search

Franklingate sex scandal   Palfrey suicided 

pictorial index

home

Staff Report
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Government Reform
109 th Congress
Tom Davis, Chairman
Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member
September 29, 2006

Page 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................- 1 -
I. Background................................................................- 3 -
A. Jack Abramoff’s Lobbying Practice .................................- 3 -
B. Senate Report ................................................................- 5 -
C. Guilty Pleas .............................................................- 10 -
D. The Committee’s Investigation..................................................- 11 -
E. Document Production...........................................................- 12 -
F. Policy Objectives and Lobbying and Financial Disclosure Reform.....................- 12 -
II. The Lobbyists.................................................................- 13 -
A. Jack Abramoff.................................................................- 13 -
B. Abramoff’s Associates ....................................................- 15 -
C. Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist ...................................- 22 -
D. Ralph Reed.................................................................- 23 -
III. Description of the Documents Reviewed ........................................- 24 -
A. The Billing Records ..........................................................- 24 -
B. The E-mails .....................................................................- 30 -
IV. The Lobbying..................................................................- 31 -
A. Office of the Senior Advisor....................................................- 32 -
B. Ken Mehlman and the Office of Political Affairs ..................................- 44 -
C. Jennifer Farley and the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.......................- 44 -
D. Other White House Lobbying......................................................- 46 -
E. Events and Meetings.......................................................- 46 -
F. White House Initiative to Work Directly With Tribes ...........................- 50 -
V. The Results.........................................................................- 51 -
A. Successes..........................................................................- 52 -
B. Failures ..........................................................................- 66 -
VI. Meals, Drinks, and Tickets .......................................................- 78 -
A. Meals and Drinks ...............................................................- 78 -
B. Shawn Vasell’s Meals and Drinks ............................................- 80 -
C. Tickets ..........................................................................- 83 -
VII. Conclusion...................................................................- 91 -
i?Executive Summary
In the wake of numerous guilty pleas by Jack Abramoff and his lobbying
associates relating to defrauding his clients and his law firm and to public corruption
charges, the Committee on Government Reform commenced an investigation into the
nature and extent of their lobbying of White House officials. The Committee obtained
billing records and e-mail communications of Abramoff and his associates at his lobbying
firm, GreenbergTraurig L.L.P., relating to instances of lobbying officials at the White
House. The e-mail and billing data provided to the Committee by Abramoff’s firm
spanned three years, included the dealings of approximately 20 lobbyists. In total, it
amounted to more than 14,000 pages.
This review of more than three years of Abramoff/Greenberg Traurig, LLP billing
records and e-mails offers an unusually detailed glimpse into a sordid subculture of fraud
and attempted influence peddling. The questions of primary concern to the Committee in
this review: To what extent were executive branch officials influenced by Abramoff’s
elaborate schemes? And, in view of Abramoff’s admitted crimes, what reforms would
better protect the integrity and increase the transparency of government processes and
decisions?
Constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and association guarantee citizens
and their paid advocates the right to petition their government in an effort to influence the
outcome of public policy deliberations. At the same time, in recognition of the public
trust bestowed by government service, federal employees are bound by statutory and
regulatory prohibitions and affirmative disclosure requirements to ensure adherence to
fundamental ethical principles in the conduct of public business. Those ethics laws and
disclosure regimes operate to ensure that official acts are undertaken for public, not
private, benefit and that influence exerted by citizens and their organized representatives
is neither undue nor improper.
In this instance, those legal, regulatory and reporting requirements on lobbyists
and the public officials they sought to influence proved inadequate to protect Abramoff’s
clients from fraudulent business practices and kickback schemes. The same safeguards
also failed to protect public officials from the ethical undertow generated by Abramoff’s
claims of access to executive branch deliberations, particularly at the White House. And,
to the extent Abramoff succeeded in exerting undue influence or corrupting public
officials, current laws and regulations failed to protect the fundamental governmental
integrity every citizen rightfully expects. In effect, Abramoff was selling information and
entrée that shouldn’t need to be bought while making his clients pay inflated fees for
access and influence that shouldn’t be for sale.
- 1 -
The principle that guided the preparation of this report was to let the facts speak
for themselves and to avoid characterizations, inferences, and spin. In today’s closely
divided partisan environment, different parties may draw different conclusions from the
billing records and e-mail exchanges described in this report. Indeed, in some instances,?

Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman may themselves have
differing interpretations of the significance of what is described in the report.
What united Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman and made this report
possible were two convictions: (1) a shared belief that members of Congress and the
public deserve an impartial presentation of what the billing records and e-mails have to
say and (2) a mutual commitment to fundamental reform of the laws governing lobbying
of the executive branch. They hope that readers of the report will come to share these
convictions.
- 2 -
There are certain caveats that all readers of this report should bear in mind. This
report is not intended to be viewed as the final word on Abramoff’s efforts to lobby the
White House. The documents on which the report is based are drawn from the records of
Abramoff’s former firm, Greenberg Traurig, and thus for the most part can tell only one
side of the story. In many instances, there is little or no corroboration of the events
described in the documents. In other instances, the documents are vague about who was
lobbied and what was said. While the documents described in this report are authentic,
that does not mean that the events actually transpired or that Abramoff and his associates
did not exaggerate or misrepresent their actions.?I. Background
On January 3, 2006, lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in federal district
court in the District of Columbia to four counts of conspiracy, one count of mail fraud,
and one count of tax evasion. Under the conspiracy provisions of the plea agreement, he
admitted to conspiracy to commit (1) honest services wire and mail fraud, (2) mail and
wire fraud, (3) bribery and honest services fraud of a public official, and (4) violations of
post-employment restrictions for former Congressional staff members.1
In an attachment to the plea agreement, he admitted that he had defrauded clients
by concealing from them that payments to other organizations whose services he had
recommended were shared with him, that he had defrauded his own law firm by
accepting payments for services directly from clients, that payments to organizations
controlled by him were diverted to his personal use, and that he conspired to offer and
“provided things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts and
influence and agreements to provide official action and influence.”2 The disclosure in
the plea agreement that these crimes had been committed as long ago as 1999 3 raised
serious questions about the adequacy of lobbying and financial disclosure requirements.
Consequently, the Committee on Government Reform initiated an investigation
into the effectiveness of laws governing executive branch lobbying and financial
disclosure by examining the nature and extent of lobbying by Jack Abramoff and his
associates of White House officials. To conduct this inquiry, the Committee obtained
and reviewed billing records and e-mail communications since 2001 of Abramoff’s
former employer, the law and lobbying firm Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P.
A. Jack Abramoff’s Lobbying Practice
Jack Abramoff maintained a federal and state governmental lobbying practice
since at least 1994, 4 and from January 2001 through March of 2004, Jack Abramoff
presided over a substantial lobbying practice from his position as a partner at Greenberg 
Traurig L.L.P. (Greenberg). Largely representing Indian tribes and insular territories,
Abramoff’s practice grew rapidly in the late 1990s following successful engagements
1 Plea Agreement at ¶3, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff, No. CR-06-001 (D.D.C. Jan. 3, 2006)
[hereinafter Abramoff D.D.C. Plea Agreement].
2 Id. at ¶3(A), Attachment A, ¶33.
3 Id. at ¶6.   newsfollowup.com steve francis
- 3 -
4 Id. at Attachment A, ¶1.?with clients such as the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

(Choctaw) and the territory
of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
Abramoff’s Choctaw and CNMI representations built a foundation for a
significant lobbying practice. During the mid to late 1990s, Abramoff was responsible
for a number of successful initiatives for the Choctaw. The tribe, which operates a large
hotel and casino in Mississippi, found itself as the third-largest employer in Mississippi.5
Given the sophisticated nature of the Choctaw’s interests, they sought Abramoff’s
services as their federal lobbyist. One of Abramoff’s early successes in representing the
Choctaw was to arrange for support in the Congress to exempt the tribe from federal
taxation on gambling revenues. With respect to the proposed taxes, Abramoff reportedly
told then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay, “[r]egardless of what you feel about gaming, what
you are creating here is a tax on these people, and conservatives should never be in favor
of new taxes.”6
Similarly, Abramoff achieved some early successes for the CNMI. In 1995,
Abramoff achieved a major victory for the territory by working to retain the territory’s
exemption from U.S. minimum wage and immigration laws.7 Avoiding the U.S. labor
laws allows the territory to retain its competitive position in the low-cost textile industry.
On the heels of these successes, Abramoff became the steward of a fast growing
lobbying practice. As has been well-chronicled in The Washington Post 8 and by the
Senate Indian Affairs Committee, however, Abramoff began defrauding these clients as
5 David E. Rosenbaum, At $500 an Hour, Lobbyist’s Influence Rises with GOP, N.Y.
TIMES, Apr. 3, 2002, at A2; S. COMM. ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 109
TH
CONG., “GIMME FIVE”—
INVESTIGATION OF TRIBAL LOBBYING MATTERS, at 18 (Comm. Print 2006) [hereinafter
“GIMME FIVE” S. COMM. Report].
6 Corporate Cronies, Bottomless Pockets, and the Republican Culture of Corruption,
U.S. FED. NEWS, June 22, 2005.
7 Philip Shenon, Ex-Delay Aide Pleads Guilty In Lobby Case, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 1, 2006,
at A12.
- 4 -
8 See generally, James V. Grimaldi & Susan Schmidt, Logs Show 2 Abramoff Trips to
White House: Secret Service Entries Indicate Visits by Former GOP Lobbyist in 2001,
2004, WASH. POST, May 11, 2006, at A4; Susan Schmidt & James V. Grimaldi, The Fast
Rise and Steep Fall of Jack Abramoff: How a Well-Connected Lobbyist Became the
Center of a Far-Reaching Corruption Scandal, WASH. POST, Dec. 29, 2005, at A1; Susan
Schmidt & James V. Grimaldi, Lawmakers Under Scrutiny in Probe of Lobbyist: Ney and
DeLay Among the Members of Congress Said to Be a Focus of Abramoff Investigation,
WASH. POST, Nov. 26, 2005, at A1; Susan Schmidt & James V. Grimaldi, Witness May
Have Pivotal Role in Probe of Alleged Corruption, WASH. POST, Nov. 20, 2005, at A8.
Susan Schmidt, A Jackpot From Indian Gaming Tribes, WASH. POST, Feb. 22, 2004, at
A1.?early as 1999 using conduit service providers, excessively marking up fees for 

grassroots-related
services, and receiving fees from those providers that were not disclosed to his
clients.
A principal technique for Abramoff in winning and retaining clients was to
convince clients that his contacts with relevant government policy-makers were so strong
they would be foolish not to retain his firm. In the world of lobbying, perceived
influence often carries just as much weight as actual influence.
B. Senate Report
The U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reports (Senate Report) in
substantial detail the schemes employed by Abramoff and his business partner,
“grassroots” political consultant Michael Scanlon, and some of their colleagues to
defraud clients out of enormous amounts, nearing $70 million.9
The Senate Report describes the Abramoff-Scanlon scheme as follows:
As a general proposition, the scheme involved the following:
getting each of the Tribes to hire Scanlon as their grassroots
specialist; dramatically overcharging them for grassroots and
related activities; setting aside for themselves an unconscionable
percentage of what the Tribes paid at a grossly inflated rate -- a
rate wholly unrelated to the actual cost of services provided; and
using the remaining fraction to reimburse scores of vendors that
could help them maintain vis-a-vis the Tribes a continuing
appearance of competence. One example of this fee-splitting
arrangement arises from a payment of $1,900,000 from the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan. On or about July 9, 2002,
Scanlon assured Abramoff, “800 for you[,] 800 for me[,] 250 for
the effort the other 50 went to the plane and misc expenses. We
both have an additional 500 coming when they pay the next
phasem [sic].”10
9 “GIMME FIVE” S. COMM. Report at 10 (The total cost of doing business with Abramoff
was actually much higher than the amounts paid to the Scanlon entities. “To determine
that cost, one must add to the $66,000,000 figure, payments made by the Tribes to the
lobbying firms with which Abramoff was associated and payments made by the Tribes
directly to [the Scanlon entities.]”)
- 5 -
10 “GIMME FIVE” S. COMM. Report at 9.?Indeed, on July 12, 2002, after that payment arrived, 

Scanlon made three
payments to Abramoff, including a payment of $800,000. 11
1. The Sales Pitch
Over a three-year period from 2001 through 2003, Abramoff and Scanlon
collected $66 million from six tribal clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
(Choctaw), the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (Coushatta), the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
of Michigan (Saginaw Chippewa), the Agua Caliente Band of Cahullia Indians (Agua
Caliente), the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo of Texas (Tigua), and the Pueblo of Sandia of New
Mexico (Sandia Pueblo).12
In pitching his services to the Coushatta tribe, Abramoff traded on his ties to Rep.
Delay.13 In meeting with Coushatta officials, Abramoff described his background,
political connections, and capabilities. In particular, he mentioned that he knew “how to
get things passed through the legislature” and could get “line items” for the Tribe.14
Working to sign the Agua Caliente tribe, one tribal official reported to the Senate
Committee staff that “Abramoff boasted that he was part of the lobbying team that had
secured self-regulation of Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act” for
the Choctaw.15 That tribal official stated that Abramoff’s comments were the reason why
she was interested in hiring him.16 As the possibility of retaining Abramoff became more
of a reality, Abramoff frequently exchanged correspondence with tribal officials
promising political power for the tribe. He wrote, “I think what we have in mind is
helping the tribe set up the kind of political strength we have done for others, but doing it
very carefully so that you are the ultimate controller of the political power.”17
When Abramoff first met with the Sandia Pueblo tribe in New Mexico, he
“stressed his Republican connections, going back to his days working on grassroots
activities for President Reagan.”18 One tribal representative recalled in an interview with
11 Id.
12 Id. at 10.
13 Id. at 46.
14 Id. at 47.
15 Id. at 105.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 115.
- 6 -
18 Id. at 186.?Senate Committee staff that Abramoff “impressed the tribal leaders with his aggressive
approach, specifically recalling Abramoff ‘talk[ing] about breaking bones and busting
kneecaps.’”19
In persuading the Tigua to hire him, Abramoff “told the Tigua how he planned
anonymously to slip language into a legislative vehicle that would allow the Tigua to
reopen its casino.”20 Abramoff’s promise did not pan out. Despite his best efforts, the
Tigua language he promised was never included in any legislation. On reporting this
failure, Abramoff reportedly stated, “Congressman Ney had reported Senator Dodd had
gone back on his word and stripped the measure from the committee report.”21
The Abramoff-Scanlon scheme ordinarily began with Abramoff establishing a
lobbying relationship with the client. As the federal and state lobbyist for the client, the
firm performed traditional government relations services, such as advising the client on
tax and environmental issues and obtaining earmarks through the federal appropriations
process. With the tribal and territorial clients, Greenberg lobbied the federal government,
both the legislative and executive branches, including specifically officials at the
Department of Interior and at the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the
two principal executive branch policy making entities for relations between the United
States and the client tribes and territories.
In situations where Abramoff was not able to commence a lobbying engagement
with a prospective tribal client, he, with the assistance of Scanlon, would agree to provide
campaign-related services to prospective candidates in tribal elections.22 The purpose of
the free campaign assistance was to install a favorable slate of tribal leaders. With
friends in high places within the tribe, the hope was for the tribe to commence a lucrative
lobbying and grassroots political consulting engagement.23 Sometimes Abramoff also
obtained tribal lobbying clients by working both sides of an issue. In early 2002, for
example, working through intermediaries, Abramoff urged the State of Texas to close
Tigua casinos, while simultaneously appealing to the Tigua tribe that their only hope for
survival is to hire him as their lobbyist.24
19 Id. at 187.
20 Id. at 210.
21 Id. at 178.
22 Id. at 65 -74, 109-115.
23 Id. at 9.
- 7 -
24 Id. at 9, 140-141.?2. Kickbacks Paid to Abramoff
Any examination of Abramoff’s billing records must be informed by the findings
of the Senate Committee. Integral to the Abramoff fraud were the kickbacks he received
after persuading his clients to hire Scanlon for his grassroots political services.
According to the Senate Committee’s findings, Scanlon’s operation allowed Abramoff to
wrongfully obtain tens of millions of dollars. The most expensive element of Scanlon’s
services related to what the Committee described as a “purportedly elaborate political
database.”25 Scanlon’s mark-up, according to the Committee was “unconscionable”:26
For example, while Scanlon told the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
that their “political” database would cost $1,345,000, he ended up
paying the vendor that actually developed, operated and
maintained that database about $104,560. The dramatic mark-ups
were intended to accommodate Scanlon’s secret 50/50 split with
Abramoff.27
After its two year investigation, the Senate Committee concluded Scanlon’s services were
“pathetic” and “incompetent.”28 The Senate Committee stated that, with respect to the
Sandia Pueblo, their “experience with Scanlon gave them new meaning to the phrase
‘take the money and run.’”29 The Agua Caliente tribe did not believe that Scanlon
actually performed any of the work they paid him, and unwittingly, as it turned out,
Abramoff, for.30
The revelation that Abramoff was being paid under the table by Scanlon took his
clients by surprise. When asked what she would say to Abramoff now that his scheme
was revealed, Choctaw official Nell Rogers told the Senate Committee staff:
I would tell them that – there are a lot of things that I could say
about being angry or bitter. But I think the worst is that they
betrayed the tribe. They betrayed the Chief who had a great deal
of confidence in them. They betrayed me ... But I think at the end
of the day, it’s the betrayal that’s worse. And I think of the people
whose lives they’ve destroyed. I think of all those young kids who
25 Id. at 9.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 193.
29 Id..
- 8 -
30 Id. at 128-29.?worked at Greenberg and Preston Gates with them, who, fairly or
unfairly, are going to have to bear that burden. And I think about
the other tribes. I mean, you know, let’s face it. The tribes they
dealt with were not the poorest of the poor tribes. Of all those
tribes, Choctaw, though, probably has the greatest needs, the
biggest tribe, was the poorest tribe. And they used the success they
had with Choctaw to gain entrée with the other tribes. You know,
not only did they betray Choctaw but they betrayed the tribe’s
good name and Chief’s reputation. And, you know, Phillip Martin
has spent his life working for not only this tribe but for Indian
people. And for him to have to be smeared like this is intolerable.
I’ve spent my whole life working. You know, it’s the lack – it’s
the lack of care for people and just the personal greed. And who
knows? I don’t understand that point of view.31
In total, “having collected about $15,000,000 from the Choctaw during the
relevant period, Scanlon secretly kicked back to Abramoff about $6,364,000—about 50
percent of his total profit from the Tribe.”32
Even when asked directly, Abramoff lied to keep his Scanlon ties a secret from
his clients.33 A Tigua official observed, “A rattlesnake will warn you before it strikes.
We had no warning. They did everything behind our back.”34
With respect to his work for the Coushatta tribe, the Senate observed:
In the course of their three-year business relationship with the
Tribe, Abramoff and Scanlon were indifferent to the trust that the
Louisiana Coushatta put in them as their paid representatives and
advocates. At no time did they ever tell the Tribe that Abramoff
had a financial interest in CCS [that is, Capitol Campaign
Strategies, a Scanlon entity] or that Abramoff received a hefty
percentage of the millions of dollars that the Tribe paid CCS or
AIC. Similarly, the Tribe never knew that the cost of services
charged by Scanlon was dramatically inflated so that Abramoff
could get a big piece of a big pie. The Tribe likewise never knew
most of the money it paid Scanlon actually went to finance
31 Id. at 15-16.
32 Id. at 10.
33 Id. at 151.   newsfollowup.com steve francis
- 9 -
34 Id. at 182.?Scanlon’s private investments and to float Abramoff’s business
ventures.35
The schemes were not limited to the Scanlon services. Problems surfaced with
Abramoff’s Greenberg invoices too. On November 12, 2002, Abramoff’s associate
Duane Gibson, who was responsible for the Agua Caliente account, discovered charges
on the account with which he was unfamiliar. Gibson inquired of Abramoff:
[O]n the Agua bill, there are two items – $10K for consulting from
Michael Chapman and $5K for consulting for Sierra Dominion
Financial Resources. These were part of the itemized expenses on
the draft bill that I am reviewing. I do not know what the
arrangements are for work by these people, and want to make sure
that they are authorized. These items constitute $15K of the $25 K
in expenses. Is this ok?
Abramoff replied, “One is the finders [sic] fee for Chapman and
the other is one I will tell you about. they [sic] come out of our
retainer, and should not be listed to the client ever. Please make
sure they are never on the bill which goes to them.” When Gibson
alerted Abramoff to the possibility that Chapman’s fees might have
appeared on the previous bill, Abramoff panicked: “This is a
disaster!!!!!!” Gibson subsequently allayed Abramoff’s fears by
assuring him Chapman’s fees had only appeared on the draft bill.
Just what was the nature of the payments to Chapman and Sierra
Dominion, and why was Abramoff determined for them not to
appear on the Agua Caliente’s bill?36
The Chapman fee was not a consulting fee, but a finder’s fee.37
C. Guilty Pleas
On November 22, 2005, Michael Scanlon pleaded guilty to corruption charges
relating to his schemes with Abramoff. Shortly thereafter, on January 3, 2006, Abramoff
pleaded guilty to charges of mail fraud, income tax evasion, and conspiracy to violate
statutes concerning wire and mail fraud, bribery, and post-employment restrictions on
congressional staff members.38 The plea agreement included Abramoff’s admissions
35 Id. at 41.
36 Id. at 130-31.
37 Id. at 134.
- 10 -
38 Abramoff D.D.C. Plea Agreement ¶ 3.?that, among other crimes, he conspired to defraud his 

clients and his law firm and to offer
public officials things of value in exchange for official acts.39
Several Abramoff associates have also pleaded guilty to public corruption
charges. Tony Rudy, the former deputy chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay, worked for Abramoff at Greenberg from 2001 to 2002. On March 31, 2006,
Rudy pleaded guilty to multiple criminal acts, including conspiring to receive while a
public official and to provide while a lobbyist things of value to influence official
action.40 Neil Volz, the former chief of staff to Rep. Bob Ney, worked for Abramoff at
Greenberg from 2002 to 2004. On May 8, 2006, Volz pleaded guilty to conspiring to
receive while a public official and to provide while a lobbyist things of value to influence
official action, among other unlawful actions.41
On September 15, 2006, a plea agreement with Rep. Ney was announced by the
Department of Justice. According to the Department, Rep. Ney agreed to plead guilty to
a two-count criminal information charging him with conspiracy to commit multiple
offenses – including honest services fraud, making false statements, and violations of his
former chief of staff’s one-year lobbying ban – and with making false statements to the
U.S. House of Representatives.”42
D. The Committee’s Investigation
As these events unfolded, Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis
and Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman decided that an examination of Jack
Abramoff’s lobbying of White House officials could provide further insight into the
schemes of the now convicted former lobbyist and his associates. Such insight could
assist the Congress in evaluating the effectiveness of lobbying and financial disclosure
laws in protecting the public against the corrupt influence of unscrupulous lobbyists.
On March 2, 2006, Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman wrote a letter
to Greenberg requesting all billing records of Abramoff and individuals working with
him at the firm, as well as “all records relating to contacts between Abramoff, or
individuals working with Abramoff at Greenberg , and officials in the White House.”43
39 Id.
40 Criminal Information, U.S. v. Tony C. Rudy, No. CR-06-082 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2006).
41 Criminal Information, at ¶ 1, U.S. v. Neil G. Volz, No. 06-119 (D.D.C. May 8, 2006).
42 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Congressman Robert W. Ney Agrees to Plead
Guilty to Charges Involving Corruption and False Statements (Sept. 15, 2006).
- 11 -
43 Letter from Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Minority Member Henry A. Waxman
to Kevin M. Downey, Williams and Connolly L.L.P. (Mar. 2, 2006). Williams and
Connolly represents Greenberg Traurig with respect to investigations of Abramoff.?They

 also sent a letter to Preston Gates & Ellis L.L.P. (Preston Gates), where Abramoff
worked from 1994 to 2000, requesting similar information.44 The Committee did not
pursue the document request with Preston Gates after the firm responded that Abramoff
had virtually no contacts with White House officials during his tenure at the firm.
E. Document Production
Greenberg Traurig has fully cooperated with the Committee. After the firm
notified the Committee that many of the documents sought by the Committee implicated
the attorney-client privilege and could not be produced without a subpoena, the
Committee issued a subpoena to the firm on May 2, 2006. 45 In response to the document
request and subpoena, Greenberg produced in excess of 14,300 pages of documents. This
production included in excess of 6,600 pages of Greenberg billing records and more than
7,700 pages of e-mails relating to contacts with White House officials. The documents
produced largely relate to Greenberg engagements with several tribal and territorial
clients, namely the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (Choctaw), the Coushatta Tribe
of Louisiana (Coushatta), the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan (Saginaw
Chippewa), the Pueblo of Sandia of New Mexico, the Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI), and Guam.46
As of the date of this report, document production is not complete. According to
Greenberg Traurig’s records, 13 of the 24 Abramoff clients with documents responsive to
the Committee subpoena have produced documents, while the other clients are in
discussions with Greenberg Traurig and the Committee regarding the Committee’s
subpoena.
F. Policy Objectives and Lobbying and Financial
Disclosure Reform
The billing records and e-mails, whether they reflect events that happened or not,
raise serious questions regarding the effectiveness of our lobbying and financial
disclosure laws. The billing records and e-mails provide more information about
Abramoff’s lobbying efforts at the White House than is disclosed in the publicly
44 Letter from Chairman Tom Davis and Ranking Minority Member Henry A. Waxman
to Emanuel L. Rouvelas, Chairman, Preston Gates & Ellis L.L.P. (Mar. 2, 2006).
45 Subpoena to Custodian of Records, Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P., signed by Chairman
Tom Davis, House Committee on Government Reform (May 2, 2006).
- 12 -
46 Although the Committee received documents relating to Abramoff lobbying activities
related to CNMI, the Committee has not received a full set of responsive documents from
CNMI.?available lobby disclosure forms. If the billing records are fraudulent – claiming
meetings, telephone calls, and meals or drinks with White House officials that did not
happen – existing disclosure laws did nothing to protect clients from this fraud or public
officials from false claims that they had such contacts that they did not have. If the
billing records and e-mails accurately reflect events that happened, the fact that they are
not publicly released and insufficiently detailed does not allow the public a full
understanding in each instance which official was lobbied, what benefits, such as meals
or entertainment, that official may have received, whether that official is permitted to
receive those benefits without charge, and whether that official paid for any benefit.
Likewise, the vagueness of the billing records and lobbying disclosure reports combined
with their lack of corroboration and their relative infrequency, prevents public officials
from disclaiming meetings on a real-time basis.
Lobbying and financial disclosure laws could work together to address these
issues. Disclosure by public officials of lobbying efforts could give clients of lobbyists a
way to verify the billings of their lobbyists. More detailed and real-time disclosure by
both lobbyists and government officials of meals, drinks, and other entertainment could
also act to ensure that the public is informed of those benefits received by public officials
that are permitted or those benefits that, although provided by lobbyists, are paid for by
recipient officials. Such disclosure could also ensure that government officials accept
only those benefits that are permitted and, again, prevent lobbyists from billing clients for
meals or entertainment that either were not provided or if provided, were paid for by
officials. Legislation cosponsored by Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman,
H.R. 5112, the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2006, addresses some of these issues and
was reported out of the Committee 32-0 on April 27, 2006.
II. The Lobbyists
A. Jack Abramoff
For ten years, from 1994 to 2004, Jack A. Abramoff was a Washington, D.C.
lobbyist with a sizable practice. From 1994 through 2000, Abramoff was with Preston
Gates, and from January 2001 until his ouster in March 2004, with the Greenberg firm.47
Abramoff solicited and obtained lobbying business from groups and companies
throughout the United States, focusing especially on Native American tribal government
clients and the insular territories.48
47 Criminal Information at ¶ 1, U.S. v. Jack A. Abramoff, No. CR-06-001 (D.D.C. Jan. 3,
2006).
- 13 -
48 Id. at ¶ 2.?In 1999, Preston Gates was listed by The National Journal as the fifth largest
Washington lobbying firm with $11.7 million in revenues.49 More than 25 percent of
which, or $3.1 million, was collected from the Mississippi Choctaw, according to the
publication.50 The National Journal observed that, after Abramoff moved to Greenberg ,
“three of [Preston Gates’] top seven clients in 2000 belonged to Abramoff,” including the
Choctaw and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.51
The Senate Report describes Abramoff’s lobbying practice in 2000, when he
joined Greenberg , as being valued at $6 million annually.
When he left the premier Washington, D.C. offices of the lobbying
firm Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meed in December 2000 for a
relatively new Washington lobbying group at Greenberg Traurig,
Abramoff brought with him a book of business worth more than $6
million annually, according to Abramoff’s own estimates. This
helped Greenberg Traurig generate a 500 percent increase in
lobbying fees over the previous year. With that increase,
Greenberg Traurig reportedly vaulted into the top ten Washington
lobbying firms—jumping from sixteenth place to fourth.52
In 2001, after a year with Greenberg, Abramoff was able to make significant
inroads with the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana. The Coushatta was Greenberg’s second
largest lobbying client, paying the firm $2.2 million.53 In 2004, The National Journal
described Abramoff’s lobbying practice as
the engine that transformed a midsize lobbying practice at the law firm
Greenberg Traurig into one of K Street's top money machines. Since early
2001, when Abramoff joined Greenberg Traurig's Washington office --
bringing with him six colleagues and several high-paying clients -- the
firm's annual lobbying revenues have soared, exceeding $25 million in
2003 and landing the firm at No. 4 in revenues among all K Street firms.54
49 Shawn Zeller, Cassidy Keeps Its Crown, NAT’L J., Apr. 20, 2000, at 1288.
50 Id.
51 Shawn Zeller, For the Big 10, Income Keeps Rising, NAT’L J., Apr. 14, 2002, at 1112.
52 “GIMME FIVE” S. COMM. Report at 3.
53 Shawn Zeller, Top Lobbying Firms Got Richer in 2001, NAT’L J., Apr. 13, 2002, Vol.
34, No. 15.
- 14 -
54 Peter H. Stone, K Street Stumble, NAT’L J., Mar. 27, 2004, Vol. 36, No. 13.?In e-mails, 

Abramoff had a tendency to describe his clients in a disparaging way
and use foul language. In November 2002, for example, he wrote to Todd Boulanger
about the Saginaw Chippewa tribe in Michigan, “I hate these f***ing ingrates. I told the
Cherokee to come up with the dough or prepare for another trail of tears!!! :)”55 In the
same e-mail exchange with Todd Boulanger, Abramoff expresses his contempt for a
potential client, Guam, and its newly elected Governor Felix Camacho.
I met with [Camacho’s] his staffer tonight (!!!). the f***ing
mother f***er didn’t even have the courtesy to call me or meet
with me himself. I told the little twerp that they are off to a rip
roaring start, with losers aplenty helping them. he basically told
me that they too have concluded that everyone is a bullsh***ter
here and that they want to hire us. I said ‘I am not sure you can
afford us and frankly, I am none too happy by this little parade.’
He kept pushing, obviously having been given orders to tie up
something. He is going to send me their wish list. I told him that
we don’t charge anything less than six figures per month and that I
just got done telling the biggest indian tribe in the Midwest to f**k
off since they wanted a slight discount. Let’s see what these pieces
of s**t say. I am f***ing pissed. What disrespect.56
B. Abramoff’s Associates
1. Kevin Ring
According to one e-mail, Kevin Ring served as a “quasi-team leader” for the
Abramoff lobbying practice.57 In 2002 and 2003, [Ring] was named a “Top Rainmaker”
by The Hill newspaper in its annual rankings of Washington’s premier lobbyists.” 58 In
1993, Ring began working for Rep. John T. Doolittle, and in 1998 Ring moved to the
Senate. At the Senate, Ring served as counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s
subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, under the chairmanship
of Senator John Ashcroft.59 He returned to the House a year later to work as the
55 E-mail from Jack Abramoff to Todd Boulanger (Nov. 19, 2002) (GTG-R001022)
(expletives deleted).
56 E-mail from Jack Abramoff to Todd Boulanger (Nov. 19, 2002) (GTG-R001022)
(expletives deleted).
57 E-mail exchange between Jack Abramoff to Kevin Ring (May 6, 2003) (GTG-R001292)
(Ring speaks of responsibilities of being a team leader).
58 Kevin Ring-Barnes & Thornburg L.L.P. Biography,
http://www.btlaw.com/Person.asp?Personnel_ID=385 (last visited Sept. 18, 2006).
- 15 -
59 Id.?“executive director of the Conservative Action Team … a caucus comprised of 70 House
Republicans.”60 Ring published a book in November 2004 entitled, Scalia Dissents:
Writings of the Supreme Court’s Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice.61
Kevin Ring did not escape criticism in the Senate Report. Ring was reportedly
paid on the side by Abramoff and Scanlon for work on behalf of the Pueblo of Sandia
client.62 Fred Baggett, Managing Shareholder at Greenberg, told the Senate staff that the
firm’s internal investigation, “has found, and as we have informed Federal authorities and
I believe this committee, we found a number of other instances where members of Mr.
Abramoff’s team had received compensation outside of the firm.”63 According to the
Senate Report, “[o]ne of those Baggett named was Kevin Ring.”64 The Senate’s
investigation found, “Kevin Ring, who the [Pueblo of Sandia] trusted and respected, did
not disclose his financial arrangement . . . to the Tribe until 2004, months after the
publication of the Washington Post article that initially exposed the Abramoff” scandal.65
2. Todd Anthony Boulanger
Also a top aide to Abramoff, Todd Boulanger handled much of the day to day
lobbying for the Greenberg team. After a short career as a congressional staff member,
Boulanger joined the Preston Gates firm in 1999 to work as lobbyist with tribal and
territorial clients.66 Later he moved on to Greenberg with Abramoff in early 2001. 67
After the Abramoff scandal broke, Boulanger moved to Cassidy & Associates, where he
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 “GIMME FIVE” S. COMM. Report at 188-89.
63 Id. at 189.
64 Id.
65 Id.
66 Todd Anthony Boulanger-Cassidy & Associates Biography,
http://www.cassidy.com/about/biodetail.asp?Id=103&Office=dc (last visited Sept. 18,
2006) [Boulanger Biography].
- 16 -
67 Jonathan E. Kaplan, The Lobbyist and the Lobsterman, THE HILL, Mar. 15, 2005, at
Business and Lobbying.?currently remains.68 Recently, he was called a “rising star on K 

Street” by The Hill
newspaper and a “powerful lobbyist” by The National Journal.69
3. Neil Volz
In February 2002, Neil Volz joined Abramoff’s practice at Greenberg.70 Prior to
becoming a lobbyist, Volz had a career as a House staffer. Volz was named to Roll
Call’s “50 Most Powerful Capitol Hill Staffers” three times.71 From 1995 through
February 2002, Volz served as Communications Director and then (in 1998) Chief of
Staff for Rep. Bob Ney.72 In January 2001, Volz also became staff director of the House
Administration Committee, when Rep. Bob Ney became the chairman.73
In May 2006, Volz pleaded guilty to public corruption charges stemming from the
federal investigation examining the Abramoff lobbying scandal. Under the plea
agreement:
. . . Volz admitted that beginning in approximately 2000 and
continuing throughout his time as the chief of staff in
Representative [Ney]'s office and as Committee staff director, Volz
corruptly accepted a stream of things of value from Abramoff and
others while he took official action on their behalf. Volz concealed
his receipt of this largesse, which was in excess of the limits
established by the House of Representatives, by failing to disclose
the gifts on his annual financial disclosure forms. Once Volz
became a lobbyist with Abramoff, Volz's role in the conspiracy
changed to providing a stream of things of value to other public
officials, including Representative [Ney]. 74
68 Boulanger Biography.
69 Id.
70 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Former Lobbyist Neil Volz Pleads Guilty to
Corruption and Fraud Conspiracy (May 8, 2006) [hereinafter Volz Press Release].
71 Neil G. Volz- Barnes & Thornburg L.L.P. Biography, http://www.btlaw.com (Volz’s
biography has now been removed from this website).
72 Criminal Information, Attachment A at ¶ 1, U.S. v. Robert W. Ney, No. CR-06-622
(D.D.C. Jan. 3, 2006).
73 Id.
- 17 -   newsfollowup.com steve francis
74 Volz Press Release.?Volz also admitted that, when he became a lobbyist, he, Abramoff,
Scanlon, Rudy and others continued to engage in an honest
services fraud scheme by providing a stream of things of value to
other public officials with the intent to influence and reward
official action. The plea agreement and information set forth
examples of such conduct, namely the provision by Volz and his
co-conspirators of a stream of things of value to Representative
[Ney] and members of his staff in order to influence them to take
official action. According to Volz's plea, the stream of benefits
included foreign and domestic travel, numerous tickets to concerts
and sporting events, regular meals and drinks at expensive
restaurants, and unreported use of Abramoff's box suites at the
MCI Center Arena and Camden Yards Stadium for political fund
raisers.
For example, Volz admitted that the co-conspirators provided
Representative [Ney] and members of his staff with all-expenses-paid
and reduced-price trips to Scotland and London in August
2002; to the Fiesta Bowl in Tempe, Arizona, in January 2003; to
New Orleans, Louisiana, in May 2003; and to Lake George, New
York, in 2004. In exchange for this stream of things of value, Volz
and his co-conspirators sought and received Representative [Ney]'s
agreement to perform a series of official acts, including
Representative [Ney’s] agreement to support and pass legislation,
to support or oppose actions taken by other agencies and
departments of government, and to assist Abramoff in securing
additional clients. The plea papers allege that in March 2002,
[Ney] agreed that, as the Co-Chairman of a Conference Committee
of House and Senate Members of Congress, he would introduce
and seek passage of legislation to lift a federal ban against gaming
by a client of Abramoff, a Native American Tribe in Texas.75
Volz faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.76
75 Id.
- 18 -
76 WASH. POST, “Unraveling Abramoff: Key Players in the Investigation of Lobbyist
Jack Abramoff” available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/custom/2005/12/23/CU2005122300939.html (last visited Sept. 16, 2006)
[hereinafter WASH. POST Key Players].?4. Tony Rudy
From 1995 through December 2000, Tony Rudy worked in the leadership office
of Rep. Tom DeLay.77 He served in the office as press secretary until 1998 and then as
deputy chief of staff until his departure.78 According to Washington Post reports, Rudy
played a major part in stopping an anti-gambling bill in July 2000 – the opposition to
which was spearheaded by Abramoff: “Rudy e-mailed Abramoff internal congressional
communications and advice, according to documents and the lobbyist's former
associates.”79 In December 2000, Rudy left the leadership office and in early 2001
joined Abramoff’s lobbying practice at Greenberg , where he worked until late July
2002. 80
In March 2006, Rudy pleaded guilty in federal court to corruption charges
stemming from the federal investigation of Abramoff.81 In his plea agreement, Rudy
“admitted that, as a lobbyist working for Abramoff, he violated the conflict of interest
post-employment restrictions by lobbying staff members in the leadership office of [Rep.
Tom DeLay] within one year of having left his position as Deputy Chief of Staff to that
office.”82
5. Shawn Vasell
Shawn Vasell worked at both Preston Gates and Greenberg with Abramoff where
according to his resume, he “directe[d] and manage[d] public policy agendas for firm
clients.”83 During 2002, Vasell was on the staff of Senator Conrad Burns, as Burns’s
state director, in Billings, Montana.84 He returned to Greenberg in January 2003.
According to Vasell’s resume which was produced to the Committee, other than his stint
77 Criminal Information, U.S. v. Tony C. Rudy, No. CR-06-082 (D.D.C. 2006).
78 Id.
79 WASH. POST Key Players.
80 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Former Lobbyist Tony Rudy Pleads Guilty to
Corruption and Fraud Conspiracy (Mar. 31, 2006) [hereinafter Tony Rudy Press
Release].
81 WASH. POST Key Players.
82 Tony Rudy Press Release.
83 Shawn Michael Vasell, Resume (GTG-R004009).
- 19 -
84 Id.?with Senator Burns in 2002, he was employed mostly as a lobbyist except for one year as
a staff assistant to Senator Spencer Abraham from August 1995 to July 1996. 85
6. Duane Gibson
Duane Gibson, before joining Greenberg, spent fifteen years as a staff member in
both the House and Senate, working on the staffs of Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted
Stevens of Alaska, and several House Committees including the Committee on
Transportation & Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations.86 Gibson,
currently of the Livingston Group, markets himself as someone with experience in issues
ranging from “natural resources, defense/national security, transportation, Native
Americans, tax, appropriations and education.”87
7. Padgett Wilson
Padgett Wilson joined Greenberg after working as a House and Senate staff
member for two members of the Georgia delegation, Rep. Nathan Deal and Sen. Paul
Coverdell.88 Wilson is currently the Federal Affairs Director in Washington, D.C. for
Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue.89
8. Michael E. Williams
Michael E. Williams joined Greenberg in 2001 after eleven years as a lobbyist
with the National Rifle Association.90 He remains at Greenberg today.
85 Id.
86 Judy Sarasohn, Berger's Firm to Aid Oil Interests in Iraq, WASH. POST, Sept. 16,
2004, at A29; Duane R. Gibson-Livingston Group Biography,
http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/corporateoverview/team.html (last visited Sept. 16,
2006).
87 Duane R. Gibson-Livingston Group Biography,
http://www.livingstongroupdc.com/corporateoverview/team.html (last visited Sept. 16,
2006).
88 Press Release, Office of the Governor, Ga. State Capitol, Governor Perdue Announces
Director of Federal Affairs (Feb. 1, 2005).
89 Id.
- 20 -
90 Michael E. Williams-Greenberg Traurig L.L.P. Biography,
http://www.gtlaw.com/people/biography.aspx?id=1588&detail=1 (last visited Sept. 17,
2006).?9. Stephanie K. Leger Short
Stephanie K. Leger Short joined Greenberg in October 2001 91 after more than six
years as legislative aide to Senator John Breaux.92 Presently, Leger Short serves as
Louisiana’s Washington lobbyist for Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco in the state’s
Washington office.93
10. Abramoff’s Executive Assistants
Susan Ralston was Abramoff’s executive assistant at Preston Gates and
Greenberg until she left to become Karl Rove’s assistant in the White House in February
2001. Abramoff required his assistants, like Ralston, to perform mostly administrative
and secretarial duties. His assistants, for example, were required to keep a running
“wrap-up sheet” or “Daily Work Activities” list identifying every task performed during
the day.94 On January 21, 1999, Ralston’s Daily Work Activities reflected she performed
28 tasks.95 Among these were,
2. Called Linda at Ralph Reed’s office re 4:30 conf call today.
Confirmed that the e-mail address you had was correct instead of
what she gave me before.
* * *
7. Faxed order forms to Nextel for your new phone
* * *
9. Called David Scavone to set up meeting today
* * *
91 Press Release, Greenberg Traurig L.L.P., Greenberg Traurig L.L.P. Adds Associate in
Washington, D.C., Governmental and Administrative Law Practice (Oct. 15, 2001).
92 Press Release, Governor Announces Director of State/Federal Relations available at
http://www.politicsla.com/press_releases/2004/December/121404_GOVERNOR_ANNO
UNCES_DIRECTOR.htm (last visited Sept. 17, 2006).
93 Id.
94 See, e.g., E-mail from Susan Ralston to Jack Abramoff (Jan. 21, 1999) (28 tasks on e-mail
titled “1/21 Daily Work Activities”) (GTG-R006622); E-mail from Rodney Lane to
Jack Abramoff (Mar. 7, 2001) (48 tasks on “Wrap-up” e-mail) (GTG-R000682-000683);
Holly Bowers, Wrap-Up Sheet, June 20, 2003 (34 tasks) (GTG-R005072); Linsey
Crisler, Wrap-Up Sheet, June 4, 2003 (29 tasks) (GTG-R005113); Holly Bowers, Wrap-Up
Sheet, July 8, 2003 (40 tasks) (GTG-R005073).
- 21 -
95 E-mail from Susan Ralston to Jack Abramoff (Jan. 21, 1999) (“1/21 Daily Work
Activities”) (GTG-R006622).?15. Faxed Bush for President press release to your dad
* * *
27. Updated Ed Buckham’s office address 96
After Ralston left Greenberg , Abramoff used several individuals as assistants,
including Rodney Lane, Holly Bowers, and Allison Bozniak. Abramoff gave these
assistants similar daily tasks. Daily task lists for Abramoff produced to the Committee
include the following entries: “Called L’Etoile to make reservations at noon,”97
“Changed golf on the 1 st to Lowes Island with Williams, et al,”98 “Order set of Seinfeld
DVDs online,”99 “Put through call from Ralph Reed,”100 “Took message from your
father and sent you e-mail,”101 “Checked your voice-mail – no messages,”102 and “Called
Sigs to let them know your meal scheduled for today.”103
C. Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist
Grover Norquist is the president of the anti-tax group, Americans for Tax Reform
(ATR). An acquaintance of Abramoff for many years, the two men shared a long-time
interest in conservative political causes. Both men knew each other in college and were
involved with the College Republicans at the national level.104 Norquist’s ATR had
successfully emerged as one of the leading Washington-based interest groups.105 In
describing Norquist and his group, The National Journal wrote:
96 E-mail from Susan Ralston to Jack Abramoff (Jan. 21, 1999) (“1/21 Daily Work
Activities”) (GTG-R006622).
97 E-mail from Rodney Lane to Jack Abramoff (Mar. 7, 2001) (GTG-R000682-000683).
98 Holly Bowers, Wrap-Up Sheet, June 20, 2003 (34 tasks) (GTG-R005072).
99 Linsey Crisler, Wrap-Up Sheet, June 4, 2003 (29 tasks) (GTG-R005113).
100 Id.
101 Id.
102 Holly Bowers, Wrap-Up Sheet, July 8, 2003 (40 tasks) (GTG-R005073).
103 Id.
104 WASH. POST Key Players.
- 22 -
105 Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, Lobbyists Foresee Business as Usual, WASH. POST, Mar. 19,
2006, at A1.?About once a month since 2001, Grover Norquist has invited a top
Bush administration official or a Republican congressional leader
to dine with him and some 20 or 30 corporate lobbyists who help
subsidize Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax group that
Norquist heads.
The dinners at Norquist's Washington, D.C., home aren't cheap:
The lobbyists pay ATR between $10,000 and $25,000 a year for
the privilege of attending several of the intimate get-togethers,
which have featured the likes of White House political guru Karl
Rove and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, according to several
lobbyists who have attended.
Before things went sour for Abramoff, however, the lobbyist had
steered nearly $1.8 million in donations to Norquist's ATR from
Indian tribes and other clients, according to former colleagues of
both men and to sources familiar with their financial dealings.
"Grover gave Abramoff priceless credentials as a conservative
lobbyist loyal to conservative Republican causes," said Michael
Waller, a vice president of the right-leaning Center for Security
Policy, who for several years was an occasional participant at
Norquist's Wednesday meetings. In some cases, according to
Waller, "ATR was acting as a front organization for some of
Abramoff's clients and operations."106
From time to time, Abramoff had the opportunity to introduce a client to
important officials such as Karl Rove by providing an invitation to a Grover Norquist-arranged
dinner.
D. Ralph Reed
Ralph Reed is president of Century Strategies, a “public relations and public
affairs firm” which he founded in 1997. 107 Reed and Abramoff have known each other
since the early 1980s, when Reed was executive director and Abramoff was national
chairman of the College Republicans, and Reed introduced Abramoff to the woman
Abramoff married.108 Reed also served as executive director of the Christian Coalition
106 Peter Stone, Grover and Jack's Long Adventure, NAT’L JOURNAL, Oct. 1, 2005, Vol.
37, No. 40.
107 Century Strategies, http://www.censtrat.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Team.Home (last
visited Sept. 27, 2006).
- 23 -
108 Adam Zagorin, Karen Tumulty, and Massimo Calabresi, An Unholy Alliance?, TIME
Oct. 31, 2005.?from 1989 to 1997 and as chairman of the Georgia Republican Party in 2002. 109 After
leaving the Christian Coalition, Reed reached out to Abramoff about business
opportunities: “Hey, now that I’m done with electoral politics, I need to start humping in
corporate accounts! I’m counting on you to help me with some contacts.”110 He waged
an unsuccessful campaign to be the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor of
Georgia in 2006. 111

III. Description of the Documents Reviewed
A. The Billing Records
In response to the Committee’s subpoena, nearly 6,600 pages of billing
documents were produced, covering 13 clients from the beginning of 2001 to spring
2004. 112 Most of the records are copies of monthly bills sent to each client by Greenberg .
While there are some variations, bills typically include several pages of brief descriptions
of the lobbying work performed by the Abramoff team and the amount of time (in tenth-hour
increments) each member spent on each assignment. An attachment notes any
related expenses incurred by individual lobbyists. Other pages provide a summary and
specify the balance due. There is also miscellaneous accounting paperwork (including
canceled checks) and payment instructions, usually involving details for wiring funds
directly into the firm’s bank account.113 A handful of bills note past-due balances.114
109 Century Strategies, http://www.censtrat.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Team.Home (last
visited Sept. 27, 2006); Thomas B. Edsall, In Ga., Abramoff Scandal Threatens a
Political Ascendency, WASH. POST, Jan. 16, 2006, at A1.
110 “GIMME FIVE” S. COMM. Report at 23.
111 Chris Cillizza, Republican Candidate Linked to Abramoff Loses in Ga. Primary,
WASH. POST, July 19, 2006, at A3.
112 The clients were the American International Center, SunCruz Casino, Atlantic Coast
Technologies, Inc., DH2, Howard Hills bills, Unisys, International Interactive Alliance,
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Sandia Pueblo,
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, and the Saginaw
Chippewa Indian Tribe of Louisiana.
113 Miscellaneous accounting paper work: Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records
(GTG000322-000359-ACCT-SG); Wiring Instructions: Saginaw Chippewa Billing
Records (Nov. 10, 2003) (GTG000393-ACCT-SG).
- 24 -
114 Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (Bill Date: Mar. 12, 2003) (GTG000505-ACCT-SG);
Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (Bill Date: Dec. 11, 2002) (GTG000590-
ACCT-SG).?The records also include draft versions of some bills, which allows comparisons
to be made between proposed charges and those which were actually levied. A few drafts
have handwritten notations about changes incorporated into the final versions.115 Copies
of a few engagement letters, outlining the services which Abramoff and associates were
to undertake on behalf of each client, are also in the files.116 In most instances, records
address lobbying activities (or “Washington representation” in the lexicon of K Street)
conducted by the team. However, legal work was also apparently performed, and there
are some separate bills for these activities among the records.117
For their large clients, the Abramoff group typically charged a $150,000 monthly
retainer for lobbying.118 Expenses added as much as $10,000 to the fee.119 According to
the records, about twenty individuals worked approximately four hundred total hours on
an account in each billing cycle.120 Some devoted as many as 80 hours to the client, and
others worked as little as 1.5 hours.121 Significantly, however, it is nearly impossible to
corroborate many of these details.122
115 Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (Bill Date: Nov. 4, 2003) (GTG000060-ACCT-SG);
Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (Bill Date: Aug. 4, 2003) (GTG000170-ACCT-SG);
Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (Bill Date: Jul. 15, 2003) (GTG000207-ACCT-SG);
Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (Bill Date: June. 3, 2003) (GTG000237-ACCT-SG);
Choctaw Billing Records (Bill Date: Dec. 2, 2003) (GTG002735-002754-ACCT-CW);
Choctaw Billing Records (Bill Date: Oct. 7, 2003) (GTG002808-002828-ACCT-CW).
116 Letter from Jack Abramoff to Chief Kahgegab, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribal
Council (Dec. 6, 2001) (GTG000317-000319-ACCT-SG); Letter from Jack Abramoff to
Chief Phillip Martin, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (Jan. 5, 2001) (GTG003178-
003180-ACCT-CW).
117 Coushatta Billing Records: Blue Lake Transaction (Nov. 26, 2002) (GTG002078-
ACCT-CS); Coushatta Billing Records: Legal Services (Dec. 18, 2002) (GTG002049-
ACCT-CS).
118 Three clients had an average of $165,768.40 per month. The Committee examined the
Saginaw Chippewa engagement over 15 months; the Coushatta engagement over 17
months; and the Agua Caliente engagement over 14 months.
Client: Saginaw Chippewa
Date Amount Identifier
Sept. 22, 2003 $187,949.99 GTG000325-ACCT-SG
Oct. 8, 2003 $186, 317.39 GTG000327-ACCT-SG
Aug. 14, 2003 $189,768.97 GTG000329-ACCT-SG
June. 13, 2003 $191,089.18 GTG000331-ACCT-SG
May 15, 2003 $190,004.69 GTG000333-ACCT-SG
Apr. 14, 2003 $190,096.00 GTG000335-ACCT-SG
Feb. 14, 2003 $190,000.00 GTG000337-ACCT-SG
Mar. 12, 2003 $191,971.08
- 25 -
GTG000339-ACCT-SG?Jan. 21, 2003 $161,630.82 GTG000341-ACCT-SG
Dec. 11, 2002 $326,389.24 GTG000343-ACCT-SG
Oct. 10, 2002 $164,138.21 GTG000345-ACCT-SG
Sept. 16, 2002 $163,480.19 GTG000345-ACCT-SG
Aug. 8, 2002 $157,332.13 GTG000347-ACCT-SG
July 10, 2002 $319,238.20 GTG000349-ACCT-SG
May 21, 2002 $158,668.41 GTG000351-ACCT-SG
Client: Coushatta
Date Amount Identifier
Apr. 15, 2003 $120,340.30 GTG001293-ACCT-CS
Feb. 13, 2003 $261,140.81 GTG001405-ACCT-CS
Apr. 17, 2002 $127,906.03 GTG001509-ACCT-CS
Feb. 11, 2004 $125,000.00 GTG001688-ACCT-CS
Nov. 6, 2003 $250,000.00 GTG001748-ACCT-CS
June 4, 2003 $125,000.00 GTG001875-ACCT-CS
Apr. 16, 2003 $125,000.00 GTG001925-ACCT-CS
Feb. 24, 2003 $125,000.00 GTG001997-ACCT-CS
Jan. 23, 2003 $125,000.00 GTG002121-ACCT-CS
Dec. 16, 2002 $125,000.00 GTG002055-ACCT-CS
Nov. 18, 2002 $125,000.00 GTG002082-ACCT-CS
Oct. 28, 2002 $125,000.00 GTG002106-ACCT-CS
Sept. 11, 2002 $125,000.00 GTG002161-ACCT-CS
Aug. 12, 2002 $125,000.00 GTG002189-ACCT-CS
July 22, 2002 $125,000.00 GTG002215-ACCT-CS
June 12, 2002 $125,000.00 GTG002223-ACCT-CS
Apr. 17, 2002 $125,000.00 GTG002277-ACCT-CS
Client: Agua Caliente
Date Amount Identifier
Sept. 17, 2002 $157,654.07 GTG004298-ACCT-AC
Oct. 8, 2002 $160,988.28 GTG004349-ACCT-AC
Jan. 21, 2003 $160,948.51 GTG004407-ACCT-AC
Feb. 4, 2003 $156,877.43 GTG004340-ACCT-AC
Apr. 29, 2003 $167,459.71 GTG004487-ACCT-AC
Apr. 29, 2003 $152,459.71 GTG004498-ACCT-AC
May 13, 2003 $165,717.13 GTG004527-ACCT-AC
June 3, 2003 $149,813.42 GTG-004559-ACCT-AC
July 2, 2003 $161,670.77 GTG004595-ACCT-AC
July 16, 2003 $161,670.77 GTG004606-ACCT-AC
Sept. 4, 2003 $156,967.83 GTG004516-ACCT-AC
Sept. 25, 2003 $168,564.73 GTG004649-ACCT-AC
Oct. 3, 2003 $158,767.16 GTG004763-ACCT-AC
Dec. 12, 2003 $148,897.58 GTG004704-ACCT-AC
- 26 -?119 Three clients had average expenses of $4,438.71. The Committee examined expenses
over a 15 month period for the Choctaw, for a 5 month period for SunCruz Casino L.L.C.
and for a ten month period for Atlantic Coast Technologies, Inc. The average, however,
does not fully convey the range of expenses in the universe of all bills provided. Some
bills had relatively high expense amounts, while others did not. In general, expenses
correlate to the fees levied for professional services in any given month.
Client: Choctaw Expenses
Date Amount Identifier
Feb. 3, 2004 $3309.47 GTG002698-ACCT-CW
Jan. 6, 2004 $15,418.50 GTG002729-ACCT-CW
Dec. 2, 2003 $7,117.88 GTG002763-ACCT-CW
Nov. 4, 2003 $8,115.02 GTG002801-ACCT-CW
Oct. 7, 2003 $10,471.50 GTG002840-ACCT-CW
Sept. 4, 2003 $3,482.34 GTG002869-ACCT-CW
Aug. 4, 2003 $3,847.89 GTG002906-ACCT-CW
July 3, 2003 $4,993.88 GTG002944-ACCT-CW
June 16, 2003 $10,379.08 GTG002982-ACCT-CW
May 5, 2003 $19,983.32 GTG003073-ACCT-CW
Feb. 11, 2003 $10,520.90 GTG003076-ACCT-CW
Feb. 24, 2004 $12,983.11 GTG003250-ACCT-CW
Jan. 20, 2004 $16,844.65 GTG003275-ACCT-CW
Dec. 9, 2003 $12,928.06 GTG003295-ACCT-CW
Nov. 11, 2003 $13,252.03 GTG003319-ACCT-CW
Client: SunCruz Casino L.L.C.
Expenses
Date Amount Identifier
Mar. 22, 2001 $850.25 GTG025458-ACCT-SC
Apr. 24, 2001 $845.44 GTG025464-ACCT-SC
Apr. 26, 2001 $1,789.20 GTG025473-ACCT-SC
May 2, 2001 $1,061.71 GTG025482-ACCT-SC
Dec. 5, 2001 $200.52 GTG025509-ACCT-SC
Client: Atlantic Coast
Technologies, Inc. Expenses
Date Amount Identifier
Feb. 7, 2002 $102.55 GTG025521-ACCT-ACT
July 15, 2002 $1,767.50 GTG025529-ACCT-ACT
Sept. 25, 2002 $3,066.33 GTG025533-ACCT-ACT
June 11, 2003 $156.35 GTG025578-ACCT-ACT
July 15, 2003 $1,163.57 GTG025583-ACCT-ACT
Aug. 14, 2003 $3,650.57 GTG025588-ACCT-ACT
Sept. 12, 2003 $5,000 GTG025593-ACCT-ACT
Oct. 8, 2003 $2,788.55 GTG025598-ACCT-ACT
Nov. 13, 2003 $2,683.25 GTG025599-ACCT-ACT
Dec. 2, 2003 $3,157.85 GTG025604-ACCT-ACT
120 Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (July 3, 2003) (GTG000200-ACCT-SG).
- 27 -?In general, the billing records are characterized by relative brevity and vagueness,
and a timekeeping methodology which aggregates many activities into a single listing,
making it difficult to use these records to discern the specific events they describe.
The bills note various tasks performed by each lobbyist in the course of a work
day and the total amount of time spent on these activities. But, in many cases, it is not
possible to determine what portion of this total was spent on each discrete task. An April
2003 Greenberg document illustrates this difficulty. The firm billed the Saginaw
Chippewa $725.90 for 2.1 hours of work performed by Shawn Vasell. Using the present
tense to describe Vasell’s activities, the document says:
Meet with Breaux staff regarding tax bill, regional gaming issues
and IGRA; meet with Tauzin staff regarding the same; meet with
Rep. John staff regarding the same; discussion with White House
staff regarding supplemental; discussion with Senate
Appropriations staff regarding the same; review materials.123
This item covers six separate activities in five organizations across two branches of
government. There is no indication if each action took approximately equal time (.35
hours) or if one or more accounted for a greater percentage.
The repeated use of the word “staff” also complicates the interpretation of the
records. Because in common English usage it can be both singular and plural, in many
cases it is not even possible to determine if an engagement involved one individual or a
group. The meaning of “staff” is especially important in assessing expenditures. A $200
meal for a single person might be noteworthy; the same amount spent for a group is not.
Also, in some cases the billing records use the word “office” without specifying
whom in the office the meeting was with. For example, April 2002 documents note that
121 Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (July 3, 2003) (GTG000200-ACCT-SG).
122 For example, in May and June 2003 Saginaw bills include identical charges based on
precisely the same description of the same four activities putatively undertaken by Shawn
Vasell. [“Meeting with K. Gumerson (Senate GOP Policy Committee) regarding Sag.
Chip.; meeting with Senate Leadership and WH Leg. Aff. Staff regarding tax bill;
discussion with GR Chamber regarding Gun Lake; review materials.”] See Saginaw
Chippewa Billing Records (June 16, 2003) (GTG000213-ACCT-SG); Saginaw Chippewa
Billing Records (May 15, 2003) (GTG000433-ACCT-SG). This begs the question: did
Vasell repeat the same meetings in the exact order with the same individuals thirty days
apart?
123 Saginaw Chippewa Billing Records (Mar. 29, 2003) (GTG000498-ACCT-SG).
- 28 -?Tony Rudy had a “[m]eeting with Karl Rove’s office [emphasis added] at the White
House” but do not identify whom Rudy met.124
In at least one case, there is a discrepancy between the “prebill memo” and the
final bill. In this instance, a Greenberg “prebill memo” indicated that Vasell had a
“breakfast meeting with Bush-Cheney 2004 staff” while the final billing record was
amended to read with a “White House official.”125
In numerous instances, the brevity and vagueness of the entries raise questions
about the nature of the contact with White House officials described in the billing
records. For example, bills sent to the Coushatta and Saginaw Chippewa in November
2002 reflected the following activities (accounting for 1.9 hours) for Linsey Crisler in the
previous month:
Attend ATR meeting to discuss issues relevant to client
representation; participate in conference call with K. Rove (White
House) and K. Mellman (White House) concerning political
landscape; review daily clips and publications for Indian Affairs
developments and distribute same to GT Saginaw team.126
This description is insufficient to identify who participated in the conference call with
White House officials. There is a significant difference between participating in a large
conference call that is a component of the meeting of political activists convened by the
Americans for Tax Reform and participating in a private conference call. The records do
not make clear which type of call it was or the nature of Crisler’s role in the call.
Another example involving the same two clients occurs the following month,
when the clients were charge