CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT Review No. 13-7135 The Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (the ?Board?), by a vote of no less than four members, on November 22, 2013, adopted the following report and ordered it to be transmitted to the Committee on Ethics of the United States House of Representatives. SUBJECT: Representative Luis Gutierrez NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: From 2003 to 2013, Representative Luis Gutierrez retained Doug Scofield, his former chief of staff, to provide certain services to his congressional office. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Sco?eld, who had opened his own consulting and lobbying firm, was to provide ?training? and other ?non-legislative? assistance to the congressional of?ce. Representative Gutierrez?s congressional office paid Mr. Scofield?s ?rm over $590,000 since 2003 for these services. Since March 2008, Representative Guteirrez?s congressional office paid Mr. Scofield over $345,000 for these services. If Representative Gutierrez used funds from his Members? Representational Allowance for an impermissible purpose to retain an individual to provide services to his congressional office that more closely resembled those provided by an employee or consultant, rather than a contractor then he may have violated House rules and federal law. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the Committee on Ethics further review the allegation, as there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Gutierrez used ?mds from his MRA for an impermissible purpose to retain an individual to provide services to his congressional office that more closely resembled those provided by an employee or consultant, rather than a contractor in violation of federal law and House rules. vorns IN THE AFFIRMATIVE: 6 vorns IN THE NEGATIVE: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 OF THE BOARD OR STAFF DESIGNATED TO PRESENT THIS REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON ETHICS: Omar S. Ashmawy, Staff Director Chief Counsel. CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW Review No. 13-7135 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .. 3 A. Summary of Allegations .. 3 B. Jurisdictional Statement .. 3 C. Procedural History .. 4 D. Summary of Investigative Activity .. 4 REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ MAY HAVE USED FUNDS FROM HIS TO RETAIN HIS FORNIER CHIEF OF STAFF AS AN IMPERMISSIBLE CONSULTANT TO HIS CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE .. 5 A. Laws, Regulations, Rules, and Standards of Conduct .. 5 B. Representative Gutierrez Retained His Former Chief of Staff to Provide Services to His Congressional Office in April 2003 .. 6 C. Representative Gutierrez Paid Mr. Sco?eld with Funds from His MRA for Services That May Have Been Beyond Those Permitted by the House .. 13 D. Mr. Sco?eld May Have Engaged in Lobbying Activity While He Was Retained by Representative Gutierrez?s Congressional Office .. 26 E. Representative Gutierrez Terminated the Services of Mr. Sco?eld in June 2013 .. 29 . DOUGLAS SCOFIELD, JENNICE FUENTES, AND ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ REFUSED TO COOPERATE WITH THE OCE REVIEW .. 29 . CONCLUSION .. 30 INFORNIATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS .. 30 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FINDINGS OF FACT AND CITATIONS TO LAW Review No. 13-7135 On November 22, 2013, the Board of the Office of Congressional Ethics (the ?Board?) adopted the following ?ndings of fact and accompanying citations to laws, regulations, rules, and standards of conduct (in italics). The Board notes that these ?ndings do not constitute a determination of whether or not a violation actually occurred. INTRODUCTION 1. In or around April 2003, Representative Luis Gutierrez retained Douglas Sco?eld, his former chief of staff, to provide certain services to his congressional office. Pursuant to the retainer agreement, Mr. Sco?eld was to provide Representative Gutierrez?s congressional office with ?[s]taff development and training? and other ?non- legislative, general office services.? For these services, Mr. Scofreld was paid a fee of $4,500 to $6,000 per month. The services that l\/Ir. Sco?eld provided, however, appear to have exceeded the permissible services that non-employees may provide under House rules and regulations. A. Summary of Allegations Representative Luis Gutierrez may have violated House rules and federal law by using funds from his Members? Representational Allowance to compensate his former chief of staff for impermissible services. . The OCE Board recommends that the Committee on Ethics further review the allegation, as there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Gutierrez used funds from his NBA for an impermissible purpose to retain an individual to provide services to his congressional office that more closely resembled those provided by an employee or consultant, rather than a contractor in violation of federal law and House rules. B. Jurisdictional Statement The allegations that were the subj ect of this review concern Representative Luis Gutierrez, a Member of the United States House of Representatives from the 4th District of Illinois. The Resolution the United States House of Representatives adopted creating the Office of Congressional Ethics directs that, review shall be undertaken . . . by the board of any alleged violation that occurred before the date of adoption of this CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 10. 11. 12. resolution.? The House adopted this Resolution on March 1 1, 2008. Because the conduct under review occurred after March 11, 2008, review by the Board is in accordance with the Resolution. C. Procedural History The OCE received a written request for a preliminary review in this matter signed by at least two members of the Board on July 25, 2013. The preliminary review commenced on July 26, 2013.2 The preliminary review was scheduled to end on August 24, 2013. At least three members of the Board voted to initiate a second-phase review in this matter on August 23, 2013. The second-phase review commenced on August 25, 2013.3 The second-phase review was scheduled to end on October 8, 2013. The Board voted to extend the second-phase review by an additional period of fourteen days on September 26, 2013. The additional period ended on October 22, 2013. The Board voted to refer the matter to the Committee on Ethics and adopted these ?ndings on November 22, 2013. The report and its ?ndings in this matter were transmitted to the Committee on Ethics on December 4, 2013. D. Summary of Investigative Activity The OCE requested and received testimonial and, in some cases, documentary information from the following sources: (1) Representative Luis Gutierrez; (2) Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff; (3) Representative Gutierrez?s Communications Director; (4) Representative Gutierrez?s Counsel; (5) Representative Gutierrez?s Legislative Assistant; (6) Representative Gutierrez?s Legislative Correspondent; (7) Representative Gutierrez?s District Director; 1 H. Res 895, 110th Cong. (2008) (as amended). 2 A preliminary review is ?requested? in writing by members of the Board of the OCE. The request for a preliminary review is ?received? by the OCE on a date certain. According to the Resolution, the timeframe for conducting a preliminary review is thirty days from the date of receipt of the Board?s request. 3 According to the Resolution, the Board must vote on whether to conduct a second-phase review in a matter before the expiration of the thirty-day preliminary review. If the Board votes for a second-phase, the second-phase begins when the preliminary review ends. The second-phase review does not begin on the date of the Board vote. 4 II. CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended (8) Representative Gutierrez?s Congressional Aide (9) Representative Gutierrez?s Congressional Aide (10) Representative Gutierrez?s Former Senior Legislative Assistant; (1 1) Representative Gutierrez?s Former Legislative Assistant; and (12) Former Committee on House Administration Administrative Director. 13. Douglas Sco?eld, Representative Gutierrez?s former chief of staff, who was later retained to provide services to his congressional office, initially provided documents to the OCE in response to a Request for Information. However, Mr. Sco?eld later declined to be interviewed by the OCE, ceased providing documents in response to the Request for Information, and was determined to be a non-cooperating witness. 14. Representative Gutierrez?s former chief of staff Jennice Fuentes declined to be interviewed by the OCE. Ms. Fuentes was determined to be a non-cooperating witness. 15. Representative Gutierrez?s former deputy chief of staff Enrique Fernandez declined to be interviewed by the OCE. Mr. Fernandez was determined to be a non-cooperating witness. REPRESENTATIVE GUTIERREZ MAY HAVE USED FUNDS FROM HIS MRA TO RETAIN HIS FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF AS AN IMPERMISSIBLE CONSULTANT TO HIS CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE A. Laws, Regulations, Rules, and Standards of Conduct 16. 31 U.S.C. 1301(a) "Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made. . . 17. House Rules Under House Rule 23 clause 1, Members ?shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House. Under House Rule 23 clause 2, Members ?shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House . . . . 18. House Ethics Manual ?The MRA may only be used for o?icial and representational expenses. The MRA may not be used to pay for any expenses related to activities or events that are primarily social in nature, personal expenses, campaign or political expenses, or House committee 5 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondiselosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended expenses. Members may be personally liable for misspent funds or expenditures exceeding the MRA. ?4 ?The Members Handbook provides examples of items for which reimbursement with the official allowances may be permitted, as well as a list of prohibited expenditures. . . . Included among impermissible uses are expenditures for. . . consultants. ?5 19. Committee on House Administration Members? Handbook ?During each session of Congress, each Member has a single Members Representational Allowance (MRA available to support the conduct ofo?icial and representational duties to the district from which he or she is elected. Ordinary and necessary expenses incurred by the Member or the Member ?s employees within the United States, its territories, and possessions in support of the conduct of the Member ?s o?icial and representational duties to the district from which he or she is elected are reimbursable in accordance with the regulations contained in this Members Congressional Handbook. ?6 ?Pursuant to 2 US. C. 72a, only committees are authorized to procure the temporary services of consultants. Member o?ices are not authorized to procure consultant services. ?7 ?Members may contract with firms or individuals only for general, non?legislative and non-?nancial, o?ice services equipment maintenance, systems integration, data entry, sta?? training, photography, custodial services, web services) fora speci?ed time period not to exceed the Member's current term. Such contracts are reimbursable. Such contractors are not employees of the House and are ineligible for government?provided personnel benefits. Contractors do not count against the Member's Employee Ceiling. Members are advised to consult the Committee on House Administration when entering into such contracts. ?8 B. Representative Gutierrez Retained His Former Chief of Staff to Provide Services to His Congressional Office in April 2003 20. Representative Gutierrez initially met Mr. Sco?eld in 1992, during his first campaign for the United States House of Representatives.9 Mr. Sco?eld managed Representative 4 House Ethics Manual (2008) at 323 (citations omitted). 5 Id. at 325. 6 Members Congressional Handbook (2012Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Oct. 22, 2013 (?Rep. Gutierrez (Exhibit 1 at 13- CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended Gutierrez?s campaign for that election cycle and, after Representative Gutierrez was elected to the House, became his congressional chief of staff.? 21. From approximately January 1992 to December 2002, Mr. Scofreld was employed by Representative Gutierrez as his congressional chief of staff.? 22. In late 2002, Mr. Scofreld left Representative Gutierrez?s congressional of?ce to take a position in the administration of the newly elected Illinois governor.? Representative Gutierrez?s legislative director at the time, ennice Fuentes, succeeded Mr. Scofreld as chief of staff.? 23. After only a few months working for the new governor, Mr. Sco?eld called Representative Gutierrez to tell him that he had made a mistake in joining the governor?s administration and intended to resign. 14 24. After resigning his position with the governor, Mr. Sco?eld and his wife started a consulting firm, the Scofield Company.? The Scofield Company is described as a strategic public relations, communications services, online strategy development, and government relations ?rm. 16 25. The Scofield Company registered as a lobbying entity, and Mr. Sco?eld registered as a state lobbyist, in Illinois in May 2003.? The Sco?eld Company website listed a number of the firm?s clients, including the Chicago Botanic Garden and the Greater Chicago Food Depository.? 26. When Mr. Sco?eld called to tell Representative Gutierrez that he was resigning from his position with the governor to start a consulting firm, Representative Gutierrez told Mr. Sco?eld that he wanted to be one of his first clients.? 27. Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that he had never Wanted to lose Mr. Sco?eld as a congressional employee, so while he was saddened that the position with the governor had not worked out, he was happy he could ?get Doug back.?20 28. After speaking with Mr. Scofreld, Representative Gutierrez instructed Ms. Fuentes, his new chief of staff, to hire Mr. Scof1eld.21 He told Ms. Fuentes that ?we?d have Doug 1? Id. Id. at 121d. at 13?7135_0oo3. *3 Id. ?4 Id. 15 Id. The firm has also been known by the name ?Sco?eld Communications.? For ease of understanding, the name ?Sco?eld Company? will be used in this referral. 16 The Scofreld Company, (archived June 23, 2013). 17 Sco?eld Communications Lobbying Entity Search Information, 2003, available at 18 The Sco?eld Company, Clients, (archived June 23, 2013). :3 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at Id. CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended back on staf and that he would be a ?consu1tant.?22 Representative Gutierrez did not recall any further details about his conversation with Ms. Fuentes, nor did he recall any additional discussions with Ms. Fuentes after instructing her to hire Mr. Scof1eld.23 Representative Gutierrez believes that Ms. Fuentes and Mr. Scofield negotiated the terms of the agreement between the congressional office and Mr. Scofield?s firm, including the fees to be paid to Mr. He explained that Mr. Sco?eld had ten years experience as a congressional chief of staff, while Ms. Fuentes was herself a fifteen-year veteran of Congress, so he trusted them to work out the logistics of the relationship.? 29. 30. Because neither Ms. Fuentes nor Mr. Scofield agreed to be interviewed by the OCE as part of this review, the OCE was unable to determine what discussions they may have had at the time the agreement was negotiated. 31. Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that he had no discussions with Mr. Sco?eld about potential con?icts of interest between work Mr. Scofield was to perform for the congressional office and work he did for other clients.Id. CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 32. The initial agreement between Representative Gutierrez?s congressional office and Mr. Scof1eld?s firm was signed by Representative Gutierrez on April 1, 2003.27 inn? Proposal for Reintiiml Services Srntield and the 0ffii:e Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez March 31. 21103 The Omen Luis V, Giirlerrizz will rclain Sco?eld to provide min-legislative, gciiural o?ice srrviaea to assist Cciigriassninii Giilierrcz in Isis cffcins to serve the people oftlii: Congressional District nftha Slaw Slco?eld Communications is an contraiclor with sole responsibility for and paying taxes. with respect in services under this agreement. Scope erwurli Work may include: 0 staff den-cl-ciprairsil and training: which uuiald include the following noii-legislative iIl'C3?u' 0 Assisting staffur slam? in the areas remarks or press - Assisting or training staffwilh or iiurrimuuity amieacli. e?bns. I Providing sIaI'l'wr'lli guidance and training as determiner! by this or of -Staff?. - Amending nor:-legislative meetings as dc-tcmiiried member at? at Chief iifslii? Assisting or training the stiilitri pulaliclzc and activities nf?migitssmaii Gutierrez '3 Gill-if and appropriate-. arms as determined by till: Member i>fCong;rc5$ and Chiefotf Staff. Fees This ;igm:mi:nt?s duration. hours and fees arc as follows: I-?min to 600103 Scoilcld Conimunicailons will provida the services detailed ln '(l?li3 ?Scope at a rate ??35,500 per meiilli. liugliining '7lI.v'03 Sco?rld Cornmunicallons will pro-ildi: the services dulaileci in iiu?: 3? it ii?-l-7 of $4,550 per The client will ruiiubursi: Sizoilcld Fur eilpurisea ruliitud to flu?: W01?l<. such as milragutravel (fur cliitaiwes greater than iriilrs). messenger service and ether expenses incurred direcliy for the purposes ufllic af?ie memlier "lites: expanses will he speci?cally ltcinizcd and riaciimcnterl with biv.-eckly invoices. This shail continue until lei-tuinatcii by either pemy on ?fteen {l 5} days wtialcrl iiolica. Ciin?dcnliality and Bll'iI'i.'s Seolieid Comrnunicatirius will sciialy repre.-ieriz the interests afllie Client and will not scektti influciicc executive, udminisiralivr: or legislative action on behalf of any third party in the ofservicc to the rricmlnizr cl'C!angreas. During and after this agreement, Sca?ekt (jnnirnuriicalinns shall not use for its personal benefit, or disciose to or use far rim direct iridiruct bene?t ofany entity other the mcnibcr of Congress airy con?dential infcmimicn relating to or dealing with business opnriilicns -or acliviiliis of client. - we agrento the pmvisiians ciftlils proposal: 03 Boug Dare Cari: iilcnliuns . title (Print) A Bm .05 ??ute: 33. When asked if he approved the terms of the agreement, Representative Gutierrez said that he must have, as it was his signature on the initial agreement.? He did not, however, have any specific recollection of signing the agreement.? He added that he had not read the agreement ?With any attention to detail? until after his office received Opress inquiries about the of?ce?s relationship with Mr. Sco?eld in or around June 2013.3 34. The agreement provided that Mr. Scofield?s firm was to provide ?non?1egislative, general office services to assist Congressman Gutierrez in his efforts to serve the people of the 27 Proposal for Retained Services, Sco?eld Communications and the Office of Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez, April 1, 2003 (?Sco?eld Agreement?) (Exhibit 2 at 13?7135_001 1-0012). 28 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 4th Congressional District of the State of I11inois.?31 Speci?cally, the agreement stated that these services may include the following: 1. Staff development and training; which could include the following non- legislative areas: a. Assisting staff or training staff in the areas of preparing remarks or press events. b. Assisting or training staff with casework or community outreach efforts. c. Providing staff with guidance and training as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chief of Staff. 2. Attending non-legislative meetings as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chief of Staff. 3. Assisting or training the staff to publicize programs and activities of Congressman Gutierrez. 4. Other relevant and appropriate areas as determined by the Member of Congress and Chief of Staff.32 35. The initial agreement was effective as of March 24, 2003, but no end date was specif1ed.3 3 When asked if he contemplated a specific period of time in which Mr. Sco?eld would provide his services, Representative Gutierrez said that Mr. Sco?eld would still be serving today if not for media reports about the arrangement.34 36. The agreement provided that Mr. Scofield?s firm was to be paid $5,500 per month through June 30, 2003, and $4,500 per month thereafter.? Representative Gutierrez said that while he was not involved in negotiating the terms of the agreement, he knew what Mr. Sco?eld was being paid and was with the arrangements.? 37. The agreement included a ?Con?dentiality and Ethics? provision, which stated that the Sco?eld ?rm ?will solely represent the interests of the Client and will not seek to in?uence executive, administrative, or legislative action on behalf of any third party in the performance of service to the member of Congress.?37 This provision also stated that 31 Sco?eld Agreement (Exhibit 2 at 32 Id. 33 34 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 35 Sco?eld Agreement asxhibit 2 at 36 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 37 Sco?eld Agreement (Exhibit 2 at 10 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended the Sco?eld ?rm would not use or disclose any con?dential information relating to the activities or operations of the congressional of?ce.? 38. The agreement between the congressional of?ce and Mr. Sco?eld?s ?rm was renewed each Congress.? The language of the agreement appears to have remained unchanged from its initial version until it was canceled in 2013, a period of over ten years.? 39. Mr. Sco?eld?s ?rm was paid $4,500 per month for his services from August 2003 through May 2010.41 Beginning in June 2010, his fee increased to $6,000 per month and remained at that level until the agreement was canceled.? Representative Gutierrez did not know Why the amount of the fee changed.? 40. Since Mr. Sco?eld was initially retained by Representative Gutierrez?s congressional of?ce, he has been paid a total of approximately $595,000 for his services.? Since March 2008, Mr. Sco?eld has been paid approximately $345,000 for his services.? 33 Id. 39 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 40 In addition to the initial agreement, the OCE was provided copies of the agreement for calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2013. See Exhibit 3 at ?See U.S. House of Representatives, Statements of Disbursements of the House, 2003 to 2013, available at 42 Id. According to the Statements of Disbursements of the House, it appears that Mr. Sco?eld?s ?rm may not have received payments for three months over the course of the relationship with Rep. Gutierrez?s of?ce. Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 44 See U.S. House of Representatives, Statements of Disbursements of the House, 2003 to 2013, available at 45 Id 5 11 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 41. Documents provided to the OCE by Representative Gutierrez include a fax transmission cover sheet, dated April 1, 2003, from then-chief of staff Jennice Fuentes to a staff member from the Committee on House Administration asking for review of the proposed agreement with Mr. Sco?eld.46 "Luis V. G?uti?rre:: 2367 Raybiilrn Washington, 20515 Tel. (202) 225-1 Fax. (202) 2225-7810 Fax Transmis sinn Cover Sheet April 1, 2003 Dmwen Fcist, House Administration Jaimie:-. Fuentes, MKS: 5995?? NUMBER OF PAGIES COVER SHEET): If you have any prol.ait::n1s with this transmission, please 228-?. Thank you. NOTE: As per conversation, la!? ms: [mew if If this contract falls within what is acceptable under the current regulaiirms. I appreciate assistance with this matter. 3a-unite [marries 225 225-? {climc? line) 42. The documents provided by Representative Gutierrez do not include any response from the CHA to the request for review of the proposed agreement.? 43. Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff expressed her belief that the agreement must have been approved by both CHA and the House Finance Office, as the invoices later submitted by Representative Gutierrez?s congressional office were paid.48 46 Fax Transmission from Jennice Fuentes, Rep. Gutierrez?s former Chief of Staff, to Staff Member, House Administration Committee, April 1, 2003 (Exhibit 4 at 47 As part of this review, OCE staff consulted with current CHA staff regarding the request from Ms. Fuentes, but CHA staff was unable to locate any written response to Ms. Fuentes? request. 43 See e?mail from Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff to CHA Minority Staff Director, at al., June 3, 2013 assume the approval may have been verbal . . . and must have been effectuated because the contract began to be paid soon thereafter.??) (Exhibit 5 at 13-7135H0025). 12 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 44. The CHA staff member to whom the fax was directed had no specific recollection of handling the request from Ms. Fuentes.? He explained that his general practice would have been to refer the request to the CHA officers? team for review.? He did not recall what guidance was provided regarding the agreement.? 45. Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that he thought Ms. Fuentes reached out to both the CHA and the Committee on Ethics at the time the office retained Mr. Scof1eld.52 Because Ms. Fuentes declined to cooperate with the review, the OCE was unable to determine what actions she took with respect to the retention of Mr. Scofield. C. Representative Gutierrez Paid Mr. Scofield with Funds from His for Services That May Have Been Bevond Those Permitted bv the House 46. The OCE reviewed documents provided by Representative Gutierrez and by Mr. Scofield, and interviewed current and former members of Representative Gutierrez?s congressional staff, to determine the scope of services actually provided by Mr. Sco?eld. The OCE found that the services he performed more closely resembled those performed by an employee or consultant someone who provides professional advice or services53 than those performed by a contractor someone who performs a discrete task or job, such as maintenance, data entry, custodial services, or staff training.? 47. According to Representative Gutierrez, Mr. Scofield was retained to assist Ms. Fuentes in her new role as chief of staff; to develop other congressional staff; and to help with media and press matters.? Mr. Scofield was also retained to help Representative Gutierrez draft remarks and speeches and to help him better communicate on issues.56 48. Representative Gutierrez said that Mr. Scofield reported to his chief of staff and to him.57 He said that Mr. Scofield worked with his chief of staff, communications director, and district staff, but he did not believe that Mr. Scofield worked with the legislative staff.? Representative Gutierrez added that Mr. Sco?eld would work with anyone on the congressional staff who needed help, noting that Mr. Scofield brought with him his previous experience serving as chief of staff.? 49 Memorandum of Interview of Former Committee on House Administration Administrative Director, Sept. 23, 2013 (Exhibit Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 53 See The Members? Handbook states that, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 72a, only House committees, not Member offices, are authorized to procure consultant services. See Members Congressional Handbook at 5. 54 See Members Congressional Handbook at 5. 55 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 55 Id. at 13?7135_o0o5CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. Representative Gutierrez often worked personally with Mr. Sco?eld while he was providing services to the congressional office.60 He described Mr. Sco?eld as the type of person he could call at 1:00 a.m. to ask him to draft a speech he needed to give thenext day.? According to Representative Gutierrez, Mr. Sco?eld was on call Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, who had served as legislative director before assuming the chief of staff position in early 2013, described l\/Ir. Sco?eld as a general . resource for the congressional staff.63 She said that when Mr. Sco?eld was first retained by the congressional office in 2003, he was described as ?there to help.?64 Sz?cz??Devel0pmem? and Training While Mr. Scof1eld?s agreement with Representative Gutierrez?s congressional office provides that his services were to include ?[s]taff development and training,? it does not appear that formal training was a signi?cant part of the services Mr. Sco?eld provided. Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff told the OCE that she had never been formally trained by l\/Ir. Sco?eld; rather, he was available to her and others in the congressional office as a ?resource? and a ?mentor.?65 She recalled participating in only one staff retreat, held in 2004, during her time with Representative Gutierrez; Mr. Sco?eld served as a facilitator of this retreat.66 Similarly, Representative Gutierrez?s Communications Director described Mr. Scofield?s role as a resource, noting that his role was more to provide advice than to train.67 When asked if he had ever been formally trained by Mr. Sco?eld, the Communications Director said that he had had a few sessions with l\/Ir. Sco?eld over the telephone, in which Mr. Scofield walked him through Chicago press and politics.? The Communications Director also noted that Mr. Sco?eld worked with district staff in setting up a new district of?ce in Cicero, Illinois.69 In addition to Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff and Communications Director, the OCE interviewed several current and former members of Representative Gutierrez?s 6? Id. 61 Id. at 13?7135_0o04. ?3 Id. 63 Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, Oct. 15, 2013 (?Chief of Staff (Exhibit 13-7135_0036. 67 Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, Oct. 15, 2013 (?Communications girector (Exhibit 8 at Id. 691:1. at13-7135_0041. 14 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110m Congress as Amended congressional staff, including legislative and district staff. Each of the staff members said that they had never been formally trained by Mr. Sco?eld.? General O?ice Oversight 55. Mr. Sco?eld appears to have had some role in overseeing the operations of Representative Gutierrez?s congressional office between 2003 and 2013. For example, after a staff reorganization in the congressional district offices, Representative Gutierrez asked Mr. Sco?eld and a district staff member, Congressional Aide to work together to ensure that district office operations ran smoothly during the transition.? 56. Speci?cally, on August 25, 2012, Representative Gutierrez sent an email to Ms. Fuentes regarding district office operations.? In the email, Representative Gutierrez proposed changes to how the district offices operated.? 57. Representative Gutierrez later forwarded the email he sent to Ms. Fuentes to Mr. Scof1eld.74 When asked why he forwarded the email to Mr. Sco?eld, Representative Gutierrez said that he did so for training purposes, as Mr. Sco?eld would be helping Ms. Fuentes who by that time had served as chief of staff for approximately ten years to address district office operations.? He added that Mr. Sco?eld was himself based in Chicago and could bring ?fresh eyes? to the situation.76 70 See Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s District Director, Oct. 1, 2013 (Exhibit 9 at Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Congressional Aide Oct. 1, 2013 (Exhibit 10 at Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Counsel, Sept. 27, 2013 (?Counsel (Exhibit 11 at 13- 7135_0052); Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Legislative Assistant, Sept. 27, 2013 (?Legislative Assistant (Exhibit 12 at Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Legislative Correspondent, Sept. 27, 2013 (?Legislative Correspondent (Exhibit 13 at Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Former Senior Legislative Assistant, Sept. 19, 2013 (?Former Senior Legislative Assistant (Exhibit 14 at 13-7 and Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Former Legislative Assistant, Sept. 24, 2013 (?Former Legislative Assistant (Exhibit 15 at 71 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at Z: E?mail from Rep. Gutierrez to Jennice Fuentes, Aug. 25, 2012 (Exhibit 16 at Id. 74 E-mail from Rep. Gutierrez to Doug Sco?eld, Aug. 25, 2012 (Exhibit 16 at :2 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at Id. 15 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 58subsequent email, however, Representative Gutierrez appears to have directed Mr. Scofield to engage in more than training of Ms. Fuentes. On September 3, 2012, Representative Gutierrez sent an email to Mr. Scofield and Ms. Fuentes, informing them of his decision to have Mr. Scofield and Congressional Aide #1 evaluate district office operations.? Frem: V. Bate: ?lepleniber-3. ZUIB 9:15:10 PM CDT Tm Fuentes Doug Sco?cid Sent from myi Effective itnnte-zliately Theresa Reyes wilt be in of tiar?i side office and Gee will be in charge {if Cicero office. Slim Coieinnti wiil supervise their}. Each Colentaai wit! irteet with iiotli. (list;-Bet directors rutcl tzmret issues. as necessary. $ttl wili be placed in salatje will be rttijttsicri zlceert?ngly. Doug and Slim will district operations ant! report ciltanges and to me. The DC staff? wit] lizwe 11:: rule in the Chicago opemtions. All staff annual reviews will be eenduciecl by Elettg and Siim. The 912 staff will have support mic only in the illiticttgo epcrationis. Slim -and will an evaluation: of Cicero $131131! llteir six month anti tnalte as to their Please Cicero staff el'1lu'2 event. Jennies wit} comisme to supervise EC staff. According to Congressional Aide this was a period of transition in the district office leadership, and Representative Gutierrez asked him to participate in meetings with Mr. Scofield and the two new district coordinators to foster a cooperative atmosphere.? Congressional Aide #1 said that he met with 1\/lr. Scofield and the district coordinators for about one hour each week, for a period of about ?ve weeks, to develop office policies and procedures, to train the new coordinators, and to make sure that the two district offices were working together.? Congressional Aide #1 said that, despite Representative Gutierrez?s instruction that Mr. Scofield and he prepare staff evaluations, he did not conduct any staff evaluations, and he did not know if Mr. Scofield evaluated any district staff members.8? Representative Gutierrez?s current Chief of Staff recalled that, around this time, several new district staff members were hired or promoted, and that Mr. Scofield was asked to help ?get them up to speed.?31 In addition, the Chief of Staff said that she had one or two meetings in the district with district office staff and W. Scofield about setting up a new Cicero, Illinois office.82 77 E-mail from Rep. Gutierrez to Jennice Fuentes and Doug Scofield, Sept. 3, 2012 (Exhibit 17 at 78 Memorandum of Interview of Rep. Gutierrez?s Congressional Aide #1 (?Congressional Aide #1 (Exhibit Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 13?7135_o03 5). Id. 16 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110m Congress as Amended 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. According to the Chief of Staff, Mr. Scofreld just listened at these meetings; she did not recall him making any speci?c recommendations as to the running of the new off1ce.83 The Chief of Staff said that these meetings in the district were the only meetings she attended with Mr. Scof1eld.84 She could not recall any meetings she attended with Mr. Scofield in Washington, Dc.? Also on September 3, 2012, Representative Gutierrez sent an email to Ms. Fuentes and Mr. Scofreld directing that Ms. Fuentes and the legislative director were not to be absent ?orn the congressional of?ce on the same days.86 When asked why he included Mr. Sco?eld in this administrative directive, Representative Gutierrez said that this was part of Mr. Sco?eld?s training of Ms. Fuentes who had been in that position since May 2002 and that Mr. Sco?eld was helping her with her duties.? Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that whenever there was a crisis that needed to be handled, he would direct his staff to ?Call Doug.?88 His Chief of Staff told the OCE that when ?trouble? would hit, Mr. Sco?eld was there as a resource to the off1ce.89 Commtmiccztions Work Mr. Sco?eld appears to have had a significant role with respect to the communications function in Representative Gutierrez?s congressional of?ee. The Chief of Staff told the OCE that Mr. Sco?eld worked primarily on communications-related issues, and that she would go to Mr. Sco?eld with communications?related questions.9? According to Representative Gutierrez?s Communications Director, Mr. Scof1eld?s duties included acting as a resource for him and as a second set of eyes on communications matters.? He added that Mr. Scofield was also a resource for the Chief of Staff on communications issues and probably other things, though he could not identify any of the other things.? He described Mr. Sco?eld as someone whom both the Chief of Staff and Representative Gutierrez trusted.93 According to the Communications Director, Mr. Sco?eld would occasionally review or edit his work, and that sometimes the Communications Director would review written E-mail from Rep. Gutierrez to Jennice Fuentes and Doug Sco?eld, Sept. 13, 2012 (Exhibit 19 at 87 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at *3 Id. at 39 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 9? Id. at13?7135_0034. 9? Communications Director MOI (Exhibit CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 70. 71. 72. 73. work produced by Mr. Sco?eld.94 Sometimes Representative Gutierrez would ask the Communications Director if he had run a particular draft by Mr. Scof1eld.95 A memorandum provided to the OCE, from Representative Gutierrez to both his Communications Director and Mr. Sco?eld, entitled ?Coordinating Vacation Time,? instructs the Communications Director to coordinate his absences from the congressional office with Mr. Sco?eld ?to ensure that [Regpresentative Gutierrez?s] office always has press and communications? coverage . . . 6 MEMURANDUM TD: Rivliu and {long Seefieht Cengreannan Luis Gutierrez RE: Ceerdiriating Vaea?nil Time The serves as reinirirfer that Deng Riviin slmutzi that he his absences frere the sueir as fer vacation and time off, with Bong Srze?eid. My inteniien with this jpeliey is in cztsure that my effiee alivays has press and eeverage, sheelezl an unexpeetw press inqtzilv arise whiie Deng i?.iv1i1iis 03.11 ef the affine. Thanlk yea far your attentien in this matter. Representative Gutierrez explained that this memorandum was intended to ensure that someone who understood communications work was always present in his office.97 He did not, however, recall any occasion when Mr. Sco?eld acted as press secretary.98 Legislative Work The information reviewed by the OCE indicates that Mr. Sco?eld may have had a signi?cant role in the legislative work in Representative Gutierrez?s office. Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that Mr. Sco?eld was not involved with his work on the Financial Services, Judiciary, or Intelligence Committees; rather, this work was performed by his legislative director and legislative staff members.? He never had Mr. Scofreld review proposed legislative languagewo He did not know whether Mr. Sco?eld reviewed or edited materials drafted by legislative staff memb ers.101 94 Id. 95 Id. 96 Memorandum from Rep. Gutierrez to Rep. Gutie1rez?s Communications Director and Doug Sco?eld, ?Coordinating Vacation Time,? undated (Exhibit 20 at 97 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 74. Several legislative staff members did not recall working with Mr. Sco?eld on legislative matters. Representative Gutierrez?s current Counsel told the OCE that she does not believe she worked with Mr. Sco?eld on any matters, nor does she believe that she submitted work to him for reviewm However, she said that she thought that Mr. Scof1eld?s role in the congressional office was to provide guidance to staff on certain issues and perhaps to ?consult ideas wit staff membersm 75. Representative Gutierrez?s current Legislative Assistant did not recall any communications with Mr. Sco?eld while serving in this position.m4 She recalled that Mr. Sco?eld worked primarily with the congressional of?ce?s press staf? noting that major speeches were reviewed by Mr. Scof1eld.105 76. Representative Gutierrez?s Legislative Correspondent said he was not aware of Mr. Sco?eld working on any legislative issues.1?6 He did not recall whether he submitted any work to Mr. Sco?eld, but said that he may have.107 He estimated that on approximately five occasions, he emailed Mr. Sco?eld and was sometimes copied on emails between other staff members and Mr. Sco?eld.108 77. Representative Gutierrez?s Communications Director told the OCE that he could not remember Mr. Scofield reviewing work by the legislative staff.w9 He did not recall Mr. Sco?eld? involvement in drafting testimony or working on House committee matters.?0 78. Several other legislative staff members described a more active role played by l\/Ir. Sco?eld. Several staff members said they were told to send materials to Mr. Scofield for review. For example, a Former Legislative Assistant said that Representative Gutierrez would occasionally tell her to ?shoot? material ?over to Doug,? but recalled that these were primarily public statements or documents, or ?press 79. A Former Senior Legislative Assistant recalled being directed by Representative Gutierrez or his chief of staff to seek Mr.- Scof1eld?s advice or input on a ?wide range? of issues that would have ?come across [her] desk.??2 She described Mr. Scof1eld?s role in the congressional office as working on ?more complicated? and ?nuanced? issues, noting that he was a source of the ?history? behind many issues, given his past experience with Representative Gutierrez. 113 102 Counsel MOI (Exhibit 11 at Id. at13~7135_OO51. Legislative Assistant MOI (Exhibit 12 at Id. at 105 Legislative Correspondent MOI (Exhibit 13 at 107 Id. 109 Communications Director MOI (Exhibit 8 at Id. 1? Former Legislative Assistant MOI (Exhibit 15 at 112 Former Senior Legislative Assistant MOI (Exhibit 14 ?Id. at 19 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the ll0th Congress as Amended 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. The Former Senior Legislative Assistant said that Mr. Sco?eld would ?edit? documents produced by the congressional of?ce; she believed that these documents included press materials and ?floor stuff.??4 According to her, the general process was for her to draft something, show it to either Representative Gutierrez or the chief of staff, and they would ask her to ?run it by? Mr. Scof1eld.?5 The types of materials she Would be asked to run by Mr. Scofreld were ?public facing? things like speeches, remarks for a hearing, or statements for the record delivered by or attributed to Representative Gutierrez] 16 When directed to run something by Mr. Scofield, the Former Senior Legislative Assistant would typically contact him by telephone, but also by email} 17 Once she provided him with material, she would get back substantive changes.?8 She may have then discussed the proposed changes with him.?9 The Former Senior Legislative Assistant said that Mr. Sco?eld also provided advice on certain matters that would then be discussed within the congressional office.12O She said that if there was uncertainty about what should be done regarding a particular matter, she would often be told, ?Ask Doug.?m Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff told the OCE that, while she served as legislative director from approximately 2003 through 2013, Mr. Scofield never assigned her any projects, nor did she recall submitting Work for him to reviewm She did not go to Mr. Scofield for advice on legislative strategy or tacticsm However, the Chief of Staff told the OCE that she learned of Mr. Scof1eld?s role in the congressional office through discrete contacts with him: her predecessor Ms. Fuentes or Representative Gutierrez would tell her to ask Doug about certain things.124 On January 26, 2013, the Chief of Staff, while still serving as legislative director, prepared a memorandum entitled, ?Immigration Happenings and Legislative Update,? outlining the ?state of play with regard to legislative developments? and ?seeking guidance on some key decisions [Representative Gutierrez] needs to make almost 124 Id: ?Id. at 13-7135_0061. ?5Id. at 13-7135_0062. 116 Id. l18Id? Id. Id. at '21 Id. '22 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 20 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended immediately.?125 The memorandum was addressed to Representative Gutierrez and Mr. Sco?eld, and copied to the Communications Director and to the Counselm MEMORANDUM mam: Silsan Tm I}-ring Sizizt?alti CC: Rivliir Janiraiiy 213, Z?ill RE: Iiappriilngs and Legislative Iipdiurr.-. Tire ask-tad rite ta write -iiowri ??358 tiara -ufpiay with transit! to icgisitiitive and rlitira it you. He will grunt guidance some ice}; tiecisieiis tie -tieetls is matte. alinust? imiit-ediataly. Wittr tlte ufall the rat;-slit Wliita Home a tr-1:-ssible majar an irttmigrattrirt 323: the this Tuesday 511 Las Vega, itif? titre iwe before him to EB-iitlr para advantages and risks, 86. The Chief of Staff told the OCE that the memorandum was prepared at a time in which Representative Gutierrez had a significant decision to make with respect to immigration policy and that, after thorough discussion, Representative Gutierrez asked her to put down the various points in writing. 87. The Chief of Staff said that she addressed the memorandum to Mr. Sco?eld at the request of Representative Gutierrez, who had asked her to share it with him. 128 While she recalled discussing the memorandum with Representative Gutierrez?s Communications Director and Counsel, the Chief of Staff could not recall any general or speci?c input that Mr. Sco?eld had on this matter.I29 88. Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that he did not recall this memorandum, but that he did recall the conversation about the decisions referenced in it.130 He said that Mr. Sco?eld was included on the memorandum because it was more about strategy than it was about the particulars of a specific bill.131 89. According to the Communications Director, the memorandum concerned Representative Gutierrez?s central issue of immigration and involved a pretty big strategy issue regarding 125 Memorandum from Chief of Staff to Rep. Gutierrez and Doug Scofield, copied to Communications Director and Counsel, ?Immigration Happenings and Legislative Update,? Jan. 26, 2013 (Exhibit 21 at 136 Id. 1? Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 13?7135_0o34?0035. 13? Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 13I Id. 21 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended positions Representative Gutierrez would take on his signature issuem Given that, he did not ?nd it odd that Mr. Sco?eld was included on the memorandum. 133 90. In November 2011, Representative Gutierrez?s then?chief of staff, Ms. Fuentes, forwarded to him a proposed response to an email exchange she had had with a Senate staff member about a U.S. ambassador nominee.134 Representative Gutierrez directed Ms. Fuentes to ?[s]end to Doug get review and send to Senator.?135 91. Representative Gutierrez did not recall why he asked for Mr. Scof1eld?s review of the proposed response but speculated that the matter involved a political/legislative quandary for which he wanted Mr. Scof1eld?s eyes and ears on it.136 He explained that Mr. Sco?eld was there to help with these kinds of issues.137 92. In November 2012, Mr. Sco?eld sent two emails to Representative Gutierrez?s Communications Director and then-serving legislative director, discussing ?next steps? with respect to the legislative strategy on immigration reform.?8 Message--=--? Serti: ??euassday. M, 24312 4:53pm Tu: "Ebriin. Susan" 4 Subject RE: PW: Return: Should Be the Frhirrtiy in 21.231 3 ttba iivebminuta a?atus.? is this sriinltirsg on next steps? is he telling ant} ?urbiia he?-5 in?rvadlz-Bins 3 bi?? 15 'Ei?ie3r?i 3 we don't -rt-artt in put out a 232$ to the groups and then put cut 2.: ref.-ease saying were our Send rrircrund Dear Ltcz?league to stop ?ning up spunsurs? ?trn?z we want tr: be second on this. or give rite President int: rnueh itrnc sit around and wait rtbi his plan. if we: HG something nrrw. I think it riituz riatitirai reaciinrr from the Dongraseman. if we wait for er? than people Expect Us to play along ?-ahaterrsr I5 ha:-patrirtg. its proknahly wcrrili making react to his but. ?-a-Briginal .. Sent: - ?16, 2:312 To: Rivrrin. Du-iiglzis Cr: Coliirrs. Sllfa?-B3?! Subject: RE: FW: Restarts PIDCEES of Compraiierrsive in-migtainim Hill are we rioizbg er biil? I 1.-re need its 133? dtzr.-rn 3 niarzrar 1? Communications Director MOI (Exhibit 3 at :33 Id. ?34 E?mail from Jennice Fuentes to Rep. Gutierrez, Nov. 29, 2011 (Exhibit 22 at 135 E?mail from Rep. Gutierrez to Jennice Fuentes, Nov. 29, 2011 (Exhibit 22 at 136 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 137 Id. [38 E?mail from Doug Sco?eld to Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, copied to Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, Nov. 14, 2012 (Exhibit 23 at e-mail from Doug Sco?eld to Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, copied to Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, Nov. 16, 2012 (Exhibit 24 at 22 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 93the emails, Mr. Scofield asked the Chief of Staff and Communications Director if Representative Gutierrez was ?doing a [comprehensive immigration] bill,? and suggesting that ?we need to lay down a marker quickly.?139 Mr. Scofield also appears to have encouraged Representative Gutierrez to act quickly to avoid being When asked why Mr. Sco?eld was discussing legislative strategy and proposed bills with congressional staf? Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff told the OCE that she did not recall these emails, adding that the decision whether or not to introduce a bill was a question for Representative Gutierrez.141 Representative Gutierrez?s Communications Director told the OCE that Mr. Sco?eld did not participate in legislative strategy discussions ?very much.??142 He noted, however, that ?the line between communications and legislative strategy is not a bright line,? and that ?message and policy are related.?143 The Communications Director said that Mr. Sco?eld was more focused on message. 144 Included in the documents produced to the OCE by Mr. Scofield were a number of speeches, including speeches given on the House ?oor, apparently written or edited by Mr. Scof1eld.145 Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that Mr. Sco?eld worked with the Communications Director to draft speeches, ?one-minutes,? and other remarks.146 According to Representative Gutierrez, some of the speeches promoted general policy positions, while others highlighted decisions made by the executive branch or encouraged some executive branch action.147 Representative Gutierrez said that he did not consider Mr. Scof1eld?s help in drafting speeches to be legislative work; rather, he viewed this as communications work.148 He noted that the speeches on which Mr. Sco?eld worked were not always about speci?c pieces of legislation or matters on the House ?oor, but were about topics important to him and to his district.149 Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff also told the OCE that Mr. Sco?eld was involved in drafting remarks given by Representative Gutierrez, including remarks given 139 E-mail from Doug Sco?eld to Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, copied to Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, Nov. 16, 2012 (Exhibit 24 at 140 E?mail from Doug Sco?eld to Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, copied to Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, Nov. 14, 2012 (Exhibit 23 at 14? Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 13?7135_oo35. Communications Director MOI (Exhibit 8 at 144 145 See various speeches and remarks (Exhibit 25 at 145 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended by him at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Alabama and remarks he gave on the House ?oor about one or two years ago on the subject of immigration. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 150 The Communications Director said that Mr. Scofield was regularly involved in drafting and editing speeches given by Representative Gutierrez, including speeches given from the House He said that Mr. Scofield came up with ideas for ?oor speeches and sometimes prepared the first draft of speech.152 l\/Ir. Scofield may have drafted or reviewed letters sent by Representative Gutierrez to administration officials regarding official action. Included in the documents produced to the OCE by l\/Ir. Scofield were a number of letters to administration officials apparently written or edited by Mr. Scofield.153 Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that he did not recall Mr. Scofield drafting or reviewing letters to administration of?cials.154 When shown an October 2012 email exchange among Mr. Scofield, Representative Gutierrez, the Communications Director, and then?deputy chief of staff Enrique Fernandez about potential letters to the Departments of Justice and Labor regarding a Puerto Rican newspaper,155 Representative Gutierrez said he had no recollection of the letters.156 Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff said that, during her time as legislative director, she drafted many letters to administration officials but did not recall sharing any of those letters with lVIr. Scofield.157 When shown several examples of letters that Mr. Scofield produced to the OCE, the Chief of Staff said that the letters involved issues on which she would not have worked. 158 The Communications Director told the OCE that Mr. Scofield was occasionally involved in drafting or editing letters to administration officials, especially when the letters involved Puerto Rico, as this was an issue area of particular sensitivity to Representative Gutierrez.159 On October 10, 2012, l\/Ir. Fernandez emailed Representative Gutierrez and Mr. Sco?eld the ?latest interim response? from the Secretary of the Army, responding to a Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 151 Communications Director MOI (Exhibit 8 at 152 153 See various letters to administration officials (Exhibit 26 at 154 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 155 See, e?mail from Doug Scoiield to Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, Rep. Gutierrez, and Enrique Fernandez, Oct. 19, 2012 (Exhibit 27 at 15? Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 157 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 158 159 Communications Director MOI Clixhibit 8 at 24 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the ll0th Congress as Amended 106. 107. 108. 109. letter sent by Representative Gutierrez regarding a natural gas pipeline project in Puerto Rico; Ms. Fuentes and the Communications Director were copied on the email.16? irial iifassagaw--F Frnm: $ani: October 10. To-. ?Fernandez. 4' Cc: "'Ltu's V. -If. Suli??icii RE: Verna natural gas pipeiine prnjaci "iniaii. . "Fuen it mat-:33 sense in me in wait. ?We're a month ax-ray ire a clear idea of haw to (leaf with Sii?uld rmhaiziy hit them an the at in rarest at some point. though. "Fernanda. 'Enriqtia' Sent: Wednesday, 2i}12 Sz?tipm Tn; 4 Ce: "Fuentes, Jennies? 4 "mi-?iifit D?ii-W33" Sirizijeer FW: Via Verde natural: gas pipeline ailimue-ia. erg Congressman. Doug: attached. p?aase find the "latest interim resrianaa? from the Secretary of t1ie_Ami;r. i an nr:-t we ahouici reanond at this i?rria. The Corps -is the Ftagime to submit assirziitimiai in inrmaiian uraiil November and based on tire decide item In preteen. Wiiatever the decision, it be rendered after the elections. i n-riditinns, it is clear ihey tie r:-at want in reaily investigate? ihe J?a3ii2SDi??'v?ii?& districts conflict of irsm.-est with ?hani: you, Enrique In his email, Mr. Fernandez recommends that Representative Gutierrez not respond at that time.161 In response, lVIr. Sco?eld agreed that, ?It makes sense to me to wait.?162 Mr. Fernandez declined to be interviewed by the OCE as part of this review. The Communications Director told the OCE that he and Mr. Sco?eld had been involved in drafting the initial letter to the Secretary with lV[r. Fernandez. 163 When asked why Mr. Sco?eld was included in the email, the Communications Director said that the letter was less about policy and more about politics, but he noted that the letter was an attempt to help environmentalists put pressure on the Puerto Rican governor to make changes with regard to the pipeline.164 Given Representative Gutierrez?s working relationship with andsupervision of Mr. Sco?eld while W. Sco?eld was retained by his congressional office, the Board finds that Representative Gutierrez knew or should have known that the services provided by Mr. Sco?eld exceeded those permitted by the House. E?mail from Enrique Fernandez to Rep. Gutierrez and Doug Sco?eld, copied to Jennice Fuentes and Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, Oct. 10, 2012 16? Id. 152 Id. Communications Director MOI (Exhibit 3 at Id. (Exhibit 28 at 25 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended D. Mr. Sco?eld May Have Engaged in Lobbying Activitv While He Was Retained by Representative Gutierrez?s Congressional Office 110. Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that he knew that Mr. Sco?eld?s ?rm engaged in lobbying activity, but he did not know what kind of lobbying.165 Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff and his Communications Director said that they were unaware of Mr. Scof1eld?s status as a registered Illinois lobbyist until the issue was raised by a reporter in or around June 2013.166 111. Representative Gutierrez said that he had no discussions with Mr. Sco?eld about his other clients or his activities on behalf of those clients, including any lobbying activity, while Mr. Sco?eld was retained to provide services to his congressional of?ce.167 He said he never talked with Mr. Sco?eld about lobbying because those activities were not germane to the congressional office, as all Mr. Scof1eld?s lobbyist clients were state, rather than federal, clients.168 112. Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that he does not believe that Mr. Sco?eld worked on appropriations matters, nor does he recall ever discussing appropriations requests with Mr. Scofield.169 Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff told the OCE that she was not aware of any congressional staff members discussing appropriations requests with Mr. Sco?eld.170 A Former Legislative Assistant told the OCE that she never discussed appropriations requests with Mr. Sco?eldm 113. In June 2013, a news outlet reported that two of Mr. Scof1eld?s clients, the Greater Chicago Food Depository and the Chicago Botanical Garden, sought federal earmarks during the time Mr. Sco?eld was retained by Representative Gutierrez?s of?cem 114. In March 2004, Representative Gutierrez signed a letter circulated by another Member of Congress in support of a $2 million earmark for the Greater Chicago Food Depository.173 In March 2010, Representative Gutierrez sent his own letter of support for a $620,000 earmark for the Chicago Botanical Gardensm '65 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 1? Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at Communications Director MOI (Exhibit 8 at Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at Id. 169 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 17? Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 17? Former Legislative Assistant MOI (Exhibit 15 at 172 Paul Singer, Rep. Gutierrez pays Chicago lobbyist with tax dollars, USA TODAY, June 5, 2013. 173 Letter from Rep. William O. Lipinski, et al., to Rep. James T. Walsh, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies, Mar. 31, 2004 (Exhibit 29 at 13- While this particular matter falls outside the jurisdiction of the OCE, it is evidence of the nature of the relationship between Mr. Sco?eld and Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office. 174 Letter from Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Chair, and Rep. Jack Kingston, Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Mar. 22, 2010 (Exhibit 30 at 26 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 115. 116. 117. 118. Representative Gutierrez said that Mr. Sco?eld never requested that he act on behalf of anyone.175 His Chief of Staff told the OCE that at no time did Mr. Sco?eld ?lobby us in Dc.??6 she said that l\/lr. Sco?eld told her that he only lobbied at the state 1eve1.?" Representative Gutierrez?s Former Legislative Assistant, who handled appropriations issues in 2010, told the OCE that she was unaware of any contact by l\/lr. Scofield with the congressional office regarding the Chicago Botanical Garden.173 However, she recalled that she had met with representatives of the Botanical Garden around this time, and believes that the office made an appropriations request on its behalfm Representative Gutierrez noted that he must have discussed the Greater Chicago Food Depository, a client of l\/Ir. Scof1eld?s firm, with Mr. Scofield, because he knew that Mr. Scofield did work for that organization prior to the June 2013 press inquires.18? Representative Gutierrez said that he never discussed an appropriations request for the Food Depository with Mr. Sc0f1eld.131 Evidence provided to the OCE by Representative Gutierrez includes a July 20, 2004 email from Mr. Sco?eld to Ms. Fuentes, in which Mr. Scofield asks, ?What do you think is the timing for any decision regarding the appropriation? Thanks, as always. Also Food Depository success will help me to clear my mind and find a wealthy and handsome husband for you.?182 Neither Mr. Scofield nor Ms. Fuentes would agree to be interviewed by the OCE as part of this review. Representative Gutierrez said that he did not know anything about this email.183 "5 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 176 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 177 Id. 17* Former Legislative Assistant MOI (Exhibit 15 at 179 Id. 13? Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 181 Id. E-mail from Doug Sco?eld to Jennice Fuentes, July 20, 2004 (Exhibit 31 at 133 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 27 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 119. 120. 121. 122. While l\/Ir. Scofield declined to be interviewed by the OCE as part of this review, emails provided by Representative Gutierrez include statements made by W. Sco?eld regarding his work for the Food Depository. In one email discussing how to respond to a reporter?s questions, Mr. Scofield states: On the food depository, I would re?emphasize that I simply did not talk to Luis about money. A member of Congress supporting an appropriation for a food bank that feeds hungry people in his district is both routine and admirable, and in this case not cause or initiated by me it was led by [Representative William] Lipinski and [Senator .Dick] Durbin.1 4 In another email, Mr. Scofield states, think we can be more emphatic [Representative Gutierrez] and Doug Sco?eld did not have any discussions about funding for the food depository. I strongly believe that is accurate. I think what I did was talk to him about visiting.?185 l\/Ir. Sco?eld also denied lobbying Representative Gutierrez on behalf of his client the Chicago Botanical Garden: Well, I never lobbied for the Chicago Botanical Garden and I don?t know anything about an earmark for them and had nothing to do with it. They were brie?y a pr client. I never personally did any work for them at all it would have been other staff members of the company, and it wouldn?t have had anything to do with Luis. I had no contact, ever, with anyone on the Congressional staff, or Luis, about the Botanical Garden.186 Representative Gutierrez told the OCE that after press inquiries earlier this year regarding l\/Ir. Scofield?s status as a registered state lobbyist, he determined that it would be difficult to continue the congressional off1ce?s relationship with Mr. Sco?eld.187 He explained that it would be difficult to identify and avoid potential con?icts of interest in the future, even if positions he took were wholly independent of Mr. Scof1eld?s lobbying 184 E?mail from Doug Sco?eld to Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, copied to Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, June 4, 2013 (Exhibit 32 at 185 E?mail from Doug Scofield to Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, copied to Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, June 4, 2013 (Exhibit 33 at 186 E-mail from Doug Scofield to Rep. Gutierrez?s Communications Director, copied to Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff, June 4, 2013 (Exhibit 32 at Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at Id. 28 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended E. Representative Gutierrez Terminated the Services of Mr. Scofield in June 2013 123. 124. 125. 126. After receiving press inquires about Mr. Scofield in June 2013, Representative Gutierrez directed his staff to consult with the CHA to determine if the arrangement with Mr. Scofield was consistent with House Ru1es.189 Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff subsequently met with CHA staff to review Mr. Scof1eld?s arrangement with the congressional of?ce.19? According to the Chief of Staff, CHA staff advised that the agreement with Mr. Scofield needed to be revised or canceled, but recommended that it not be continued in its current form.191 The Chief of Staff said that CHA staff did not identify speci?c problems with the agreement.192 After learning of the CHA staff advice, Representative Gutierrez determined that there were only two options: Mr. Sco?eld could become a full-time employee of his congressional office or he could resign.193 Representative Gutierrez said that Mr. Scofield did not accept the offer to become a full-time congressional employee and instead resigned.194 On June 13, 2013, Representative Gutierrez informed Mr. Scofield by letter that he was canceling the agreement with Mr. Sco?e1d?s ?r1n.195 DOUGLAS SCOFIELD, JENNICE FUENTES, AND ENRIQUE FERNANDEZ REFUSED TO COOPERATE VVITH THE OCE REVIEW Douglas Sco?eld served as Representative Gutierrez?s chief of staff from approximately January 1992 to December 2002. He was later retained to provide services to Representative Gutierrez?s congressional office from approximately April The OCE requested information from Mr. Scofield regarding the services he was retained to provide to Representative Gutierrez?s office. Mr. Scofteld initially cooperated with the OCE by producing documents requested by the OCE, but he subsequently ceased cooperating, declining to further produce documents or to be interviewed by the OCE. Douglas Scofield 127. 2003 to June 2013. 128. 129. 189 Id. 190 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at See also Letter from Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff to Democratic Staff Director, Committee on House Administration, June 4, 2013 (Exhibit 34 at :91 Chief of Staff MOI (Exhibit 7 at 92 Id. 193 Rep. Gutierrez MOI (Exhibit 1 at 194 Id. 195 Letter from Rep. Gutierrez to Doug Sco?eld, July 13, 2013 (Exhibit 35 at 29 IV. CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended Jennice Fuentes 130. ennice Fuentes served as Representative Gutierrez?s chief of staff from approximately May 2002 to February 2013. 131. The OCE requested information from Ms. Fuentes regarding her role in retaining and_ supervising Mr. Scofield. 132. Ms. Fuentes refused to cooperate with the OCE. Enrigue Fernandez 133. Enrique Fernandez served as Representative Gutierrez?s deputy chief of staff from approximately November 2002 to January 2013. 134. The OCE requested information from Mr. Fernandez regarding his interactions with Mr. Scofield while Mr. Scofield was retained by the congressional office. 135. Mr. Fernandez refused to cooperate with the OCE. CONCLUSION 136. Based on the foregoing information, the Board finds that there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Gutierrez used funds from his MRA for an impermissible purpose that is, to retain his former chief of staff as a contractor to his congressional office, when the former chief of staff acted as an employee of or consultant to the office. 137. The OCE Board recommends that the Committee on Ethics further review the allegation, as there is substantial reason to believe that Representative Gutierrez used funds from his for an impermissible purpose to retain an individual to provide services to his congressional office that more closely resembled those provided by an employee or consultant, rather than a contractor in violation of federal law and House rules. INFORNIATION THE OCE WAS UNABLE TO OBTAIN AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS 138. The following witness, by declining to provide documentary or testimonial evidence to the OCE, did not cooperate with the review: (1) Douglas Sco?eld; (2) ennice Fuentes, Representative Gutierrez?s former chief of staff; and (3) Enrique Fernandez, Representative Gutierrez?s former deputy chief of staff. 139. The Board recommends the issuance of subpoenas to Ms. Fuentes, Mr. Fernandez, and Mr. Scofield. 30 EXHIBIT 1 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Rep. Luis Gutierrez REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: October 22, 2013 LOCATION: 425 3rd Street, SW Washington, DC TIME: 4:00 PM to 5:25 PM (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Kedric Payne Scott Gast Andrew Herman, Counsel SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and he consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case ?le in this review. The witness is currently the United States Representative from the Fourth District of Illinois. The witness first met Doug Sco?eld during his first campaign for Congress in 1992. He was introduced to Mr. Sco?eld through David Wilhelm, who was managing the Clinton presidential campaign at the time. Mr. Sco?eld was hired to work on Rep. Gutierrez?s campaign through Mr. Wilhelm?s ?rm. During the 1992 congressional campaign, Mr. Sco?eld was responsible for the general management of the campaign. He also hired vendors for fundraising and polling. He was paid through the Wilhelm ?rm. After the witness was elected in November 1992, he invited Mr. Sco?eld to become his congressional chief of staff. The witness said he had developed a close working relationship with Mr. Sco?eld during the campaign. As chief of staff?, Mr. Sco?eld was responsible for running the congressional office. He hired and ?red people and developed the of?ce budget. The witness believes that Mr. Sco?eld was also involved in general legislative strategy, but could not recall any speci?c instances. Asked if Mr. Sco?eld had any responsibility for press issues as chief of staff, the witness said that he had hired a separate individual to serve as press secretary. The witness believes that Mr. Sco?eld and this person previously worked together, and that this person came with Mr. Sco?eld from the Wilhelm ?rm. Page 1 of 8 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS CONFDDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 8. According to the witness, Mr. Scofield left his congressional office in late 2002, after he had been invited by Governor-Elect Blagojevich to serve in the new position of Deputy Governor. 9. Mr. Sco?eld was succeeded as chief of staff by Iennice Fuentes, who had served as the witness? legislative director and second-in-command to Mr. Sco?eld. 10. After Mr. Scofield left the congressional office to serve in the Blagojevich administration, the witness kept in regular touch with him. As some point just a few months after Mr. Sco?eld started in his position, Mr. Scofield called the witness and told him it had been a mistake to make the job change. He told the witness that he could not stay in his position, as lots of political decisions were being made by the governor?s ?nance committee. 11. The witness said that Mr. Scofield resigned from the Blagojevich administration roughly two months after he had started. 12. After his resignation, Mr. Scofield started his own company with his wife, Melanie. When asked what the new company did, the witness said to ask Mr. Sco?eld or his wife. 13. The witness said that he knows that the company engages in lobbying, but he was not sure what kind of lobbying. He said that he never talked with Mr. Sco?eld about lobbying. 14. With respect to the new company, the witness interacted primarily with Mr. Sco?eld, and he rarely worked with Melanie Scofield. He did not know who else worked for the company. 15. The witness said he only became aware of the company?s clients after reading about them in the USA Today stories. He added that he knew Mr. Scofield was involved with the Greater Chicago Food Depository prior to that, but he did not recall how or when he learned that. 16. The witness said that he does not believe he ever discussed Mr. Scof1eld?s clients with Mr. Scofield, but noted that they have been friends for 21 years. 17. The witness said he had referred political folks to Mr. Scofield? company, including state representatives and county commissioners, for services like direct mail, communications consulting, and campaign strategy. He could not recall ever making a referral to Mr. Scofield for lobbying work. 1 18. The witness said that when Mr. Scofield called to tell him he was resigning from his position with the governor and starting his own firm, he told Mr. Scofield that he wanted to be one of his first clients. The witness said that he had not wanted to lose Mr. Scofield in the first place, so while he was saddened that the gubernatorial position had not worked out, he was also happy that he would ?get Doug back.? He said that he had always admired Mr. Scofield?s work and trusted his judgment. 19. When asked if there had been any discussions about Mr. Scofield returning as an employee in the congressional office, the witness said that they did have such conversations from time to time, but that was not until much later. He also noted that Ms. Fuentes had already taken on the job of chief of staff. MOI Page 2 of 8 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS CONFDDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 20. Shortly after Mr. Scofield resigned, the witness made the decision to retain Mr. Scofield through his congressional office. He said that he told Ms. Fuentes that ?we?d have Doug back on staff,? and that he would be a ?consultant.? 21. The witness said that after speaking with Mr. Scofield, he instructed Ms. Fuentes to hire him and to make arrangements to have hin1 paid. He did not remember speci?c details about his conversation with Ms. Fuentes. 22. The witness said that he did not recall any conversations with Ms. Fuentes after he instructed her to hire Mr. Sco?eld. He learned after the USA Today story appeared what Ms. Fuentes had done after he gave her this instruction. He also noted that Mr. Sco?eld and Ms. Fuentes were friends. 23. The witness explained that Ms. Fuentes was a 15-year veteran of Congress and had been second- in-charge behind Mr. Scofield. He added that Mr. Scofield himself had ten years experience as a chief of staff. He trusted the two to work out the logistics of the relationship. 24. The witness said he never read the written agreement between his congressional office and Mr. Scof1eld?s company ?with any attention to detail? until after the USA Today story appeared. 25. When asked what Mr. Scofield was retained to do, the witness said that he understood Ms. Fuentes was a new chief of staff who needs help, that Mr. Scofield would develop staff, and that he would help press and media staff. He said that Mr. Scofield was also the type of person he could call at 1:00 AM to ask for a speech he needed to give the next day; Mr. Scofield was on call 26. The witness said that, to the best of his knowledge, the contract between his congressional office and W. Sco?eld had been renewed ?ve times under identical conditions. 27. The witness was not aware of any other instances in which his congressional office had hired a contractor. 28. The witness did not have any contact with the Committee on House Administration regarding the Sco?eld agreement at this time, nor was he aware of any contact with the Committee by his staff. After the USA Today article appeared, Ms. Fuentes told him that she had faxed the agreement to the Committee staff for approval, but that she couldn?tf1nd the email back from the Committee. 29. The witness said that there had been no conversations about potential con?icts of interests between work that Mr. Scofield was to do for his congressional office and work he would be doing for his other clients. 30. The witness said that there was no discussion about Mr. Scof1eld?s lobbying activities because they were not germane to the office. The witness believes that all of Mr. Scof1eld?s lobbying clients were state, rather than federal, clients. 31. The witness said he thought that Ms. Fuentes had reached out to both the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Ethics regarding the agreement with Mr. Scofield. 32. The witness believes that the terms of the agreement, including the amount of Mr. Sco?eld?s fees, were negotiated by Ms. Fuentes and Mr. Scofield. The witness said that he knew how MOI Page 3 of 8 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended much Mr. Sco?eld was being paid and was with it. The witness did not know why the retainer fee started at $5,500 per month but then was reduced to $4,500 per month. 33. The witness said he allowed Ms. Fuentes latitude to sign on his behalf, but that the signature on the initial agreement, dated April 1, 2013, was his signature. When asked if he approved the terms of the agreement, the witness said that he must have, since he had signed the agreement. He noted that he had no speci?c recollection of signing the agreement. 34. When asked if a specific term had been contemplated for Mr. Sco?eld? services, the witness said that Mr. Scofield would still be serving today if not for the USA Today story. 35. According to the witness, Mr. Scofield reported to chief of staff Jennice Fuentes, as she was the chief of staff and everyone in the office reported to the chief of staff. He added that everyone in the office also reports to him. He noted that he did not have to go through his chief of staff, however, if he wanted to get Mr. Sco?eld on the phone. 36. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld worked with his congressional of?ce chief of staff, communications director, and district staff. When asked if Mr. Scofield worked with the legislative staff, the witness said that he had asked his current chief of staff/former legislative director and it appears that Mr. Scofield had not worked with legislative staff. 37. The witness said that Mr. Scofield?s duties as a contractor to the congressional office included helping him whenever he needed help drafting remarks or speeches, and helping him learn how to better communicate on issues. 38, Mr. Sco?eld primarily worked with the witness? communications director, but also worked with anyone else on staff who needed ?help.? When asked what kind of ?help? Mr. Scofield provided, the witness said that if the chief of staff need help with something, Mr. Sco?eld would help ?handle? certain things. The witness noted that Mr. Sco?eld had previously served as chief of staff himself. The witness said that his chief of staff would know better about the specifics of what Mr. Sco?eld did. 39. Asked if Mr. Scofield had any oversight responsibilities in the congressional office, the witness said he did have such a role after a staff reorganization in his district offices. The witness asked Mr. Sco?eld and Slim Coleman, a district employee, to work together to ensure that district office operations ran smoothly during the transition. 40. The witness was shown a September 3, 2012 email he sent to Mr. Sco?eld and his chief of staff, directing that his chief of staff and legislative director were not to be absent from the congressional of?ce on the same days. When asked why Mr. Sco?eld was included on such a directive to staff, he said that this was part of Mr. Scofield?s training of the current chief of staff, he was helping the chief of staff with her duties. 41. The witness was shown an August 25, 2012 email he sent to Mr. Sco?eld, forwarding an email from the witness to his chief of staff regarding a problem with district office operations. He was also show a second email forwarding the same message to Mr. Scofield?s wife, Melanie. The witness noted that he emails very little and did not recall why he forwarded the email to Melanie. MOI Page 4 of 8 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 42. The witness said that the email to his chief of staff came about because a district employee had been ?ripping off? constituents who had come for help. He described this as an ?extraordinary? situation that required his direct involvement. He wanted to know who had been hurt or damaged as a result of a problematic district employee. 43. Mr. Sco?eld was included in this situation for training purposes, as he would be helping the chief of staff. Mr. Sco?eld was also based in Chicago and could bring ?fresh eyes? to help solve the problem with the district operations. He had been chief of staff, so it was important to bring him in to help ensure that the district office was doing things right going forward. The witness also wanted people on the ground in Chicago to run the office, rather than people in DC. 44. The witness said that whenever there was a crisis that needed to be handled, he would direct his staff to ?Call Doug.? 45. The witness was shown an undated memo from the witness to his communications director and Mr. Sco?eld, reminding them that they should coordinate vacation time to ensure they are not ab sent at the same time. The witness said that he wanted to make sure that someone who understands communications is present. He did not, however, recall any occasion when Mr. Sco?eld had to act as press secretary. He explained that there is not a reporter in Chicago who didn?t know that Mr. Sco?eld worked for the witness. 46. When asked if Mr. Sco?eld assisted with legislative work, the witness said he did not. He said that Mr. Sco?eld was not involved in any financial services, judiciary, or intelligence committee work. That work was done by the legislative director and legislative staff. 47. The witness did not know whether Mr. Sco?eld reviewed or edited materials drafted by legislative staff. The witness never had Mr. Sco?eld review legislative language. 48. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld did prepare floor speeches or remarks for the witness, but he did not consider that legislative work. Rather, he saw it was communications work. 49. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld drafted speeches and ?one?minutes,? working with the communications director. He said that Mr. Sco?eld edited or helped with speeches given on the House floor. Some of the speeches promoted certain general policies. Others simply highlighted decisions made by the executive branch or encouraged some executive action. The witness said, as an example, that a speech may have questioned whether the Department of Justice should have oversight over the Puerto Rican police. 50. The witness said that the speeches or remarks that Mr. Sco?eld worked on were not always about specific pieces of legislation or matters on the House ?oor, but were about topics important to the witness and his district. 51. When asked if Mr. Sco?eld drafted or reviewed letters to administration officials regarding official actions, the witness said he did not recall Mr. Sco?eld being involved in this kind of work. He said Mr. Sco?eld would help with speeches urging officials to take action, but he did not know about Mr. Sco?eld assisting with letters. 52. The witness was shown an October 19, 2012 email from Mr. Sco?eld to the communications director, copied to then-deputy chief of staff Enrique Fernandez and the witness, regarding MOI Page 5 of 8 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_0006 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended and DOL letters? regarding a Puerto Rican newspaper. The witness said he had no recollection of these letters and said that the communications director may have such knowledge. 53. The witness was shown a January 26, 2013 memorandum from his then-legislative director to the witness and Mr. Scofield, copied to the communications director and to the legislative counsel, titled ?Immigration Happenings and Legislative Update.? The witness did not recall the memo, but did recall the conversation about the decisions that were referenced in the memo. The witness said that Mr. Scofield was included because it was more about strategy than the particulars of a bill. 54. The witness was shown a November 29, 2011 email he sent to his then-chief of staff about a discussion with Senator Rubio about a U.S. Ambassador, in which the witness directs the chief of staff: ?Send to Doug get review and sent to Senator.? The witness said he did not know why he asked for Doug?s review, but speculated that it involved a political/legislative quandary and he probably wanted Mr. Scofreld eyes and ears on it. He said that Mr. Sco?eld was there to help on these kinds of issues. 55. The witness was asked about a January 25, 2013 email he sent to his communications director and Mr. Scofield, forwarding an email from another Member of Congress regarding an immigration reform announcement. The witness did not recall why he forwarded the email, but noted that his communications director and Mr. Sco?eld worked together on communications issues. He did not recall discussing the substance of the email with Mr. Scofield. 5 6. The witness does not believe that Mr. Sco?eld worked on appropriations issues. He did not recall 1V.[r. Sco?eld ever discussing appropriations requests with him. 57. When asked if Mr. Scofield did any work for his congressional campaign while serving as a contractor to the congressional office, the witness explained that there was not much of an occasion for campaign workserious challenger since the 2002 campaign. 58. The witness said that any reported expenditures from his campaign to Mr. Scofield?s ?rm involved specific projects. For example, the witness had wanted to get out in Cicero more and sponsored fairs in that area. He chose to use his campaign instead of his congressional of?ce to organize and pay for those fairs. 59. The witness did not recall the speci?c payment arrangements made between his campaign and Mr. Sco?eld?s firm for these projects. He noted that his wife paid the bills for the campaign. 60. The witness was asked about the compensation arrangements for Mr. Sco?eld?s assistance with the witness? book. The witness said that he was offered a $65,000 advance for the book, but under House ethics roles, he is not permitted to accept any advance. Rather, he permitted Mr. Sco?eld to accept a $55,000 advance. With respect to royalties, Mr. Sco?eld and the witness are splitting any royalties; however, neither will receive any royalties until the entire advance has been recouped by the publisher. 61. The Witness said that, at the time Mr. Scofield was hired a contractor to the congressional office, he did not know that Mr. Scofield worked as a registered state lobbyist, and there had been no MOI Page 6 of 8 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS CONFDDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended discussion about his lobbying activities. The witness said he did not learn that Mr. Sco?eld was a state lobbyist until the USA Today story ran. 62. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld never asked him to act on behalf of anyone. He knew that Mr. Sco?eld had a relationship with the Greater Chicago Food Depository, and knew that Mr. Sco?eld was paid for his services by the Food Depository, but he did not know what services Mr. Sco?eld actually provided. The witness said that he must have discussed the Food Depository with Mr. Sco?eld at some point, because he knew that Mr. Sco?eld worked for that organization prior to the USA Today story. 63. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld never spoke with him about an appropriations request for the Food Depository. 64. The witness was shown a July 20, 2004 email from Mr. Scofield to his then-chief of staff, in which Mr. Sco?eld asks: ?What do you think is the timing for any decisions regarding the appropriation? Also, Food Depository success will help me to clear my mind and ?nd a wealthy and handsome husband for you.? The witness said he did not know anything about this email. He did not know what ?Food Depository success? meant. 65. After the USA Today reporter began asking questions about Mr. Sco?eld, the witness directed his staff to put together the relevant documents to become better informed of the situation and to see which documents would be provided to the reporter. The witness said he wanted to know if there was any substance to what the reporter was saying. He said that he wanted to make sure that his of?ce had complied with the rules. 66. The witness said that the first thing he said to his staff was to go to the Committee on House Administration to make sure that the arrangement with Mr. Sco?eld was ok. He said that his chief of staff dealt with this. 67. The witness said that his staff explained to him that Mr. Sco?eld could not continue doing what he had been doing for the congressional office. The witness said that the fact that Mr. Sco?eld was also a registered state lobbyist was an issue: it would be difficult to identify and avoid potential conflicts in the future, even if positions taken by the witness were wholly independent of Mr. Sco?eld. He explained that if Mr. Scof1eld?s relationship with the Food Depository and the Chicago Botanical Garden two non-pro?t organizations caused this much trouble, he did not want to have this problem going forward. The witness wanted transparency. 68. The witness was not aware of any contact between his congressional office and the Committee on Ethics at this time. He suggested we ask his chief of staff about this. 69. The witness had discussions with Mr. Sco?eld at the time of the article. Mr. Sco?eld was involved in crafting a response to the reporter?s inquiries. The witness said that he knew that Mr. Sco?eld had not done anything wrong, so he had no problem with Mr. Sco?eld? involvement in preparing a response to the reporter. 70. When asked if he discussed the substance of the reporter?s questions with Mr. Sco?eld, the witness said that it seemed to him that the services provided by Mr. Sco?eld were those provided for in the contracting agreement. He said that Mr. Sco?eld was ?anything but a ghost payroller.? MOI Page 7 of 8 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135__0008 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 71. The witness wanted Mr. Sco?eld to keep working for his congressional office. However, he saw that there were only two options: Mr. Sco?eld would have to become a full-time employee of the congressional office or he would have to resign. Mr. Sco?eld did not accept the offer to become a full-time employee and instead resigned as a contractor. 72. When asked why continuing the contracting arrangement with Mr. Sco?eld was not an option, the witness stated that the agreement had been approved ?ve times. This memorandum was prepared on October 23, 2013 after the interview was conducted on October 22, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on October 22, 2013 . Scott Gast Investigative Counsel MOI Page 8 of 8 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS EXHIBIT 2 13?7135_oo1 on . NFL - Dec. @1 2ee2 pg Proposal for Retained Services Sco?eld Communications and the Office of Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez March 31, 2003 The Office of Congressman Luis; V. Gutierrez will retain Sco?eld Communications, LLC, to pruvide non-legislative, general of?ce services to assist Congressman Gutierrez in his e?brts to serve the people of the Congressicnal District of the State of Illinois. Sco?eld Communications is an independent contractor with sole responsibility for withholding and paying taxes, with respect tn services under this agreement. Scope of Work may include: Staff development and training; which could include the following non-legislative areas: 0 Assisting Staffer training staff in the areas of preparing remarks or press events. 0 Assisting or training staff with casework or community outreach efforts. Providing staff with guidance and training as detennirred necessary by the member of Congress or Chief of Staff. I Arlzending non-legislative rneetinga as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chief o["Staff. - Assisting or training the staff to publicize programs and activities of Congressman Gutierrez - Other relevant and appropriate areas: as detennined by the Member of Congress and Chief of Staff. Fees This agreemen?s duration. hours and fees are as foliuws: From 3/24/03 to 6/30/03 Sco?elcl Communicatlens will provide the services detailed in the ?Scope of Work" at a rate 0f$5,50O per month. 234 Home Ave. I ccsezlr Park, EL @0302 I ?rre.3aa1.! 1 fax 13-7135_0011 l--Q5 Beginning H03 Sco?cld Communications will provide the services detaiieci in the ?Scope of Work? at rate of $4,500 per month. The client will reirnbua-so Sce?elci Communications for expenses related to the above work, such as mileageltravei (for distances greater than I0 miles), messenger service and other expenses incurred directly for the purposes of the office of the member of Congress. These expenses will be specifically itemized and documented with biweelciy invoices. This agreement shall continue until terminated by either party on ??een (15) days written notice. Con?dentiality and Ethics Sco?eld Communications will solely represent the interests oftiie Client and will not seek to iniiuczrioe executive, administrative or legisiative action on behalf of any third pars? in the perfomianoo of service to the member of Congress. During and after this ag!?eemcn?t, Scofield Communications shall not use for its personsi bene?t, or disclose to or use for the direct or indirect bene?t ofany entity other than the member of Congress any con?dontioi information relating to or dealing with business operations or activities of client. We agree to the provisions of this proposal: 03 Doug Scofiel Date,- Sco?eld Com nicatioos ci titloirm i -- . I 3 Signature . Bate 2 13-7135_oo12 EXHIBIT 3 13-7135_oo13 I Proposal for Retained Services Sceiield Communications and the Office of Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez - January 1, 2008 The Office ofCong1'essrnan Luis V. Gutierrez will retain Sco?eid Communications, LLC, to provide nonulegislative, general office services to assist Congressman Gutierrez in his efforts to serve the people of the Congressional District of the State of Illinois. Sco?eld Communications is an independent contractor with sole responsibility for withholding and paying taxes, with respect to services under this agreement. Scope of Work Work may include: I Staff development and training; which could include the following non?Iegislative areas: 1* Assisting staff or training staff in the areas of preparing remarks or press events. 0 Assisting or training staff with casework or community outreach efforts. 4* Providing staff With guidance and training as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chief of Staf? I Attending nondegisiative meetings as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chief of Staff. It Assisting or training the staff to publicize programs and activities of Congressrnan Gutierrez Other relevant and appropriate areas as determined by the Member of Congress and Chief of Staff. 13-71 35_oo14 Fees This agreemenfs duration, hours and fees are as follows: From 01/01/2008 through 12/31/08 Sco?eld Communications wili provide the services detailed in the ?Scope of Work? at a rate of $4,500.00 per month. The client will reimburse Seo?eld Communications for expenses related to the above work, such as mileageftravel (for distances greater than 10 miles), messenger service and other expenses incurred directly for the purposes of the office of the member of Congress. These expenses will be speci?cally itemized and documented with biweekly invoices. This agreement shall continue until terminated by either party on ?fteen (15) days written notice. Con?dentiality and Ethics Seofield Communications will solely represent the interests of the Client and will not seek to in?uence executive, administrative or legislative action on behalf of any third party in the performance of service to the member of Congress. During and after this agreement, Sco?eld Communications shall not use for its personai benefit, or disclose to or use for the direct or indirect bene?t of any entity other than the member of Congress any con?dential information relating to or dealing with business operations or activities of client. We agree to the provisions of this proposal: at um.? ?2 - ?3 ?a :2 Doug Scoiield Date Sco?eld Communications Name and title {Print} Signature I Date 13-7135_oo15 met: m??i amass? any Proposal for Retained?ervices Soo?eld Communications and the Office of Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez January 1, 2009 The Office of Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez will retain Scofield Communications, LLC, to provide non-legislative, general office services to assist Congressman Gutierrez in his efforts to serve the people of the Congressional District of the State of Illinois. Sco?eid Communications is an independent contractor with sole responsibility for withholding and paying taxes, with respect to services under this agreement. Scope of Work Work may include: I Staff development and training; which could include the following non-legislative areas: 0 Assisting staff or training staff in the areas of preparing remarks or press events. I Assisting or training staff with casework or community outreach efforts. Providing staff with guidance and training as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chief of Staff. I Attending nomlegislative meetings as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chief of Staff. I Assisting or training the staff to publicize programs and activities of Congressrnan Gutierrez I Other relevant and appropriate areas as determined by the Member of Congress and Chief of Staff. 13-7135_0016 Fees This agreement?s duration, hours and fees are as follows: From 01i?O1f2009 through 12/31/09 Scofield will provide the services detailed in the ?Scope of Work? at a rate of $4,500?? per month. The ciient will reimburse Sco?eld Communications for expenses related to the above work, such as rniieage/travel (for distances greater than 10 miles), messenger service and other expenses incurred directly for the purposes of the office of the member of Congress. These expenses will be speci?cally itemiaed and documented with biweekly invoices. This agreement shall continue until terminated by either party on ?fteen (I 5) days written notice. Confidentiality and Ethics Sco?eld Communications will solely represent the interests of the Client and will not seek to in?uence executive, administrative or legislative action on behalf of any third party in the performance of service to the member? of Congress. During and after this agreement, Sco?eld Communications shall not use for its personal bene?t, or disclose to or use for the direct or indirect bene?t of any entity other than the member of Congress any con?dential information relating to or dealing with business operations or activities of client. We agree to the provisions of this proposal: Dong Sco?eld Date Scofield Communications Name and title (Print) Signature Date 13?7135_oo17 the cnmpany Proposal for Retained Services Scofieid Communications and the Office of Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez November 23, 2812 The of Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez will retain Sco?eld Communications, LLC, to provide non-legislative, general office services to assist Congressman Gutierrez in his efforts to serve the people of the 4th Congressional District of the State of Illinois. See?eld Communications is an independent contractor with sole responsibility for withholding and paying taxes, with respect to services under this agreement. Scope of Work Work may include: Staff development anti training; which could include the following non-Iegisiative 3113332 II Assisting staff or training staff in the areas of preparing remarks or press events. on Assisting or training staff with casework or community outreach efforts. 9 staff with guidance and training as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chief of Staff. Attending non?iegis1ative meetings as determined necessary by the member of or Assisting or training the staff to pubiicize programs and activities of Congressman Gutierrez A Other reievani and asses ?s the 5-2 3. oi" Etaii: Fees This agreemenfs duration, hours and fees are as follows: From Olf?l/2013 through 12/31f2t)l3 Soofield Communications will provide the services detailed in the ?Scope ofwork? at a rate per month. The client will reimburse Sco?eld Communications for expenses related to the above work, such as mileegeltravel (for distances greater than 10 miles), messenger service and other expenses incurred directly for the purposes of the office ofthe member of Congress. These expenses will be speci?cally itemized and documented with biweekly invoices. This agreement shall continue until terminated by either party on ?fteen (15) days written notice, Con?dentiality and Ethics Sco?etd Communications will soieiy represent the interests of the Client and will not seek to in?uence executive, administrative or legislative action on behalf of any third party in the performance of service to the member of Congress. During and after this ag1'eeme;ot, Sco?eld Communications shall not use for its personal "tit, -iliisclosc: to or use for the direct or indirect benefit of any entity other than the iaforsiattion relating to or dealing with business Mr? 'g2l2:l;L Date 13-7135_oo19 EXHIBIT 4 13-7135_oo2o Congressman Luis V. Guti?nez 2367 Rayburn HOB Washington, 13.0. 20515 pp i? -, - A Fax. (202) 225-7810 - I . Fax Transmission Cover Sheet ?Ma. 3 DATE: Apri1i,2003 T0: Darren Feist, House Administration FROM: Jennice Fuentes, Chief?of-Staff FAX: 59957 NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): If you have any problems with this transmissisn, please call (202) 225--. Thank you. NOTE: As per conversation, please let me know if if this contract falls within what is acceptable under the current regulations. I appreciate your assistance with this matter. Iennice Fuentes 2251 225- (direct line) 13-7135_oo21 utzu. .d.i-Jtid Proposal for Retained Services Scofieid Communications and the {mice of Congressman Luis-V. Gutierrez "March 31, 2003 The Office of Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez will retain Soo?eid Communications, LLC, to provide non-iogisiativc, general office services to assist Congressmao Liutiorroz in his e?brfs to serve the people of tho Congre-ssional District of the State of1'limo:s. Soo?oid Commlmicaiions is an indopondont contractor with sole rosponsibility for withholding, and paying taxes, with respect to services under this agreement. Scope of ?Work Work may include: Staffdovolopniont and training; which could include the following non?-legislative areas: 0 Assisting staff or training staff in the areas of preparing remarks or press events. 0 A:-misting or training staff with oasework or community outntach c?"orts. Providing staff with guidance and training as determined necessary by the member of Congress or Chiofoi? Staff. . -I Attending non-legislative meetings as dotonnined nocossary by the mem_ber of or Chief of Staff. - Assisting or training the staff to publicize programs and activities Gutierrez I other relevant and appropriate areas as deten-ni.ned by the Member of Congress and Chief? of Staf? Fees This duration, hours and foes arc as foilowsz 3/24/03 to Soo?old Communications provide the services detaiicd in the ?Scope of Work" at arate of$5,500 per month. 1 334 5- 0% Park, FL 60302 i 7oo.o3o.- I 703.445.8745 fax 13?7135_oo22 NU. Dec. 81 2882 lZl4:45P1v 53 Beginning 7/ 1/03 Sco?eld Coinmunications will provide the services detailed in the ?Scope of Work" at a rate of $4,500 per month. The client will reimburse Scotield Communications for expenses related to the above work, such as mileage/trev'el (for distances greater than [0 miles), messenger service and other expenses incurred directly for the purposes of the ofiiee of the member of Congress. These expenses will be specifically itemized and documented with biweekly invoices. This agreement shall continue until terminated by either party on ??een (15) days written notice. Confidentiality and Ethics Seo?eld Communications will solely represent the interests of the Client and will not seek to influeime executive, administrative or legislative action on behalf of any third party in the perfon-nanee of servioe to the member of Congress. During and after this agreement, Sco?eld Communications shall not use for its personal bene?t, or disclose to or use for the direct or indirect bene?t of any entity other than the member of Congress any con?dcnti?l information relating to or dealing with business operations or activities of client. We agree to the provisions ofthis proposal: I - Doug Scofiel Date Sco?eld Communications - Name and title (Print) Signature Date 2 13?7135_oo23 EXHIBIT 5 13?7135_0024 From: Collins, Susan Collins, Susan From: Fleet, Jamie Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 4:06 PM To: Collins, Susan; Abbott, Gregory; Henline, Robert Subject: Re: Fwd: news query USA Today We need to develop a concise statement that recounts the facts, focuses on the non-legislative aspect of the work and highlights the training component. We can?: talk about the ethics stuff because it's not our jurisdiction. I recommend you call Dan Taylor with the ethics cmte, I will put together an email intro if you like. From: Collins, Susan Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 04:01. PM To: Fleet, Jamie; Abbott, Gregory; Henline, Robert Subject: RE: Fwd: news query USA Today I'll see ifour teen guy can dig into our archives from a decade ago in a way that 1 cannot. I don't see how there's any doubt it was approved, do you? .m .. . Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 3:59 PM To: Collins, Susan; Abbott, Gregory; Henline, Robert Subject: Re: Fwd: news query - USA Today Unlikely yind they won't share it with us anyway. Sent: Monday, June 03,2913 03:57 PM To: Fieet, Jamie; Abbott, Gregory; Henline, Robert Subject: RE: Fwd: news query - USA Today We do not have anything in our hard copy file. I'm reviewing oid emails to our old chief in 2003, haven't found anything {but will enlist help from our tech guy to make sure Ehaven?: missed anything]. I assume the approval may have been and must have been effectuated because the contract began to be paid soon thereafter. Would House Admin have such a record? Thanks. Luis CIulit:i'i'c:'_ 2u2?225? Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 3:50 PM To: Collins, Susan; Abbott, Gregory; Henline, Robert Subject: Re: Fwd: news query - USA Today Do you have any documentation of the approval? ec_ocE-59 13?7135_oo25 From: Coliins, Susan Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 03:47 PM To: Fleet, Jamie; Abbott, Gregory; Henline, Robert Subject: RE: Fwd: news query USA Today Hi Al I, The contract first sent for approval to Darren F-eist at House Admin and Barbara Buchanan at Finance in 2003 is the very same contract our office has continued to send for approval to Finance at the beginning of each Congress. Was there a more speci?c question than that? Thanks. 5?us:m Co1l:'ns J..m's l" Gutierrez 2ti3?22i- From: Fleet, Jamie Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 1:52 PM To: Abbott, Gregory; Henline, Robert Cc: Collins, Susan Subject: Re: Fwd: news query USA Today Adding Susan from guiterrez. Susan any more on the contract history Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 01:49 PM To: Fleet, Jamie; I-lenline, Robert Subject: Fwd: news query - USA Today Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Singer, Paul" day.co11a> Date: June 3, 2013, 10:39:09 AM EDT To: ma.i1.house. ov" Subject: news query USA Today Greg: I am a reporter with USA Today and I am working on a story about a ?training? contractor hired by Rep Gutierrez. In short, Gutierrez has paid The Scofield Company [run by his former chief of staff Doug Scofield] more than $500,000 over the past ten years to provide ?training.? In 2012 he paid Scofield $6000 per month $72,000 for the year, wihhc is more than 20% of the total spent on training by individual House offices last year. Gutierrez? communications director said in an email: "Doug Scofield, the Congressmans former Chief of Staff, through the Scofield Company, works with District staff on a wide range of concerns, training them to run the office and handle constituent services, management and everything else they do. He trained me and still works with me on some press issues, especially Chicagowrelated press and who is who, and helps draft or edit some statements and speeches.? sc_ocE-so 13-7135_0026 This arrangement seems to reach beyond the kind of training contract that members generally engage, and I am trying to figure out whether it comports with House rules prohibiting Members from hiring consultants. There are also ethics issues involved here because Scofielci also has a lobbying and public affairs practice in Illinois for some clients that have bad business before Congress. I would be grateful for your time if you can help me assess the relevant issues here. Best wishes Paul Singer Politics Editor USA Today 703-854-? phone mobile @singernews 3 13-7135_oo27 EXHIBIT 6 13?7135__oo23 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Former Committee on House Administration Administrative Director REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: September 23, 2013 LOCATION: OCE offices via telephone TIME: 2:00 p.m. to 3 :05 p.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and he consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: l. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case ?le in this review. The witness is currently a scoring and test processing manager for a standardized testing company. He has been affiliated with that organization for three years. His prior full time employment was with the Committee on House Administration He began there in April 2001 and left in December 2008. . The witness began working for the CHA as a staff assistant, then worked in the Committee?s Of?ce of Member Services until 2004 or 2005, before becoming Administrative Director, a title he held until he left the Committee. His duties in Member Services included advising Members and staff on how they could spend their Members? Representational Allowance providing guidance on what constitutes an official expense that may be paid with MRA funds, as governed by the Members? Handbook. The witness stated that CHA does not ?approve? expenditures from the MRA. Rather, CHA staff provides guidance to Members and staff about what is appropriate. The witness stated that about 20% of the Members? Handbook is concerned with those expenses for which a Member may use MRA funds, about 20% of the Handbook deals with those expenses for which a Member may not use MRA funds, and about 60% attempts to provide guidance on paying for expenses in a ?gray? area. The decision as to whether to use funds for a particular expense is left to individual Members. According to the witness, during his time with Committee, the CHA maintained a database of all Committee calls and contacts with Members and staff, including oral advice. Page 1 of 3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_oo29 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 8. The witness stated that if a potential misuse of MBA funds was brought to the attention of the Committee, the chair and ranking member would determine whether the expense was official or not and would then determine whether there should be any consequence if it was not. A Member may be asked to repay an impermissible expense from personal funds. During the witness? time at the CHA, he was aware only of misuses of the franking privilege. 9. The witness did not have any personal communications with the Committee on Ethics regarding MRA misuse issues. 10. According to the witness, any requests for approval of a contractor agreement would be referred to the CHA ?officers? team,? which consisted of the CHA Deputy Chief of Staff, General Counsel, and other members of the professional staff. The officers? team may have consulted with the office of the House Chief Administrative Officer on the question whether a proposed arrangement involves a contractor or consultant, as the office is believed to have experience in human resource issues. 11. The witness stated that the contractor/consultant question was a rare issue. He noted that consultation with or approval by the CHA is not required under the Members? Handbook. 12. The witness stated that typical contractor services include data storage, assistance with a computer system, photography, custodial services, website hosting, and staff training. 13. The witness recalled that there were several companies that provided staff training services to House offices on a contractor basis. He recalled that one such company had been hired by CHA to perform a management audit during his time at the committee. 14. Concerning ?staff training,? the witness did not know how someone could train for two years at a time, throughout a Member?s term. He stated that his experience with an outside staff training company at the CHA was that the services only lasted two or three months at the most. 15. The witness stated that, in his view, ?non-legislative? contractor services meant ?not bringing Jack Abramoff in to work on the Help America Vote Act.? The witness stated that he considered non-legislative services to include processing or copying papers and the like, not working on bills or attending meetings on issues. 16. The witness was asked about several areas of services that a contractor might provide to a Member office. When asked if a contractor could engage in casework, the witness said that was a difficult question. While explaining that he was not a lawyer, he said that in his View assisting wit casework was not legislative service. He noted that it would be odd if a Member could hire two to three contractors to perform casework in an office. 17. When asked if a contractor would provide community outreach services, the witness stated that he was not aware of any requests for contractors to perform those services. 18. When asked if a contractor could engage in press work, the witness stated that press work would most likely be legislative in his view. He said that this would be one of those gray areas where Members would have to defend the decision should it be called into question. MOI Page 2 of 3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_oo3o CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 19. When asked if a contractor could draft speeches and statements, the witness said that the answer may depend on whether the speech or statement mentioned legislation. He stated that it would be very difficult to draw a clear line on this kind of service. 20. The witness reviewed the fax transmission from Rep. Gutierrez? former chief of staff, addressed to the witness, concerning a request for CHA review of a proposed contractor agreement. He had no recollection of handling this speci?c request. 21. The witness stated that it would have been his practice to pass on such a request to the officers? team, and that the officers? team would likely have discussed it with the CA0. He did not recall what guidance had been given with respect to the agreement. 22. Upon review the proposed agreement, the witness said that, in his view, there were some ?questionable? services in the proposal. While nothing would have been de?nitely prohibited or allowable, the services may have fell into the gray area where he would need more information to provide advice. The proposed service that stood out to him was the proposal for Mr. Scofield to sit in on non-legislative meetings. This memorandum was prepared on September 23, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 23, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 23, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 3 of 3 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_oo31 EXHIBIT 7 13?7135_oo32 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: October 15, 2013 LOCATION: 425 3rd Street, SW Washington, DC 10:04 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Kedric Payne Scott Gast Andrew Herman (counsel) Ross Nabatoff (counsel) SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness is currently the chief of staff for Rep. Luis Gutierrez and has held this position since mid?February 2013. Prior to becoming chief of staff, the witness served as Rep. Gutierrez?s legislative director and as a legislative assistant. She was hired as a legislative assistant in July 2002, after serving as a fellow focusing on immigration policy. As a legislative staff member, she was responsible for immigration, a priority issue for Rep. Gutierrez, as well as other issues including foreign affairs and homeland security. As chief of staff, the witness oversees the Washington, DC and district offices, as well as the legislative, communications, and casework activities of the offices. The witness said that Doug Scofield was serving as chief of staff for Rep. Gutierrez when she started in the office as a fellow. At that time, she did not have much direct, one-on?one interaction with Mr. Scofield. She worked primarily with the legislative staff. The witness was hired as a legislative assistant at the time Mr. Scofield was transitioning out of Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office. According to the witness, Mr. Scotield left the congressional office to move back to Illinois and pursue other opportunities. He eventually worked for Governor Rod Blagoj evich. The witness did not keep in touch with Mr. Scofield after he left the congressional office. She did not recall any contact with him while he was working for the governor. Page 1 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_oo33 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 8. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld left the governor?s office at some point and started his own communications firm. She said that she knew little about Mr. Scofield?s ?rm or his clients until news stories about Mr. Scofield?s relationship with Rep. Gutierrez appeared this year. She said that she had no contact with Mr. Sco?eld about his clients prior to these news stories. 9. The witness had very little contact with Mr. Scofield?s wife, Melanie Sco?eld, and just knew that she was Mr. Scof1eld?s wife. She did not work with anyone else at Mr. Scof1eld?s company. 10. The witness said that she was not familiar with how Mr. Sco?eld came to be retained by Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office as a contractor. She said that the then?chief of staff had ?some awareness? of the retention, but she did not know if anyone else was involved. She said she vaguely remembered that when Mr. Sco?eld was retained, he was described as ?there to help.? 11. The witness did not know if Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional of?ce had hired other contractors in the past. She said that since she has been chief of staff, the office has not hired other contractors. 12. The witness learned of Mr. Scofield?s role through discrete contacts with him; the chief of staff and Rep. Gutierrez would tell her to ask Doug about certain things. The witness said that she saw Mr. Sco?eld as a resource for the staff in general. 13. When asked to whom Mr. Sco?eld reports, the witness said that she reported to her as chief of staff, but it was not that kind of relationship. She said that she has had no trouble with him, and that he was doing work he was asked to do. 14. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld worked primarily on communications related issues. She said that she learned over time that his focus was on press issues, and that she should go to him with those types of questions. She said that Mr. Sco?eld was familiar with reporters and the press in Chicago, and that he would ?mentor? staff with respect to speeches and press releases. 15. The witness said that while she was legislative director, Mr. Sco?eld was mostly copied on emails relating to communications issues. She said that Mr. Sco?eld never assigned her projects, nor did she recall submitting work for him to review. She said that she did not go to Mr. Sco?eld for advice on legislative strategy or tactics. 16. The witness said that she did a lot of drafting letters from Rep. Gutierrez to administration officials, and that she could not recall sharing any of these letters with Mr. Sco?eld. She also said that Mr. Sco?eld never sent her any draft letters. When shown examples of letters that Mr. Sco?eld may have been involved with, the witness said that these were letters on issues with which she would not have been involved. She said that the then-deputy chief of staff, Enrique Fernandez, would have worked on the letters. 17. The witness was shown a January 26, 2013 memorandum she wrote to Rep. Gutierrez and Doug Sco?eld, copied to the communications director and legislative counsel, entitled ?Immigration Happenings and Legislative Update.? The witness said that Rep. Gutierrez had a big decision to make on immigration policy at that time and, after thorough discussions, he asked the witness to put down the various points in writing. 18. When asked why she directed this policy memo to Mr. Sco?eld, the witness said that Rep. Gutierrez asked her to share it with him. She said that she could not recall any general or MOI Page 2 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_oo34 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended speci?c input Mr. Sco?eld had on this issue. She said that she did have discussions with the communications director and legislative counsel about the sub stance of the memo. 19. The witness was shown a January 24, 2012 email from Mr. Sco?eld to the communications director, copied to the chief of staff, legislative counsel, legislative assistant, and the witness, serving as legislative director, in which lV.[r. Sco?eld discussed Rep. Gutierrez?s role attacking Republicans on immigration. When asked why Mr. Sco?eld was included on an email with legislative staff, the witness said that, to her, the subject of the email was not legislative; to her, legislation is drafting bills. 20. The witness was then shown two November 2012 emails from Mr. Sco?eld to the communications director and the witness, in which he discusses ?next steps? on immigration reform, including whether Rep. Gutierrez will introduce his own legislation. The witness said that she did not recall the emails, but that, in general, the decision whether or not to do a bill is a question for Rep. Gutierrez. 21. The witness was not involved in drafting of press releases, so she was not familiar with what assistance or training Mr. Sco?eld may have provided in that area. She said that Mr. Sco?eld has provided assistance with drafting remarks given by Rep. Gutierrez. She cited as examples remarks given by Rep. Gutierrez at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Alabama, and remarks that Rep. Gutierrez gave on the House ?oor on immigration, about one or two years ago. 22. The witness also said that when ?trouble? would hit, Mr. Sco?eld was there as a resource. As an example, the witness said that when new district staff members were hired last year, Mr. Sco?eld was asked to help ?get them up to speed.? She said that she had one or two meetings with Mr. Sco?eld and district staff leadership at the time that the Cicero district office was being opened and they were trying to set it up. When asked about Mr. Sco?eld?s specific participation, the witness said he just listened and she didn?t recall him making any specific recommendations. 23. The witness said that the meetings held in the district during this transition period were the only meetings she attended with Mr. Sco?eld. She could not remember any meetings attended by Mr. Sco?eld held in Washington, DC. 24. When asked if Mr. Sco?eld assisted with casework, the witness said that it was generally understood that Mr. Sco?eld was available to help district staff. She was not familiar with any assistance he may have provided prior to the witness becoming chief of staff. 25. The witness was not familiar with any assistance or training that Mr. Sco?eld may have provided with respect to community outreach efforts. 26. When asked how Mr. Sco?eld?s duties as a contractor compared with his duties as chief of staff, the witness said that she did not see him as an employee, that he did not work on the same kinds of things, and that he had a more discrete role as a contractor. 27. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld was asked to do work by the communications director, the chief of staff, and Rep. Gutierrez. She was not aware of other congressional staff members asking Mr. Sco?eld to do work. The witness said that she was not aware of Mr. Sco?eld directing any congressional staffers to do work. MOI Page 3 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 28. When asked if Mr. Sco?eld had any oversight responsibilities for the congressional office, the witness said that he was a resource to the office. She said that if Mr. Sco?eld made any recommendation, there was no requirement to follow it. 29. The witness was shown a September 3, 2012 email from Rep. Gutierrez to the chief of staff and to Mr. Sco?eld, in which Rep. Gutierrez instructs that the chief of staff and the witness were ?not to be absent on the same When asked why Mr. Scofield was included on this email, the witness said that she did not know. She said she was not aware of any input from Mr. Scofield on this matter. She said that since she has become chief of staff, she has viewed Mr. Sco?eld as a ?resource? and a ?mentor.? She said he is knowledgeable, and someone to ask for help on predominantly communications issues. 30. The witness said that she is not aware of any staff evaluations conducted by Mr. Sco?eld. She said that she has never been evaluated by Mr. Scofield. 31. The witness said that she had never been formally trained by Mr. Sco?eld, but that if she had communications questions, she would go to him. She noted that there had been one office retreat, held in Chicago in approximately 2004, during which the entire staff was able to learn about the operations of the congressional office. She said that Mr. Sco?eld facilitated this retreat and served as a resource for the staffers. 32. The witness said that she saw the retainer agreement between Mr. Sco?eld and the congressional office for the first time this year, when a Finance Office employee asked for a signed copy of a renewed agreement for the new Congress. The witness said that she skimmed the agreement and signed it. She said that the duties listed in the agreement looked like what Mr. Sco?eld did for the office. She did not discuss it with Mr. Sco?eld or Rep. Gutierrez. 33. The witness was not aware of Mr. Sco?eld working on Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional campaign. 34. The witness was not aware that Mr. Sco?eld was a registered state lobbyist until after news reports earlier this year. The witness said she never knew Mr. Sco?eld as a lobbyist; she always understood that his business was communications related. 35. After the news reports appeared, she sought out Mr. Sco?eld, who told her he only lobbied on the state level. She said that at no time did Mr. Sco?eld ?lobby us in 36. When asked if she had any conversation with Rep. Gutierrez about whether Mr. Scofield ever lobbied him, the witness said that she did not. The witness did not discuss potential lobbying by Mr. Sco?eld with the former chief of staff, Jennice Fuentes. She said that the current congressional staff had conversations to clear up the facts to respond to reporter questions. She kept Rep. Gutierrez informed about the requests and vetted responses through him. 37. The witness said that she was not aware of any congressional staff members discussing appropriations requests with Mr. Scofield. 38. The witness was asked about her contacts with the Committee on House Administration after the news reports about Mr. Sco?eld appeared. She said that she reached out to CHA staff to get the history of the Scofield agreement and background on the approval process. This was an attempt to ensure the agreement was in compliance with House Rules. MOI Page 4 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_0036 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 39. The witness as shown a May 30, 2013 email from the CHA minority staff director to her in which he states: ?We need to discuss this phrase [from Rep. Gutierrez?s communication director?s response to the press] tomorrow: still works with me on some press issues, especially Chicago-related press and who is who, and helps draft or edit some statements and speeches.? The witness said she was not sure whether she actually had a discussion with CHA staff about this phrase and did not remember it being identified as a problem. 40. The witness had a meeting with CHA majority and minority staff in which they discussed the agreement. She said that the staff had reviewed the agreement and advised that it be redrafted or canceled, but that they would not recommended keeping it in its current form. The CHA staff did not identify speci?c issues with the agreement. 41. When asked if CHA told her why the agreement had purportedly been approved ten years earlier, the witness said that CHA staff told her? times change, things change.? 42. After the witness met with CHA staff, she discussed the agreement with Rep. Gutierrez, who made the decision to cancel the contract. This memorandum was prepared on October 18, 2013 after the interview was conducted on October 15, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on October 15,2013. Scott Gast Investigative Counsel MOI Page 5 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_oo37 EXHIBIT 8 13?7135_oo3a CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW Representative Gutierrez?s Communications Director IN RE: REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: October 15, 2013 LOCATION: 425 3rd Street, SW Washington, DC TIME: 11:49 a.m. to 12:46 p.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Kedric Payne Scott Gast Andrew Herman (counsel) Ross Nabatoff (counsel) The OCE requested an interview with the witness and he consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case ?le in this review. The witness is currently the communications director for Rep. Luis Gutierrez; prior to taking on this role, he served as press secretary. He was hired by Rep. Gutierrez in April 2010. As communications director, the witness handles all press and media related activities and other communications?related matters as assigned. The witness first met Doug Sco?eld when he was interviewing for the press secretary position in Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office. The witness said that his conversation with Mr. Scofield was part of the interview process. He said that the then-chief of staff wanted him to speak with Mr. Sco?eld about what the job would entail; he believes the chief of staff wanted Mr. Scofield?s assessment of the witness. The witness and Mr. Scofield discussed what it is like to work for Rep. Gutierrez, talked about the Chicago media, and traded ideas during this conversation. The witness came to understand that Mr. Scofield had his own company after seeing Mr. Scofield?s email address and business phone number. The chief of staff described the company as a consulting ?rm. He knew that both Mr. Scofield and his wife worked at the company, but only met his wife one time in Chicago, when he was invited over to the company?s offices. The witness primarily worked with Mr. Scofield, occasionally dealing with his assistant. When asked if he knew how Mr. Scofield came to be a contractor to the congressional office, the witness said that he knew that Mr. Scofield had been Rep. Gutierrez?s chief of staff. He said that he and the current chief of staff were engaged in various communications matters, and that Mr. Sco?eld advised Rep. Gutierrez on communications issues. Page 1 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_0039 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 7. However, the witness said he was not initially aware that Mr. Scofield was being paid by the congressional office. He learned this after he was asked by a Chicago reporter whether Mr. Scofield was being paid by the office. The witness then asked the chief of staff who told the witness that Mr. Sco?eld was being paid. 8. The witness saw Mr. Scofield as someone that Rep. Gutierrez and the chief of staff trusted. He described Mr. Scofield as someone important to a new press secretary in making Rep. Gutierrez feel comfortable. 9. The witness said that at some point prior to the USA Today report, the chief of staff had shown him the retainer agreement between the congressional office and Mr. Scofield. He believes that this was prompted by a press inquiry sometime in 2010. 10. When asked to whom Mr. Scofield reported, the witness said that it was likely he reported to the chief of staff. Mr. Scofield worked most closely with the chief of staff and the witness himself, and that he had a direct relationship with Rep. Gutierrez. Mr. Scofield had less interaction with the legislative director and scheduler. 11. When asked if anyone reported to Mr. Scofield, the witness said that he consulted with Mr. Scofield but did not get sign-off from him to proceed. On occasion, Mr. Scofield would review or edit the witness? work, and sometimes the witness would review and edit Mr. Scofield?s work. There was a lot of brainstorming between the two. 12. When asked if Mr. Scofield approved communications before they were sent out by the congressional office, the witness said that the process was ?more informal than that.? He said that he would often run things by Mr. Scofield, and that sometimes Rep. Gutierrez would ask if the witness had run a particular draft by Mr. Scofield. 13. The witness was not aware of Mr. Sco?eld conducting any staff evaluations. 14. The witness was shown an undated memo from Rep. Gutierrez to Mr. Scofield and the witness, in which Rep. Gutierrez instructed that the witness coordinate his absences from the office with Mr. Scofield. The witness recalled that that memo was from earlier this year, after Congress had been called into session during ?scal cliff talks while the witness was on vacation. The witness said that Rep. Gutierrez wanted someone around who could handle press inquires. He added that the then-chief of staff would often cover for him if he was out of the office. 15. The witness said that Mr. Scofield? duties with respect to the congressional office were generally to be a resource for the witness and another set of eyes on communications matters. He described Mr. Scofield as a sounding board, someone who made Rep. Gutierrez comfortable with decisions, and someone with an ability to capture Rep. Gutierrez?s voice. 16. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld was also a resource to the chief of staff on communications issues and probably other things. When asked what other things, the witness said that Mr. Scofield was someone she could talk to about Illinois politics, he was not sure of other things. 17. When asked if Mr. Scofield conducted any training for the congressional staff, the witness said that he had a few sessions with Mr. Scofield over the telephone, where Mr. Scofield would walk MOI Page 2 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_oo4o CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended him through who was who in the Chicago press and politics. He said that Mr. Scof1eld?s role was more to provide advice than to train. 18. When asked if Mr. Sco?eld trained other staff, the witness said that he worked with district staff in setting up the Cicero district office. 19. The witness was not aware of Mr. Scofield assisting with casework. He said that Mr. Scofield may have assisted with citizen workshops and press events in Chicago. The witness said that Mr. Scofield probably assisted with some other community events through the communications angle. He recalled Mr. Scofield? involvement in a press conference on the United merger. 20. The witness could not remember Mr. Scofield reviewing work by the legislative staff. He said that if a press release was about a certain issue or policy, then the legislative staff may have had input and Mr. Scofield may review that work, but it would go through the witness first. 21. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld was regularly involved in drafting and editing speeches given by Rep. Gutierrez, including speeches from the House ?oor. The witness said that he believes Mr. Scofield came up with ideas for floor speeches, but he noted that Mr. Scofield and Rep. Gutierrez talked often, so it was not always clear who came up with a particular idea. Mr. Sco?eld sometimes came up with a first draft of a speech. 22. The witness recalled that Mr. Scofield may have assisted with a floor speech on the Gulf oil spill, and may have worked with a legislative assistant in drafting that speech. 23. The witness said that Sco?eld did not participate in legislative strategy discussions ?very muc He noted that ?the line between communications and legislative strategy is not a bright line,? and that ?message and policy are related.? He said that Mr. Scofield was more focused on message. 24. The witness did not recall Mr. Scof1eld?s involvement in drafting testimony or working on other committee matters. 25. The witness said that Mr. Scofield was occasionally involved in drafting or editing letters from Rep. Guiterrez to administration officials, especially when the issues involved Puerto Rico, as this was of particular sensitivity to Rep. Gutierrez. 26. The witness was shown an October 10, 2012 email from then-Deputy Chief of Staff Enrique Fernandez to Rep. Gutierrez and Mr. Scofield, copied to the chief of staff and the witness, in which he forwarded the ?latest interim response? from the Secretary of the Army in response to a letter sent by Rep. Gutierrez regarding a pipeline in Puerto Rico. The witness said that he and Mr. Sco?eld were engaged in writing the letter to the administration official because Mr. Fernandez was not the greatest writer. 27. When asked why Mr. Scofield was included in the email forwarding the off1cial?s response to the letter, the witness said that the letter was less about policy and more about politics ?screwing? the tea party governor of Puerto Rico. He said that this was less about policy and more about Rep. Gutierrez standing up for Puerto Rico. He also said that the letter was an attempt to help environmentalists put pressure on the governor to make changes regarding the pipeline. MOI Page 3 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_oo41 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 28. The witness was shown a January 26, 2013 memorandum from the then~legislative director to Rep. Gutierrez and Mr. Sco?eld, copied to the witness and Rep. Gutierrez?s legislative counsel, entitled ?Immigration Happenings and Legislative Update.? When asked why Sco?eld was included on what appeared to be a legislative memo, the witness said that the memo was about activities in Rep. Gutierrez?s ?central issue? of immigration and new developments on this issue. It involved a ?pretty big? strategy issue regarding positions Rep. Gutierrez would take on his signature issue, so it didn?t seem odd that Mr. Sco?eld was included. 29. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld ?probably? did work for Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional campaign. He explained that when a reporter would ask political questions, he would try to get Mr. Sco?eld to respond. The witness noted that Rep. Gutierrez does not really have much of a campaign these days. 30. The witness believes Mr. Sco?eld may have done some fundraising work for the campaign, but as far as the witness? interactions with Mr. Sco?eld, he mostly tried to ?nd someone to respond to press inquires on campaign issues. 31. The witness said that he was not aware that Mr. Sco?eld was a registered state lobbyist until after the USA Today story appeared. 32. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld never discussed his clients with him. He added that Mr. Sco?eld had done some work for the Greater Chicago Food Depository before the witness began working for Rep. Gutierrez. He believes someone else in Mr. Sco?e1d?s ?rm may have done work for the Food Depository, but he did not engage at that level of detail. 33. The witness noted that Rep. Gutierrez had signed a letter supporting an appropriations request for the Food Depository that was spearheaded by Rep. Lipinski. He added that it was ?silly? to suggest that Rep. Gutierrez needed to be ?convinced? by Mr. Sco?eld to sign on to the letter. 34. The witness said that he believes that the Chicago Botanical Garden was not Mr. Sco?eld? client, that the Garden had retained his ?rm, but that the firm did no work for them. 35. Mr. Sco?eld told the witness that he never spoke with Rep. Gutierrez about any of his clients. 36. The witness said that Rep. Gutierrez told him that he never spoke to Mr. Sco?eld regarding appropriations for his clients. 37. Mr. Sco?eld only discussed appropriations requests with the witness ?very tangentially,? when a request by a Catholic school to take over a ball ?eld became a local news story. The witness discussed the story, its aftermath, and efforts by the political press to involve Rep. Gutierrez in the story with Mr. Sco?eld. 38. The witness said he has had no contact with the House Committee on House Administration regarding Mr. Sco?eld or the contract with his ?rm. He said that Susan Collins had been the person with contact with the Committee. 39. When asked if he was familiar with the terms of the agreement between Mr. Sco?eld?s ?rm and the congressional of?ce, the witness said that he believes that at some point approximately one year before the USA Today story appeared, he had a conversation with the same reporter about MOI Page 4 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_oo42 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended the Scofreld contract. He recalled that the then?chief of staff had printed out a copy of the contract for him at that time. He did not recall discussing the Committee on House Administration at that time, but said the chief of staff probably made it clear that the Committee had signed off on the contract. 40. The witness said that Rep. Gutierrez made the decision to cancel the agreement with Mr. Sco?eld. He said that the consensus was that it was a good idea to cancel the agreement, for appearances? sake. This memorandum was prepared on October 18, 2013 after the interview was conducted on October 15, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on October 15, 2013. Scott Gast Investigative Counsel MOI Page 5 of 5 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135__oo43 EXHIBIT 9 13-7135_0044 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s District Director REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: October 1, 2013 LOCATION: 425 3? Street, sw Washington, DC TIAIE: 10:55 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Andrew Herman (counsel) Seth Price (counsel) SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case ?le in this review. The witness is currently the district director for Rep. Luis Gutierrez, overseeing both district offices, in Chicago and Cicero. She has had this role since November 2012. Prior to becoming district director, she worked as a district congressional aide since January 2006. . The witness? current duties as district director involve scheduling Rep. Gutierrez in the district, assigning case work, and generally managing the offices. The witness also did casework until June 2013. The witness helped open the Cicero office in May 2012. The witness knows Doug Sco?eld, and knows that he used to be Rep. Gutierrez? Chief of Staff. She had no contact with Mr. Sco?eld while she was a congressional aide. As district director, the witness had a meeting with Mr. Sco?eld in December 2012 or January 2013 at the Cicero office; Rep. Gutierrez?s chief of staff participated in the meeting by telephone. During this meeting, the participants discussed management of district of?ce operations. They also discussed security issues in the wake of a former district staffer possibly taking money from constituents seeking assistance. They also discussed workshop events that occur in the district. The only input that the witness recalled Mr. Scofield offering was to suggest that the of?ce use a safety box for money orders brought in by constituents. The witness believes that the chief of staff initiated the meeting The witness recalled asking the chief of staff about training for district office staff, as she was new to the role of district director. She said that she was never trained by Mr. Sco?eld nor does she believe other district staff members were trained by him. Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETI-IICS 13?7135_oo45 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 8. The witness was not familiar with Mr. Scof1eld?s ?rm beyond what she has read in the press. 9. The witness stated that she was not aware of the role Mr. Sco?eld had with respect to Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office. She was not aware of any contractual relationship between Mr. Sco?eld and the congressional office. 10. The witness was shown a September 3, 2012 email from Rep. Gutierrez to the then?chief of staff and Mr. Sco?eld, in which Rep. Gutierrez states that Mr. Sco?eld and another district staff member were to prepare evaluations of district of?ce staff. The witness stated that she was not supervised by Mr. Sco?eld or the district staff member, nor was she evaluated by either individual. As far as she knew, she had never seen Mr. Sco?eld or the district staff member supervise or evaluate anyone on the district staff. This memorandum was prepared on October 21, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 27, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 27, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_0046 EXHIBIT 10 13?7135_oo47 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 1 10th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Congressional Aide #2 REVIEW 13-713 5 DATE: October 1, 2013 LOCATION: 425 Street, sw Washington, DC TIIVIE: 11:55 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Andrew Herman (counsel) Seth Price (counsel) SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: l. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case ?le in this review. The witness is currently a district congressional aide for Rep. Luis Gutierrez. She has had the position since 2002. She reports to the district director, Theresa Paucar. . The witness has known Doug Sco?eld since before her employment with Rep. Gutierrez. She was employed by a law ?rm that handled Rep. Gutierrez?s FEC reports; it was there that she met Mr. Sco?eld when he was Chief of Staff. The witness was generally aware of Mr. Scof1eld?s ?rm. She believed that the ?rm did some sort of political work. . Since working as a congressional aide, the witness has had one interaction with Mr. Sco?eld at Rep. Gutierrez? of?ce. A staff person had resigned after allegations of inappropriate activities, and the then-serving chief of staff was asking other district staff members questions about the activities of that staff person. Mr. Sco?eld was present at that time. The witness believes, but was not sure, that Mr. Sco?eld had some contract with the congressional of?ce but did not know the details of the arrangement. The witness had not been trained by Mr. Sco?eld and was not aware of other staff members being trained by him. She was also not aware of Mr. Sco?eld interacting with other staff members. Mr. Sco?eld did not assign any projects to her and did not evaluate her in any way. The witness never discussed Mr. Sco?eld?s ?rm clients with him. Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_oo4s CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 9. The witness said that she spoke with Mr. Sco?eld about two or three weeks ago by telephone. Mr. Sco?eld had contacted her for assistance with a passport. This memorandum was prepared on October 21, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 27, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 27, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_oo49 EXHIBIT 11 13?7135_oo5o CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress asiAmended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Counsel REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: September 27, 2013 LOCATION: 425 Street, sw Washington, DC IIVIE: 11:00 a.m. to 11:34 a.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Andrew Herman (counsel) Seth Price (counsel) SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case ?le in this review. The witness currently is employed as counsel to Rep. Luis Gutierrez. She started working for Rep. Gutierrez as a fellow in July 2012, and became a ?ill time staff person in January 2013. Her duties as counsel include working on immigration issues. She also staffs the Member on the judiciary committee, prepping him for hearings. She still does some casework, and oversees the current fellows in the office. . The witness reports to the chief of staff, and sometimes to the communications director. She also sometimes reports directly to Rep. Gutierrez. The witness came to know Doug Sco?eld through her work in Rep. Gutierrez? congressional office. She believe she has only met him in person once, around the time that she transitioned to counsel, when she was brie?y introduced to l\/Ir. Scofield while he was in the Washington congressional office to meet with Rep. Gutierrez. The witness said that Mr. Scofield generally worked with Rep. Gutierrez? communications director. She said he likely worked with the chief of staff, with district office staff, and with Rep. Gutierrez himself, but she could not be sure. The witness stated that she does not believe that she worked with Mr. Scofield on any matters. When asked about Mr. Scof1eld?s role in the congressional office, the witness said that she thought Mr. Sco?eld provided guidance to staff on certain issues and maybe was there to ?consult ideas with? staffers on issues. The witness was not aware of Mr. Scof1eld?s company or his clients. Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_0051 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 8. The witness was aware that Mr. Scofield was formerly Rep. Gutierrez?s Chief of Staff because the legislative director brie?y mentioned it when the witness met Mr. Sco?eld. The witness did not recall whether the legislative director mentioned Mr. Sco?eld?s current role with the office. 9. The witness was never trained by Mr. Scofield, nor did she participate in any staff retreats while employed by Rep. Gutierrez. 10. The witness was never evaluated by Mr. Scofield. 11. The witness said that Mr. Scofield never assigned work to her, nor did she think she ever submitted any work to Mr. Scofield for review. 12. The witness did not know if Mr. Scofield did any work for Rep. Gutierrez?s campaign. 13. The witness was shown several emails forwarding statements, articles, and other materials relating to policy matters in which Mr. Scofield is included with congressional staff members. When asked why Mr. Sco?eld was included on these messages, the witness said that the office often exchanged emails sharing information about what was happening on immigration and other matters. The witness speculated that Mr. Scofield may have been included because he worked closely with the communications director on press matters. She said that Mr. Scofield did not work in the DC office, so she was not sure why he was included. 14. The witness was shown a memorandum prepared by the then-legislative director, to Rep. Gutierrez and Mr. Scofield, copied to the witness and the communications director, entitled, ?Immigration Happenings and Legislative Update.? The witness said this document laid out various options on pursuing immigration legislation. She assumed that Mr. Scofield was included on the memo to keep him updated on immigration happenings and to get his guidance. 15. The witness said that she did not work with Mr. Sco?eld on the immigration issue, but she did not know if Mr. Scofield worked with the legislative director or communications director on this issue. She said she was not surprised to see Mr. Scofield included on the memo. The witness said that she frequently engaged in strategy sessions with the chief of staff and communications director about the immigration issue. 16. The witness stated that prior to the OCE interview, Rep. Gutierrez? chief of staff told her that the review would most likely be about the issues raised in the USA Today article. This memorandum was prepared on October 7, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 27, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 27, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_oo52 EXHIBIT 12 13?7135__oo53 CONFIDENTIAL Subject tontithie Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Legislative Assistant REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: September 27, 2013 LOCATION: 425 Street, sw Washington, DC TIME: 12:21 p.m. to 1:10 p.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Andrew Herman (counsel) Seth Price (counsel) SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 waming and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness is currently a legislative assistant in Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office. She has had this role since January 2013. She worked as Rep. Gutierrez?s scheduler from approximately May/June 2010 until she took the job as a legislative assistant. The witness? duties include monitoring legislation, working on social media, editing speeches, and working on policy issues, including appropriations, budget, and intelligence matters. The witness knows Doug Sco?eld through the congressional office and has met him once. She stated that Mr. Scofield worked most closely with Rep. Gutierrez?s press staff and that he was the former Chief of Staff to Rep. Gutierrez. The witness would periodically talk to Mr. Sco?eld over his cell phone when Rep. Gutierrez would ask for him. . The witness stated that, when she served as the scheduler, she would periodically see a bill from Mr. Scof1eld?s company for services. . Mr. Scofield is someone that the witness believed Rep. Gutierrez trusted and someone that Rep. Gutierrez would bounce ideas off of. The witness stated that generally she would say Mr. Scofield reported to Rep. Gutierrez. The witness did not recall any communication with Mr. Sco?eld since she became a legislative assistant. She recalled that in December 2012, Mr. Sco?eld came to Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office to meet with Rep. Gutierrez and then-legislative director Susan Collins. Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_oo54 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 9. The witness stated that she was aware of Mr. Sco?eld coaching and giving feedback to press staffers but that there was ?not particularly? any training that he did for staff. 10. The witness knew that Mr. Sco?eld helped Rep. Gutierrez on the ?political side? by securing endorsements. 11. The witness helped edit speeches so Mr. Sco?eld may have seen something she worked on. Major speeches Went through him. 12. The witness stated that Mr. Sco?eld had different roles at different points: Chicago media, writing speeches, messaging strategy, and helping to secure political endorsements. This memorandum was prepared on October 21, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 27, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 27, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS EXHIBIT 13 13-7135_oo5s CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Legislative Correspondent REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: September 27, 2013 LOCATION: 425 Street, sw Washington, DC TIME: 11:42 a.m. to 12:15 a.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Andrew Herman (counsel) Seth Price (counsel) SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and he consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness is currently a legislative correspondent for Rep. Gutierrez, with some legislative assistant responsibilities as well: energy, transportation, agriculture, science technology. His duties are to manage constituent correspondence, draft letters, and research laws. The witness has no role in communications or press. . The witness stated that he knows Doug Scof1eld?s name from ?upper level staffers? but has never met him. The witness stated that sometimes he has emailed Mr. Sco?eld and sometimes he is copied on emails between staffers and Mr. Sco?eld. The emails between Mr. Sco?eld and him occurred maybe five times. The witness recalled once the office communications director asked him to send a letter to Mr. Sco?eld on of?ce letterhead. He did not recall what the letter concerned. . The witness was aware of Mr. Sco?eld?s companies because of the email addresses Mr. Sco?eld would use when emailing the office. The witness knew that Mr. Sco?eld helped with speech writing and worked closely with Doug Rivlin and Iennice Fuentes. He knew this based on conversations in the office. The witness was not aware of Mr. Sco?eld?s work on legislative issues. Mr. Sco?eld did not train the witness, and the witness did not attend any staff retreats. The witness did not recall whether he has submitted any work to Mr. Sco?eld but he may have. Page I of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETI-IICS 13?7135__oo57 CONFIDENTIAL Subjectlto the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 10. The witness has never been evaluated by Mr. Scofield. 11. When asked if he was aware of any contracts between Mr. Scofield and Rep. Gutierrez?s of?ce, the witness stated that he was aware via ?conversations? in the office. The witness then stated that he did not know specifically about a contract, but had just assumed one existed. The witness then exited the room with counsel. 12. Upon returning, the witness stated that prior to the review and preparing for the interview, he did not know Mr. Scofield?s role with the office but knew he worked on communications issues. He just found out recently that a contract existed. 13. The witness stated that on September 26, 2013, the day before the interview, Rep. Gutierrez discussed Mr. Scofield with the witness. The witness was in Rep. Gutierrezfs office with Susan Collins, Alice Lugo, and Johnson. Ms. Collins told the witness to tell the truth in the interview. Rep. Gutierrez came into the office and said ?you all know what Doug?s role is here, you know what he did here.? This memorandum was prepared on October 8, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 27, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 27, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS EXHIBIT 14 13?7135_0059 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosiire Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Fonner Senior Legislative Assistant REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: September 19, 2013 LOCATION: OCE offices via telephone TIME: 11:14 a.m. to 11:54 a.m_ (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Bryson Morgan SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness is currently a second year law student in San Francisco, California. Prior to school, she was employed by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, first as a legislative correspondent, then as a legislative assistant, and ?nally as a senior legislative assistant. She left Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office in June 2012. . The witness?s duties as a senior legislative assistant were to work on matters relating to the financial services committee and the subcommittee on housing. She also worked on appropriations issues. She did not work on communications matters, other than occasionally brie?ng the communications director on issues within her purview. The witness met Doug Scofield through her employment in Rep. Gutierrez?s office. She does not believe she ever met him in person. She was aware the Mr. Sco?eld has his own company, but was not familiar with its work. She said she may have learned about his company when it came up in conversations. When asked about Mr. Scof1eld?s role in the congressional of?ce, the witness said that he would work on ?more complicated? and ?nuanced? issues. She explained that Mr. Scofield had been Rep. Gutierrezfs chief of staff, so if she needed to understand the ?history? on an issue, someone in the congressional office recommended that she contact Mr. Scofreld. The witness stated that was directed by Rep. Gutierrez or his chief of staff, Jennice Fuentes, to contact Mr. Scofield on certain issues. Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_ooso CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 7. The witness stated that she could not recall speci?c examples of the issues about which she would have been prompted to seek Mr. Sco?eld?s input or advice, but that it would have been a ?wide range? of issues that would have ?come across [her] desk.? 8. The witness was not sure how often she had contact with Mr. Sco?eld. Her contact with Mr. Sco?eld was generally over the phone, but there may have also been email exchanges. 9. The witness did not know to whom Mr. Sco?eld reported, nor did she know if anyone in the congressional office reported to him. 10. The witness recalled that Mr. Sco?eld would give advice on a matter and then it would be discussed with others in the congressional office. She explained that if there was uncertainty as to the best path forward or what should be done about a matter, she would often be told, ?Ask Doug.? 11. According to the witness, Mr. Sco?eld worked with the chief of staff, communications director, and press secretary. She did not really recall speci?c instances of Mr. Sco?eld working with the legislative staff, but she said that it would not surprise her if he did. 12. When asked if Mr. Scofield provided training for the congressional office, the witness said that she did not believe so. She did not recall any formal training programs. 13. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld would ?edit? documents produce by the congressional office. She was not sure what those documents were, but thought they were press and ??oor stuff.? The witness could not recall any particular documents that she produced that were edited by Mr. Sco?eld. 14. The witness said that Mr. Sco?eld interacted with the press frequently. 15. The witness did not know if Mr. Sco?eld did any work for Rep. Gutierrez?s campaign. 16. The witness did not recall any instances in which Mr. Sco?eld discussed his firm clients with her. She did not recall any contact with Mr. Sco?eld ab out the Chicago Botanical Garden or the Greater Chicago Food Depository. This memorandum was prepared on September 23, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 19, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 19, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_0061 Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Former Senior Legislative Assistant REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: September 24, 2013 LOCATION: OCE offices via telephone TIME: 11:30 a.m_ to 11:43 a.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Bryson Morgan SUIVJMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. Following the initial interview of the witness, she requested the opportunity to speak with the OCE a 1. M01 second time. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: The witness had previously been given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness was reminded that the warning applied to this second interview. The witness stated that she wanted to provide additional context surrounding her work with Mr. Sco?eld. While she could not remember speci?cs, she said that her general sense was that she would work on something, show it to Rep. Gutierrez or the chief of staff, and they would then ask her to ?run it by? Mr. Scofield. She did not recall if Rep. Gutierrez said why he wanted her to contact Mr. Scofield. . The things she would contact Mr. Scofield about were ?public facing? things like speeches, remarks at a hearing, or statements for the record that were to be delivered by or attributed to Rep. Gutierrez. She did not recall specific subjects of these remarks or speeches. With respect to remarks prepared for hearings, the witness said that these remarks would have been for the committees with which she worked, such as the Judiciary (early on, though there may not have been written statements), Intelligence, or Financial Services Committees. When directed to run something by Mr. Sco?eld, the witness would generally give him a call. She thinks she also emailed him things. She may have given him background information about a particular piece of work and discussed his proposed changes with him. She did not recall working with anyone other than Mr. Scofield from his firm, though she may have sent a colleague something to give to Mr. Sco?eld. Once she had sent something to W. Sco?eld, the witness would get back ?changes.? She could not remember what kind of changes or edits she received. When asked if the changes were more substantive or technical, she said that they were not ?commas and periods.? Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_ooe2 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 8. When asked who else Mr. Scofield may have Worked with, the witness said that he prob ably talked to the then-legislative director. He also spoke with Rep. Gutierrez. 9. The witness did not recall Mr. Sco?eld ever reaching out to her. She said it seemed that she would always reach out to him first. This memorandum was prepared on September 26, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 24, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 24, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_0063 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Former Senior Legislative Assistant REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: November 15, 2013 LOCATION: OCE offices via telephone TIME: 10:30 AM to 10:40 AM (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast SUIVEMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. Following the initial interview of the witness, she requested a third opportunity to speak with the OCE. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. The witness had previously been given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness was reminded that the warning applied to this second interview. 2. The witness stated that she had recently recalled working on appropriations matters in Representative Gutierrez?s congressional office for an additional period of time. She explained that in additional to taking over from another staff member in or around 2010, she also worked on appropriations matters for just a few weeks prior to that staff member starting in 2009. 3. During the brief period, the witness had a few meetings on appropriations requests and believed that the then-legislative director joined her for some meetings. 4. The witness did not recall any meetings with Doug Scofield or anyone from his firm during this time, nor did she recall any contacts with him. She did not recall working on appropriations requests for the Chicago Botanical Garden or the Greater Chicago Food Depository. This memorandum was prepared on November 19, 2013 after the interview was conducted on November 15, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on November 15, 2013. Scott Gast Investigative Counsel MOI Page 1 of 1 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_0064 EXHIBIT 15 13-7135_0065 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez? Former Legislative Assistant REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: September 24, 2013 LOCATION: OCE offices via telephone TIME: 2:01 p.m. to 2:26 p.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Bryson Morgan SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and she consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: l. MOI The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case file in this review. The witness served as a legislative assistant for Rep. Gutierrez from February 2009 to May 2010. Her issue areas included appropriations, ?nancial services, transportation, and foreign affairs. She reported to Susan Collins, legislative director, and also Jennice Fuentes, chief of staff. The witness currently serves as a legislative counsel for another Member of Congress. As a legislative assistant, the witness? duties included signing Rep. Gutierrez onto legislation, working on immigration events, assisting with events, preparing talking points on issues, meeting with constituent groups, and working on appropriations requests. The witness indicated that she knew of Doug Sco?eld, but was not aware of his company or any of his company? clients. The witness knew that Mr. Sco?eld had previously served as the chief of staff for Rep. Gutierrez, but did not recall how she came to know that information. She said that Mr. Scofield?s name was occasionally mentioned by Rep. Gutierrez and Ms. Fuentes. She was not aware that Mr. Scofield served as a contractor to Rep. Gutierrez? congressional of?ce. She did not believe he was a House employee, but she was otherwise unsure of his role or position with the congressional of?ce. The witness believed Mr. Sco?eld?s interactions were mostly with higher-level staff, including the chief of staff, communications staff, and Rep. Gutierrez, but she did not know the substance of those interactions. She was not aware of interactions with other staff members. The witness was not aware of Mr. Sco?eld reviewing any written work that she prepared, including remarks, speeches, and statements. Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_0066 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended 8. The witness said that Rep. Gutierrez would occasionally tell her to ?shoot that over to Doug,? for Mr. Sco?eld to review before a statement or document went public. It was mostly ?press stuff.? 9. The witness stated that she was not trained by Mr. Scofield. 10. The witness stated that there had been no ?red flags? in her experience with Rep. Gutierrez and his relationship with Mr. Scofield. 11. The witness said that she never discussed appropriations requests with Mr. Scofield. She was not aware of any contact by Mr. Scofield with the congressional of?ce regarding the Chicago Botanical Garden or the Greater Chicago Food Depository. She did not recall hearing his name brought up in relation to those entities. 12. The witness said that she met with representatives of the Botanical Garden; she believes the office made an appropriations request on their behalf. She noted that all appropriations requests made by the office were listed on the office website. 13. The witness did not recall any interactions with the Greater Chicago Food Depository. 14. When she was handling appropriations matters, the witness would create a priority list of appropriations requests. Rep. Gutierrez would review this list, but did not have much input. He may have changed the priority order on occasion. 15. The witness said that the office submitted the appropriations requests that they did because they felt they helped the district. This memorandum was prepared on September 26, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 24, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 24, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13-7135_0067 EXHIBIT 16 13?7135_0068 Print Page I of 1 Subject: Fwd: .5. From: LVG -@yahoo.ocm) To: -@scofieidcompany.com; Date: Saturday, August 25. 2012 11:09 AM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Luis V. Gutierrez" Date: August 25, 2012 8:48:50 AM EDT To: Teresa Reyes Subject: Fwd: Sent fro no my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Luis V. Gutierrez" Date: August 25, ZOIZ 7:47:42 AM CDT To: Jennie-3 Fuentes Sent from my iPad Wednesday at one o'clock you Slim, Sal and Tere R. meet at North Ave. office. Why no action was taken with law enforcemeiit in regards to Rosa; Why were Rosa's ?les not gone thruzat least open her drawers to see what ?les were in there. There will be no raising of voices or ?nger pointing. Ijust want the facts. I also want to know why Rosa was allowed to act basically without supervision e.g. selling her grandsons school candies in the office? I also want to discuss how the staff is getting the overtime they deserve. Why are staff commenting they only work 9 to 5, not a second more? Is this a reflection of a lack of commitment to our goals or simply they believe they will not get the comptime they deserve? I also want Sal to stop reporting to DC on staff discipline in the district office: He will report directly to first Slim then We will then take immediate action. Please do not call me to discuss the meeting as I will lead it and have no interest in talking about these issues until Wednesday. Everyone have a great weekenddisney world. mail unlmn 7! 13?7135_0069 EXHIBIT 17 13-7135_oo7o 3?rint Page 1 of Suhiectz aoknowlegcte recispt of email From: Luis V. Gutierrez _@yahoo.com) To: Date: Tuesday. September 4, 2012 8:39 AM Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "Luis V. Gutierrez" Date: September 3, 2012 9:15:10 PM To: Jennice Fuentes Doug Sco?eld Sent from my i Effective immediately Theresa Reyes will be in charge of north side office and Geo will be in charge of Cicero office, Slim Coleman will supervise them. Each Monday Coleman will meet with both district directors and cover issues as necessary. Sal will be placed in charge of special projects:his salaiy will be adjusted accordingly. Doug and Slim will evaluate district operations and report changes and improvements to me. The DC staff will have no supervisory role in the Chicago operations. All staff annual reviews will be conducted by Doug and Slim. The DC staff will have support role only in the Chicago operations. Slim and Doug will prepare an evaluation of Cicero staff at their six month anniversary and make recommendaticiis as to their conditioned employment. Please inform Cicero staff of this upcoming event. ennice will continue to supervise DC staff. 8/27/2013 EXHIBIT 18 13?7135_oo72 CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MEMORANDUM OF INTERVIEW IN RE: Representative Gutierrez?s Congressional Aide #1 REVIEW 13-7135 DATE: October 1, 2013 LOCATION: 425 3? Street, sw Washington, DC TIME: 11:30 a.m. to 11:48 a.m. (approximate) PARTICIPANTS: Paul Solis Scott Gast Andrew Herman (counsel) Seth Price (counsel) SUMMARY: The OCE requested an interview with the witness and he consented to an interview. The witness made the following statements in response to our questioning: 1. M01 The witness was given an 18 U.S.C. 1001 warning and consented to an interview. The witness signed a written acknowledgement of the warning, which will be placed in the case ?le in this review. The witness is currently a part-time congressional aide to Rep. Gutierrez, working approximately 20 hours per week. He started working for Rep. Gutierrez in 2004. His duties include doing casework involving immigration, organizing district workshops, and assisting people with completing federal forms. The witness reports to the district director. The witness also serves as a pastor to two churches. . The witness first met Doug Sco?eld several years ago. The witness knows Mr. Sco?eld has a company that he understands engages in public relations consulting. When asked about Mr. Scof1eld?s role in Rep. Gutierrez?s congressional office, the witness said that Mr. Sco?eld had previously served as chief of staff and that he continued to work with his successor as chief of staff, Jennice Fuentes. He said he heard Ms. Fuentes say that she would ?talk to Doug? about certain issues. The witness said he did not know the nature of Mr. Scof1eld?s relationship to the congressional office, but he is aware that there was some formal relationship. He did not know if Mr. Sco?eld reported to anyone or if anyone reported to him. He was not aware of Mr. Scofield working with staff in the Washington, DC congressional of?ce. The witness stated that he had been in some meetings with Mr. Sco?eld recently. According to the witness, in July or August 2012, there was a transition in leadership in the district offices. Mr. Scofield and the witness both participated in meetings to decide how district office duties Page 1 of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS CONFIDENTIAL Subject to the Nondisclosure Provisions of H. Res. 895 of the 110th Congress as Amended would be assigned. Rep. Gutierrez had asked him to sit in on some of these meetings. The witness could not recall any other regular interaction with Mr. Scofreld. 7. The witness was shown a September 3, 2012 email from Rep. Gutierrez to Mr. Sco?eld and Ms. Fuentes about changes in the operations of the congressional district offices. The witness said that this email related to the transition in district office leadership he referenced earlier. He added that there may have been a change in the chief of staff position at this same time. 8. According to the witness, during this transition period, he met with Mr. Scofreld and the two new district office coordinators for about an hour each week for a period of about ?ve weeks, to make sure that everyone was working hard. This was also an opportunity to discuss how the of?ce should function, develop day?to-day policies, train new staff, and make sure that the two district offices were working together. 9. The witness said that Rep. Gutierrez asked him to sit in and foster a cooperative atmosphere between the two district offices and coordinators. 10. The witness said that Mr. Scof1eld?s role in the meetings was to discuss office policies about how to handle district operations, casework, and outreach programs. They discussed who would be handling various issues and how records would be kept. 11. The witness was asked about Rep. Gutierrez?s instruction that staff reviews would be conducted by Mr. Sco?eld and the witness. He said that he did not ?take too seriously? this statement by Rep. Gutierrez. The witness said that he never conducted any staff reviews or evaluations, and he did not know if Mr. Scofield did any. 12. The witness described this as a brief transition period, before a new staff member took over as district director. He said that the intent Rep. Gutierrez?s email was to direct that the district offices would handle its own problems, rather than the Washington office. 13. The witness said that he was never trained by Mr. Scofreld and did not know if other staff members were trained by him. He had some recollection that Mr. Sco?eld may have done that in the past. The witness knew that some district staff would come to DC for trainings, but did not know if Mr. Sco?eld took part in that training. 14. The witness said that he was not really aware of the details of Mr. Scof1eld?s f1rm?s business, and that he never discussed l\/Ir. Scof1eld?s clients with him. This memorandum was prepared on October 21, 2013 after the interview was conducted on September 27, 2013. I certify that this memorandum contains all pertinent matter discussed with the witness on September 27, 2013. Paul Solis Investigative Counsel MOI Page 2. of 2 OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS 13?7135_oo74 EXHIBIT 19 13?7135_oo75 Print a Page I of 1 Subject: [No Subject] From: Luis V. Gutierrez ?@yahoo.eom) To: ?@maiE.house.g0v: seofieEc?cornpany.com: Date: Monday. September 3, 2012 10:28 PM Sent finln my iPad Effective today. Jennice and Susan shall not be absent on the same days. In preparations for the Navy Pier event they were both on vacation. This was a critically important day and I was left with no senior supervisory personnel . On the 16th of Aug. the very next day and during the rest of the weeki had no one to handle press . Jennice is to insure that never eccurs again. I can not handle this situation since most of the time no one tells me they be on vacation until after they have made plans or taken the time off. g5 mail .yal1oo.eom/neo/ 8/27/2013 13-7135_0076 EXHIBIT 20 MEMORANDUM TO: Doug Rivlin and Doug Scofteld FROM: Congressman Luis Gutierrez RE: Coordinating Vacation Time The serves as a reminder that Doug Rivlin shouid ensure that he coordinates his absences from the office, such as for vacation and time off, with Doug Sco?eld. My intention with this policy is to ensure that my office always has press and communications? coverage, should an unexpected speech or press inquiry arise while Doug Rivlin is out of the office. Thank you for your attention in this matter. 13-7135_oo73 EXHIBIT 21 MEMORANDUM From: Susan To: LVG, Doug Seofield CC: Rivlin and Alice Date: January 26, 2913 RE: Immigration Happenings and Legislative Update The Congressman asked me to write down the state of play with regard to legislative developments and share it with you. He will be seeking your guidance on some key decisions he needs to make almost immediately. With the backdrop of all the recent White House activity, including a possible rnajor announcement on immigration by the President this Tuesday in Las Vegas, LVG has two opportunities before him to work on legislation. Both pose advantages and risks. Opportunity The "Secret Grow" Members Dams: Becerra, Lofgren, Yarmuth, Gutierrez Rs: Sam Iohnson, John Carter, Mario Diaz Baler-t, [Raul Labrador'?} In 2tl09f201G, a "Secret Group" of bipartisan members worked together over the co arse of a year on a bipartisan CIR bill. LVG was invited to be a part of the group, but opted not to join because (1) he was disturbed about the Republican "tone" in conversations and about the way in which Members were talking about the solution for the undocumented in particular and (2) he knew, with movement on immigration legislation impossible, that his focus needed to be on rallying the community to action around what was actually possible, namely, executive action. This group was reconstituted in the 113th and now includes the above members. We started negotiations about three weeks ago based on the 2010 bill draft. The bill is a legitimate CIR bill, in that it includes border security, employment veri?cation, family and employment reforms, a future ?ow program and legalization of the undocumented that includes a path to citizenship, but so far no radical enforcement measures. With negotiations renewed, Repubiicans are even amenabIe to redrafting (improving) the path to legalization. On balance, i would say this bill will shape up to be a somewhat "better" bill, based on our core principles, than the last bipartisan CIR bill LVG introduced with Jeff Flake in 2007 (The STRIVE Act). LVG is "all in" as far as the other members are concerned, but he is privately weighing the pros and cons of, aner working to red raft the old bill in the next few weeks, Whethe1'he actual ty cosponsors the bill at introduction and commits to the long haul of defending his support of the bipartisan compromise that will fall short for our community on the left in some key areas. There is also an urgent developm art: that we have to deal with this weekend. All other members in the group except Labrador want to announce their existence via press release on Monday, to ec_o cs-41 13-7135_oo3o get ahead of the President and not appear like they are following him. They want the statement to be very non-speci?c, mainly outlining "our" process of 3-4 years of bipartisan work on a package that will include all the security, E~Verify, and a practical plan for dealing with the undocumented. Mostly they want to emphasize that it is a plan, the only way a bill can become law in this Congress." The Congressman is oomroitted to working with this group up until introduction. The question is: does he put his name on the bill and "work it" as he travels and interacts with stakeholders or does he withhold his support, and while saying positive things about it, rally the community to press for improvements? Pros to putting his name on the bill: This bill will be the BEST bipartisan bill we will see in the House this Congress. Ali other Republicans who are serious about reform are talking about moving a bill in pieces, are skittish about a path for ali the undocumented, and are likely going to demand enforcement provisions that could be poison pills for us (see below on the Ryanr?Labrador group). It would solidify his relationship with these Republicans who are truly serious about getting it done and committed to a path to citizenship: this could serve him and Democrats well as other House Republicans move to pull this and any other bill to the right. Cons: He will be attacked and chailengeci by key stakeholders who strongly share his principles and see him as their champion. The biggest challenges include (in order of severity of backlash): the exclusion of binational, same sex couples; a future flow program that does not include sufficient pro-labor provisions, and; a legalization program that requires the unriocs to plead guilty before an immigration judge and serve probation before becoming LPRS. Opgortuulg Join the Ryanibabrador Group LVG has had several private conversations with Paul Ryan and Raul Labrador. They are initiating a paraiiel based on what they think will be the only winning strategy for moving legislation in the House. They imagine a process where different members dra? stand alone pieces of comprehensive reform: border security, STEM, E-Verify, etc., and that each of the pieces is taken up on the Floor and voted up or down under a self-executing rule that brings them together in a package at on grossment of the House bill. They admit the ultimate package might not be one LVG can support (suppose legalization gets voted down and is not in the ?nal pacltagel?), but that the goal would be to conference the House bill with the Senate's and work to ensure it is in the bill that reaches the President's desk. Their ask of LVG: To partner with Ryan and Labrador, and work to bring in other democrats to pair up with other Republicans on the pieces. 13?7135_oos1 Pros: Ryan, in particular, is a force to be reckoned with. Having a good, strong, working relationship with him will present LVG with opportunities to influence the process and the outcome. He has star power comparable to LVG's in their respective communities. This would be a higher pro?le relationship than any other for him and break new ground for him in Congress and the media, opening further ways to influence opinion and the process. Presents us additional opportunities to work more closely with Republicans new to the issue, which is helpful for negotiations throughout the process. Cons: Tea-?partiers will likely make up most of the Rs who work in the Ryan/Labrador group. Their product, even with us in the room, is bound to be far worse than anything we have ever supported. The public perception will also be that LVG has compromised on CIR and is willing to deal with things in pieces instead. While it will put LVG into the center of the news, it could potentially bring on ?croer opposition from our base. Mv general observations/recommendations While LVG has important choices to make, we are in a very good place and a very exciting time for immigration reform. I don?t think we can go very wrong with whatever we do. Boehner will keep his powder dry for now and we expect that whichever hill actually moves through the House, it will move first through the Immigration Subcommittee/Judiciary Committee, ensuring LVG is in the mix no matter what. Secret Group: I recomrnend LVG join in the Monday "coming out" of the "Secret Group." Given that we are still negotiating the substance and we're not yet committing our name to an actual biil, we are free to then engage our stakeholders in a democratic and more transparent way. When consulted about the hilt and whether the boss should play an inside game (placing his name on the ?nal product) or an outside game (withholding his support), our allies will at least feel a part of the process and, in theory, better appreciate the decisions the boss has to make. I think their knowing about participation in the group will give us our share of headaches, but will provide us with leverage in negotiations and cover if, in fact, the boss decides to withhold his support of the actual product. (Note: I recommend we meet with advocates as soon as possible this week after the announcement is made, assuming the boss is a part VG with groups in Cmcago and staffwith groups based in DC to begin that process.) Ryan/Labrador: An acceptable compromise with their group of Republicans is hard to imagine, and would likely have LVG revealing tough compromises too early in the process. Remaining in close communication is very important, however. LVG is considering being an ?adviser? to this process, instead of an actual partner. So, he would he in the room, but with clear expectations that LVG would not actually endorse the actual process or product. Moving the bill in pieces 13-7135_oo32 might be a bad idea, but if Rs insist, it might be our only choice. May as well stay close to it and in?uence it as much as we can. 13-7135_0083 EXHIBIT 22 13?7135_0084 Print Subject: Re: Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte From: To: Date: - Luis Gutierrez Tuesday. November 29. 2011 4:48 PM Send to Doug get review and Send to Senator. Sent from my iPacl On Nov 29, 20] 1, at 3:34 PM, "Fuentes, Jennice" wrote: Lvg, Piease take a look. Thanks Jennice Fuantes I Chief of Staff Congressman Luis V. 2266 House Of?ce Ehlilding i Wasliingima D.C. 30515 Tel: (202) 225- Fax: (203) 225-7810 Please cnnsicler the environment printing this From: Fuentes, Jermice Sent: Tuesday, Novelnber 29, 20] 1 4:27 13M To: Fuentes, Jennice; Riviin, Douglas Cc: Subject: E: Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte Page: 1 of 4 Thank you For your reply. May 3 suggest that instead ofbeing w'e21:'eactuaHy c0I'l'ec1' about the Facts such as they are. rnnii 13-7135_0085 Print Page 2 of 4 i We are clear on our position on Cuba and we continue to move i'orward with relevant issues. in fact, what we point out is a discouragiitg lack oi?i:1sigi1t regarding needed support for Puerto Rican women on the rise, especiaily from the only Republican Hispanic Senator. As proud Puerto Ricans, the Congressman and i take this nomination very seriously and as seriousiy as we took the nomination of? Associate Justice Sonia Soiomayor, whom Senator Rubio also deciined to support when he was a candidate for Senate. In fact, we hope that Senator Ruhio does reconsider his position and is ahie to discern between his stand on bilateral and regional measures and agt'eeing that holding a Puerto Rican woman hostage to his list of issues is a poiiticai game that is not only un.fei1' and unnecessary as it only serves to rob a talented Puerlo Rican woman of ajob that she has 1'ightful[y earned. In may I suggest that removing Anibassaclor Aponte from her post does more ciamage than good and if the Senator is reaily concerned about regionai issues, he shouid in fact supiport the region by heiping us maintain stability and continuity by keeping Am?oassador Aponte at he.t?pos1?. We are at a loss to explain why he continues to deny support to Puerto Rican women. First it was Sotomayor and now it is Aponte. Two for two against Puerto Rican woman, as I see it. All the best, Jennice Jennice Fuentes i Chief oi?Sta1?i? Congressinan Luis V. Guti?rre>ir. 2266 R1-iybtim House Office Bttilciittgl Washingon D.C. 20515 "Pol: (2102) 225- Fax: (202) 22538} ? ensc consider the printing this c-niaii. From: Cesar Conda Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:23 PM To: Fuentes, Jennice Subject: RE: Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte Jennice: 8/27f2013 Print Page 3 of 4 Thank you for your Ietteit. However, the Congressman is misinformed ziboiit Senator Rubio?s position on the Aponte nomination. The Senator opposed all of the Western Hemisphere nominees before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not just her. He is concerned about the Administration?s Western Hemisphere policy. As such, Sen. Rubia reserves the right to oppose all nominations to the region until the Administration acts upon these concerns. Among them are the adoption of signi?cant bilateraf and regional measures to return constitutional order in Nicaragua, immediate action to impose additional sanctions against the Cuban regime in response to the taking of American hostage Alan Gross, and a commitment to dedicating U.S. democracy funding in Cuba. Perhaps Congressman Guitierrez could help us with the White House on these issues. Senator Rubio knows Ms. Aponte. As he has stated, he is impressed with her Work. He is prepared to reconsider her nomination, aiong with the other Western Hemisphere nominations, once we make progress on these issues. All the best, Cesar Conda .;im 3 ag?oo or-? Rlilzio 317 I Dllicc Building Di.? 205 it} From: Fuentes, Jennice mail \ml1nn R/27/Ziil 7: 13-7135_oo37 Print Page 4 of 4 Sent: Tuesday, Novamber i:54 PM To: Conda, Cesar (Rubia) Subject: Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte Cesar, I wanted you to have an electronic copy cl? this letfer, which was hand?deIives?ed to your office a few moments ago. Thanks, 61111 ice jennice Fuentes Ci1ief'ofStaff Luis V. Citlti?rrcz 2266 Building DE. 20515 Tet: (202) 225-] Fax: (202) 22517810 Pfciisu. cuusider the L:I1virm1n1u:n1huihrc rurintimz ehis u-mail. .. 1-nail 8/27/20?? 13-7135_oo33 EXHIBIT 23 13-7135_ooa9 Joseph E. Sandler From: Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:10 PM To: Joseph E. Sanciler Subject: FW: RE: FW: Immigration R-efform? _Should Be the Top Priority in 2013 Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:53pm To: "Rivlin, Douglas" CC: "Collins, Susan" Subject: RE: FW: lrnm'igratio.n Reform Should Be the Top Priority in 2013 What's the five-minute status? What is the Co'ngressman?s current thinking on next steps? is he telling Menendez and Durbin he's introducing a bili? is there a reason we don?: want to ?put out a cell to the groups and then" put out a release saying we're in?trodu.oing our bill? Send around a Dear? Colleague to stop lining up sponsors? I don't think we want to be second on this, or give the President too much time to ask everyone to sit around and wait for his plan. If we do something now, I think it seems iike a natural reaction from the Congressman. if we wait for a few weeks of d-evelopments, then. peopie might expect us to play along with whatever is happening. its probably worth ?making everyone react to his bill. From?; "Rivlin, Douglas" Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 3:03pm To: "Collins, Susan" Subject: FW: Immigration Reform Should Bethe Top Priority in 2013 Douglas G. Rivlin Director of Communication Office of Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-D4). US. House of Representatives 2286 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515-1304 7 if phone: (202) 225-1; fax: (202) 225-7810 Follow Congressman on and From: Katherine Vargas: irnmigrationf?orum.org] Sent: Wednesday, Novem er :54 PM To: Rivlin, Douglas Subject: Immigration Reform Should Be the Top Priority in 2013 pressrelease. For Immediate Release Contact: Katherine Vargas 2012 cell (202) 641-5198 1 . Scofieid 803 Evangelical Leaders and the President Agree: immigration Reform is Top Priority Washington, DC President Obama spoke about immigration reform during his news conference: this afternoon. "My is that we get? a loili introduced and we begin the process in Congress very soon after my i.nauguration.? .. Qbama iQl7>. The following is a quote from All Noorani, Executive Director of the National immigration Forum, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to our nation: "l_n the fast 24 hours, influential evangelicai have urged President Obama to show ieadership and move immigration reform forward during the first 92 days of his second presidential term. Based on the president's statement today, it is increasingly clear that immigration reform should be the first bipartisan iegislative priority in 201.3.? - Foiiow us on: Rgwi iQl7> iC.1i7'> immigr 1 /images/B Rgwi iQl7> You have received this email through your subscription to a Forum email iist. if you did not subscribe, or would no ionagerilike to receive email updates, ciick hereto DOC iQl7:> Terms About 1 ?2011 The Nationai immigration" Forum Scofielcl 804 13-71 35_0091 EXHIBIT 24 13-7135_oo92 Joseph E. Sandler From: Sent: Monday, October 07, 201.3 1:13 PM To: Joseph E. Saridier Subject: FW: RE: FW: Diaz?Balait Restarts Process of C.o.mpre;h.ensive Immigration Bill inai lviessage-~~? From: scofieldcompan-v.oom Sent: Friday, November 16, 20.12 11:26am To: "Rivlin, Douglas" hou?se.g.ov> Subject: RE: FW: Diaz?i-3aiart- Restarts Process of Comprehensive immigration Bill What was Ceci_Iia?s message to him? ?--v??Original Fwm: ?Rivli.n. Dougias" "Sent: Friday. November 16, 2012 11:22am Tot,? Cc: ms, Susan" maiihouse. ov> Subject: RE: FW: Diaiz-Baiarl: Restarts Process of Comprehensive Immigration Bill The current plan is to have CH0 press conference to release the principles on Wed. ttf28. Sen. Menendez advised against a bill but for unifying CHC prinoipl'es, instead. I gota clownioaci from on his talk wl Munoz yesterday: He. said the President has to meet with CHC soon and publiciy and that he had nothing else? to say to her. Douglas G. Ftivlin Director of?Com mu nication Office of Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-04) U58. House of Representatives 2266 Rayburn HOB. Washington, DC 20515-1304 se.qov ll phone: (202) 225 1 fax: (202) 225-7810 Follow Congressman Gutierrez on Twitter, Face-book. end You-Tube. From: Sent: Friday, November 16, .2012 11:1? AM To: Rivlin. Douglas Ce: Collins, Susan Subject: FW: Restarts Process of Comprehensive immigration Bill Are we doing a bill? I think we need to lay c'lo?wn marker quickly. lVless-age?-??- From: "Rivtin. Douglas" Sent: Friclay,. November 16, 2012 11:05am To?: "Collins, Susan" rnailhouse. 0v>, Subject: FW: Diaz?Balart Restarts Process of Comprehensive immigration Bill 1 Scofield 8415 13?7135_oo93 .. Los Ange-ies Times is asking for our reaction to Di-az?BaIart, .. Douglas G. Rivlin Director? of Communication Office of Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-04) U.S. i-louse of Representatives 2266 Rayburn HOB Washington-, DC 20515-1304 mail.house. ov, ?yahoo.oom>, "Fernandez, Enrique" Subject: RE: and DOL letters I?m_ looking at this now and will send over an updated draft injust a bit. From: "Rivli,n, Douglas? Sent; Thursday, October 18, 2012 -5:20pm To: "Ri\rlin, Douglas" mail.hous.e.gov>, Co: "Fernandez, nrrque mai1.house;gov> Subgectz? RE: DO.) and DOL letters Sorry, this is the correct attachment and is the same as the letterl Douglas G. Rivl-in Director of Communication Office of Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (EL-04) US. House ?of Representatives 2266 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515-1304 ll phone: (202) 22 fax: (202) 22 5-781 0 Follow Congressman on and From: Rivlin, Douglas Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5114 PM To: 'yahoo.oom' Cc: Fernandez, Enrique; Rivlin, Douglas Subjec OJ and DOL letters- drafted one le'tte*r that can be sent separately to -the Secretary of Labor and khe Attorney General calling for an investigaiion into what El Nuevo uncovered. lt is pasted below? and ?attached. Please give me your feedback. it is too late to get this out today, but we can send tomorrow. We can also discuss who should get copies. Douglas G. Rivlin Director of Communication Scoflelcla 639 13-7135_o123 Office of Rep. Luis'V'. Gutierrez (IL-04) US. House of Representatives 22.66 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515-4304 phone: (202) 225- fax: (202) 225-7810 . Follow Congressman on and Dear Secretary of Labor!Dear Attorney General: it has come to light that the Government o_fPuerto Rico has been tunneling money, including federai funds intended for job creation and retention, to a pro-government newspaper over a number of years. i fee} certain that ethical and moral standards have been viciated. and suspect that there has been substantial and ongoing misuse of federal funds and perhaps other criminal violations. This is deeply troubling because it undermines the of our democracy, freedom of the press, and the basic standards of government transparency and honesty, which unfortunately fits a broader pattern with the current Puerto Rico government regime of limiting transparency and exercising government power behind closed doors. i am calling on the Department of Labor and the Justice Department to investigate this matter thoroughly. According to an extensive investigation by Puerto Rico's ieading newspaper, El Nuevo Die, the newspaper El Vocero, and an extensive group of related corporations received $24.9 million over more than ten years. This intensified since 2009 when these related corporations were created in -an apparent. scheme to legitimize the receipt of government funds. Since that time, according to the reports, these .corpora'tions- received more than $17.6. million in Puerto Rico government and faderai funds; It. is alleged that some -of the federal programs been defrauded include WIA {the Workforce investment Act) and AREA (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds. Tragically, this has happened during one of Puerto. Rico's worst economic periods, when the laborforce. participation rate is below 40% and unemployment is more that Congress and the Obama Administration designated resources forjob creation, retention and retraining to assist the extremely hard?pressed Puerto Rican workers, but it appears to have been used for political purposes. This is neither the Soviet Union nor Syria, so i expect Puerto Rican and American taxpayers are shocked that their dollars fund prosgovernrnent news media in Puerto Rico. But the information uncovered by El Nuevo Dia demands the federai government review how funds were used, whether the Government of Puerto Rico? was honest, and whethe-r any criminal laws were violated or ethical lines were crossed. Congress reconvenes on Nov. 13 and lwouid weicome a personal briefing soon thereafter from your staff as to whether an investigation is forthcoming and how quickly it may proceed. Please contact me or my Deputy Chief of Staff Enrique Fernandez ifyou have any questions orto schedule a brie?ng. Signed, Scofield 640 13?7135__o124 EXHIBIT 28 13?7135_o125 Joseph E. Sandler From: -@scofieldcompany.com Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:13 PM To: Joseph E. Sandler Subject: FW: RE: FW: Via Verde natural gas pipeline project (UNCLASSIFIED) inal Message?~??- Sent: nesday, October 10, 2012 4:14pm To: -"Fernandez, Enrique" Go: '?Lui's V. G?utierrez'? 9 rnaii.hous;e. o\r> Subject: RE: FW: Via Verde natural ?gas pipeline project (UNCLASSIFIED) maithouse. ov> ahooc-om>l "Fuentes, Jennice" "Rivlin, Douglas" it makes sense to me to wait. We're a month away from having a clear idea of how to deal with it. Should probably hit them on the conflict of interest at some point, though. From: "Fernandez, Enrique" Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:50pm To: ?Luis V. Gutierrez? Cc: "Fuentes, Jennice" "Riviin, Douglas" . maithouse. ov> Subject: FW: Via Verde natural gas pipeline project (UNCLASSIFIED) Congressman, Doug; Attached, please find the- "latest interim response" from the Secretary of the Army. I do not think we should respond at this time. The Corps is allowing the Regime to submit additional information until November 2, and based: on the additional information. decide how to proceed. Whatever the decision, it will be rendered after the elections. laddition, it is clear they do not want to really investigate the .3acks.onville conflict of interest with Thank you, Ennque Message?--? From: Harris, George JR CIV USARMY HQDA OCLL Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 21012 11.22 PM To: Fernandez, Enrique Subject: Via Verde natural gas pipeiine proiect Classification: Caveats: NONE Ennque, Attached is the latest interim reapo.nse_. We should have the final next month. george Scofield 656 13-7135_0126 Ciassi?cation: NC LASSIHE-D Caveats: NONE Scofield 657 EXHIBIT 29 13?7135_o123 Itqsaasrsucruns -.- tilt. so Jliltnuts 1" In? a. La?. i ctinrigress of the ilsinitrb ?iaiif? ,i1_)unst~ at DC 20515 March 3} 2004 TTEF EH The Honorable James T. Walsh Chairman Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies H-1-43 Capitol Washington, DC 2{)5l 5 Dear Chairman Walsh: We are writing to express our strong support for an earmark in the HUD-Economic Development Initiative (EDI) for FY 2005 VA, HUD and independent Agencies Appropriations Bill in the amount of $2 million. The funds wouid be used to bene?t an exemplary non-pro?t agency that works every day to meet the needs of hungry people throughout the Congressional Districts we serve. specifically, those funds would be used to assist in the construction of a new facility for the operations and programs of the Greater Chicago Food Depository. The Greater Chicago Food Depository is building a new model food bank and training facility to serve hungry individuals and in Cook County. The Greater Chicago Food Depository is Chicago?s food bank. The Food Depositot-y?s mission is ?providing food to hungry people while striving to end hunger in our community." Since it was founded in 1979, the Food Depository has grown rapidly and dramatically to meet the very real needs of our communities. Today, the Food Depository distributes more than 42 million pounds of food per year and serves 309,655 undupjicated clients annualiy through its networlc of 606 member pastries, soup kitchens and shelters in Cook County. The Food Depository has member agencies in every one of the districts we represent. Many of the pantries, soup kitchens and shelters in our communities simply would not be able to meet the demands of hungry people were it not for the exemplary work of the Food Depository. - The expanded facility will enable to the Food Depository to distribute as much as 80 million pounds of food annually to a network of more than 600 organizations. This project comes at a critical time the number of individuals and families seeking emergency and supplemental food has risen dramatically during the last three years. The Food Depository provides food for more than 300,000 people annually more than one-third of whom are children under the age of 18. The new facility will add additional capabilities, including onsite shopping and a training facility for our member agencies. 1 4 13?7135_o129 You can be assured that the ?mds would be spent and effectively. In 2002, the Greater Chicago Food Depository was honored with the first Alford-Axelson Award for Nonpro?t Managerial Excellence. In 2003, Executive Director Michael P. Mulqueen was named one of the nation?s ?best bosses" by Fortune Small Business and Winning Workplaces. Over the years, the Food Depositorfs work has been recognized through such awards as the Sara Lee Corporatiotfs first Chicago Spirit Award, the Chicago Community Trust's James Brown EV Award of Excellence for Outstanding Community Service, and America?s Second Harvest Award for Foodbanking Excellence. En addition, the Food Depository has worked to provide as much of the ?tnding as possible for the much-needed new facility. The appropriation requested represents less than 10 percent of the total ?mding required. By appropriating these funds, you will help the Food Depository to reach a simple, but vital, goal. You will help to assure that the Food Depository will be able to deliver more food to hungry people. We strongly support this effoit and appreciate your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Luis GUTIEELREZ RAHM EMANUEL . eoeer ausa DANNY K. DAVIS 2 1 5 13?7135_0130 EXHIBIT 30 13-7135_o131 LUIS v. GUTIEHREZ ramtsatzr 2 smwcant senvicas aim mmeuau noun: or ?ice BUn.ou-n: svucuulw?tts: i 1035 I, mo an was 9 Haunt: I2-wt uousmc. ANU I?JIPDsruum* $13353 225: Eli?, :r.a5tS~! 39% 3 Renuaeas. Bo NCIEA ?tcuntm 4'-4'0 LAW Msirch 22'. 2010 The Honorabte Rosa Delauro, Chair Subcommittnn on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencics House Appropriations Committee. 236244. Rayhum House. Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Hentarable Jack Kingston, Ranking Member Sub-zommittn-e on Agrinulture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies House Appropriations Committna . 1016 Longworth Ha-use Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairw otnan Delanro and Ranking Member Kingston: As you work an FY 2011 bill, I ask your support for ih? fullowing programs of critical importance to the 4th District ofiilittois. I have liste? them in ordnr of priority. - Project Requests: 1- Urban and Marketing Initiative, Chicago Botanical Garden?; -- $62-3,000 AG: National Institute ofFaad' and Agriculture. Extension A -if The projcct is a broadly supported and wail-leveraged initiative to use horticulture and "gardening as a tool for educatitm, community development, rctlaahilitation and employment of and the pfovision of healthy vegetables to at risk populations in locations that we often tack to such fonds. The project develops and a horticulture-?based job training mode! that protiuces and markets crops and and training to under and unemployed workers consistent with industry-bencitmarl-Led standards. geguests: l. Commodity Supplemental Fond Program million 2. Human Slaughter - HMSA A $2 million 3. Animal Welfare: $22.33 million 4. Horse Protection Act - $900,000 5. Investigative 8: Enforcement Services $14313 million 6. Animal Fighting Enforcement $90 millian 7. Vetcfinary Student Loan Forgiveness I $5 million 8. Emergency Management Systemsmisaster Planning and Response for Anirnals L017 million ON PJHFEH 13-7135_o132 I appreciate your consideration of my requesis. Should you need any information, plaase: contact Virginia Zigras on my staff at . if Luis V. Gutierrez Member of Congress Sincerely, 13-7135_o133 EXHIBIT 31 13-7135_o134 IBS PST From: Fuentes, Jennice Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:27 PM To: ?Doug Scofield? Subject: RE: Bane One. Barbara Stewart letter by the way, is it kosher for us to send this kind of letter? assume that it you ever do it when you were here? Jennice Fuentes Chief of Staff Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez 2367 Rayburn HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 Tel. (202) 225?82o3 Fax (202) 225-7810 email: jennice.fuentes@mai1.house.gov --??-Original From: Doug Scofleld Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 4:16 PM To: Fuentes, Jennice Subject: Bane One, Barbara Stewart letter Jennice, Here is the draft letter to JP Nlorgan?Chase. Let me know how It looks. What do you think is the timing for any decision regarding the appropriation? Thanks, as always. Also, Food Depository success will help me to clear my mind and find a wealthy and handsome husband for you. 196 13-7135_0135 EXHIBIT 32 13-7135_0136 Rivlin, Douglas . From: wsoofieldcompanytom Sent: uesday, June 04, 2013 2:19 PM To: RNHn,Doumas Co: Comns,Susan Subject: RE: USA Today I trust your judgement, though I think there are a couple of points worth emphasizing. we've said "repeatedly approved contract" enough? Really, whatever you think, but we should consider next steps. Is it worth saying to the reporter, "while Congressman Gutierrez has followed the guidelines of a contract repeatedly approved by the_House of Representatives, we will sit down again with House Administration to make sure we are doing everything in an absolutely appropriate manner." Is that helpful? I really think we need maybe not to USA Today but to the next reporter to be able to say, "we want to do this absolutely right and have asked House Administration though they have approved the contract many times to review it again." From: "Rivlin, Douglas" Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2913 1:49pm To: <1Dscofieldcompany.com> Cc: "Co ins, Susan" Subject: RE: USA Today I think further contact with the reporter may be counter?productive, but I am happy to call him. I have not shown this or your response to LVG. But I should. Douglas G. Rivlin Director of Communication Office of Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-04) U.S. House of Representatives 2468 Rayburn HOB NOTE MEN ROOM NUMBER Washington, DC 26515-1384 mail.house.gov fl phone: (232) 225~- fax: (262) 225-7816 Follow Congressman Gutierrez on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. inal From: scofieldcompany.com Sent: Tuesday, June 64, 2613 1:26 PM To: Rivlin, Douglas Cc: Collins, Susan Subject: RE: USA Today sCofieldcompany.com] well, I never lobbied for the Chicago Botanical Garden and I don't know anything about an earmark for them and had nothing to do with it. They were briefly a pr client. I never personally did any work for them at all it would have been other staff members of the company, and it wouldn't have had anything to do with Luis. I had no contact, ever, with anyone on the Congressional staff, or Luis, about the Botanical Garden. The public citizen quote that my clients are getting earmarks just isn't accurate. we should probably also note that I do not appear in the district on lvg?s behalf. I can't recall ever doing that since I left. 1 sc_ocEe7 13-7135_o137 on the food depository, I would re?emphasize that I simply did not talk to Luis about money. A member of Congress supporting an appropgiation for a food bank that feeds hungry people in his district is both routine and admirable} and in this case not caused or initiated Lipinski and Durbin. I think it's worth noting again that I have never been a federal lobbyist, and that I lobby at the state level. Almost exclusively for non?profits. As far as the Sunlight quote -- though I know we can?t change it j'm not being paid for political work and he hasn't even really made the case that I'm involved in political work. He's made the case that I?ve done too much official work. That's very different and an important distinction. The Congressman can also hire an outside vendor to produce franked mail, and I believe that also has to go through House admin for approval. Certainly the piece itself goes through franking approval. The case they can make is that I do government work outside the scope of the contract, though if you read the contract it really is quite broad. we are following the language of a repeatedly approved House contract, and the worst that can be said is that I might occasionally do more government, official work than is specifically authorized. Here's what to think about moving forward I presume we need to do a different contract or change my role. I don't think we want to say ?you're right, we are wrong," but at some point, quickly, maybe for whatever fol1ow?up we get once the story runs, we want to be able to say, "while we believe the office and Doug Scofield appropriately followed the language of a contract that was repeatedly approved by the House, Congressman Gutierrez never wants to allow even the appearance of any conflict, so we have done I don't know what is, and I would like to stay involved, but I think we have to make sure we are unassailable on whatever we do moving forward. I want to do it right, and you do to. I think the reporter is way over the top, but let's do whatever is necessary, and we should do it quickly. House admin might kill, or revise the contract anyway, so let's be out in front of it. I presume agrees, but maybe we should all get on the phone. Another option would be to send House admin a list of the things I do now, ask them to weigh in on whether anything that should be changed, and just make the changes they recommend. In any case, we should be proactive about being above reproach. we want to make a change before somebody tells us we have to do it. Just let me know what is the best way to do that. --??-Original Message--??~ From: "kivlin, Douglas" Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2813 12:48pm To: "Douglas Scofield "Collins, Susan" <_qlmail.house.gov> Subject: USA Today More from the reporter. He has quotes from two "Good Gov't." types, including Kathy Kiely of the Sunlight Foundation {a former USA Today reporter). Douglas G. Rivlin Director of Communication Office of Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-64) U.S. House of Representatives 2468 Rayburn HOB NOTE NEW ROOM NUMBER Washington, DC 26515-1384 ?mail . house . house . govt? phone: (292) 225?- fax: (292) 2254818 Follow Congressman on and 3 ec_ooEa3 13?7135_o13s From: Singer, Paul Sent: Tuesday, June 64, 2813 12:31 PM 5 i To: Rivlin,_Douglas Subject: RE: Scotield Company Contract Doug thanks for this. I have to say I have never seen anything like this. Scotield is functioning in nearly any non?1egis1ative capacity you need, including appearing at "non?legis1ative" meetings on the Congressman's behalf and participating in media strategy and communications. He is functioning basically as a staff member yet without any of the conflict of interest requirements that would apply to a staff member. In fact, think he ends up being one of the top 5 paid people in the office (I haven't run these numbers, but will), and the scope of his activities extends to "other relevant and appropriate which is essentially limited only to being non-legislative. And his non-legislative work also includes production of {ranked mail touting the Congressman's legislative agenda. How is this not the equivalent of being a statt member? As you said, House Admin says they have reviewed the contract, (though they don't seem to have noticed that it refers to two different entities Scofield Company and Scofield Communications. I presume this is simply a result of printing out the old contract on new letterhead.) Kathy Kiely of Sunlight Foundation describes the relationship this way: ?Are taxpayers paying the congressman?s political "It looks like classic Chicago cronyism," Kiely said. "It's really tantamount to a political patronage job.? And while I understand your point that Lipinski may have been the lead on the food bank, it does not change the fact that Scofied was working For the Congressman and the food bank when the Congressman appeared at a food bank event. One could imagine though we can't prove and thus can't write that Scofield had a hand in both the Congressman?s statement at the food bank and the food bank's press release thanking the Congressman. And there is also the Botanical Garden which was listed on the website as a Scotield client when Gutierrez requested an earmark and who knows what else that I have not yet Found. Leading to this from Lisa Gilbert at Public Citizen: "while not technically illegal, it is at the very least unsavory for a Former staffer to be simultaneously on the payroll of a Member and representing clients in his district who are requesting and gaining earmarks from the Congressman. The conflict of interest is apparent." From: Rivlin, Douglas [mailto:mai1.house.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 94, 2613 11:42 AM To: Singer, Paul 7 Subject: Scofield Company Contract Douglas G. Rivlin' Director of Communication Office of Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-64) U.S. House of Representatives 2468 Rayburn HOB NOTE NEW ROOM NUMBER Washington, DC 29515-1384 3 ec_ocEe9 13-7135_o139 http: /{twitter . com/douglasrivlin =i phone: (262) 225- ff ~Fax: (282) 22547319 Follow Congressman on and YouTube< http: . youtube . com! RepLu . 13-7135_0140 EXHIBIT 33 13-71 35_01 41 Rivlin, Douglas From: Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:04 AM To: Comn$.Suean Cc: Rivlin, Douglas Subject: RE: Food Bank I agree with Susan. I might heighten the language about this being routine support for a good cause and good project, that the Congressman supported the project and didn't need any convincing to support it. Do we need to tell them it's in a list of other projects supported but not taken the lead on? I think that's fine if you think more disclosure with this guy is helpFul, but it might just -give him an excuse to heighten lvg?s involvement in the money, and to be honest, I really don't think he had much to do with it. I also think the sentence about me not telling my client I secured them 538k, while true, just emphasizes my state lobbying, which we don?t want to do. I would keep my role simple, and I think we can be more emphatic -- lug and Doug Scofield did not have any discussions about funding for the food depository. I strongly believe that is accurate. I think what I did was talk to him about visiting. I really don't remember much of anything about the money, and I think lvg's role was incidental. Didn't hurt, I'm sure, but the food Depository has always been close to Durbin, and my guess is that the Senator is probably really the one who made it happen. --?--Original From: "Collins. Susan" Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2613 9:18am To: "Rivlin, Douglas" '"Doug1as Scofield Subject: RE: Food Bank I am inclined to re~word the last phrase (it is a tine line between taking lots of credit years back and now trying to distance ourselves from such credit) even if the Member's support was expressed through another Member's leadership via a sign-on letter. Susan Collins Congressman Luis Gutierrez 292-225- From: Rivlin, Douglas Sent: Tuesday, June 84, 2613 8:59 AM To: Douglas Scofield Collins, Susan Subject: Food Bank This is what I plan to send the reporter, unless you have edits. Looking at our records, it appears that the money the Greater Chicago Food Depository received through the 2665 Omnibus Approps bill was actually something Rep. William Lipinski asked For (and probably Sen. Dick Durbin as well, who served on the Qonference committee For that bill). 1 ec_ocEe2 13?7135_0142 Rep. Gutierrez signed onto a letter (along with Lipinski, Rush, Davis, and Emanuele all the Chicago Dems at the time, it appears). The letter, on Lipinski letterhead, is at?ached (this is the letter as it was when our office signed on and we assume the other signatures were gathered but william Lipinski is no longer in office, so we could not confirm that). In an undated internal Gutierrez memo labeled "2665 Appropriations: Member Project Requests" from that time, a staff member listed out the appropriations requests we made that year that made it into the final Approps bill. They include eight different projects in five Approps categories and then lists two ?Projects we Supported, But Did Not Take The Lead On" which lists Lipinski's project to secure funding for the Greater Chicago Food Depository. In talking to the Congressman and Doug Scofield about this, neither of them have any memory of having discussed an Approps matter for the Food Depository, nor does Scofield remember doing any lobbying for this matter (he is not a federal lobbyist), which includes having no memory of telling his client he successfully secured a block of federal money (something he would logically take credit for if he had in fact done anything to help get it). This leads me to strongly believe that it is extraordinarily unlikely that Doug Scofield and the Congressman ever spoke about the proposed appropriation for the Greater Chicago Food Depository or that Scofield lobbied the Congressman (or anyone else) about the Approps request. Members of Congress regularly sign on to letters and community groups regularly are generous in their praise for a Member speaking at a Hunger Awareness Day event they sponsor some time later, even if the credit is more appropriately directed at Lipinski. Douglas G. Rivlin Director of Communication Office of Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (IL-64) U.S. House of Representatives 2468 Rayburn HOB NOTE NEW ROOM NUMBER Washington, DC 2B5i5?13@4 _Bmail.house.gou phone: (232) 225?- fax: (292) 22s~7s1e Follow Congressman on and 2 ec_ocEe3 43 EXHIBIT 34 13?7135_o144 2408 RAYSURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON. DC 20515 i LUIS V. GIJTIERREZ MEMBER OF CONGRESS IJIS IHICT, ILLINOIS DISTRICT OFFICES: 3219 WEST NORTH AVENUE CHICAGO. ll. 60547 553! WEST CEHMAK ROAD CICERU. if. 50304 COM MITTEES: AND Bonner: sacunny Qliungreaa at the wttiteh ?tatta ilanuse at I202) 225-8203 CHIME. TEFHOHISM. Houemuu SEcun n'. AND maI3424>77-1: PERMANENT sensor on INTELLIGENCE SUBCUMMITTEE: ?"31 552413? Tenno?-MM. HUMINT. mo counrsnuuramcarace June 4, 2013 Mr- amie Fleet Democratic Staff Director Committee on House Administration Dear Fleet: In reference to on our conversation today about the contract for Sco?eld Company, thank you for your wiliingness to review the contract to ensure that it complies with House ruies. I understand that you, on our office's behalf, will reach out to the appropriate Majority staff with whom we can both meet to review any needed changes to the contract. I appreciate your willingness to try to ?nd a time to meet this week, if possible. While the contract was initially reviewed and approved by House Administration and Finance in 2003 and renewed each Congress since, it has come toour attention that questions have been raised about the contract with Scotieid Company. With the assistance of the Colnmittee, we want to make sure that we are in full compliance both in fact and in appearance with the spirit and the letter of House rules. The Congressman feels strongly that we do not do anything that even appears to be questionable. Once again, thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely Susan Collins Chief of Staff os PHWTED ON HECYCLED PAPER 13-7135_o145 EXHIBIT 35 13?7135__0146 LUIS V. GUTIEHREZ MFMBER OF CONGRESS ATH DISTRICT. ILLINOIS 21505 RAYBURN HOUSE omcs BUILDING DC 20515 (2021 225.5293 DISTRICT OFFICES: 3210 WEST NORTH AVENUE CHICAGO. IL 506-17 1773! 342-?o77a: 5531 WEST CEHMAK CICERU. lL 6030-? 552-5180 June 13, 2013 Mr. Doug Sco?sld at the ?tates Ilauttsa of Blkepreseattstihts Sco?eld Comrnuni cations 234 Home Ave. Oak Park, IL 60302 Dear Mr. Sco?eld, COMMITTEES: JUDICIAFIY SUBCOMMITTEES: AM: Bonasn Sr-zcunmr Cmuls, TERRORISM. HDMELANI: Sscumv, mu INVESHGATIONS PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENTELLIGENCE Tl??nonlsu. HUMINT. ANALYSAS AND COUNTEHINTELLIGENCE As per our conversation, I am cancelling our contract for tiomlsgislative services with Scofisld Communications, LLC, effective today, June 13, 2013. Thank you for your assistance in helping me to better sews my constituents of the 4th district. Sincerely, %/Wa Luis .V. Gutierrez Member of Congress PRINTED UN RECYCLED PAPER 13?7135_o147