, and because the 
privileged resolution was not adopted by the House, the 
Committee retained discretion to determine whether to take 
action on this matter. In order to make that determination, all 
the Members of the Committee returned to Washington, D.C. 
during the October recess period to deliberate at a meeting 
held on Thursday, October 5, 2006 on the appropriate course of 
    During the October 5, 2006 meeting, the Committee 
determined that the matter warranted immediate Committee review 
and, by unanimous vote on that date, the Committee voted to 
establish an Investigative Subcommittee. The Committee's action 
was taken in accordance with clause 3 of House Rule XI and 
Committee Rules 1(c), 14(a)(3), and 18(a), which authorize the 
Committee to establish an investigative subcommittee on its own 
initiative. The Investigative Subcommittee was established with 
jurisdiction to conduct a full and complete inquiry and 
investigation into any conduct of House Members, officers, and 
staff related to information concerning improper conduct 
involving Members and current and former House Pages, and was 
directed to report to the full Committee at the conclusion of 
its inquiry with the Investigative Subcommittee's findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations.
    The findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 
Investigative Subcommittee are contained in this Report. During 
the course of its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee 
examined the conduct of former Representative Foley, as well as 
the conduct of current and former officials and employees of 
the House. The Investigative Subcommittee did not attempt to 
make formal findings regarding the conduct of former officials 
and employees because, as non-affiliates of the House, the 
Investigative Subcommittee lacked disciplinary authority over 
them. The Investigative Subcommittee comments upon their 
conduct, however, as set forth in this Report.
    Regarding the conduct of current Members, officers, and 
employees of the House, the Investigative Subcommittee 
considered whether such individuals violated the House Code of 
Official Conduct or other rules and standards applicable to 
them. In its review of this matter, the Investigative 
Subcommittee was disturbed by the conduct of some of those who 
dealt with allegations regarding the conduct of former 
Representative Foley. When confronted with such allegations, 
the response of some individuals was limited to that necessary 
to shift notice and responsibility to those they believed more 
responsible for dealing with such matters. Other individuals 
took more direct action, but declined to probe deeply into the 
nature and scope of the allegations regarding Representative 
Foley or declined to follow-up to see if their efforts to 
intervene had any positive result. Others tried repeatedly to 
elevate the matter, but encountered obstacles in the chain of 
command that limited the effectiveness of their efforts. In 
all, a pattern of conduct was exhibited among many individuals 
to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of 
former Representative Foley's conduct with respect to House 
    Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the specific conduct 
of some individuals who learned of certain allegations 
regarding Representative Foley, based on the specific facts 
presented, the Investigative Subcommittee did not find that any 
current House Members or employees violated the House Code of 
Official Conduct. The requirement that Members and staff act at 
all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House 
does not mean that every error in judgment or failure to 
exercise greater oversight or diligence establishes a violation 
of House Rule 23. The Investigative Subcommittee therefore 
recommends no further investigative or disciplinary proceedings 
against any specific person.
    Nonetheless, this Report should serve as a strong reminder 
to Members, officers, and employees of the House that they are 
obligated to pursue specific and non-specific allegations of 
improper interaction between a Member or House employee and a 
participant in the House Page Program--even if the allegations 
are not readily verifiable or involve the sensitive subject of 
a Member's personal relationship with a young person. The same 
standard applies regardless of whether the Member and page are 
of the same or opposite sex. The failure to exhaust all 
reasonable efforts to call attention to potential misconduct 
involving a Member and House page is not merely the exercise of 
poor judgment; it is a present danger to House pages and to the 
integrity of the institution of the House.
    The evidence obtained by the Investigative Subcommittee in 
this matter included, but was not limited to, the sworn 
testimony of eight Members of the House, and interviews and 
sworn testimony of 43 other witnesses. During the inquiry, 
approximately 3,500 pages of transcribed sworn testimony and 
witness statements resulted from proceedings before the 
Investigative Subcommittee or interviews with Investigative 
Subcommittee counsel. In addition, the Investigative 
Subcommittee obtained hundreds of pages of documents supplied 
by witnesses.
    In addition to the foregoing, a description of the 
Investigative Subcommittee's investigative efforts, and an 
explanation of all the Investigative Subcommittee's findings 
are also contained in this Report. The Report also contains 
certain recommendations regarding the operation of the House of 
Representatives Page Program.

                       II. CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY

           A. Establishment of the Investigative Subcommittee

    The introduction of H. Res. 1065 and the empanelment of the 
Investigative Subcommittee in this matter followed the 
publication in the news media of several allegations related to 
Representative Foley's conduct, as described below:
    That Representative Foley sent e-mails to a high school 
student who had formerly served as a House page sponsored by 
Representative Rodney Alexander, and that such e-mails 
contained content that may not have been appropriate;
    That in addition to the e-mails sent to the former House 
page referenced above, Representative Foley sent instant 
messages over the Internet to one or more former House pages 
that contained sexually explicit and salacious language;
    That prior to the publication of the aforementioned e-mails 
or instant messages, one or more Members of the staff of 
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert had received information concerning 
Representative Foley's e-mail communications with the former 
House page sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander;
    That prior to the publication of the aforementioned e-mails 
or instant messages, Representative John Shimkus, the Chairman 
of the House Page Board, and Jeff Trandahl, then the Clerk of 
the House and the supervising official of the House Page 
Program, had learned of the e-mails sent to the former page 
sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander and had taken 
certain actions in response to that information; and
    That Majority Leader John A. Boehner and Representative 
Thomas M. Reynolds had learned of information related to the e-
mails sent by Representative Foley to theformer House page 
sponsored by Representative Rodney Alexander and had, independently of 
each other, brought this matter to the attention of Speaker Hastert.
    The publication in the news media of information related to 
the e-mails and instant messages sent by Representative Foley 
occurred during the week of September 25, 2006, and preceded 
his resignation from the House on September 29, 2006.
    During a meeting of the Committee held in executive session 
\2\ on October 5, 2006, the Committee determined to establish 
an Investigative Subcommittee to inquire into this matter.\3\ 
The Investigative Subcommittee was established pursuant to a 
resolution adopted by the Committee during the meeting and in 
accordance with the House and Committee rules referenced in the 
resolution. In subsequent Investigative Subcommittee and 
Committee proceedings, the Investigative Subcommittee's inquiry 
was referred to as the ``Investigation of Certain Allegations 
Related to Improper Conduct Involving Members and Current or 
Former House Pages.''
    \2\ See Rule XI, Rules of the House of Representatives for the 
109th Congress.
    \3\ In a press statement issued on October 3, 2006, the Chairman 
and Ranking Minority Member announced that the full Committee would 
meet in executive session on October 5, 2006.
    The resolution adopted by the Committee provided as 

          Whereas certain allegations have arisen related to 
        communications and interactions between former 
        Representative Mark Foley and current or former 
        participants in the U.S. House of Representatives Page 
        Program; and
          Whereas certain additional allegations have arisen 
        regarding the conduct of certain Members and employees 
        of the House related to communications and interactions 
        between former Representative Mark Foley and current or 
        former participants in the U.S. House of 
        Representatives Page Program; and
          Whereas the conduct of a Member, officer, or employee 
        of the House, in connection with the aforementioned 
        allegations, may have violated the Code of Official 
        Conduct or one or more law, rule, regulation, or other 
        standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of a 
        Member, officer, or employee of the House in the 
        performance of his or her duties or the discharge of 
        his or her responsibilities; and
          Whereas the Committee has authority to investigate 
        such conduct pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) 
        and (3)(b)(2), and pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) 
        and 18; and
          Whereas the Committee has determined pursuant to 
        Committee Rule 1(c) that the interests of justice 
        require the adoption of special procedures in order for 
        the Committee to carry out its investigative and 
        enforcement responsibilities with respect to the 
        aforementioned allegations;
          It is hereby resolved by the Committee:
          1. That an Investigative Subcommittee be established 
        with jurisdiction to conduct a full and complete 
        inquiry and investigation into any conduct of House 
        Members, officers and staff related to information 
        concerning improper conduct involving Members and 
        current and former House Pages;
          2. That the scope of the inquiry may extend to any 
        matters related to the jurisdiction of the 
        Investigative Subcommittee as set forth in this 
          3. That the Investigative Subcommittee is authorized 
        to advise the public at large that it is interested in 
        receiving information and testimony from any person 
        with first-hand information regarding the matters 
        within the jurisdiction of the Investigative 
          4. That at the conclusion of its inquiry, the 
        Investigative Subcommittee shall report to the 
        Committee its findings, conclusions, and 
          5. That the Members of the Investigative Subcommittee 
        shall be designated pursuant to Committee Rule 19(a);
          6. That Committee Rules 7 (Confidentiality), 8(a) 
        (Subcommittees--General Policy and Structure), 9 
        (Quorums and Member Disqualification), and 10 (Vote 
        Requirements) are fully applicable to this inquiry by 
        the Investigative Subcommittee;
          7. That the Investigative Subcommittee is authorized 
        to obtain evidence and relevant information by the 
        means and in the manner set forth in Committee Rules 
        19(b)-(c), except as those rules apply to respondents;
          8. That witnesses before the Investigative 
        Subcommittee shall be furnished with a copy of the 
        special procedures for this inquiry (as set forth in 
        this resolution), as well as accorded the rights set 
        forth in Committee Rules 26(k)-(o);
          9. That the Committee intends that all witnesses who 
        provide testimony before the Investigative Subcommittee 
        should be sequestered and should not communicate with 
        any other witnesses regarding any aspect of their 
        testimony unless the Investigative Subcommittee permits 
          10. That except as otherwise provided in this 
        Resolution, the Rules of the Committee shall be 
        applicable in this matter and will be interpreted by 
        the Investigative Subcommittee and the Committee in a 
        manner not inconsistent with this Resolution.

    In a public statement issued on October 5, 2006, the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee announced 
that the Chairman of the full Committee, Representative Doc 
Hastings, would serve as Chairman of the Investigative 
Subcommittee, and that the Ranking Minority Member of the full 
Committee, Representative Howard L. Berman, would serve as the 
Ranking Minority Member of the Investigative Subcommittee. It 
was further announced in the statement that the next most 
senior members of the full Committee, Representative Judy 
Biggert and Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, would also 
serve as Members of the Investigative Subcommittee.
    In a separate statement also made on October 5, 2006 
regarding the inquiry, Chairman Hastings and Ranking Minority 
Member Berman announced that:

          [S]hortly following the meeting of the full Ethics 
        Committee, our new investigative subcommittee met for 
        the first time and unanimously approved nearly four 
        dozen subpoenas for documents and testimony. Many of 
        the individuals we plan to talk with are Members, 
        officers, and staff of the House. For that reason, we 
        sincerely hope most of the subpoenas we authorized 
        today will prove unnecessary, because we believe that 
        most of those individuals share our desire to get quick 
        and truthful answers to the questions being asked by so 
        many Americans.

                        B. Investigative Process

    The Investigative Subcommittee was established on October 
5, 2006 and determined to commence work immediately and at a 
rapid pace. As noted, the Investigative Subcommittee authorized 
the issuance of numerous subpoenas even before the Committee's 
public announcement of its empanelment. The Investigative 
Subcommittee's investigative work continued until December 4, 
2006, the last date that the Subcommittee met to receive sworn 
testimony from a witness. Each of the four Members of the 
Investigative Subcommittee returned multiple times to 
Washington, D.C. during the October and November recess periods 
for the purpose of conducting the Subcommittee's work. In 
addition, Members of the Investigative Subcommittee received 
updates from staff and deliberated informally with each other 
in person and by telephone throughout this inquiry. The 
Investigative Subcommittee acknowledges the commitment and 
effort of staff in assisting the Subcommittee, including 
William O'Reilly, Ed Cassidy, Bari Schwartz, Ken Kellner, 
Morgan Kim, Pete Van Hartesveldt, Stan Simpson, and Carol 
    The accelerated pace of this inquiry was necessitated for 
several reasons. First, in empanelling the Investigative 
Subcommittee, the Committee recognized the seriousness of a 
matter involving highly improper communications between a 
Member of Congress and a high school student who had served as 
a congressional page. Second, the Committee and Investigative 
Subcommittee recognized the need to obtain information and 
testimony from as many witnesses as possible as quickly as 
possible, in order that the testimony and recollections of 
those witnesses would not be impacted either by 
theextraordinary media coverage of this matter, or by communications 
and interactions amongst themselves regarding the events under review.
    In this regard, the Committee and Investigative 
Subcommittee took measures to discourage communications between 
witnesses before the Investigative Subcommittee regarding their 
testimony. These measures were taken for the purpose of 
maintaining the confidentiality and reliability of information 
provided by and asked of witnesses during this inquiry, and to 
discourage attempts to deliberately or inadvertently 
orchestrate or coordinate testimony before the Investigative 
Subcommittee. The Committee addressed these concerns directly 
in the resolution it adopted on October 5, 2006. One of the 
special procedures included in the resolution in accordance 
with Committee Rule 1(c) provides that, unless the 
Investigative Subcommittee permitted otherwise, witnesses who 
provided testimony to the Investigative Subcommittee should be 
sequestered from other witnesses.
    Each witness before the Investigative Subcommittee was 
provided with a copy of the Committee's resolution containing 
the sequestration provision. In addition, correspondence to 
witnesses specifically referenced the sequestration provision 
and informed witnesses that the Investigative Subcommittee 
would ``inquire on the record'' regarding witnesses' compliance 
with the instruction that communications with the Investigative 
Subcommittee be kept confidential. In addition, nearly every 
proceeding before the Investigative Subcommittee and its 
counsel included an ``on the record'' inquiry regarding 
communications a witness may have had related to his or her 
contact with the Investigative Subcommittee, and every 
proceeding concluded with an admonishment that the witness 
should continue to comply with the resolution's sequestration 
provision. Based on Committee precedent, it was the position of 
the Investigative Subcommittee that Members and employees of 
the House were obligated to comply with the sequestration rule 
and not discuss any aspect of their testimony with anyone other 
than their counsel, and that failure to comply with this 
request could form the basis of disciplinary proceedings in the 
House in accordance with House and Committee rules.\4\
    \4\ See Investigation of Certain Allegations Related to Voting on 
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2003, H. Rep. 108-722, 108th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 4, 2004) at 13-14.
    The Investigative Subcommittee encountered representation 
of more than one witness by the same attorney.\5\ Speaker J. 
Dennis Hastert and his Deputy Chief of Staff, Mike Stokke, were 
both represented during their depositions by attorney J. 
Randolph Evans of the law firm of McKenna, Long and Aldridge. 
Mr. Evans also served as counsel to Speaker Hastert for the 
purposes of the preparation an ``Internal Review of Contacts 
with the Office of the Speaker Regarding the Congressman Mark 
Foley Matter,'' that will be discussed in more detail in the 
factual narrative of this Report. Tim Kennedy, Special 
Assistant in the Speaker's Office, was represented by Stefan 
Passantino, also of the law firm of McKenna, Long and Aldridge. 
Mr. Passantino also attended the deposition of Mike Stokke, as 
co-counsel to Mr. Evans. Finally, both Representative Rodney 
Alexander and his Chief of Staff, Royal Alexander, were 
represented during their separate depositions by Craig Smith 
and Richard John. The Investigative Subcommittee does not 
conclude that any attorney had disclosed the specific testimony 
of a witness to any other witness that the same attorney 
    \5\ Some Subcommittee Members believe that House Rules should be 
amended to prohibit such multiple representation.
    As noted, the Investigative Subcommittee began its work on 
October 5, 2006. One of the first steps taken by the 
Investigative Subcommittee, in addition to the authorization of 
subpoenas for documents and testimony, was to issue a ``Dear 
Colleague'' letter for the ``immediate and personal attention'' 
of all House Members. The letter, signed by the Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member of the Investigative Subcommittee, was 
distributed to all House offices on October 6, 2006, and 
contained the following text:

          As you may know, an Investigative Subcommittee of the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the 
        ``Committee'') has been empanelled to conduct an 
        inquiryregarding any conduct of House Members, officers 
and staff related to information concerning improper conduct involving 
Members and current and former House Pages. We are contacting you now 
in our capacities as Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of that 
Investigative Subcommittee.
          The purpose of this letter is to notify all Members 
        that it is the expectation of the Investigative 
        Subcommittee that any Members with information related 
        to the matter under investigation will bring such 
        information to the attention of the Investigative 
        Subcommittee. Such information should include, but not 
        be limited to, any information related in any way to 
        communications or interactions between former 
        Representative Mark Foley and any current or former 
        participants in the House Page Program. In this regard, 
        you should inquire of staff under your supervision as 
        to relevant information in their possession.
          In order to assist the Investigative Subcommittee 
        with its inquiry, we also request that you contact 
        current and former House Pages sponsored by your office 
        for the purpose of learning whether any of those 
        individuals had any inappropriate communications or 
        interactions with former Representative Foley or any 
        other Member of the House. You should advise all Pages 
        contacted that any information gained pursuant to your 
        inquiry will be shared with the Investigative 
        Subcommittee, and will be maintained by the 
        Investigative Subcommittee in a confidential manner 
        consistent with House and Committee rules.
          We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. If you 
        have any questions, or if you have information to 
        provide to the Investigative Subcommittee, please 
        contact Committee Chief Counsel William V. O'Reilly at 
        (202) 225-7103.

    The Investigative Subcommittee acknowledges here its 
receipt from many House offices of information obtained from 
efforts to contact current and former House pages. Additional 
information was obtained by the Investigative Subcommittee from 
a designated toll-free telephone number established within the 
Office of the Clerk of the House for the purpose of reporting 
information concerning House Pages or the House Page Program. 
Some, but not all, of the information received from these 
sources developed into leads or formal investigative actions.
    The most critical evidence obtained by the Investigative 
Subcommittee was the approximately 3,500 pages of transcribed 
sworn testimony and witness statements procured during 
proceedings before the Investigative Subcommittee or during 
interviews with Investigative Subcommittee counsel. In 
addition, hundreds of pages of documents were collectively 
supplied to the Investigative Subcommittee by witnesses. The 
Investigative Subcommittee also obtained and reviewed publicly-
available records, including published press releases and news 
    In total during its inquiry, the Investigative Subcommittee 
formally deposed eight Members of the House, including Speaker 
J. Dennis Hastert, Majority Leader John A. Boehner, 
Representative Rodney Alexander, Representative Thomas M. 
Reynolds, and Representative Jim Kolbe, as well as the three 
House Members that serve on the House Page Board, 
Representative Shelley Moore Capito, Representative John 
Shimkus, and Representative Dale Kildee. Nine current House 
employees were also deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee, 
as well as nine individuals not affiliated with the House 
(including some former House employees and former Clerk of the 
House Jeff Trandahl). The House Sergeant at Arms, Wilson 
Livingood, who is also a member of the House Page Board, was 
also deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee. Each of the 
witnesses who were deposed by the Investigative Subcommittee 
was placed under oath.\6\ At least two Members of the 
Investigative Subcommittee were present at all times for all 
sworn depositions as required by Committee rules. In addition, 
as authorized by the Investigative Subcommittee, counsel for 
the Investigative Subcommittee interviewed approximately 30 
other individuals, including current House Clerk Karen L. Haas, 
supervising and non-supervising employees of the House Page 
Program, and several other current House employees. The 
majority of the interviews were transcribed by a stenographer 
with the consent of the individual being interviewed. In 
addition, the Investigative Subcommittee received information 
informally from several witnesses, including information 
supplied by their counsel. The Committee considered statements 
of witnesses not placed under oath to be subject to the ``false 
statements'' criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, as amended 
in 1996. That statute, among other things, prohibits knowingly 
and willfully making any materially false statement or 
concealing a material fact in ``any investigation or review, 
conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee . . . of 
the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or 
    \6\ See Committee Rule 19(b)(6).
    The Investigative Subcommittee notes the cooperation of 
Members of the House during the Investigative Subcommittee's 
inquiry. No Member of the House that was asked to provide 
voluntary testimony declined to do so, although Representative 
Kolbe limited the scope of his testimony as described in 
Section V of this Report.
    The Investigative Subcommittee did not obtain testimony 
from former Representative Mark Foley. After Representative 
Foley resigned from Congress, he left Washington and returned 
to Florida. He then entered a rehabilitation facility in 
Tucson, Arizona, reportedly for treatment of alcoholism. After 
thirty days, Representative Foley announced that he intended to 
remain in the rehabilitation facility for an additional thirty 
days. At the same time, several state and local law enforcement 
agencies announced that they were beginning preliminary 
investigations into whether Rep. Foley had engaged in criminal 
activity with former pages or other young men. On November 16, 
2006, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement announced that 
it had opened a criminal investigation after its preliminary 
inquiry. On November 16, 2006, the Investigative Subcommittee 
issued subpoenas for documents and testimony to Representative 
Foley.\7\ Representative Foley's counsel responded on November 
21, 2006, asking that the Subcommittee defer the subpoenas in 
light of the pending criminal investigations. Representative 
Foley's counsel also stated that if Representative Foley were 
made to appear for testimony he would invoke the Fifth 
Amendment and refuse to testify.\8\ The Investigative 
Subcommittee determined that both deferring questioning of 
Representative Foley until resolution of any criminal 
proceedings and instituting enforcement proceedings to compel 
compliance with the subpoenas would unnecessarily delay the 
issuance of this report. The Subcommittee has therefore chosen 
to issue this report without the benefit of Representative 
Foley's testimony.
    \7\ A copy of the document subpoena is at Exhibit 2. A copy of the 
subpoena for testimony is at Exhibit 3.
    \8\ Exhibit 4.
    Finally, the Investigative Subcommittee notes the receipt 
of a communication from the Department of Justice advising it 
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting a 
``preliminary investigation'' of the activities of former 
Representative Mark Foley, and requesting that the 
Investigative Subcommittee conduct its inquiry in a manner that 
would not interfere with federal law enforcement interests. 
Among the requests made by the Department of Justice was that 
that entity be permitted to complete its interviews of any 
current or former House Pages with relevant information before 
such interviews are conducted by the Investigative Subcommittee 
or its counsel.

                      III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

                          A. The Page Program

    The House of Representatives has been employing pages from 
the earliest Congresses. The first three known ``pages'' served 
during the 20th Congress (1827-29). Today, there are 
approximately 70 pages in each academic year class.\9\
    \9\ Initially, Members sponsored young boys for the positions, many 
of whom were destitute or orphaned. By 1842, the number of pages was 
capped at eight, each of whom earned $2 per day. In the period after 
the Civil War, the number of pages serving each Congress expanded to 
several dozen.
    The duties of a House page consist primarily of delivering 
correspondence, legislative materials, and small packages 
within the Capitol complex. Pages are also assigned to answer 
phones in the Members' Cloakrooms, take messages for Members, 
and prepare the House floor for sessions. Pages are paid 
employees of the House and presently earn a gross salary of 
$1,568.08 per month. Depending on the party affiliation of 
their sponsoring Member, pages are currently supervised either 
by majority chief page supervisor Peggy Sampson or minority 
chief page supervisor, Wren Ivester.\10\
    \10\ Sampson has held her position for just over 20 years. 
Interview Transcript of Peggy Sampson (hereinafter Sampson Int. Tr.) at 
4. Ivester was hired in September 1995. Wren Ivester Interview 
Transcript (hereinafter Ivester Int. Tr.) at 2.

1. Eligibility and selection process

    Pages generally serve either during the fall or spring 
semester, or during one of two summer terms. All academic year 
applicants must be high school juniors who will be at least 
sixteen years old on the date they begin their term. In 
addition, academic year applicants must attend Page School, 
which requires at least a 3.0 grade point average for 
acceptance. Applicants for the summer program, which has no 
grade point average requirement, may include rising high school 
juniors or rising seniors. Page School is not offered during 
the summer terms.
    Applicants must be sponsored by a Member of Congress. 
Because of the limited number of page positions, not all 
Members can sponsor a page at the same time. Application 
requirements vary according to Member and political party, but 
they may include a written essay, resume of extracurricular 
activities, and letters of recommendation. Once sponsored, 
selection to participate in the page program is made at the 
discretion of the Speaker of the House or the Minority Leader.

2. Organization of the page program

    The Page Program consists of three components, informally 
referred to as ``the triangle'' by those within the program. 
These components represent the three aspects of page life--
living in the House Page Residence Hall, attending classes at 
the House Page School, and working on the House floor and 
throughout the Capitol complex.\11\
    \11\ Grace Crews Interview Transcript (hereinafter Crews Int. Tr.) 
at 7-8; John Leekley Interview Transcript (hereinafter Leekley Int. 
Tr.) at 6; Sampson Int. Tr. at 13; Interview Summary of Ellen McNamara 
(hereinafter McNamara Int. Sum.).
    The Clerk of the House has the responsibility for 
administering the page program. Karen Haas is the current Clerk 
and has held this position since her appointment by Speaker 
Dennis Hastert on November 18, 2005.\12\ Although Haas is 
ultimately responsible for the page program, much of the day-
to-day activity and operation of the program is delegated to 
the administrators of the triangle components. These 
individuals include the principal of the Page School, the 
director of the Page Residence Hall, and the majority and 
minority chief page supervisors, each of whom is required to 
submit a weekly status report to Haas and to attend a regular 
Tuesday morning ``chiefs'' meeting.\13\
    \12\ Karen Haas Interview Transcript (hereinafter Haas Int. Tr.) at 
12, 14. Prior to being promoted to the position of Clerk of the House, 
Haas had worked since June of 1999 as a floor assistant under Speaker 
    \13\ Haas Int. Tr. at 32.
    Reporting directly to the Clerk and assisting with her page 
program responsibilities is the page program coordinator, 
currently Ellen McNamara.\14\ McNamara acts as a liaison 
between the Clerk and the page program administrators. Her 
duties also include processing and maintaining page 
applications, communicating with parents, assisting with the 
updating and distribution of the page handbook.\15\ McNamara 
has served as the page program coordinator since January 2006, 
succeeding Grace Crews, who had held the position for 
approximately eight years.\16\
    \14\ Haas Int. Tr. at 31; McNamara Int. Sum.
    \15\ McNamara Int. Sum.
    \16\ Crews Int. Tr. at 3.

3. The House Page Residence Hall

    Pages have been living at the Residence Hall's present site 
located three blocks from the Capitol at 501 First Street, SE, 
since it opened in the fall of 2001. Previously, pages were 
housed in the Old Congressional Hotel. John Leekley is the 
current director of the Page Residence Hall. He was promoted to 
the position in August of 2004 after having spent one year as 
the Hall's assistant director and two years as a proctor.\17\ 
Reporting directly to Leekley are the assistant director, a 
tutor, an office coordinator, and four proctors.\18\ Leekley 
and each of his staff live at the Residence Hall.\19\
    \17\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 3-4.
    \18\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 5.
    \19\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 15.
    The Page Residence Hall is governed by strict rules. The 
first floor of the Residence Hall is designated for male 
residents and the second floor for females. The U.S. Capitol 
Police provide security for the building. Officers conduct foot 
patrols and man a lobby desk 24 hours per day. Both residents 
and visitors must present identification and sign in when 
entering the building. In addition, pages are required to sign 
out each time they leave the building and disclose their 
destination. They must also have an escort or ``buddy,'' which 
may be another page, a parent, or parentally-approved adult 
over the age of 21, at all times when outside the Residence 
    Curfew at the Residence Hall is 10 p.m. from Sunday through 
Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday. A ``bed check'' 
is performed every night by the proctors. Permission to be away 
from the Residence Hall overnight may be granted by the 
director upon written and verbal consent of the parents. A 
computer lab that pages can utilize to do their homework is 
located on the second floor of the Residence Hall. Like all 
House employees, pages are assigned a user ID and password. 
Pages do not, however, have a House e-mail account, but they 
are permitted to use e-mail through other Internet service 
    \20\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 13.
4. The House Page School
    Pages were first required to attend school following the 
passage of the 1925 Compulsory School Attendance Act. The first 
Page School consisted of a single room and was located in the 
Capitol basement. In 1949, the Page School was moved into the 
Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress, where it remains 
    The Page School is fully accredited by the Middle States 
Association of Colleges and Schools. Students are entitled to 
have the grades and credits earned at the Page School 
transferred to their home high schools. Because most pages 
pursue higher education, the School provides an honors college 
preparatory curriculum.
5. The Page Board
    Oversight of the Page Program is vested with the Page 
Board. Created by statute in 1982 following the Speaker's 
Commission on Pages, the Page Board was established to ``ensure 
that the Page Program is conducted in a manner that is 
consistent with the efficient functioning of the House and 
welfare of the pages.'' \21\ Following the adoption of the 
statute by the 97th Congress, the first members of the Page 
Board were appointed. The Board consists of two Members from 
the Majority party selected by the Speaker, one Member from the 
Minority party selected by the Minority Leader, the Clerk of 
the House and the House Sergeant at Arms.\22\
    \21\ 2 U.S.C. Sec. 88bxA092.
        House of Representatives Page Board; establishment and 
        Until otherwise provided by law, there is hereby 
      established a board to be known as the House of 
      Representatives Page Board to ensure that the page program 
      is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the 
      efficient functioning of the House and the welfare of the 
    \22\ 2 U.S.C. Sec. 88bxA093.
    Presently, the Page Board is comprised of Republican 
Members Shelly Moore Capito and John Shimkus, who also serves 
as Chairman, Democratic Member Dale Kildee, Clerk of the House 
Karen Haas, and Sergeant at Arms Bill Livingood. In addition, 
former Clerk of the House Donnald Anderson was appointed Member 
Emeritus of the Page Board following his retirement from the 
House in 1995.\23\
    \23\ Page Handbook, Fall 2006-Spring 2007.
    The Page Board does not have regularly scheduled meetings. 
Rather, it meets on an as-needed basis to deal with any 
emergencies, page-related issues, or staffing issues that may 
arise.\24\ Decisions made by the Page Board are generally 
reached through consensus rather than by a formal vote of the 
members.\25\ As discussed more fully below, a Page Board 
meeting was held on the evening of September 29, 2006, 
following the resignation of Rep. Foley. Aside from this 
meeting, the only other Page Board meeting that occurred in 
2006 was held on March 14.\26\ There was only one Page Board 
meeting in 2005 and two in 2004.
    \24\ Representative Dale Kildee Deposition (hereinafter Kildee 
Dep.) at 12-13.
    \25\ Kildee Dep. at 5.
    \26\ McNamara Int. Sum.
    Outside the context of Page Board meetings, communication 
among and between its members is done informally; there are no 
formal rules or procedures.\27\ There is also a measure of 
deference accorded to the chairman and his decision-making 
concerning many recurring or routine issues. In situations 
involving the expulsion of a page, for example, the chairman 
works closely with the Clerk of the House in reaching such a 
decision. His subsequent consultation with the remaining Page 
Board members before implementing the decision is more of a 
formality or ``courtesy'' to the members rather than an attempt 
to seek their input on the matter.\28\
    \27\ Kildee Dep. at 13-14.
    \28\ Kildee Dep. at 13; Representative John Shimkus Deposition 
(hereinafter Shimkus Dep.) at 5.
6. Harassment Policy
    The Page Handbook sets forth a policy on harassment. This 
policy prohibits not only sexual harassment, but also 
harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, or national 
origin. Under the policy, any page who believes that he or she 
has been subjected to or has witnessed actions that violate the 
harassment policy are advised to promptly report the violation 
to his or her ``direct supervisor, the next level supervisor, 
or any other management official with whom the employee feels 
comfortable discussing such issues.'' \29\ The harassment 
policy is discussed and explained to the pages at their initial 
orientation session. In addition, all pages are required to 
attend mandatory sexual harassment training conducted by the 
Office of House Employment Counsel.\30\
    \29\ Page Handbook, Fall 2006-Spring 2007 at I-26 to I-27.
    \30\ Leekley Int. Tr. at 22.

                      B. The Office of The Speaker
    The Speaker's most prominent role is that of presiding 
officer of the House,\31\ and in this capacity he is empowered 
by House rules to administer proceedings on the House floor, 
including the power to recognize Members on the floor to speak 
or make motions and the power to appoint Members to conference 
committees.\32\ The Speaker also oversees much of the non-
legislative business of the House, such as exercising general 
control over the Hall of the House and the House side of the 
    \31\ See generally House Rule I.
    \32\ See House Rule I, clauses 1, 2.
    \33\ See generally House Rule I.
    J. Dennis Hastert became House Speaker on January 6, 1999. 
Scott Palmer has been chief of staff to Speaker Hastert for the 
entire time Hastert has served as Speaker.\34\ According to 
Speaker Hastert, Palmer's ``job is the day-to-day operation of 
the House.'' \35\ In his capacity as chief of staff to the 
Speaker, Palmer ``deals with other staff--Chiefs of Staff, 
Senate staff--on issues that are before the House, usually 
policy issues.'' \36\ According to Speaker Hastert, Palmer's 
``realm is more in the policy [ ] issues, but he also would 
deal with personnel issues as well. He ostensibly is over all 
staff, our district staff, our staff back in Illinois. So he 
has a broad responsibility.'' \37\
    \34\ Scott Palmer Deposition (hereinafter Palmer Dep.) at 5.
    \35\ Speaker J. Dennis Hastert Deposition (hereinafter Hastert 
Dep.) at 17.
    \36\ Hastert Dep. at 17.
    \37\ Hastert Dep. at 17.
    The deputy chief of staff in the Office of the Speaker is 
Mike Stokke, and he has held that position for approximately 
eight years. \38\ According to Speaker Hastert, Stokke ``really 
is kind of a Member management type of situation. People come 
in and have a complaint, they see Mike.'' \39\ In addition, 
Stokke handles any ``political issues'' a Member might 
have.\40\ ``If it's political policy, he's out of my office and 
does that over in the [National Republican Congressional 
Committee]. But that's also part of Member maintenance, you 
know. So if somebody has something that they want politically, 
they go see Mike.'' \41\ In general, Stokke is responsible for, 
among other things, helping Members with issues on which they 
wish to have the Speaker's assistance.\42\ In addition to his 
salary for working in the Speaker's office, Stokke receives 
compensation for work performed for political committees 
controlled by Speaker Hastert.\43\
    \38\ Mike Stokke Deposition (hereinafter Stokke Dep.) at 9.
    \39\ Hastert Dep. at 17.
    \40\ Hastert Dep. at 17.
    \41\ Hastert Dep. at 18; see also Palmer Dep. at 11-12 (``Mike 
concentrates on sort of the Member services aspect of things, and he 
also oversees the press operation and he deals with all things 
    \42\ Stokke described his duties as ``Member service types of 
issues. So it could be anything from people seeking to be on a 
committee, to people who wish to forward some sort of legislation, to 
people who have legislation whose legislation isn't moving in a 
committee, to any number of things that Members would find of interest 
and wish to seek out the Speaker's assistance on.'' Stokke Dep. at 7-8.
    \43\ Stokke Dep. at 8-9.
    Speaker Hastert testified that matters involving a Member's 
conduct would be addressed by Palmer, but ``if Scott was 
overburdened with something, Stokke might pick up the loose 
ends. But, you know, if it was something that was important, 
really needed my attention, it would bubble to me eventually. I 
mean, that is basically the process.'' \44\ Stokke testified 
that he would report directly to the Speaker on most things, 
but he would report to Palmer on matters that were within 
Palmer's area of responsibilities.\45\ ``We speak because we're 
in the same office. But I don't raise things to his attention, 
generally speaking, because what I'm doing is often different 
than what he's doing.'' \46\
    \44\ Hastert Dep. at 18-19.
    \45\ Stokke Dep. at 10.
    \46\ Stokke Dep. at 11.
    Ted Van Der Meid is counsel to the Speaker's office and 
director of floor operations.\47\ According to Speaker Hastert, 
Van Der Meid was ``the first red flag guy on anything.'' \48\ 
Van Der Meid ``deals with all the constitutional offices of the 
Congress, plus things like the Architect's Office and all of 
the other entities that exist around here. So he is kind of the 
overseer, the liaison with those groups. . . . [H]e would be 
the first person I would go ask a question of what is proper to 
do or what is not proper to do.'' \49\ Among other matters, Van 
Der Meid handles financial disclosure issues and trip requests, 
and he is liaison to the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory 
Group.\50\ Van Der Meid reports to Scott Palmer, but he can 
bring matters up directly with the Speaker.\51\ Within the 
Speaker's Office, because of his role as liaison to the Office 
of the Clerk, Van Der Meid is assigned matters having to do 
with the House page program.\52\ Stokke and Van Der Meid share 
an office, together with their shared assistant Tim 
    \47\ Ted Van Der Meid Deposition (hereinafter Van Der Meid Dep.) at 
8, 185.
    \48\ Hastert Dep. at 21.
    \49\ Hastert Dep. at 21.
    \50\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 9.
    \51\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 14, 18.
    \52\ Hastert Dep. at 60; Van Der Meid Dep. at 24; Palmer Dep. at 
12; Tim Kennedy Deposition (hereinafter Kennedy Dep.) at 13; Jeff 
Trandahl Deposition (hereinafter Trandahl Dep.) at 90.
    \53\ Stokke Dep. at 18.


                      A. Representative Mark Foley

1. Representative Foley's interaction with pages generally

    Representative Mark Foley was first sworn in as a Member of 
the House of Representatives in January 1995 at the beginning 
of the 104th Congress. From the beginning of his tenure, 
Representative Foley reportedly showed ``a fairly common 
friendliness'' to Members and staff alike.\54\ Various persons 
also began to observe Representative Foley's particular 
interest in young male staff, interns, and House pages. 
Representative Foley's chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, was told 
by another Member's office soon after Foley took office that 
Representative Foley had been placing phone calls to a young 
male intern in that Member's office.\55\ In another example, a 
young male custodian complained to cloakroom staff that 
Representative Foley had become ``too friendly'' towards 
    \54\ Kirk Fordham Deposition (hereinafter Fordham Dep.) at 5. 
``Generally, throughout the 10 years that I worked with Mr. Foley, 
there was a fairly common friendliness that he exhibited towards all 
staff. Those of you that have met him probably know he was overly 
friendly with everyone. He talks to Members, he talks to staff, he 
talks to interns, pages.''
    \55\ Fordham Dep. at 6-7.
    \56\ Interview Summary of Tim Harroun.
    Jeff Trandahl began employment in the Clerk's office in 
1995 as an assistant clerk, later moving to the position of 
deputy clerk.\57\ During this period, even though he was not 
yet Clerk of the House (a position he was elected to in January 
1999), Trandahl exercised a significant management role over 
the page program.\58\ In this capacity, Trandahl became 
concerned that Representative Foley was spending too much time 
with pages, and that his relationship with the pages was too 
familiar.\59\ He termed Representative Foley a ``nuisance,'' 
which he described as:
    \57\ Trandahl Dep. at 7.
    \58\ Gerasimos Vans Interview Transcript (hereinafter Vans Int. 
Tr.) at 6-8.
    \59\ Trandahl Dep. at 12, 14.

          [P]eople who got too involved in the program. They 
        didn't keep a professional distance, they didn't 
        maintain--they went to a personal level with 
        relationships, instead of holding professional level. 
        And I would have different experiences through my 
        career; but, for example, I would have people [Members] 
        come to complain to me because a page complained to 
        them about a math test. And it's so out of what I would 
        view the reasonable and normal that Members would have 
        that level of interaction or interest. And I would have 
        those experiences with him. And I would ask him, you 
        know, to maintain that professional distance and not to 
        get overinvolved in the personal aspects of the kids 
        interacting with each other.\60\
    \60\ Trandahl Dep. at 13.

    Trandahl's concerns in this regard continued following his 
election as Clerk of the House in 1999. In addition to his own 
observations, he also began to receive complaints from page 
program staff. For example, Peggy Sampson, the majority chief 
page supervisor, had similarly become concerned with 
Representative Foley spending too much time with pages on the 
House floor and generally interfering with the performance of 
their duties.\61\ Sampson observed Representative Foley to be 
particularly interested in male pages and testified that 
Representative Foley's interactions gave her a ``creepy 
feeling.'' \62\ Sampson tried to stay in the vicinity when 
Representative Foley was near the pages, but she did not see 
Representative Foley inappropriately touch any page or hear him 
say anything inappropriate.\63\
    \61\ Sampson Int. Tr. at 39, 41-42.
    \62\ Sampson Int. Tr. at 31.
    \63\ Sampson Int. Tr. at 41-42.

2. Representative Foley's reported page dorm visits

    Representative Foley also reportedly appeared at the page 
residence hall after curfew on at least two occasions. A number 
of witnesses testified that they had been told about an 
incident where Representative Foley appeared at the page dorm, 
possibly intoxicated, and was turned away by Capitol Police. 
Trandahl recalled that he had heard about this incident from 
residence hall staff sometime before 2000, possibly before he 
became Clerk.\64\ Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker's counsel and 
director of floor operations, testified that he had heard about 
this incident from Trandahl ``many years ago.'' He recalls that 
Trandahl told him that he had gotten a call from the Capitol 
Police indicating that Representative Foley was outside the 
page dorm publicly intoxicated and that Trandahl may have told 
him that he had to take Foley home.\65\ Sampson similarly 
testified that Trandahl had told her about the incident 
sometime prior to when the new page dorm opened in September 
2001.\66\ Kirk Fordham also recalled hearing about this 
incident from Trandahl, but he believes that it occurred in 
2002 or 2003.\67\ The Investigative Subcommittee heard no 
testimony from any person who actually witnessed this event, 
nor did the Investigative Subcommittee obtain any other direct 
evidence reflecting any such appearance by Representative Foley 
at the page dorm.\68\
    \64\ Trandahl Dep. at 15-16.
    \65\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 94-100.
    \66\ Sampson Int. Tr. at 44-46.
    \67\ Fordham Dep. at 19-20.
    \68\ Wilson Livingood, the House Sergeant at Arms since 1995, who 
is a member of the House Page Board and also a member of the board of 
the Capitol Police, testified that he had no knowledge of any incident 
involving Representative Foley appearing outside the page dorm. Wilson 
Livingood Deposition (hereinafter Livingood Dep.) at 14. Livingood also 
testified that he asked the Chief of the Capitol Police to search their 
files for any record of such an incident. Livingood received a letter 
signed by acting chief of police, Christopher M. McGaffin, dated 
October 16, 2006, stating, ``After a comprehensive search of Department 
reports and record files, no written police report has been discovered 
that addresses any police matter involving former Congressman Foley.'' 
Exhibit 5.
    An apparently separate incident occurred in June 2000 
during the pages' customary end-of-semester ``all night 
party,'' during which the pages are permitted to stay up past 
curfew on the residence hall grounds under the supervision of 
residence hall staff. At about 10 or 11 p.m., a man in a 
convertible appeared in front of the residence hall, and before 
the supervising staff member was able to react, two or more 
pages had gotten into the car with the man and driven away. The 
staff member learned from other pages that the man was 
Representative Foley, and she then contacted the residence hall 
director for guidance. Upon learning that the man was 
Representative Foley, the director was reportedly unconcerned, 
and the pages reportedly returned shortly thereafter.\69\
    \69\ Janelle Pulis Interview Transcript at 7-9.

3. Former page sponsored By Representative Kolbe

    During the fall of 2001, a former page who had been 
sponsored by Rep. Jim Kolbe contacted Rep. Kolbe to report that 
he had received an instant message (``IM'') from Rep. Foley 
that had made him uncomfortable.
    Rep. Foley's contact with the former page began while he 
was still a page during the 1999-2000 academic year.\70\ On the 
last day of the program, Rep. Foley gave the former page his e-
mail address and also told him that the address was also 
Foley's ``Instant Messenger sign-in.'' \71\ The former page 
kept in contact with Rep. Foley from the time he left the page 
program, and he testified that he does not recall any 
inappropriate communications from Rep. Foley until the fall of 
2001.\72\ Among other things, the former page requested that 
Rep. Foley provide a letter of recommendation for college, 
which Rep. Foley did.\73\
    \70\ Deposition of the Former Kolbe Page (hereinafter Former Kolbe 
Page Dep.) at 5, 8-10.
    \71\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 8.
    \72\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 18.
    \73\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 10, 11.
    In approximately October 2001, while he was a freshman in 
college, the former Kolbe page told Rep. Foley in an IM 
conversation that his girlfriend was coming to visit him. While 
the former page cannot recall the precise wording of the IM he 
received in response, he recalls that Rep. Foley made reference 
to the size of his penis.\74\ According to the former Kolbe 
page, after consulting with his parents, he forwarded Foley's 
IM as an attachment to an e-mail directly to Rep. Kolbe through 
Rep. Kolbe's personal e-mail account. In his e-mail to Rep. 
Kolbe, the former Kolbe page explained that Rep. Foley had said 
something inappropriate to him and asked Rep. Kolbe to ``take 
care of it.'' The former Kolbe page did not request any 
particular resolution, believing that such a request would be 
``presumptuous.'' \75\
    \74\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 18, 19.
    \75\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 25.
    About a week later, the former Kolbe page received another 
e-mail from Rep. Foley apologizing for making him feel 
uncomfortable. The former Kolbe page believes that Rep. Foley's 
apology may have resulted from his communication to Rep. 
Kolbe.\76\ The former Kolbe page accepted the apology and 
considered the matter closed.\77\ The former Kolbe page 
continued to communicate with Rep. Foley after the incident, 
and he told the Subcommittee that Rep. Foley did not say or do 
anything inappropriate again.\78\ Later in the fall of 2001, 
Rep. Foley and the former Kolbe page had dinner together when 
they were both in the same city. The former Kolbe page stated, 
``I went to dinner with him, Dutch, down the middle, perfectly 
acceptable conversation. . . . I considered it a networking 
issue. I was really happy to do it. I didn't think it was 
anything inappropriate at that time. I know he was being 
appropriate at that time.'' \79\
    \76\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 30. ``And I figured at that point 
that either Mr. Kolbe had spoken with him because it was overtly--you 
know, it was overtly apologetic and to a point where he must have 
gotten a scolding since he was speaking like that, not a simple 
    \77\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 31.
    \78\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 46.
    \79\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 45-46.
    Rep. Kolbe recalls having been contacted by his former page 
about Rep. Foley, but denies having seen the actual IM. Rep. 
Kolbe provided the following account:

          Either [the former page] called me or he called 
        Patrick Baugh, my assistant, and said that he had had--
        and it may have been an e-mail or a phone call--and 
        said that he had had an e-mail from Congressman Foley, 
        and I cannot tell you the word he used, but the essence 
        of it was that it made him feel uncomfortable.
          My best recollection is that it was Patrick Baugh 
        that came to me and said, we've had this contact from 
        [the former page], and he's asked us to contact Mr. 
        Foley's office--Mr. Foley--to ask Mr. Foley to cease 
        communications with him. I did not see any 
        communication that [the former page] had received, and 
        as far as I know Mr. Baugh had not either seen that.
          When he came to me and I went to Patrick or Patrick 
        got it and came to me, the next step we both agreed 
        upon immediately was to contact Mr. Foley's Chief of 
        Staff, Kirk Fordham, who I had known before Mr. Foley 
        came to Congress because he was a staff person for 
        another Member of Congress, and suggest to him that he 
        tell his Member to cease communications. Within a 
        matter of 2 or 3 minutes, Patrick Baugh came back into 
        my office and said, ``Message delivered.'' And I also 
        called the Clerk's Office to tell them what we had 
        done,\80\ and I said, ``Fine.'' That was the end of it. 
        I do not believe I even called [the former page] back 
        to tell him the message had been delivered, but there 
        was no--apparently no--as far as I was concerned, the 
        issue was closed. [The former page] never contacted me 
        again on that matter.\81\
    \80\ Kolbe later explained that it was Baugh who contacted the 
Clerk's office. Representative Jim Kolbe Deposition (hereinafter Kolbe 
Dep.) at 71-72.
    \81\ Kolbe Dep. at 16-17.

    Baugh says that the former Kolbe page contacted Rep. Kolbe 
directly, not him, and that he discussed the matter with Rep. 
Kolbe and Kolbe's chief of staff, Fran McNaught after the page 
had contacted Rep. Kolbe. He says that Rep. Kolbe directed him 
to ``talk to Kirk Fordham and to ask him to basically ask Mr. 
Foley or tell Mr. Foley to stop whatever communication he was 
having with'' the former page.\82\ Baugh testified that Kolbe 
did not show him an e-mail or IM, or tell him anything other 
than that the former page was made ``uncomfortable'' because of 
``inappropriate e-mails that [the former page] had received 
from Congressman Foley.'' \83\ Similarly, McNaught testified 
that Rep. Kolbe had mentioned to her that ``a page felt 
uncomfortable . . . because of some action by Mr. Foley,'' \84\ 
but that she did not remember Rep. Kolbe giving any description 
of why the page felt uncomfortable.\85\
    \82\ Patrick Baugh Deposition (hereinafter Baugh Dep.) at 16.
    \83\ Baugh Dep. at 12.
    \84\ Frances McNaught Deposition (hereinafter McNaught Dep.) at 8.
    \85\ McNaught Dep. at 12.
    Baugh testified that he complied with Rep. Kolbe's request 
and contacted Fordham by telephone and told him that the former 
page was made uncomfortable by messages from Mr. Foley and that 
the former page ``wishes Mr. Foley would go away, would stop 
whatever actions he's doing . . . .'' \86\ Baugh testified that 
Fordham ``said he would take care of the problem, and that was 
the last that I heard of it.'' \87\ Baugh said that he 
``reported back to either Congressman Kolbe or Ms. McNaught, or 
perhaps both, that I had spoken to Mr. Fordham and that he'd 
agreed to take care of the matter.'' \88\
    \86\ Baugh Dep. at 18.
    \87\ Baugh Dep. at 18.
    \88\ Baugh Dep. at 5.
    Baugh testified that he also contacted Trandahl regarding 
Rep. Foley's communication to the former Kolbe page at the 
request of either Rep. Kolbe or McNaught. He testified that he 
advised Trandahl as follows:

          You know, [the former page], came to Congressman 
        Kolbe; you know, contacted Congressman Kolbe; was 
        uncomfortable with an e-mail he'd received. We--you 
        know, I talked to Kirk Fordham; told him to ask Mr. 
        Foley or tell Mr. Foley to stop whatever contact he had 
        with [the former page]. Mr. Fordham said he would take 
        care of the issue. You know, we think that's case 
    \89\ Baugh Dep. at 23.

    He did not request any action or follow-up from Trandahl, 
and Baugh does not recall Trandahl's reaction or whether 
Trandahl expressed any surprise or awareness of Rep. Foley's 
behavior.\90\ Kolbe testified that Baugh did not report to him 
any details of the conversation he had with Trandahl.\91\
    \90\ Baugh Dep. at 23-24.
    \91\ Kolbe Dep. at 72.
    Rep. Kolbe testified that he ``did not attempt to speculate 
about what it was'' that made the former page 
uncomfortable.\92\ ``I acted on the information that we 
received from [the former page], and he asked us as a 
constituent now, not as a page, to contact Mr. Foley and ask 
him directly to stop communicating with him, and that is what 
we did.'' \93\ Although, according to Rep. Kolbe's testimony, 
he never asked his former page what had made him uncomfortable, 
Rep. Kolbe said that it had occurred to him that ``it may have 
been some kind of a communication that was sexual in nature.'' 
\94\ Rep. Kolbe did not follow up with his former page or Rep. 
Foley after Baugh had addressed the matter with Fordham.\95\ 
Rep. Kolbe testified that he thought the way he addressed the 
issue was ``sufficient and the correct way to handle it.'' \96\
    \92\ Kolbe Dep. at 24.
    \93\ Kolbe Dep. at 24.
    \94\ Kolbe Dep. at 25.
    \95\ Kolbe Dep. at 34.
    \96\ Kolbe Dep. at 31.
    According to the former Kolbe page, on September 29, 2006, 
after Rep. Foley resigned from the House, he called Rep. 
Kolbe's cell phone to get advice on what he should do if asked 
about the 2001 IM by the Committee on Standards or other 
authority.\97\ The former page left a message and believes Rep. 
Kolbe called him back the next day.\98\ According to the former 
page, Rep. Kolbe responded that ``I haven't thought about that 
in years,'' and told the former page that ``it is best that you 
don't even bring this up with anybody. . . . [T]here is no good 
that can come from it if you actually talk about this. The man 
has resigned anyway.''\99\ Rep. Kolbe confirmed that he had 
spoken to his former page after Rep. Foley's resignation, but 
says that the page had already decided that he was not going to 
report the IM, and that he merely responded, ``That's your 
decision.'' \100\
    \97\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35-37.
    \98\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35. Rep. Kolbe recalls talking to 
the former page on September 29, 2006, but the former page believes the 
conversation took place on September 30, 2006. Kolbe Dep. at 91-92; 
Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 38.
    \99\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 35.
    \100\ Kolbe Dep. at 36, 45.
    Some days after that call, the former Kolbe page recalls 
receiving a phone message from Rep. Kolbe in which he said, 
``It looks like you did some talking.'' Rep. Kolbe continued on 
to say that there was going to be a story about him in the 
Washington Post and asked what the former Kolbe page had 
said.\101\ According to the former Kolbe page, Rep. Kolbe's 
message also said that he wanted to make sure that the page was 
represented by counsel in case the matter ``blew up,'' and 
advised him to call Rep. Kolbe on his home phone if he needed 
anything.\102\ The former Kolbe page testified that he returned 
Rep. Kolbe's call and told him that he was not the source for 
the story and referred Rep. Kolbe to his attorney.\103\ Rep. 
Kolbe acknowledged that he left a message for the former page 
to see what he knew about ``the whole story that was appearing 
in the paper,'' and that he was ``then informed that since [the 
former page] had informed the Clerk's Office, he had an 
attorney. So I made no further attempt to contact [the page].'' 
\104\ Rep. Kolbe testified that Baugh had previously spoken 
with the former page and told him to report what he knew about 
Rep. Foley to the Clerk's office.\105\
    \101\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40. See Jonathon Weisman, 
``Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages in 2000,'' Washington Post, October 9, 
    \102\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40.
    \103\ Former Kolbe Page Dep. at 40-41. The former Kolbe page 
continues to deny that he was the source for this story.
    \104\ Kolbe Dep. at 66.
    \105\ Kolbe Dep. at 46-48.
    On October 10, 2006, Rep. Kolbe issued a statement that 
included the following:

          I have been contacted by news organizations about 
        former Rep. Foley's e-mail contacts with former pages. 
        This is my best recollection of the single incident I 
        was made aware of.
          Some time after the Page program, an individual I had 
        appointed as a Page contacted my office to say he had 
        received e-mails from Rep. Foley that made him 
        uncomfortable. I was not shown the content of the 
        messages and was not told they were sexually explicit. 
        It was my recommendation that this complaint be passed 
        along to Rep. Foley's office and the Clerk who 
        supervised the Page program. This was done promptly. I 
        assume e-mail communication ceased since the former 
        Page never raised the issue again with my office. I 
        believed then, and believe now, that this was the 
        appropriate way to handle this incident given the 
        information I had and the fact that the young man was 
        no longer a Page and not subject to the jurisdiction of 
        the program.\106\
    \106\ Exhibit 6.

4. Other Foley conduct related to pages or former pages

    During this period, Rep. Foley's chief of staff Kirk 
Fordham also observed other conduct that raised concerns with 
him regarding Rep. Foley's interaction with pages. He observed 
that pages occasionally showed up at Rep. Foley's office to 
have their picture taken with him or to get his autograph.\107\ 
In approximately 2002, Fordham learned that Rep. Foley had used 
his own frequent flyer miles to fly a former page to Washington 
to visit him.\108\ Fordham testified that around this same 
time, he learned from Rep. Foley's information technology 
manager, who maintained both Rep. Foley's office and home 
computers, that Rep. Foley had been having e-mail 
communications with former pages.\109\ The information 
technology manager informed the Investigative Subcommittee that 
he did not recall seeing any such e-mail.\110\ Fordham did not 
attempt to view the e-mails or investigate the matter.\111\
    \107\ Fordham Dep. at 12; Lester Int. Tr. at 13.
    \108\ Fordham Dep. at 12-13.
    \109\ Fordham Dep. at 30-31.
    \110\ Dean Lester Interview Transcript at 25-26.
    \111\ Fordham Dep. at 32.
    \112\ Trandahl Dep. at 37.
    Each year the pages vote as to who they would like to 
appear as speaker during their graduation, and in 2002, Rep. 
Foley was selected to speak.\112\ During the speech, Rep. Foley 
referred to a number of pages by their nicknames and referred 
to an instance where he had taken a page in his BMW out to 
dinner. The page had purchased a dinner with Rep. Foley in the 
Member's dining room in the Capitol as part of an auction 
fundraiser for the page program, and Rep. Foley instead took 
the page to Morton's restaurant.\113\ Another page testified 
that upon overhearing a conversation among a number of pages 
related to the dinner with Rep. Foley, Peggy Sampson told the 
group to ``watch out'' for Rep. Foley:
    \113\ Congressional Record H3281 (June 6, 2002).

          Ms. Sampson, our Republican page supervisor, I can't 
        remember--I don't--she never like sat out there with us 
        but she was passing by, I guess or whatever, inside her 
        little office there, and mentioned in a manner and tone 
        like you would mention watch out for the crazy kid down 
        the street, watch out for that guy. It didn't sound 
        like she knew anything, just he's like the weird kid 
        down the street.\114\
    \114\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 7-8. After the e-mails and IMs from 
Rep. Foley became publicly known in September 2006, this former page 
gave an interview to the press in which he referenced this ``warning'' 
about Rep. Foley. Former Page X Int. Tr. at 43.

    In response to Rep. Foley's speech, Trandahl deliberately 
``rigged'' the election the following year so that Foley would 
not speak during graduation.\115\
    \115\ Trandahl Dep. at 37.

          B. Efforts To Address Representative Foley's Conduct

    Jeff Trandahl, beginning soon after Rep. Foley took office 
in 1995 through the time that Trandahl left office on November 
18, 2005, repeatedly attempted to address Rep. Foley's conduct 
in a variety of ways. Trandahl testified that he was not aware 
of any misconduct of a sexual nature by Rep. Foley, and he did 
not consider Rep. Foley to be a ``threat'' to the pages.\116\ 
Rather, Trandahl described his concerns as two-fold. First, he 
believed that Rep. Foley was taking a political risk by paying 
too much attention to pages. He described this concern as 
    \116\ Trandahl Dep. at 28.

          Here you had--which I think is appropriate to say--a 
        closeted gay guy who was putting himself in a situation 
        of being one on one with young people. And if an 
        accusation is made, he would be immediately presumed, 
        in a political light, guilty unless he could prove 
        himself innocent. So my counseling to him was, one, you 
        don't need to be in the middle of this community of 
        children; and two, you are creating an enormous 
        political risk for yourself.\117\
    \117\ Trandahl Dep. at 16.

    Second, Trandahl was concerned for the integrity of the 
program in that he believed that Rep. Foley's interaction with 
the pages was a distraction and was interfering with the 
program. As described earlier, Trandahl considered Rep. Foley 
to be a ``nuisance,'' or a person that failed to keep a 
professional distance from the pages.\118\
    \118\ Trandahl Dep. at 11-13, 16.

1. Communications directly to Representative Foley

    Trandahl testified that beginning as early as the mid-
nineties, he repeatedly confronted Rep. Foley personally about 
becoming too involved with the pages and failing to keep a 
professional distance.\119\ Trandahl testified that over the 
years, he directly confronted Foley on the matter approximately 
ten times at various places for various reasons. Trandahl 
testified as follows:
    \119\  Trandahl Dep. at 16.

          The majority of the time [the discussions with Rep. 
        Foley] happened because I would see him on the floor 
        hanging out by the desk. Other times it would happen 
        because Peggy [Sampson] would say, Jeff, he is back. 
        And other times it would be opportunity. To be 
        perfectly frank, I would find myself standing in a 
        hallway alone with him, or in the lobby, and just 
        trying to reaffirm to him again that I thought he was 
        creating a bad perception for himself.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          But again, I would react because Peggy would say 
        something to me that she felt like he was spending too 
        much time or he was hanging around too much. Linda 
        Miranda from the school would say, well, you know, 
        there was a former page reunion, and Mark Foley's name 
        was widely discussed by the kids. You know, he is 
        obviously communicating with them. My antenna would go 
        up again, that I needed to go back and try and push him 
    \120\ Trandahl Dep. at 18, 75.

    During these conversations, Rep. Foley would sometimes 
appear to agree with Trandahl and at other times he would tell 
Trandahl that he was being ``too intense or too concerned'' or 
that the matter was not Trandahl's concern.\121\
    \121\ Trandahl Dep. at 73.

2. Communications to Kirk Fordham

    In addition to raising his concerns directly with Rep. 
Foley, Trandahl testified that he raised his concerns with Rep. 
Foley's chief of staff Kirk Fordham on multiple occasions, a 
fact which Fordham confirms. Trandahl testified that he raised 
the issue with Fordham ``a lot more than 10 times,'' as 

          It was pretty much the same thing [as the 
        conversations with Rep. Foley], which is I felt 
        uncomfortable that Mark [Foley] was spending too much 
        time, I felt he was creating a political situation for 
        himself, a terrible perception. And to be perfectly 
        frank, I was on Kirk so much I was surprised he didn't 
        turn around and run every time he saw me.\122\
    \122\ Trandahl Dep. at 19.

    Trandahl testified that Fordham shared his concerns and was 
always ``100 percent agreeable'' to addressing the problem. 
``[Fordham] would say, I will sit down and I will talk to Mark. 
Other times he would say: You need to grab Mark and say this to 
Mark and I will try to talk to him separately. So Kirk was 
always agreeable.'' \123\ Both Trandahl and Fordham testified 
that these conversations regarding Rep. Foley's interactions 
with pages did not stem from a specific complaint or allegation 
but rather a general concern that pages and Members should keep 
a professional distance from one another.\124\
    \123\ Trandahl Dep. at 73.
    \124\ Fordham Dep. at 8, 15; Trandahl Dep. at 73.
    Fordham testified that as a result of Trandahl's concerns, 
he also confronted Rep. Foley on his relationship with pages on 
several occasions. Fordham described one of those conversations 
as follows:

          I went in to the boss and again--very uncomfortable 
        conversation to have--and again relayed basically what 
        Mr. Trandahl had shared with me. I reminded him that 
        because, you know, he is gay--most of his colleagues 
        had figured that out, even though he hadn't announced 
        that he was, you know, people were watching what he 
        did. There [sic] were paying attention to his behavior, 
        and he needed to be more conscious of how he interacted 
        with younger staffers, interns, pages. So it was a 
        short conversation. We never had long discussions about 
        this stuff. It is not something I look forward to 
    \125\ Fordham Dep. at 10.

    After his conversations with Rep. Foley and Fordham, 
Trandahl noticed some positive effects. For example, he would 
notice that Rep. Foley was not hanging around the page desk as 
much. However, after some time had passed, Rep. Foley would 
revert back to his former conduct.\126\
    \126\ Trandahl Dep. at 20.
    Fordham left Rep. Foley's office in January 2004 and later 
returned to House employment as chief of staff to Rep. Tom 
Reynolds in September 2005. He did not share with Rep. Reynolds 
any of his concerns, experiences, or observations about Rep. 
Foley and pages or former pages.\127\
    \127\ Fordham Dep. at 4-5, 38.

3. Communications with Ted Van Der Meid

    Trandahl testified that he also raised his two-fold 
concerns regarding Rep. Foley on a number of occasions to the 
Speaker's counsel and director of floor operations, Ted Van Der 
Meid.\128\ Trandahl approached Van Der Meid because, in 
addition to serving as the Speaker's director of floor 
operations, Van Der Meid was assigned as the Speaker's liaison 
with the Clerk's office, including for matters related to the 
page program.\129\ Specifically, as with Rep. Foley and 
Fordham, Trandahl told Van Der Meid that Foley's conduct with 
pages was distracting them from performing their page program 
duties and that Rep. Foley's excessive attention to the pages 
could be perceived as inappropriate and could harm Foley's 
reputation.\130\ As noted previously, Trandahl also informed 
Van Der Meid about the incident in which Rep. Foley allegedly 
was intoxicated outside of the page dorm.\131\
    \128\ Van Der Meid served as the staff director and chief counsel 
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct from 1995-99. Van Der 
Meid Dep. at 6.
    \129\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 21-22; Trandahl Dep. at 27, 88. Trandahl 
testified that he discussed Rep. Foley's conduct with respect to pages 
with the highest authority in the ``chain of command,'' Van Der Meid, 
and that although he respected the ``chain of command,'' he felt 
constrained by it at times. Trandahl Dep. at 88.
    \130\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 40, 59.
    \131\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 94-95.
    According to Trandahl, he raised his concerns about Rep. 
Foley to Van Der Meid ``pretty often'' in the context of 
raising similar concerns he had relative to Van Der Meid's 
over-involvement with pages assigned to the Speaker's office. 
Trandahl testified, ``So here is my point of contact in the 
Speaker (sic), and I'm trying to have the conversation about 
him specifically, but also in a general sense.'' \132\ 
According to Trandahl, while Van Der Meid understood his 
concerns ``politically,'' Van Der Meid's ``pushback'' was that 
``there is nothing wrong with people being mentors and caring 
about the kids.'' \133\ Trandahl responded that the page 
program had paid professionals to serve those functions. 
Trandahl felt that ``there needed to be a very clear line 
between the page program and people who worked up here [in 
leadership].'' \134\
    \132\ Trandahl Dep. at 30-32. Van Der Meid does not recall Trandahl 
criticizing his interaction with pages and testified that his 
interactions with pages were appropriate. Van Der Meid Dep. at 46-54.
    \133\ Trandahl Dep. at 30.
    \134\ Trandahl Dep. at 30.
    Van Der Meid did not report Trandahl's concerns about Rep. 
Foley's conduct to anyone else in the Speaker's Office. During 
his testimony, Van Der Meid stated that the decision as to 
whether to elevate a matter within the Speaker's Office was a 
``judgment call.'' \135\ He explained that he did not elevate 
the Foley matter because he ``got the impression that 
[Trandahl] was dealing with it.'' \136\ Van Der Meid stated, 
``I think I just got the impression that [Trandahl] had talked 
to Kirk [Fordham], and that was how he handled it.'' \137\ He 
further testified that ``[Trandahl] had never asked me to take 
any other action,'' and in any event, ``I don't know what I 
would have done.'' \138\
    \135\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 112.
    \136\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 56.
    \137\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 62.
    \138\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 82.

4. Communications with Scott Palmer

    According to both Trandahl and Fordham, in late 2002 or 
early 2003 Trandahl again approached Fordham about Rep. Foley's 
interaction with the pages.\139\ Trandahl believes this 
conversation may have been in part a reaction to Rep. Foley's 
graduation speech to the pages, while Fordham believes it may 
have been precipitated by Rep. Foley's alleged visit to the 
page dorm while intoxicated.\140\ Fordham and Trandahl had 
become frustrated that their previous efforts in getting 
through to Rep. Foley had been unsuccessful, and they 
brainstormed for more effective ways to modify Rep. Foley's 
behavior. Fordham suggested that the matter be brought to the 
attention of Speaker Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, 
with a view towards having either Palmer or the Speaker himself 
talk to Rep. Foley. Trandahl agreed.\141\
    \139\ Trandahl Dep. at 33.
    \140\ Trandahl Dep. at 36; Fordham Dep. at 18. Fordham's 
recollection on this point appears incorrect. Other witnesses place 
this alleged page dorm incident before 2000.
    \141\ Trandahl Dep. at 33; Fordham Dep. at 21-22.
    Shortly thereafter, according to Fordham, Fordham called 
Palmer to set up a meeting, and Fordham and Palmer met in a 
conference room in the Capitol.\142\
    \142\ Fordham Dep. at 22-23.

          I just put in a call directly to Palmer. I remember 
        it was uncomfortable. I just told him I had to talk to 
        him about something personal. I told him it was urgent. 
        So I don't remember if he set a specific time, or just 
        come down now, but it was immediately thereafter, 
        within the same day.
          I walked over to his office in the Capitol. Met him 
        at his office, and then we walked upstairs to a--I 
        remember it was a small room, much smaller than this, 
        but it had a table and a few scattered chairs. It was 
        somewhere I had never been before. Somewhere up on the 
        3rd or 4th floor.\143\
    \143\ Fordham Dep. at 22.

    Fordham testified that he explained to Palmer that he had 
received calls from the Clerk's office regarding Foley's 
conduct around the pages, that ``there seems to be a chronic 
problem with my boss's attention to pages and young staffers,'' 
and that he was looking for assistance in dealing with the 
    \144\ Fordham Dep. at 23.

          My plea to him was sort of that we needed to figure 
        out a way to send a message to Mark [Foley] that would 
        be clear, that there were other eyes keeping an eye on 
        him when he was interacting with pages, so that perhaps 
        if he knew more than--that it wasn't just me calling 
        him on this, that there were other people in leadership 
        that were aware, that this was in fact something that 
        he needed to correct.
          And, you know, we had a frank conversation about, you 
        know, Mark. He [Palmer] liked Mark. He saw him in 
thewhip meetings every week. We were both sort of exasperated about the 
fact he's got a bright future, he is a talented Member; and couldn't 
understand why he would put himself in such a position, that it was 
sort of reckless behavior.
          And so I asked him if he or the Speaker would speak 
        to Congressman Foley and just have a brief conversation 
        about this. And it was mainly because I knew that if 
        one of them had talked to Mark that the message 
        certainly would have gotten through to Mark. That it 
        would have shaken him up a bit.\145\
    \145\ Fordham Dep. at 24-25.

    Fordham says that he did not tell Palmer about the page 
dorm incident he had heard about from Trandahl.\146\ Fordham 
testified that, at the conclusion of the meeting, Palmer agreed 
that either he or the Speaker would talk to Foley about the 
    \146\ Fordham Dep. at 24.
    \147\ Fordham Dep. at 27.
    Fordham testified that a day or two later, he and Palmer 
had a brief follow-up telephone conversation in which Palmer 
told Fordham that he had spoken to Rep. Foley, they had a good 
conversation, and that Rep. Foley ``understood the message.'' 
Fordham testified that Palmer also said that he had ``brought 
the Speaker into the loop.'' \148\
    \148\ Fordham Dep. at 27.
    Trandahl testified that he was not told about the meeting 
with Palmer or invited to attend the meeting. He said that 
within a few days after he and Fordham had decided to bring the 
matter to Palmer, Palmer said to him in a short conversation in 
the Speaker's suite, ``I've talked to Kirk Fordham. I 
understand the problem. I'm on it.'' \149\ According to 
Trandahl, he recalls this ``vividly'' because he had expected 
to take part in the meeting and he was ``dumbfounded'' that the 
meeting had occurred without him.\150\
    \149\ Trandahl Dep. at 38.
    \150\ Trandahl Dep. at 38, 42.
    According to Fordham, several months after his meeting with 
Palmer, ``Congressman Foley [ ] made reference about someone 
had given him a warning or something like that. And I let him 
know that I knew that Palmer had talked to him about it.'' 
    \151\ Fordham Dep. at 29.
    Palmer testified that he does not recall any meeting with 
Kirk Fordham, confrontation with Rep. Foley, or conversation 
with Trandahl after the alleged meeting with Fordham.\152\ When 
asked about his alleged meetings with Fordham and Rep. Foley, 
Palmer testified as follows:
    \152\ Palmer Dep. at 44-54, 163-74. Shortly after Foley's 
resignation, apparently in response to what he believed were statements 
by Fordham, Palmer issued a one-sentence press statement, stating that 
``What Kirk Fordham said did not happen.'' Exhibit 7.

          A  I understand your question. I've thought about 
        this question just about every minute since that 
        Wednesday when this question was raised, and that's 
        several long weeks. I have agonized over this to try to 
        capture any recollection of this and the other piece of 
        it, too. I mean, trying to remember what he might have 
        said to me, but also always combined with whatever it 
        is he thinks he said to me is the notion that I would 
        have talked to Mark Foley, and I've tried to visualize 
        that conversation, and I just can't visualize it. At 
        the time it's hard to imagine I would forget it.
          Q  And in trying to visualize the conversation you 
        had with Mark Foley about conduct in general with 
        pages, however you want to characterize it, 
        inappropriate, overfriendly, any conduct is something 
        that that didn't happen?
          A  I believe it didn't happen. I don't have any 
        recollection of it. Again, I'm in the zone of trying to 
        prove a negative, but I just don't remember it, and I 
        think it would have been an awkward conversation.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    I've been very careful with the committee, or I've tried to 
be very careful, in not saying that I can't prove a negative. I 
think I know what the limits are. I know what I remember, which 
unfortunately is nothing, or maybe fortunately, because that 
may be the truth. It may never have happened, and I know how I 
behave well enough to know that he could not have come to me, 
recollection or not, and told me about behavioral problems, 
something that was going to put pages in danger, something that 
was happening without my doing something about it. . . . When 
you add to it the other piece, because there are two pieces 
here, There's him talking to me, which I'm supposed to try to 
remember, and then talking to the Foley. I just can't get 
around talking to Foley. I can't visualize that. I can't craft 
that in any way.\153\
    \153\ Palmer Dep. at 163-64, 172.

    As noted in part II of this report, the Committee was 
unable to address with Representative Foley whether this 
meeting occurred.

5. Communications with Other Members of the Page Board

    Trandahl testified that in the late nineties, he also 
raised the matter of Rep. Foley's conduct around the pages with 
Rep. Kolbe, who was a member of the Page Board from 1995 to 
2001. Trandahl explained the context of his appeal to Rep. 
Kolbe as follows:

          Okay. The whole reason it was discussed the way it 
        was discussed was because I viewed Jim Kolbe the same 
        way, I viewed him as putting himself at risk. He, too, 
        spent far too much time socially interacting with the 
        pages. I was uncomfortable with it. And, you know, I 
        voiced that to his chief of staff; Fran, his 
        administrative assistant; Patrick Baugh; and to Jim 
        Kolbe himself. And I do remember discussing and 
        bringing Mark up to him and saying, you know, that I 
        felt he was doing the same thing, and that I needed it 
        all to stop.\154\
    \154\ Trandahl Dep. at 22.

    According to Trandahl, Rep. Kolbe remained involved in the 
page program after his Page Board service and continued to be 
among the people that Trandahl considered a ``nuisance'' in 
terms of being too involved in the program. Although he 
apparently did not again directly address the conduct of Rep. 
Foley with Rep. Kolbe, Trandahl said he continued to raise his 
concerns about Rep. Kolbe ``on multiple occasions'' directly to 
Rep. Kolbe and also to McNaught and Baugh. Trandahl testified 
that that while McNaught and Baugh were sympathetic ``and would 
confirm to me that they talked to [Kolbe] multiple times as 
well. . . . Unfortunately, they would tell me that [Kolbe] 
would tell them to kind of mind their own business.'' \155\
    \155\ Trandahl Dep. at 106-07.
    Aside from his unsuccessful attempt at addressing the 
matter with Rep. Kolbe in the late nineties, Trandahl did not 
raise his concerns about Rep. Foley to members of the Page 
Board. Trandahl testified that Rep. Shimkus approached him on 
the House floor in approximately 2004 with general concerns 
that had been relayed to him from another Member regarding Rep. 
Kolbe's interaction with pages, and Trandahl told him that 
``Foley is a bigger problem to me.'' \156\ But aside from this 
brief exchange, Trandahl never raised the Foley issue at a Page 
Board meeting or individually to any other member of the Board. 
Trandahl explained that he did not raise the Foley issue with 
the Page Board because he believed that he was dealing only 
with a ``nuisance'' or ``distraction,'' not a threat to the 
    \156\ Trandahl Dep. at 23-25. Rep. Shimkus does not recall any 
conversation with Trandahl about Rep. Foley other than the November 
2005 matter involving the e-mails. Representative John Shimkus Dep. 
(hereinafter Shimkus Dep.) at 18.
    \157\ Trandahl Dep. at 21.

      C. Representative Foley's E-Mails to a Former Alexander Page

    In July 2005, near the end of his page term, a page 
sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander gave thank-you cards to a 
number of Members and staff whom he had come to know during his 
time as a page. One of the Members was Rep. Foley. Rep. Foley 
asked the Alexander page to write his e-mail address on the 
back of the card, and he did so.\158\ On July 29, 2006, at 1 
p.m. on the Alexander page's last day as a page, he received 
the first of seven e-mails he would eventually receive from 
Rep. Foley. That e-mail, sent from the e-mail address 
[email protected], contained the single sentence ``do I have the 
right email,'' and concluded with Mark Foley's name.\159\
    \158\ Former Alexander Page Dep. at 17-18.
    \159\ Exhibit 8.
    After receiving a short response confirming that he had the 
right e-mail address, Rep. Foley sent another e-mail the 
following day to the now former page asking a number of casual 
questions. The former page responded the following afternoon, 
and that evening he received another e-mail from Rep. Foley 
containing more general conversation, concluding with the 
question ``how old are you now?'' The former page responded a 
week later, telling Rep. Foley he was then 16 and would be 17 
in December. Rep. Foley responded that same day, asking the 
former page ``what do you want for your birthday coming up . . 
. what stuff do you like to do.'' The former page responded 
twelve days later, writing among other things, ``I don't know 
what I want for my birthday'' and describing his hobbies and 
interests, including that he likes to do ``what generally every 
other teenager does.'' He also asked if Rep. Foley was 
``keeping up with [the first name of another former page].'' 
Rep. Foley responded that night asking whether the former 
Alexander page was asking about [the full name of the other 
former page]. Four days later, on August 23, Rep. Foley wrote 
to the former Alexander page again referring to the other page 
as ``a nice guy'' who is ``in really great shape.'' \160\
    \160\ Exhibit 8.
    In an e-mail on August 29, Rep. Foley asked the former page 
how he was weathering hurricane Katrina, \161\ and also asked 
him to e-mail Rep. Foley a ``pic'' of himself. This request 
alarmed the former Alexander page, who was already concerned 
regarding the frequency and the tenor of the earlier e-mails. 
He raised his concerns to Danielle Savoy, an Alexander employee 
whom he had come to know while he was a page. In an e-mail to 
Savoy, the former page described Rep. Foley's e-mails and said 
that Rep. Foley ``is starting to freak [him] out.'' At Savoy's 
request, the former Alexander page then forwarded portions of 
Rep. Foley's e-mails to her, characterizing them as ``sick, 
sick, sick . . . .'' On August 31, 2005, the former page 
forwarded to Savoy the entirety of Rep. Foley's portion of five 
of the actual e-mails and asked her what she thought of 
    \161\ In an e-mail the previous day, the former Alexander page had 
mentioned the approaching hurricane but had explained that he lived in 
northern Louisiana, so the hurricane would not hit him. Exhibit 8.
    \162\ Exhibit 8.
    On September 1, Savoy discussed the e-mails with another 
Alexander employee, Jonathan Johnson, who did not think that 
they were particularly significant.\163\ Savoy, looking for 
another opinion, then forwarded the e-mails, including the e-
mails between her and the former page, to her girlfriend, 
Kelley Halliwell, who was a former House employee who was then 
working for a small lobbying firm.\164\ Late on September 1, 
the former Alexander page again e-mailed Savoy and asked, 
``Just wondering . . . are you showing these e-mails to anyone? 
I would prefer you not to.''
    \163\ Savoy testified that she told Johnson about contents of the 
e-mails in some detail, including the request for a picture, and the 
references to a birthday gift and the other page. Johnson recalls only 
that he was advised that their former page had received some e-mails 
that made him uncomfortable from an unspecified source. Danielle Savoy 
Deposition (hereinafter Savoy Dep.) at 37-44; Jonathan Johnson 
Interview Transcript at 9-11.
    \164\ Savoy Dep. at 45-47; Interview Summary of Kelley Halliwell 
(hereinafter Halliwell Int. Sum.).
    Upon receiving the e-mails, Halliwell forwarded them to her 
boyfriend, Justin Field, who then worked for the House 
Democratic Caucus, and also to her boss, Mike Grisso, a 
registered lobbyist.\165\ Field was disturbed by the nature of 
the e-mails, and shortly after he received them, he shared them 
with his friend and colleague, Matt Miller, who was then the 
communications director for the Democratic Caucus. The two 
discussed the nature of the e-mails and possible actions. 
Miller believed that the e-mails were inappropriate, and 
suggested that they be given to the press.\166\ Miller 
testified that he considered providing the e-mails to the 
Committee on Standards or to the Page Board, but feared that 
``nothing would come'' of such action. He says that he also 
considered providing them to law enforcement, but believed that 
the e-mails, though inappropriate, did not evidence the 
commission of a crime.\167\
    \165\ Halliwell Int. Sum. Grisso states that he did not discuss or 
share the e-mails with anyone. Interview Summary of Mike Grisso.
    \166\ Matthew Miller Deposition (hereinafter Miller Dep.) at 13-14; 
Justin Field Interview Transcript (hereinafter Field Int. Tr.) at 8-9.
    \167\ Miller Dep. at 14-15.
    Miller testified that in approximately November, 2005 he 
redacted Savoy's e-mail address and Field's name from the top 
of a printed copy of the e-mails and faxed them to reporters 
that he knew at both the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg 
Times.\168\ Miller said that later in November or in December, 
he also provided the e-mails to a reporter from Roll Call. Both 
Field and Miller testified that neither then-Rep. Menendez, who 
was then chairman of the Democratic Caucus, nor any other 
person in the office of the Democratic Caucus, was provided 
with the e-mails or was involved in the decision to provide 
them to the press.\169\ Miller testified that also during the 
fall of 2005, in part as a ``gut check'' regarding his 
impression of the e-mails, he provided the e-mails to the 
communications director of the Democratic Congressional 
Campaign Committee (``DCCC''). Miller testified that he was not 
aware of what actions his DCCC counterpart may have taken with 
respect to the e-mails, but he expected that he would share 
them with the press. Miller testified:
    \168\ Miller Dep. at 10-11, 22-35. Miller believes that he withheld 
the e-mails between Savoy and the former Alexander page from the Miami 
Herald. Miller Dep. at 26.
    \169\ Miller Dep. at 40; Field Int. Tr. at 12.

    I think I gave them to him not with any direct expectation, 
but with the understanding that [the DCCC communications 
director] is someone that talks to reporters all day. If 
there's something that I'm missing, maybe--maybe there's a way 
that he could get the--you know, that he could give them to a 
reporter; you know, in the course of talking to reporters that 
he might find a way. I didn't have any direct expectation, but 
in general.\170\
    \170\ Miller Dep. at 21-22.

                D. Inquiries by the St. Petersburg Times

    Miller testified that he had a number of conversations with 
the Miami Herald reporter after providing her with the e-mails. 
According to Miller, the reporter told him that the Herald did 
not actively pursue the story out of concern over the 
authenticity of the e-mails and a reluctance to contact the 
minor page.\171\ The St. Petersburg Times, however, made a 
number of inquiries. In mid-November 2005, a reporter from the 
St. Petersburg Times contacted the offices of both Rep. Foley 
and Rep. Alexander about the e-mails.\172\ Rep. Foley spoke 
with the reporter personally and explained that the e-mails 
were innocent. He said that he was merely checking up on the 
page after Hurricane Katrina, that he maintained contact with 
many former interns and pages who often sought job 
recommendations, and that he considered himself to be mentoring 
the former page.\173\
    \171\ Miller Dep. at 26-27. Miller testified that he had no 
communications with the Roll Call reporter after he provided the e-
    \172\ Miller Dep. at 33-34.
    \173\ Miller Dep. at 34; Liz Nicholson Deposition (hereinafter 
Nicholson Dep.) at 8, 13-14.
    In November 2005, the former Alexander page received a call 
on his home phone from a reporter at the St. Petersburg Times. 
The reporter told the former page that he had the e-mails Rep. 
Foley had sent to him and explained that the reporter was 
working on a story about them because he thought it ``would be 
good for the people in the District to know what kind of person 
is representing them in Congress.'' The former Alexander page 
spoke to the reporter but ``tried to keep it vague.'' \174\
    \174\ Alexander Former Page Dep. at 43-47. The former page 
repeatedly asked the reporter how he had obtained the e-mails, but the 
reporter refused to reveal his source.
    After speaking to the former Alexander page, the St. 
Petersburg Times reporter contacted Rep. Alexander's press 
secretary, Adam Terry. According to Terry, the reporter 
described the e-mails, indicated that Savoy was a party to 
them, and sought comment. The reporter asked if Alexander's 
office knew anything about the e-mails, and if so, why Rep. 
Alexander's office had not done anything about them.\175\
    \175\ Adam Terry Interview Transcript (hereinafter Terry Int. Tr.) 
at 7-9, 20.
    At Terry's request, Savoy produced the e-mails, and a 
discussion followed within Rep. Alexander's office as to how to 
handle the matter. According to Rep. Alexander, at one point he 
also talked to the reporter and opined that although he would 
not have sent any similar e-mails, he could not judge whether 
they were inappropriate. Rep. Alexander testified that he 
``couldn't really understand what the big deal was,'' and 
suspected that the reporter ``knew a whole lot more than what 
we were looking at in the e-mails.'' \176\ According to Terry 
and Rep. Alexander, in the course of these discussions, Terry 
had noticed that the reporter was missing one of the e-mails 
from the former Alexander page. After discussing this with both 
Rep. Alexander and Rep. Alexander's chief of staff, Royal 
Alexander,\177\ he sent the reporter the complete set of the e-
mails.\178\ Terry did not consult or obtain permission from the 
former page or his family before doing so.\179\
    \176\ Representative Rodney Alexander Deposition (hereinafter Rep. 
Alexander Dep.) at 22-23.
    \177\ Royal Alexander is not related to Rep. Alexander.
    \178\ Terry Int. Tr. at 19-20. Terry stated ``You have a reporter 
calling you from the St. Petersburg Times, so he is about to write a 
story. Our concern was, he needs to know everything if he is going to 
write about the e-mail dialogue. Let's get it all to him.'' Terry Int. 
Tr. at 19. Rep. Alexander testified that the reporter was missing the 
e-mail from the page to Savoy asking her not to share the e-mails, and 
that they forwarded that e-mail to fend off a claim that they ``were 
trying to cover something up.'' Alexander Dep. at 16.
    \179\ Terry Int. Tr. at 51.
    According to Rep. Alexander and Royal Alexander, at Rep. 
Alexander's direction, Royal Alexander called the former page's 
parents and warned them that they might be contacted by the 
press about the Foley e-mails. The former Alexander page's 
father recalls that Royal Alexander told him that a reporter 
might be calling him but that he did not have to talk to the 
reporter.\180\ The father also recalled that Royal Alexander 
made a comment to the effect that ``they were trying to make 
something of [the e-mails]'' and that ``the Democrats would 
like to use something like this'' against a Republican.\181\ 
During their conversation, the father did not make any requests 
or provide any instructions not to disclose the matter to other 
Members of Congress or conduct an investigation into the 
    \180\ Father of Former Page Dep. at 13.
    \181\ The father testified as follows:
        A  I think he said that--he said the Democrats would like 
      to use something like this to smear a Republican.
        Q  Did he say words like that?
        A  He didn't say the word ``smear'' but he did mention 
      the Democrats would like to--would love to use something 
      like this; something to that effect.
        Q  What did he say about the Democrats?
        A  That they would love to have something, to get 
      something--I don't remember verbatim, but to the effect 
      they would like to get something on a Republican, you know, 
      make something out of it. Father of Former Page Dep. at 20.
    \182\ Father of Former Page Dep. at 24.
    The former page's mother recalls being asked by Rep. 
Alexander's staff whether the family wanted to pursue anything 
in connection with the e-mails, and that she said that she did 
not feel there was anything in the e-mails to pursue. She 
recalls telling them in substance to ``do what you need to 
do,'' but that she did not want the matter ``blown out of 
proportion.'' \183\ The parents asked that the contact from 
Rep. Foley stop, and they expressed their desire that their son 
not be involved in a public ordeal.
    \183\ Mother of Former Page Dep. at 17.
    The St. Petersburg Times ultimately did contact the former 
page's parents, who declined to comment and made ``vehement 
pleas to drop the matter.'' The St. Petersburg Times decided 
not to run a story on the e-mails, concluding that it ``did not 
have enough substantiated information to reach beyond 
innuendo.'' \184\
    \184\ Neil Brown, ``Why the Times didn't publish the Foley e-
mails,'' St. Petersburg Times, October 5, 2006; Miller Dep. at 40.
    After Rep. Foley resigned, Alexander's office contacted the 
family of the former page to suggest that a public statement 
from the family might help alleviate the media pressure being 
placed on Alexander's office and deter further media attention 
on the family.\185\ According to the former Alexander page's 
father, the family edited a suggested statement sent by Rep. 
Alexander's office to reflect their own language and because 
the statement provided by Rep. Alexander's office contained 
information that the family could not have known.\186\
    \185\ Father of Former Page Dep. at 32, 43, 45-46; Terry Int. Tr. 
at 44.
    \186\ Father of Former Page Dep. at 36.

         E. Intervention by Trandahl and Representative Shimkus

1. Representative Alexander's office contacts the Speaker's Office

    In response to the call from the St. Petersburg Times and 
the conversation with the former page's parents, Rep. Alexander 
directed Royal Alexander to contact the Speaker's office to 
advise them of the situation and to seek their assistance in 
ensuring that Rep. Foley stop contacting the former Alexander 
page. Although there were significant differences in the 
testimony regarding the manner in which that contact occurred, 
there was general agreement that the Speaker's office was 
notified, and that the Speaker's office referred the matter to 
the Clerk of the House to take the lead in addressing the 
    According to Royal Alexander, on November 17, 2005, he 
contacted Mike Stokke, the Speaker's deputy chief of staff, to 
brief him on the matter. Royal Alexander contacted Stokke 
because he knew him personally. Royal Alexander says that he 
explained the matter on the telephone to Stokke and generally 
described the e-mails as overly friendly, although he does not 
recall the precise words he used. He testified that he is 
certain that he did not share the e-mails with Stokke or with 
anyone else, because he was trying to protect the privacy of 
the former page.\187\ Royal Alexander testified that Stokke 
responded by saying ``we know,'' or words to that effect, and 
that he was relieved by this response because he thought that 
it meant that the Speaker's office was aware of the issue and 
would take care of it.\188\ Royal Alexander also testified that 
Stokke told him that someone from the Clerk's office would get 
in touch with him on the matter, and the next event he recalls 
is receiving a call from a woman in the Clerk's office telling 
him that they were ``working on addressing the situation.'' He 
does not recall the specific person who called or her precise 
words, but he understood that she was referring to the Foley 
matter. Royal Alexander could not place the date of this phone 
call, but he believes it was within a week of his phone call 
with Stokke.\189\
    \187\ Royal Alexander Deposition (hereinafter Royal Alexander Dep.) 
at 50.
    \188\ Royal Alexander Dep. at 48-50, 53.
    \189\ Royal Alexander Dep. at 59-63.
    Mike Stokke confirms receiving a phone call from Royal 
Alexander, but he recalls that Royal Alexander then came to 
Stokke's office to discuss the matter in person. According to 
Stokke, during this meeting in his office, Royal Alexander 
showed, read, or summarized the e-mails to him, but did not 
provide him with a copy. Stokke, believing that he had no 
responsibility for the page program, said that his ``intention 
was to solve the problem that they had brought to us, which is 
how do we prevent this Member from having . . . continued 
inappropriate contact with this page, and figure out the right 
place for this to go, and to have that person'' prevent future 
contact with the page.\190\ He therefore asked his assistant, 
Tim Kennedy, to consult Van Der Meid as to whom the matter 
should be referred. Van Der Meid advised that the matter should 
be referred to the Clerk of the House, because the page program 
was under the Clerk's jurisdiction.\191\ Accordingly, Stokke 
recalls that Royal Alexander was put in touch directly with the 
Clerk, Jeff Trandahl. Stokke testified that while he was 
concerned about the request for a picture,\192\ he did not 
report the matter to either Speaker Hastert or his chief of 
staff, Scott Palmer.\193\
    \190\ Stokke Dep. at 55-56.
    \191\ Stokke Dep. at 21-46.
    \192\ Stokke Dep. at 34-35.
    \193\ Stokke Dep. at 55. Similarly, Van Der Meid said that he did 
not inform the Speaker regarding the e-mails, and could not recall 
informing Palmer. Van Der Meid Dep. at 142. Kennedy also testified that 
within the Speaker's office, to his knowledge, only he, Van Der Meid, 
and Stokke were aware of the e-mails in November, 2005. Kennedy Dep. at 
    Trandahl testified that he first heard about the e-mails 
from Tim Kennedy, the assistant to Stokke and Van Der Meid, who 
called him and told him generally that there had been an e-mail 
exchange between Rep. Foley and a former page from Rep. 
Alexander's office.\194\ Trandahl testified that he immediately 
called Rep. Alexander's office and talked to Royal Alexander. 
According to Trandahl, Royal Alexander explained that one of 
Rep. Alexander's former pages had been receiving e-mails from 
Rep. Foley that were making the former page uncomfortable, that 
the press was calling the former page's family, and that the 
parents of the former page wanted the contact from Rep. Foley 
to stop.\195\ Royal Alexander also reportedly told Trandahl 
that the family did not want their name in the newspaper and 
``just wanted it all to go away.'' \196\ Trandahl recalls that 
he asked several times for copies of the e-mails, but that 
Royal Alexander was unwilling to provide them.\197\ Trandahl 
also asked repeatedly whether the e-mails were sexually 
explicit, and he was told that they were not, but were merely 
``overly friendly'' or ``too familiar.'' \198\
    \194\ Trandahl Dep. at 48-49.
    \195\ Trandahl Dep. at 51-52.
    \196\ Trandahl Dep. at 50-52.
    \197\ Trandahl Dep. at 52.
    \198\ Trandahl testified as follows: ``And then I was like, okay, 
will you read them to me? Will you--what are these things? Are they 
sexually explicit? I must have used the words `sexually explicit' about 
20 times in that conversation, saying characterize them for me then. 
And that's where the famous `overly friendly' came from. It was me 
saying are they overly friendly, if they're not sexual? Why are people 
uncomfortable?'' Trandahl Dep. at 52.
    No notes or memoranda were prepared within the Speaker's 
office to record that Alexander's office had brought the e-
mails to their attention or that the matter had been referred 
to the Clerk.\199\
    \199\ Stokke Dep. at 69, 78-79, 94-95; Kennedy Dep. at 107.
    Regardless of how the matter had been referred to Trandahl, 
once the matter had been brought to his attention, Trandahl 
resolved to confront Rep. Foley in order to get him to stop 
contacting the former Alexander page and to again raise with 
Rep. Foley the concerns he had been raising for years regarding 
Rep. Foley's interaction with pages.

2. Trandahl and Representatives Shimkus confront Representative Foley

    Following his conversation with Royal Alexander, Trandahl 
immediately called Rep. Foley's chief of staff to set up a 
meeting with Rep. Foley. He then went to the House floor with 
his deputy clerk, Gerry Vans, in search of Rep. Shimkus, the 
chairman of the Page Board, to ask him to accompany him to Rep. 
Foley's office.\200\ Trandahl found Rep. Shimkus on the floor, 
briefed him on the matter, and explained that a ``Member-to-
Member [confrontation with Rep. Foley] would be much more 
effective than just me.'' \201\ Trandahl testified that he 
further explained to Rep. Shimkus that ``this is exactly the 
perception problem I've warned Mark Foley about multiple 
times,'' and that he characterized Rep. Foley to Rep. Shimkus 
as a ``ticking time bomb.'' \202\ Rep. Shimkus describes the 
communication from Trandahl as ``They [the parents of the 
former page] are asking us to approach Congressman Foley and 
ask him to stop contacting their son via e-mail, and they want 
this kept in confidence.'' \203\ According to Rep. Shimkus, 
Trandahl also had an 8\1/2\ by 11 inch sheet of paper which 
included words and phrases, and which Rep. Shimkus recalls 
saying something about Hurricane Katrina and asking for a 
``pic.'' \204\
    \200\ Trandahl Dep. at 53-54.
    \201\ Trandahl Dep. at 56.
    \202\ Trandahl Dep. at 57-58.
    \203\ Shimkus Dep. at 10.
    \204\ Shimkus Dep. at 10. Trandahl does not recall learning 
anything about the contents of the e-mails at this time, including the 
request for a picture, and he does not recall having any piece of paper 
with him when he met with Shimkus or Foley. Trandahl Dep. at 84, 59.
    Rep. Shimkus agreed to accompany Trandahl to confront Rep. 
Foley, and the two of them went to Rep. Foley's office in the 
Cannon House Office Building later that day, November 17, 2005. 
During the meeting, which also included Foley's new chief of 
staff Liz Nicholson, Rep. Shimkus directed Rep. Foley to cease 
all communications with the former Alexander page and to stay 
away from the page program in general. Rep. Shimkus recalls 
that he gave Rep. Foley the single sheet of paper that Trandahl 
had reportedly given him. Rep. Shimkus testified that Rep. 
Foley said that if he was being accused of being ``overly 
friendly,'' then he was ``guilty,'' and explained that he was 
``mentoring'' the page, as Rep. Foley himself had been mentored 
and encouraged in politics when he was young.\205\ Trandahl 
recalls that Rep. Shimkus asked Rep. Foley whether there were 
any additional communications with House pages, and Rep. Foley 
``left the impression'' that this was the only former page that 
he was actively talking to.\206\ According to Nicholson, 
Trandahl may have also told Rep. Foley at the meeting, ``Mark, 
you've been warned by Scott before.'' After Trandahl and Rep. 
Shimkus had departed, Nicholson asked Rep. Foley what Trandahl 
was referring to by this comment, and Rep. Foley ``said 
something about--that Scott Palmer had talked to him once 
before about . . . mentoring with youths and things like 
that.'' \207\
    \205\ Shimkus Dep. at 19.
    \206\ Trandahl Dep. at 99-100. Rep. Shimkus testified that he did 
not ask Rep. Foley if he had been in contact with other pages. Shimkus 
Dep. at 20.
    \207\ However, Nicholson later testified that it might have been 
Kirk Fordham who said this to Foley at a meeting she recalls occurring 
a few weeks after the November 17 confrontation. Nicholson Dep. at 19-
20, 26, 98-100.
    Trandahl briefed Van Der Meid on the confrontation with 
Rep. Foley either in the Speaker's office immediately after the 
meeting or later that night on the House floor.\208\ According 
to Van Der Meid, this conversation was the first time he 
learned any details regarding the matter, including that the 
matter involved Rep. Foley.\209\ According to Stokke, he 
followed up with Tim Kennedy at the end of the week as to 
whether they had heard anything from the Clerk's office 
relative to the resolution of the Foley e-mail matter, and 
Kennedy reported that Trandahl had intervened with Rep. Foley 
and that the matter had been resolved to the satisfaction of 
the former page and the parents.\210\ Van Der Meid recalls that 
he had a similar wrap-up conversation with Stokke.\211\ 
Trandahl's last day as Clerk of the House was the next day, 
Friday, November 18, 2005.
    \208\ Trandahl recalls that the briefing occurred immediately after 
the meeting, while Van Der Meid testified that it occurred that night 
on the House floor. Trandahl Dep. at 65-67; Van Der Meid Dep. at 131-
    \209\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 133.
    \210\ Stokke Dep. at 69-70.
    \211\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 139-41.
    Rep. Shimkus testified that he did not consider involving 
other members of the Page Board in addressing the matter of the 
Foley e-mails. Rep. Shimkus explained this decision as follows:

          Well, first of all, the excerpts of the e-mail were 
        such that this is a former page. They are not a current 
        page. It is a request of the parents to intervene. 
        There is nothing explicit in these e-mails that would 
        rise to the level of concern that there is anything 
        other than what it says on this e-mail. We were asked 
        to address this by the parents in confidence, and that 
        is--I weighed on doing something that is not easy to 
        do, addressing a colleague on something of this nature 
        and keeping confidence with the parents. That is 
    \212\ Shimkus Dep. at 12.

    After Rep. Foley resigned, on approximately October 2, 
2006, Rep. Shimkus told fellow Page Board member Rep. Shelley 
Moore Capito that he believed he had done the right thing in 
2005 based on the information he had, but added words to the 
effect of ``Dale's [Rep. Dale Kildee] a nice guy, but he's a 
Democrat, and I was afraid it would be blown out of 
proportion.'' \213\
    \213\ Representative Shelley Moore Capito Deposition (hereinafter 
Capito Dep.) at 21. Rep. Shimkus confirms that he made such a statement 
to Rep. Capito in October 2006, but he testified that party affiliation 
was not a factor in his decision in 2005. He ascribes the statement to 
frustration over the timing of the release of the sexually explicit IMs 
in late September 2006, just prior to the election. Shimkus Dep. at 

F. Continuing Press Interest; Representatives Alexander Briefs Majority 
Leader Boehner and Representative Reynolds; Majority Leader Boehner and 
        Representative Reynolds Reportedly Brief Speaker Hastert

    Over Memorial Day weekend 2006, Matt Miller, the House 
Democratic Caucus communications director, who is himself a 
former page, attended a page reunion in Washington. During the 
reunion, in a conversation with another former page, he 
mentioned the Foley e-mails and his frustration that the press 
had declined to run a story on them. The other former page put 
him in touch with a writer from Harper's Magazine. The Harper's 
writer was interested in the story, and soon thereafter, he 
contacted the offices of both Rep. Foley and Rep. Alexander. 
Rep. Foley, as he had done previously with the St. Petersburg 
Times, talked to the reporter directly and attempted to explain 
away the e-mails.\214\ Rep. Alexander's office again responded 
by contacting the former page's parents to warn of possible 
press calls, and also to confirm that there had been no more 
communication from Rep. Foley.\215\ Royal Alexander also again 
contacted Stokke to advise him of the renewed press interest in 
Rep. Foley's e-mails. On June 1, 2006, Royal Alexander e-mailed 
Stokke, ``I just wanted to give you a heads up that that 
sensitive matter we discussed about 3 months ago re Rep. Foley 
is cropping up again. It may be worth a conversation.'' \216\ 
According to Royal Alexander, Stokke did not respond.\217\ 
Stokke testified that he does not recall receiving the e-
    \214\ Nicholson Dep. at 36.
    \215\ Rep. Alexander Dep. at 41-42; Mother of Former Page Dep. at 
    \216\ Exhibit 9.
    \217\ Royal Alexander Dep. at 79-81.
    \218\ Stokke Dep. at 106-08.
    Rep. Alexander decided at that point that he personally 
needed to bring the matter to the attention of leadership 
because he ``felt like the story was about to break and just 
need[ed] somebody to know.'' \219\ While on the House floor 
during a series of votes, Rep. Alexander mentioned the matter 
to Majority Leader Boehner, stating in substance, ``I don't 
know how familiar you are with the e-mail story about the page 
from Louisiana and Congressman Foley. But we have gotten 
another inquiry from a different media source about these e-
mails. And I wanted you to be aware that they are contacting 
the office again.'' According to Rep. Alexander, Majority 
Leader Boehner responded with words to the effect of ``Okay, we 
will handle it.'' \220\ Majority Leader Boehner confirmed that 
this conversation occurred. His recollection of the 
conversation was substantially the same, although he recalls 
that his response to Rep. Alexander was ``thanks for the 
info.'' \221\ Majority Leader Boehner recalls that his 
conversation with Rep. Alexander lasted for ``less than a 
minute.'' \222\ According to both Rep. Alexander and Rep. Tom 
Reynolds, Rep. Alexander also similarly briefed Rep. Reynolds 
during the same time period in a short conversation on the 
House floor.\223\ Rep. Alexander did not show the e-mails to 
either Majority Leader Boehner or Rep. Reynolds.
    \219\ Rep. Alexander Dep. at 48-50, 72.
    \220\ Rep. Alexander Dep. at 49.
    \221\ Majority Leader John Boehner Deposition (hereinafter Boehner 
Dep.) at 6-8.
    \222\ Boehner Dep. at 9.
    \223\ There was a difference in testimony regarding this sequence 
of events. Rep. Alexander believes that he first briefed Majority 
Leader Boehner, and then briefed Rep. Reynolds later that same day 
after Rep. Reynolds came to him on the floor and said that he had been 
told about the e-mails by Leader Boehner. Alexander Dep. at 50-51. Rep. 
Reynolds testified that Leader Boehner advised him on the House floor 
that Rep. Alexander would be coming to see him on an unspecified 
matter, and that Rep. Alexander eventually approached him as long as a 
week later. Representative Tom Reynolds Deposition (hereinafter 
Reynolds Dep.) at 15-16.
    Majority Leader Boehner testified that within half an hour 
of being briefed by Rep. Alexander, he believes that he briefed 
Speaker Hastert on the matter on the House floor, and that 
Speaker Hastert said that the matter ``has been taken care 
of.'' Majority Leader Boehner testified as follows:

          Q  Now, you say later on--how soon after [talking to 
        Alexander] did you speak with the Speaker?
          A  You know, some--I would say sometime within a 
        half-hour, an hour, as best I can recall. Best I can 
        recall, I believe that I found the Speaker on the floor 
        and told him what Alexander had told me, and I believe 
        that he said to me it had been taken care of.
          Q  Now, when you had heard this news from Mr. 
        Alexander, and the conversation concluded, I mean, did 
        you make a decision to talk to the Speaker, or how you 
        were going to handle it?
          A  No. No. The Speaker and I have conversations all 
        day every day, and I routinely pass information to him, 
        and he routinely passes information to me.
          Q  So to the best of your recollection, what of this 
        information that was told from Mr. Alexander did you 
        communicate to the Speaker?
          A  As best I can recall that Alexander talked to me, 
        that there had been some contact between Foley and a 
        former page, and that the parents didn't want it 
        pursued. I don't know whether I told him that Reynolds 
        told me he had talked to--or Alexander--I don't know 
        whether I told him that Alexander had told Reynolds. I 
        may have. I don't know.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          Q  So the Speaker communicated that it had been taken 
        care of?
          A  Yes, to the best I can recall.
          Q  Can you testify that those were his exact words, 
        or you are characterizing?
          A  No. I believe that those were the exact words.
          Q  What did you take that to mean?
          A  That it had been taken care of. The Speaker--the 
        Speaker is a friend of mine. We've known each other a 
        long time. We've worked close together. We work well 
        together, and this is something--an issue in his 
        purview, and he tells me it has been taken care of, I 
        believe it has been taken care of.\224\
    \224\ Boehner Dep. at 11-13.

    The conversation was apparently brief. Paula Nowakowski, 
Majority Leader Boehner's chief of staff, testified that 
Boehner briefed her on what he had heard from Rep. Alexander, 
but that Majority Leader Boehner did not mention that he had 
briefed the Speaker.\225\
    \225\ Paula Nowakowski Deposition (hereinafter Nowakowski Dep.) at 
9-11, 17.
    Speaker Hastert testified that he does not recall this 
conversation. ``What I'm saying is I don't remember having that 
conversation with Boehner on the House floor; and probably the 
House floor would not be the place to have that conversation, 
in my point of view.'' \226\
    \226\ Hastert Dep. at 8, 54.
    Similarly, Rep. Reynolds testified that ``more than a day'' 
after he was briefed by Alexander, he also informed Speaker 
Hastert, probably in Speaker Hastert's office, of the 
information he had learned from Rep. Alexander. Specifically, 
Rep. Reynolds testified that he told Speaker Hastert that he 
had had a conversation with Rep. Alexander ``that indicated 
that he had a page that received some overly friendly e-mails 
from Mark Foley. But that the parents were aware, and didn't 
want anything further to happen or to be dealt with on the 
issue.'' \227\ According to Rep. Reynolds, the Foley e-mails 
were just one briefing item out of many at that meeting, and 
Speaker Hastert did not comment on the matter.\228\ A Reynolds 
aide, Sally Vastola, recalls a brief discussion in a car 
outside the Capitol during this time period in which Rep. 
Reynolds, who was late for an appearance at a campaign event, 
explained to her that he was late because he had to go see the 
Speaker about a conversation he had with Rep. Alexander 
regarding Rep. Foley. Rep. Reynolds did not elaborate on the 
content of that conversation.\229\
    \227\ Reynolds Dep. at 18.
    \228\ Reynolds Dep. at 18-19.
    \229\ Sally Vastola Deposition (hereinafter Vastola Dep.) at 15. 
Rep. Reynolds does not recall mentioning his meeting with the Speaker 
to Vastola. Reynolds Dep. at 20-21.
    Speaker Hastert testified that he does not recall any 
conversation with Rep. Reynolds regarding the Foley e-
mails.\230\ Speaker Hastert testified that it is his practice 
to make notes regarding significant matters brought to his 
attention, particularly if action is required by his office, 
and that he does not recall recording the alleged conversations 
with Majority Leader Boehner and Rep. Reynolds.\231\
    \230\ Hastert Dep. at 7. The Speaker's office released a document 
entitled ``Internal Review of Contacts with the Office of the Speaker 
Regarding the Congressman Mark Foley Matter'' on September 30, 2006, 
which is discussed later in this report. The ``Internal Review'' states 
in part, ``During a meeting with the Speaker [Rep. Reynolds] says he 
noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker 
than an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and 
Shimkus.'' Reynolds denies that he advised the Speaker regarding any 
investigation or other resolution of the matter. According to Rep. 
Reynolds, at the time he notified the Speaker of the matter, he had 
``no idea there was an investigation done by Mr. Shimkus or the Clerk 
of the House.'' Reynolds Dep. at 58-59.
    \231\ On this point, the Speaker testified as follows:
      A  I stated that I don't recollect that conversation taking 
      place. I carry these little note cards with me all the 
      time. Usually if I have something, I take it down. I wrote 
      it down. I have never done that.
        Q  With respect to Mr. Boehner or Mr. Reynolds' 
        A  That's correct.
        Q  What types of matters do you take down on your note 
        A  If a Member asks me to do something, I write it down. 
      More than two things, I can't remember it anymore.
        Q  What if a Member just passes on information or keeps 
      you informed or keeps you in the loop, would you write that 
      down on your note cards?
        A  Depends on what the information is. I'm not trying to 
      be coy, it just depends what it is.
        Q  So if it requires you to take an affirmative step or 
      to do something --
        A  If they are asking me to do something or take an 
      action or provide a resource, I would--I would make note of 
      it on the floor.
    Hastert Dep. at 8-9.
    Stokke testified that in May 2006, Rep. Reynolds also 
raised the Foley issue with him as a potential political 
problem during the course of a discussion on political matters 
in Stokke's office. Stokke told Rep. Reynolds that he was aware 
of the issue and that he thought that it had been ``handled.'' 
\232\ Stokke described the exchange as follows:
    \232\ Stokke Dep. at 94-102.

    I believe he [Rep. Reynolds] raised it as part of a 
discussion of a number of Member[s]; and the issue there was, 
as I recall it, he was going to run again, Mr. Foley, but there 
has been this issue raised about Mr. Foley. And my recollection 
is that I indicated that we were aware of this issue and that 
this issue had been dealt with. Not in a press sense, because I 
don't know where the press state was, but in a solve-the-
problem sense.\233\
    \233\ Stokke Dep. at 98. Nicholson testified that beginning in 
early 2006, Rep. Foley began to express serious reservations about 
running for reelection, and that she had difficulty getting him to 
focus on what appeared to be a significant election challenge. 
Nicholson testified that Rep. Foley was ``down'' and was a ``whole 
different guy'' for a long period, and it was not until early summer 
that he began to get energized about the election. Nicholson Dep. at 

    Ultimately, as with the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg 
Times, Harper's declined to run a story on the e-mails because 
they ``did not have absolute proof that Foley was, as one 
editor put it, `anything but creepy.' '' \234\ Nevertheless, 
the e-mails continued to circulate throughout the spring and 
summer of 2006. According to the Harper's reporter, he was 
disappointed with the decision not to publish, and he ``passed 
along the emails and related materials to several people who 
were in a position to share them with other media outlets,'' 
and he ``subsequently learned that other people had the same 
information and were also contacting reporters.'' \235\ Jason 
Kello, Rep. Foley's communications director, testified that by 
the summer of 2006, his assumption was that every reporter he 
dealt with had the e-mails, and he repeatedly raised the issue 
with Liz Nicholson and Rep. Foley in an effort to develop a 
plan to respond to the issue. In his view, ``it was not an if 
these e-mails came out, that it was more along the lines of 
when these e-mails came out.'' \236\ According to Nicholson, in 
July of 2006, the Foley campaign received word that Foley's 
Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, intended to use the e-mails 
in his campaign.\237\ According to an organization called 
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 
(``CREW''), it received the e-mails from an undisclosed source 
on July 21, 2006, and forwarded them to the FBI the same day. 
The FBI apparently declined to pursue the matter at that 
    \234\ Ken Silverstein, ``Republicans Want to Turn Over a New 
Page,'' Harper's Magazine online, Oct. 10, 2006.
    \235\ Ken Silverstein, ``Republicans Want to Turn Over a New 
Page,'' Harper's Magazine online, Oct. 10, 2006.
    \236\ Jason Kello Interview Transcript (hereinafter Kello Int. Tr.) 
at 19-20 (emphases added).
    \237\ Nicholson Dep. at 40-41.
    \238\ The Justice Department has reportedly stated, ``The e-mails, 
while inappropriate, did not contain a criminal predicate to allow the 
FBI to move forward with an investigation.'' Dan Eggen, ``Watchdog 
Group Disputes FBI's Claims on E-Mails,'' Washington Post, Oct. 6, 

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

    On Sunday, September 24, 2006, the e-mails were posted on 
an apparently recently established weblog, The postings included the 
comment, ``This is absolutely amazing. I just received these 
emails. They were sent by Congressman Mark Foley to a 16-year-
old male page. I have removed his name to protect his identity. 
But how shocking is this? I can't believe this was emailed to 
me? There must be even more out there. Email me at 
[email protected] and let me know what we should 
do!!!! Something must be done!!!!'' \239\ Another weblog,, subsequently linked to the stopsexpredators 
weblog on September 27, 2006, although was 
skeptical that the e-mails were real.\240\
    \239\ Exhibit 10. Subsequent press reports identified the blogger 
as former Democratic congressional aide Lane Hudson. Hudson reportedly 
provided the e-mails to the Los Angeles Times in July 2006 and later 
established the blog after being frustrated that the Times had not 
published an article. Hudson would not identify the source of the e-
mails but said that they ``weren't hard to come by.'' Hudson was then 
employed by the Human Rights Campaign, but he was later terminated for 
violating the organization's policy against using its computers for 
blogging. Noam Levey, ``Anti-Foley Blogger Speaks Out,'' Los Angeles 
Times, Nov. 10, 2006.
    \240\ Exhibit 11. (``This is one in a series of emails some 
anonymous and semi-literate blogger claims are from Representative Mark 
Foley (R-FL) to a 16-year-old male House page. Oh, of course they're 
not real. But let's all pretend, ok? 'Cause it's better than another 
damn plagiarism `scandal''').
    The next day, Monday, September 25, Rep. Foley and his 
staff had a conference call to discuss the e-mails. During the 
call, at least two staff members pressed Rep. Foley on whether 
there was ``anything else out there,'' and Rep. Foley told them 
that there was not. The conclusion after the meeting was to 
wait and see if anything else happened. As the week went on, 
Rep. Foley's office continued to get inquiries from a number of 
media outlets and others, including the Washington Post and ABC 
    \241\ Kello Int. Tr. at 31-33.
    On Thursday, September 28, 2006, Rhonda Schwartz of ABC 
News contacted Foley's chief of staff, Liz Nicholson, regarding 
the e-mails, and Nicholson commented at length on the 
record.\242\ Later that day, ABC News posted a story on the e-
mails on the Brian Ross page of its website. Nicholson was 
quoted in the article as saying that Rep. Foley's office 
believed that the e-mail exchange was totally innocent, and 
that the e-mails were released by the opposition as part of an 
``ugly smear campaign.'' Nicholson also was reported to have 
said that Rep. Foley's office ``believed the e-mail exchange 
began when the page asked Rep. Foley for a recommendation.'' 
The article also reported that ``Foley's office says it is 
their policy to keep pictures of former interns and anyone who 
may ask for a recommendation on file so they can remember 
them.'' \243\
    \242\ Nicholson Dep. at 59-60. Nicholson became Foley's chief of 
staff in May 2005. Nicholson Dep. at 6.
    \243\ Rhonda Schwartz and Maddy Sauer, ``Sixteen-Year Old Who 
Worked as Capitol Hill Page Concerned About E-mail Exchange with 
Congressman.'' The post indicates that it was posted at 3:06 p.m. on 
September 28, 2006. Exhibit 12.
    The ABC News report came to the attention of Stokke in the 
Speaker's office, who testified that he recalled getting an e-
mail from Royal Alexander telling him that the issue regarding 
the e-mails had ``come up again.'' \244\ Stokke thought that 
the issue had previously been ``raised and addressed,'' and 
that it was now a ``political/media'' issue, and said that he 
did not discuss the matter with anyone in the Speaker's office 
that day.\245\ Van Der Meid also recalls hearing about the e-
mails on September 28, and understanding that these were the 
same e-mails that he had known about earlier.\246\ He does not 
recall talking to anyone about the e-mails on that day.\247\
    \244\ Stokke Dep. at 115-16.
    \245\ Stokke Dep. at 121.
    \246\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 155-56.
    \247\ Van Der Meid Dep. at 156-58.
    On that same date, Rep. Foley authorized Bradley Schreiber, 
an attorney on his congressional staff, to put together a legal 
team for the purpose of considering whether to file a 
defamation lawsuit against ABC News. ``I believe, given the e-
mails that we had reviewed and the way that the story was 
written, that it made an inference that [Rep. Foley] was a 
sexual predator. I suggested to [Rep. Foley] that that would 
affect not only his campaign, but would--not only affect his 
campaign, but as an individual and as a sitting Member of 
Congress, and that we consider filing a lawsuit against ABC 
News.'' \248\ Discussion of a possible defamation lawsuit 
continued within Rep. Foley's office on September 29, 2006. On 
that date, Schreiber contacted Elliot Berke, counsel to Speaker 
Hastert, to consult with him on the merits of filing such a 
    \248\ Bradley Schreiber Interview Transcript (hereinafter Schreiber 
Int. Tr.) at 29.
    \249\ Schreiber Int. Tr. at 28-33.
    ABC News included a ``tip line'' on its website, and on the 
evening of September 28 a former page (``Former Page X'') 
contacted ABC News and reported that he had information 
regarding Rep. Foley's interaction with former pages.\250\ In 
2003, Former Page X had received copies of multiple sexually 
explicit IM conversations from Rep. Foley to two other former 
pages. He received the IMs from one of the recipient former 
pages with whom he had kept in contact since they were pages in 
2001 and 2002.\251\ Former Page X did not forward the IMs to 
anyone or take any other action when he first received them in 
2003, but he stored the IMs on his computer where they remained 
until September 28, 2006.\252\ Former Page X testified that he 
did not consider bringing the IMs to the attention of the page 
program at the time he received copies of them, explaining as 
    \250\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 36.
    \251\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 13-19.
    \252\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 26-27.

          Personally, you know, it's I guess up to the victim 
        to, you know, deal with that kind of stuff. You know, I 
        didn't--I guess didn't feel it was my responsibility. 
        You know, it was up to [the recipients] to bring it 
        forward if they wanted to.\253\
    \253\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 60-61.

    On the evening of September 28, Former Page X was alerted 
to the ABC story by another former page, and he remembered the 
IMs that he had received in 2003. He was able to recover them 
from his computer, and he forwarded them to the former page who 
had alerted him to the ABC story. The two of them discussed the 
IMs and what they should do, and they concluded that they 
should contact ABC News. Former Page X contacted ABC through 
the tip line, and he forwarded the IMs on the evening of 
September 28 and the morning of September 29.\254\ Former Page 
X believes that the other page also provided the IMs to ABC 
    \254\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 35-40. Former Page X provided the 
Investigative Subcommittee with copies of all of the e-mails and 
instant messages he had in his possession, which included the IMs 
published by ABC News, as well as many additional IMs with similar 
content. A copy of the material provided to the Committee is included 
as Exhibit 13, with personal information regarding the recipient page 
    \255\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 38, 43-44.
    Prior to September 28 and 29, 2006 the IMs were apparently 
known to a number of pages and close friends of the IM 
recipients. According to Former Page X, after he had provided 
the IMs to ABC News, he and the IM recipient discussed the 
identity of the ABC News source. Former Page X did not admit 
that he was the source, and the IM recipient told Former Page X 
that he had shared them with as many as 12 people.\256\ In 
addition, according to Former Page X and another former page, 
the IMs were a topic of discussion during a February 2003 page 
reunion in Washington.
    \256\ Former Page X Int. Tr. at 47-49.
    The Investigative Subcommittee uncovered no evidence that 
the IMs were provided to, or were possessed by, any House 
Member, officer or employee, the press, or any political 
organization prior to September 28 and 29, 2006.

                    H. Representative Foley Resigns

    On the morning of September 29, ABC News called Rep. 
Foley's communications director and said that ABC had 36 pages 
of sexually explicit IMs purportedly written by Rep. Foley to a 
former page.\257\ The communications director called Fordham, 
who, though no longer Rep. Foley's chief of staff, was still a 
Foley campaign advisor, and was then at Rep. Foley's Capitol 
Hill home for lunch, along with Rep. Foley and his current 
chief of staff, Nicholson. The communications director 
described the phone call from ABC.\258\ Fordham then asked Rep. 
Foley whether the IMs were authentic, and Foley responded, 
``Probably.'' \259\ Fordham told Rep. Foley that the IMs could 
not be defended and suggested to Rep. Foley that he 
    \257\ Kello Int. Tr. at 40-41.
    \258\ Fordham Dep. at 58.
    \259\ Fordham Dep. at 60.
    \260\ Fordham Dep. at 60.
    Fordham then walked from Rep. Foley's house to the offices 
of the National Republican Congressional Committee (``NRCC''), 
where a number of people, including Fordham, Vastola, Rep. 
Reynolds, and a number of other NRCC staff gathered to discuss 
the matter.\261\ Speaker Hastert and Stokke were at the NRCC on 
another matter, and they were brought into the meeting as 
well.\262\ Some of those present at the meeting recall that 
statements were made that Rep. Foley intended to resign, while 
others recall that the meeting participants concluded that Rep. 
Foley had to resign.\263\ In any event, there was general 
agreement that Rep. Foley needed to resign immediately, and the 
NRCC staff drafted a one-sentence letter of resignation. 
Fordham left the NRCC with the proposed letter of resignation, 
and went back to Rep. Foley's house by way of Rep. Foley's 
office in the Cannon House Office Building. Rep. Foley signed 
the letter of resignation and, in anticipation of a press 
onslaught, left town.\264\
    \261\ Fordham Dep. at 61.
    \262\ Fordham Dep. at 62; Hastert Dep. at 10-12.
    \263\ Hastert Dep. at 11; Vastola Dep. at 40.
    \264\ Fordham Dep. at 67.
    ABC News ran two stories later that day regarding the IMs 
and Foley's resignation.\265\ Excerpts from the IMs were posted 
on the ABC website with the second story.
    \265\ Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer, ``Foley Resigns Over Sexually 
Explicit Messages to Minors'' The post indicates that it was posted at 
3:02 p.m. on September 29, 2006. Exhibit 14; Brian Ross, Rhonda 
Schwartz, and Maddy Sauer, ``Exclusive: The Sexually Explicit Internet 
Messages That Led to Fla. Rep. Foley's Resignation.'' The post 
indicates that it was posted at 5:59 p.m. on September 29, 2006. 
Exhibit 15.

           I. Events After Representative Foley's Resignation

    As September 29 progressed, word of Rep. Foley's 
resignation filtered through the Capitol. Rep. Shimkus was 
summoned to the Speaker's office mid-afternoon just prior to a 
scheduled enrollment ceremony where Rep. Foley's sudden 
resignation was being discussed. Speaker Hastert let Rep. 
Shimkus know that he would invoke Rep. Shimkus' name if asked 
about the Foley matter by the press after the ceremony, and 
suggested that perhaps the Page Board should initiate an 
investigation.\266\ Rep. Shimkus was initially ``clueless,'' 
because this was the first he had heard about Rep. Foley's 
resignation and, unaware of the IMs, he could not believe that 
Rep. Foley would resign over the e-mails that he had known 
about a year earlier.\267\
    \266\ Shimkus Dep. at 25.
    \267\ Shimkus Dep. at 25.
    Later that day, Rep. Shimkus went to see Rep. Dale Kildee, 
who was a member of the Page Board, and for the first time 
disclosed to Rep. Kildee his knowledge of the e-mails in 
November 2005 and his confrontation with Rep. Foley.\268\ Rep. 
Shimkus then had a similar meeting with Rep. Shelley Moore 
Capito, who was also unaware of the events of November 
2005.\269\ A Page Board meeting was held later that day with 
all of the members except for the emeritus member, Donnald 
Anderson.\270\ The Board briefly discussed and dismissed the 
possibility of an investigation, as they did not believe that 
they had investigative authority. After the meeting, Rep. 
Shimkus, Rep. Capito, and the current Clerk of the House, Karen 
Haas, visited the page dorm to reassure the current pages that 
they were committed to their safety.\271\
    \268\ Shimkus Dep. at 39-40.
    \269\ Shimkus Dep. at 44.
    \270\ Capito Dep. at 9-10; Kildee Dep. at 8-9; McNamara Int. Sum.
    \271\ Capito Dep. at 26.
    Sometime on the evening of September 29, Majority Leader 
Boehner told a Washington Post reporter that Rep. Alexander had 
approached him regarding the Foley e-mails during the spring of 
2006, and that he, in turn, had informed Speaker Hastert of the 
situation and that Speaker Hastert had said that the matter 
``had been taken care of.'' \272\ Palmer later contacted 
Nowakowski regarding the perceived inconsistency between 
Majority Leader Boehner's and Speaker Hastert's statements, as 
Speaker Hastert had stated that he had no knowledge regarding 
the e-mails.\273\ Nowakowski, along with press secretary Kevin 
Madden, asked Majority Leader Boehner whether he was absolutely 
sure that he spoke with Speaker Hastert on the matter. Majority 
Leader Boehner explained to them that although he believed that 
he had spoken with Speaker Hastert, he could not be 
certain.\274\ Madden and Majority Leader Boehner subsequently 
contacted the Post reporter to relate Majority Leader Boehner's 
position.\275\ In his testimony to the Subcommittee, Majority 
Leader Boehner explained that his recollection of receiving a 
response from the Speaker makes him believe that he did have a 
conversation with Speaker Hastert: ``And that's why, while I 
can't be certain that I talked to him or where I talked to him, 
I do believe that I talked to him, because I remember the 
response.'' \276\
    \272\ Boehner Dep. at 16.
    \273\ Palmer Dep. at 78-80.
    \274\ Nowakowski Dep. at 16. Nowakowski also testified that 
Majority Leader Boehner later told her that he was ``99%'' certain he 
had talked to the Speaker. Nowakowski Dep. at 49.
    \275\ Boehner Dep. at 17.
    \276\ Boehner Dep. at 31.
    Speaker Hastert departed for Illinois by air with Stokke on 
the evening of the September 29. After the Speaker had 
departed, Minority Leader Pelosi introduced H. Res. 1065, a 
privileged resolution directing that the Committee on Standards 
``immediately appoint an investigative subcommittee . . . to 
fully and expeditiously determine the facts connected with 
Representative Foley's conduct and the response thereto.'' The 
resolution included the language, ``Whereas Rep. Alexander has 
said `We also notified the House leadership that there might be 
a potential problem.' '' \277\ The resolution was referred to 
the Committee on Standards by vote of the full House.
    \277\ Exhibit 1.
    Sometime before midnight, a meeting was held in Majority 
Leader Boehner's office to talk about the matter.\278\ Among 
those present, at least at some point, were Majority Leader 
Boehner, Rep. Shimkus, Rep. Pryce, Rep. Alexander, Rep. Cantor, 
Rep. Blunt, Palmer, and Nowakowski. Since the meeting was 
convened after the referral to the Committee on Standards, some 
participants questioned whether it was appropriate to conduct 
the meeting.\279\ Rep. Reynolds chose not to attend the meeting 
on the advice of his counsel, Randy Evans, after suspecting 
that Rep. Alexander and others who had prior knowledge of the 
Foley matter might be in attendance.\280\ Rep. Reynolds 
    \278\ Palmer Dep. at 91.
    \279\ Nowakowski Dep. at 29.
    \280\ Reynolds Dep. at 45-50, 84.

          I'm not inclined to go in and collaborate or 
        memorialize anything that would deal with this based on 
        the fact that, previous to this, we had voted to send 
        it to the Ethics Committee.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          I made a decision not to go, based on a discussion 
        with Randy Evans' counsel [sic], because I had 
        previously voted to engage the ethics committee to 
        review this. Not being a lawyer, there are not many 
        things I know about the legal side of this, but I do 
        know that discussions of recollecting anything is not 
    \281\ Reynolds Dep. at 82, 86.

    Nevertheless, the conclusion was reached by others involved 
that the meeting should proceed in the interest of being able 
to answer press calls regarding the matter, and, according to 
Palmer, Majority Leader Boehner opened the meeting by 
explaining that the meeting was not intended to influence 
recollections.\282\ During the meeting, Rep. Alexander 
explained what he knew about the e-mails and the family's 
wishes. He also clarified that he had not talked to the Speaker 
about the e-mails and apologized that a previous statement that 
he had made had left that impression.\283\ Rep. Shimkus 
described his confrontation with Rep. Foley the previous 
November.\284\ The group discussed the difference between the 
e-mails and the IMs, and Majority Leader Boehner went around 
the room asking whether anyone had known about the IMs, and it 
was stressed that any statements on the matter should be 
precise in differentiating between the e-mails and the 
    \282\ Palmer Dep. at 93. Nowakowski recalls that ``we were trying 
to be very careful that we not get ourselves in the issue--the 
situation where, you know, we might be seen as manipulating someone's 
testimony or that kind of thing.'' Nowakowski Dep. at 29.
    \283\ Palmer Dep. at 95-96. Rep. Alexander recalls that this 
clarification was made to the press outside the meeting. Rep. Alexander 
Dep. at 59.
    \284\ Palmer Dep. at 96.
    \285\ Nowakowski Dep. at 29-30.
    At about two or three a.m. on September 30, Palmer, upon 
returning to his office, was reportedly told by one of the 
Speaker's attorneys, Elliott Berke, that Palmer should talk to 
Tim Kennedy.\286\ Palmer testified that in speaking with 
Kennedy, he first learned that Stokke had been made aware of 
the e-mails in November 2005, and had referred the matter to 
the Clerk.\287\ Palmer directed Berke to conduct an internal 
review of the matter with a view towards issuing a statement.
    \286\ Palmer Dep. at 112.
    \287\ Palmer Dep. at 113.
    During the day of September 30, Elliott Berke and Randy 
Evans interviewed Kennedy, Stokke, Van Der Meid, and Karen 
Haas. According to Haas, she had been called by Van Der Meid 
who said ``that he was trying to put together a timeline, you 
know, kind of what had happened, and so if there was anything 
that, you know, I could provide, that would be helpful, either, 
you know, past conversations I had with Jeff or anything else 
that, you know, he would appreciate it.'' \288\ She called Jeff 
Trandahl and later that day reported the results of that 
conversation to Berke and others in the Speaker's office.
    \288\ Haas Int. Tr. at 66.
    Palmer drafted a report based on input from Berke and 
Evans. Before the statement was released, Palmer read the 
report during a conference call among leadership staff, 
including Boehner's chief of staff, Paula Nowakowski. The 
Speaker's office released the ``Internal Review of Contacts 
with the Office of the Speaker Regarding the Congressman Mark 
Foley Matter'' (``Internal Review'') on September 30, 
characterizing the release as a ``preliminary report.'' \289\
    \289\ A copy of the ``Internal Review'' is attached as Exhibit 16.
    On October 5, 2006, the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct met and passed the resolution creating the 
Investigative Subcommittee.


                         A. Summary of Findings

    The Investigative Subcommittee was established to conduct a 
broad inquiry into whether Members, officers, and employees of 
the House of Representatives acted properly with respect to any 
knowledge or information they had regarding improper conduct 
involving Members and pages or former pages. At the time the 
Investigative Subcommittee was established, in the week after 
Rep. Foley's resignation, little was known about the facts 
regarding Rep. Foley's conduct (or the conduct of any other 
Member) with pages or former pages, who knew about any aspects 
of that conduct, and what they did with that knowledge. The 
facts that were known raised important issues regarding the 
safety and well-being of congressional pages, and caused 
sufficient concern about the oversight and management of the 
page program that the Committee concluded an immediate 
investigation was necessary.
    As a result of its investigation, the Investigative 
Subcommittee concludes that the evidence available to it does 
not establish a basis to recommend additional proceedings to 
determine whether any particular House Member, officer or 
employee subject to the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct violated House rules or standards 
of conduct. The Investigative Subcommittee therefore does not 
recommend further investigative or disciplinary proceedings 
against any Member, officer or employee.
    The Investigative Subcommittee's conclusion that the 
evidence does not support further investigative or disciplinary 
proceedings should not be read as a conclusion that the 
Members, officers and employees whose conduct was reviewed 
acted properly at all times in connection with their knowledge 
or handling of information concerning improper conduct 
involving Members and current and former House pages. To the 
contrary, the Investigative Subcommittee finds a significant 
number of instances where Members, officers or employees failed 
to exercise appropriate diligence and oversight, or should have 
exercised greater diligence and oversight, regarding issues 
arising from the interaction between former Rep. Mark Foley and 
current or former House pages. But the requirement that Members 
and staff act at all times in a manner that reflects creditably 
on the House does not mean that every error in judgment or 
failure to exercise appropriate oversight and sufficient 
diligence establishes a violation of House Rule 23. The 
Subcommittee is mindful of the ease with which decisions and 
conduct can be questioned in hindsight with the benefit of 
later-discovered facts. The danger of hindsight is particularly 
significant in this matter, given the nature of the instant 
messages that never surfaced until late September 2006 and led 
to Rep. Foley's resignation. The Subcommittee has reviewed the 
conduct of the various individuals involved in this matter 
based on the information they had available to them at the 
    As a general matter, the Subcommittee observed a 
disconcerting unwillingness to take responsibility for 
resolving issues regarding Rep. Foley's conduct. Rather than 
addressing the issues fully, some witnesses did far too little, 
while attempting to pass the responsibility for acting to 
others. Some relied on unreasonably fine distinctions regarding 
their defined responsibilities. Almost no one followed up 
adequately on the limited actions they did take.
    With respect to the e-mails to the former Alexander page, a 
number of Members, officers and staff had opportunities to 
inquire further into Rep. Foley's conduct, to elevate the 
issues raised by the e-mails to more senior Members or staff, 
or to otherwise take steps consistent with knowledge of 
inappropriate e-mails from a middle-aged Member of Congress to 
a 16-year-old boy one month removed from the House page 
program. While some did fulfill their responsibilities, the 
Investigative Subcommittee finds that too many exhibited 
insufficient diligence or willingness to take the steps 
necessary to ensure that the matter was being appropriately 
handled. No one in the House who was involved in addressing 
Rep. Foley's conduct, other than Rep. Alexander and his staff, 
actually saw the e-mails. Several people were told about the e-
mails and were asked to take action regarding them, including 
confronting Rep. Foley and telling him to stop communicating 
with the former page, but none of those people saw--or insisted 
on seeing--the e-mails prior to taking such action. A number of 
witnesses testified that they were not given copies of the e-
mails because of the family's request for privacy, but all of 
those witnesses knew at the time that a newspaper already had 
the e-mails. Almost no one followed up to make sure that the 
action they had taken had been successful.
    The Investigative Subcommittee cannot determine 
conclusively the motivation for those who failed to fulfill 
their responsibilities. However, the Investigative Subcommittee 
identified several factors that may have been in play. Some may 
have been concerned that raising the issue too aggressively 
might have risked exposing Rep. Foley's homosexuality, which 
could have adversely affected him both personally and 
politically. There is some evidence that political 
considerations played a role in decisions that were made by 
persons in both parties. The wishes of the page's family for 
privacy could have also provided a convenient justification for 
failing to pursue the matter more aggressively for those who 
were already so inclined.
    Some or all of these factors (as well as others) may have 
played a role in decisions that were made about how this matter 
should have been handled, but in the Investigative 
Subcommittee's view none of these factors mitigated the need 
for those involved to learn all the relevant facts and 
communicate those facts candidly and freely to those with 
authority to address the issues raised by the e-mails.
    The Investigative Subcommittee did not address whether the 
various matters involving former Rep. Foley would necessarily 
have been resolved differently had greater diligence or 
oversight been exercised, including whether disclosure of the 
instant messages that led to Rep. Foley's resignation would 
have happened sooner, later, or not at all. Reaching such 
conclusions would require constructing a chain of uncertain and 
unpredictable events, and would therefore involve inappropriate 
speculation. So, for example, even had one or more of the 
witnesses discussed below successfully demanded to see the 
actual e-mails sent to the former Alexander page prior to or 
after confrontingRep. Foley in November 2005, the Investigative 
Subcommittee cannot conclude that the outcome of that meeting with Rep. 
Foley would have been different. The inability to predict different 
outcomes, however, does not prevent the Investigative Subcommittee from 
reaching conclusions regarding the conduct that was the subject of the 
    As described elsewhere in this Report, Rep. Foley resigned 
from the House on September 29, 2006, after he learned that the 
media had copies of certain sexually graphic instant messages 
he had sent to one or more former House pages. The disclosure 
of the instant messages reportedly triggered a number of state 
and federal criminal inquiries. The Committee lost jurisdiction 
over Rep. Foley upon his resignation, and through his counsel 
Rep. Foley refused to testify before the Subcommittee, citing 
the pending criminal investigations against him and asserting 
his constitutional right to refuse to testify against himself. 
As a result, the Investigative Subcommittee did not seek to 
investigate fully all instances in which former Rep. Foley may 
have had improper communications with pages or former pages, or 
to determine the complete facts and circumstances surrounding 
the instant messages that were the cause of his resignation. 
Based on the evidence it did collect, however, the 
Investigative Subcommittee unanimously concludes that had Rep. 
Foley not resigned there would have been a substantial basis to 
find a violation by Rep. Foley of House rules or standards of 
    The evidence before the Subcommittee establishes that Rep. 
Foley on more than one occasion established contact with House 
pages before the end of their page service and secured e-mail 
addresses or other contact information for the pages. That 
evidence also suggests that at or after their departure from 
the House, Rep. Foley began contacting some former pages with 
increasingly familiar communications. As the former pages 
responded, the messages from Rep. Foley at times turned to 
sexually graphic topics, including messages that could be read 
as sexual solicitation. Although the recipients were former 
pages by the time the sexually graphic messages were sent, the 
fact that the initial contact began when the young men were 
pages suggests that Rep. Foley may have been using the page 
program to in part at least to identify possible future 
recipients of graphic communications.
    At its core, such conduct is an abuse of power, and an 
abuse of trust of the pages, their parents or guardians, and 
the Congress itself. Behavior of this kind cannot be excused or 
tolerated, as it undermines the integrity of the House. A 
Member engaging in such conduct violates House Rule 23, Clause 
1, which mandates that Members conduct themselves ``at all 
times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.'' 
In the case of former Rep. Foley, a 54-year-old-man who made 
unwelcome communications with teenage former House pages, the 
evidence adduced by the Investigative Subcommittee would almost 
certainly have subjected him to disciplinary proceedings had he 
not resigned. As described in a report of the Committee in an 
earlier matter involving the relationship between Members and 
House Pages:

    [T]here is a difference between a 17-year-old page away 
from home and a 44-year-old Member of the House of 
Representatives in terms of responsibility, maturity, judgment, 
and fiduciary obligation. The House has always regarded pages 
as its wards and has always accepted a special responsibility 
to them.\290\
    \290\ Investigation Pursuant to House Resolution 12 Concerning 
Alleged Improper or Illegal Sexual Conduct By Members, Officers, or 
Employees of the House, H. Rep. 98-297, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 14, 
1983) at 37 (emphasis added).

    In that same report, the Committee emphasized, and this 
Investigative Subcommittee concurs, ``the House does have [] a 
duty to the American people who have a right to expect the 
highest standards from the House as an institution and from its 
individual Members,'' \291\ and ``any sexual advance or 
relationship of any kind involving a Page and a Member, officer 
or employee potentially entails an element of either 
preferential treatment or coercion, and hence an abuse of 
office or position.'' \292\ The issue before this Investigative 
Subcommittee is not whether a Member of the House is free to 
have a consensual relationship with a young person; the issue 
is the obligation of Members to act appropriately and 
professionally at all times with House pages who are in 
Washington, D.C. for a limited time to attend school and to 
assist the House with its work, and to whom the House has a 
``special responsibility.''
    \291\ Id. at 37.
    \292\ Id. at 14.
    Some of the Investigative Subcommittee's specific factual 
findings are set forth below, followed in the next sections of 
this Report by a review of the relevant standards of conduct 
and the Investigative Subcommittee's conclusions regarding the 
application of those standards to its factual findings.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    The Investigative Subcommittee devoted substantial effort 
to determining whether any House Member, officer or employee 
was aware of or saw the sexually graphic instant messages 
possessed by ABC News prior to their publication by ABC News 
and others following Foley's resignation on Friday, September 
29, 2006. Much of the initial press coverage of this matter did 
not distinguish between those instant messages and the e-mails 
sent in 2005 to the former Alexander page, which had been 
published by ABC News on Thursday, September 28, 2006 after 
they had been posted on at least one website earlier that week.
    The distinction between the e-mails and the instant 
messages is an important one, because the e-mails do not 
contain the graphic or explicit sexual content of the instant 
messages. The Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude, 
however, that the e-mails sent to the former Alexander page 
were merely ``overly friendly,'' as they have often been 
described both by the few who saw them in 2005 and some who saw 
them for the first time after Rep. Foley's resignation. When 
read carefully and in context, the e-mails reflect 
inappropriate communications between a middle-aged congressman, 
through his private e-mail account, and a young male who had 
just left the employ of the House. The e-mails included 
references to the ``great shape'' of another former male page, 
a question about the age of the page and what he wanted for his 
birthday (although Rep. Foley had been told by the former page 
that his birthday was five months away), and a request for a 
picture, all of which could fairly be read as inappropriately 
personal and excessively familiar, and which some could read as 
implicitly sexual. The Investigative Subcommittee finds no 
merit to any of the suggested justifications by Rep. Foley or 
anyone on his staff for the tone or content of the e-mails.
    The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the e-mails 
clearly provided a sufficient basis to at the very least 
confront Rep. Foley, demand an explanation for both the content 
of the e-mails and the reason for sending them, insist that 
Rep. Foley stop such communications with former pages, and make 
him aware that he could face serious consequences if the 
conduct did not stop. There is evidence that some of those 
things were done, although (as discussed more fully below) the 
Investigative Subcommittee concludes that a number of persons 
with knowledge of the existence of the e-mails should have done 
more to learn of both their contents and their context.
    However, the content of the instant messages is materially 
different, and far more reprehensible, and had any House 
Member, officer or employee known about the instant messages 
they would have been obligated to do far more than was done in 
response to the e-mails. The Investigative Subcommittee finds 
no evidence, based on the testimony before the Subcommittee, 
that any Member, officer or employee had such knowledge of the 
instant messages prior to their publication on September 29, 
2006. Each of the House Members and employees who testified 
that they were aware of the e-mail messages prior to September 
28, 2006, testified that they were unaware of the instant 
messages prior to September 29, 2006, and the Subcommittee 
received no evidence contradicting that testimony. The instant 
messages were known to a number of former pages well before 
that date, but none of the pages that the Investigative 
Subcommittee contacted who had known of the instant messages 
stated that they had disclosed their existence to any House 
Member, officer, or employee. The instant messages were 
published by ABC News within 24 hours after ABC News had been 
given copies of the instant messages by a former page.
    The Investigative Subcommittee finds that a number of House 
Members, officers, staff and others, including several 
newspapers and other media, were aware of the e-mailsfrom 
former Rep. Foley to the former Alexander page before those e-mails 
were published by ABC News on September 28, 2006. Those in the House 
who were made aware of the e-mails included House Speaker Dennis 
Hastert and several members of his staff; Majority Leader John Boehner; 
Rep. Tom Reynolds; Rep. Rodney Alexander and several members of his 
staff; Rep. John Shimkus; House Clerk Jeff Trandahl and his deputy; and 
Rep. Foley and his chief of staff Liz Nicholson as well as his former 
chief of staff Kirk Fordham. The communications directors for both the 
House Democratic Caucus and the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
Committee also had copies of the e-mails in the fall of 2005.
    The Investigative Subcommittee finds that persons and 
organizations outside the House who were aware of the e-mails 
before their publication in September 2006 includes a friend of 
the Alexander staff member who forwarded the e-mails, as well 
as two people to whom she, in turn, forwarded the e-mails; 
multiple media organizations who received the e-mails from Matt 
Miller, the House Democratic Caucus staff member who had 
received the forwarded e-mails, including the St. Petersburg 
Times, the Miami Herald, Roll Call, Harper's Magazine and 
possibly others; and reportedly at least one public interest 
group which claims to have forwarded them to the FBI. At least 
some of these persons or organizations had the e-mails from as 
early as November 2005, but none chose to publish the e-mails.
    Several Members and staff were also aware of other conduct 
by Rep. Foley regarding pages or former pages, including 
concerns raised by former Clerk Jeff Trandahl and former Foley 
chief of staff Kirk Fordham about Foley's close interaction 
with pages. Those concerns were raised directly with Rep. Foley 
on multiple occasions, and were also brought to the attention 
of at least two persons in the Office of the Speaker, chief of 
staff Scott Palmer and counsel Ted Van Der Meid.
    The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the reports that 
House pages were generally or as a group warned about Rep. 
Foley are not supported by the record. None of the staff 
associated with the page program or former pages who were 
interviewed by the Subcommittee recalls any such warning being 
    The Investigative Subcommittee's inquiry was not limited to 
Rep. Foley and his interaction with current or former House 
pages. Witnesses were asked to provide any information they had 
regarding potentially improper conduct involving House pages 
and any Member, officer or employee of the House. Other than as 
described below, the Subcommittee received no information that 
warranted further inquiry regarding any other Member, or any 
officer or employee of the House.
    The Investigative Subcommittee was provided with 
information concerning certain allegations made regarding Rep. 
Jim Kolbe and his interaction with former House pages. The 
Subcommittee was told that those allegations are the subject of 
a preliminary inquiry by federal law enforcement officials. The 
Committee Rules include provisions that address the handling of 
a complaint that alleges a violation of a law or rule that is 
enforced by law enforcement or regulatory authorities. 
Committee Rule 15(f) provides that the Committee ``may defer 
action on a complaint against a Member'' where either of two 
circumstances is present--
    ``when the complaint alleges conduct that the Committee has 
reason to believe is being reviewed by appropriate law 
enforcement or regulatory authorities,'' or
    ``when the Committee determines that it is appropriate for 
the conduct alleged in a complaint to be reviewed initially by 
law enforcement or regulatory authorities.''
    A 1975 Committee report explained the Committee's approach 
in the circumstance of an ongoing investigation by law 
enforcement authorities as follows:

          [W]here an allegation involves a possible violation 
        of statutory law, and the committee is assured that the 
        charges are known to and are being expeditiously acted 
        upon by the appropriate authorities, the policy has 
        been to defer action until the judicial proceedings 
        have run their course. This is not to say the committee 
        abandons concern in statutory matters--rather, it feels 
        it normally should not undertake duplicative 
        investigations pending judicial resolution of such 

    The Subcommittee concludes that the allegations regarding 
Rep. Kolbe are within its jurisdiction, because they involve 
knowledge or information of Members, officers or employees 
regarding potentially improper conduct involving Members and 
pages or former pages. The Subcommittee heard some testimony 
regarding the allegations, but Rep. Kolbe did not provide full 
and complete testimony regarding the allegations, citing the 
pending federal inquiry. The Investigative Subcommittee 
therefore makes no findings and draws no conclusions regarding 
the allegations.
    Rep. Kolbe is retiring from the House at the end of this 
term, and will no longer be within the Committee's jurisdiction 
after his retirement. In light of Rep. Kolbe's imminent 
retirement, as well as the preliminary federal inquiry and the 
Committee's frequent practice of deferring matters involving 
parallel criminal investigations or proceedings, the 
Investigative Subcommittee does not recommend further 
investigative or disciplinary proceedings by the House against 
Rep. Kolbe.

               B. Review of Relevant Standards of Conduct

    Pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and (3)(b)(2), 
and pursuant to Committee Rules 14(a)(3) and 18, the Committee 
has the authority to investigate any alleged violation by a 
Member, officer, or employee of the House, of the Code of 
Official Conduct or one or more law, rule, regulation, or other 
standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of a Member, 
officer, or employee of the House in the performance of his or 
her duties or the discharge of his or her responsibilities.
    The Code of Official Conduct of the House of 
Representatives is set forth in House Rule 23. The 
Investigative Subcommittee determined that only Clause 1 of 
House Rule 23 would be applicable to this matter. House Rule 
23, Clause 1 (the ``Code of Official Conduct'') provides that 
``[a] Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a 
manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.'' As noted 
previously by the Committee, this provision (House Rule 23, 
Clause 1) is the most comprehensive provision of the Code of 
Official Conduct and was adopted in part so that the Committee, 
in applying the Code, would retain ``the ability to deal with 
any given act or accumulation of acts which, in the judgment of 
the committee, are severe enough to reflect discredit on the 
Congress.'' \293\ This provision serves ``as a safeguard for [ 
] the House as a whole.'' \294\
    \293\ House Ethics Manual, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (April 1992) at 12 
(quoting 114 Cong. Rec. 8778 (Apr. 3, 1968); In the Matter of 
Representative Earl F. Hilliard, H. Rep. 107-130, 107th Cong., 1st 
Sess. (July 10, 2001) at 12; In the Matter of Representative E.G. 
``Bud'' Shuster, H. Rep. 106-979, 106th Cong., 2d Sess. (Oct. 16, 2000) 
at 9.
    \294\ Inquiry into the Operation of the Bank of the Sergeant-At-
Arms of the House of Representatives, H. Rep. 102-452, 102d Cong., 2d 
Sess. (March 10, 1992) at 22 (citing H. Rep. 90-1176, 90th Cong., 2d 
Sess. at 17 (1968).
    The Investigative Subcommittee concluded that the Code of 
Ethics for Government Service, which is applicable to Members 
and employees of the House, is also implicated in this 
matter.\295\ In particular, Clause 9 of the Code of Ethics for 
Government Service provides that ``[a]ny person in Government 
service should . . . [e]xpose corruption wherever discovered.''
    \295\ See In the Matter of Representative James A. Traficant, Jr., 
H. Rep. 107-594, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. Vol. 1 (July 19, 2002) 
(Violations of the Code of Ethics for Government Service, along with 
violations of the Code of Official Conduct, formed the basis of a 
Statement of Alleged Violations adopted by an Investigative 
Subcommittee against a Member, and that led to the expulsion from the 
House of that Member.).
    Just as in the case of evidence of corruption, the 
Investigative Subcommittee believes that Members and House 
officials must act in a responsible manner in any case of any 
allegation involving House pages. At a minimum, House Members 
and officials are obligated not to withhold any information 
from any appropriate governmental or supervisory authority that 
relates, or even possibly relates, to the education, care, or 
safety of House pages.

                    C. Conclusions Regarding Conduct

    Broadly stated, the conduct reviewed by the Investigative 
Subcommittee fell into three general categories: Conduct prior 
to the discovery of the e-mails from Rep. Foley to the former 
Alexander page in November 2005; the response to the e-mails 
beginning in November 2005 and continuing into 2006; and 
conduct surrounding the resignation of Rep. Foley in September 
2006. The Investigative Subcommittee's analysis and conclusions 
are set forth below.

1. Treatment of Foley's conduct unrelated to the e-mails

    The evidence establishes that concerns began to arise about 
Rep. Foley's interactions with pages or other young male staff 
members shortly after Rep. Foley took office in 1995. Both Kirk 
Fordham and Jeff Trandahl acknowledged that they had such 
concerns, and that they raised their concerns with Rep. Foley 
directly on multiple occasions. These concerns, as explained by 
these witnesses, were not the result of either knowledge or 
suspicion that Foley was engaged in improper contact with pages 
or other young staffers, but were instead based upon the 
possibility that any close interaction between Foley and pages 
or other young male staff could create an appearance problem 
for Foley in light of his status as a closeted homosexual.
    The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Kirk 
Fordham talked to Scott Palmer about Fordham's concerns about 
Rep. Foley's conduct, and that Palmer later talked to Rep. 
Foley. Similarly, the evidence shows that Jeff Trandahl raised 
his concerns with Ted Van Der Meid on several occasions, but 
Van Der Meid testified that those discussions did not conclude 
with any requests or decisions to take any action.
    Absent any evidence that Rep. Foley was engaging in 
improper contact with pages or other young male employees, the 
Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude that those 
employees who were nevertheless concerned that Rep. Foley's 
conduct presented possible appearance problems acted 
unreasonably in not taking further action at that time. In 
fact, the evidence shows that both Fordham and Trandahl took 
steps to bring their concerns about Rep. Foley's conduct to the 
attention of others who they thought might be able to help 
address their concerns. The Subcommittee similarly finds that, 
given the nature of the concerns, those who were made aware of 
such concerns did not act unreasonably in not taking further 
action at that time.
    The incident involving the former Kolbe page and the 
handling of his communications from Rep. Foley presents a more 
difficult question. The Investigative Subcommittee deliberated 
extensively over whether the evidence supports a finding that 
Rep. Kolbe saw a copy of the sexually graphic instant message 
allegedly received by his former page, or whether, as Rep. 
Kolbe testified, he was only told by the former page that Rep. 
Foley had sent an e-mail or instant message that made the 
former page ``uncomfortable.'' The Investigative Subcommittee 
found the former page to be credible and his testimony to be 
plausible, but given the absence of documentary evidence, the 
denial by Rep. Kolbe of having seen the communication, and the 
possibility that the instant message could have been attached 
to an e-mail sent to Rep. Kolbe but not opened and read, the 
Investigative Subcommittee cannot definitively conclude whether 
Rep. Kolbe saw the instant message.
    In the end, however, the Investigative Subcommittee did not 
consider the answer to the question of whether Rep. Kolbe 
actually saw the instant message sent by Rep. Foley to be 
dispositive in addressing the conduct of Rep. Kolbe and others 
in his office. If Rep. Kolbe was not shown the instant message 
he should have asked for it. He knew that Rep. Foley was gay, 
knew that the communication made the former page (who by this 
time was only a college freshman and was less than two years 
removed from the page program) uncomfortable, and recognized 
that the communication may have been sexual in nature. He also 
knew that he was being asked to confront another Member about 
the Member's conduct on a potentially extremely sensitive 
issue. In light of those facts, the Investigative Subcommittee 
believes that Rep. Kolbe should have asked for the instant 
message (if he did not already have it) in order to make sure 
that his response was the correct one.
    The Investigative Subcommittee does not conclude that Rep. 
Kolbe's handling of this matter supports a conclusion that Rep. 
Kolbe violated any House rule or standard of conduct. Although 
Rep. Kolbe says that he did not see the contents of the 
message, he did take steps to address the former page's 
complaint by asking his administrative assistant to contact 
both Rep. Foley's chief of staff Kirk Fordham and the Clerk. 
The former page received an apology from Rep Foley, which 
indicates that Rep. Foley was told that his communication to 
the former page had made the former page uncomfortable. The 
Investigative Subcommittee therefore does not recommend to the 
full Committee either that the Investigative Subcommittee's 
jurisdiction be expanded or that another Investigative 
Subcommittee be established to name Rep. Kolbe or others on his 
staff as respondents.

2. The handling of the 2005 e-mails

    The former Alexander page's decision to send the Foley e-
mails to his acquaintance on Rep. Alexander's staff in August 
2005 triggered a complicated series of events that led 
eventually to Rep. Foley's resignation over a year later. The 
Investigative Subcommittee finds that few of the individuals 
who ultimately came to participate in those events handled 
their roles in the manner that should be expected given the 
important and sensitive nature of the issues involved.
    Rep. Alexander's Office. The Investigative Subcommittee 
first reviewed the facts surrounding the initial contact with 
Rep. Alexander's office by its former page, which occurred in 
late August contemporaneously with the e-mailed request from 
Rep. Foley for a picture. The junior staff member who received 
copies of the e-mails is no longer a House employee, and the 
Investigative Subcommittee therefore did not attempt to reach a 
conclusion regarding whether her conduct could provide a basis 
for disciplinary action. While the preferred course of action 
would have been to bring the e-mails to the attention of her 
chief of staff or Rep. Alexander rather than sharing them with 
sources outside the House, it is not possible to presume what 
Rep. Alexander would have done had he beennotified of the 
content of e-mails any sooner. Accordingly, the Investigative 
Subcommittee focused its inquiry on the conduct of Rep. Alexander and 
his staff following their discovery that the news media had copies of 
the e-mails.
    The Investigative Subcommittee next carefully reviewed the 
evidence surrounding the November 2005 press inquiry regarding 
the e-mails, which soon led to the notification to the 
Speaker's office, referral to the Clerk's office, and the 
subsequent intervention with Rep. Foley by Jeff Trandahl and 
Rep. Shimkus. The Investigative Subcommittee was particularly 
interested in understanding the wishes of the parents of the 
former Alexander page regarding how the matter was to be 
handled, because a number of witnesses testified that they had 
decided against taking certain actions because of the family's 
desire for privacy, as conveyed by Rep. Alexander's office.
    The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the family did 
wish that the matter be handled in a way that maintained their 
and their son's privacy, but we also conclude that the family's 
desire for privacy could have been accommodated while still 
investigating the matter more aggressively. The family did not 
provide any instructions or directions not to share the e-mails 
with appropriate House Members or staff. By the time of the 
initial press inquiry in November 2005, the former page 
believed that the e-mails had stopped after the former page had 
stopped responding to Rep. Foley's messages. Neither the former 
page nor his parents were seeking to have Rep. Alexander's 
office or anyone else address the matter, and the only reason 
the family was faced with a question about how the matter 
should be handled was because of the press inquiry. 
Understandably, they did not want to see any publicity 
regarding their son, but their testimony is clear that they did 
not impose any conditions on how Rep. Alexander's office should 
    The refusal of Rep. Alexander's office to provide copies of 
the e-mails to the Clerk is not supported by the stated 
concerns for the family's privacy. Although at least one member 
of Rep. Alexander's staff had been aware of the e-mails for 
over two months, Rep. Alexander and his chief of staff learned 
of the e-mails only because at least one newspaper reporter had 
them and called both the family of the page and Rep. 
Alexander's office. The staff's refusal to give those e-mails 
to an officer of the House based on concerns for the family's 
privacy defies logic given that the reporter already had copies 
of them, and that Rep. Alexander's office gave a copy of one of 
the former page's e-mails to the reporter.
    Rep. Alexander's office took steps to bring the existence 
of the e-mails to the attention of others in the House in an 
effort to make sure that Rep. Foley's communications to the 
former page ceased. They contacted the Speaker's office and 
were directed to the Clerk. Those steps brought the e-mails to 
the attention of Rep. Shimkus and Trandahl, who then confronted 
Rep. Foley in November 2005.
    Office of the Speaker. The Speaker's Office responded to 
the request by Rep. Alexander's office by directing the inquiry 
to the Clerk. The Speaker's office had no defined procedure for 
addressing matters such as this that were brought to their 
    The Investigative Subcommittee deliberated over whether the 
Speaker's counsel Ted Van Der Meid should have undertaken a 
more active response to the e-mails, including demanding to see 
their contents and following up as appropriate, and whether his 
failure to do anything after learning about the e-mails could 
be a violation of House rules or standards of conduct. The 
Investigative Subcommittee concludes that Van Der Meid, as the 
Speaker's liaison with the Clerk, and therefore as the staff 
person within the Speaker's office with responsibility for 
page-related issues, showed an inexplicable lack of interest in 
the e-mails and the resolution of the matter with Rep. Foley, 
particularly in light of his prior knowledge regarding concerns 
raised by Jeff Trandahl about Foley's close (albeit not sexual) 
interaction with pages. Van Der Meid had also heard from 
Trandahl about the alleged incident involving Rep. Foley being 
intoxicated outside the page dorm.
    Given Van Der Meid's knowledge regarding Foley's past 
conduct, as well as his role within the Speaker's office, the 
Subcommittee believes that he should have done more to learn 
about the e-mails and how they had been handled. The general 
concerns he had heard about Rep. Foley had now become more 
specific and tied to a particular incident. He knew that the 
matter involved e-mails and a former page, which should have 
raised a sufficient concern to trigger further inquiry on his 
part. The new incident involving the e-mails also should have 
been sufficient to cause Van Der Meid to share what he knew 
with more senior staff in the Speaker's office, or with the 
Speaker directly. The Subcommittee concludes, however, that Van 
Der Meid's conduct does not support a finding that he acted in 
a way that violated House Rules or standards of conduct.
    The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the 
evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, 
at least in passing, about the e-mails by both Majority Leader 
Boehner and Rep. Reynolds in spring 2006. Rep. Alexander did 
not ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do 
anything--each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on 
his own initiative. Like too many others, neither the Majority 
Leader nor Rep. Reynolds showed any curiosity regarding why a 
young former page would have been made uncomfortable by e-mails 
from Rep. Foley. Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds 
asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the 
information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that 
the Speaker took any action.
    The Speaker's reported statement in response to Majority 
Leader Boehner that the matter ``has been taken care of'' is 
some evidence that the Speaker was aware of some concern 
regarding Rep. Foley's conduct prior to his conversation with 
the Majority Leader in spring 2006. Although the Speaker 
testified that he does not recall ever hearing about the e-
mails prior to Foley's resignation in late September, he may 
have been aware of the matter and believed it had been taken 
care of prior to spring 2006, given the involvement of his 
office by Ted Van Der Meid, Mike Stokke and Tim Kennedy in 
November 2005. The Subcommittee notes, however, that each of 
those witnesses has testified under oath that they did not tell 
the Speaker or anyone else in the office about their knowledge 
of the Foley e-mails until after Rep. Foley's resignation on 
September 29, 2006.
    Clerk Trandahl and Rep. Shimkus. As discussed above, Clerk 
Jeff Trandahl had concerns about Rep. Foley's close interaction 
with pages for almost a decade by the time the e-mails were 
brought to his attention in November 2005. Trandahl had taken 
numerous steps to protect the integrity of the page program and 
to try to define and enforce limits on the interaction between 
pages and Members, officers, and staff. The Investigative 
Subcommittee concludes that much of Trandahl's conduct when he 
heard about the e-mails was reasonable: He took responsibility 
for confronting Rep. Foley, he brought in Rep. Shimkus, the 
Chairman of the Page Board, to confront Rep. Foley directly as 
a fellow Member, and he notified his liaison in the Speaker's 
Office, Ted Van Der Meid, after the meeting with Foley. He 
also, according to his testimony, pressed Rep. Alexander's 
chief of staff for copies of the e-mails, but the staff member 
reportedly refused to provide copies, citing the wishes of the 
parents for privacy.
    The Investigative Subcommittee attempted unsuccessfully to 
determine why Trandahl had not sought support from the 
Speaker's office or the members of the Page Board to obtain a 
copy of the e-mails. Trandahl testified that he followed a 
``chain of command'' by dealing solely with his liaison, Van 
Der Meid, in his dealings with the Speaker's office, and 
Trandahl may not have felt that such support would have been 
available. The Investigative Subcommittee believes that given 
the importance of the need to protect the safety and well-being 
of the pages, in the future the Clerk, as an officer of the 
House, should not feel constrained by a chain of command or 
other reporting structure from bringing any such matters 
directly to the attention of the Speaker.
    The Investigative Subcommittee similarly concludes that 
Rep. Shimkus should have demanded copies of all relevant e-
mails or other documents, if not before he confronted Rep. 
Foley, then after. Although there is conflicting testimony on 
whether Rep. Shimkus had excerpts or phrases from the e-mail, 
there is no suggestion by any witness that he had copies of the 
actual e-mails. The Investigative Subcommittee concludes that 
confronting a Member in such a matter without having access to 
allrelevant information was imprudent, but the action did not 
constitute conduct failing to reflect creditably on the House.
    The Investigative Subcommittee also considered whether Rep. 
Shimkus should have informed others on the Page Board about 
Rep. Foley's conduct toward the former page. The Page Board is 
charged by federal statute with ensuring that the page program 
is managed to provide for the welfare of the pages. As the Page 
Board Chairman, Rep. Shimkus was the logical person for 
Trandahl to contact regarding an issue related to a former 
page. But once made aware of such a concern, Rep. Shimkus also 
had an obligation to determine whether the issue brought to him 
by Trandahl was one that should be addressed by the Page Board 
rather than by him individually. The Investigative Subcommittee 
was not persuaded by the argument that the Page Board did not 
have jurisdiction over the matter because it involved a former 
page rather than a current one. Rep. Foley's e-mails to the 
former Alexander page began while he was still a page, and the 
e-mails the former page characterized as ``sick'' were sent 
within a month after he left the page program. The Subcommittee 
finds that at a minimum Rep. Shimkus had an obligation to learn 
more facts regarding the e-mails before concluding that he 
should handle the matter himself without informing the other 
members of the Page Board or seeking their input.

3. Rep. Foley's resignation

    Rep. Foley's resignation and the events that caused it were 
the focus of substantial attention in the U.S. media in the 
following days. Understandably, many of those who may have had 
some knowledge about Rep. Foley's conduct felt the need to make 
public statements as their roles began to be scrutinized by the 
press and others. Beginning the evening after the resignation, 
several Republican Members and staff met in the Capitol for the 
purpose of discussing what they knew in order to respond to the 
media. At least one of the Members who was invited to the 
meeting, Rep. Tom Reynolds, decided not to attend after 
consulting with his counsel, Randy Evans, who advised him that 
attending such a meeting was inadvisable given that there 
likely would be an Ethics Committee investigation into the 
    By the next day, however, Evans who was then acting as 
counsel to Speaker Hastert and others in the Speaker's office, 
was coordinating the effort to prepare a statement to be issued 
by the Speaker's office describing the office's knowledge 
regarding Rep. Foley's conduct. The Investigative Subcommittee 
understands the need in a political environment to respond 
quickly to perceived negative press reports. Such a need is 
particularly acute where, as here, much of the early reporting 
failed to make the important distinction between the e-mails to 
the former Alexander page and the sexually graphic instant 
messages which caused Rep. Foley to resign. As explained above, 
the Investigative Subcommittee heard no evidence that anyone in 
the House--from either party--was aware of the instant messages 
before they were published on September 29, and the 
Investigative Subcommittee does not fault the Speaker's office 
for attempting to explain that distinction on September 30.
    However, in the Investigative Subcommittee's view, the 
efforts by the Speaker's office to prepare a statement under 
the direction of counsel could have had the additional effect 
of inhibiting the Investigative Subcommittee's ability to 
secure evidence from witnesses without interference resulting 
from efforts to compare and contrast recollections prior to 
testimony before the Committee. This effect was compounded by 
the appearance of Evans and a law partner as counsel for the 
Speaker, Stokke and Kennedy during their testimony before the 

                           D. Recommendations

    The Investigative Subcommittee makes the following 
    The current operation of the page program should be 
reviewed to ensure that its structure and management remain 
sound. The program was restructured previously after the page 
scandal in the early 1980's, and a review should be undertaken 
to determine whether the changes made at that time remain 
appropriate and sufficient to protect the safety and well-being 
of pages in the page program.
    The Page Board should meet on a regularly-scheduled basis 
to ensure that the page program is being managed appropriately 
and that the Clerk and others who work to administer the 
program have the necessary resources to address any issues that 
might arise. Regular meetings would also make it easier for the 
Clerk and others who are more involved with the day-to-day 
management of the program to bring any issues they may be aware 
of to the attention of the Page Board.
    Consideration should be given to constituting the Page 
Board with equal representation from both parties, in order to 
lessen the potential for political considerations to influence 
the handling of issues regarding the safety and well-being of 
    The Clerk, as an Officer of the House, should have a clear 
ability to bring matters regarding the safety and well-being of 
the pages directly to the attention of the Speaker as well as 
the Page Board.
    Members and staff should be better educated regarding the 
management and structure of the page program, so that all 
Members and staff understand the role of pages in the House and 
understand the appropriate ways to address any concerns 
regarding the welfare of pages.
    All Members, officers, and employees of the House must 
pursue specific and non-specific allegations of improper 
interaction between a Member or House employee and a 
participant in the House Page Program--even if the allegations 
are not readily verifiable or involve the sensitive subject of 
a Member's personal relationship with a young person. This 
obligation applies regardless of whether the Member and page 
are of the same or opposite sex.