Senate ethics records

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

BARBARA BOXER, CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN
JOHNNY ISAKSON. GEORGIA, VICE CHAIRMAN
SHERROD BROWN, OHIO
BENJAMIN L CARDIN, MARYLAND
PAT ROBERTS, KANSAS
JAMES E. RISCH, IDAHO
JOHN C. SASSAMAN, CHIEF COUNSEL ANO STAFF DIRECTOR
ANNETIE GILLIS, DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable Tom Coburn
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Wniteb ~tates ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVEN UE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510- 6425
May 25, 2012
Public Letter of Qualified Admonition
Dear Senator Coburn:
TELEPHONE: (202) 224-2981
FACSIMILE: (20 2) 224-741 6
TOO: (202) 228-3752
After an investigation, the Select Committee on Ethics found that your communications
with and actions on behalf of Doug Hampton were improper conduct which reflects on the
Senate, and it is therefore issuing you this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition. Further, in
order to assure that the Senate community fully understands the law and rules that prohibit such
conduct, the Committee is issuing guidance later today.
The Committee found that you had a personal friendship with Mr. Hampton, the former
Administrative Assistant to Senator John Ensign, that you were aware that Mr. Hampton had left
his Senate employment, and that when he later contacted you on official business less than one
year later you agreed to a meeting that involved a discussion of legislative matters, which is not
permitted by law. Your relationship with Mr. Hampton provided you with a basis to have known
that he was engaging in prohibited post-employment communications when he contacted you
and scheduled the March II, 2009 meeting on behalf of his employer, Allegiant Air
("Allegiant").
In reaching its determination to issue a qualified admonition, the Committee took into
consideration that your prohibited conduct was confined to oi1e meeting only, and that you
candidly acknowledged that you should have exercised a higher degree of care. While the
Committee did not find that your conduct constituted actionable violations of criminal law, the
Committee believes that Senators are obligated to meet a higher standard, and it has the authority
and responsibility to investigate Members who may engage in improper conduct which reflects
on the Senate.
Scope of the Committee's Inquiry
The Committee initiated its investigation following the conclusion of the Preliminary
Inquiry of Senator John Ensign ("Ensign Inquiry") to determine whether your conduct in
communicating with and meeting with Mr. Hampton violated any law, rule, or standard of
conduct within the Committee's jurisdiction. To reach its conclusions, the Committee conducted
interviews of Mr. Hampton, Allegiant representatives, and members of your staff who were involved in setting up or attending the meeting with Mr. Hampton. It also reviewed the
information and testimony developed during the Ensign Inquiry, including your testimony in that
matter, and your responses to the Committee's Request for Information.
Federal criminal law (18 U.S.C. § 207(e)) prohibits former "senior" staff, like Mr.
Hampton, for one year from knowingly communicating or appearing before their former Senate
colleagues if their intent is to influence official actions and they are acting on behalf of any other
person. The statutory ban, or "cooling off period," applies to any matter on which the former
employee seeks official action on behalf of someone else, regardless of whether the former
employee is a registered lobbyist or works for those who lobby. Senate rules prohibit lobbying
contacts by all former staff during the one year cooling off period. The Committee also
considered whether you knowingly associated with, participated in, and furthered Mr. Hampton's
impermissible contacts, in violation of the general aiding and abetting and conspiracy statutes
(18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 371).
Your Communications with Mr. Hampton During His Cooling Of:Jf Period
The Committee found that you met with Mr. Hampton on official business even though
you had reason to know that he was legally prohibited from requesting or participating in such a
meeting. You acknowledged that Mr. Hampton was a personal friend whom you counseled and
supported after learning of Senator Ensign's affair with his wife, Cindy Hampton. You were
made aware of plans to help the Hamptons transition into a new life, and you recommended that
Senator Ensign assist Mr. Hampton with recommendations to find another job, as you would
"normally give someone who had been your chief of staff." During his cooling off period, Mr.
Hampton thanked you for helping him after learning of the affair and informed you that he had
an "excellent job" with Allegiant. Prior to the March 11 , 2009 meeting, you knew that Mr.
Hampton represented the airline.
Mr. Hampton's email with your scheduler indicated the March 11 meeting would be
"both personal and business." You said you saw "no harm in meeting with him to discuss
personal matters and his efforts to re-establish himself in the business world." During the
meeting, you discussed substantive matters of legislative concern to Allegiant, including the
FAA reauthorization and the need for regulation regarding speculation in energy markets. You
also discussed Allegiant's reinstitution of air service to Oklahoma. Allegiant, however, did not
make any request for official action, nor did your office take any official action on Allegiant's
behalf.
Following the meeting, and after Mr. Hampton's cooling off period was over, you were
intimately involved in trying to help the Ensigns and Hamptons reach a financial settlement that
would stave off any public disclosure of, by then, the past affair. This lends further credence to
your awareness that Mr. Hampton was in his cooling off period in March 2009.
During this entire period, there is no dispute that Mr. Hampton was a former senior
employee subject to the statutory post-employment restrictions, for which he is now charged
with violating. Throughout Mr. Hampton's cooling off period, which ran from May 2, 2008 to
May 1, 2009, he successfully arranged a meeting with you on behalf of Allegiant in order to
2 further its business interests. Mr. Hampton is currently under indictment for improper contacts
that he had with Senator Ensign and his office during his cooling off period.
Your Actions Were Improper and Reflect Upon the Senate
Although the post-employment statute and cotTesponding Senate Rule (Rule 37.9) apply
to contacts by former Members and employees of the Senate, and do not address conduct by
current Members and employees who receive the contacts, current Members and employees have
an obligation to refrain from knowingly participating in conduct that is prohibited under either
the law or Senate rule. Consistent with Committee guidance that Senators must meet a higher
standard of conduct, ~ 2 of the Code of Ethics for Government Service admonishes government
employees to " [u]phold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of
all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion." Other provisions of the Code
state that government employees must " [p]ut loyalty to the highest moral principles and the
country" above loyalty to others, and to uphold all of these principles, "ever conscious that
public office is a public trust."
While the Committee did not find that your conduct constituted actionable violations of
criminal law, it determined that you did not meet the aforementioned higher standards expected
of a U.S Senator. However, in deciding to issue a qualified admonition, the Committee took note
that it was one meeting that you have since candidly acknowledged was wrong and taken full
responsibility for arranging. You said that you were "in a better position to evaluate the potential
risks ofthis meeting than [your] staff, so that [your] behavior demands that [you] apologize for
not supervising [your] staff more careful! y in vetting this meeting request. " The Committee
recognizes and appreciates your contrition.
The Committee issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition, and hereby considers
this matter closed.
Sincerely,
d!:!:-Bo s-- r ~liliio..o.
Gant sw~ Sherrod Brown, Member
Z=&f~ember
3

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 6517cb954c781ceaa3b821027a13c8f5156f2690525e5cdc16a9c30f1295d5b9

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:43 PM Pacific.

BARBARA DOXCR, CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN
JOHNNY ISAKSON, GEORGIA, VICE CHAIRMAN
MARK L PRYOR. ARKANSAS
SHERROD BROWN, OHIO
PAT ROBERTS, KANSAS
JAMES E. RISCH, IDAHO
JOHN C. SASSAMAN, CHIEf COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
ANNETIE GILLIS. DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable David Yitter
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Yitter:
mtntteb ~tateg ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVEN UE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510- 6425
March 29, 201 2
TELEPHONE: (202) 224--2981
FACSIMILE: (202) 224--7416
TOO: (202) 228-3752
The Select Committee on Ethics is dismissing the complaint filed by Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") regarding your attempt to block Senate
legislation raising Secretary Salazar's salary $ 19,600 - thereby making it on par with other Cabinet
Secretaries- until he issued six new deepwater exploratory permits per month in the Gulf of Mexico.
While the Committee found that there was no substantial credible evidence that you violated the law
or Senate rules, it did conclude that it is inappropriate to condition support for a Secretary's personal
salary increase directly on his or her performance of a specific official act. The Committee
recognizes that currently there is no clear Senate guidance addressing such conduct, and therefore,
issues this letter and the accompanying guidance to the Senate community about how we will view
such behavior in the future.
Pursuant to Article I, section 6, clause 2 of the Constitution (the Ineligibility Clause), thenSenator Salazar was prohibited from becoming Secretary of the Interior until a law was passed that
" rolled back" any compensation increase enacted during his Senate term. Therefore, in 2008,
President George W. Bush signed legislation rolling back the Secretary of the Interior's salary so that
then-Senator Salazar could be appointed to that position. His salary was eligible to be increased by
$ 19,600 and thereby restored to the level of other Cabinet Secretaries on January 3, 20 I I, the date his
Senate term would have ended. This matter involves your hold on such " restoration" legislation.
On May 23, 20 II , you sent a letter to Secretary Salazar informing him that "when the rate of
permits issued for new deepwater exploratory wells reaches pre-moratorium levels (so 6 per month),
I will end my efforts to block your sa lary increase." In an accompanying press release, you
commented that this was your "way of keeping the ' boot on the neck' of Interior until they get the
job done." Your actions to block restoration legislation appear to be unprecedented. On May 24,
20 II , Secretary Salazar wrote to Senate Maj ority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch
McConnell requesting that the legislation be withdrawn, and the Senate has not taken any subsequent
action. Therefore, regardless of who the Secretary of the Interior is, that individual will be paid
$ 19,600 less than other Cabinet Secretaries unless legislation is passed that restores the salary.
While Senators have long used holds on nominations to help persuade administrations to
carry out or change policies, tying an incumbent Secretary's personal salary directly to his or her
perfo rmance of a specific offici al act is diffe rent, places a Secretary in a precarious and potentially
untenable position, and undermines a basic principle of government service. As stated in the Code of
Ethics for Government Service, "public offi ce is a public trust." A government employee must not be influenced by external factors when making decisions and "never accept for himself or his family,
favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as
influencing the performance of his governmental duties." Had Secretary Salazar complied with this
request, it would have appeared that his decision was made because of his personal interests, and not
the public interest.
This unprecedented circumstance raised a new issue about how the Committee should treat
actions that tie an existing Secretary's personal salary to his or her performance of a specific official
act. As a result, later today the Committee is issuing to the Senate community the enclosed new
guidance, which makes it clear that going forward such actions will be viewed by the Committee as
improper conduct reflecting discreditably on the Senate.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
2

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 434e171d95ce52507ff54afeafd67092a3db54166cf333c73875c7766ab18d71

This is a partial extract. Open the official document for the full context.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:44 PM Pacific.

__________________________________________ REPORT OF
THE PRELIMINARY INQUIRY
INTO THE MATTER OF
SENATOR JOHN E. ENSIGN
__________________________________________ SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
BY
CAROL ELDER BRUCE, SPECIAL COUNSEL
MAY 10, 2011i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................... 1
A. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
B. Summary of Findings.............................................................................................. 3
C. The Special Counsel Recommends Referrals to the Department of Justice
and the Federal Election Commission..................................................................... 7
II. FINDINGS OF FACT............................................................................................................. 7
A. Factual Background ................................................................................................ 7
B. Senator Ensign s Affair with Cynthia Hampton ................................................... 10
1. Mr. Hampton s Discovery of the Affair.................................................... 12
2. Mr. Hampton Seeks Assistance to End the Affair and an
Intervention Is Held ............................................................................... 13
3. The Affair Continues until July 2008........................................................ 14
C. Senator Ensign Plans for Transition Finances for Mr. Hampton....................... 15
D. Senator Ensign Arranges a Consulting Firm Position for Doug Hampton
After Terminating Mr. Hampton........................................................................... 16
E. The Senator Has Extensive Discussions with Doug Hampton about
Severance Payments.............................................................................................. 17
F. The Senator s Father Makes a Payment of $96,000 from the Ensign
Family Trust to the Hamptons............................................................................... 19
G. Mr. Hampton Receives Excessive Unused Vacation Pay..................................... 20
H. Senator Ensign Takes Action Surrounding Mr. Hampton s Post- Employment Lobbying.......................................................................................... 21
1. Senator Ensign Takes Steps to Reduce Records Retention,
Communicate Off of the Senate Server, and Minimize
Contacts with the Ethics Committee ......................................................... 21
2. Senator Ensign Takes Efforts to Persuade and Compel
Constituents to Hire Mr. Hampton............................................................ 22
I. Mr. Hampton Departs and Immediately Lobbies Senator Ensign s Staff............. 23
J. Senator Ensign and John Lopez Agree to Channel Mr. Hampton s
Lobbying Contacts Through Mr. Lopez................................................................ 27
1. Senator Ensign and John Lopez Assist Allegiant Airlines
Based on Mr. Hampton s Lobbying.......................................................... 29ii
2. John Lopez Assists Mr. Hampton s Client Entravision ............................ 33
3. Mr. Hampton Lobbies Senator Ensign s Office on Behalf of
NV Energy................................................................................................. 34
4. Mr. Hampton Requests Help in Developing Relationships
Between Allegiant Airlines and Federal Officials .................................... 35
K. Mr. Hampton Hires a Lawyer and Raises Damage Claims; Senator Coburn
Handles Negotiations with Senator Ensign........................................................... 37
L. Senator Ensign Discloses the Affair to His Staff and the Public in June
2009....................................................................................................................... 38
1. The Senator Speaks of Making the Hamptons Whole ........................... 38
2. Senator Ensign Makes Journal Entries Describing the
Payment to the Hamptons ......................................................................... 39
3. Senator Ensign Makes Draft Public Statements Referring to a
Severance Payment................................................................................ 40
4. Based on Advice from Senator Ensign s Attorney, His Staff
Removes All References to Payments in the Final Public
Statement................................................................................................... 41
5. Mr. Hampton Reveals in Public That the Senator Made
Payments to the Hamptons........................................................................ 42
6. Michael Ensign, Sharon Ensign, and Senator Ensign Submit
Affidavits to the FEC Regarding the Payment.......................................... 43
a. There Was No Evidence Supporting the Assertion in
the FEC Affidavits That the Senior Ensigns Paid for
the Hamptons Trip to Hawaii....................................................... 44
b. Michael and Sharon Ensign s Payment to the
Hamptons Greatly Exceeds Other Gifts Given to
Non-Ensign Family Members....................................................... 45
M. The Senator s Chief of Staff Misleads the Public Regarding Senator
Ensign s Actions and Mr. Hampton s Lobbying Efforts ...................................... 46
III. SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY INQUIRY INVESTIGATION...................................... 47
A. The Request for Investigation of Senator Ensign.................................................. 47
B. The Preliminary Inquiry........................................................................................ 47
1. Initial Document Productions, Witness Interviews, and
Depositions................................................................................................ 48
2. Retention of Special Counsel to Assist with Preliminary
Inquiry ....................................................................................................... 49
a. Additional Document Production and Forensic
Imaging.......................................................................................... 49iii
b. Additional Depositions and Immunized Testimony...................... 50
C. The Retirement and Resignation of Senator Ensign ............................................. 51
IV. FINDINGS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL......................................................................... 51
A. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Conspired to
Violate, and Aided and Abetted Mr. Hampton s Violations of The Post
Employment Contact Ban, 18 U.S.C. § 207 ......................................................... 51
1. Mr. Hampton s Contacts Were Not Exempt as
Informational Contacts .......................................................................... 51
2. Contacts by Covered Persons Are Illegal Even If the
Requested Action Would Have Been Taken in Any Event ...................... 52
3. Evidence of Aiding and Abetting.............................................................. 53
4. Evidence of Conspiracy ............................................................................ 55
B. Findings Concerning the $96,000 Payment to the Hamptons............................... 56
1. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment Was
Severance and the Evidence Does Not Support Claims That
the Payment Was a Gift............................................................................. 56
2. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign
Made False or Misleading Statements Concerning the
Payment to the Hamptons ......................................................................... 57
3. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment
Violated Senate Rule 38 and Statutory Prohibitions on
Unofficial Accounts with Respect to Mr. Hampton.................................. 58
4. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That the Payment with
Respect to Ms. Hampton Constituted an Unlawful and
Unreported Campaign Contribution.......................................................... 59
5. Even if Senator Ensign s Assertions That the Payment Was a
Gift Were Credible, Senate Rule 35 Would Have Been
Violated ..................................................................................................... 60
C. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Permitted
Spoliation and Engaged in Obstruction of Justice ................................................ 61
D. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Engaged in
Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the Senate, Including Violations of
His Own Senate Office Policies............................................................................ 62
1. The Applicable Standard........................................................................... 62
2. Application of the Improper Conduct Standard ........................................ 63
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION.................................................................. 67iv
KEY INDIVIDUALS & PRIMARY AFFILIATIONS
Daniel Albregts Counsel for Cindy and Doug Hampton
Brooke Allmon Director of Nevada Policy for Senator Ensign
Dick Bouts Department of Interior
Brian Chatwin Legislative Assistant for Senator Ensign
Senator Tom Coburn United States Senator (R Oklahoma)
Tim Coe Fellowship Foundation
Senator John Ensign United States Senator (R Nevada)
Darlene Ensign Senator Ensign s wife
Michael Ensign Senator Ensign s father
Sharon Ensign Senator Ensign s mother
Rebecca Fisher Director of Communications for Senator Ensign
Maury Gallagher Chief Executive Officer, Allegiant Air
Chris Gober Outside Counsel for Senator Ensign at Fish &
Richardson P.C.
Simon Gros Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Department of Transportation
Bruce Hampton Treasurer for The Ensign Family Trust (no relation to
Doug or Cindy Hampton)
Cindy Hampton Campaign treasurer for Ensign for Senate and BattleBorn
PAC; wife of Douglas Hampton
Douglas Hampton Friend of Senator Ensign s; Administrative Assistant to
Senator Ensign; husband of Cindy Hampton
Ponder Harrison Vice President, Allegiant Air, Nevada
Tinna Jackson Deputy Chief of Staff for Senator Ensign
Yorick Jurani Information Systems Manager for Senator Ensign
Starla Lacy NV Energy, Nevada
John Lopez Chief of Staff for Senator Ensignv
Nick Lowry Senior Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
Tory Mazzola Director of Communications for Senator Ensign
Matt Mesmer Attorney, Senate Select Committee on Ethics
Jason Mulvihill Chief Counsel and Legislative Director for Senator
Ensign
David Quinalty Legislative Assistant for Senator Ensign
Rachel Roberts Scheduler for Senator Ensign
Sig Rogich Rogich Communications Group
Lindsey Slanker November Inc.
Mike Slanker November Inc.
Paul Steelman Steelman Partners
Marty Sherman Fellowship Foundation
Pam Thiessen Legislative Director for Senator Ensignvi
GLOSSARY
BattleBorn PAC Senator Ensign s Political Action Committee
CAA Congressional Accountability Act
CACI E-discovery vendor employed by SSCE
CODEL Congressional Delegation trip
Committee United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics
CREW Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
EFS Ensign For Senate - Senator Ensign s Campaign
Committee
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEC Federal Election Commission
FECA Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971
Manual Senate Ethics Manual
NRSC National Republican Senatorial Committee
Report Report of Special Counsel Carol Elder Bruce
RPC Republican Policy Committee
SAA U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper
SSCE Senate Select Committee on Ethics1
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. Introduction
The United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics ( SSCE or Committee ), assisted
by Special Counsel, conducted a Preliminary Inquiry into certain conduct of Senator John E.
Ensign.1 The scope of the Preliminary Inquiry included an examination into allegations that
Senator Ensign violated Senate rules and federal law, including provisions of the criminal code,
and/or engaged in conduct that reflecting discredit upon the United States Senate regarding the
termination of Doug Hampton s Senate employment, Mr. Hampton s post-employment contacts
with the Senate, and payments made to the Hamptons, and any other matters as the Committee
may direct.
On April 21, 2011, as the Preliminary Inquiry neared its conclusion, Senator Ensign
announced he would resign as the 24th Senator from the State of Nevada. Senator Ensign s
resignation was effective May 3, 2011, the day before his sworn deposition was scheduled to
begin.2 Although Senator Ensign s resignation divests the Committee of jurisdiction to impose
discipline on him as of its effective date, Special Counsel, as required by the governing
Resolution and Rules of the Senate, tenders this Report to the Committee for its consideration in
the exercise of its continuing authority, obligations, and discretion under the Resolution and
Rules.
The Committee s investigation began after it received a complaint on June 24, 2009, from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ). CREW supplemented
that complaint on October 6, 2009. These filings presented allegations of sexual
harassment/employment discrimination, post-employment ban violations, and issues related to
payments to Douglas and Cynthia Hampton, Senator Ensign s former Administrative Assistant
and campaign treasurer.
Based on these serious allegations and other information available to it, the Committee
undertook an extensive Preliminary Inquiry as provided by Rule 3 of its Supplementary
Procedural Rules. Article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of
America provides that [e]ach House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. Under the Committee s authorizing resolution, Senate Resolution 338, 88
th Cong. 2d Sess.
(1964) ( S. Res. 338 ), the Committee is empowered to investigate not only violations of law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and the rules and regulations of the Senate, but also
improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate. While Senators are expected to comply
with all laws, Senate Rules and Standards of Conduct, the Senate and the Committee have made
clear that a Senator s obligations of ethical behavior go beyond this:
 1 Special Counsel Carol Elder Bruce was appointed on January 31, 2011.
2 Since the very beginning of the investigation, Committee staff has been in communication with
Senator Ensign through his counsel and offered him the opportunity to provide any information or legal
arguments he wanted the Committee to consider, and he has availed himself of this opportunity. Special
Counsel continued this policy after her appointment.2
Certain conduct has been deemed by the Senate in prior cases to be
unethical and improper even though such conduct may not
necessarily have violated any written law, or Senate rule or
regulation. Such conduct has been characterized as improper
conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, and has provided the
basis for the Senate s most serious disciplinary cases in modern
times.3
During the course of the 22 month investigation, Committee staff, later joined by Special
Counsel, conducted 72 witness interviews and depositions, including members of Senator
Ensign s current and former staff and numerous third parties. The staffs for the Committee and
Special Counsel also reviewed over a half million documents received from numerous sources,
including Senator Ensign and his staff. Included in the materials reviewed were hundreds of
documents previously withheld or not disclosed that were produced after the Special Counsel
was appointed and challenged the basis for the non-disclosure.
Special Counsel was careful not to seek intimate details of the extramarital affair
referenced in the initial complaint. Whether a person is unfaithful to his or her spouse is
generally the couple s own business to deal with, perhaps, in private communications with
wronged spouses, marriage counselors, and others, and to surface the infidelity only if and when
there is some public complaint or settlement made (such as in divorce proceedings or private
resolutions). Reconciliation or resolution in private can protect the families involved and serve
the greater good. This is no less true if one of the individuals is a public official. This case,
however, involved two individuals whose employment and financial well being were dependent
upon the Senator who employed them. This situation placed these individuals in a particularly
vulnerable situation.
Further, although concealment is part of the anatomy of an affair, the concealment
conduct in this case by Senator Ensign exceeded the normal acts of discretion and created a web
of deceit that entangled and compromised numerous people, including a loyal Chief of Staff, was
an abuse of the Senator's power, and raised serious issues of violations within the Committee's
jurisdiction. Therefore, the details of the affair itself and the concealment activities are presented
only to the extent relevant to establish the basis and context of the actions that led to the alleged
violations.
As will be developed below, it is Special Counsel s determination that substantial
credible evidence exists that gives substantial cause to conclude that Senator Ensign engaged in
violations of law and of Senate Rules within the Committee s jurisdiction under S. Res. 338, as
amended, including improper conduct which reflects upon the Senate under Section 2(a)(1) of S.
Res. 338. Had Senator Ensign not resigned the Special Counsel would have recommended that
the Committee initiate an adjudicatory review for the purpose of considering the appropriateness
of disciplinary action against the Senator. The Special Counsel is confident that the evidence
that would have been presented in an adjudicatory hearing would have been substantial and
sufficient to warrant the consideration of the sanction of expulsion. Special Counsel notes,
 3 Senate Ethics Manual ( Manual ), Appendix E, at 432.3
though, that Senator Ensign, by resigning before the Special Counsel could question him under
oath in a deposition about the facts, did not have the opportunity to challenge factual assertions
and evidence, the Special Counsel s interpretation of the facts, or the strength of the case against
him.
B. Summary of Findings
Based on the record in this matter, the Special Counsel respectfully submits that there is
substantial credible evidence that provides substantial cause to conclude that Senator Ensign
violated Senate Rules and federal civil and criminal laws, and engaged in improper conduct
reflecting upon the Senate, thus betraying the public trust and bringing discredit to the Senate. The following summarizes the Special Counsel s findings. There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Conspired to
Violate, and Aided and Abetted Mr. Hampton s Violations of The Post
Employment Contact Ban, 18 U.S.C. § 207.
o Senator Ensign facilitated Mr. Hampton s unlawful post-employment
lobbying by pressuring contributors and constituents to hire Mr. Hampton
even though he had no public policy experience or value as a lobbyist other
than access to the Senator and his office. For example, when a prominent
Nevada constituent declined to hire Mr. Hampton, Senator Ensign
instructed John Lopez, his Chief of Staff, to jack him up to high heaven
and inform the constituent that he was cut off from Senator Ensign and
could not contact him any longer.
o Senator Ensign agreed with Mr. Hampton and Mr. Lopez, to have Mr.
Lopez be the point person for Mr. Hampton s contacts with the Senator s
office in order to provide Mr. Hampton with the necessary assistance for his
lobbying efforts during his post-employment period, and not for the
purpose of making certain that Mr. Hampton complied with lobbying
restrictions.
o Contemporaneous email communications reveal that Senator Ensign agreed
to and encouraged the improper contacts between Mr. Hampton and Mr.
Lopez. Additionally, according to Mr. Lopez, Senator Ensign wanted him
to assist Mr. Hampton, and wanted it out of sight, out of mind, so that Mr. Lopez could take the heat on his [the Senator s] behalf. o Mr. Hampton improperly contacted Senator Ensign s office regarding at
least twelve different client matters, and initiated at least thirty improper
contacts to Senator Ensign s office and various other Senate offices during
his one-year post-employment ban period.
o Senator Ensign communicated with Mr. Hampton and took action on behalf
of his clients, including the following matters, among others, which are
explained in detail in this Report: (1) a Department of Transportation 4
( DOT ) enforcement action that was successfully resolved with a small
fine; (2) a draft environmental impact study; and (3) facilitating high-level
meetings between one of Mr. Hampton s clients and the DOT Secretary, as
well as other Senators.
o Before and after Mr. Hampton s termination and during the time period
when the Senator was helping Mr. Hampton get clients, Senator Ensign
instituted office policies that had the effect of making Mr. Hampton s
contacts harder to detect, including a shredding policy, discouraging use of
official Senate email accounts in favor of Gmail, and directing that all
inquiries of the Committee go through Mr. Lopez, the person he directed to
interact with Mr. Hampton.
There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign and His Parents
Made False or Misleading Statements to the Federal Election Commission
Regarding the $96,000 Payment to the Hamptons.
o A $96,000 payment to Mr. Hampton, Ms. Hampton, and two of their three
children from the Ensign Family Trust Fund, made at the time the
Hamptons were terminated from the Senator s employ, constituted a
severance payment, and Senator Ensign s affidavit to the Federal Election
Commission ( FEC ) that the payment was not severance is false.
o Senator Ensign referred to the payment as severance on multiple occasions,
including: (1) during an emergency staff meeting on June 15, 2009, when
he disclosed his affair with Ms. Hampton to his Senate office staff; (2) in
multiple drafts of a public statement in which the Senator publicly disclosed
an affair with Ms. Hampton; (3) in credible testimony from at least four
witnesses, one of whom stated that Senator Ensign said I m going to give
him as much severance as possible ; and (4) in his own personal journal
entries, written in June 2009, over a year after the payment was made,
describing his intent to help them transition into their new life. o Evidence revealed that the term severance was removed from Senator
Ensign s final June 2009 public statement not because Senator Ensign no
longer believed the payment to be severance, but because he received legal
counsel informing him that calling it severance could expose him to a host
of criminal charges.4
o Senator Ensign s parents affidavits to the FEC are also misleading and
potentially false. The affidavits stated that the $96,000 payment was part of
their pattern of giving to the Hamptons, and cited payment of an all-
 4 Special Counsel reviewed the document containing this legal advice, which had previously been
withheld as privileged, and determined that the document was not privileged because it was addressed to
a third party, not to Senator Ensign. The Senator has abandoned his prior claim of privilege as to this
document.5
expenses paid trip to Hawaii in 2006 for the Hamptons as support for this
pattern of giving. The FEC credited and relied upon these affidavits in
dismissing a complaint against Senator Ensign and his campaign, despite a
recommendation by FEC staff counsel that an investigation be opened.
o There was no evidence of any pattern of giving from Michael or Sharon
Ensign to the Hamptons. The senior Ensigns and Mr. Hampton had a
contentious relationship not conducive to large monetary gifts and a
pattern of giving, and had never directly given the Hamptons a gift
before. Additionally, the senior Ensigns had never given a single gift from
the Ensign Family Trust Fund of the size of the Hampton payment to any
non-family member, and also had no pattern or practice of giving
significant gifts to any friends of their children.
There is Substantial Credible Evidence That a Portion of the $96,000
Payment Constituted an Unlawful and Unreported Campaign Contribution
and Violated Federal Law and a Senate Rule Prohibiting Unofficial Office
Accounts.
o The part of the payment that was severance to Ms. Hampton constitutes an
excessive and illegal campaign contribution pursuant to the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 ( FECA ) because it exceeded the $2,000
limit for authorized political committees and the $5,000 limit for other
political committees. The payment, as well as the failure to report the
payment, are violations of federal civil and criminal law.
o The part of the payment that was severance to Mr. Hampton would also
constitute an improper unofficial office account as it was a payment from a
private person, in this case the Ensign Family Trust Fund, to defray official
expenses.
There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Permitted
Spoliation of Documents and Engaged in Potential Obstruction of Justice
Violations.
o Senator Ensign deleted relevant documents and files after he knew they
were likely to be subject to a legal claim and before and after formal
notices to retain all documents relevant to the Preliminary Inquiry were
issued.
o Senator Ensign should reasonably have known no later than June 15, 2009,
that this evidence could be relevant to anticipated legal proceedings, and
has stated through counsel that he did in fact anticipate legal proceedings
as to the matters at issue in the Preliminary Inquiry no later than that date.
o Senator Ensign s Gmail account, which the Senator generally used instead
of his official Senate email account and was thus not backed up on the 6
Senate server, was deleted and replaced on October 1, 2009.
Consequently, this important account was not available to be reviewed by
the Committee s information technology vendor. o Additionally, the evidence establishes that Senator Ensign deleted at least 5
relevant documents after an October 21, 2009 document retention notice
issued by the Committee, including a document that directly contradicted
the Senator s assertion that the payment to the Hamptons was not
severance. There is no evidence that the Senator took any steps at any time
to alter his email deletion practices or to ensure that his office was retaining
his emails pertinent to the matters at issue in the Preliminary Inquiry.
There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Discriminated
on the Basis of Sex and Engaged in Improper Conduct Reflecting Upon the
Senate by Terminating the Hamptons Employment Because of the Affair. o Senator Ensign engaged in and continued an extramarital affair with Ms.
Hampton, an employee of the Senator s campaign committee and his
leadership PAC, even though it was unwelcome to her, and then
determined that the affair made it impossible for either of the Hamptons to
continue working for him.
o According to Ms. Hampton, the affair caused her considerable emotional
distress, she repeatedly sought to end it, and she repeatedly expressed
concern to Senator Ensign about losing her job. Senator Ensign
nonetheless persisted in seeking to continue the affair, initiating constant
and even relentless contacts after promising to end the affair multiple
times.
o Senator Ensign had enormous power over the Hampton family at the time
of the affair. He controlled the sole sources of income for both Mr. and
Ms. Hampton, provided tuition and other financial assistance to the family,
and had maintained a very close personal relationship with the family for
years.
There Is Substantial Credible Evidence That Senator Ensign Violated His
Own Senate Office Policies.
o Senator Ensign violated his own Senate office policies, including, among
others, policies regarding fraternization and sexual harassment based on his
affair with Ms. Hampton.
o The Senator engaged in conduct that would have been the basis for
termination of one of his own employees pursuant to the Senator s written
office policies. It is reasonable to conclude that a violation of the Senator s

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 8f1b53b65a432c5c23ff4630fb7629b61cc513888a122a5ca1954623c71edc4a

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

BARBARA BOXER. CALIFORNIA. CHAIRMAN
JOHNNY ISAKSON, GEORGIA. VICE CHAIRMAN
MARK L. PRYOR. ARKANSAS
SHERROD BROWN OHIO
PAT ROBERTS. KANSAS
JAMES E RISCH. IDAHO
JOHN C. SASSAMAN, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
ANNETTE GILLIS, DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR
The Honorable Roland W. Burris
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
itniteb ~tates ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6425
November 20, 2009
Public Letter of Qualified Admonition
Dear Senator Burris:
T ELEPHONE; (2021 224-2981
FACSIMILE: (2021224-7416
TOO: (202) 228-3752
After an extensive investigation, the Select Committee on Ethics is issuing you this
Public Letter of Qualified Admonition for actions and statements reflecting unfavorably upon the
Senate in connection with your appointment to and seating in the Senate.
The Committee found that you should have known that you were providing incorrect,
inconsistent, misleading, or incomplete information to the public, the Senate, and those
conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate. The Committee also found
that your November 13, 2008 phone call with Robert Blagojevich was inappropriate. Although
some of these events happened before you were sworn in as a U.S. Senator, they were
inextricably linked to your appointment and therefore fall within the jurisdiction of this
Committee.
While the Committee did not find that the evidence before it supported any actionable
violations oflaw, Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct. Senate Resolution 338
gives this Committee the authority and responsibility to investigate Members who may engage in
·'improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate.,.
To make its determination, the Committee conducted interviews with multiple witnesses;
requested and reviewed a tape of the November 13, 2008 phone conversation between you and
Robert Blagojevich; and looked carefully at your numerous sworn and unsworn statements to the
Illinois House of Representatives Special Investigative Committee on Impeachment, to the press,
and to the Senate, including your responses to this Committee. Based on all the evidence before
it, the Committee reached the following conclusions:
Your sworn affidavit and sworn testimony before the Illinois House of Representatives
were inconsistent, incomplete and misleading.
In your January 5, 2009 affidavit. you state that you did not have any contact with
Governor Blagojevich or any of his representatives about your appointment to the Senate before December 26. 2008. In your January 8. 2009 testimony before the Impeachment Committee.
despite repeated and specific questioning. you did not disclose having any conversations about
your desire to seek the U.S. Senate appointment or about fundraising with anyone associated
-with the Governor. except Lon Monk. It was not until your second affidavit and subsequent
press statements that you disclosed additional contacts with associates of the Governor.
These omissions in your sv;orn statements are particularly noteworthy given their
context. The Governor had recently been arrested and charged ~ith corruptly using his authority
to make a Senate appointment in exchange for campaign contributions and other benefits. and
these charges were the subject of the impeachment hearings conducted by the Illinois House of
Representatives. as well as intense media scrutiny. Therefore. you should have knO\\TI that any
conversations you had about your desire to seek the Senate seat and about any possible
fundraising for the Governor were critical to these inquiries. In addition. your testimony on
January 8. 2009 was one of the factors the Senate leadership said they would consider in your
seating. and its truthfulness was important and relevant to your seating.
Your shifting explanations about \'Our sworn statements appear less than candid.
You gave multiple and at times contradictory explanations for failing to disclose all your
contacts with the Governor's associates. which individually and collectively gave the appearance
that you were being less than candid. For example, you said you believed the affidavit referred
only to your appointment after it was made and not to conversations about seeking it. You then
said that certain questioners during the hearing did not give you enough time to give full answers
about those contacts, despite the fact that you were asked the question multiple times and the
pauses before and after your answers gave ample time for elaboration. Later. you said that when
you answered that you had talked to friends it was your intention to include many of the people
specifically mentioned in the question. Most recently. however. you told this Committee that at
the time ofthe hearing, you did not recall speaking to anyone besides Lon Monk.
Your NoYember 13, 2008 phone call with Robert BlagojeYich, while not rising to the level of
an explicit quid pro quo, was inappropriate.
When Robert Blagojevich called you on 0\·ember 13. 2008, he was explicit about the
purpose ofhis call: to raise campaign funds for his brother. Yet. during this com·ersation in
which you appeared to agree to write a check and even potentially raise money for Governor
Blagojevich. you repeatedly brought up your desire to seek the Senate seat. You also implied
that the people you might raise mane) from would be unhappy if you did not receiw the
appointment. The Committee finds that this conversation v.·as inappropriate in its content and
implications.
***
In determining the proper conclusion to this matter. the Committee took into
consideration many factors, including the fact that the Sangamon County State's Attorney found
that your sworn statements and affidavits were not actionable violations of law. We were also
2 aware that these issues surrounding your appointment to and seating in the Senate ha\'e been
subject to intense public criticism.
Again. the Committee has found that your actions and statements reflected unfavorably
on the Senate and issues this Public Letter of Qualified Admonition.
Sincerely.
Chairman
f\J~L ~~ C91L
Mark Pryor. Member
Sherrod Brown, Member
3

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 195ec0ade1fbf87d5209f162b90c5fff6e0bec731bcfdffdcddd41135edbb7c4

The indexed copy is marked complete. The original PDF bytes are unavailable.

Open the official document

Indexed text provided by web; observed Nov 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Pacific.

3->A!J,>"-A BOXEll, C.AI IFORNIA, CH.AIRMA..,
IOh,NY ISA'<SO'I. GEORGIA V•CE CHAIRMAN
MAA~ L I'RVOI!, AAi<A"'SAS
SrlERROD l!'lO'N" OHIO
PAT ROOERTS. ><A'SAS
.i~MES E. RISCh IOA><C
.•Oil'< C SASSAMA'I Ct;IEF COUNSEL ANO STAFf 0 RECTOR
A'-"<fTTE GI~LIS DEPUTY STAFf DIRECTOII
The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd
United States Senate
Washington. D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Dodd:
mntteb ~tatts ~enate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 220
SECOND AND CONSTITUTION AVENUE, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6425
August 7. 2009
TELEPH<l"E: {2021 424-2981
FACSIMU.E: (202) 22'-7•16
TOO. (2021 22s-J7S2
The Select Committee on Ethics infonns you that after an extensive. year-long
investigation it is dismissing a June 13. 2008 complaint from Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington c ·CR.EW"), which requested that the Committee investigate whether
mortgages you obtained from Countrywide Financial ("Countrywide .. ) violated the Senate Gifts
Rule. ln its complaint, CREW cited a June 12, 2008 article published in Por((olio.com.
Wl1ile the Committee finds no SLtbstantial credible evidence as required by Committee
rules that your Cow1trywide mortgages violated Senate ethics rules, the Committee does believe
that you should have exercised more vigilance in your dealings with Coumryv.ide in order to
avoid the appearance that you were receiving preferential treatment based on your status as a
Senator.
To reach the conclusion that yo u did nm violale ethics rules. the Committee carefully
examined whether your conduct violated the Senate Gifts Rule, which states: ·'No Member.
officer. or employee of the Senate shall knowingly accept a gift except as provided in the rule.''
The rule provides an exception for opportunities and benefits " in the form of loans hom banks
and other financ ial institutions on tenns generally available to the public:· thereby allowing
Senators to accept oppmiuni6es offered only to a group that is not defined on the basis of one ·s
status as a Senate employee. The Committee also considered whether your conduct violated
Senate Rule 37, which prohibits Senators from using their offici al position for personal gain.
Scope of Committee Inguin' - 18,000 Pages of Documents
The Committee treated this matter very seriously and took every possible step during the
course of its year-long inquiry to obtain information from multiple sources. including issuing
subpoenas for detajled comemporaneous documents and testimony. while needing to be attentive
to the concerns raised by parallel investigations.
To that end. the Committee caJefully reviewed more than 18.000 pages of documents
from Countrywide and its former employees, which included information about its Y.l.P. loan
unit. the "F1iends of Angelo .. program. and the details of your mortgages and dealings with the
company from 1999 to the time of the complaint. The Committee also conducted length y depositions \\ith numerous former Count f)"\\ ide! emplo) ees. including the account executi' e "ho
originated your 2003 mortgages that are the subJect of CRE\V' s complaint and the undcrwri tcr
"ho re,ie\Yed vour loan tiles. Finallv. the Comminee sought. recei' ed. and examined loan tilec; . . ~
and detailed C:\planations from ~ou about) our dealings wilh Countr) ''ide.
Countrywide's V.J.P. Loan Cnit and the Friend of Angelo Program
While it \\as not the primar) focus ofthe Committee's imestigation to determine the
breadth and scope ofCountrywide·s V.l.P. program. the Committee newrtheless carefull~
undertook to ascertain ho" the V.I.P. program \\Orked in order to determine ''hether your
conduct violated 'enate rules. Through its inquiry. the Committee learned about the purpose and
policies of the V.l.P. and .. Friends of Angelo·· programs. It appears the \'.I.P. loan unit was
initiall y established for the purposes of ori ginating. processing, and funding home loans as a
courtesy to senior-level employees and V.I.P. customers. but it increasingly grew in scope and
size. A large subset of V. f.P. loans referred by Angdo Mozilo. former Countrywide C.E.O ..
''ere known as the ·"friends of Angelo" or F.O.A. During the mortgage boom that occurred
from late 2002 through ~004. the V .I.P. loan unit handled thousands ofloan~ worth billions of
dollars for a 'er) broad spectrum of indi' iduals. large numbers of'' hom hnd newr mel. Let alon~
befriended. :Mr. ~ lo:tilo
0\ erall, it appears that Y.l.P.s were often offered qu1cker. more efticaemloan processing
and some discounts. llo\\·e, er. it also appears that all \'J.P. loans. including F.O.A loans. \\ere
required to meet the same underwriting standards and conditions for re. ale on the secondarJ
mark.et as non-\' .l.P. loans. Furthermore. there ts C\ idence on the record that the discounts
offered to\' .J .P .s and 1- .O.A.s were not the best deals that were a' ai !able at Countr)'v>·idc or m
the marketplace at large. In sum, participation in the \'.l.P. or F.O .. \ . programs did not
necessarily mean that borrowers received the best 1inancial deal available either from
Countrywide or other lenders.
Senator Dodd's Response to the Committee
The Committee asked yo u for specific. detailed. and thorough responses. with
documentary suppon \\here available. to numerous questions regarding your mortgages anti
participation inn \'.J.P. program. You informed the Committee that you c\entually became
a" are that you had been placed in a V.I.P. program. You told the Comminee that you inquired
'' ith Countrywide as to ''hat the V .l.P program was and were told that it offered heightened
attention to sen ice qualit}. You also said that )OU did not become a\,are of the "Friends of
·\ngelo·· program until June 2008, have ne\ er met \ngelo Ylozilo. and ne'er communicated \\ ith
him abom an) of) our loans.
You pro' ided the Committee '"ith the loan tiles for lbe mortgage and a report. dated
Jul) 22. 2008. prepared b~ CrossCheck Compliance LLC. entitled .. Re\ tC\\ of the Terms and
Conditions of Certain Res1dential Mortgage Loans." The report conclude ~ that. .. based on the
market data we anal~ Led. \\C lind that the terms and conditions that the lDoddsj received for the
two loans were consistem with those that an~ borro\\cr. who possessed similar credit. income.
asset. and equity positions. would have recei,ed during the highly acti\ c relinance market that
2 existed during the first halfof2003." You told the Committee that you sought three competing
offers for your 2003 refinances and received simi Jar rates to the ones offered by Country'v'.'ide.
Fu1ihermore, you stated 1hat it was your practice to seek competing otTers for all the loans you
sought.
No Ct·ediblc Evidence of an Ethics Rul e Violation
After examining the extensive record before it, the Committee found no credible
evidence that you kno\vingly accepted a gift. including a loan not available to the public.
First, your mortgages were made in a commercially-reasonable manner based on terms
and conditions available to borrowers with similar loan profi les. While your Countrywide loans
were handled through the V.I.P. loan unit and designated as F.O.A. loans, the service you
received was available to thousands of other non-Senate customers at Countryvvide and the loans
you received appear to have been available industry-wide to bonowers v,·ith comparable Joan
profiles. It appears your loans met all applicable undervvriting standards and that you and your
wife were excellent loan candidates and established Countrywide customers in good standing.
You sought competing mortgage offers from other lenders that oiiered tenns substantially
similar to the ones Countrywide provided. There is no evidence that the interest rates for your
Countrywide mortgages were below prevailing market rates.
Second. there is no credible evidence that you sought or knowing!) received any financial
benefits not available to other borrowers with similar loan profiles. The Committee has found no
evidence that you or your wife ever asked for special treatment or that anyone ever
communicated to you or your family that you were receiving specific discounts or other special
treatment not available to other borrowers because of your status as a Senator.
Third, there is no credjble evidence that you used your official position for personal gain.
The Committee found no evidence that you fully understood the scope of the V .I.P. program.
knew that you were in the ·'Friends of Angelo·· program, or attempted to use your status as a
Senator to receive loan terms not available to the public.
Guidance for You and the Senate Community at Large
Although the Committee dismisses this maner after tinding no Yiolations of Senate rules.
it believes this case otTers important guidance for you. the Senate community, and the
Committee in order to avoid the appearance of preferential treatment in the future.
The Committee has found no evidence that you sought entrance into the V.I.P. loan unit.
However, once you became aware that your loans were in fact being handled through a program
with the name "V.I.P .... that should have raised red tlags for you and compelled you to find out
exactly how you became a member of the V .l.P. unit. whether you may ha\'e been offered
treatment based on your official position, and very specificall y if you v-.-ere receiving preferential
treatment not available to other bon·owers with similar loan profiles .
..,
.) The Comminee also recognizes thal it has nm preYiousl~ offered specitic guidance to
Senators, ofticers. and cmplo:ees on the matters [hey should consider \\hen negotiating
mortgages and other financial transactions. The Comminee should proacm·ely pro\ ide more
guidance to the Senate community about issues surrmmding mortgage negotiations and
encourages Senators. officers. and employees to seek prior guidance concerning participation in
any programs like the one addressed here.
r
~a-)~ Barbara Boxer
Chairman
Mark Pryor. Member
Sherrod Brov.,. \I ember
incercl~.

Extract SHA-256 (not a PDF checksum): 220100545f1db158e2dd9f9ab9f49111d3c6a88d61ca0a32a9b7c6e1563c6437