[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

ADDRESSING GSA'S CULTURE OF WASTEFUL SPENDING

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

APRIL 16, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-173

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-709 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hearing held on April 16, 2012................................... 1

WITNESSES

Mr. Brian D. Miller, Inspector General, U.S. General Services
Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written Statement............................................ 7
The Honorable Martha N. Johnson, Former Administrator, U.S.
General Sevices Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 35
The Honorable Michael J. Robertson, Chief of Staff, U.S. General
Services Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Mr. David E. Foley, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, U.S. General Services Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 40
The Honorable Daniel M. Tangherlini, Acting Administrator, U.S.
General Services Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 82

APPENDIX

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Member of Congress from the
State of Maryland, Opening Statement........................... 95
Email from GSA Deputy Administrator Susan Brita to GSA IG Brian
Miller......................................................... 97
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Member of Congress from the
State of Virginia, Opening Statement........................... 98
The Honorable Paul Gosar, a Member of Congress from the State of
Arizona, Questions asked to U.S. General Services
Administration................................................. 99
Memo sent to all GSA's employees on restrictons on travel and
Conferences for FY 2012 from Dan Tangherlini, Acting
Administrator.................................................. 100
Memorandum on Clarification I, II, and III of April 15, 2012
Travel, Training and Conferences from Cynthia A. Metzler, Chief
Administrative Services Officer (H)............................ 101
Questions for Ms. Martha Johnson, Former Administrator of the
General Services Administration from the Honorable Paul Gosar.. 106

ADDRESSING GSA'S CULTURE OF WASTEFUL SPENDING

----------

Monday, April 16, 2012

House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Burton, Turner, McHenry,
Chaffetz, Lankford, Buerkle, Gosar, Walsh, Gowdy, Guinta,
Farenthold, Kelly, Cummings, Norton, Tierney, Connolly, Welch,
and Yarmuth.
Also Present: Representative Emerson.
Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Communications Advisor; Kurt
Bardella, Senior Policy Advisor; Michael R. Bebeau, Assistant
Clerk; Robert Borden, General Counsel; Molly Boyl,
Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; Ashley H.
Callen, Counsel; Sharon Casey, Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve
Castor, Chief Counsel, Investigations; John Cuaderes, Deputy
Staff Director; Jessica L. Donlon, Counsel; Kate Dunbar,
Legislative Analyst; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Jennifer
Hemingway, Senior Professional Staff Member; Frederick Hill,
Director of Communications and Senior Policy Advisor;
Christopher Hixon, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Mitchell S.
Kominsky, Counsel; Ryan Little, Professional Staff Member;
Justin LoFranco, Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Mark D.
Marin, Director of Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, Deputy Chief
Counsel, Investigations; Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk;
Jonathan J. Skladany, Counsel; Jeff Solsby, Senior
Communications Advisor; Rebecca Watkins, Press Secretary; Jaron
Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Kevin Corbin,
Minority Deputy Clerk; Ashley Etienne, Minority Director of
Communications; Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Minority Chief
Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; Carla
Hultberg, Minority Chief Clerk; Lucinda Lessley, Minority
Policy Director; Steven Rangel, Minority Senior Counsel; and
Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director.
Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order.
It is the custom of this committee is to read our mission
statement at the start of every hearing. I think particularly
today it is important that we read it.
The Oversight Committee's mission statement is that we
exist to secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans
have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them
is well spent; and, second, Americans deserve an efficient,
effective government that works for them. Our duty on the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these
rights.
Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable
to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they
get from their government. It is our job to work tirelessly, in
partnership with citizen watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the
American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal
bureaucracy.
This is our mission statement. And I might add, when I say
``citizen watchdogs'' that does include the Inspector Generals.
We are here today to get answers to questions that should
have been asked and answered long, long, long time ago. The
details that have come to light about the GSA conference held
in Las Vegas have raised serious questions in the minds of the
American people about how government is using their tax
dollars.
There are those who believe government and its reach should
be expanded. They believe that government should be bigger,
have more resources, and play a larger role in the everyday
lives of the American people. What has come to light
surrounding GSA's activities does give us pause for thought and
to anyone who opposes cutting government size and spending
that, in fact, there is much to be cut in government spending.
There are five key questions that still stand out, and
hopefully by the end of this hearing some will be answered.
First and foremost, why did it take 11 months for this
investigation under the Obama administration to come to light
in a way in which meaningful action could begin?
The Inspector General briefed the Administrator about
details in an interim report and gave details of those
responsible for gross waste. Yet indications are that some
political appointees believe even this year that this report
should be kept private. We on the committee find that
outrageous. Although it is the custom of many Inspector
Generals to inform this committee during early interim
reporting and prior to a final report, that alone is not
unusual. However, the fact that 11 months transpired gives us a
particular reason to say, how long after an interim report is
delivered and no action is taken before Congress is to be
informed?
There are still outstanding questions regarding the
resignation of Martha Johnson as GSA Administrator. First of
all, who asked her to resign? What specific reason was she
asked to be resigned for? Was it because she was responsible
for the events that unfolded at the convention or because she
mishandled the public relations of the fallout that came 11
months later?
While Martha Johnson has been removed, as Chief of Staff,
Michael Robertson, who is also here today, has remained in
place. Mr. Robertson previously served President Obama as
legislative counsel in the Senate and served as a personal
advisor to the President. It begs the question, are we really
to believe that the Chief of Staff to the GSA Administrator and
the right-hand man didn't know anything about this for all this
time? And if he didn't, shouldn't he have? Did he communicate
the seriousness of this situation to the White House? And if
so, when?
Why was Jeff Neely, a Regional Public Buildings Service
Commissioner who was the chief organizer of the 2010 Las Vegas
conference, given a bonus approved by the agency's most senior
officials even though they knew and were discussing sensational
details of what had happened at the conference? The question
here from the dais has to be: All the good works, all the
assertions of a good job--if you have this kind of abuse, can
they balance out to be a positive bonus totaling over $9,000?
And finally, while we are determined to uncover the full
truth about what went wrong and why, it is equally important to
look to the future. I want to thank the GSA's new Acting
Administrator, Dan Tangherlini--I am going to get it right much
sooner--for being here today and testifying. He called me
shortly after taking the job; assured me, as one would expect,
that he didn't know everything, knew there was a problem, and
would work diligently to fix it.
That is all we can ask from the dais, is that mistakes,
when made, are remedied, corrective action is taken, and that
it be done in a professional way with an understanding that the
bureaucracy is, in fact, neither Republican nor Democratic,
that every administration faces these problems, and that
solutions will not come by us pointing fingers to this
administration, the last administration, or the next
administration.
Wasteful spending is a problem that transcends multiple
administrations, but it is incumbent on the present
administration to change the culture as best they can on their
watch and leave to the next administration a better one than
they inherited.
With that, I recognize the distinguished ranking member,
Mr. Cummings, for his opening statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by thanking Mr. Miller, the Inspector
General at GSA, for bringing to light this gross abuse of
taxpayer funds and for his work over the past year
investigating the conference in 2010.
Two weeks ago, I, along with the rest of the Nation, was
appalled to learn the results of this investigation, that GSA
employees betrayed the trust we placed in them.
For example, the Inspector General's report described the
actions of Jeff Neely, a career GSA employee for many years and
a senior-level executive in the Pacific Rim Region based in San
Francisco. He is certainly not the only official implicated in
this investigation, and several others appeared to have
maximized their own benefit in an environment in which they
knew--they knew--they could get away with it. Nevertheless, Mr.
Neely's role as the host of the 2010 conference has raised
significant questions.
According to the report, Mr. Neely engaged in an
indefensible and intolerable pattern of misconduct, including
repeatedly violating Federal travel and procurement rules,
holding lavish parties in luxury suites, and allowing his wife
and other nongovernment officials to participate in some of
these events at taxpayers' expense.
In addition, documents obtained by the Inspector General
indicate that Mr. Neely was aware that his actions were
inappropriate. In one email, Mr. Neely invited personal friends
to the conference, writing, and I quote--and this is simply
incredible--quote, ``We'll get you guys a room near us, and
we'll pick up the room tab. Should be a blast,'' end of quote.
He then went on and wrote this, ``I know I'm bad, but as Deb
and I often say, why not enjoy it while we have it and while we
can? It ain't going to last forever,'' end of quote. Well, Mr.
Neely, it stops now.
The record indicates Mr. Neely's wife personally handled
party arrangements, directed the actions of Federal employees,
and ordered thousands of dollars in food at not their expense
but the expense of taxpayers. In one case, Mr. Neely's wife
reportedly impersonated a Federal employee so she could join
him at a private-sector conference. The impression they
conveyed by these documents is that Mr. Neely and his wife
believed they were some sort of agency royalty, who used
taxpayer funds to bankroll their lavish lifestyle. They
disregarded one of the most basic tenets of government service:
It is not your money; it is the taxpayers' money.
Some of my questions today will be about the Inspector
General's recommendation to get some of that money back. I want
to know how we can recoup these funds, including from Mr. Neely
and other GSA employees personally.
I understand the Justice Department may be examining Mr.
Neely's actions and that he intends to invoke the Fifth
Amendment today. That is his right under the Constitution, and
the committee should act responsibly in respecting his
decision. However, I do not support granting Mr. Neely immunity
at this time, Mr. Chairman. On Thursday, the chairman sent a
letter to Mr. Neely's attorney suggesting that the chairman was
considering immunizing him. On Friday, Mr. Neely's attorney
responded positively, writing that Mr. Neely, quote, ``will
abide by the appropriate court order and the procedures set
forth under the immunity statute,'' end of quote.
Granting immunity is a serious action that should not be
entered into lightly since it could negatively impact a future
criminal prosecution or prosecutions. Such a decision requires
thoughtful considerations and consultation with the Justice
Department. Our committee has no consultations about this, and
I see no reason to immunize Mr. Neely if he has taken the
actions of which he stands accused.
In addition to addressing the actions of specific
individuals, we need to understand how GSA's system allowed
this pattern in this case, the extent to which it happened in
previous cases, and the reforms necessary to prevent it from
ever happening again.
According to interviews by the Inspector General's Office,
these activities were going on for years. When discussing the
2010 conference, one witness stated, ``The planning of it was
similar to what happened in previous WRCs. You know, we just
kind of proceeded based on that.'' When investigators asked
another witness whether the 2010 conference was an outlier, he
said it was pretty consistent with previous conferences, and
that although Mr. Neely wanted to do better than they did in
New Orleans in 2008, there was not much difference.
Let me close by noting that one of the most damaging
aspects of this incident is that it tarnishes the reputation of
hardworking government workers who dedicate their lives to
public service. It gives them a bad name, and it is completely
unfair. There are scrupulous employees across this government
who follow the rules every single day. They pool their money
out of their own pockets just to pay for coffee at their
offices. They are honest and hardworking, and they should not
be painted with the same brush.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing. And,
with that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Issa. Pursuant to our rules, I now ask unanimous
consent that our colleague from Missouri, Ms. Emerson, be
allowed to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
All Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements
for the record.
Chairman Issa. We now recognize our panel. The Honorable
Brian D. Miller is the Inspector General of the General
Services Administration. Ms. Martha N. Johnson is the former
Administrator of the General Services Administration. Mr. Jeff
Neely is the Regional Commissioner of Public Buildings Service
in the Pacific Rim Region at the General Services
Administration. Mr. Michael J. Robertson is Chief of Staff at
the General Services Administration. And Mr. David E. Foley is
the Deputy Commissioner of Public Buildings Service at the
General Services Administration.
Pursuant to our rules, all witnesses are required to take
the oath. Would you please rise and raise your right hand to
take the oath?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Please take your seats.
In order to allow time for discussion, testimony will be
limited to 5 minutes. Some of you have written statements; some
do not. In either case, you may consider--or your written
statements will be placed in the record in their entirety, so
you may either read your written statement for 5 minutes or
make other such comments as you think would be helpful to all
of us.
With that, the chair recognizes Mr. Miller for 5 minutes.

WITNESS STATEMENTS

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRIAN D. MILLER

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member----
Chairman Issa. Would you pull the mic as close as you can
tolerate?
Mr. Miller. Okay.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, members
of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify
today.
As you know, on April 2nd of this year, I published a
report regarding GSA mismanagement of its Western Regions
Conference in the fall of 2010. It may be very difficult among
all the bad news and repugnant behavior to find but there is at
least a glimmer of good news: The oversight system worked. My
office aggressively investigated, interviewed witnesses, and
issued a report. No one stopped us from writing the report, and
no one stopped us from publishing the report. Justice Brandeis
said that sunlight is said to be one of the best of
disinfectants. Let's hope so.
Congress recently strengthened Inspectors General, and we
thank you for that. It helps us to do our job in protecting
taxpayer dollars. And, unfortunately, we may be the last resort
for protecting taxpayer dollars and, unfortunately, catching
the fraud, waste, and abuse after the money is spent. More
needs to be done to establish early warning systems. And that
is why Acting Administrator Tangherlini and I reminded GSA
employees to alert us as soon as they see anything wrong.
When GSA wastes its own money, how can other agencies trust
it to handle the taxpayer dollars given to them? As detailed in
my report, GSA committed numerous violations of contracting
regulations and the Federal travel regulation. This is a
special concern because other Federal agencies need to be able
to look to GSA as a model of how to conduct contracting and
conference planning.
In attempting to model the entrepreneurial spirit of a
private business, some in the Public Buildings Service seem to
have forgotten that they have a special responsibility to the
taxpayers to spend their money wisely and economically. While a
private business may use profits to reward employees in a
lavish fashion, a government agency may not.
In preparing the Western Regions Conference report,
numerous dedicated professionals from throughout my office
worked long hours to ensure that the report was accurate and it
drew no conclusions beyond those fully supported by the
evidence. It is my hope that these efforts will enable GSA to
improve its contracting and conference-planning practices in
the future so that GSA may not only be a better steward of
taxpayer dollars but act as the leader within the Federal
Government in efficient procurement and conference planning.
I thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important
report. I request that the report, as well as my written
statement, be made part of the record. And I welcome any
questions. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.027

Chairman Issa. Ms. Johnson?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARTHA N. JOHNSON

Ms. Johnson. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee, thank you for providing me the
opportunity to present this testimony today.
On April 2nd, 2012, I resigned as Administrator of the
General Services Administration and left my cherished career as
a public servant. I did so in order to step aside and allow a
new team to rebuild GSA from major missteps regarding the
Western Regions Conference in October 2010.
I previously served GSA in the Clinton administration,
leaving in 2001. At that time, the leadership was strong.
Scheduled design programs and other programs were producing
much value for our customers. When I returned to GSA in 2010,
the agency was not quite the same. A quarter of the executive
positions were empty, strategy was nonexistent, major customers
viewed our partnership askance, labor relations were
acrimonious, a more expensive leasing portfolio had ballooned,
and more.
Nearly 2 years had elapsed without a confirmed
Administrator. Although I received a unanimous vote by the
Senate, my own confirmation was delayed by 9 months. By the
time I was sworn in, a sequence of four Acting Administrators
had overseen the agency.
What I did not know was that there was yet another problem.
The Western Regions Conference and economical training event in
the late 1990s had evolved into a raucous, extravagant,
arrogant, self-congratulatory event that ultimately belittled
Federal workers. Leaders apparently competed in entertainment
rather than building performance capability. The expensive
planning for that conference was well under way when I entered
GSA, and I was unaware of the scope. Thus I began my tenure as
Administrator.
I take this opportunity to thank the overwhelming majority
of GSA employees, 13,000 of them, who eagerly rose to the task
of renewal. Their record is extraordinary: a building portfolio
22 percent more efficient than equivalent private-sector
buildings; efficient management of 220,000 vehicles, 10 million
trip reservations, billions in purchase card transactions; the
innovative USA.gov, results.gov, and more.
As for my part, I set about reconstituting GSA's executive
team. Over three-quarters of the senior executives are now in
different roles than they were when I arrived. GSA's strategic
path is clear. Customers praise us publicly--praise GSA
publicly. The labor partnership is fruitful. GSA has email in
the cloud. GSA's renovated 1800 F Street headquarters, which
held 2,500 people, will be home to 4,500 people next year,
allowing GSA to relinquish leases and save millions.
However, GSA's performance, tragically, does not compensate
for the issues raised by the IG and this committee. I greeted
Mr. Miller's report on the conference without hesitation,
agreeing completely with the recommendation. I am extremely
aggrieved by the gall of a handful of people to misuse Federal
tax dollars, twist contracting rules, and defile the great name
of the General Services Administration.
This is how that chapter unfolded. Around late October
2010, Deputy Administrator Susan Brita requested an
investigation into the Western Regions Conference. The IG
subsequently communicated progress with a PowerPoint deck. In
May 2011, we realized this was a very serious matter and we
needed all the facts. However painful and disruptive, we were
eager for the full report.
In the interim, I addressed leadership, organizational
controls, and conference management. I placed a new Regional
Administrator in Region 9, relieving Jeff Neely of that
responsibility. We also promptly backfilled the Region 9
regional counsel with an internal reassignment. Under
organizational controls, I established a Chief Administrative
Services Office, reporting to me, with responsibility for GSA's
acquisition, oversight of travel, conferences, and the like.
With conference management, GSA had already been
overhauling conferences. For example, the 50-year-old
interagency resource management conference was evolving from an
offsite at a hotel to a shorter event at Gallaudet. This year,
it is a 1-day conference. We also cataloged our internal
conferences, and Ms. Brita reviewed expenditures until she was
satisfied that controls were in place.
I believed the IG would conclude the investigation
expeditiously. We finally received a report in February 2012.
We then began disciplinary actions, revised internal controls,
and adjusted budgets to penalize the regions.
I accepted the IG's recommendation. I extended disciplinary
action to career employees. It is a complicated process; it is
under way. The egregious course and nature of this evidence led
me then to terminate two of the political appointees in the
line of authority to me and I submitted my own resignation.
I personally apologize to the American people. As the head
of the agency, I am responsible. I deeply regret this. I will
mourn for the rest of my life the loss of my appointment.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.031

Chairman Issa. Mr. Robertson?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL J. ROBERTSON

Mr. Robertson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Chairman----
Chairman Issa. I think your mic is not on yet. Thank you.
Mr. Robertson. Good afternoon, Chairman Issa, Ranking
Member Cummings, and members of the committee. Thank you for
allowing me the opportunity to appear before you here today.
My name is Michael Robertson, and I am Chief of Staff at
the U.S. General Services Administration. Like you, I am
appalled and disappointed by the indefensible conduct
surrounding the Western Regions Conference outlined in the IG's
report. The behavior of those responsible undermines GSA's core
mission, the trust given to us by our government customers, and
the trust of those we ultimately serve: the American people.
GSA has accepted all of Inspector General Miller's
recommendations, and we have taken strong action to prevent
further abuses from occurring. And we will continue to work
hard to restore faith in our mission.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear today, and I look
forward to working with this committee. And I welcome the
opportunity to answer any questions. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Foley?

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. FOLEY

Mr. Foley. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
today. My name is David Foley, and I am the Deputy Commissioner
of the Public Buildings Service.
I sincerely apologize for my remarks at the awards ceremony
for the Western Regions Conference. At the time of my remarks,
I was not aware of the significant spending irregularities. I
did not intend to condone any wasteful spending or minimize the
role of congressional oversight.
I especially apologize to Congresswoman Norton. I have the
utmost respect for you. You have always been a strong advocate
for GSA and our programs while holding us accountable as an
agency, and I did not mean to belittle you or your role in any
way. I attempted to make a joke in the context of a talent
celebration that I perceived as being similar to a comedic
roast.
As the Deputy Commissioner, I should have taken the stage
to stress that we have a serious job and responsibility as
stewards of taxpayer funds. I realize I missed an opportunity
to address nearly 300 people in my organization and stress the
importance of the work we do.
During my presentation at the award ceremony, I told the
award recipient I was making his dreams come true by making him
Commissioner for the rest of the day. Obviously, that was a
joke; I was not seriously delegating any authority to the
awardee.
I also joked about some of the obligations of being the
Commissioner. My understanding at the time was that the
Commissioner was paying for the charges associated with the
after-hours party on Tuesday evening, so I tried to use that in
a humorous way that suggested that the awardee would have to
pay for the party and the hotel.
Finally, I said as the Acting Commissioner he would have to
answer for his proposed pay increases in the video. My intent
was to point out that the Commissioner has a lot of
responsibilities and to answer to a lot of people in the
administration and Congress, not to mock the various oversight
roles.
My remarks were wrong, and I take full responsibility for
what I said. I understand the outrage about this conference, my
comments, and how they have inflamed all of the issues
surrounding this event.
I preface the rest of my statement by saying that I have
only seen the draft IG report that appears to be the same as
what has been released publicly. I have not seen any of the
supporting documents and was not questioned or briefed by the
IG during the investigation, so I do not know all of the
details. Additionally, I no longer have access to my emails or
files, so I have not been able to review or verify my memory of
these events. This represents my understanding based upon what
I remember from almost 2 years ago.
Concerning my role in the Western Regions Conference, again
I want to start by apologizing. I was not directly involved in
the planning for the conference or any of the financial and
contracting irregularities identified in the Inspector
General's report. I did attend 2-1/2 days of the conference.
There were things that seemed over-the-top, but I believed they
were not being paid for with government funds. In past
conferences, items like the tuxedos and the after-hour parties
were paid for by individuals, not the taxpayer. Had I known
since what has been revealed, I would have been concerned and
would have reported it.
Because of the regional reporting structure in our agency,
I did not have supervisory control or authority over how the
regional budget was spent, procurement activities, or any of
the employees in the Western Regions. The Regional
Commissioners and their staff reported directly to their
Regional Administrators, who in turn report to the
Administrator's office. My primary role as the Deputy
Commissioner is dealing with OMB, Congress, and other Federal
agencies on critical projects and policy issues. I am not a
contracting officer, and I do not have a warrant to approve
expenditures.
I attended two of the receptions cited in the IG report.
One was hosted by the Commissioner, and I understood that he
would be paying for refreshments and beverages. The second was
on the last night to thank everyone for their efforts. At the
time, I believed that one was paid for by the four hosting
Regional Commissioners. I did not believe that any government
funds were used to pay for the events that occurred after-
hours.
I have spent the last 15 years of my career working for
GSA, and I believe strongly in the agency's mission and the
value it provides to other agencies and our country. I am truly
sorry for my comments and apologize to this committee, the
administration, my fellow GSA employees, and, most importantly,
the American taxpayers.
At this point, I am willing to take any questions you may
have.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Neely, you have not provided us with any
written testimony before the committee. Do you wish to make an
opening statement?
Mr. Neely. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't.
Chairman Issa. It is my understanding from your counsel
that you may want to assert your constitutional privileges and
remain silent. Is that correct?
Mr. Neely. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Neely, the topic of today's hearing is
GSA's culture of waste and spending. You are uniquely
positioned to provide testimony that will help the committee
better understand the GSA's spending of more than $850,000 at
the conference in Las Vegas in 2010. To that end, I must ask
you once again to consider answering the questions, so if you
will bear with me.
Mr. Neely, what is your title at GSA?
Mr. Neely. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of counsel, I
respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment
constitutional privilege.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Neely, did you attend the 2010 Western
Regional Conference in Las Vegas?
Mr. Neely. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of my counsel, I
respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment
constitutional privilege.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Neely, did you approve the funding for
the 2010 Western Regional Conference?
Mr. Neely. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of my counsel, I
respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment
constitutional privilege.
Chairman Issa. Just a few more. Mr. Neely, what was the
original budget for that conference?
Mr. Neely. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of my counsel, I
respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment
constitutional privilege.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Neely, are you currently employed by the
GSA as a Federal employee?
Mr. Neely. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of my counsel, I
respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment
constitutional privilege.
Chairman Issa. Lastly, Mr. Neely, are you prepared to
answer any questions here today about your participation in the
2010 Western Regional Conference?
Mr. Neely. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully decline to answer
any questions here today based upon my Fifth Amendment
constitutional privilege.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Cummings, do you have any questions?
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that Mr.
Neely has asserted his rights under the Fifth Amendment, I have
no questions.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Given that the witness has indicated that he does not
intend to answer any questions and out of respect for his
constitutional rights, I do now ask the committee to excuse the
witness from the table but to have him remain for the remainder
of the hearing.
Without objection----
Mr. Cummings. I have no objections.
Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered.
We will now take a very short, about a 4-minute, 3-minute
recess. And I would ask Mr. Neely and his attorney to join us
through that door.
[Recess.]
Chairman Issa. Thank you. Thank you all.
Could we have the clerk remove Mr. Neely's name?
I want to thank all of you for your patience. I have served
for 12 years, Mr. Cummings for longer. This is the first time
we have had somebody do this before one of my committees, so we
wanted to make sure we did it exactly according to the rules.
With that, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Johnson, I appreciate your opening statement and the
work that you said you did, but I am very troubled by the bonus
that Mr. Neely received. How can you justify a bonus for
somebody that you knew at the time of his bonus from Mr. Miller
in fact was at the center of this misconduct?
Ms. Johnson. Congressman, there are two processes; one is
the conduct process, and one is the performance process. The
conduct process by which I could discipline someone was wrapped
up in an investigation which I requested from the IG.
Chairman Issa. Well----
Ms. Johnson. It took much longer than I expected.
Chairman Issa. No, I appreciate that, but Mr. Miller----
Ms. Johnson. The performance process----
Chairman Issa. Were you aware that excess money was spent
at that conference, significant excess?
Ms. Johnson. I had received a communication from the IG
with nonconclusive results. I was concerned; I wanted the full
picture.
So when we moved to the performance cycle, the performance
reviews for senior executives are based on a 3 for maintaining
an organization, a 4 for reforming an organization, and a 5 for
transforming. I was informed that his leasing processes were
the model for the Nation. Leasing is one of our critical
issues. I granted him a 4.
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Mr. Miller, you gave that preliminary some 11 months before
your final. I am going to ask you something not normally asked
of an IG. Would you have tried to find a way not to grant that
bonus considering what you knew and had briefed on, concerning
Mr. Neely and others?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, of course I am not in that
position, but, you know, I believe the Administrator was free
not to give the Region 9 Regional Commissioner a good
performance evaluation and a performance award or a special act
award. She was free not to give those special awards to the
Regional Commissioner.
She had in her possession a final report on the Hats Off
Program, the employee reward program, and that was final. That
went final at the end of June. So that was final; all the facts
were nailed down on that. She had the interim report----
Chairman Issa. And I think you have made your case that it
was a discretionary, and the discretion, Ms. Johnson, was yours
not to grant that. I appreciate that you are able to bifurcate
some of these, but let's go through it.
Did you, in fact, relieve Mr. Neely of some of his
responsibilities because of the interim report, as you stated
in your opening statement? You made changes----
Ms. Johnson. It was an opening communication. It was not an
interim report. I received it through the Deputy Administrator,
who--and the IG was giving us a--communicating to us that the
report was--that the investigation was under way.
Chairman Issa. Okay. Well, let's go through this. And I
will make this available for the record. Although it does say
``for official use only,'' I think it is pretty well outed
here.
Was it a 30-page report that detailed the excess spending
and the ceremonies and so on? And were you aware of that?
Ms. Johnson. I was aware of a PowerPoint slide deck, but I
did not see it.
Chairman Issa. So it was not important enough for you to
see?
Ms. Johnson. The Deputy Administrator had seen it and
shared the information in it with us.
Chairman Issa. Because I am trying to understand. You
personally were responsible for Mr. Neely's bonus, but you were
not personally willing to look at the evidence of why he
shouldn't receive a bonus?
Ms. Johnson. Again, that was a conduct review----
Chairman Issa. Okay. I think you have answered that----
Ms. Johnson. --with a disciplinary process for conduct.
Chairman Issa. --and I am sorry that you can bifurcate it
quite that way.
Mr. Miller, does this one incident represent the only time
that you have seen the kinds of excesses in this and other
units? And you don't have to be specific on ongoing
investigations, but have you seen similar waste, excess stays,
spending of the taxpayers' money in a way that is inconsistent
with the requirements of law or at least the intent?
Mr. Miller. In Region 9, yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. So this was, to use the term, widespread?
Mr. Miller. Unfortunately, we don't have a report
concluding that. We have heard from witnesses that indicate
that it was widespread in Region 9.
Chairman Issa. I mean, certainly, 5 days for a ribbon-
cutting with multiple people----
Mr. Miller. In Hawaii.
Chairman Issa. --is another example?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Chairman Issa. Do you know, not with specific examples, but
do you know or suspect or are you investigating other
misconduct including kickbacks, bribes, and other activities
that might go to the very question of the objectivity of
purchasing and other GSA officials?
Mr. Miller. We do have other ongoing investigations----
Chairman Issa. Including kickbacks?
Mr. Miller. Including all sorts of improprieties, including
bribes, possibly kickbacks, but I would have to check on
precisely kickbacks.
Chairman Issa. Well, this committee some years ago, when I
was in the minority--or I guess I was in the majority, but a
subcommittee chairman--investigated an organization formerly
called the Mineral Management Services. And we found that, in
fact, they were partying with the people they were supposed to
oversee, they were taking gifts and favors, and they thought
that they needed to have a close relationship with the people
they were interfacing with and justified ignoring Federal rules
as to gifts based on that.
Is that similar to what you are seeing at GSA?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman, very similar. We are
investigating those sorts of things.
Chairman Issa. As I recognize the ranking member, I might
remind everybody that, although we produced scathing reports on
the Mineral Management Service and tried to get the then-Bush
administration to make changes and the then-Obama
administration to make changes, we failed to do so, and the
Gulf of Mexico was filled with oil because of that agency's
ongoing failures.
With that, I recognize the gentleman from Maryland and
would ask that he have an additional 1 minute.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller, as I walked around my district this weekend, a
lot of people were complaining about having to write checks to
the IRS. And in that light, Mr. Miller, and based on your
report, there were thousands or even tens of thousands of
dollars in improper expenditures in 2010--with regard to this
2010 conference. GSA employees stayed in luxury resort suites,
charged expenses for after-hour parties, and purchased food for
non-GSA employees, just to name a few of the examples.
One of the recommendations you made in your report is that,
and I quote, ``Determine whether GSA can recover funds
improperly paid, such as for meals for non-employees,'' end of
quote. I think a lot of people agree with that, including
myself. These employees acted like this was their money, and
now they should pay it back.
What can you do to recover the funds from these Federal
employees?
Mr. Miller. Congressman Cummings, when Dan Tangherlini
became Acting Administrator, one of our first conversations was
about sending a bill to the Regional Commissioner, the former
PBS Commissioner, and others responsible for these in-room
parties and other expenses. And I believe that the Acting
Administrator has sent the bill. He is on the next panel, and I
believe he would say that he has already at least taken steps
to send a bill.
Mr. Cummings. So if they don't pay it back, what happens? I
mean, do you have criminal or civil remedies to try to get it
back?
Mr. Miller. Perhaps civil remedies.
Mr. Cummings. Okay. Very good.
Mr. Miller, in several of the interviews your investigators
conducted, witnesses told you that they were scared that Mr.
Neely would retaliate against them if they blew the whistle.
This is actually shocking to the conscience. For example, one
employee said that if you crossed Mr. Neely, and I quote,
``then you are in trouble. You know, he threatens you with poor
performance appraisals,'' end of quote. When another employee
tried to raise concerns about the extravagant conferences, the
witness told your investigators that that employee was, and I
quote, ``squashed like a bug,'' end of quote, by Mr. Neely.
Those are the kind of threats he allegedly made.
Are you familiar with these statements?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I am, sir. Those statements and more.
Mr. Cummings. Was this fear of retaliation by Mr. Neely a
significant factor enabling him to continue his inappropriate
actions for years?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, it is a significant factor. They
apparently had a very hostile environment. And when someone
spoke up, they were, quote, according to a witness, ``squashed
like a bug,'' unquote. And another witness said that when
individuals spoke up, they were, I think, quote, ``put down and
not in a gentle way,'' end of quote. So that is a factor,
unfortunately.
Mr. Cummings. And this is the same guy that Ms. Johnson
gave a bonus to?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Cummings. In fact, it wasn't until the Deputy
Administrator of GSA, a high-level Democratic political
appointee, raised this issue to you that Mr. Neely's actions
came to light. It seems clear that Mr. Neely has a lot to
answer for.
Let me ask you one final question. The chairman has written
to Mr. Neely's attorney, stating that the committee was
considering conferring immunity on Mr. Neely. And I applaud the
chairman. We have agreed and he has made it clear--and correct
me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman--that he has now indicated that
he has no immediate plans to go forward with immunity.
And I want to ask you this question. And I agree with the
chairman absolutely. Mr. Miller, given what you have uncovered
about Mr. Neely and his actions, would you support granting him
immunity at this time and do you think it would be a good idea?
Now, I have made it clear the chairman is not going to do that,
but I am just curious.
Mr. Miller. I agree with the chairman's decision not to
grant him immunity.
Mr. Cummings. And so, can you tell us why that is?
Mr. Miller. Well, I believe that the criminal justice
system should run its course and that if any charges are
brought against Mr. Neely he should defend himself. He does
have a right to--a Fifth Amendment right, and all people are
presumed innocent until proven guilty. And if such charges are
lodged against Mr. Neely, I think the appropriate place is in
the court of law.
Mr. Cummings. Now, let's go back for a moment to this
retaliation and these threats. Did you hear people--I mean,
during your investigation, were there numerous people who said
that they felt fear?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, yes. We had a witness that was
extremely afraid, and we made the witness a confidential
witness. And that witness, even though she had left and gotten
a new job, was extremely afraid that even in her new job she
would experience retaliation.
Mr. Cummings. And when they used words like ``squashed like
a bug,'' did you get any idea what they meant by that? I mean,
were there things that he had actually done to people that came
to light?
Mr. Miller. I can't go beyond what the transcript of the
interview says.
Mr. Cummings. But I take it that you were convinced that
this was conduct that was totally inappropriate?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, we took it very seriously, and we
believed our witness when he or she said that he or she was
afraid of retaliation.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Cummings. Of course.
Chairman Issa. I would just like to make sure we both
understand on the record, when our counsels provided that
letter to his counsel, it was based on his assertion that he
might take the Fifth. And we listed a number of things that
could affect somebody, but most importantly we had the
conundrum that often happens in the law, which is that until
you subpoena somebody and they come and they take the Fifth,
any other consideration can't actually begin.
So rather than a conclusion that we would consider that it
was, you know, sort of a form letter to make sure that this
committee stayed properly within both the D.C. Bar's
determination, but also, quite frankly, we wanted to make sure
that it was understood that we were hoping Mr. Neely, who gave
testimony only 3 weeks ago before the IG, would reconsider his
willingness to cooperate here. Sadly, he did not.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for that
clarification. And I wanted to make it very clear--I mean, that
helps tremendously, but I wanted to make it very clear that you
were in no way going to proceed with the immunity, I mean,
during our discussions. And so----
Chairman Issa. In none of our investigations to date have
we ever considered full immunity, transactional immunity. And
we have not yet even considered use immunity. So I don't expect
that that will be often, and I would expect that we would
consult with you well before doing it.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate it.
Chairman Issa. I thank you.
And we now go to the former chairman of the full committee,
Mr. Burton, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burton. You can call me ``chairman emeritus.'' I don't
mind that that much.
Chairman Issa. Should I emphasize the ``emeritus''?
Mr. Burton. No, no, I am just kidding.
Mr. Miller, when you discussed the preliminary report with
Ms. Johnson, did you go into all the details or most of the
details in this report?
Mr. Miller. I believe I did, Congressman.
Mr. Burton. Okay. This was on May the 17th of 2011?
Mr. Miller. Yes. That is what my calendar indicates, and
that is the best of my recollection. We had a meeting----
Mr. Burton. So she knew about these accusations on May the
11th, then?
Mr. Miller. Indeed. And my deputy, Bob Erickson, leaned
over and said, ``This is very unusual that we would do an
interim report, but it is so that you can fix future abuses.''
Mr. Burton. Did you tell her about the bullying that took
place?
Mr. Miller. I think we may have alluded to witnesses that
were afraid of retaliation, but I am not positive. It has been
about a year ago, so----
Mr. Burton. Well, that is pretty significant, though. I
mean, if you were talking to her and there were people that
were pushing other employees around, it seems to me that you
probably mentioned it at least.
Mr. Miller. I believe we did, but----
Mr. Burton. Okay.
Ms. Johnson, do you remember May the 11th? Do you remember
this report?
Ms. Johnson. Congressman, I apologize. I don't remember
that meeting, and I don't have access to my schedule that----
Mr. Burton. Whoa, whoa, whoa. You don't remember the
meeting?
Ms. Johnson. Well, the Inspector General and I met with
some regularity, and I----
Mr. Burton. Well, this is not an insignificant report.
Ms. Johnson. No, I am not saying I didn't remember the
issues. I can't place where we had that meeting, and I can't
jog my memory.
Mr. Burton. You can't remember the time, the date?
Ms. Johnson. No. I don't have my calendar with me.
Mr. Burton. But he talked about the irregularities----
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Burton. --and he mentioned the pressure that was put on
employees, if not bullying. And you didn't take any action
about that?
Ms. Johnson. There are a couple of things I must repeat.
First of all, it was an interim communication----
Mr. Burton. Yeah, I understand----
Ms. Johnson. It was not the final report. I asked for the
investigation, and I wanted to hear the full context. I did not
want----
Mr. Burton. Well----
Ms. Johnson. --to work with nonconclusive information.
Mr. Burton. I understand. I heard that before. I heard that
before.
Ms. Johnson. All right.
Mr. Burton. But Mr. Neely was still in his position. You
had been told that he had bullied people or pushed them, and
you kept him in his position, and you gave him a $9,000 bonus.
It just seems almost unthinkable. I mean, if somebody came in
my office and said, ``There is somebody on your staff that is
pushing other people around on your staff''--and I don't have a
staff anywhere near the kind of number of people that you dealt
with. But if somebody was pushing members of the organization
around, I would have taken action immediately. I certainly
wouldn't have left him in his position, and I certainly
wouldn't have given him a bonus.
So, you know, I wish you could elaborate just a little bit
more on that, because I think this is really important. I can't
imagine you seeing this report, talking to Mr. Miller and his
associate and him telling you this information and you say,
``Well, it is just an interim report. We will wait until it is
finalized.''
Ms. Johnson. You know, I have great respect for the
Inspector General, and he and I have worked together a great
deal. We asked for this investigation. One does not interfere
with an investigation. He was, I assumed, moving quickly and
would be getting me the final report promptly.
Mr. Burton. Well, let me just say this. You wanted to see
the final report. But if you knew Mr. Neely was accused of
doing this in the interim report and you knew that they have
alluded to him pushing employees around and threatening them,
why wouldn't you take him and put him in some kind of a
position where he couldn't do that while the investigation
continued?
I just can't understand why you left him there during the
next, what, 8, 9 months when you knew what he had done, or you
had a pretty good idea. And even if you didn't know for sure,
you would have taken the precaution of putting him someplace
where he couldn't bully anybody again. I hate bullies, don't
you?
Ms. Johnson. I hate bullying, too.
Mr. Miller. Congressman, if I may for the record, the
bullying and the coercive atmosphere--we probably laid out the
facts at the May 17 meeting. We probably didn't get very much
into the bullying aspect. A lot of that came up later on in the
investigation. So, to be fair to Ms. Johnson----
Mr. Burton. Well, did you mention anything about that to
her?
Mr. Miller. I don't recall if we did.
Mr. Burton. Well, you said a few minutes ago that you
mentioned some coercive action.
Mr. Miller. It was a coercive atmosphere. We did have a
confidential witness. And----
Mr. Burton. And you told her about the confidential
witness?
Mr. Miller. No, because the witness is confidential. We did
tell her what was in the PowerPoint----
Mr. Burton. Well, let me ask you this. Did you give her
enough information to where she should have been concerned
about this guy?
Mr. Miller. Absolutely.
Mr. Burton. Okay. Well, that is the point.
If there was concern about Mr. Neely, why didn't you put
him in a position where he couldn't do what he was doing, at
least during the interim for the rest of the investigation?
Ms. Johnson. Do I only have 3 seconds?
Mr. Burton. No, go ahead. I am sure he will let you finish
your answer.
Chairman Issa. Take the time you need.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. All right.
When I asked for the investigation, this is a very
serious--when Susan Brita requested the investigation and as we
received that interim communication, it was very clear that it
was very serious. And I did not want to move until I had a
formal, official, complete, you know, conclusive report.
At the same time, I did a number of things to manage the
situation. First of all, I put a Regional Administrator into
Region 9 supervising immediately Mr. Neely. He did not have an
immediate supervisor in the region, and we appointed a Regional
Administrator in June, relieving him of his second job and
putting direct supervision in there.
We also immediately appointed new general counsel for the
region when that person retired, so that I wanted to be sure we
had a good team in the region that I could trust around them.
We also did a number of other things around management
controls and conference management and so on I can get into.
But it was very important to me not to, in any way, interfere
in a way that would upset the investigation that the Inspector
General was doing.
Now, you have to understand, I did not think it would take
9 more months to complete. I thought it looked pretty complete
from what I was hearing, and I wasn't expecting to wait that
much longer. So I--so those were the circumstances under which
I was operating.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
My staff has asked me just to make sure one thing is clear.
Earlier you said under oath that you ordered the investigation;
then later you said Susan Brita ordered it.
Ms. Johnson. I am sorry. Susan Brita, my Deputy
Administrator----
Chairman Issa. Had actually ordered it.
Ms. Johnson. --who had--yes. She asked the Inspector
General to investigate. I had designated to her the role of
interacting with the IG, so----
Chairman Issa. Okay. So it is correct that Susan Brita did
it.
Ms. Johnson. --she was doing it for me.
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Ms. Johnson. She did it, yes.
Chairman Issa. No problem. I just want to make sure that we
didn't have any inconsistency there.
Ms. Johnson. Sorry.
Chairman Issa. No, no. No problem. Our goal here is just to
get the record accurate. And there will be mistakes made, and
we just want to make sure they are clarified when they occur.
With that, we recognize the gentlelady from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing.
I have got a couple of points to make in my brief period.
First, I want to assure Mr. Foley that even members of the
Oversight Committee can take a joke with respect to the joke
regarding my role on the committee, which has direct oversight
over GSA. Far from belittling me, I think that the joke
complimented me for my oversight role because it essentially
said Norton is on the phone already with you with regard to one
of the abuses that were----
Chairman Issa. Your clock will begin now because we figured
that was the joke portion.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to clarify when actions should have been
taken because I have an email, Mr. Miller, from a man who
appears to be your deputy, Mr. Erickson, who, on May 3rd, 2011,
did issue the interim report and said, and here I am quoting
him, ``Our purpose in issuing the interim report was to alert
GSA to potential waste and abuse so GSA could take steps to
avoid future issues. Please be advised that the investigation
is ongoing, and no personnel actions should be taken until you
have received the final report.''
Now, with respect to some notion that maybe the officers of
the agency or even the administration should have taken action,
is it your view that personnel action could not have been taken
until April, when the final report was released or had become
known?
Mr. Miller. Representative Norton, I believe the email is
dated July 25, 2011.
Ms. Norton. It is. But it says, on May 3rd.
Mr. Miller. Yes. Well, we gave the interim report on May
3rd to Ms. Johnson and the Deputy Administrator, Susan Brita.
On May 17th, we personally briefed the Administrator. And on
July 25--and again, there is a second report. The second
report----
Ms. Norton. When was the final report alluded to in this
email, when was that final report received?
Mr. Miller. The final report on the Western Regions
Conference is April 2nd. That is the absolute final date.
Ms. Norton. That is my question. Nothing could have taken
place until that final report.
Mr. Miller. But if I could explain----
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Miller. The email deals with the Hats Off report as
well. That was an employee reward program. And we gave a draft
report on the same day in May.
Ms. Norton. So does it allude to both or to only one? I
want to get onto my next question.
Mr. Miller. I believe that Mr. Leeds had confused the two.
Ms. Norton. So what does it refer to in terms of a
personnel action?
Mr. Miller. Okay. In terms of personnel action, it refers
to the Western Regions Conference report.
Ms. Norton. That was my question. Thank you. That was
precisely my question. No action should be taken until the
final report.
Let me go onto the next question, because I am seriously
concerned about whether we have a culture in the Western
Region, whether we have a culture in the GSA. One incident of
this kind, one event, one conference of this kind has outraged
the public enough.
But there were suggestions, Mr. Miller, in your report,
that this was not an anomaly, that similar events or
conferences had taken place, that in 2006 and 2008, there had
been conferences with fairly lavish catering, that this was not
an outlier but rather consistent. Are you looking at the
conferences of the Western Region in 2008, in 2006? Do we have
a culture in the Western Region that needs closer inspection
beyond this particular conference?
Mr. Miller. Representative Norton, we are looking at
conferences in Region 9. There are many conferences in Region
9. There have been Western Regions----
Ms. Norton. That is the Western Region?
Mr. Miller. No, there is no Western Region, first of all,
of GSA.
Ms. Norton. So are we talking about the same thing? I don't
want to waste time on----
Mr. Miller. No, we are not. There are 10 regions of GSA and
the District of Columbia, which would make it 11. It appears
that Regions 7, 8, 9, and 10 got together to do a conference,
and they did the conference every 2 years. They called the
conference the Western Regions Conference. As far as I know,
there is no such thing as an Eastern Regions Conference or a
Southern Regions Conference. It is only the Western Regions
Conference.
Ms. Norton. So have you looked at those conferences that
were alluded to in your report in 2008, in 2006? Or if not, do
you have any intention to look at those conferences to see
whether a culture has developed or was developing in these
regions in the western part of the United States?
Mr. Miller. Representative Norton, we are looking at
conferences in Region 9 right now. The older Western Regions
Conferences will, number one, be old. Already the 2010
conference is----
Ms. Norton. Do you have any notion that there was a culture
there that needs to be examined and to be rooted out? That is
what I am really getting at, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. The witnesses, many of the witnesses say that
the Western Regions Conference in Las Vegas was not materially
different than the previous Western Regions Conferences, I
believe New Orleans, in Oklahoma, and at Lake Tahoe.
Chairman Issa. If the gentlelady would yield?
Ms. Norton. I yield to the chairman.
Chairman Issa. Ms. Norton, we have sent 23 additional
letters to other agencies. The committee intends on
investigating the whole practice of conferences, team
building----
Ms. Norton. You mean other regions or other agencies?
Chairman Issa. No, no, other agencies.
Additionally, I certainly would like to make the record
very clear, since other GSA regions or groups that could make a
region didn't seem to have these conferences, the first
question under any administration should be, why does one need
it? The second one that begs the worst question in some ways
when I look at New Orleans as a location, if you are the
western States, who would think that going to New Orleans was
the logical place to go if in fact, as I understand, New
Orleans is not within any of those groups' regions? So I
certainly think that as we look at a pattern that apparently
began and continued probably through every administration since
Hoover, that what we want do is bring it to an end under this
administration.
But I think the gentlelady makes a very good point in her
questions. And we are going to be expansive in our look at
unnecessary conferences and meetings, perhaps even challenge
coins paid for at the taxpayers' expense so they can give them
to each other. And I thank the gentlelady.
With that, we go to the gentleman from Ohio, one of the
gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Johnson, I was fascinated by your opening statement
because you said you had been at GSA during the Clinton
administration and returned during--after the first year of the
Obama administration, but it was not the same GSA that you had
left. And I want to agree with you. Because I believe that when
you left the Clinton administration and returned then after the
first year of the Obama administration, you would have been
joining an administration that had a completely different
culture than the Clinton administration, a completely different
culture than the Bush administration.
This is an administration that believes that when
government spending is occurring, when taxpayers' dollars are
being spent, that jobs are being created. That was the whole
crux of the stimulus, the stimulus I voted and many people in
this room voted against, is because the American people
actually believe that when taxpayers' dollars are being spent
that debt is being created.
Now, I have some examples of that spending that GSA was
doing. And Mr. Foley, you had said you weren't aware that the
tuxes were being paid for by the taxpayers.
This is one of those examples of GSA spending, Ms. Johnson,
under your leadership. It includes the conference logo. And
everyone was given one of these. This is apparently, I am told,
a blackjack dealer's vest so that everybody could feel as if
they are in character when they get to the conference. In
addition to that, they were given a participatory directory
that has everybody's picture. And in it, they are assigned
characters and roles. On the page that I have opened here one
is assigned Cher; one is assigned Sammy Davis, Jr.; Elvis; and
Celine Dion.
Additional items were given to the people that were there,
including a then and now book on Las Vegas signed by Mr. Neely
himself, thanking them for being there. By the way, this was
printed in China. The vest was made in China. They were given
other party favors while they were there. All GSA spending,
taxpayers' dollars spending. And they were given a coin, a
commemorative coin, we will call it a gambling chip for this
aspect. It is a commemorative coin commemorating the stimulus;
again, you know, a program that most Americans believe did not
work. It is celebrating a program that has not created jobs in
Ohio and that we have not seen a turnaround in our economy.
But the question that I have is, how much did these items
cost, the tuxedo, the coin, the book, the participatory
directory? And were stimulus dollars used for this?
Now, I was talking to Brad Miller earlier, and I appreciate
his hard work on this, and I want to acknowledge that we have
Jo Ann Emerson here, the chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee under which GSA falls. And it would seem to me
that, one, we have a problem that all these items are being
purchased and made from China, so we are stimulating China and
not the United States. Second thing is, what slush funds exist
in GSA that these types of moneys could be moved? It is not
just an issue of who approved it. Who in the organization would
ever have that type of authority to use taxpayers' dollars to
buy a blackjack dealer's vest with an event logo on it?
So, one, I want to know from you, Ms. Johnson, you know,
under you, how is it that something like this gets approved for
expenditure? What type of funds were used to buy these things?
What is your policy with respect to buying things made in
America, since all these things were apparently made elsewhere,
including the T-shirts that the participants were given, which
were made in El Salvador?
And also I would like Mr. Robertson to give us an answer
on, that he will give us a commitment that he will tell us the
source of these funds that were used to buy these. And
specifically in GSA's budget, how is it that this type of money
could be laying around so that it could be used in this slush
fund manner? This isn't just an approval process. This isn't
just someone brazenly violating their authority. This is an
issue of money and a budgetary process being available in GSA
to be moved elsewhere when Congress has a tremendous amount of
priorities and needs in this country that those moneys should
have been applied to, in addition to reducing our national
deficit annually.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Mr. Congressman, I am just as appalled as you
are by those examples of expenditures. When I learned about the
extent of them and the nature of them, I began disciplinary
action, some of which is confidential and I cannot share at
this point. I fired the two political people who were in the
chain of command to me, and I resigned.
Chairman Issa. I think you had a slush fund question in
there, too.
Mr. Turner. Yeah. Mr. Robertson.
And also Ms. Johnson, one other thing before we go on to
Mr. Johnson, the fact that you continue to say that you don't
want to interfere with an investigation by not approving a
bonus is so outrageous that I think everyone in the room is
shocked. Not approving a bonus is not interfering with an
investigation.
Mr. Robertson, will you assure us that you will tell us how
these moneys are available in GSA so that we can on a
congressional basis stop it?
Mr. Robertson. Yes. I am happy to get that information to
the committee about the budget where these items were
purchased. My understanding from the IG's report is that one of
the glaring problems that we had at the time was that the
budgets were diffused out into the regions. Since then, as part
of the response to the report, we have pulled the budgets back
into the central office CFO so that there is centralized
control over those budgets.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Congressman Turner?
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
We now go to the gentleman from Virginia--I am sorry, Mr.
Miller, did you have something?
Mr. Miller. I am sorry.
Chairman Issa. Of course.
Mr. Miller. If I may, I just wanted to clarify that on page
11 and 12 of the report, we identify those items. We identify
the $1,840 for the vests for 19 regional ambassadors to wear
and the $6,325 on the commemorative coins. And as far as we can
tell, no stimulus money was used. The money was paid on
government purchase cards and taken out of the Federal Building
Fund building operations.
Chairman Issa. Just a quick follow-up, very quick. So that
is $100 apiece for the vests, and the challenge coin-looking
things are about 20 bucks apiece, when those of us who buy them
out of our own pocket typically spend less than a dollar
apiece. Is that roughly right? They were about $20 apiece, 300
of them coming to $6,300?
Mr. Miller. Yes, $6,325 is the total for the coins. I would
have to go through the math. I am not as quick on the math as
you are.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Connolly, do you give out challenge
coins?
Mr. Connolly. I haven't done that.
Chairman Issa. You know, down at Quantico, you can have
them made with your name on them for about a dollar. You got to
ask how GSA managed to spend $20 having them made.
With that, the gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. If I could say to the chairman, I am told
that I will get a discount if we have your face on one side and
mine on the other.
Chairman Issa. That certainly will give great value for its
rarity.
Mr. Connolly. That is what I think.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your opening
statement. I think you struck exactly the right note.
This isn't an opportunity for partisan exploitation. This
is an opportunity for the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee to look at an agency where something went dreadfully
wrong.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, you struck just the right tone,
as did the ranking member. And I thank you both for the way you
began this hearing.
Mr. Miller, you are the Inspector General of GSA. How long
have you been in that job?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I was confirmed by the Senate in
July 2005.
Mr. Connolly. 2005. Between 2005 and when Ms. Johnson's
office alerted you, were you ever aware of the fact that excess
spending and raucous behavior and perhaps inappropriate use of
resources was going on in the agency anywhere?
Mr. Miller. We always look for that, sir.
Mr. Connolly. I mean, I am specifically talking about this
kind of conference. Because as you pointed out, this isn't the
first time this has happened. It happened in New Orleans. It
happened in some other locations. Did anyone at any point ever
bring to your attention, or did you discover independently that
this kind of thing was going on so that you could intervene to
prevent when it sadly came to a crescendo here?
Mr. Miller. We rely on GSA employees to tell us. We did not
have hotline complaints about this conference. And I do commend
the Deputy Administrator for bringing it to our attention.
Mr. Connolly. Susan Brita.
Mr. Miller. Susan Brita.
Mr. Connolly. She did that at the direction of the
Administrator. Is that correct? Is that your understanding?
Mr. Miller. That is my understanding. But we have the
Administrator here.
Mr. Connolly. I am just asking you as the IG what your
understanding was. Was your understanding Ms. Brita was acting
alone or at the direction of Martha Johnson?
Mr. Miller. I viewed the Deputy Administrator as the alter
ego of the Administrator.
Mr. Connolly. So the sequence was, though you had been on
the job since 2005, the first anybody in the agency alerted you
that this kind of excess, to this kind of occasion, was when
Susan Brita, acting on Ms. Johnson's behalf, alerted you to the
fact that we think something is wrong here.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Brita came to our office in December 2010
and alerted us. We did not get any hotline reports on it.
Mr. Connolly. Right. And when were the events in question?
When did they occur?
Mr. Miller. In October 2010.
Mr. Connolly. So about a month and a half or so later?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Did she indicate to you how she was made
aware of these--of this information?
Mr. Miller. Well, she said she had heard rumors and heard
things, overheard conversations.
Mr. Connolly. Now, your review of this matter, if I
understand Ms. Johnson correctly, took about 9 months. Is that
correct?
Mr. Miller. We started in earnest when Ms. Brita brought
the complaint forward. You do have to understand that there are
a lot of documents to go through. Part of the problem is that
the funds came from different sources. As the previous question
illustrated, we had to identify funds on purchase cards, in
building and operation funds, and money budgeted to the
conference.
Mr. Connolly. Right. So it is a complicated affair.
Mr. Miller. It is. And when you talk to witnesses, you
know, in turning over the proverbial stone, you find 50 more
stones, and you never know what is going to crawl out from
under them.
Mr. Connolly. So it took 9 months, though, to be fair and
to go through all of that.
Mr. Miller. Yeah. Sure.
Mr. Connolly. Is that correct?
Ms. Johnson indicated in her testimony that she was a
little surprised it took that long. She also indicated that
there were many conversations and meetings between you about
this and other matters, of course. Did you have conversations
with the Administrator about the length of time it was taking?
And were you giving her interim reports as to what you were
finding?
Mr. Miller. I believe we had a few. I also--she mentioned
the Regional Administrator was appointed in Region 9. In August
of 2011, I personally briefed the Regional Administrator about
this, shared the interim report, and I advised her to get a
handle on the Regional Commissioner's travel and perhaps even
have the financial officer take a look at his travel.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. I have only 25 more seconds. I am
going to ask you and Ms. Johnson real quickly, and maybe the
chairman will indulge your answer. But one of the critiques of
GSA is there is too much autonomy for these 10 regional offices
and not enough top-down management. I wonder real briefly if
the two of you would address that.
Ms. Johnson. In light of this incident, I would agree that
there was, and therefore, there needed to be more central
control of the financial structures, yes.
Mr. Miller. I agree as well.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I give back my few
seconds.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. Absolutely.
Chairman Issa. What is the highest-ranking, highest-paid
person in each of these 10 areas? In other words, when we talk
about decentralized control, we are talking about relatively
large amounts of people in each of these regions. What would be
the highest paid--for example Mr. Neely, what was his pay, or
the person you put in over him in that region? What was their
pay?
Ms. Johnson. I am sorry, Congressman, I don't know. I can
certainly see if I can get you that information.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Robertson, would you know?
I think the gentleman hit on something, which is we
appreciate things being centralized, but one of the questions
is, do we have high-ranking, high-paid civil servants in these
regions? And if we are going to be pulling everything back
because they are not responsible, perhaps we are paying more
than we should for responsibility not met.
Mr. Robertson?
Mr. Robertson. I am happy to get the exact numbers for the
committee, but my understanding is that in I believe all the
regions the Regional Commissioners are paid more than the
Regional Administrators.
Chairman Issa. But more than $100,000? Significantly.
Mr. Robertson. I believe both of them are over that number,
yes.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Yes.
Mr. Miller. The Regional Commissioners are career SES,
Senior Executive Service, positions. And they do pay quite a
bit. The Regional Administrator is a political appointment at
the GS-15 level.
Chairman Issa. Which would put them quite a bit below an
SES.
Mr. Chaffetz is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Johnson, with whom did you collaborate in the
development of your testimony that was submitted? Did you
collaborate with anybody in the development of your testimony?
Ms. Johnson. I wrote my testimony, and I discussed it with
my lawyer.
Mr. Chaffetz. Anybody at the White House?
Ms. Johnson. No.
Mr. Chaffetz. Anybody within the GSA?
Ms. Johnson. No.
Mr. Chaffetz. Question about why not fire Mr. Neely. You
know, he is still being paid by the taxpayers. He is on
administrative leave. He is still taking his salary. This is
somebody who took a conference with a budget of $250,000 and
made it over $800,000; spent $75,000 on a bike building
exercise, where he built a grand total of 25 bicycles for
$75,000; $2,000 in-room party; yearbook and a souvenir book at
a cost of $8,000 to the taxpayer; $6,000 for the stimulus coins
that were given out at one of the two $30,000 parties that were
given--keep in mind, there were only 300 people at this; and a
Top Hat program, a recognition program that has fraud. So my
question is to the Chief of Staff is, why is he still an
employee of the United States Government?
Mr. Robertson. My understanding is that disciplinary action
has been begun against several individuals involved in planning
and executing the Western Regions Conference.
Mr. Chaffetz. Why does it take so long? You were given this
report in February. Correct?
Mr. Robertson. Yes. Correct.
Mr. Chaffetz. What does it take to actually be fired from
the GSA?
Mr. Robertson. There is a long-standing due process that
career employees are entitled to as part of their employment.
We have begun that process, among other disciplinary actions,
for several individuals that were involved in planning and
execution of this conference.
Mr. Chaffetz. My question is, why did he get a bonus?
Didn't the President of the United States issue a pay freeze?
Mr. Robertson. I wasn't part of that decision.
Mr. Chaffetz. You are the Chief of Staff. You are telling
my you are not involved in any sort of bonuses.
Mr. Robertson. I was not involved in that bonus.
Mr. Chaffetz. Who was?
Mr. Robertson. The Administrator. And there is a
performance management review.
Mr. Chaffetz. Ms. Johnson, why were you giving out bonuses
when the President said there was a pay freeze?
Ms. Johnson. The senior executives were entitled to bonuses
under our--were entitled to bonuses. I don't believe the pay
freeze affected those bonuses.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield for just one
question?
Mr. Chaffetz. As long as it doesn't take some of my time.
Chairman Issa. The gentlelady just seemed to say entitled.
I thought it was that they were possibly going to be granted.
Entitlement seems to be a question the gentleman may want to
follow up on.
Ms. Johnson. I apologize. I did not mean entitled.
Mr. Chaffetz. Oh, I think you did mean entitlement. I think
that is the fundamental problem that America gets and that
government doesn't get. There are a lot of good Federal
employees who work hard; they are patriotic, and they are
frugal with their money. But when you see this widespread abuse
of money, and then you, as the former Administrator, said,
well, they were entitled to it, that is where there is
frustration just steaming out of our ears. It is totally
unacceptable.
And for the President of the United States to look the
American people in the eye and say, well, we got a pay freeze
in place while you are getting bonuses and going on trips is
totally unacceptable.
Tell me about--let's look at the budget here. If you could
put up the budget graphic. Is there anything wrong with this
number that you see over here? Three point eight that should be
billion dollars spent by the administration. These are outlays
in the first 3 years. If there is anything wrong that you see
with that graphic, please let me know. This is the last 3 years
of the Bush administration; the first 3 years of the Obama
administration.
I am going to continue on. If you want to get back to me on
that, that would be great.
Ms. Johnson, can you tell me about Results.gov? You
highlighted it as one of the great accomplishments of the GSA.
What does it do?
Ms. Johnson. The Results.gov, among other online Web sites,
allows Federal Government employees, as well as U.S. citizens,
to look at and access data about their government.
Mr. Chaffetz. So when I type in www.Results.gov, why does
it come up blank?
Ms. Johnson. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Robertson, you are the Chief of Staff.
Mr. Robertson. I am unfamiliar with the Results.gov Web
site.
Mr. Chaffetz. Now, this is the disconnect. You are the
Chief of Staff; she is the former Administrator. She cites it
as one of just a handful of great accomplishments at the GSA,
and you don't even know what it is?
Mr. Robertson. I believe that the Administrator--former
Administrator's reference to data was about Data.gov.
Mr. Chaffetz. That is not what she said. She said
Results.gov. And it is blank. It is blank. It is something that
actually the Bush administration does, but I don't see it
there. I didn't even go to it until you highlighted it in your
testimony. And I would appreciate the GSA getting back to us. I
think that is terribly unacceptable.
Location Solvers. My understanding, Mr. Robertson, is that
the GSA employs people that are full-time planning
coordinators. Is that correct?
Mr. Robertson. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. Okay. So in this particular instance,
Location Solvers is hired, and they were rewarded a $12,000
finder fee. Why are we hiring full-time people to be party
planners only to go out and hire a service that then gets a
$12,000 commission? Don't you think they would have given that
commission back to the American taxpayers had we done this
directly?
Mr. Robertson. I do not understand that action either. That
was one of the outlying----
Mr. Chaffetz. I struggle to figure out what you do
understand and what you do know. You are the Chief of Staff. We
expect you to understand these things.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also would like to commend you on this hearing and your
opening remarks, and the ranking member as well. I think this
is a very constructive hearing. I want to express my outrage at
the subject under investigation not just for myself, but on
behalf of the 13,000 current and retired Federal employees in
my district, because as Mr. Chaffetz said, we have many, many
very responsible public employees, Federal employees who I know
are embarrassed by association because of these instances.
I have a question about this whole idea of conferences and
the extent to which this practice may be common, not just in
GSA but across government. You already said this is not
something that is held in every region, this type of
conference. But do you have any idea of the number of
conferences, kind of internal conferences that are held
throughout the GSA organization? Ms. Johnson or Mr. Robertson?
Ms. Johnson. I don't have a good sense of the numbers. The
numbers of conferences that I attended over my tenure I can
talk about. They included about five internal conferences over
26 months.
Mr. Yarmuth. Over 26 months. That is a fairly frequent
number. Are there guidelines within GSA for conducting
conferences? It is kind of ironic, I think, that you have the
agency that is responsible for facilities, and at least in this
particular case they had to go to an outside--a private
facility outside of--if that is an example, Mr. Chairman, of
government spending, I guess stimulating the economy but
probably not in the right way if you have Federal facilities
that might house these events.
Ms. Johnson. Yes, there are various policies and rules, per
diem, for example, how much people can spend when they travel,
what they can be reimbursed for. Yes, there are.
Mr. Yarmuth. Would there be, for instance, any rules
regarding the things that went on here? Like, for instance, the
hiring of a mind reader, entertainment, bling, as we call it,
these souvenirs; are there any guidelines for those types of
acquisitions?
Ms. Johnson. I am not familiar with direct guidelines
around mind readers and commemorative coins. I am aware that
our senior executives should be operating under the common
sense of no waste and would be preserving their budgets for
other things.
Mr. Yarmuth. Mr. Miller, you have been involved in
government for quite a long time. Are there rules in other
agencies that you may be familiar with that are more specific
as to the conduct of internal conferences or events?
Mr. Miller. I think the rules governing GSA and GSA policy
says that they are to plan conferences with an eye to
minimizing costs. And that is from the GSA policy. So, in terms
of minimizing costs, things like commemorative coins would be
impermissible.
We do have a discussion of rules within the final report.
And when it comes down to mind readers, or I think he billed
himself as a motivational speaker, in terms of the report, we
stayed away from the quality of--any quality judgments on the
type of training because we are not the experts in Public
Buildings Service, but the rules do allow a motivational
speaker. Now, if he was mind reading or entertainment, that
would not be permitted.
Mr. Yarmuth. So, in terms of both the activities and the
ancillary materials that were provided in here, there were in
your estimation, Mr. Miller, violations of agency rules.
Mr. Miller. Yes. And we have outlined them in our report.
Mr. Yarmuth. And also in terms of the procurement rules
regarding the acquisitions.
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Congressman, they gave a bid of one bidder to another
bidder. And that is about as much against the rules as you can
come up with.
Mr. Yarmuth. Now, a question, because obviously the GSA is
involved in a lot of contracting throughout the country, does
your office, does the GSA have sufficient auditing capabilities
to deal with not just the auditing of a conference that the
agency conducted for itself but for the many other activities
that it is involved in, its primary responsibilities?
Mr. Miller. We do all the auditing at GSA. We do not rely
on DCAA, except for a very exceptional circumstance. My office
has about 300 employees. We have 70 special agents who would
actually interview individuals. And I think they have done a
tremendous job with this report. And I think they moved at
tremendous speed, often working 18-hour days and weekends. And
I do commend the special agents and the forensic auditors that
we have.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kelly,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kelly. I thank the chairman.
Again, thank you for calling this hearing.
You know, this is one of those unusual things. And Mr.
Cummings was talking about being back in his district and
walking the streets last week. And I got to tell you the same
thing happened to me in northwest Pennsylvania.
I wonder if we could, we have a slide showing I believe the
mission statement, the visions and goals. That is a real eye
chart. Let me go through----
Chairman Issa. Perhaps the gentleman could read from it.
Mr. Kelly. I am not going to read from that. I am not that
good. Let me just say the mission, GSA mission is to use
expertise to provide innovative solutions for our customers in
support of their missions and, by so doing foster an effective,
sustainable, and transparent government for the American
people. Then it goes into the vision part. And when you go down
to the third bullet point: GSA envisions a government that
works ever better for the American people. It is fueled by two
powerful sparks for change, namely sustainability and
transparency. The former is a doctrine for managing resources
with utmost care and an obsession with no waste. The latter is
a doctrine for inviting our collective intelligence and our
wisdom to work.
Then it goes down to strategic goals, and it goes through
what the GSA will test innovative solutions in its own
operations, offer those solutions to other agencies through its
government-wide contracting and policymaking authorities, which
we find out they don't follow.
You know, as I look through this, there is no wonder that
the American people have lost faith in their government.
Now, let me ask you something, Ms. Johnson. To date, there
was at least four Regional Administrators placed on
administrative leave. Is that correct?
Ms. Johnson. Regional Commissioners, I think. Did you say
Administrators?
Mr. Kelly. Regional Administrators.
Ms. Johnson. No, the Regional Administrators----
Mr. Kelly. Jeff Neely, Paul Prouty, Robin Graf, and Jim
Weller.
Ms. Johnson. Those are Regional Commissioners.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. So they are on administrative leave.
Ms. Johnson. Yes, they are from the Public Buildings
Service, yes.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. But they are still being paid.
Ms. Johnson. I believe so, but I am not there.
Mr. Kelly. Mr. Neely is being paid. He is on administrative
leave.
Ms. Johnson. On administrative leave, my understanding is
the person is----
Mr. Kelly. Okay. You have any idea what these folks make?
Maybe, Mr. Robertson, you are Chief of Staff, you surely
would know what these people make.
Mr. Robertson. I am happy to provide the exact numbers, but
I believe they are all at the top of the SES scale.
Mr. Kelly. Okay. So what is the top of the scale?
Mr. Robertson. I believe it is close somewhere in the 170
range.
Mr. Kelly. One hundred seventy range. You know, Mr.
Chaffetz made some good points. You know, I got to tell you
that, thank God, this time what happened in Vegas didn't stay
in Vegas. The disappointment of these hardworking American
taxpayers to know that the GSA, the watchdog, the people who
are going to make sure--listen, they have an obsession with no
waste. To see this go on day after day in our government,
asking people to give more of what they have, dipping into what
they have to support a government that wastes more and more of
their money.
I don't think anybody minds paying taxes if the money is
well spent. But they sure as heck resent the fact that a
government that tells them they have to pay more of their fair
share cannot cut back anywhere. In fact, when you folks come
in, and you are in charge of it, you can't even answer the
questions who did what, when did you know about it, what did
you decide to do about it? Who the heck is the watchdog? And if
the watchdog is being fed so well, why does it even care what
goes on?
And I got to tell you, it is so easy to spend somebody
else's money, especially when you are not held accountable. I
think it is absolutely ridiculous that the American people have
to sit back and watch this. Ms. Johnson, you have a great
record of public service. I read your resume. This is very
impressive. What did you do in your last job before you came
here?
Ms. Johnson. I was at the Computer Sciences Corporation.
Mr. Kelly. In December of 2008--in 2008, you were on the
Presidential transition team and then came onto the General
Services Administration.
Mr. Robertson, tell me what you did before you came in the
GSA.
Mr. Robertson. Before entering GSA or before the current
position that I hold?
Mr. Kelly. Well, before the current position you have now.
Just go a through a little bit, maybe like the last 5 years, 4
years of your career.
Mr. Robertson. Of my career?
Mr. Kelly. Yeah.
Mr. Robertson. Immediately prior to the position I hold
now, I was the associate administrator for government-wide
policy within GSA. Prior to that, I was the White House liaison
inside GSA. Immediately prior to joining GSA, I was the deputy
working group lead on the Presidential transition team for----
Mr. Kelly. Okay. Let me just say one thing. For somebody in
administration that talks about a clear and transparent
government, a government that is more answering to the American
taxpayers, I have got to tell you, as a guy who has only been
here 14 months, thank God some of us are here now, because
apparently you folks that made a career out of spending
taxpayer money have got some kind of a magic shield, or you
stay inside this bubble that allows you to do those things
without absolutely any, any feeling of wrongdoing. And to watch
what is going on and watch those videos of what happened and
knowing that the people that I represent in northwest
Pennsylvania work hard, some of them two jobs--two jobs for
mom, two jobs for dad--to make ends meet, and they watch their
tax dollars being spent and wasted in this way; it is an
absolute shame to have to sit here in this meeting today and
listen to that and watch as we take the Fifth, okay, fine, that
is your Constitutional right. I am not sure, cloudy, murky. I
don't know; it happened before in other administrations. All I
was just doing was kind of moving the ball up. It is pathetic.
And I got to tell you I can't tell you how disappointed I am.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I mean, this outrage that we are hearing today is genuine,
and it is bipartisan. And I don't need to feed into it any
more, except that this notion that the GSA should act like
private corporations; I don't think anybody's pleased when they
see private corporations, Tyco, AIG, and others out there,
wasting their corporate money. The shareholders seem powerless
to do much about it. Taxpayers should be upset about that
because, of course, somebody is probably writing it off as a
business expense. But 100 percent of this wasted money is on
the taxpayer. And that is why people are so upset. It is not
even masked; it is their taxpayers' money being wastefully
spent.
And I have a lot of government employees and GSA employees
in my area that work hard every day, and work honestly and
don't waste any money; haven't had a raise for a number of
years; had their pensions attacked by about 15 bills down here
as if they are the problem, when in fact it is these outlying
situations that are just ridiculous. And I think it goes deeper
and more systemic than just one individual on that.
Let me ask the former Administrator, you were actually
nominated at what point in time by President Obama?
Ms. Johnson. I was nominated early in 2009.
Mr. Tierney. And at that time, was the position of the GSA
Administrator, was it vacant?
Ms. Johnson. There was no confirmed Administrator.
Mr. Tierney. And there hadn't been for a couple of years,
right?
Ms. Johnson. I believe--I am always bad with chronology--it
had maybe about a year-and-a-half, maybe a year.
Mr. Tierney. Year, year-and-a-half before you were
nominated. How long between the time you were nominated and the
time the Senate actually voted on your position?
Ms. Johnson. The Senate, I had my hearings in June of 2009,
and I was voted unanimously in February 2010.
Mr. Tierney. So over 9 months?
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. What was the delay?
Ms. Johnson. Sir, the Senate didn't entertain my
confirmation and vote on it.
Mr. Tierney. So no permanent Administrator all that period
of time.
Now, you had worked as a Chief of Staff at the same agency
in the 1990s. Is that correct?
Ms. Johnson. Yes, I had.
Mr. Tierney. So was this kind of activity, as far as you
know, going on in the 1990s?
Ms. Johnson. No.
Mr. Tierney. Tell me what the agency looked like in your
mind in the 1990s when you were there.
Ms. Johnson. The agency is full of hardworking people
delivering goods and services to the American people. It was an
agency that was just emerging from the Clinger-Cohen
legislative change for its mandate. And in the mid-1990s, it no
longer was allowed to be a monopoly provider to the government.
And it became a nonmandatory supplier. So the element of
competition was introduced into GSA, which I think was a
tremendous improvement in GSA in that it forced GSA to stand up
and look at its customers and think about what it was
delivering. It was a very exciting time at GSA.
Mr. Tierney. I want to read what you had in your written
statement here. When you returned to the GSA in February of
2010, the agency was not the same as what you just described I
guess. A quarter of the executive positions were empty.
Strategy was nonexistent. Major customers viewed our
partnership askance. Labor relations were acrimonious. The
information technology infrastructure was inadequate. The
schedules and other contract vehicles were burdensome. The
Federal Acquisition Institute had atrophied. Government-wide
policy looked focus. And more expensive leasing portfolios had
ballooned. So this is what you found different about the agency
from the first time that you served there.
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. And obviously, that all bespeaks, I would
think, of a lack of leadership, going through a rudderless sort
of existence. When you were finally sworn in, what did you
start doing to try to right that ship?
Ms. Johnson. Worked very hard. The very first thing I
really did was to try to begin to fill the executive slots. We
needed leaders in those positions, and we needed them quickly.
So that was literally my first effort.
Mr. Tierney. Who in that chain of command would have been
responsible for knowing that the kind of behavior that we are
here today about was occurring?
Ms. Johnson. The chain of command around this conference
would have--it is a matrix. It would have been in the sense
that it was in the Public Buildings Service, it was Jeff Neely
as the Regional Commissioner reporting up to Bob Peck, who was
the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service. At the same
time, it is a regional structure. And the Regional Commissioner
reports to the Regional Administrator. There was no Regional
Administrator there. Jeff Neely was dual-hatted. So he was
essentially----
Mr. Tierney. He was watching himself.
Ms. Johnson. Yes. And he then in that Regional
Administrator role reported in to the senior counselor, who
reported to me.
Mr. Tierney. Did you set about trying to replace those
people and put the right oversight people in charge there?
Ms. Johnson. We were filling the Regional Administrator
slots, yes, absolutely.
Mr. Tierney. It is hard to run an agency when nobody is
watching anybody else and there is no oversight on that. That
is what strikes me as incredible here. So when this event
happened and somebody on your staff reported it to Mr. Miller,
was that the first time you were aware that this conduct had
been going on?
Ms. Johnson. When he gave us the interim communications
PowerPoint was when I learned of the extent of it. And that
was--that is when it hit me, yes.
Mr. Tierney. So nobody had reported to you that this type
of behavior happened in New Orleans in 2008 and in other
instances?
Ms. Johnson. No.
Mr. Tierney. Apparently for a number of years leading up to
this.
Ms. Johnson. No, I did not know about the other
conferences, frankly.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Yield back.
Chairman Issa. Thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentleman from Oklahoma, somebody who
understands budgets very, very well, Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
And thank you all for being here, giving a chance to voice
it. Let me run through a couple things that just strike me.
During the time of this conference, at that same month
unemployment in the Nation was 9.6 percent. We were in the
process--in fact, GSA was in the process of putting out
stimulus dollars totaling $5.85 billion, trying to help through
a very dramatic recovery. The President had just recently
rebuked public companies who did conferences in Las Vegas that
had also received TARP money at a very similar time that GSA is
holding a huge conference in Las Vegas of this type. I have
been interested, as I have gone back through the history, that
several folks had mentioned this kind of behavior had gone on
for a while. So I looked at the Oklahoma City conference, which
is in the heart of my district, and went back just 4 years
before and noticed that in the Oklahoma City conference, same
number of people, $323,000 was spent. In the Vegas conference,
$840,000 was spent. So to say all these previous conferences,
like Oklahoma City and New Orleans and all this are the same,
they are not. There was something that was happening that was
very unique. And that was dialing up with incredible speed on
this.
Ms. Johnson, you have an incredible career, and I mean that
in all sincerity, in both the private sector and the public
sector. I can't imagine you not having incredible frustration
at the process of dismissal on the Federal side, of going
through the process of people you know should be dismissed, but
instead you have resigned, when you know some of the people
most culpable in these decisions are still there going through
a long drawn-out process of appeals. My question for you is
what do we need to fix in dealing with Federal hiring when this
kind of stuff comes up that we can work through a process
judiciously, because there are a lot of great Federal
employees, but to work through a judicious process where we can
clear the house of people that give the Federal Government a
bad name?
Ms. Johnson. Congressman, I would certainly welcome a
thoughtful policy discussion about that. I am not a human
resources specialist. I am not sure what I would suggest.
Certainly there is due process for employees. I appreciate
that. I appreciate the fact that there needed to be two
officials involved so that there isn't preemptory decision-
making. I would yield to the experts in the personnel
management organizations.
Mr. Lankford. I understand. But you resigned----
Ms. Johnson. Yes, I did.
Mr. Lankford. --though your office was the office that
actually started this investigation.
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Lankford. This would not come to light unless your
office would have started it. But as the leader and at the top,
you resigned, and people that were directly there making the
decisions, signing onto the warrants, going through these
fraudulent contracts, they are still there.
Ms. Johnson. Yes, I have resigned, and yes, I believe they
are still there.
Mr. Lankford. Let me just mention a couple things that are
jarring on this to me. One is in the GSA process and one of
them I find very meaningful in this, trying to do a piece of
charity work with this $75,000 bike team-building experience.
The frustration is they have a $75,000 team-building experience
that was designed to give away 24 bikes to needy boys and girls
from the Boys and Girls Club. And so instead of employees
putting together this and doing this out of charity, they used
taxpayer funds to provide a charity event of these 24 bikes,
and then used taxpayer funds to provide an ice cream party for
the children when they came and picked them up, and so everyone
could feel good. But it wasn't their money, and it wasn't even
their time. They were paid to be on the clock to do that as a
Federal employee. And the Federal taxpayer paid for the bikes.
And then everyone else felt good. And that is one of those
moments that we look at and say, where have we gone that
suddenly now doing charity work as a Federal employee has to
come from the hardworking American taxpayer rather than
actually engaging from it?
The other side is this contracting issue with the sound
company and the hotel, not to mention that the charity work
done with the bikes directly violates GSA policy on disposing
of Federal property. I mean, it is in direct violation of GSA
property. Then this sound contract gets preferential treatment
over another company. And they get free rooms in addition to
the rooms that they were paid for. The hotel contract was
really negotiated off line separately so we can have additional
food because we didn't pay enough for this, or we are going do
all this extra food for this.
This is the kind of stuff that makes people in my district
that try to get a Federal contract furious. And they come to
our office and say we are trying to get a Federal contract, but
it looks like some sweetheart deal is done for some other
company, and no one can validate it. How do we start clearing
the deck on this so we really do have fair competition, whether
it be in GSA or anywhere else? How do we root this kind of
stuff out?
Ms. Johnson. Well, I believe, first of all, we have a good
oversight process. And I appreciate that the Inspector General
is there, and we can go to him and say, would you look into
this and find this out? Because it was appalling to me. And I
felt grateful that someone had the capability to do that kind
of investigation. So that is certainly a piece of it. I think,
as alluded to by some other questions, I think leaving agencies
without steady leadership is to leave an agency hanging. And
although there were able interim Administrators, no one had the
clout of being confirmed and able to move in and really assume
the job. So I think there are a number of different things that
could be addressed.
Mr. Lankford. I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
I might note for the record we did look it up, and SES
people can make as much as $179,000, which means they are paid
more than Members of Congress.
Perhaps we could consider those people unnecessary if you
are centralizing control, Mr. Robertson.
Ms. Johnson. And they are paid much more than I am--was.
Chairman Issa. Noted.
With that, we go to the gentleman, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Johnson, without getting bogged down into conduct
reviews versus performance reviews, why did you give that
$9,000 bonus?
Ms. Johnson. I gave that $9,000 bonus because I was focused
on performance, and because the recommendation came from the
buildings commissioner, who was the direct budgeting and
supervisor of Mr. Neely.
Mr. Walsh. Let me ask it another way. If you could take
that bonus back, if you could go back in time and not approve
that bonus, would you do that?
Ms. Johnson. Well, I would certainly like to avoid these
questions, yes.
Mr. Walsh. Would you----
Ms. Johnson. I think----
Mr. Walsh. Do you wish you had not approved that bonus?
Ms. Johnson. Everything in retrospect is always hard to
understand. At the time, I was expecting the Inspector
General's report. You know it's not a decision----
Mr. Walsh. I appreciate that. But right now, if you could,
do you wish you had not approved that bonus?
Ms. Johnson. I am not sure how I can--I am not sure how I
can answer that, knowing what I know about all of the rules and
the----
Mr. Walsh. I appreciate that. Let me move on.
My colleagues on both sides have rightfully focused on how
did this happen? Who knew what? What procedures were in place
that let this happen? When did it happen? All important
questions in an investigation. But what eats at me is the why;
why does something like this happen? And again, many of these
examples have been pointed out. The $6,000 commemorative coins.
Did Mr. Neely, Ms. Johnson, think that was his money?
Ms. Johnson. I have no idea.
Mr. Walsh. Do you think it is your money?
Ms. Johnson. I do think it is my money. That is why I was
so appalled. And that is why I resigned.
Mr. Walsh. You don't think that is your money.
Ms. Johnson. I believe the--I am a taxpayer. It is my
taxpayers' money.
Mr. Walsh. Taxpayers' money. The $8,000 spent on yearbooks.
Do you believe Mr. Neely thought that was his money?
Ms. Johnson. I don't know what he was thinking.
Mr. Walsh. Do you think it is your money? Whose money is
that?
Ms. Johnson. It is the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Walsh. The $130,000 spent on six scouting missions to
visit Las Vegas. Do you think Mr. Neely thought that was his
money?
Ms. Johnson. I have no idea what Mr. Neely was thinking.
Mr. Walsh. Do you think it is your money?
Ms. Johnson. I believe it is the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Robertson, do you think that $130,000 was
your money?
Mr. Robertson. I believe that money belongs to the
taxpayers.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Foley, do you think that was your money?
Mr. Foley. No, I believe it is the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Walsh. Food and drink for the conference, $145,000.
Mr. Robertson, do you think Mr. Neely truly thought that
was his money?
Mr. Robertson. I don't know what Mr. Neely was thinking.
Mr. Walsh. Do you think that was your money?
Mr. Robertson. That money clearly belongs to the taxpayers.
Mr. Walsh. Mr. Foley, do you think Mr. Neely thought that
was his money?
Mr. Foley. I do not know what he was thinking.
Mr. Walsh. Do you think that was your money?
Mr. Foley. No. It clearly belongs to the taxpayers.
Mr. Walsh. And I don't know you, and I respect your
service, but why even joke, why even joke about abusing
taxpayer dollars? Why even do that? I mean, all my colleagues
have said, rightfully, everybody knows what the American people
are going through right now.
Mr. Foley. It was----
Mr. Walsh. Can't you imagine that for $6,500, the average
struggling taxpayer out there could find something to do with
that? For $8,000 for these souvenir yearbooks, do you think the
average man or woman in any one of our districts today would
know what to do with $8,000?
Mr. Foley. Again, I absolutely apologize for my remarks. I
clearly recognize they were inappropriate.
Mr. Walsh. But Mr. Foley, what made you feel like you could
joke about it to begin with? See, what I want to know is this
culture, the why, why did Mr. Neely feel like he could do what
he did? If Mr. Neely had to foot the bill for this conference
would he have felt that he could have abused his own dollars
like that?
Mr. Foley. I don't know what Mr. Neely would have felt.
Mr. Walsh. It is just--and Ms. Johnson, I know you
appreciate this. It is not your money.
It is--Mr. Robertson, it is not your money. And this is
what has the American people so worked up: $8,000 is a lot of
money; $6,500 goes a very long way for most families today. And
I would argue that the invisible man there, Mr. Neely, if he
had thought this was his money, we wouldn't be here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
And I would note for the record that we have not been able
to get a clarification whether it is 6 or 10. It appears it
could be 10 round trips with family in some cases, costing over
$100,000, to find out what Vegas was like.
With that, we go to the gentleman from another region, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I generally applaud yours and the committee's selection
of witnesses. But you have left out one important witness in
that hearing, and that is the mind reader. Maybe he could tell
us what some of these people were thinking when they did that.
I do have a couple of comments and questions that hopefully
you all could clear up for me. I am really concerned about a
pattern that we are seeing, not just in the GSA but in the
government overall, about a lack of common sense or about it
not being our money. You should have a higher respect for the
taxpayers' dollars than you have even for your own dollars.
They are giving this to us in trust to spend for them.
But you look at what is happening in the news today. You
look at this convention. You look at the Secret Service Agents
and that fiasco that happened. You look at some of the things
this committee is investigating. A lack of common sense in Fast
and Furious, the Freddie and Fannie bonuses. And I would like
to ask the gentleman from the Inspector General's Office, do
you see this pervasive in your agency or pervasive in the
government?
The GSA agents I have dealt with personally doing the
office we have in the district and helping out with some
constituents have been great people. But are we developing in
the GSA or the government in general a culture of lack of
common sense or indifference about taxpayers' dollars? I mean,
I Priceline hotels. I don't just use you all's government rate.
Mr. Miller. Congressman, all IGs are very concerned to
protect taxpayer dollars and to get the best value for taxpayer
dollars. I think the question was asked, you know, why did Mr.
Neely do this? We can't get into his head. But one reason was
that he could. There was a lack of accountability. He was both
the Regional Commissioner and Acting Regional Administrator.
Mr. Farenthold. But wouldn't you agree, regardless of how
many rules we have, if we have an attitude of let's see how we
can sneak it in under the rules or just outright ignore the
rules, the money is going to continue to fly out the door at a
fast and furious pace?
Mr. Miller. Unfortunately, people know the rules, and they
know how to skirt the rules.
Mr. Farenthold. And that is really disappointing. And I
want to take a second to point out that if this is happening in
other government agencies, we need to know about it. This
committee has a Web site, Oversight.House.gov, and there is big
orange button there that says whistleblower. We need to stop
this, and we need to stop the culture of overspending in our
government. What we have got do is take Rudy Giuliani's
attitude; let's start with the little things, fix the broken
glass. You have got to remember, it is not your money; it is
the taxpayers' money, and you owe them the highest duty with
respect to protecting that money.
Let me go back to the former Administrator. And I want to
commend you for taking responsibility for that and resigning. I
wish you would have had a chance to clean up a little bit more
before you were able to go. And I do think this is something
that this committee and the Congress as a whole needs to look
at is how government employees can linger on and on and on,
basically on paid vacation when they are on administrative
leave. We are getting no value for it. And the money is just
going flat out the door.
Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Johnson. Not really, Congressman.
You have heard my thoughts in my statements. I think that
we certainly were initiating disciplinary action, and we needed
to adhere to due process. And that is what we were working
with. But we were working diligently with the process we had.
Mr. Farenthold. And I understand everybody is entitled to
due process. And one of the reasons people choose to work for
the government is to get away from employment at will. You
know, you have some rights with respect to the government. But
I am thinking we need to look at, especially in cases of clear
misconduct, that we need to be able to find a way to expedite
this process. And I do--and pardon me for asking this question,
but this is a game of politics, and some people have asked me,
your resignation was timed with the day that this report came
out. Was that coordinated with the White House or the
President's campaign? Did you talk to anybody over there about
that?
Ms. Johnson. It was certainly not coordinated with the
campaign. I did inform the White House. We were in
communication with the White House so that they would be aware
of it. I mean, I was resigning from my White House appointment.
And it was----
Mr. Farenthold. Did the White House ask you to resign, or
was that your decision?
Ms. Johnson. No, they did not. No, they did not. I chose to
resign.
Mr. Farenthold. And again, I commend you on having done the
honorable thing there, and thank you for your public service.
And I am sorry you have to leave on this sour note. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Farenthold. Certainly.
Chairman Issa. Just a quick follow up. You knew this report
was coming. You had 11 months between a scathing preliminary
and the final. You resigned on the day it came out. When did
you decide that you would resign? When did you first know that
this report would look the way it did?
Ms. Johnson. I knew when I received the draft report that
it would look that way because I had no quarrel with the IG.
Chairman Issa. So you had 11 months' warning?
Ms. Johnson. No, it was 45 days. From the time that they
gave us the draft----
Chairman Issa. So about 60 days, okay.
Ms. Johnson. Yeah. I mean, it was someplace in there. And I
knew that it--so I knew what was in the report, and I did not
contest it. I had no reason to. I accepted all the
recommendations.
Part of what we worked through, because I took the role of
running our response myself, is understanding what our
personnel rules were, what our legal positions were, and so on.
And as that unfolded, it became clearer and clearer to me that
we needed to do something very--I don't want to use the word
``dramatic,'' but we needed to make a very strong statement
about how this was so appalling. So I decided to resign. I
finally came to the decision in my own head about 3 or 4 days
before I resigned, but I had thought about it for the entire 6
weeks.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
The gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Guinta, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guinta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to continue on this line of questioning. You said
over that several-day period you had thought about resigning?
Ms. Johnson. Over the whole--well, the thought entered my
head right away, you know, was this something I needed to
resign over. And I worked my way through what the discipline
was for the various people involved, what other actions we
could take. But I came to the--you know, I was ready to sit
down and write my resignation about 3 days before.
Mr. Guinta. Did you consult with your Chief of Staff on
that?
Ms. Johnson. Yes. I mean, he understood my thinking. Yes.
Mr. Guinta. Okay.
What was your position, Mr. Robertson, in 2007?
Mr. Robertson. My position in 2007?
Mr. Guinta. Yes.
Mr. Robertson. It depends on what time in 2007. I held two
jobs in the year 2007.
Mr. Guinta. Which were the two?
Mr. Robertson. In the U.S. Senate, in this body of the U.S.
Congress, I was a legislative coordinator in the Senate. And
then, following that, I joined the Presidential campaign for
then-Senator Obama.
Mr. Guinta. You were a legislative coordinator for a
Senator?
Mr. Robertson. Yes.
Mr. Guinta. Which Senator?
Mr. Robertson. It was Senator Obama.
Mr. Guinta. Okay. So you went from working for Senator
Obama as an LC to then working on the Presidential campaign to
then working on transition to then going to GSA to then being
Chief of Staff to GSA. Is that fair?
Mr. Robertson. After about 18 months inside GSA, yes.
Mr. Guinta. Okay, in an 18-month--you went from an LC to a
Chief of Staff. That is great. Congratulations.
At what point did you talk with Ms. Johnson about her
resignation? She just said that she had talked with you about
resigning. When did you speak with her about resigning?
Mr. Robertson. She told me that she was thinking about it
at some point during the development of our response. I don't
recall the date.
Mr. Guinta. Can you give me a month, a month of the first
time you talked about it with her?
Mr. Robertson. It was sometime between February and April
when the final report came out. I believe it was in March.
Mr. Guinta. Who did you talk to at the White House about
her resignation during that period of time?
Mr. Robertson. Nobody.
Mr. Guinta. You did not convey in writing or verbally to
anyone at the White House that there was a consideration of a
resignation?
Mr. Robertson. No. To the best of my recollection, I did
not.
Mr. Guinta. To the best of your recollection?
Mr. Robertson. Yeah.
Mr. Guinta. So you didn't or to the best of your
recollection?
Mr. Robertson. To the best of my recollection, I did not
communicate anything about the Administrator's resignation to
the White House.
Mr. Guinta. So it is possible you did communicate something
to the White House?
Mr. Robertson. To the best of my recollection, I did not
communicate anything about the Administrator's resignation to
the White House.
Mr. Guinta. Did anyone from the White House talk to you in
writing or verbally about the thought or the idea of Ms.
Johnson resigning?
Mr. Robertson. To the best of my recollection, no.
Mr. Guinta. Mr. Miller, you said earlier in your testimony
that it was, I think, abnormal--I don't recall the words you
used, but it was not the norm.
Mr. Miller. Unusual.
Mr. Guinta. Unusual, okay, thank you. So why did you
provide this preliminarily information?
Mr. Miller. I provided it to the Administrator May 3rd,
2011, so that GSA could take steps to prevent future waste.
Mr. Guinta. Okay.
And I am reading from Ms. Johnson's written testimony that
was submitted today. ``We finally received the report''--excuse
me, let me back up. You had written, ``Ms. Brita shared these
findings with four of us in May 2011,'' and you named the four
people who were in that meeting. And according to your
testimony, you were part of that meeting. Is that accurate?
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Guinta. In your line of questioning with the chairman
at the beginning of this hearing, you had stated, quote, ``I
was aware of a PowerPoint slide deck, but I did not see it.''
Yet, in your written testimony--so maybe you want to clarify--
you said, ``Ms. Brita shared these findings with the four of us
in May 2011.''
The sentence prior to that says, ``I believe the Inspector
General subsequently briefed her with a PowerPoint deck,'' yet
you are saying you never saw the PowerPoint deck. So I want to
be clear if you saw that PowerPoint deck in May during that
briefing.
Ms. Johnson. I have to apologize. It must be because I am
59 years old, but I have no memory of seeing it.
Mr. Guinta. Okay.
Ms. Johnson. This is based on my memories. If I could see
my schedule and jog them and think about what meeting I was in
with the Inspector General, I might be able to recall
something. But right now I cannot recall that.
Mr. Guinta. All right. The last point I want to get to----
Ms. Johnson. But we did have a discussion about it.
Mr. Guinta. Okay. Thank you.
The last point I want to get to is the raise of Mr. Neely.
I have this email dated November 5th, 2011, which is certainly
after, significantly after, you and others were briefed about
this incident, this circumstance. And your email said, ``I
spoke to Bob yesterday afternoon.'' I believe that is Bob--I
would assume you are referring to Bob Peck. ``He is
recommending a 4 based on the extent to which Jeff is achieving
more results in leasing than anyone else and some other things
which he didn't delineate. I could support that if the Steve
Jobs message is dead-clear. Next year people have to have
crackling good collaboration/people skills to get above a 3. I
have made that adjustment in a couple of other cases this year.
It has to be in the message like a fire siren. Yes on the
bonus. He was also Acting RA forever and a day.''
That is the entire body of the email sent by you to Susan
Brita, with a CC to Steve Leeds and Bob Peck, regarding Mr.
Neely's $9,000--I find it a little shocking that that would
really be the only thing we have, the only correspondence we
have, the fact that--it looks like you cite two things: He has
been an RA forever and a day, and, secondly, that he is
achieving more results in leasing than anyone else.
Is there any kind of guideline or specific documentation
that someone has to go through to determine if there are
measurable outcomes and objectives that someone at this level
is meeting the criteria in order to receive a bonus?
Ms. Johnson. So the process involves a performance review
board, and I believe they had a fair amount of documentation.
The Deputy Administrator was briefing me. She was briefing me
fairly regularly, just verbally. We sit right next to each
other. So she was informing me of their thinking and where they
were wrestling with a recommendation and where they were pretty
straightforward. There was a lot of dialogue.
Mr. Guinta. Do you still agree that he should have received
this $9,000 bonus?
Ms. Johnson. Well, as the other Congressman was asking what
would I do in hindsight, I still am not sure how to think about
the two different expectations on me around assessing
performance and conduct and how much I would have interfered
with a conduct review that I considered very serious if I had
moved in a different direction with a performance process and
made that less independent.
Mr. Guinta. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller, have you made a referral to the United States
Attorney's Office?
Mr. Miller. To the Department of Justice, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. I hope it is a different group than the one that
handled Fast and Furious. But you have made a referral?
Mr. Miller. Indeed, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. When did you make it? With a recommendation?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Did you make recommendations for criminal
charges or just FYI, forwarded it?
Mr. Miller. No, we recommended criminal charges.
Mr. Gowdy. All right.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the need for a hearing like this
epitomizes our fellow citizens' frustration with government.
They are absolutely convinced that we spend their money
differently from the way that we would spend our own, and they
are exactly correct.
The rest of America cannot comprehend a $44 breakfast. They
are pouring generic brand cereal while you are eating a $44
breakfast. The rest of America would never conceive of a $7
Monte Cristo mini-sandwich, and neither would you if you were
spending your own money. You don't go out of your pocket and
buy commemorative coins. I don't know anyone who does that. But
we don't hesitate to spend taxpayer money on a trinket like
that.
Giving bicycles to indigent children is a wonderful idea. I
hate that you robbed yourself of the satisfaction of knowing
what it feels like to do it yourself instead of spending
someone else's money to do it.
The ostensible purpose of this hearing was to exchange
ideas. You know, Alexander Graham Bell has this marvelous
invention called the telephone, or, better yet,
videoconferencing. The notion that you have to spend $800,000
to exchange ideas is laughable and perhaps criminal.
And the part that galls me the most is the hypocrisy of GSA
not even following its own damn rules. You are so quick to make
everyone else follow the rules, and you can't follow your own
rules. You have an event planner on staff. That will come as
quite a surprise to most taxpayers. What will come as even more
of a surprise is the fact that you didn't even use them. You
paid somebody else to plan the event despite the fact that you
have event planners at taxpayer salary.
And the scouting trips. You know, Mr. Chairman, the tribes
of Israel sent 12 scouts into the promised land before they
decided to invade, and GSA has to send 15 to Las Vegas to check
out a hotel.
Do you not see the outrage in that, Mr. Robertson? Do you
see it?
Mr. Robertson. Absolutely. This conference was outrageous.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I am not going to be as self-
congratulatory as some other people are. I think the fact that
we are having a hearing is a loss. Most people don't need a
hearing to know that you don't spend other people's money the
way that money was spent at this conference. We don't need a
list of recommendations from the Inspector General. We don't
need to be reminded that you can't negotiate a discount on a
purse because the U.S. Government decided to contract with a
hotel. That is criminal.
And a mind reader? My guess is they will not need a mind
reader to find out the American public has lost confidence in
the institutions of government and their response.
I want indictments, Mr. Inspector General. That is a great
way to get people's attention, an indictment. Not a memo, not
corrective measure, an indictment.
I went through your report and I wrote 25 times, what is
the penalty? What is the penalty for doing what you found that
they did? What is the penalty for negotiating a discount on a
purse for your personal use because you work for the government
and you steered work? What is the penalty for tipping off a
competitor of another bid? That sounds remarkably criminal to
me, Mr. Inspector General.
You know, Mr. Chairman, while this conference was being
planned and executed, I was working in a small DA's office in
South Carolina. We had budget cuts. We had to furlough
secretaries that were making $20,000 a year. We started a fund
out of our own pocket to pay for kids' birthday presents. We
never thought about spending taxpayer money on it.
Working for the government is a sacred trust which you have
blown. So instead of a team-building exercise, you might want
to investigate a trust-building exercise, because you have lost
it.
Chairman Issa. That concludes our first round. The
gentleman's outrage I think is a bipartisan reflection of the
entire first round. I will be brief in the second round. There
are a few things that weren't covered. So I recognize myself.
Mr. Miller, Exhibit 2, a letter we have from Susan Brita,
that, although she was the original, if you will, provocateur
that caused your investigation to begin, she writes--or,
actually, to Ruth Cox, there is a question, wanted to know why
the report had to be made public since she was told otherwise
by Bob Peck.
Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. And I appreciate your completeness in
supplying us this.
Chairman Issa. How do you explain anybody, political
appointee or not, considering that any part of this would be
retained as private, particularly after such a long time of us
not knowing about it?
Mr. Miller. I can't explain that, Mr. Chairman. We always
intended for this to be public. It is of such a magnitude and
such an outrage that it had to be made public for transparency.
Chairman Issa. Well, I would like to follow up on that,
because the ranking member and I regularly receive briefings
from IGs. IGs, all 12,000 men and women and $2 billion budget,
exist to a great extent for a liaison with this branch. I am a
little--I am more than a little concerned. You have done a
wonderful job. It is a comprehensive report, and it is going to
change a lot of things throughout government. But if you had to
do it again, when would you have briefed this committee, your
primary committee for oversight?
Mr. Miller. Well, Mr. Chairman, we wanted to nail down all
the facts every which way before we put the report to print. I
am receiving your message that we should come to you sooner,
much sooner than we have a draft report.
The process was that we wanted to get something together
quickly to warn the Administrator and others so that they can
stop further waste. We did that quickly and did it in May 2011.
It took a long time to nail down the facts every possible way,
and we got a final report to her in February. She requested an
extension of an extra 30 days.
You know, I--you know, we--I am happy to talk with you
about when we should bring these reports to you. These are
sensitive reports. They do contain what we view as criminal
conduct.
Chairman Issa. Well, and I appreciate the criminal conduct.
And, obviously, one of the concerns we have is, we need to know
from a reform standpoint, from an oversight standpoint earlier,
not later.
I will say this on the record to you but, in fact, to all
the IGs, the 70-plus, and all the people that work for them. It
is my intention to work with the ranking member to produce a
guidance letter from this committee that would spell out an
expectation. If that expectation, which is ordinary--we are
going to try to be consistent with what often occurs--if that
is not something that we see on a go-forward basis, then I will
also draft legislation with the ranking member to try to codify
in law.
It has not been a problem in the past. I do find it
exceptional. And, by the way, good work. I am not making any
disparaging remark on the quality of your work. But it is
highly unusual for us not to receive a heads-up much, much
sooner, particularly when it would have allowed us--for
example, the 23 letters I sent to other agencies--to begin
looking at perhaps the effects of so much money being infused
into the government.
As you know, Earl Devaney and I work closely. We were
monitoring through the stimulus funding a plethora of possible
areas in which so much money could, in fact, be misspent. And
former IG Devaney, Chairman Devaney, and this committee worked
constantly on this, along with the Vice President. So while we
were doing all of that, this would have been helpful. That is
the only criticism.
I am going to close here with Mr. Robertson. You were
previously liaison to, essentially, the White House. And I know
the word ``administration'' versus ``White House'' versus
``President'' gets used loosely. So let's just take the largest
question.
In your role as, in fact, the communicator, not
representing the Administrator, but representing White House
liaison, that role in which your job was to communicate to have
no surprises, nothing unknown to the people of the White House,
both political and nonpolitical, wouldn't you ordinarily have
reported something like this in that role?
Mr. Robertson. The role of the White House liaison is to
on-board appointees into different offices in the executive
branch agencies and departments.
Chairman Issa. No, but here is the whole point. When you
worked for Senator Obama, I am sure your Chief of Staff told
you, ``No surprises for the Senator,'' right?
Mr. Robertson. I don't remember having that conversation in
the Senate.
Chairman Issa. So you would have kept something like this
that could embarrass the President, you would have kept it a
secret when he was your boss as a Senator? Or would you have
told the Chief of Staff that?
Mr. Robertson. I don't know how to answer a hypothetical
question.
Chairman Issa. Well, this is not all that hypothetical. All
of us on the dais, in fact, you know, we have the same
situation that Senator Obama has. So this is not something that
is unusual. When you work for a Member of Congress, it is
almost a given that the one thing you don't do is let somebody
be surprised with a scandal that occurs under their watch.
Now, I am going to ask you because you still have your job,
you are still a political appointee at the highest level--and,
as Ms. Johnson says, you are probably making less than the
$179,000 that Mr. Neely is still making today. So I ask you
again, during the time that you were White House liaison,
wouldn't there be an expectation that you would inform people
at the White House?
Mr. Robertson. During my time as White House liaison, I
executed the duties assigned to me by my boss, the Acting
Administrator, at the time.
Chairman Issa. So the word ``liaison'' doesn't mean
anything?
Mr. Robertson. It means that the primary duty of the White
House liaison is to on-board appointees into the executive
branch agencies and departments.
Chairman Issa. So you are telling me that the Obama
administration doesn't use White House liaisons to communicate
back and forth to keep the White House staff informed about
things that may--a heads-up that may be significant?
Mr. Robertson. My role as White House liaison was to on-
board the appointees into the executive branch agencies, my
branch agency.
Chairman Issa. Okay. When did you first become aware of
this scandal?
Mr. Robertson. I had secondhand knowledge in May following
the briefing that the IG gave to the Administrator. It was
mentioned to me that this was an ongoing investigation that
existed.
Chairman Issa. Since May of last year, more than a year, or
approximately a year, have you talked to anyone in the
administration outside of GSA that may have communicated it to
anyone inside the White House or related areas?
Mr. Robertson. Do you mind repeating the question? I am
not----
Chairman Issa. It is a fairly broad question. Did you--once
you knew of this terrible scandal, this waste, did you talk to
any of your friends, associates, or other people employed
either by the Office of the President or related areas within
the administration? Did you communicate this to any of your,
sort of, friends and family?
Mr. Robertson. I communicated to the appropriate people.
Chairman Issa. Who are they?
Mr. Robertson. Who are the appropriate people? In my
ongoing work as Chief of Staff to the Administrator inside GSA,
I occasionally and sometimes on a regular basis communicate to
the White House about the policy priorities inside GSA as well
as any issues within the agency that might impact
administration priorities.
Chairman Issa. To the best of your recollection, when did
you first report this scandal to those people?
Mr. Robertson. To the best my recollection, the first
mention I made of the ongoing investigation by Brian, which I
was not assigned--it is important to note that the
Administrator directly assigned the Deputy Administrator and
the senior counselor to both the relationship with the IG as
well as the specific investigation.
And after becoming aware of the existence of the
investigation, I mentioned it to a White House staffer that I
worked with on a regular basis, among, you know, other things
that I communicated to them about what was going on inside GSA.
Chairman Issa. That was a pretty good answer, but the word
``when'' was in my question.
Mr. Robertson. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. That was sometime
shortly after the May 2011 time frame when I became aware that
the IG had briefed Administrator Johnson.
Chairman Issa. Okay. So you hear about it in May; you
report it promptly to a staff person within the White House.
Mr. Robertson. I would say it was sometime after May, in
the next several weeks that----
Chairman Issa. Within a few weeks.
Mr. Robertson. Yes.
Chairman Issa. Who was that staff person?
Mr. Robertson. It was a member of the White House Counsel's
Office that I work with on a regular basis as far as GSA issues
go.
Chairman Issa. I said ``who.''
Mr. Robertson. It was a lawyer in the White House Counsel's
Office.
Chairman Issa. What is the name?
Mr. Robertson. Her name was Kim Harris.
Chairman Issa. Kim Harris?
Mr. Robertson. Yes, sir.
Chairman Issa. Okay. Thank you very much.
I don't want to take this panel longer because we do have
another panel. I appreciate the ranking member's indulgence of
longer than would ordinarily be prudent. And I recognize the
ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Johnson, you know, I am sitting here, and I have been
just listening and watching, and I was trying to figure out
some issues. First of all, I know that you are an honorable
woman. I know that. And I know that you have a reputation for
excellence.
And I just want to go back to when you resigned. Tell us
why you resigned.
You know, and let me say where I am going. This is not a
trick question. You know, a lot of times when something
happens, and although a person at the top does not necessarily
feel that it was their fault, they know that they were in
charge. Sometimes you will hear a President say, ``It was under
my watch, I take full responsibility,'' of whatever. On the
other hand, I guess some of them may feel that they actually
could have done something different, in other words, to avoid
certain things from happening, or that they did something to
cause these things to happen.
And I am just wondering, why did you resign? Do you follow
my question?
Ms. Johnson. Congressman--yes. I resigned because I wanted
to step aside so that GSA could have some new leadership going
forward. Frankly, the nature of that conference, the
coarseness, the videotapes, the kind of impact that it was
having deeply disturbed me. And I wanted to, as much as I
could, reassure the American people that somebody was taking it
quite seriously, and through my resignation, could send the
message that this is unacceptable, it is appalling, and it is
not the norm.
Mr. Cummings. As I listened to the way you came in and the
delay in your confirmation and when you came in and what you
came into, you know, and then I watch you, and you said
something that you probably don't even realize you said. As a
matter of fact, you said it twice, and not necessarily in
response to a question; you just volunteered this. I think it
may have been the chairman that was asking you. But a comment
was made about the salaries of certain employees, and you said,
``Yeah, they make more than the Administrator.'' You said it
twice.
Ms. Johnson. Oh, I did?
Mr. Cummings. Yes, you did. I saw you. And you seemed like
you were very, kind of, upset about that.
And let me tell you where I am going with this. It seems
like there are some things going on at GSA--and God knows I
hope they are not going on in these other agencies--that are
out of control. In other words, the Administrator comes in and
there are some things that have been going on. And, you know, I
look at what have we read about what Mr. Neely has been accused
of doing, and I don't necessarily want to get into all that.
But I am just wondering, are there things that you felt you had
no control over?
And the reason why this is so significant is because I
believe the chairman is concerned, as I am, about getting to
the reform that is necessary to get to, but it seems as if--it
is almost like the Administrator is here, and there is
something happening down there, and it is all--I mean, when I
read the facts of what went on here--you know, a fund that, you
know, you can almost pull out a million dollars to hold a
conference for. People can talk about this money as if it is
their money. The chairman made a good point of that, and
others. You know, and they can use it for whatever they want.
I just--I mean, are we--has government become--I mean, do
we need a different--some kind of different kinds of controls
here?
And you might want to chime in here, Mr. Miller, too.
Because, I mean, if we are going to get to the bottom of this--
I mean, we can go through these hearings and accuse one
administration of doing it and another administration of doing
it and all that kind of stuff, but if we don't get to exactly
controlling what is going on there, we will never solve this
problem. And so then 10 years from now there will be a new set
of people sitting up here, and they won't be talking about a
$900,000 event, they will be talking about a $2 million event.
So I am just--I mean, help us, help us. I mean, you have
written this wonderful report, Mr. Miller.
And, Ms. Johnson, am I reading you right, that you--and you
seem like you--I have watched your expression. It is like, you
know, really--and this is what it seems like you are saying.
You don't have to tell me, but it seems like you are saying,
this really pisses me off, not that you have to be here, but
that you have these people who did these stupid things, did
these greedy things, and I am just pissed, but I was not in a
position to control it.
And I am not trying to excuse you; I am just trying to get
to the bottom of this.
Ms. Johnson. I appreciate that. I appreciate that,
Congressman.
And I think that--I alluded to what I do think is one of
the issues that I would certainly welcome attention to, and
that is to be sure that there is leadership in place in these
organizations and that they aren't left in interim status too
long. I think that is very hard. It is a very large,
complicated organization. It takes time for a person even
coming in to learn the organization. I was lucky, I already
knew a fair amount about it. But I think that the leadership
aspect is a pretty important part of this story.
Secondly, I think that with any large organization you do
need good management oversight. I had acted as an executive
would, and I tasked various people with oversight, and there
was a clear breakdown in the organization around that. Where I
trusted, I needed to confront the fact that I had trusted and
it yielded this. And I resigned as a result.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Miller, did you have a comment on it?
Mr. Miller. Well, I have discussed some of these issues
with Acting Administrator Tangherlini, and I know he is going
to address you in a few minutes.
I applaud him in taking stronger action to strengthen
central office control over budgets of the regions. One reason
they could spend this money was that their budgets weren't
being--they didn't have accountability for their budgets. And
so they could move money from the operations fund into a
conference and use purchase cards and that sort of thing. And I
believe Mr. Tangherlini will tell you that the CFO now will be
able to see those transactions.
There was a--I guess the regions had a lot of power and
autonomy. And I know that Mr. Tangherlini is taking steps to
have the Deputy Administrator take more active control and
management of the regions.
But I don't want to steal his thunder, so I will let----
Mr. Cummings. No, you don't have to steal his thunder, but
let me just say this. I agree with the chairman that--I know
there may be all kinds of reasons for not giving us some kind
of heads-up. But, you know, sometimes--who was the fellow in
charge of making sure he oversaw the money? You mentioned his
name.
Chairman Issa. Earl Devaney.
Mr. Cummings. Devaney. Earl Devaney said something that I
will never forget. You know, he said he tried to operate in a
way where the rules didn't get violated. In other words, he
tried to be in front of the train instead of, you know, waiting
for things to happen.
And so I just kind of--it's just helpful for us, I mean,
that--I mean, we would love to have had all the information on
this one so that we could have possibly done some things, I
mean, brought some people in and just actually sat around the
table and say, look, how do we make sure this doesn't happen,
instead of letting it happen and then going--and we probably
could have saved some people--first of all, could have saved
some money, but we also may have been able to save some
embarrassment.
The last thing I want to say is this, Mr. Chairman, as I
close, and this will only take a second. You know, a lot of
times, groups--and I am saying this to our GSA employees and to
other employees that may be watching this. A lot of times,
groups are judged by their weakest link. And it is so sad
because then people look at what a few people do in that group
and they judge the whole group.
And I just want to say that, you know, we have a lot of
great Federal employees, and you know it, that are doing a hell
of a job. And I just don't want them to be tarnished by this. I
just want the public to understand that there are people, like
I said in my opening, that, you know, they collect money for
the coffee so that they are spending their own coffee money,
you know? And they do all those little things coming out of
their own pocket. Some of them--many of them, of course, as you
know, have taken--you know, they can't get a pay raise for 2
years and whatever and gone on furloughs, all kinds of stuff.
And so, anyway, I just don't want the public to judge our
Federal employees by these weak links.
And I want to thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
As we close this panel, I would like to let Mr. Robertson
and Mr. Miller know that we will likely be back in this setting
more times as we get through the reform part of this.
Ms. Johnson, we are unlikely to ask you back in the same
setting. Your experience at Computer Sciences Corporation, your
experience here--we may ask if you would voluntarily help us as
we begin to sort out some of the frustrations you saw between
political appointees, who in fact you might have a hard time
recruiting the kinds of people that need to oversee SES and
other very senior individuals in the bureaucracy, and of course
some of your frustrations that may exist as to what it takes to
eliminate a member of civil service even after egregious
behavior.
Ms. Johnson. I would be happy to be of any support I can
be.
Chairman Issa. And we will make sure it is not at a cost of
needing a counsel here again.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. And, with that, we will take a short recess
before the second panel.
[Recess.]
Chairman Issa. The committee will now come to order.
Our second panel is the Acting Administrator of the General
Services Administration, Mr. Daniel M. Tangherlini.
Mr. Tangherlini was kind enough to call me almost
immediately after his appointment.
And we look forward to your opening statement and, in light
of the first panel and your listening to that, your comments on
changes you anticipate. And, with that, the gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tangherlini. Good afternoon, Chairman Issa----
Chairman Issa. I apologize. I have to stick with the
script. Pursuant to the rules, all witnesses will be sworn.
Would you please rise?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about
to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth?
Mr. Tangherlini. I do.
Chairman Issa. Let the record reflect the witness answered
in the affirmative.
The gentleman is recognized.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL M. TANGHERLINI

Mr. Tangherlini. Thank you. And good afternoon, Chairman
Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of the committee. My
name is Dan Tangherlini, and I am the Acting Administrator of
the U.S. General Services Administration. I appreciate the
opportunity to come before the committee today.
First and foremost, I want to state that the waste and
abuse outlined in the Inspector General's report is an outrage
and completely antithetical to the goals of the administration.
The report details violations of travel rules, acquisition
rules, and good conduct. Just as importantly, those responsible
violated rules of common sense, the spirit of public service,
and the trust that the American taxpayers have placed in us.
I speak for the overwhelming majority of GSA staff when I
say that we are as shocked, appalled, and deeply disappointed
by these indefensible actions as you are. We have taken strong
action against those officials who are responsible and will
continue to do so where appropriate.
I intend to uphold the highest ethical standards at this
agency, including referring any criminal activity to
appropriate law enforcement officials and taking any action
that is necessary and appropriate. If we find irregularities, I
will immediately engage GSA's Inspector General. As indicated
in the joint letter that Inspector General Brian Miller and I
sent to all GSA staff, we expect an employee who sees waste,
fraud, or abuse to report it.
We want to build a partnership with the IG, while
respecting their independence, that will ensure that nothing
like this ever happens again. There will be no tolerance for
employees who violate or in any way disregard these rules. I
believe this is critical, not only because we owe it to the
American taxpayers, but also because we owe it to the many GSA
employees who work hard, follow the rules, and deserve to be
proud of the agency for which they work.
We have also taken steps to improve internal controls and
oversight. Already I have cancelled all future Western Regions
Conferences. I have also cancelled 35 previously planned
conferences, saving nearly a million dollars in taxpayer
expenses. I have suspended the Hats Off stores and have already
demanded reimbursement from Mr. Peck, Mr. Shepard, and Mr.
Neely for private in-room parties. I have cancelled most travel
through the end of the fiscal year agency-wide. And I am
centralizing budget authority and have already centralized
procurement oversight for regional offices to make them more
directly accountable.
I look forward to working in partnership with this
committee to ensure that there is full accountability for these
activities so that we can begin to restore the trust of the
American people. I hope that in so doing GSA can refocus on its
core mission: saving taxpayers' money by efficiently procuring
supplies, services, and real estate and effectively disposing
of unneeded government property.
We believe that there has rarely been a time of greater
need for these services and the savings they bring to the
government and the taxpayer. There is a powerful value
proposition to a single agency dedicated to this work,
especially in these austere fiscal times. We need to ensure we
get back to basics and conduct this work better than ever.
At GSA, our commitment is to our public service, our duty,
and our Nation and not to conferences, awards, or parties. The
unacceptable, inappropriate, and possibly illegal activities at
the Western Regions Conference stand in direct contradiction to
the expressed goals of this agency and the administration. And
I am committed to ensuring that we take whatever steps are
necessary to hold responsible parties accountable and to make
sure that this never happens again. We need to focus this
agency on the basics, streamlining the administrative work of
the Federal Government to save taxpayers' money.
I look forward to working with the committee moving
forward, and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions
at this time.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. I will recognize myself, and I will start
with one question.
Do you know if the administration plans on putting you up
promptly to the Senate for confirmation?
Mr. Tangherlini. I have not talked to anyone about plans
beyond my time coming over as Acting Administrator.
Chairman Issa. Well, I appreciate that. I want to make sure
the record is clear that the earlier panel made it very clear
that a series of Acting Administrators was part of the lack of
continuity of control that in no small part led to, if you
will, Ms. Johnson receiving an agency that was already, to a
certain extent, in trouble. So hopefully at OMB and OPM and at
the White House that is all being heard, as we speak.
I appreciate the fact that for the record you embraced a
number of recommendations. But would you have exception to any
of the recommendations from the Inspector General, realizing
Ms. Johnson had already embraced all of the recommendations for
change?
Mr. Tangherlini. No. In fact, the Inspector General and I
met on the first day to talk about the report and to talk about
building a strong rapport going forward so that we wouldn't
have any such situations develop like this again.
Chairman Issa. The Inspector General made us aware in his
answers to our questions that there were ongoing
investigations, including ones that fall much more in the
nature of corruption, meaning kickbacks, perhaps bribes, and
the like.
Would you commit to us today to ensure that both the
chairman and ranking member be informed in sufficient
specificity to understand the gravity of events, if not
necessarily all the details of possible criminal indictments?
Mr. Tangherlini. To the extent that I can do that in
working with the Inspector General, I would be happy to work
with the committee on those issues.
Chairman Issa. We appreciate that. No small matter. My ego
can take not knowing about something. What I can't do is deny
the ranking member and myself the possibility of looking for
fundamental changes in yours and other agencies in a prompt
period of time, we think in 2-year increments or less, and
would like to make sure that we don't have 2 years go by
without that.
You were previously Senate-confirmed, so the expectation of
this committee is that, if you are promptly put up, you would
promptly be confirmed again. So hopefully that message is
delivered.
You have listened to the testimony of the previous panel,
including the frustrations of your predecessor, for more than 2
hours. Do you feel that you would be able to resolve the issues
that your predecessor was unable to resolve? And I would
particularly question, do you have confidence in the team you
now have in place, obviously sans the two that were dismissed?
Mr. Tangherlini. Well, I intend to conduct a top-to-bottom
review of the organization. As a new person coming in,
particularly in these circumstances, I have to have confidence
in the people I have, but I also have to have that confidence
demonstrated. I have to have a sense of how we have structured
the organization, how we have put our resources into play, and
make sure that that is in fact the way we think we should go
forward. Clearly, there were serious gaps, as evidenced by what
took place here.
Chairman Issa. Now, as you know, you have a fairly large
amount of Schedule C political appointees that work for you,
just as you are a political appointee. When you were appointed
Acting, were you given the full ability to clean house, to
determine political appointees you would keep and those that
you would ask to be replaced?
Mr. Tangherlini. I believe when I was appointed Acting I
was given full latitude to make managerial decisions over the
General Services Administration.
Chairman Issa. I appreciate that, but my question was a
little more nuanced. The President has placed a number of
political appointees, from your Chief of Staff on down. Were
you given the ability, or do you believe you have the ability,
to retain or to dismiss any or all of those individuals you
find not to meet the standards necessary going forward for what
you envision to be a predictable GSA that is cleaned up and
that this sort of thing never happens again?
Mr. Tangherlini. At the time, I never had a discussion
specifically about that. But I did ask if I was going to have
full authority to make recommendations on how we should
structure the agency going forward, and that I was given
assurance I would.
Chairman Issa. Your predecessor showed a considerable
frustration to both the chairman and the ranking member
seemingly in two areas: the SESs that were paid a lot of money
and, in fact, may not have performed well and even, in the case
of Mr. Neely, are still being paid by the taxpayers; and the
political appointees who made significantly less than those
individuals. Do you share that frustration?
Mr. Tangherlini. I, again, need to understand the reason
why we have the GSA structure that we do. And in the sense that
I heard the description from my predecessor, I understand the
nature of her frustration. But I would like to know why we have
the structure we have and see if there are ways that we can
make it better.
Chairman Issa. Has the GSA been successful in recovering
any money so far from individuals who received benefits that
were not warranted, either the individuals who made the
decisions to spend the money or those who accepted them?
Mr. Tangherlini. We began that process late last week, so I
don't think we have received any money back at this time.
Chairman Issa. How much are you hoping to receive back for
the taxpayers?
Mr. Tangherlini. Right now we have the case of the three
individuals we have sought reimbursement for the private in-
room parties. We also have the contractor that charged us for
hotel rooms when they were actually getting hotel rooms from
GSA.
I want to work very closely with Brian Miller and go
through the entire bill of particulars and see how much of that
we can get back.
Chairman Issa. Our indication is that approximately
$100,000 was spent. You know, this is an egregious amount, but
when you break it down, one of the most egregious portions were
the 10 fam trips, the 10 trips that included other luxury
hotels on the Strip and so on that were visited by both
individuals and their families. Will you seek to get any part
of that money back from the individuals who had their vacations
with their family paid for by the taxpayers?
Mr. Tangherlini. I will work closely with Inspector General
Miller to make sure that, to the extent that any funds are
recoverable, we will recover them.
Chairman Issa. Would you commit to us if you find that you
cannot recover because statute doesn't allow for it to inform
us? Because ultimately one of the reforms that I believe the
chairman, in my role, and the ranking member and all of us on
the committee want to do is make sure you are empowered when
people receive something they are not entitled to to make sure
the statute allows it to be clawed back.
Mr. Tangherlini. I will commit to working with the
committee and sharing with you where I have succeeded and where
I have had less success.
Chairman Issa. Lastly, you are inheriting an organization
that had other problems. Some of the Members that were here
earlier have worked on it. I know the ranking member in his
role over at Transportation and Infrastructure, Ms. Norton in
her role over there, have been frustrated for a very long time
that there is a huge amount of waste within the management and
disposal of Federal property. That is not the subject of this
hearing, but it will continue to be the subject of both
individual and joint hearings by T&I and this committee. So I
would hope you would be prepared as quickly as possible to
address those issues, because they are going to be of billion-
dollar concerns to us.
Lastly, so far, we have been able to get from the Inspector
General a pretty good production of documents. He has been very
cooperative. Would you also commit to make sure that we get
documents, preferably in electronic format, and organized
pursuant to our request?
Mr. Tangherlini. I think, to date, we have provided nearly
50,000 documents to the committee. We had a--the initial
request came in just about this time last week, so we have been
working day and night and through the weekend to try to provide
the committee with all the documents we can.
Chairman Issa. Well, as I turn it over to the ranking
member, I would like this to be an example of how it doesn't
take months or a year to get document production. So far, the
work from the GSA has been excellent. And that was the reason
for the question but also for a comment, that it has been good
so far.
With that, I recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that we can bring Mr.
Tangherlini back, and Mr. Miller, for some periodic checkups as
to where they are with regard to what they are doing, because I
just don't want to--I want us to make sure we stay on top of
this.
Chairman Issa. Oh, I have no doubt we will have several
hearings of this sort going forward on a joint basis.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tangherlini, you shared your plan to review the
previous conferences as well as the controversial Hats Off
Program that awarded electronic cameras and iPods to GSA
employees. The Hats Off Program has been suspended pending your
review. I understand that you also closed all other award
programs; is that correct?
Mr. Tangherlini. All other similar award programs in which
points were given to employees that they could then turn in for
prizes or awards.
Mr. Cummings. Uh-huh. And how did that start, do you know?
Mr. Tangherlini. I really don't know, and that is part of
what I am trying to understand. What I would like to do is look
at things like these award programs and ask ourselves, where
did they come from, what purpose did they serve, is there some
good underlying them, what contractual agreements do we have
with our employees related to them.
So we have suspended them. It is part of the top-to-bottom
review, to really get to the bottom of where it came from.
Mr. Cummings. And what will be done with the inventory
remaining in those award programs?
Mr. Tangherlini. Well, for the time being, I have asked
them to hold and suspend the inventory pending a decision on
whether we move forward on the program. If we move forward on
the program, it could be reused. If we don't, we have--we are
in charge of disposal of Federal property, so we would find a
way to dispose of it properly.
Mr. Cummings. And what type of awards programs, if any, do
you feel are appropriate, if any?
Mr. Tangherlini. Well, I think that that is one of the
things we have to look at, is ask ourselves is our bonus and
award program tied to the appropriate outcomes and the
appropriate types of performance. GSA is about saving, so we
should really find ways that we can re-emphasize savings within
the GSA mission.
Mr. Cummings. Now, you heard the testimony of the former
Administrator and the fact that I think just about all the
Members on the dais are very concerned about--and I think it
was probably one of the weak parts of her testimony--the whole
issue of the $9,000 bonus. And she explained the process by
which one thing was separate from another thing.
I mean, how do you deal with that? Because I think if there
is anything--I remember when we had AIG and all these companies
giving bonuses for bad behavior, I was very loud and sometimes
loud by myself, and very upset about it. I think when you have
bad actors, the last thing you want to do is to give them
bonuses. The public doesn't understand it.
And even if there is a two-track process--and that is the
impression that I got, there are two tracks here. Some kind of
way, we don't want--you know, as you go about the business of
trying to re-establish this trust, you don't want the public to
be confused about folks going out there and partying with their
money and at the same time getting a bonus. I mean, it is like
slapping them in the face.
So I am just wondering, what are your plans with regard to
that? Have you talked about it? Have you studied it? I mean, I
know it is early on, but tell me, I mean, is that something
that is GSA-wide, Federal Government-wide? I am just wondering.
Mr. Tangherlini. I had some of these responsibilities
overseeing the human capital operations at the Treasury
Department in my role as assistant secretary of management. And
I have to say that I have a slight disagreement. I believe that
the process actually gives the Administrator more authority.
And so one of the things we will need to do is make sure, as we
look at how we manage performance, that we should look at the
conversations we are having with the IG, and if there are any
issues out there, and maybe put these things on hold if there
are big questions out there.
Mr. Cummings. You know, I talked about reestablishing
trust, but it seems as if--you know, when I look at what
happened here, it seems as if there may have been rules that
were just totally disregarded. And that concerns me, because,
and particularly when you have got rules that are being
disregarded and not only being disregarded, but then you have
folks making videos about how they are disregarding them, which
is incredible to me, and basically saying, to hell with those
people who are supposed to be over the oversight. I mean, it
just seems like you got to dig deep to get into some of this. I
don't know if this is just some surface stuff. So I am just
trying to figure out, how do you get to that? Were you in here
for the Administrator's testimony?
Mr. Tangherlini. Yes, I saw the testimony.
Mr. Cummings. All right. And did you hear my last question,
sir, with regard to it seems as if the Administrator is here,
but then there is all this stuff going on that seems to have a
disconnect. And so tell me about that. Talk to me.
Mr. Tangherlini. So what I found in just the short time I
have been there, and it has only been about 2 weeks now, that
it seems obvious to me that there is a disconnect between the
headquarters and the regional operations. And to some extent,
we need to build a stronger connection at a separation of
duties level. So the chief financial officer, I have asked that
the chief financial officer of the GSA serve as the chief
financial officer straight down into the regions so that we
have visibility into the way the regions are designing their
budgets, and more importantly, spending their budgets. And I
think that that is one of the things, as we conduct a top-to-
bottom review of GSA, we can ask ourselves some questions; why
are we structured this way? Is this the best way to provide
accountability and oversight? And if not, we should change it.
Mr. Cummings. I really wish you well as you go forward. And
I, too, agree with the chairman that we have seen what the
failure to have somebody in that position permanently can do.
And we need to do that. And I am hoping that the President will
nominate you or somebody capable of addressing these issues,
and then the Senate will move on the confirmation as soon as
possible.
Thank you very much. And if there is anything that we can
do to be supportive of your efforts, please don't fail to call
on us.
Mr. Tangherlini. I appreciate that.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. [presiding.] Thank the gentleman from Maryland.
The chair would now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Farenthold.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we saw earlier in the day the GSA mission statement.
Are you looking at revising that, or are you thinking we are
all right with what it is?
Mr. Tangherlini. I think as part of a top-to-bottom review,
we should start with the mission statement and the goals. I
haven't been there long enough to say whether this is the exact
right one or the exact wrong one. It seems to hit many of the
key points of savings and efficiency, economy, effectiveness.
So I want to make sure that even if we were to change it, that
we wouldn't lose those important parts.
Mr. Farenthold. Right. And it would be your belief that in
general, it is the GSA's job to get the best deal for the
government and efficiently manage what the government has. Just
broad general terms.
Mr. Tangherlini. Absolutely.
Mr. Farenthold. And part of that would be taking care of
tax dollars as if they were your own or, more so, almost as if
they were being held in trust.
Mr. Tangherlini. Absolutely.
Mr. Farenthold. Great. Now, the title of this hearing was,
do we have a culture problem within the GSA or within the
broader government? And I have to say I have worked with a lot
of great government employees; I have worked with some that
aren't so great. Do you think this is a cultural problem, or do
you think this is more of a cancer?
Mr. Tangherlini. Well, I think we definitely had a cultural
problem in Region 9, probably tied to a leadership problem. But
I can't say that I know enough about GSA to say whether we do
or do not have a cultural problem across the organization when
it comes to these issues.
I will point out, though, I have received dozens and dozens
of email mails from GSA employees who are every bit as
outraged, every bit as angry about what took place here.
Mr. Farenthold. It is my hope that this is a cancer, and we
are going to be able to excise it from wherever it exists, be
it in the GSA or any other government agency. And I think this
committee has already started investigating the spending habits
of some government agencies.
I did want to touch on one other point. With regard to the
acquisition of services, in his report, the IG identified a
number of problems. In fact, this isn't the first report by Mr.
Miller that has raised concern about the GSA acquisition
officers disclosing competitor pricing or the maximum price.
And GSA officials have failed to abide by small business set-
asides, failed to properly publish offerings, and omitted
important Federal Acquisition Regulations clauses which protect
the government. Do you think this is intentional misconduct, or
do you think this is just ignorance or poor training?
Mr. Tangherlini. I am not sure what it was in this case,
but I can tell you that I think it is unacceptable. And I can
tell you I think the GSA should be held to a higher standard.
We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
And one of the actions I have taken most recently is to
centralize in our senior procurement official, our senior
procurement executive, the ability to grant or withdraw
warrants. Warrants are the ability to actually make procurement
actions. So I think we have to take a good strong look at how
we do things, how we set ourselves up, what our standards are,
what our performance is. How do we create structures of
accountability? And hopefully, we can make the improvements to
make sure that nothing like this can happen again.
Mr. Farenthold. And Members of Congress have district
offices where they hear complaints and problems from
constituents. And just in the past few months, there have been
an alarming number of folks who have complained about the
government contracting process, not just with the GSA but other
agencies. And you ought to be able to walk away feeling like
you were treated fairly by the government. As a former small
business owner, I know it takes a lot of time and, in many
cases, thousands of dollars to prepare a proposal, especially
for a government agency. And to have your bid disclosed to a
competitor, or to have your bid, when it was the lowest, passed
over is very frustrating to people, and ends up, especially in
the case of smaller businesses, you just throw up your hands.
You don't have the money to go hire a government contracting
attorney. You just walk away and say I am done with the
government. And you end up with good people who could offer
products and services at a better cost just refusing to go
through the red tape.
So I look forward to the GSA making that a priority to
educate not just their own contracting officers but the other
government agencies that the GSA trains through the Federal
Acquisition Institute. And I would appreciate your commitment
to make that part of your agenda.
Mr. Tangherlini. I appreciate that. And I think you are
right, that government contracting isn't always easy, but it
should be fair.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The chair thanks the gentleman from Texas, and
now recognizes the gentlelady from the District of Columbia,
Ms. Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tangherlini, I must say that I welcome the President's
decision to bring you to the GSA, because I am very familiar
with your own record as, if you will forgive me, something of a
turnaround agent in government because of the tough posts you
have had. First, the President simply takes out the top of the
agency, including the Administrator, who may not have been
conversant with what was happening below, and he had to do
that. That is the way things like this are done in
parliamentary democracies, like Britain and Asia. But in our
country, somehow we go beneath the top and go after someone who
has hands on as if the top has nothing to do with how the
agency is run.
So I think that your experience running, you were the
operational head of the District of Columbia, running the
operations of a big city and, for that matter, of the
Metropolitan Transit Authority more than equips you to take on
what needs to be done here. And you heard perhaps the
Administrator speak about how she felt the agency was in need
of reforming. I can't imagine that you don't think so as well.
It may be that you can continue what she began, and it may be
that you have a different vision.
But let me give you a specific example, because it really
involves a chain of command. There was a question asked by one
of our colleagues on the other side that I thought was very
good, which is how did Mr. Neely get ahold of this pot of money
in the first place? It looked like he regarded as his own. And
actually it wasn't ever answered, at least to my satisfaction.
It looks like Mr. Neely was in charge of Mr. Neely.
Let me ask you about how decentralized this agency is, and
whether it is decentralized to a fault. There is one theory of
management, which is I think a very efficacious one, that goes
that if you delegate to managers hands-on responsibility, you
can hold them accountable and they become more creative. When
you get a situation like this, one has to ask about whether or
not the agency has any chain of command, whether if, for
important issues like spending, the Administrator at the top
and the Chief of Staff can sit here and say, well, I don't know
anything about it, one wonders whether this agency is simply
run at the regional level with Washington having no
responsibility for holding the regions accountable. So I would
like you to discuss what you think of the chain of command now,
if you think it is too decentralized, if you think its
operations and its budget--I think you said something about the
CFO--but whether in general, this agency has simply allowed
itself to be run as if there were--what is it--11 regions
running one agency.
Mr. Tangherlini. I think autonomy is incredibly important
if you are going to allow managers to innovate. But autonomy
without accountability can lead to the kind of situations we
find here. And what we are interested in----
Ms. Norton. For example, did Mr. Neely report to anyone on
spending, or was he the final check on spending, including his
own spending?
Mr. Tangherlini. I don't exactly understand the nature of
the reporting structure that Mr. Neely was operating under at
the time. I can tell you my concern is that the financial
management office of the Public Buildings Service was
autonomous from the chief financial officer; that each of the
different authorities, each of the different regions had
authority over their own budget within the region, and so they
had autonomy over the administration of those budgets. We even
found, in trying to get the records, that it is very hard to
get the records from the regions of the actual spending.
So, early on, we think the quickest thing we can do to make
sure that we have a stronger sense of accountability to avoid
this kind of problem from happening again in the near term and
going forward is to centralize the authority over the financial
management of the agency within the agency chief financial
officer and make each one of those service and regional
financial managers report up to the chief financial officer. We
are now going to have to build the appropriate data systems,
the data collection systems. We are going to have to build the
appropriate budget oversight. But that appeared to be missing.
Ms. Norton. I want to ask you a question about this Hats
Off. GSA procures for Federal agencies, doesn't it? If you want
to order something, you order it through the GSA. Can it be
that through this program, where they awarded electronic
cameras and iPods and the like, got out of hand because GSA ran
the procurement of these electronic devices, and with little
oversight from the top, simply regarded these stores as
something that grew on its own as something that they could use
to award to their own employees? In other words, I am looking
for the link between their own procurement authority and using
that authority within the agency for its own employees in a way
that I have never seen done in Federal agencies elsewhere.
Mr. Tangherlini. So from what I understand, and this is
from the IG report, Mr. Miller's report on the Hats Off
program, that that was focused with the electronic equipment,
the GPS's, was focused around Region 9 and just Region 9.
Ms. Norton. Yeah, I am talking about Region 9.
Mr. Tangherlini. Right. The broader program operated
throughout the agency.
From what I also understand, what was going on in Region 9
was that they were violating simply the, if not the procurement
rules, they were violating the personnel rules and the limit
you could give for any one special act-type award in that
regard. So I think that the rules actually are in place. What
we had was a case of people simply ignoring them.
Ms. Norton. I just wonder if you are going to give out
valuable, much-wanted things like iPods and other electronic
equipment, it seems to me there ought to be--somebody ought to
have done something pretty wonderful in the agency.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady from the District of
Columbia.
The chair would now recognize himself for questioning.
Mr. Tangherlini, you have a Herculean task ahead of you,
which is to restore public trust not just in GSA; most folks
don't compartmentalize government that way. They just don't
have any trust or confidence in really any of the institutions
of government, including those of us sitting on this dais.
So it is a big challenge, but it is a fundamental
challenge. You have to do it. And far be it from me to tell you
how to do your job. I never ran anything the size of GSA. But I
can tell you this, in a little D.A.'s office in Spartanburg
County, when we had budget cuts, we suspended all travel. And I
would encourage you to do something, not just at the margins,
but something to send a message that if it can be done via
telephone, it must be done via telephone. If it can be done by
video conferencing--I understand, I guess, at some level team
building. I am not saying I have never been part of a team
building exercise. I am sure I have. I don't remember enjoying
it. But I remember--I have been to different conferences where
they did it. But these are really austere times. And for folks
watching, who really are struggling, it is hard for them to
understand what they have heard today or what they have read
about this conference. And let me ask you this starting off. If
one of the folks we are working for, one of our fellow citizens
or a government employee is aware of waste, fraud, abuse,
personal gain, is there a repository? They don't have access to
the Inspector General. How would just an ordinary citizen or an
ordinary government employee that sees waste, fraud, and abuse
and wants to correct it, to whom would they report it?
Mr. Tangherlini. I know this committee has a Web site on
which they can report these things. But actually, a private
citizen can report waste, fraud, and abuse that they think is
related to GSA to the GSA IG by going to www.GSAIG.gov. We also
have fraudnet@GSAIG.gov. And that is an email address people
can use. And the GSA IG has a phone number, (800) 424-5210. And
we encourage anyone who sees anything that they think is
untoward about GSA activity to reach out to the IG.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, thank you for that.
And you know, Mr. Cummings raised a pretty provocative
point, I thought, which is--and so did Mr. Farenthold--where is
the line between nuances that need more training and just a
character deficiency? Because honestly, some of what happened
in this conference, there is no training in the world that is
going to fix that. It is just a character flaw. So from a
hiring standpoint or a retention standpoint, if you are having
to train someone that they can't go to a hotel employee and ask
for a discount on a personal purse or pocketbook, it just
strikes me that there is no training in the world that is going
to fix that. So there has to be a moral component to it. How do
you address that from your position?
Mr. Tangherlini. I think it starts at--it is a leadership
requirement. And it means that you have to have strong messages
coming from the top. And that is why in the first week, meeting
with the Inspector General, we agreed to send a joint letter to
all GSA staff and tell everyone that we have an expectation
that they will raise alarm or concern if they see something
they think is untoward.
GSA employees are the most skilled employees for
understanding the travel rules, the procurement rules, the
acquisition rules. So they should be the ones who are the
easiest ones to recognize when something is wrong. And so I
think we have to start with strong leadership, and then we have
to make sure that our leaders are actually sending the leaders
in the regions, the leaders throughout the organization are
also sending a similar message.
But we also have to encourage employees to come forward and
say it is okay to come forward if you see something wrong,
because that is the way we can catch these things before they
spin out of control and happen the way this one did.
Mr. Gowdy. I have time for one more specific question, so I
will end it on this. Most folks reading about this, watching it
on the news, are struggling with whether or not they are going
to be able to go on vacation this summer. The thought of going
on a scouting trip to figure out whether or not they like the
condo or the beach house or the amusement park has never
entered their mind. Was this a question of people exceeding
their jurisdiction, their subject matter jurisdiction, if you
will, from a legal standpoint, or was it an abuse of
discretion? I mean, is there really the power to say I need to
go four or five times to scout a series of four-star hotels? So
is it totally outside their jurisdiction, or was it just an
abuse of discretion? Because most of us were surprised to learn
that you would have the authority to abuse, to have multiple
scouting trips when everything is available, I mean virtual
online tours, word of mouth. Which is it? Is it a discretion
issue or a power issue?
Mr. Tangherlini. I may not be the best person to answer
that question.
I can tell you what we have done. And what we have done is
centralize our travel and conference approval process in our
chief administrative officer's office. Now, we don't think we
are going to get in the way of anyone doing important and
valuable travel and training by simply asking that they come to
the front office; they come to the GSA headquarters and make a
case for what it is exactly they are doing. And then,
hopefully, if this kind of thing begins to happen, we can see a
pattern, and we can stop it before it goes any further.
Frankly, I think that people know when they are being watched
and that they have to make a case and they have to document it,
that that will in part stop this behavior.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, my time is up. On behalf of all of us,
thank you for your testimony today. We honestly, earnestly wish
you well. I don't know you. Not because I personally want you
to do well, but for us to make it as a Republic, you have to do
well. We have to do well. We can't survive with people not
having confidence in the institutions of government. We just
won't make it.
So on behalf of all of us, thank you and good luck.
Mr. Tangherlini. Thank you.
Mr. Gowdy. With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5709.046