I decided to jump into this , simply because of the Abramoff ties and the recent death of GOP star maker Ralph Gonzales.

My question is more around a few questions and those questions do not have anything to do with trips  nor what a gold game consists of in Scotland. I want to know what the Representitives and what the Congressman did to receive favors from Jack Abramoff. Why is this skirted so much when ever Jack Abramoff is discussed. Lately, there was money earmarked originally for the widening of I &5 here in Florida yet the earmarking was changed AFTER it was approved on. Is this part of the web of deceit that Jack built? 

REP. TOM FEENEY

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), the former speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, is

a second-term member of Congress, representing Florida’s 24th congressional district. Rep.

Feeney’s ethics violations stem from three trips he took in apparent violation of House travel and

gift rules.

Trip to Scotland

Rep. Feeney traveled to Scotland -- apparently to play golf -- from August 9-14, 2003.

Rep. Feeney initially claimed that the cost of the trip was paid for by the National Center for

Public Policy Research,1 but the Center said that it did not provide “a single dime” for Feeney’s

trip.2 As a result, Rep. Feeney now claims to have discovered recently that the $5,643 bill was

actually paid by lobbyist Jack Abramoff.3 Rep. Feeney claims he was “misled” and “lied to”

about who actually paid for the trip.4

Rep. Feeney has also claimed that both the trip to Scotland (and the trip to Korea

discussed below) were approved verbally by the House Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct. According to Rep. Feeney, “[g]iven everything we knew at the time, we didn’t make

any inappropriate or unethical decisions.”5 Rep. Feeney acknowledged however, that he had no

written proof that the ethics committee approved the trip.6

7 Rule XXVI, cl. 5(b)(1)(A).

8 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel Booklet.

9 See e.g. United States Senate, Office of Public Records, Lobbying Disclosure Records,

http://sopr.senate.gov/. (Exhibit 4)

10 Overview of the Gift Rule, Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives on Gifts and

Travel.

11 What is a Gift?, Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives on Gifts and Travel.

40

Notably, House rules preclude the ethics committee from “approving” any such trip.

According to the Committee’s travel booklet, this is because the rule places on individual

Members and officers -- and not on the Committee -- the burden of making the determination that

a particular trip is in connection with official duties and would not create the appearance of using

public office for private gain.

In addition, House rules provide that a member, officer or employee may not accept travel

expenses from “a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal.”7 The prohibition against

accepting travel expenses from a registered lobbyist, an agent of a foreign principal, or a lobbying

firm applies even where the lobbyist, agent, or firm will later be reimbursed for those expenses by

a non-lobbyist client.8 Thus, by accepting payment for his trip to Scotland from Mr. Abramoff, a

registered lobbyist,9 Rep. Feeney appears to have violated Rule XXVI, clause 5(b)(1)(A) of the

House.

The golf trip to Scotland also violates several provisions of the House gift and travel rules.

House Rules note that among the gift items as to which Members and staff need to be especially

careful are small group and one-on-one meals, tickets to (or free attendance at) sporting events

and shows, and recreational activities, such as a round of golf [emphasis added].10 The

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct posited the following example as a prohibited gift:

A Member has been invited to play golf by an acquaintance

who belongs to a country club, and under the rules of the

club, the guest of a club member plays without any fee.

Nevertheless, the Member’s use of the course would be

deemed a gift to the Member from his host, having a value

of the amount that the country club generally charges for a

round of golf.11

Under this provision, the expenditures made for Rep. Feeney to play golf at St. Andrews appear

to constitute a gift accepted by Rep. Feeney in violation of Rule XXVI.

12 Travel, Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives on Gifts and Travel.

13 Rule XXVI, cl. 5(b)(1)(B).

14 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of Financial

Transactions participated in and Gifts of Transportation Accepted by Representative Fernand J.

St. Germain, H. Rep. No. 100-46, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-6 (1987).

41

In addition, according to the travel rules:

[l]ike any other gift, travel expenses are subject to the basic gift

prohibitions . . . including the prohibition against soliciting a

gift -- and they may be accepted only in accordance with the

provisions of the gift rule. Indeed, travel may be among the most

attractive and expensive gifts, and thus, before accepting travel,

a Member, officer or employee should exercise special care to

ensure compliance with the gift rule and other applicable law.12

Rule XXVI, clause 5(b)(1)(A) requires that all travel be related to official duties. Here, it

appears that the primary, if not the only purpose of Rep. Feeney’s trip was to play golf at St.

Andrews. This is a clear violation of the rules which provide specifically that “[e]vents, the

activities of which are substantially recreational in nature, are not considered to be in connection

with the duties of a Member.”13

The way the trip was financed also implicates Rule XXVI. The Committee has long taken

the position that a Member, officer or employee may accept expenses for officially connected

travel only from a private source that has a direct and immediate relationship with the event or

location being visited.14

The rule is concerned with the organization(s) or individual(s) that actually pay for travel.

The rule provides:

. . . where a non-profit organization pays for travel with

donations that were earmarked, either formally or informally,

for the trip, each such donor is deemed a “private source” for the

trip and (1) must be publicly disclosed as a trip sponsor on the

applicable travel disclosure forms and (2) may itself be required

to satisfy the above standards on proper sources of travel expenses.

Accordingly, it is advisable for a Member or staff person who is

invited on a trip to make inquiry on the source of the funds that

will be used to pay for the trip. In addition,

the concept of the rule is that a private entity that pays for

officially connected travel will both organize and conduct the

trip, rather than merely pay for a trip that is in fact organized

15 Proper Sources of Expenses for Officially Connected Travel, Rules of the House of

Representatives on Gifts and Travel.

16 Member/Officer Travel Disclosure Form, Dec. 29, 2003. (See Exhibit 1)

17 Rule XXVI, cl. 5(b)(4)(C); Acceptable Travel Expenses, Rules of the U.S. House of

Representatives on Gifts and Travel.

18 John Bresnahan and Amy Keller, Korean Tycoon’s Big Plans, Network Wider than

DeLay, Roll Call, March 21, 2005. (Exhibit 5)

19 Rule XXVI, cl. 5(b)(1)(A).

42

and conducted by someone else.15

Here, it is unclear who really financed Rep. Feeney’s trip. Rep. Feeney’s travel disclosure

form lists the National Center for Public Policy as the funder, though the Center has emphatically

denied paying for the trip. Moreover, Rep. Feeney failed to adequately describe the trip’s

purpose, explaining only that the purpose was a “Congressional Informative Tour.”16

A full airing of this matter requires the Committee to consider: 1) who paid for Rep.

Feeney’s trip to Scotland; 2) what activities Rep. Feeney engaged in while on the trip, other than

golf; 3) what was the direct and immediate relationship between the sponsoring organization and

the trip; 4) who were the actual sources of funding for the trip; 5) why were these private sources

not disclosed as required by House Rules; and 6) did these private sources have a direct and

immediate relationship with a golf trip to Scotland.

Next, even if the Committee finds that the sources that funded the trip somehow had a

direct and immediate relationship with some aspect of Mr. Feeney’s trip, under the travel

provisions of the gift rule, one may accept reasonable expenses for transportation, lodging, and

meals from the private sponsor of an officially connected trip, but may not accept recreational

activities or entertainment.17 Thus, the Committee also must ask who paid for Mr. Feeney to play

golf at St. Andrews and, given that the green fees were valued at over $50, the Committee must

find him in violation of the gift rule.

Trip to Korea

Rep. Feeney visited South Korea on a trip sponsored by the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council

(KORUSEC), despite the fact that the organization is registered with the Department of Justice

under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.18 House rules provide that a Member, officer, or

employee may not accept travel expenses from “a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign

principal.”19

20 Peter H. Stone, U.S.-Korea Council Payment for Trips Appears to Violate House,

Congress Daily, March 10, 2005. (Exhibit 6)

21 The trip was listed neither on Rep. Feeney’s Annual Financial Disclosure Statement for

the Calender Year 2003, filed May 10, 2004 (Exhibit 7), nor on his amended Annual Financial

Disclosure Statement for the Calender Year 2003, filed July 13, 2004 (Exhibit 8).

22 Member/Officer Travel Disclosure Form, filed by Rep. Tom Feeney, November 19,

2003. (Exhibit 9)

23 See United States Senate, Office of Public Records, Lobbying Disclosure Records,

http://sopr.senate.gov/. (Exhibit 10)

24 Rule XXVI, cl. 5(b)(1)(A).

43

A spokesperson for Rep. Feeney told one reporter that the 2003 trip to Korea was

“approved by the House ethics committee.”20 There is no evidence, however, that the ethics

committee actually approved the trip. In addition, Mr. Feeney has failed to report the trip on his

financial disclosure forms.21

The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct should investigate whether Rep. Feeney

violated House rules by allowing a foreign agent to pay his travel expenses and by omitting the

trip from his 2003 financial disclosure statements.

Trip to West Palm Beach

Rep. Feeney and his wife traveled from Orlando, Florida to West Palm Beach, Florida to

speak at “Restoration Weekend” from November 13 - 16, 2003. According to the travel

disclosure form Rep. Feeney originally submitted to the Clerk’s office, this trip, which cost

$1,430, was paid for by Rotterman and Associates.22 Rotterman and Associates was a registered

lobbying firm in 2002 and 2003.23 House rules provide that a Member, officer or employee may

not accept travel expenses from “a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal.”24 Thus,

Rep. Feeney appears to have violated the travel rules by allowing Rotterman and Associates to

pay for his travel.

A year and a half later, when the scandal over Members’ travel broke and reporters began

to question this trip, Rep. Feeney filed a new disclosure form indicating that the Center for the

25 Rep. Feeney’s Financial Disclosure Statement for Calender Year 2003, page 8, filed

May 10, 2004 (see Exhibit 7), as well as his amended Financial Disclosure Statement for

Calender Year 2003, page 8 (see Exhibit 8), filed July 13, 2003, both list the National Center for

Public Policy Research as paying for his trip to West Palm Beach.

26 Member/Officer Travel Disclosure Form, filed by Rep. Tom Feeney, April 20, 2005

(Exhibit 11).

27 Rule XXVI, cl. 5(b)(1)(A); House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Travel

Booklet.

28 Id.

29 Id.

44

Study of Popular Culture paid for the trip.25 Rep. Feeney also indicated that the costs were much

higher than he originally reported -- $1,947 as opposed to $1,430.26

This trip apparently lasted four days, which is the longest period for which a Member may

accept payment for domestic travel. The gift rule further restricts trip length stating that only

“necessary transportation, lodging and related expenses for travel” may be accepted.27 The Travel

Booklet provides that a Member “may accept only such expenses as are reasonably necessary to

accomplish the purpose of the trip, and thus it may not always be proper to accept expenses for

the full four- or seven-day period. This is particularly so where the sole purpose of an individual’s

travel to an event is to give a speech.”28 The booklet then provides the following example:

Example 3. A trade association invites a Member to give a speech

at its annual meeting in Chicago. The annual meeting is scheduled

for December 1 through 4, and the Member’s speech is scheduled

for December 3. The Member may travel from Washington to

Chicago at the association’s expense on December 2, and after he

has completed the speech, he should return to Washington or his

district as soon as it is practical to do so.29

Thus, it appears that Rep. Feeney may have violated the rules by accepting expenses for

longer than necessary to accomplish the purpose of the trip.

Finally, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has long taken the position that a

Member, officer or employee may accept expenses for officially connected travel only from a

private source that has a direct and immediate relationship with the event or location being

30 House Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, Investigation of Financial

Transactions participated in and Gifts of Transportation Accepted by Representative Fernand J.

St Germain, H. Rep. No. 100-46, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-6 (1987).

31 Ken Silverstein, Congressman Tom Feeney: An Appreciation, Harper’s Magazine,

July 12, 2006. (Exhibit 12)

32 Id.

33 Id.

34 Id.

35 Silverstein, Harper’s Magazine, July 12, 2006.

36 Id.

37 Id.

45

visited.30 This presents the question of what relationship, if any, either Rotterman and Associates

or the Center for the Study of Popular Culture had with Restoration Weekend that allowed Rep.

Feeney to accept travel expenses from either organization.

Thus, with regard to Rep. Feeney’s trip to West Palm Beach, the Committee on Standards

of Official Conduct should investigate: 1) who actually sponsored the trip; 2) what evidence

demonstrates that the trip was paid for by a non-profit and not by a lobbyist; 3) what direct and

immediate relationship the Center for the Study of Popular Culture had with Restoration

Weekend; 4) whether Rep. Feeney stayed in West Palm Beach longer than necessary to give a

speech; and 5) why the cost of the trip changed so dramatically between the two filings.

Personal Financial Disclosure Forms

In May 2006, Rep. Feeney reported on his personal financial disclosure form that he was

the joint owner of a condominium at the Royal Mansions resort in Cape Canaveral, Florida.31

The congressman listed the purchase date as January 2005.32

In fact, records from the Brevard County Appraiser’s office show that unit was sold in late 2003 to James A. Fowler, Rep. Feeney’s former law partner.33 Mr. Fowler claims that he and Rep. Feeney jointly bought the property at a totalcost of $175,000.34

Two identically sized units in the development sold for $450,000 and$420,000 in 2006.35

Rep. Feeney has claimed that he did not report the purchase initially because his name was

not on the deed.36

He has not explained, however, why, given that he was a full co-owner, he was

not on the deed.37

Rep. Feeney’s failure to include the property on his financial disclosure forms

in 2003 and 2004 is a violation of House rules. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. 4 §101(a)(1)(B),

38 House Comm. On Standards of Official Conduct, “Assets and Unearned Income,”

Financial Disclosure Instruction Booklet.

46

 Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)