[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IS EPA LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING ITS OWN INSPECTOR GENERAL?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 7, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-124
__________
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
89-593 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
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, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DOC HASTINGS, Washington ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan Vacancy
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 7, 2014...................................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 8
Mr. Allan Williams, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 19
Ms. Elisabeth Heller Drake, Special Agent, Office of
Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 26
The Hon. Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 35
APPENDIX
Opening Statement of Rep. Elijah Cummings........................ 78
Portions of The Inspector General Act of 1978, submitted by
Chairman Issa.................................................. 80
Oct. 28, 2013 letter from Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, to
the EPA IG, submitted by Rep. Chaffetz......................... 83
Statement for the record by Rep. McHenry......................... 84
IS EPA LEADERSHIP OBSTRUCTING ITS OWN INSPECTOR GENERAL?
----------
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Turner, Duncan,
Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, Amash, Gosar, Woodall, Meadows,
Bentivolio, DeSantis, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Tierney,
Connolly, Cardenas, Lujan Grisham, and Kelly.
Staff Present: Molly Boyl, Majority Deputy General Counsel
and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Majority Staff
Director; Joseph A. Brazauskas, Majority Counsel; David Brewer,
Majority Senior Counsel; Caitlin Carroll, Majority Press
Secretary; Sharon Casey, Majority Senior Assistant Clerk; Drew
Colliatie, Majority Professional Staff Member; John Cuaderes,
Majority Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Majority
Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda
Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Majority Senior
Professional Staff Member; Ryan M. Hambleton, Majority Senior
Professional Staff Member; Christopher Hixon, Majority Chief
Counsel for Oversight; Michael R. Kiko, Majority Legislative
Assistant; Mark D. Marin, Majority Deputy Staff Director for
Oversight; Matt Mulder, Majority Counsel; Jeffrey Post,
Majority Senior Professional Staff Member; Andrew Rezendes,
Majority Counsel; Katy Rother, Majority Counsel; Laura L. Rush,
Majority Deputy Chief Clerk; Jessica Seale, Majority Digital
Director; Andrew Sult, Majority Press; Peter Warren, Majority
Legislative Policy Director; Rebecca Watkins, Majority
Communications Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of
Administration; Lena Chang, Minority Counsel; Devon Hill,
Minority Research Assistant; Julia Krieger, Minority New Media
Press Secretary; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of Operations;
Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of Legislation; and Katie
Teleky, Minority Staff Assistant.
Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any time.
The Oversight Committee exists 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 our inspectors general and citizen watchdogs to deliver
the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to
the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission, this is our
calling, and this is my passion.
Today's hearing is about restoring the American people's
trust in an agency that has developed a well-earned reputation
for waste and mismanagement of taxpayers' funds.
The Environmental Protection Agency is one of the most
powerful and far-reaching agencies, but it has offered too
little accountability for how its employees are using their
time, taxpayers' money, and, in fact, often abusing the
American people by extending and expanding their jurisdiction.
We are not here today to talk about the overreach of
policies of the EPA. Inventing from thin air regulations that
don't exist, proactively abusing citizens trying to create
wealth in this Country through mining, manufacturing, and
agriculture. If only we could.
Today we are here because there is a terrifying truth at
the EPA, which is responsible for regulations governing such a
large percentage of our economy. The fact that it lacks
internal controls to prevent even the most basic fraud and
abuse. For example, in October the committee held a hearing
about fraud perpetrated by John Beale, a senior level EPA
employee who worked directly for the now Administrator Gina
McCarthy. Beale is claimed to have masqueraded as a CIA
employee in order to steal time, money, and travel, and even a
handicapped parking space from the Federal Government. The
disguise would have been uncovered by anyone who was looking
for someone abusing the trust of the American people.
Beale's scam went on far more than 10 years without anyone
at the EPA catching on. Even the bold-faced lies, the most
outrageous were not detected. Americans were so shocked that
even The Daily Show with Jon Stewart referred to Beale's scam
as a web. Stewart's questioned how Beale could fool so many
people at the EPA for so long, and I would too except for what
we are going to hear today, because today we are going to
understand that John Beale's behavior did not happen in a
vacuum. In fact, it was just the tip of EPA's fraudulent
iceberg.
This morning we will hear more stories from EPA that will
appall and bewilder the American people. It is hard to shock
the American people about waste, fraud, and abuse in
Government, but I believe we will achieve that today. For
example, one senior level EPA employee sold jewelry,
pocketbooks, and weight loss products out of her office. She
hired friends and even her own daughter, and paid for
internships and steered bonuses toward her own daughter, also
an EPA employee who she thinly veiled was coming from another
part not under her control, under the anti-nepotism law,
except, as you will hear today, the bonus came from her budget.
But instead of being reprimanded, she received the highly
prestigious Presidential Rank Award and $35,000 in special
bonus. A senior manager, this woman, this mother of a child who
was unlawfully and unreasonably hired and bonused by her own
mother, is still at the EPA and is an employee today.
Another woman began working from home 20 years ago because
of her multiple sclerosis. But she stopped producing any
product more than five years ago. She didn't even access her
emails. But her supervisors fraudulently kept signing off on
her time cards, so she kept getting paid. Over the past year,
she has been paid roughly $600,000. But that's not enough for
the EPA. She received a performance award during this time.
The EPA is an organization in which you can get a special
award for not working at all.
Our sympathies go out to someone suffering from an awful
disease. They should be taken care of, and the Government has
programs to do so. But fraudulently claiming the person is at
work and bonusing them is a crime, a crime that doesn't get
punished at all at the EPA, not by criminal prosecution and
certainly not by termination.
Then there is a GS-15 EPA employee who kept receiving
normal paychecks for one to two years after moving into a
retirement home. We are talking nursing home here, folks, not
one of those places where you golf every day. From the nursing
home, even though he did not work during any of that time, he
continued to receive pay; again, falsified documents. His
bosses knew it. When the IG began its investigation, his
supervisor simply placed him on sick leave. One crime followed
by another coverup.
Today we will also hear about Beth Craig. She is a Deputy
Assistant Administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation who
is still working at the EPA even though the IG found she
exercised a severe lack of due diligence by signing off, yes,
on CIA Agent Mr. Beale's travel.
Furthermore, John Beale's abuse of retention bonuses--and I
want everyone to understand retention bonuses are supposed to
be uniquely paid for somebody that has to be kept that would
otherwise retire--abuse of retention bonuses that he did not
deserve prompted the EPA IG to launch, as you might imagine, an
audit, which found John Beale was not the only offender. Over
the last eight years, EPA paid retention bonuses to 13
additional employees which totaled more than $660,000. In 11 of
the 13 cases, the EPA made unauthorized payments which cost
more than $481,000.
Additionally, in the wake of Mr. Beale's fraudulent travel,
EPA IG looked into passport controls at EPA for the use of
official passports. And, for the American people, these are
second passports; they are not the blue ones that Americans can
carry, these are ones that identify someone as official
Government employees on official duty and they are a different
color, they are red. The review found that out of 417 official
passports belonging to the EPA, 199 could not be located.
This is truly a broken agency. We know about these issues
because of the tenacity and the hard work of our inspector
general and his staff.
Today's hearing is even more important because EPA
leadership has engaged in an effort to keep the IG from doing
its job. The Office of Homeland Security, a small organization,
not the big Homeland Security, a small one within EPA, has been
obstructing the inspector general's work. In fact, one of our
witnesses today was verbally assaulted by an employee of the
Office of Homeland Security while simply trying to get him to
sign a perfunctory form.
Until the Office of Inspector General is allowed to do
their job to the extent authorized and mandated under the IG
Act, we will never know more about John Beale and cases like
that.
I didn't pull any punches today, but there is a lot more
material that could have been included. The EPA has a long
history that now has become intolerable to the American people.
As I said in the first part of my opening statement, the abuses
of the EPA that are policy driven are not the subject today,
although they are real. But the waste, fraud, and abuse, the
criminal conduct, and the fact that its senior management
obviously is part of that activity is now intolerable.
With that, I recognize the ranking member for his opening
statement.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The EPA Office of Inspector General has expressed serious
concerns that deserve serious attention by this committee so as
we might be effective and efficient. The IG asserts that
information he considers relevant to his mission is being
withheld by the EPA. The IG also believes that the EPA's Office
of Homeland Security is engaged in investigations that exceeds
its authority. Those disputes do happen. They even happen here
on Capitol Hill.
These concerns are symptoms of a jurisdictional dispute
caused by difference in interpretation of two statutes, the
Inspector General Act of 1978 and the Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995.
Under the Inspector General Act, the IG has broad authority
to investigate cases of employee misconduct. Yet, Federal
courts have ruled that this authority maybe limited in certain
cases involving national security. In addition, under the
Intelligence Authorization Act, and various presidential
executive orders and directives, the EPA has certain national
security responsibilities to refer cases to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
The dispute lies at the intersection of these two laws. The
two offices do not agree on what role the IG should play in
these cases or what obligations the EPA has to keep the IG
informed of actions relating to referrals made to the FBI.
Passions have run high during this dispute, and even resulted
in an altercation between special agents of the IG and the
staff of the Office of Homeland Security. That is most
unfortunate.
There are several ways to resolve this issue. One way is to
wait for a Federal court to decide the matter. Another way is
for Congress to enact new legislation. Both these options will
take a long time and cooperation between the EPA, the IG, and
the FBI will suffer in the meantime and the people will not be
properly served.
A better way is to find a practical solution that will
allow all parties to win. I believe this committee can do that
by helping them craft a plan that will clarify their roles and
responsibilities, require the most information sharing
possible, and ensure better cooperation going forward.
In preparation for today's hearing, I asked my staff to
work with all the parties to help find a solution. My staff
spent many hours discussing the issues with various
stakeholders, trying to find not only common ground, but higher
ground. Based on my staff's discussions with the parties, I
believe there are significant areas of agreement, and I would
like to confirm this progress here today, again, so that we
might be effective and efficient in what we are trying to do.
First, I believe all parties agree that the FBI, as the
lead agency for national security investigations, should be
directly involved in the discussion to resolve their concerns.
Second, if the FBI is not leading an investigation into
employee misconduct, it is properly the lead role of the IG,
and not the EPA's Office of Homeland Security. Third, the
Office of Homeland Security has an intelligence support
function to perform, including intelligence analysis. And,
fourth, better information sharing between the EPA and the IG
will help ensure that the de-confliction occurs, which will
protect investigations from being compromised or agents from
being endangered.
Those are areas of agreement that I think we have already
achieved. If you all can confirm those today, I believe we will
have a strong foundation for positive resolution. I was also
pleased to hear that yesterday senior leadership of the EPA and
the IG, as well as the FBI, scheduled a meeting next week to
work towards a resolution of this dispute. Again, this is an
effort to get it done, to resolve the issue. I believe that all
the parties involved here are hardworking Federal employees
that simply want to do their job in an effective and efficient
manner, and we should be about the business of trying to help
them do that.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
At this time I would ask unanimous consent that the
portions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 which state and
list the agencies that are allowed to have exemptions, which
are the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice,
Treasury, plus the United States Postal Service and Federal
Reserve, noting that the creation of Homeland Security Act was
what created that exemption afterwards.
Members may have seven days in which to submit opening
statements for the record.
We are now pleased to welcome our panel of witnesses.
Mr. Patrick Sullivan is the Assistant Inspector General for
Investigations for the Office of Inspector General at the EPA.
Mr. Allan Williams is the Deputy Assistant Inspector
General for OIG, Office of Inspector General, at the EPA.
Ms. Elisabeth Heller is the Special Agent at the Office of
Investigations at the Office of Inspector General at the EPA.
She is here today to provide testimony as a private citizen,
although I am going to codify that by saying her experience
well in fact as an agent that she then was put through is also
part of her testimony.
The Honorable Robert Perciasepe is the Deputy Administrator
at the EPA, and we welcome you for being here.
Pursuant to the rules, all witnesses are to be sworn. Would
you please rise to take the oath and raise your right hand?
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?
[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Chairman Issa. Please be seated.
Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Three out of the four of you are, quite frankly, career
opening statement people, it is part of your job. Ms. Heller, I
know that yours is a little less scripted and organized. For
that reason, I would ask that you all remain as close as you
can to five minutes. Ms. Heller, if you need a little bit more
time, you will be granted it.
With that, Mr. Sullivan, you are recognized.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF PATRICK SULLIVAN
Mr. Sullivan. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member
Cummings, members of the committee. I am Patrick Sullivan,
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at EPA. Thank
you for inviting me to testify.
We are here today because the EPA OIG's Office of
Investigations is being impeded from fulfilling its
responsibilities by actions of the EPA's internal Office of
Homeland Security, also known as OHS, a unit within the Office
of the Administrator.
As I testified before you in October on the John Beale
case, prior to EPA officials contacting the OIG about the
situation involving Mr. Beale, OHS conducted its own
investigation. The OHS actions, which included several
interviews with Mr. Beale, delayed and damaged the OIG's
subsequent investigation.
I would like to go on record today and state that as the
official in charge of internal investigations at the EPA, I am
very concerned that vital information regarding suspected
employee misconduct is being withheld from the OIG. Because OHS
continues to block my office's access to information essential
to the OIG's work, I cannot assure the committee that we are
doing everything possible to root out other John Beales who may
be at the EPA or uncover other malfeasance of a similar
magnitude. I believe that the current situation represents a
significant liability for the EPA, the Congress, and the
American taxpayers. In short, the actions of OHS violate the IG
Act, the very legislation that Congress passed to ensure
Federal agencies have oversight.
The EPA OIG was created pursuant to the IG Act and thereby
has statutory authority to conduct investigations of employee
misconduct, threats against EPA personnel and facilities, and
intrusions into EPA computer networks and systems. Pursuant to
the attorney general's guidelines for OIGs with statutory law
enforcement authority, the EPA and the FBI share concurrent
jurisdiction for agency-related cases.
OHS serves as the Agency's central liaison for homeland
security matters. The OHS has no law enforcement or
investigative authority. The most critical concern for the OIG
is the safety and security of all EPA employees, facilities,
and assets. The OIG's ability to investigate threats against
EPA employees and facilities has been impeded due to OHS's
total and systematic refusal to share threat information.
In investigating threats, timely access to all available
information is critical. OHS's stance places my special agents
at unnecessary risk. Most important, the withholding of threat
information from the OIG also places all EPA employees and
facilities at risk. This practice is not only unacceptable; it
is dangerous.
The current situation with OHS harks back to the days
before 9/11 when U.S. Government entities often did not
communicate effectively or at all, contributing to the most
horrific terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil. No single entity
can accomplish its work in a vacuum; we must work together.
In response to denying the OIG's repeated request for
information and cooperation, OHS has invoked the term
``national security'' as its mantra. This formidable cloak does
not justify OHS's insistence on filtering information germane
to the OIG's jurisdiction, whether classified or not. OHS does
not have authority to make such a call. Agency management, let
alone a small shop like OHS buried inside the Agency, has no
power whatsoever to tell the OIG what it needs to know. It is
actually the reverse. Under the IG Act, the OIG has access to
the entirety of information available to the Agency, and it is
the IG who determines what information it needs to know.
In fact, EPA's own Office of Environmental Compliance and
Assurance issued a legal opinion holding that OHS lacks both
statutory law enforcement authority and the authority to assign
an EPA Criminal Investigations Division special agent to work
as a criminal investigator within OHS. This special agent, who
carries a gun and a badge, routinely conducts national security
and misconduct investigations for OHS.
Over the past few months, I discussed this situation with
many of my fellow assistant inspectors general for
investigation in the Federal OIG community. I learned that the
situation I face at EPA is an anomaly. Most of my counterparts
advised me that their Offices of Investigation would either
directly participate with the FBI in any such national security
related investigation targeting an employee or they would be
fully informed about the investigation for coordination and de-
confliction purposes. In addition, the use of non-disclosure
agreements by an internal entity such as OHS to prevent
employees from speaking to the OIG would not be tolerated.
In summary, we need Congress's help in rectifying the
situation. The OHS's refusal to share information must be
addressed and corrected immediately.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.009
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Williams.
STATEMENT OF ALLAN WILLIAMS
Mr. Williams. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member
Cummings, and members of the committee. I am Allan Williams,
Deputy Assistant Inspector General for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Thank you for inviting me to appear before
you today to discuss our investigations of employee misconduct
involving time and attendance fraud.
The Office of Inspector General is an independent entity
within EPA; therefore, the views expressed in my testimony are
based on the findings of the OIG's work and are not intended to
reflect the views of the Agency.
The OIG's successful investigation of John Beale was the
subject of a hearing held by this committee on October 1st,
2013. On December 18th, 2013, Mr. Beale was sentenced to 32
months in prison for defrauding EPA of approximately $900,000
in undeserved pay and bonuses. Our investigation found, among
other things, that Mr. Beale received his salary while missing
more than two and a half years of work with EPA, making this
case one of the most notorious time and attendance fraud cases
in the Federal Government.
My role here today is to inform the committee about
findings from several time and attendance investigations both
related and unrelated to Beale.
First, the OIG investigated an allegation of serious
employee misconduct by an EPA senior executive alleged to have
been directly involved in approving fraudulent time and
attendance records and travel vouchers for Mr. Beale. Our
investigation was able to substantiate that this senior
executive did not exercise due diligence with respect to the
authorization and approval of Mr. Beale's time and attendance
records, travel authorizations, and travel vouchers. The
investigation also revealed that the senior executive did not
exercise due diligence in part because she believed Mr. Beale
worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. She never
questioned Mr. Beale; consequently, she authorized and approved
fraudulent time and attendance records and travel vouchers in
excess of $180,000.
Similarly, the OIG conducted an investigation into serious
misconduct by another EPA manager who allowed an employee to
stay at home and not report for duty for several years. Based
on a longstanding arrangement with the employee, which
allegedly began as an accommodation to work at home due to a
medical condition, this manager not only entered fraudulent
time and attendance records for the absent employee, but also
approved the same records. It is estimated that the manager's
approval of fraudulent time and attendance records cost the
Government more than $500,000. What is even more egregious is
that the EPA manager authored and approved exemplary
performance appraisals that resulted in a cash award for the
absent employee.
During the same investigation, the OIG found evidence that
implicated an EPA executive. This executive, who was the absent
employee's prior supervisor, remained aware the employee had
been in a telework status for more than 20 years with very
little substantive work product to show during this time. The
executive took no action, even though he knew the EPA was being
defrauded. Upon receiving a target letter from the U.S.
Department of Justice, the executive retired and was not
prosecuted. Furthermore, the Department of Justice declined to
prosecute either the absent employee or the current supervisor.
In addition to those cases, the OIG has several ongoing
investigations involving employees and alleged serious
misconduct. One of the investigations involves a career
employee who has allegedly stored pornographic materials on an
EPA network server. When an OIG special agent arrived at the
employee's workplace to conduct an interview, the special agent
witnessed the employee actively viewing pornography on his
Government-issued computer. Subsequently, the employee
confessed to spending, on average, between two and six hours
per day viewing pornography while at work. The OIG's
investigation determined that the employee downloaded and
viewed more than 7,000 pornographic files during duty hours.
This investigation has been referred to and accepted by the
Department of Justice for prosecution.
Finally, the OIG has an ongoing investigation of a GS-15
Step 10 EPA employee who has a debilitating disease and has not
been physically able to complete any work for at least a year.
However, this employee continues to draw a full salary and
receive the benefits of an active employee. This employee has
resided in an assisted living facility for more than a year,
and the former supervisor was aware of the situation and the
employee's condition. This investigation is ongoing and is yet
to be presented to the Justice Department for prosecution.
These are recent examples of OIG employees misconduct cases
at the EPA. True deterrence of employee misconduct ultimately
rests with the Agency's executives and managers to set a tone
that ensures such behavior will not be condoned. By doing so,
the Agency's leadership can establish a culture of
accountability within the EPA and clearly communicate that
employee misconduct will not be tolerated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to discuss
some of our cases involving employee misconduct at the EPA. The
OIG appreciates the committee's continued interest in our work.
This concludes my testimony and I am pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.013
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Ms. Heller.
STATEMENT OF ELISABETH HELLER DRAKE
Ms. Heller Drake. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings,
and distinguished members of the Oversight Committee, thank you
for inviting me to testify before you today. My name is
Elisabeth Heller Drake and I am a Special gent in the
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General.
I am testifying about what happened to me as a Federal law
enforcement officer last fall and I appear before you
voluntarily as an individual, and not on behalf of the Agency
nor on behalf of the OIG. No one at EPA has pre-approved my
statement.
On Thursday, October 24th, 2013, Federal EPA OIG Special
Agent Ryan Smith and I had a difficult interview with EPA
Office of Homeland Security employee John Martin. We extended
him the courtesy of having his personal attorney present, but
he wouldn't answer even basic questions.
He kept indicating he needed to be home to meet his
children, so we ended in a timely fashion in spite of his lack
of cooperation with our official investigation. Minutes after
he left, I realized he left without the standard warning not to
discuss the ongoing investigation with others and without
signing the standard non-disclosure form.
Agent Smith was escorting Martin's attorney out of the
building and I was unable to reach her by phone, so I asked
Special Agent Gary Don Dorman to go with me to the EPA Office
of Homeland Security to notify Martin of his obligations.
As we progressed into OHS's office suite, someone asked if
Agent Dorman and I needed assistance, at which time I also
overheard Mr. Martin's voice talking to someone about specific
information discussed during our interview of him. Turning in
the direction of his voice and looking down the hallway, I saw
Mr. Martin standing in the open doorway of an office, talking
to a woman I later learned was Nancy Dunham from EPA's Office
of General Counsel. With them was someone I later realized was
EPA Senior Intelligence Advisor Steven Williams.
Mr. Martin approached Agent Dorman and me and asked what we
wanted. I responded that we had a follow-up item to address
with him that would only take an additional moment of his time.
Mr. Martin seemed defensive and responded that he didn't want
to discuss anything without his attorney present. I explained
there was no intention to ask him additional questions, but we
merely needed his attention for a quick aside. Following
protocol, I was trying not to unnecessarily disclose the
ongoing investigation to others in the area.
Martin said anything I had to say to him could be said in
front of all present. Keeping my composure, I informed him that
he wasn't permitted to discuss details of his interview with
anyone other than his personal attorney. Ms. Dunham and Mr.
Williams shouted that my instructions weren't accurate, at
which point it became clear Mr. Martin wasn't going to sign our
standard non-disclosure form.
I responded to Mr. Martin that I heard him talking about
our interview when Agent Dorman and I entered the office space
and that he needed to desist from that type of dialogue
immediately. I repeated that Mr. Martin should only discuss the
interview details with his personal counsel. As I made those
statements, Ms. Dunham continued to yell from the hallway that
I wasn't right.
At this time, Mr. Williams aggressively approached me,
yelling, ``Put it in writing!'' He stepped between me and Mr.
Martin in a menacing way, again screaming to ``Put it in
writing!'' and demanding to know where the standard protocol I
was addressing was documented. Williams invaded my personal
space, pointing and yelling to a degree that it became
difficult to understand what he was saying. He repeatedly
jabbed his finger at me merely inches from my chest and, as he
got more aggressive, his complexion heated, his veins bulged,
and he began to swear profusely.
We are trained to deal with difficult circumstances;
however, I was surprised at having this situation escalate so
quickly in a professional setting over a request that was so
standard and minor. If an individual had acted this way toward
me as a Federal agent on the street, I might have arrested him.
But it shocked me to be approached in this manner by what
appeared to be a high-ranking EPA official.
While Mr. Williams is not a large man, his inexplicable
anger and aggressiveness in this professional office setting
managed to leave me feeling intimidated. The fact I had a
sidearm holstered out of sight under my suit jacket didn't make
a difference. I wasn't chasing a criminal on the street, but,
rather, in an environment where I would never have expected
such behavior from a professional staff member.
Avoiding unnecessary physical contact, I stepped back from
Mr. Williams. I tried to de-escalate the incident by asking Mr.
Williams to identify himself. Remaining professional and upon
hearing his name, I responded, ``Mr. Williams, I am Special
Agent Elisabeth Drake. It is so nice to meet you,'' and I put
my hand out to shake his. He refused to shake my hand and
instead responded, ``I don't want to know you.''
In spite of my clear notice that I was a Federal law
enforcement officer, he again started yelling at me. I thought
back to my research and recalled that he wasn't only a GS-15,
but he was also a Naval Reserves captain, making his tirade and
interference with my official duties all the more surprising.
In another effort to reduce the tension, I told Mr.
Williams that I wasn't there to speak with him, at which point
he screamed at Agent Dorman and me to get out of their office
space. He continued to yell as we departed.
Back at the office, we reported the assault to management,
leading other agents to return to the Office of Homeland
Security to investigate Mr. Martin. Martin had left. Ms. Dunham
and Mr. Williams said they were too stressed to be interviewed.
The case was turned over to the Federal Protective Service
to investigate. They interviewed Agent Dorman and me, as well
as the OHS staff member who had offered us assistance when we
first arrived that evening of the 24th. FPS then prepared an
affidavit in support of Mr. Williams' arrest for the D.C.
offense known as intent to frighten assault, but the U.S.
Attorney's Office decided to refer it back to EPA for handling
through administrative action.
Whether Mr. Williams attacked and intimidated me that
evening because I am a female and so felt he could get away
with it, and whether he has acted in a threatening manner
towards other females in the workplace are questions for
another time and place. I, instead, am here to relay what
happened that night and EPA's response to it out of concern
about OIG not being allowed to do its job.
Was Mr. Williams put on paid administrative leave until a
full inquiry could be completed? No. Was I allowed to resume
the OIG investigation involving Office of Homeland Security
staff? No. Did the administrator remind those involved of their
duty to cooperate with the OIG? No. Have my attorney and I
repeatedly asked, both in person and in writing, for the EPA to
do such things? Yes. In fact, the only prompt concrete action
taken by the EPA was to issue a stand-down memo days later that
halted the OIG investigation until a plan could be developed
and put in place to end ongoing conflicts between the EPA's
Offices of Homeland Security and of the Inspector General.
As my attorney and I told the administrator's staff, we
know of no exemption in the law that says an agency head can
halt an official OIG investigation so long as it is done to
encourage investigators and their targets to get along better
with each other. It is common in our line of work to remain
professional in spite of conflict. It is not common for a GS-15
official to interfere, then essentially be rewarded with an
investigation being halted for what has been over six months.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Cummings, we are now more
than six months out from the events of October 24th, yet I
believe the investigation underway the day of the assault
continues to go uninvestigated. If there were wrongdoings going
on within EPA's OHS, as an OIG agent, I feel responsible to
conclude my investigation and bring those issues forward.
However, I find it equally as important to determine that if
there were no wrongdoings within the office identified, to set
the record straight in that regard as well.
To be clear, I am not complaining about the actions of the
EPA inspector general or his staff. They have been very
supportive of my career, especially so during the difficult
months since I was assaulted in the line of duty. I am also not
out to harm EPA. On the contrary, it is because the
Environmental Protection Agency's work is so important that the
Agency must be given the best chance possible to succeed. That
only can happen if there is a healthy, independent, and
unobstructed OIG, an OIG whose agents can insist upon
cooperation from the Agency's employees regardless of their
seniority and regardless of the office that happens to be the
one subject to our law enforcement authority on a given day.
Thank you for your time, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have for me.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Heller Drake follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.020
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Perciasepe, your entire opening statement is in the
record. Please feel free to include any answers to the
testimony you have just heard.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BOB PERCIASEPE
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Given I have
slight cold, I may have to cough and take a sip every once in a
while here.
Chairman Issa. Coughing is fully authorized.
Mr. Perciasepe. Fully authorized? Then I appreciate that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perciasepe. Let me go through my written statement, and
maybe I will add a few comments, but I am sure we will get into
it in the questions and answers, as I do want to be able to
respond and explain what we are doing to deal with some of
these issues that have come up here. Far be it for us to be in
a situation where we do not want to have a problem with the
IGS' access to whatever they need to have in the Agency. That
is our position, that is Gina McCarthy's position, and I want
to assure the committee of that.
That goal is paramount for us. Having an independent and
healthy IG is what we need to be able to deal with some of the
issues you have in any large institution to make sure we are
dealing with waste, fraud, and abuse, and we see the inspector
general as a partner in that. In fact, since 2009, employees of
the EPA have provided their information, their knowledge, and
their support to over 2,600 audits, investigations, and actions
of the Office of the Inspector General. I want you to keep that
context in mind. Many of these identified in-house actions that
have persisted for a long time in the Agency and require a
systemic improvement in management systems in the Agency, and
we have stepped up to meet those challenges in remedying them.
Agency employees routinely work cooperatively to provide
information to the inspector general to ensure their important
work is achieved. That has always been not only our policy, but
our culture.
Unfortunately, these questions that are being raised about
that commitment in light of some of these instances are not the
norm. The vast majority of the work we do with the IG is done
efficiently, appropriately, and with good result. And I can
assure the committee that EPA remains committed to ensuring
that our Office of Inspector General is successful in its
efforts to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in every program
across the agency, without exception.
I was last before this committee, as you have mentioned, in
the fall, to talk about the criminal fraud of John Beale, and
all of us at the Agency, and I want everyone to know this, are
profoundly offended by the actions of Mr. Beale. But I want you
also to know that the Agency has risen to the occasion to that
massive fraud with steady action to make improvements.
In December of 2013, we released a 19-page report on
evaluation and corrective actions we have already started to
take that I testified to when I was before the committee in
October. That document evaluated each of the aspects of Mr.
Beale's conduct, how Mr. Beale evaded the Agency's existing
controls, and the Agency's planned corrective actions. Since
that time, we have taken steps to put measures in place to help
ensure that this type of fraud cannot be repeated.
In April we completed a second review of the issues raised
by the case entitled ``Report on Internal Control Assessments
of EPA's Sensitive Payment Areas.'' This 50-page report uses
the assessment processes outlined by the Government
Accountability Office's Standards for Internal Control of
Federal Government to analyze seven key areas: executive
payroll approvals, employee departures, statutory pay limits,
parking and transit subsidy, retention incentives, travel
reimbursements above per diem rate, and executive travel
approval. That report was also provided to the Office of
Inspector General on April 17th of this year.
While undertaking our review, if you recall at my hearing
with you, I said we are anxious and continue to work directly
with the IG on their ongoing administrative reviews of issues
that came up in the Beale matter. We also were not going to
wait, because we didn't want anything else to happen, so we
started working on it as well. So we are working in parallel
and in tandem in a very cooperative way, and we have provided
the Office of Inspector General with any necessary assistance
in their ongoing audits related to this matter. Indeed, to
ensure swift response to their needs, the EPA has requested,
and the IG has agreed, to biweekly meetings between the IG and
all of our senior managers that are related to the programs
that are involved. These meetings are attended by senior
officials from every office and they are designed to make sure
that nothing falls through the cracks as we are working
together.
In over a decade of service at EPA, I am not aware of
another instance where we have committed this level of senior
level involvement in a single audit and set of reviews by the
Office of Inspector General. In fact, there will be a series of
audits; some have started to come out. So we are looking
forward to receiving them, as I said before, and working with
them, but we are also doing our own work at the same time so we
can stay ahead of the curve and bring all of it together to
continue to improve our management processes.
Finally, I just want to take this opportunity to recognize
that the overwhelming majority of hardworking 16,000 EPA
employees are dedicated, hardworking, professional, and public
servants, a point of which I know the inspector general agrees.
I am very proud of them and I am very proud of EPA's
achievements in protecting human health and the environment,
and they also protect the American people. Employees work every
day to make those achievements possible and we work every day,
every day on numerous projects, reviews, and audits with the
Office of Inspector General in a cooperative, productive, and
appropriate manner.
I look forward to answering any of the questions you have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.023
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
It is now my pleasure to recognize a distinguished panel of
members of the Army War College, in spite of the various
uniforms. But you will notice that there are more Army uniforms
there. They are here to observe the workings of Congress. Let's
try not to disappoint them in any negative way.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Issa. For years Congressman Todd Platts
represented the Carlyle Barracks, so I think they have had a
tradition of coming here, and hopefully you will find this
esteemed body not to disappoint you, depending upon your
expectations.
I will now recognize myself for a series of questions.
Mr. Sullivan, let me understand something you said in your
opening statement. This office, I understand 10 or so men and
women office, is although statutorily authorized to exist and
has existed, has no statutory authority to be a law enforcement
organization.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the creation of
the office was at the discretion of the administrator. I don't
think there was any statutory requirement to have an Office of
Homeland Security. But the second part of your statement is
absolutely correct, they have no authority whatsoever to do law
enforcement or investigative work.
Chairman Issa. So unlike the uniformed service next to us
who pack heat when they go into combat, these people have guns
without any congressional requirement that they exist as a law
enforcement entity in any way, shape, or form. How did they get
those guns?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, there is only one employee, to my
knowledge, that has a firearm.
Chairman Issa. He has a gun and a badge.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, he does.
Chairman Issa. Who the heck came up with the badge? What
does it look like?
Mr. Sullivan. He has a badge that identifies him as a
special agent in the EPA Criminal Investigations Division----
Chairman Issa. So they made up their own badge----
Mr. Sullivan. No, sir.
Chairman Issa.--and authorization?
Mr. Sullivan. No, sir. He was employed by the EPA Criminal
Investigations Division and he was transferred to the Office of
Homeland Security. Now----
Chairman Issa. So he shows a gun and a badge from a
different part that he is not actually part of.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Chairman Issa. What is that gentleman's name?
Mr. Sullivan. His name is John Martin.
Chairman Issa. Okay, so John Martin. We have heard about
him before.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
Chairman Issa. I am sure we will get back to that in a
moment.
Mr. Perciasepe, you were here before and we asked you about
retention bonuses, and you failed to note that these other ones
had existed. I understand they were dropped just before the
hearing. I am disappointed that you wouldn't have been more
forthcoming. But I have other questions today.
Quite frankly, how much pornography would it take for an
EPA employee to lose their job? We have just heard from Mr.
Williams that you know, and have known, that somebody is
searching 600 sites in a four-day period, thousands of them,
putting pornography, perhaps illegal pornography, but certainly
I didn't know there were 627 sites that somebody could surf in
a four-day period, but apparently there are. You know that and
that person is still on the job. Why? What does it take for you
to take somebody off of a computer when you discover they are
doing it, and actually when the IGs walk in and find it?
Mr. Williams. First, let me say--I do want to say something
about the----
Chairman Issa. Well, answer how much pornography it takes
to get fired at the agency first.
Mr. Williams. We have a service that we employ in our
computer system to block pornography.
Chairman Issa. It is not working so well, is it?
Mr. Williams. Well, the world out there stays ahead of it
and we are always constantly trying to catch up. So I want the
committee to understand that our first line of defense is to
block things like pornography or gambling sites from coming in
to the agency; and we do a pretty good job of that, but we have
now discovered, with the help of the IG, that there is some
other site that we hadn't had on that, and we are now in the
process of working to block that.
You know, I wish I could offer my thoughts on this, but
this is going to go either to a court or it is going to have an
administrative process and employees have----
Chairman Issa. Is this employee still being paid? Is this
employee still at work?
Mr. Williams. I believe yes.
Chairman Issa. Okay, enough said. I am sorry, that is not
good enough for the American people.
Mr. Williams. I can't answer on what my feelings are and
what should happen because I am going to corrupt the integrity
of the administrative processes, and then we will have even
more trouble down the road. And I know you understand that and
I know you----
Chairman Issa. Okay, but according to what we have been
told, for example, this individual spent four consecutive hours
on a site called Sadism is Beautiful. I am going to tell you
something. I am not real up on this. I have been out of the
business world for a number of years, but I have a strong
feeling that the House of Representatives figured out how to
block sites with titles like that. It would shock me that they
wouldn't. But it shocks me that you can tell us that you do a
pretty good job and something as explicit as those key words,
or Bears so Horny. I am not going to go into the other names,
it disgusts me.
You are running an organization in which nobody can be
fired. I am just going to go through two quick questions. One,
isn't it a crime to falsify records saying someone is working
when they are not? Yes or no?
Ms. Heller, isn't it a crime for someone to say that an
employee is working when they are not, and get them paid for
it, in your experience as an agent?
Ms. Heller Drake. It would be fact-based, and I wouldn't--
--
Chairman Issa. Mr. Williams, is it a crime to let someone
get paid for not working at the EPA or in the Federal
Government? Is it a crime to falsify documents saying somebody
is in fact working when they are not working, and not even able
to work?
Mr. Williams. It can be prosecuted if DOJ deems it
necessary to be prosecuted, or it could----
Chairman Issa. I am not asking--if it can be prosecuted,
then there is 18 U.S.C. There is a title that says it is a
crime, right?
Mr. Williams. For falsifying documents, it depends on the
document that you are falsifying.
Chairman Issa. Well, let me explain something. If you
commit fraud and send money to somebody else in the private
sector, you get sued, you get fired, and you usually get
prosecuted, or at least your employer tries to. If you pay your
daughter clandestinely a bonus with anti-nepotism laws that
exist in the Federal Government, you do that in the private
sector, you get prosecuted. So I am a little disappointed that
we have to get into it is all fact-based. People defrauded the
American people. They defrauded the American people and I am
hearing, according to your IG, they are still on the job.
Ms. Heller was attacked, assaulted, and six months later
you still have a stand-down on the investigation that they were
doing so that an agency that is not even authorized to be a law
enforcement agency can continue doing investigations directly
on behalf of the administrator. I am shocked. I am appalled.
And this is why you are here. And, yes, you are going to be
coming back to Congress for a long time because it is clear you
are not cooperating with your own IG, you are blocking the IG's
investigations. Your testimony is not credible. And I will give
you an opportunity to respond to why you think you are credible
when in fact you are not. Any time you want to respond.
The ranking member is recognized.
Mr. Williams. I appreciate you letting me respond. Let me
just say, yes, things are fact-based, but it is a crime to
falsify Federal documents. I mean, that is an established fact.
How that crime is prosecuted, what happens, is all fact-based.
So I just want to be clear I understand that, Mr. Chairman.
On this incident, let me just say it is disturbing to me
and I am upset that Agent Heller has the feelings of what
happened at that evening. You should know, and it is not well
publicized, that other employees in that office have filed
hostile work environment complaints as well. So we haven't been
doing nothing. We worked together with the inspector general,
as Agent Heller identified in her testimony, with the Federal
Protection Services, and when they suggested back to the IG
that we handle this case administratively, both of us agreed,
the inspector general and EPA management, that we would go to
the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency,
CIGIE it is called, to get a referral so that we could have an
independent IG come in and look at only the issues surrounding
that fact. That investigation is ongoing. The CIGIE selected,
and we all agreed, to let the Department of Defense inspector
general work on this case, and that is going on.
I can't characterize that as being irresponsible. I can't
characterize that as not doing anything. I characterize that as
looking, first and foremost, and I want Agent Heller to know
this, that Gina McCarthy and I, first and foremost, are
concerned about the safety of our employees. I don't want to
put employees in a situation where it is volatile. No matter
how many directives I issue, I don't want employees in that
position. So we need to let that investigation that is ongoing
now complete, and then we will know how to move forward; and we
will move forward expeditiously. We need to fix this situation
and we need to have our employees be able to do their job,
whether it is the IG, whether it is Agent Heller, or anyone
else.
Chairman Issa. I appreciate that. A woman was assaulted. A
magistrate issued an arrest warrant. There was a decline to
prosecute. He is still on the job, he is still assaulting
people, he is creating a hostile environment, and you are
working on it, and I appreciate that.
Ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. First of all, to Ms. Heller, I think one of
the most alarming things that I have heard in being in Congress
for 17 years is what you just described. Nobody should have to
go through that, period, woman or man; and I am so sorry that
that happened, and we have to do everything that we can to make
sure that does not happen. That is not a part of your job
description, to go through that kind of hell, and we are going
to try to address that. It is very, very important to me and I
am sure every member of this panel.
Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Heller, you mentioned that the EPA
administrator, Gina McCarthy--and I don't want to put words in
your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong--requested that the OIG
stand down on his investigation of OHS and the OHS special
agent. Is that accurate, Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, the investigation we were conducting was
non-criminal, it was administrative. The investigation and the
interview of Mr. Martin concerned his authority to act as a
criminal investigator in the Office of Homeland Security. We
had received a legal opinion from an attorney within the EPA
Office of Environmental Compliance and Assurance that Mr.
Martin was out of scope; in other words, he was liable
personally for a Bivens action and the Agency was liable under
the Federal Tort Claims Act because he was operating outside of
the scope of his authority. That was the allegation and we were
looking into Mr. Martin's authority to do what he was doing
and, overall, the OHS's authority to be conducting
investigations ostensibly within the purview of the OIG; why
were they doing that.
Mr. Cummings. Does the administrator to have the authority
to step down an investigation? Where would that authority come
from?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, the administrator asked my boss, Mr.
Elkins's concurrence to stand down temporarily until there was
a potential resolution of the issue.
Mr. Cummings. All right. But it would still have been the
IG's. The IG said no. They could have gone on with the
investigation?
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct. Mr. Elkins decided to
temporarily suspend it, but he made it clear it was a temporary
suspension.
Mr. Cummings. All right, Mr. Perciasepe and Mr. Sullivan, I
do believe that both of your offices are honorable and you are
right, and I said it earlier, that we have great Federal
employees, all of you, and I thank you. Over the past 10 days
my staff has worked with each of your offices to find areas of
agreement. You know, a good friend of mine, a judge friend used
to say in disputes, he would say when elephants battle and
fight, the grass suffers. And I believe, you know, there is a
way to resolve this, and I am hoping that we can get there
because I want everybody to be able to do their jobs. I don't
want the so-called grass to suffer. And when I say the grass
here, we are talking about the people of the United States
getting their taxpayer dollars worth of services out of the
agencies.
So, Mr. Sullivan, can you please tell me, first of all, do
you think the involvement of my staff was helpful to you? Did
it help identify the issues that needed to be resolved?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir, it was illuminating. But to be
candid here, we have been trying to resolve this issue
internally for many, many, many months. We had no progress
whatsoever. Your staff, over the weekend, as you know, I spoke
to your staff many times over the weekend and they made a
sincere effort and I was very happy to hear that on the part of
the Agency, or at least what was--I didn't speak directly to
anyone from the Agency, but your staff did, and I thought it
was very encouraging.
Mr. Cummings. Now, Mr. Perciasepe, what do you think about
what has been accomplished?
Mr. Perciasepe. You know, I want to be clear also that I
agree with the IG. Our Office of Homeland Security has no
independent authority to do investigations in the classic law
enforcement. They certainly have the ability, under general
purposes, to analyze intelligence and do things of that nature,
but they don't. And, to my knowledge, they do not do
investigations independently; they are assisting the FBI. And
here is what I think--and I do that as a prelude, Ranking
Member Cummings, because the idea that we have right now--and I
am appreciative of what Patrick said about how difficult it has
been to try to come to grips with this, but Administrative
McCarthy is going to meet with Arthur Elkins and with the head
of counterintelligence at the FBI on Friday of next week and we
are going to try to get a framework on how we can get the law
enforcement activities going on, because it is clear to me, and
I think this is a really important thing, that when there is a
national security issue that the FBI has asked EPA to help them
with, analyzing information, gathering information, perhaps
even interviewing people, that there is a possibility, maybe
not in every case, but a possibility--and I want to point out
also these are very rare that we do--that that person or that
activity could also be employing misconduct that is completely
in the wheelhouse of the inspector general. So the question
really is how can we get the FBI and the Office of Inspector
General together so that we can stand down on our side as to
what it is we need to do to get those two legitimate and
appropriate things to do, because the people we are talking
about are--we are not trying to hide behind national security,
they are working----
Mr. Cummings. So you agree that the FBI needs to be
involved.
Mr. Perciasepe. Absolutely, the FBI needs to be involved.
Mr. Cummings. Would you agree, Mr. Sullivan, that the FBI
needs to be involved?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. But there are other issues that do
not involve the FBI, that involve the Secret Service, the U.S.
Marshal Service, Capitol Police. So it is really across the
broad spectrum of Federal law enforcement where OHS is
restricting our information, not just with the FBI.
Mr. Cummings. I see. Before I forget this, Mr. Perciasepe--
--
Mr. Perciasepe. You guys can just call me Bob P.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cummings. Okay, Mr. P, let me ask you this. Some kind
of way, if we got employees who are watching pornography for
four hours to six hours a day, or whatever was testified to, we
have to address that. Mr. P, did you hear me? Did you hear what
I said?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I did.
Mr. Cummings. That needs to be addressed. And I think the
chairman asked you whether that person is still earning a
salary and you said yes.
Mr. Perciasepe. You all have more information than I do on
this case. The IG has informed me of this case, but I have no
other information on it. I don't know what sites they were
looking at. So I have no report, I have no information. I have
nothing to act upon other than a meeting in my office telling
me that they are investigating this person. Now, I am happy to
sit down with them and look at it further. I am happy to look
at what administrative processes we can take, but remember----
Mr. Cummings. Mr. P, I am just trying to send a message
back to the Agency.
Mr. Perciasepe. I hear you.
Mr. Cummings. We have to deal with that. That makes
absolutely no sense.
And do you both agree that the EPA's Office of Homeland
Security has an intelligence support function to perform,
including intelligence analysis? Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir, I do, but in a limited role,
without having someone with a gun and a badge conducting
investigations.
Mr. Cummings. What about you, Mr. P?
Mr. Perciasepe. I agree that they have the authority to do
the analysis and the work. I think the key is what can they do
with the FBI and how do we work that out. And I don't disagree
with Mr. Sullivan that there may be other law enforcement
agencies involved with this. But this is the key one. We need
to get the FBI and the OIG, and then we will be in the support
role we need to be in.
Mr. Cummings. Do you both agree that if the FBI is not
leading an investigation into employee misconduct, it is
properly the role of the IG, and not the role of the EPA Office
of Homeland Security, to lead that investigation?
Mr. Perciasepe. I agree 100 percent.
Mr. Cummings. What about you?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. But again the devil is in the
details. If there is misconduct, we should be told on the front
end, not the back end.
Mr. Cummings. Okay. I have run out of time, but we have to
resolve this, gentlemen. We have to find a way to get this
done, because, as I said in my opening statement, legislatively
I don't see it happening. I would like to think it would
happen, but I doubt it. So I am hoping that all the agencies--
--
So, Mr. Sullivan, are you saying that more than the FBI has
to be brought into the discussion to get these issues resolved?
Or else we will be back here in the next six months going over
the same thing.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Cummings, I am saying that OHS has to
recognize that they must share information with us if it is
from the Secret Service or the U.S. Capitol Police or the U.S.
Marshal Service. Right now they are sharing nothing with us.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. P? Then I am finished.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perciasepe. On the threat issue that Patrick brought
up, Mr. Sullivan brought up earlier, it is my understanding,
and, of course, Mr. Sullivan, I am happy to dig into it deeper,
but when that threat issue came up from another intelligence
agency that was not properly and quickly reported to the
inspector general, I was under the understanding that our
deputy chief of staff and your office have worked out
procedures last fall to rectify that problem. But if that is
not the case, you haven't told me that yet. I am happy to do
more.
Mr. Cummings. You know, it is a damn shame that we had to
come to a hearing for you all to communicate.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I can stake here under oath I have
received zero information from the Office of Homeland Security
concerning any threat at any time, and none of my agents have
ever received any information from the Office of Homeland
Security concerning any threat at any time.
Mr. Cummings. We can do better, Mr. P. We can do better.
Would you agree?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes. But I thought we had procedures in
place. I will have to go back.
Mr. Cummings. All right.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. If I can have the ranking member's
indulgence for just a follow-up. I want to understand. This
office is an office, I understand, that essentially is simply
an administrative part of the administrator's headquarters, is
that right? Because we keep talking about it. I was told this
was about 10 people and it exists inside Gina McCarthy's
suites, if you will, there. Is that correct? I just want to
understand. When we talk about it like it is some agency
somewhere that does certain things, this is 10 people who work
for the administrator and have this tasking that I guess almost
goes to sources and methods kind of thing. Is that right?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes. The office was created by Christy
Whitman after 9/11, when President Bush issued a number of
Homeland Security presidential directives, when that whole
system was being set up. EPA has some roles under those. We are
not a major player, and I think everybody will realize that,
but we are not an absent player; we are involved with chemical
decontamination, we are involved with confidential business
information that may have some security risks and hazardous
chemical work, and a number of other responsibilities, and
critical drinking water infrastructure. EPA, for instance, was
intimately involved with decontaminating the Hart Office
Building from anthrax. We were one of the lead agencies on
that. So we have a----
Chairman Issa. Don't forget about Longworth.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Issa. We won't. Both sides of the Capitol were
contaminated.
Mr. Perciasepe. I am sorry. I am sorry. All of that. So my
only contextual comment here for the benefit of the committee
is that there is a context to the creation of this coordinating
office in the Office of the Administrator to coordinate these
activities across the Agency.
Chairman Issa. And I didn't want to take excessive time. I
just want people to understand Christine Todd Whitman creates
essentially 10 assistants to her that operate in her offices,
and it has a title and it goes on, but it is not a statutory
creation of Congress, per se, that is mandated; it could go
away today, is that correct?
Mr. Perciasepe. We would have to have alternative ways to
coordinate and make sure our functions and responsibilities
are----
Chairman Issa. Right. But you could assign it to the IG,
effectively, if you wanted to.
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't think we can assign programmatic
activities to the IG. I think that wouldn't work.
Chairman Issa. Okay. But there are remedies.
Mr. Perciasepe. There are remedies to the issues we are
talking about, but we couldn't assign, I think, all the
functions of that to the IG, and I think they would agree.
Chairman Issa. But employee misconduct they certainly could
do. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Well, I think you have confirmed for the people
that I represent that there is a three-ring circus going on in
EPA and it is quite embarrassing. I hope not too many people
who are on depressant medications are watching the hearing,
because this could get you awfully depressed. You have people
who don't work and get paid for it. You have people who have
broken laws and stay on the payroll and get paid.
Who knows, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Williams, somebody, how much
does a GS-14 employee make? Isn't that fairly high? What is the
range?
Mr. Williams. I believe it is around $120,000, $125,000.
Mr. Mica. $125,000.
Mr. Williams. I believe that is the range.
Mr. Mica. And that is the unnamed GS-14 employee who is
sitting there for--it says 2010. When did we discover that he
was looking at the porno?
Mr. Williams. I believe the information came to us within
the last six months we acquired that information.
Mr. Mica. So this guy is making $120,000, spending two to
six hours a day looking at porno. The information I have is he
received performance awards during the time period?
Mr. Williams. He possibly did, yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Well, he did or he didn't.
Mr. Williams. I am not sure.
Mr. Mica. There is a guy back there with a tie on, stripes,
and he is nodding his head yes.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Mica, yes, he did receive performance
awards.
Mr. Mica. It is just unbelievable.
We talked about some of this stuff. I had no idea you had
10 people in an Office of Homeland Security. You have EPA
leadership obstructing the inspector general and some of their
activities. It sounds like it is completely out of control. We
really need to sit down and talk in a bipartisan manner about
getting Civil Service under control. I chaired it for four
years. To date, I can probably count all the people on two
hands I have seen fired. But something needs to be changed when
people are breaking the law, when you have this GS-14 sitting
there, abusing his position, his salary, ripping off the
taxpayers. Somebody told me he is still on the payroll. Is he
on the payroll, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Yes, he is.
Mr. Mica. This is so offensive it is unbelievable. But we
need some way to fire these folks, and your hands are tied
right now, Mr. Williams. You know, we set up Civil Service to
protect them against political intervention or improper dealing
with Federal employees, try to give them some job security, not
make it a political circus, but they have made it a merry-go-
round for ripping off the taxpayers and we can't get rid of
them. Is that right?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. To take administrative action is
the responsibility of the Agency solely. The IG can just gather
the facts and provide that information to the Agency.
Mr. Mica. And this Office of Homeland Security within the
Agency, how many other agencies, does anyone know, have similar
setup?
Mr. Sullivan. Sir, most cabinet level agencies have
similar. They are not called the same, Office of Homeland
Security, but there is something similar that does intelligence
function.
Mr. Mica. Well, I can't say they don't belong in every one,
but it seems like, from a standpoint of better operations, some
of these things could be handled within the existing structure
and some can be investigated from your standpoint, right, Mr.
Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. At far less cost, less bureaucracy, and less
turmoil. I mean, look at the non-disclosure agreements and this
whole three-ring circus we have here described today of
agencies trying to function in contravention of themselves. Did
you tell us, too, they have never found an instance in which
there was some security issue?
Mr. Sullivan. What I said, Mr. Mica, was that the Office of
Homeland Security--I have been the Assistant Inspector General
for three years. They have never given us one piece of
information concerning a threat. At no time, ever, did they do
that. And Mr. Perciasepe is correct, I did meet with his deputy
chief of staff and was told they were going to try to work out
the threat information part, but it never happened.
Mr. Mica. I bet you most of the folks that work, those 10
people, are all in the GS-14 range, making more than $100,000.
I would probably be right in that assumption.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired, but you
can answer if you know their ratings.
Mr. Sullivan. I do not know. I know that there were two
SESers, there were some GS-15s, some GS-14s, and some lower
rank people.
Chairman Issa. And SESers, Senior Executive Service, make
over $200,000.
Mr. Mica. They are way up there.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I not that our
military observers left, so apparently they weren't too
impressed with the oversight nature that is going on here, but
let me try to distill this, because I think it is a little bit
confusing.
Mr. Perciasepe, we had, apparently, during President Bush's
term, after 9/11, Christy Todd Whitman, the then administrator,
set up a small division of 10 people within the EPA to sort of
get analysis and intelligence, and things of that nature,
right?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, sir. And also----
Mr. Tierney. And Administrator McCarthy sort of inherited
this.
Mr. Perciasepe. That is correct. As did Administrator
Jackson.
Mr. Tierney. All the way through.
Mr. Perciasepe. Right.
Mr. Tierney. And what seems to be a problem here is that
within the Section 811 of the Intelligence Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1995, there is a question as to when things,
disputes that involve whether or not someone is disclosing
classified information has to be referred to the FBI or other
agencies and what is EPA's obligation to include the Office of
Inspector General in that process, right?
Mr. Perciasepe. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. All right, so that is what the minority staff
is trying to work with you and Mr. Sullivan and others to get
resolved. I, for the life of me, don't understand the title of
this hearing on that basis.
Mr. Williams, your testimony briefed us on four different
misconduct cases, right, that involved time and attendance
issues.
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. The majority of the allegations of fraud that
your office receives, do they lead to significant amounts of
fraud in cases like that?
Mr. Williams. Time and attendance, sir?
Mr. Tierney. Yes.
Mr. Williams. Really, we just don't know what we don't
know.
Mr. Tierney. So the four is what you are dealing with.
Mr. Williams. Well, there are many. We have about 80
employee integrity cases right now nationwide.
Mr. Tierney. But in the EPA?
Mr. Williams. Yes, within EPA, yes.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. So that is a common problem and it has
internal controls that need to be addressed?
Mr. Williams. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Have you made recommendations with regard to
that?
Mr. Williams. Well, as far as the Office of Investigations,
sir, we just gather the facts and then we do a report and
provide that to the agency; we don't make recommendations as
far as investigations.
Mr. Tierney. So you don't give them any idea what internal
controls would improve their situation, you leave that up to
them?
Mr. Williams. Not the Office of Investigations. The Office
of Audit may.
Mr. Tierney. Okay.
Mr. Perciasepe, have you done anything, as EPA, with
respect to the fact-findings that have been shared with you
from the Inspector General's Office on those time and
attendance issues?
Mr. Perciasepe. We have initiated our own audit as well, or
review, and we have provided that information to the inspector
general. But on the individual cases that they have concluded,
within the last month several of them have been concluded, they
have provided that information to us and the supervisors that
are involved are now reviewing it to take the proper
administrative actions. I want to say that since 2009 we,
working with the IG and in part on some of their findings,
there have been 71 criminal actions that have been taken, 111
civil actions that have been taken, and 240 administrative
actions. So the idea that we don't do anything with these
things, but we----
Mr. Tierney. So when they are investigated and when there
is a finding on that, you take action.
Mr. Perciasepe. We need to get the findings of the
investigation to be able to proceed with the administrative
procedures, if it is going to be proceeding administratively.
Mr. Tierney. And that is what they are doing, the Office of
the Inspector General.
Mr. Perciasepe. They are doing it.
Mr. Tierney. And they are doing a good job?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. And they have given you the information.
Mr. Perciasepe. When they are done.
Mr. Tierney. And you are taking action on it. Since 2009,
you have all those numbers that show the data that show that
you have taken action on it.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. That is the way it should work, right?
Mr. Perciasepe. Exactly the way it works. I believe,
personally, again, as Patrick said, under oath, that we have a
very good relationship with the IG on these matters.
Mr. Tierney. When you look at all of those, have you
changed some of your processes and controls to deal with this
issue at large? Or are you still dealing with it on a case-by-
case situation?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, the case-by-case and our own sort
of--what we did in our support for the work that they are doing
is we used a survey technique to look across the agency, not
based on a complaint. We went and did a survey and found
similar patterns in some areas.
Mr. Tierney. And you addressed those?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, where they appropriately needed some
action, but what we are doing is this is informing our systemic
changes, which I reported on a little bit in our hearing in
October, changing our HR system, changing our computer
triggers----
Mr. Tierney. As you should. Let's face the damage that the
case that Mr. Williams talks about to put a black mark on the
entire Agency, with that kind of conduct goes on and people
still have their job after looking at sites and things of that
nature. I think we all understand it does damage to all the
people in the agency that are working hard and trying to get
the job done and doing a relatively good job on that basis.
But I want to clarify for the record, Mr. Williams, outside
of issues dealing with that 10-person subsection of EPA, what
they call the Office of Homeland Security, these fraud and time
and attendance issues, has there been any EPA obstruction on
your going after those matters?
Mr. Williams. No, sir.
Mr. Tierney. So all those cases that you are dealing with,
the four you reported or whatever, you are getting cooperation
from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mr. Williams. Well, we are conducting our investigations
and then we relay the information to the Agency.
Mr. Tierney. But they are not impeding you in your
investigation.
Mr. Williams. No, they are not impeding our investigations.
Mr. Tierney. So the whole dispute here, despite the title
of this hearing, which I think is totally misleading, deals
with the Office of Homeland Security, when EPA reports things
to that office, when the FBI or other agencies get involved.
That is pretty much the context of the dispute, is that right,
Mr. Perciasepe?
Mr. Perciasepe. I would say that is a major part of it.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. All right.
I have no further questions.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. I am going to have a
copy of some of the sites that that gentleman visited given to
you for your use in camera to make sure you have it. I am not
going to place it in the record; it would seem to be
counterproductive to have any advertising come out of this
hearing that could lead to others, in or out of the Government,
going to those sites.
Mr. Perciasepe. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that. The
normal course of affairs on these matters is once it is in the
IG's hand, we do wait for their investigation to be completed,
because they may decide, for reasons we have already talked
about, to pursue it in a criminal matter. So that parses out,
and as soon as we get their report, and whichever direction
they feel it needs to go in, we will follow it.
Chairman Issa. No, I appreciate that. And they said you are
not obstructing their investigation, but it is within the
administrator and your purview and the deputy's purview to
immediately put somebody on administrative leave, take them
away from computers, take away their passes if the prima facie,
if you will, is, yeah, they were doing it. And that authority
we often--we actually, quite frankly, and I know the gentleman
from Massachusetts would join me, we often criticize long
periods of full pay of people who have done wrong, but long
periods of remaining on the job for somebody who clearly has
done something wrong is perhaps, between the two, the greater
of the two, and I think that is part of the reason that in
addition to the obstruction that we believe the stand-down and
some of these other activities that we are concerned about
because of a small subagency, that we are also looking at the
question of what is the result when something egregious has
happened, such as the assault on Ms. Heller. The question is
why is that person not relieved, particularly if they continue
to assault or to create a hostile environment. Zero tolerance
is what it is often called, and a zero tolerance for workplace
violence, abuse, and creating a hostile environment is pretty
much something that has become widely accepted not just in
Government, but in the private sector. And your authority, and
I think the gentleman----
Mr. Tierney. Would the chairman yield for a second?
Chairman Issa. Of course.
Mr. Tierney. I hear what you are saying. I just look at
this title, Is the EPA Leadership Obstructing Its Own Inspector
General, as a total separate matter. I think we all agree now
that they have not been obstructing the Office of----
Mr. Chaffetz. Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. Tierney. In a second, please.
--that the matter differs as to how quickly they react on a
disciplinary basis. We can all talk about that ought to be
faster, it ought to be no tolerance on that basis, but it is
not an indication that they are obstructing the Office of
Inspector General's work on that.
Mr. Chaffetz. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Tierney. And I want to know is it a contention of the
chairman or the majority that in fact they have been
obstructing this particular investigation.
Chairman Issa. I think I will do the best thing in this
case and say, Mr. Sullivan, in some cases, do you feel you have
been obstructed, denied information, or in some way unable to
do your job?
Mr. Tierney. Well, I think that should be Office of
Homeland Security----
Chairman Issa. Well, wait a second. Well, but the whole
point is the Office of Homeland Security, an unauthorized
person with a gun, the assault that came during that
investigation, that is the main feature that caused the title.
But we are not going to have a hearing in which we bring these
people in and ignore a pervasive failure to discipline and to
take immediate action for such things----
Mr. Tierney. Then the title should be Is the EPA
Disciplining Its People Quickly Enough and In a Proper Way.
Mr. Chaffetz. Will the chairman yield?
Chairman Issa. I can't get 4,000 letters for a headline; it
just doesn't work that way. The fact is that the obstruction of
the IG, the failure of the IG to do their job and be fully
informed is the primary reason, and these individuals are both
from investigations. Yes, this committee is deeply disappointed
that when someone has done wrong they stay on the job. When
someone has falsified documents for 20 years as to somebody
working when they are not, they are still on the job. Those
management considerations are here because the information was
provided.
Mr. Tierney. That would be a shared concern, Mr. Chairman,
on that, but it is not obstructing the Office of Inspector
General's job;----
Mr. Chaffetz. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. Tierney.--it is failing to do the disciplinary process
in a way that we might all agree ought to be expedited.
Mr. Chaffetz. Will the chair----
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Yes, the chairman would yield.
Mr. Chaffetz. On this topic, Mr. Chairman, I would ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record from Administrator
Gina McCarthy a letter on her letterhead, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, dated October 28, 2013. It is
to the inspector general, Mr. Arthur Elkins. In it, she says,
``Therefore, I request that the OIG temporarily halt its review
until the process I have described is complete.'' That is
halting and stopping, and I believe obstructing their ability
to do their job.
Mr. Tierney. I assume the gentleman has been here for the
entire hearing.
Chairman Issa. Without objection, the document will be
placed in the record.
Mr. Tierney. You were here for the hearing, so I assume you
heard it; you are not being disingenuous. You may be just not
reading----
Mr. Chaffetz. I heard every word----
Mr. Tierney. She made a request, which is not an
obstruction, and the Office agreed to that request.
Mr. Chaffetz. The administrator of the EPA is saying to
temporarily halt its investigation.
Mr. Tierney. And they did.
Mr. Chaffetz. True or not? True or not?
Mr. Tierney. And they did.
Mr. Chaffetz. And I think that is wrong. That is why we are
having a hearing. That is why Congress is involved.
Chairman Issa. Well, I am certain the gentleman does see
obstruction. If he doesn't, then that is a good reason for the
title to be the part that we spent a lot of debate on. But I
thank the gentleman for not debating that somebody surfing
pornography sites, people falsifying documents, that these
should lead to terminations, not to bonuses and promotions.
Mr. Tierney. There would be no disagreement on that.
Chairman Issa. And with that it is my pleasure to recognize
the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. Chaffetz. Prior to that, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask
to be able to----
Chairman Issa. Without objection, it will be placed in the
record.
Mr. Chaffetz. Placed in the record. And the second thing I
would say is I think it is equally as wrong that the inspector
general agreed to that. They should never agree to halt an
investigation. I don't care who asks them. I think that is
equally as wrong. But don't deny that the administrator asked
them in writing to halt their investigation.
Mr. Tierney. That's not obstruction.
Mr. Chaffetz. Halting an investigation you don't think is
obstruction? You and I totally disagree.
Chairman Issa. I am shocked that this could happen in this
committee.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Issa. Mr. Chaffetz, I look forward to your round
of questioning. You are recognized.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
Appreciate you all being here.
Special Agent Heller Drake, I appreciate your service and
your sharing your personal story. After the incident, my
understanding is that the Federal Protective Service
investigated, is that correct? Can you walk us through that
real briefly, please?
Ms. Heller Drake. Yes, sir. The Federal Protection Service
investigated the assault and, like I said in my testimony, they
interviewed me and they interviewed Agent Dorman, and then
another individual from the Office of Homeland Security.
Mr. Chaffetz. And did they come to any conclusions?
Ms. Heller Drake. They felt that there was probable cause
for an arrest warrant, which is--I am going to assume they felt
there was probable cause; that is why they took the affidavit
to the magistrate.
Mr. Chaffetz. And then what happened?
Ms. Heller Drake. The magistrate sent it back to the--my
understanding is the magistrate sent it back to the Agency for
administrative action.
Mr. Chaffetz. What did you think of that, personally?
Ms. Heller Drake. Well, I was disappointed, certainly, but
I do understand that the U.S. Attorney's Office is often busy
and they have priorities.
Mr. Chaffetz. Did they give you any excuses as to why they
chose not to pursue this?
Ms. Heller Drake. No. I don't know.
Mr. Chaffetz. Did they ever talk to you about it?
Ms. Heller Drake. No.
Mr. Chaffetz. So they didn't talk to you, they didn't
explain, they just referred it back. And now where does it
stand?
Ms. Heller Drake. I don't know where it stands right now.
As far as I know, there has been no action taken against Mr.
Williams. I have just learned there has been basically counter-
allegations made, I guess. I am not 100 percent sure.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Perciasepe, you said that without
exception, without exception. Do you think this is an exception
or not?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think Administrator McCarthy, in that
letter that you are pointing out, had first and foremost in her
mind the safety of the employees. There are complaints of
hostile work environment on the employees placed to us by the
employees of the Office of Homeland Security. There is clearly
the incident and the feelings and the stress that Special Agent
Heller is expressing here, which is real and needs to be dealt
with. The----
Mr. Chaffetz. So the investigation is halted.
Mr. Perciasepe. The investigation of what to do with that
employee that has an 1811 employee, that investigation has
halted. What has----
Mr. Chaffetz. You said without exception, they are moving
forward without exception. That sounds like an exception.
Mr. Perciasepe. It was by mutual agreement. It was by
mutual agreement. If the IG wants to change their mind about
that, then maybe----
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Sullivan, what do you say about that?
Mr. Sullivan. My boss, the inspector general, Mr. Elkins,
did agree to temporarily halt the investigation, but I know he
did that under the caveat that there would be immediate ongoing
negotiations and discussions to resolve the situation.
Mr. Chaffetz. Were there?
Mr. Sullivan. There was an attempt to, but it broke down
fairly quickly afterwards.
Mr. Chaffetz. So are you doing the investigation or not?
Mr. Sullivan. No, not right now we are not. However----
Mr. Chaffetz. Maybe not Mr. Elkins, but I don't understand
that.
Mr. Sullivan. However, the allegation about Ms. Heller
being assaulted and the subsequent counter-allegations made by
Mr. Williams against agents in my office, that whole parcel of
allegations has been referred to the Department of Defense
Inspector General, and they are conducting an investigation
looking into the original allegations by Ms. Heller and my
agents, and then the counter-allegations being made by Mr.
Williams and other members of OHS.
Mr. Chaffetz. Guys, take some action. Grab this thing and
make it happen. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to have to
get you to all do your jobs. I am sorry, but you have a
professional agent doing her job, it gets a criminal, then
nothing happens. This guy looking at porn, how long has that
been going on since?
Mr. Perciasepe. You all, again, have more information----
Mr. Chaffetz. Is the answer 2010?
Mr. Perciasepe. I do not know. I do not know.
Mr. Chaffetz. How can I know and you don't?
Mr. Perciasepe. Because the inspector general has not told
me.
Mr. Chaffetz. How many direct reports do you have? How many
people directly report to you?
Mr. Perciasepe. Maybe five. I don't know the answer.
Mr. Chaffetz. Maybe five. You don't know? Is it four, five,
six? What about human resources, who does human resources
report to? Do they report to you?
Mr. Perciasepe. They report to the administrator.
Mr. Chaffetz. And you are not in that----
Mr. Perciasepe. The administrator and I are in the same
box, so to speak, okay. So direct reports--I thought you were
talking about my management assistant and people who--
obviously, I am the deputy----
Mr. Chaffetz. Does human resources, or whatever the name is
over there, do they not share this information with you? If you
are in the same box as Gina McCarthy, are you telling me that
she didn't know about it either?
Mr. Perciasepe. The first time I learned about it was a
meeting with the inspector general.
Mr. Chaffetz. You don't think that is wrong?
Mr. Perciasepe. When?
Mr. Chaffetz. This is a big deal. Yeah, when was that?
Mr. Perciasepe. Within the last several months. And they
are in----
Mr. Chaffetz. Is it against the rules? Is it against the
department policies to watch porn at your office?
Mr. Perciasepe. It is.
Mr. Chaffetz. Then fire him. Fire him. What is the
question?
Mr. Perciasepe. Need to wait.
Mr. Chaffetz. For what?
Mr. Perciasepe. For the inspector general's report. I don't
know if they are going to send him a criminal notice.
Mr. Chaffetz. Is there any doubt in your mind that this guy
is watching porn on a regular basis in his office? Is there any
question?
Mr. Perciasepe. I have no reason to doubt it because I
trust the IG.
Mr. Chaffetz. So what are you doing about it? I would like
an answer to that question. What is he doing about it?
Mr. Perciasepe. I am not personally doing anything about
it.
Mr. Chaffetz. That is the problem. That is the problem.
Ding, ding, ding, ding.
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Mr. Chaffetz. Yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Kelly, we are going to go to you. I just want one thing
for the record is, when the IG comes to you with anything,
including this gentleman surfing these inappropriate sites, you
have the ability to follow up, ask for additional questions. So
the fact that you don't know more is not because he would
withhold it; you have the right to ask for it.
Mr. Perciasepe. I didn't mean to insinuate that.
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Mr. Perciasepe. I am sorry if I did.
Chairman Issa. You have a lot of things going on. You have
a large organization. I understand that. I just want to make it
clear that you could know more. We don't have some information
that you couldn't have; it is just a question of asking.
Mr. Perciasepe. I am pretty certain that that is correct,
yes, sir.
Chairman Issa. I thank you.
Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand that the EPA's Office of Homeland Security
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the FBI to
spell out how the agency and the Bureau would cooperate in
instances where classified information may have been disclosed
to a foreign power. That is what we mean by Section 811
referrals and 811 refers to a statute.
Mr. Perciasepe, is that your view of what the MOU does?
Mr. Perciasepe. The MOU is, basically sets out the
parameters of cooperation with the FBI on national security
matters, including assistance we would provide to the FBI.
Ms. Kelly. Mr. Sullivan, one of your concerns about the MOU
is that it touches upon the Office of Inspector General's
Oversight and Investigation responsibilities regarding employee
misconduct, is that right?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Ms. Kelly. The problem, the basic
problem with the MOU is that the responsibilities and the
authority of the IG is silence, not mentioned. Our contention
is in order to have a national security investigation targeting
an EPA employee, he or she must be engaged in some kind of
serious misconduct. And our position is and always has been, as
soon as OHS or any other EPA employee knows about an allegation
of serious misconduct, they must immediately repot it to the
IG.
After that notification is made to us, we will work very
closely with OHS and the FBI and any other entity. The problem
is right now, OHS is using that as an excuse to not tell us
about misconduct.
Ms. Kelly. I know Ranking Member Cummings has been working
intensively with both the IG and the EPA, and there's a lot of
common ground. You both agree that the roles need to be
clarified, and you agree in large part on those roles, and you
agree that information should be shared. You also agreed that
the FBI needs to be part of the discussion.
Do you both agree that the high level meeting taking place
next week with top leadership at the office of Inspector
General, the EPA and the FBI, is the right venue for working
out these issues? Both of you can answer.
Mr. Perciasepe. I think we need to break the logjam. If
indeed there is a logjam that has occurred since October, we
need to break the logjam. So bringing the Director of National
Intelligence from the FBI, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the IG together, I am not
going to guess that they are going to come up with every answer
in that meeting. But if they can frame out how we want to move
forward on these issues we are talking about, I think it will
be short order after that that everyone else can work out the
details.
So I think, Administrator McCarthy, bringing the FBI and
the OIG leadership together is an important step and obviously
whatever level we had been working it, it needed to be bumped
up.
Ms. Kelly. Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. I concur with what Mr. Perciasepe said.
However, the 811 part of that memorandum with the FBI is a
small subset. OHS uses that memorandum to expand it way beyond
811 referrals. The other issue is, we can't be put in a
position where someone else is negotiating away the OIG's
authorities. Nor could we legally negotiate away our own
authorities. We have to be involved in misconduct
investigations, period.
Ms. Kelly. All right. Mr. Perciasepe, shouldn't the OIG
perspective and concerns be addressed at this meeting? Would
you agree with that?
Mr. Perciasepe. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear.
Ms. Kelly. Shouldn't the OIG's perspective and concerns be
addressed at this meeting?
Mr. Perciasepe. The IG is the lead, the lead and the
responsible authority for employee misconduct at EPA. I am
going to guess that there will be some sequencing on how things
are done once we have a better framework. But they are the ones
that are responsible for misconduct. The confusion that comes
in is that misconduct happening in the commission of a national
security breach of some kind. And I want to make it clear, the
Office of Homeland Security does not have the authority to
issue any do not disclose orders. Those come from the FBI.
But the key here is how to sequence the proper
investigations when there may be both an employee misconduct
investigation and a national security investigation that is
obviously being enabled by the misconduct itself. So those
things need to be coordinated. I am not an expert in law
enforcement deconflicting. But this happens every day in one
way or another. And I have high confidence, Mr. Chairman, that
we will be able to do this if we can get the right people
together.
Ms. Kelly. I hope you are correct.
I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz. [Presiding] Thank you. I now recognize the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, for five minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Might I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that maybe a headline for this hearing ought to be
something like The Atmosphere and Environment of the EPA is
Polluted.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Sullivan, following that train of thought,
it appears that there are other examples of EPA obstruction of
your office. Beth Craig lied to the OIG. Is that true or not?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Walberg. She is a deputy administrator at OIR in EPA.
Mr. Sullivan. She was. She has been reassigned to another
position now.
Mr. Walberg. Another position. Region 9 Administrator Jared
Blumenfeld lied about personal email use, is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Sir, I have no knowledge of that. I do not
know if he lied. Mr. Blumenfeld was never interviewed by my
office or my agents concerning an email. That might have been
our auditors, but I have absolutely no knowledge of that.
Mr. Walberg. It was the Office of Audit, I am just told.
Nancy Dunham refused to be interviewed. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. That is correct. Again, that was a request by
Office of Audit, and they did personally discuss that with me.
Mr. Walberg. I think we need to point those few examples
out, that we continue to have to deal with. And one thing about
history, if we don't learn from it, we are bound to repeat it.
So I want to go back to the secret agent man from the CIA,
EPA. Whatever he determined himself to be. And Mr. Perciasepe,
how did the EPA Office of Homeland Security become involved in
the John Beale matter? Again, we are going back in history,
lengthy history, to see if we have learned for the present or
if there are some similar things that are taking place right
now.
Mr. Perciasepe. I can tell you that nobody's been claiming
they are working at the CIA at EPA right now. That part of the
history I hope we will never have to live again.
Mr. Walberg. But they are working at other places, and
without working.
Mr. Perciasepe. I would like to say here hindsight is
always 20-20. But I like your approach better, that what are we
learning how are we getting over it.
Mr. Walberg. Right.
Mr. Perciasepe. When the John Beale matter, again, as you
pointed out, it was going on for a good decade before that with
many other people involved. But when that first started to come
up, like, this can't be right kind of come up, the first
instinct people had was to find out if this person really did
work for the FBI. I mean, I am sorry, the CIA.
So I think there is where we got tangled up. I am using
hindsight and what lessons have been learned.
Mr. Walberg. This was the EPA Office of Homeland Security.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, it was originally the Office of, the
Personnel Office, the HR Office, is there any record of this.
They asked the senior intelligence officer, the agency involved
with, the unit in the agency that communicates with the
intelligence community, whether they had any information. And
that went on for a couple of months.
Mr. Walberg. And how many interviews did OHS conduct of
John Beale?
Mr. Perciasepe. I do not know the answer to that. So then
once they figured out there is no record anywhere of this, that
is when it was turned over by the General Counsel and Homeland
Security to the IG. That is my recollection.
Now, if I had to live that through again, same lesson
learned, I would have given it to the IG right away.
Mr. Walberg. Right away.
Mr. Perciasepe. But I didn't know we were looking into
this.
Mr. Walberg. What you are saying is that the EPA Office of
Homeland Security interviewed John Beale before the OIG?
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't know what they did. All I know is
that they tried to find out if he worked for the CIA. Again, I
testified in October that I can see the logic that this would
be a human resources thing, is there any record of this. They
went to the liaison with the intelligence community saying, do
you have any record that this went on.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Sullivan, did you have first crack at
interviewing Mr. Beale, or did EPA Office of Homeland Security
have first crack at it?
Mr. Sullivan. The Office of Homeland Security interviewed
Mr. Beale at least three times before we even knew about the
case.
Mr. Walberg. How did that impact your investigation?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, it severely impacted us, because Mr.
Beale then was alerted that his fraud had been discovered
before the proper authorities, being the IG Office of
Investigations, had been alerted. And he was able to backtrack,
potentially destroy records, potentially build an alibi.
And then when we first approached him, he was expecting an
interview and he referred us to his attorney.
Mr. Walberg. So it harmed your inspection process, the
process you are defined to do, capable of doing, authorized to
do. It hindered.
Mr. Sullivan. It hindered. Yes. It clearly harmed our
investigation. It delayed it and harmed it.
Now, had OHS simply done as Mr. Perciasepe suggested, a
records check with the CIA, we would have been perfectly fine
with that. That's part of their analytical job. Their job is
not to interview employees. That is our job.
Mr. Walberg. That is your job.
Mr. Sullivan. That is my job.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one more
question, in deference to all the time I have had to sit here
and wait for others that went way overboard.
Let me ask this question, Mr. Sullivan. Is the handling of
the employees in question today that we are talking about that
Ms. Heller had to suffer through and all the rest, is it
significantly different process that is going on now compared
to Mr. Beale's? Relative to your responsibility, your
authority.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Walberg, I could tell you as of right
now, I have zero visibility on what OHS is doing. I have no
idea what they are doing, I have no idea what cases they are
working on. I have no idea what employees they are
interviewing.
Mr. Walberg. That is the problem. The atmosphere and
environment around the EPA is polluted. And it is affecting
your impact. I yield back.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, for five minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perciasepe, let me cone to you. We have heard about
pornographic sites being looked at, we have heard about people
being paid without showing up for work, we have heard about CIA
agents, we continue to hear stories. Would you not say that the
EPA has a management problem, a systemic failure in management?
Mr. Perciasepe. EPA has 16,000 employees.
Mr. Meadows. That is not the question. I understand that.
Do you have a management problem, a systemic problem within
management to allow these kinds of things to go on?
Mr. Perciasepe. No.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. I am troubled by that, because as we
continue to hear these things unfold and unfurl, let me turn
your attention to Region 4, of which covers my district of
North Carolina.
In 1990, the EPA came in and conducted a test on one of my
constituents' piece of property without her permission and took
samples and found that there was toxic, hazardous substance on
her property. Do you think that it would have been proper to go
onto her piece of property without her permission? Yes or no.
Is it proper to go onto somebody's property without their
permission?
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't know.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Let me go on further. Do you think it
was proper, when they found that, that they did not tell her
for over nine years that there was toxic stuff on her property?
Yes or no? Would you want to be informed if you had toxic stuff
that was found on your property? Would you want to be informed
by the EPA that it was there?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So do you not think that that would be a
good thing to do?
Mr. Perciasepe. I really have no idea what the
circumstances you are talking about. I want to be responsive
here. I don't know whether it was under some court order, I
have no idea. I am happy to drill deeper.
Mr. Meadows. Okay, well let me tell you, you have been
drilling deep, because the IG has been involved, and this is a
contaminated site, a Superfund site, of which it has been there
for 25 years. And yet we have not even started to clean it up.
Do you think that that is a problem?
Mr. Perciasepe. That is a budget problem.
Mr. Meadows. Oh, that is a budget problem. So we have a
tremendous budget, and so we have known toxic water with
contamination in water, we have a budget problem, but we are
spending billions of dollars on other things, but we can't
clean up a site in Asheville, North Carolina.
Mr. Perciasepe. EPA's Superfund budget has been cut through
the years.
Mr. Meadows. So let me go on a little bit further. Here is
a report that you should have had. This was a call center who
received a call from a constituent in my district in September
of 2009, in April, it was a hot line. And they said that there
was contamination. Do you know when that phone call was
returned? Never. Do you know when the voice mail was checked?
September of that year. Five months.
Now, this is a hot line. Do you not see that as a problem.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. Okay, you see that as a problem. So let me in
the time remaining go on a little bit closer because this is
Region 4, this is water quality. We have a Superfund site that
is not being cleaned up. And yet what we decided to do, and I
say we, because it is the government, I certainly wouldn't have
decided to do this, it appears that we gave a $63,000 bonus to
the Water Quality guy in 2013 for a job well done. Are you
aware of that? Sixty-two thousand nine hundred and eighty-five
dollars, to be exact. This is on top of his $179,000 salary. Do
you think that this is part of a job well done?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I don't think Superfund is part of
the Water Division's work.
Mr. Meadows. But he is managing, it is Water Quality. I
have been involved with it, I know it extremely well. Do you
think he deserved a $63,000 bonus? What do I tell the single
moms back in Asheville, North Carolina, when a Federal
Government employee is getting a $63,000 bonus?
Mr. Perciasepe. I have no idea whether that person had any
involvement with this project at all. So you are asking me a
question I can't answer.
Mr. Meadows. So you justify a $63,000 bonus on any, so he
is making $240,000, you think that is a----
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't even know what the bonus was for,
sir. So it is very difficult for me to be able to be responsive
to you here.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. When do we start to change the
management process within the EPA to allow the American
taxpayers to trust that somebody is going to get fired when
these things go on? How many people have been fired so far
based on the actions that we have heard about today? How many
have been terminated?
Mr. Perciasepe. Can I answer?
Mr. Meadows. Sure.
Mr. Perciasepe. Employees have rights. And we take, all of
the things that have been talked about today are in an
administrative or IG investigation process. Taking final
actions on employees' termination, suspension, or docking of
pay or whatever is available to be done can't be done without
those processes. And more importantly, and I want to be clear
about this, me saying what I think should happen here today
while those are still going on will prejudice those reviews.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Mr. Perciasepe. So I am not going to do it.
Mr. Meadows. That is an explanation. That is not an answer.
How many have been terminated?
Mr. Perciasepe. None.
Mr. Meadows. That is what I was afraid of. I will yield
back.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Perciasepe, is it, could you provide to
the committee how many people have been fired in the last, say,
five years? Is that fair? I am not asking for names.
Mr. Perciasepe. I will provide, up to firing, I will
provide all of our disciplinary actions in the last five years.
I will do that.
Mr. Chaffetz. And you will provide that to this committee?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I will.
Mr. Chaffetz. Very good, thank you.
I will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Cardenas, for five minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sullivan, you say that it is important for EPA's Office
of Homeland Security to share with the IG any information it
may come across concerning potential criminal misconduct of an
EPA employee. This information is not only necessary because
you believe that the OIG has jurisdiction to investigate these
cases but also because, as a practical matter, your office
needs the information for deconfliction purposes. Is that
correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cardenas. Can you explain to us what you mean by
deconfliction and why it is so important?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. There is a basic tenet in law
enforcement that you don't want to step on another agency's
case. But most importantly, you don't want to put your agents
or the agents or the officers of another agency at risk. It is
critically important in drug investigations or counterfeiting
investigations where we have an undercover officer. But it is
also equally important in instances where you have a target
where two agencies may be targeting the same individual for
alleged criminal activity.
It just does not bode well when the agencies aren't talking
with each other. Nothing good happens from that and a lot of
bad things can happen.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you for your answer.
Mr. Perciasepe, I find Mr. Sullivan's argument for
information sharing relevant. Do you agree that the IG should
be informed whenever there is a national security investigation
involving an EPA employee?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think we did talk about this a little bit
earlier. We are having a meeting on Friday of next week with
the head of counterintelligence of the FBI and the Inspector
General and the Administrator is bringing them together to see
if we can come up with how we deal with that. Because you have
zeroed in on, I think there are many issues being discussed
here, but we zeroed in on one key one that I feel is workable
and we can figure out what the proper sequences are. And that
is when the misconduct is occurring in the conduct of a
national security issue, and how that goes about.
I believe as I think you are alluding to that law
enforcement agencies do this kind of deconflicting all the
time. And we just need to get the proper protocols and standard
operating procedures in place to make sure that they happen
appropriately.
Mr. Cardenas. Is one of the things that is on the minds or
concern of respective departments when it comes to
investigations, is one of the concerns that if you don't follow
appropriate protocols that actually there could be a lawsuit on
behalf of an employee, and unfortunately their chances of
winning might be increased because you weren't being careful
enough?
Mr. Perciasepe. I would argue there are probably many
complications. Those could be some of them that have to be
carefully weighed when there is overlapping jurisdiction that
needs to be worked out.
Mr. Cardenas. One other thing is if one of you could
clarify for us when a person is a government employee, do they
inherently give up their rights that we have as American
citizens?
Mr. Sullivan. No. Everyone has their constitutional rights
if you are accused of a crime. However, as a government
employee, if any inspector general wants to question you, in
your role as a government employee, there is a warning that we
issue called a Kalkines warning, which in effect tells the
person being interviewed that you cannot be prosecuted for the
statement you are going to give us. Nothing you say can be used
against you unless you lie to us. You are compelled to speak to
us, and if you don't speak to us you will be subject to
disciplinary action up to and including removal.
And that is across the board in the entire Federal
Government, whenever the IG approaches someone, as long as you
are not under criminal investigation or criminal exposure.
Mr. Cardenas. So in other words, there is the allowance
within the relationship between Federal employees and
management and/or investigative authorities at the Federal
level to get down to the bottom of improving what is going on
within agencies, and they do have access to those employees.
Yet at the same time, it sounds like those employees can't be
treated with impunity on how those investigations or how that
questioning takes place.
Mr.Sullivan. Yes, but the issue of the Kalkines warning is
within the purview of the Inspector General's office. It would
not be appropriate for other entities within an agency to issue
that warning. That is reserved for IG business to collect the
facts to ensure that we have relevant information and people
are truthful to us.
Mr. Cardenas. So basically, unfortunately, for some people
who think that it is simplistic, it isn't simplistic, it is a
bit complicated.
Mr. Sullivan. It certainly is complicated, sir. Yes. But
they are workable problems, but it is complicated.
Mr. Cardenas. Okay, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Bentivolio, for five minutes.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday I attended a field hearing in my district in
Michigan that dealt with how Federal regulations are impeding
the growth of small businesses and manufacturers. One common
theme throughout the hearing related to regulations being
imposed by the EPA which do not solve any relevant problems and
will cause these businesses billions of dollars to comply.
I am not discounting the EPA. Throughout history when
serious problems have arisen, we have put in place appropriate
and effective regulations that protect Americans. The impact of
regulations can be good. However, I am back here today
attending another hearing regarding the EPA, only to discover
the EPA is involving themselves in areas that they should not
be involved in. Things are occurring at the EPA which cause me
great concern about the leadership and how work is being
conducted or maybe not conducted.
Maybe the EPA has too much time on their hands or too many
employees working for the agency because instead of
concentrating on determining what regulations are needed and
would be effective to safeguard Americans and not cost
businesses billions of dollars, thus regulating America out of
business, the agency is involved in questionable activities. In
an article published September in 2013 prior to the government
shutdown, the EPA announced that only 1,069 of its employees
out of the 16,205 employed were essential.
So basically, EPA acknowledges that over 90 percent of its
employees were not essential. I think maybe this confirms my
point that the EPA might have too many employees and too much
time on their hands, and that this has created an environment
that encourages misconduct.
With that being said, I have a few questions. Mr.
Perciasepe, that being said, you have 15,000 employees that you
basically said were non-essential. Have you completed an audit
to determine how many employees are essential to protect our
environment?
Mr. Perciasepe. First of all, let me say the determination
of an exempt and non-exempt employee during a cessation of
appropriations is a very different thing than whether they are
needed to implement the laws that Congress has enacted. It is
whether or not they are needed to stay behind and run the risk
of not being paid, depending on the outcome of Congress'
resolution of the budget, because of a danger to the public's
assets or an immediate damage that might occur.
Mr. Bentivolio. Mr. Perciasepe, you have John Beale, an
unnamed GS-14 EPA employee viewing pornography at work for two
to six hours a day, you have people working--holy cow--that are
getting paid, not at work, don't even have a building pass,
don't even really have a computer hooked up to the EPA. You
have Renee Page, who has received a prestigious Presidential
rank award in 2012, a cash award of $35,000, who hired 17
family members and friends for paid intern positions, sold
jewelry and weight loss products during her leisure time during
work hours, her daughter was an employee at the EPA, received a
cash bonus from Ms. Page's budget account, inappropriately
influenced a contract. We will hear more about that, I am sure,
later.
Beth Craig, which is, oh, Mr. Beale's travel expenses I
think she approved. Another GS-15 employee getting paid while
in a retirement home. Retention bonus abuses, one thing after
another. But you know, the other thing that I heard in my
district from many people saying that the EPA is looking for a
new mission. Because what I am hearing complaints from, I am
from Michigan and you can travel seven miles in any direction
and hit a body of water. Thousands of lakes and rivers and
streams. And we have a lot of those lakes that have a small,
seasonal marina. They rent rowboats for fishermen to fish
during the day for about $15, $20 per day. And the EPA is
visiting them and causing havoc. Some of these people have told
me they are going to have to shut down to meet those
requirements.
So once again, have you completed an audit to determine how
many employees are essential to protect our environment?
Because it appears, sir, that they have more time on their
hands and they are looking for a mission.
Now, I want to be clear, I grew up in a time when we have
Love Canal and rivers that caught on fire. EPA was a great
champion. But you have 16,000 employees, it appears, looking
for a new mission.
Sir, have you conducted an audit and if not, will you some
time in the future?
Mr. Perciasepe. I really don't know what that audit would
be. But we haven't done an audit. I am just going to answer you
straight up. We don't have an audit on trying to determine
whether each employee is essential or not essential.
Mr. Bentivolio. I strongly suggest you do so.
Mr. Perciasepe, you said to my colleague, Mr. Meadows, that
your employees have rights. I want to tell you, Mr. Perciasepe,
I want you to know, my constituents have rights, too. And they
take precedence over the rights of your employees.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. [Presiding] Thank you. The gentleman's time
has expired.
Mr. Perciasepe, is there something you wanted to say in
response?
Mr. Perciasepe. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. On the,
getting back to the substance of the small marina operators, I
am happy to look into that if you want me to.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you very much. I look forward to your
visit, we will give you a tour of the many Michigan lakes and
streams.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Perciasepe. As long as I can do some muskie fishing, I
will be happy.
Mr. Bentivolio. Very good.
Chairman Issa. You didn't come to Cleveland for walleyed
pike.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Issa. And with all due respect, what came out of
those boats that burned on the Cuyahoga has been greatly over-
exaggerated. And you Michigan folks going after us
Clevelanders, I have a problem with that, a little bit. But we
will get into that at another time.
With that, we go to Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perciasepe, I appreciate your training us up on name
pronunciation. I am a big believer in training folks up. I have
only been here three years and I can still be trained up. And I
think that is true government-wide. My recollection of Mr.
Beale's case is that he was discovered because of a change in
EPA leadership that folks who had not become accustomed to his
ways began to ask questions and that change led to better
outcomes for us as a Nation.
I appreciate the work of the folks at OIG. It is a hard
job. And whether you are a Republican administration or a
Democrat Administration, you have an IG there and the IG's job
is to train you up. And we don't have an IG on individual
members' offices here. If we did and they came by my office, I
would like to think I am 100 percent the best fellow on Capitol
Hill, but I am convinced that if I brought in some folks, they
could train me up.
But it is hard to accept constructive criticism, because
you do want to do the best you can with what you have to work
with. Tell me about the culture at EPA. Do you view the three
folk sitting to your right as part of a team whose
responsibility is to make you better every day and a
responsibility that you value? Or is it a different
relationship with the folks who sit to your right?
Mr. Perciasepe. As you just pointed out, there is always
going to be some differences of opinions. We have been talking
today about a significant one that I think can be worked out.
But on a general matter, I pointed out earlier that since
2009, since I came back in December of 2009, there has been
about, a little over 2,600 different audits, reports, analyses
done by the IG that we have cooperated on. We do 50
significant, I recall, audits a year, roughly. I think that is
about right, Patrick and the rest of the gang here. And the
vast majority of those are done in a way that we are learning
every step of the way. We are learning and responding. In the
questions we are leaning and putting together the action plan.
Not only that, we have a pretty open management structure
at EPA. For instance, I chair a group called the Executive
Management Council, which is made up of all the career
deputies, including the career deputy of the Office of
Inspector General. They are full participants in that
discussion. We have an annual process under the Federal
Managers Financial Integrity Act, FMFIA, where the IG comes in
and makes presentations to the entire senior leadership of the
agency on where they see our weaknesses. It is kind of to have
a culture that is open.
Mr. Woodall. I appreciate that. And that is exactly the
question I was asking, I appreciate your answering it in that
way. But I have to ask the folks from the Inspector General's
office, was this a tale of a lot of collaboration and a lot of
working together, but the reports I have in my folder this
morning are things that I would hope would have never been
written, because we would have never had those problems,
because we would have had a structure in place that those
didn't occur to begin with.
Is the structure that Mr. Perciasepe describes, Mr.
Sullivan, of cooperation and collaboration, is he describing
his own view, or is he describing the EPA culture?
Mr. Sullivan. We have an excellent working relationship
with the rest of the agency. However, it is extremely
dysfunctional at the Office of Homeland Security. That is why
we have to resolve that.
Mr. Woodall. Tell me about that, Mr. Perciasepe. Because
you spoke with great fondness about the collaboration that goes
on there. Here we have a single office within a giant agency, a
single office that we can agree has impeded the spirit of
collaboration and cooperation that you provided. The tale that
Ms. Heller had to tell about her encounter, we would have had
that person fired this afternoon.
Now, we don't have the same workplace protections in
Congress that you have at the EPA. But that would not be
tolerated. Why does it require a Congressional hearing to solve
this issue when you have that collaborative relationship? And
we are talking about one subdivision of dysfunction in an
otherwise functioning agency.
Mr. Perciasepe. It needs to be, it needs to be reconciled
and worked through. And we have made attempts to do it. And we
have now elevated it inside the agency. And Administrator
McCarthy and Randall Coleman, who is the head of, works at the
FBI as the head of counterintelligence for the United States
and the Inspector General are going to get together next week
and they are going to try to put the framework together to deal
with what kind of standard operation procedures or protocols we
are going to need to have to deconflict this issue. And the
tensions, and the confrontations that may occur are all
derivative of these mission problems, I believe. We are going
to have to deal with individuals' behavior as we get
information on that.
Mr. Woodall. You would agree with me then that again,
within this very collaborative process that you have described,
cooperative process, there is no set of circumstances where
this really persists. Not should persist, but will persist. We
will in fact solve this because we can.
Mr. Perciasepe. That is the intent, is to do that. Just
listening to today, when I get back to the office I am going to
direct the Office of Homeland Security to seek permission to
share the information that Mr. Sullivan is talking about with
them.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Woodall. I would be happy to yield to the Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Well, as long as you are going to do that,
Mr. Perciasepe----
Mr. Perciasepe. This is permission from the FBI.
Chairman Issa. Well, as long as you are going to do that, I
would certainly hope that you would hear out what Mr. Sullivan
said and we knew from the previous investigation, that the
interference by an entity that had no business being in the
middle of Mr. Beale's corrupt activity, a man who was the
direct report to the Administrator, worked for her for years.
That interference, you know and I know and the American people
know, reeked of her personal staff, these 10 people that worked
for her in an entity she created, or sorry, she continued but
redirected, that interference in the investigation of Mr. Beale
is exactly the kind of interference that makes it look like the
IG is okay as long as they are doing stuff that she doesn't
care about or that you don't care about.
But quite frankly, I heard it here today and I saw it in
the investigation. Mr. Beale should have been discovered a long
time ago. The Administrator herself deserves a lot of
culpability, not just for the years that she didn't see it, but
after she knew it and it could have been stopped sooner and it
wasn't.
I hope you are taking that back, because I know Mr.
Sullivan and Mr. Williams, and I hope the Inspector General
himself, are concerned that that is part of the obstruction
that has to end. And I am sorry, but you can't have a
management discussion about it. It never should have happened.
It should have been zero tolerance. That type of interference
with the IG is not deconflicting. Do you understand that here
today? If you have any disagreement, please say it now in front
of us and the IG.
Mr. Perciasepe. I can't remember everything you said, Mr.
Chairman, but----
Chairman Issa. Your squad, this 10-man unit, interfered in
the Beale investigation with the IG. That is already in our
taillights. But it is exactly the kind of thing that has to be
deconflicted.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
Chairman Issa. Thank you. Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir, I would just like to underscore,
though, that the issue with the FBI is one part of the issue.
The other issue is the Office of Homeland Security receiving
allegations of misconduct and then independently vetting those
allegations, conducting an investigation, with or without the
FBI, without telling us. Our position is and always has been,
as soon as OHS or another employee receives an allegation, they
must immediately inform the IG.
Chairman Issa. Exactly. It is outside their purview the
moment they hear about it. It is no different, Mr. Perciasepe,
than if you heard about it, your job is to call the IG. Your
job is not to send it to some entity created for a completely
different purpose. That is what the ranking member I know has
been trying to work on with his staff on a unilateral basis,
and I respect that if he can get it done, that is great. This
hearing is about the fact that it hasn't gotten done.
Thank you, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is
the second round now, so I will go to Mr. Chaffetz, and then
the gentleman from California. Mr. Chaffetz?
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Perciasepe, Renee Page, are you familiar with Renee
Page?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I am.
Mr. Chaffetz. She is the, as I understand it, the Director
of the Office of Administration at the EPA, correct?
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't know her exact title.
Mr. CHaffetz. But she is still employed at the EPA?
Mr. Perciasepe. She is employed, but she has been removed
from that responsibility during the conduct of the review of
the report.
Mr. Chaffetz. Do you know what she is doing right now?
Mr. Perciasepe. I do not. She is not managing that program.
We are in the process of reviewing the report we got from the
IG a couple of weeks ago.
Mr. Chaffetz. I don't know if it is Mr. Williams or Mr.
Sullivan, can one of you please explain what it is you found
about her?
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chaffetz, there was an issue, we have to
be very careful here because of the Privacy Act. Ms. Page was
not charged with a crime. And she has certain rights as an
employee. So we did not publicly release her name. So we are
very uncomfortable discussing her by name.
Mr. Chaffetz. This is a person who earned a cash award of
some $35,000. Now, that alone to me, I am sorry, but as a
Federal employee, unless you are personally helping to take
out, as some people did, Osama bin Ladin and others, a $35,000
cash award seems, it seems obscene, in my opinion. Given that
this is still under review, I will, I am just deeply concerned
about what is happening here.
My understanding is that, you did the investigation, it was
then referred to, who did you refer it to?
Mr. Williams. It was referred to EPA management.
Mr. Chaffetz. How long ago was that?
Mr. Williams. About two months ago, I believe.
Mr. Chaffetz. What is a reasonable amount of time, what is
a reasonable amount of time so you can come to the conclusion?
Two months?
Mr. Perciasepe. Again, I am in a similar situation here of
what I can say and can't say. There are things going on----
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman suspend, please?
Mr. Perciasepe. I really can't, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. If the gentleman will suspend, stop the
clock. I have been advised by counsel and have previously been
advised by counsel that you are not in a forum in which that
statute applies. Now, we will not ask you, yes, the privacy of
this woman by name is not a question that you can say I can't
answer in this forum. You are being asked before a hearing
about an individual by name.
Now, criminal referrals and the details that are beyond the
scope of what the gentleman's questions are, I would ask him
not to ask and you not to answer, because I think that could
impede the criminal investigation. But the facts such as her
activities, her sales, the bonus and so on, all of that is
within the scope of this committee and is not covered by a law
that was written not to apply to us and not to apply to her
investigation. I want to make that clear in this forum. Because
we go through this in depositions and transcribed interviews.
Additionally, the fact that DOJ has declined to prosecute
is not something that is going to be withheld. The American
people have a right to know that allegations were made, they
were sent to the department of Justice, that is where we have
our source of these allegations. They declined to prosecute it,
it is now back for an administrative decision. She may not have
committed any crimes, but the elements that were sent there
which were fact-based and the decline and now that it is before
administrative, all of those elements of her activities are
fair and reasonable for the gentleman to ask and to expect a
full and complete answer.
So the gentleman will continue.
Mr. Chaffetz. Let me just simply say, the allegations are
very serious. And we have outlined a host of them. And Mr.
Perciasepe, you make a point, it is a good point, it is a large
agency with 16,000 employees. But what you have heard here over
the course of the last several hours are very senior people. We
are not talking about some newbie who is in the bowels of the
administration somewhere. We are talking about senior
management level people. Mr. Beale had a very senior level.
This person I just referenced had a very senior position in the
administration.
And that is the concern. And there is this overarching
feeling and concern that justice doesn't ever play out. We
heard that in the case of the person sitting right next to you,
Special Agent Howard Drake. Where and when do people actually
get fired? When is there accountability?
I think that has a much more detrimental effect on the rest
of the 16,000 employees who are good, hard-working, patriotic
people, they work hard, they are doing good for their country.
But when they don't see justice served, they are left to think
that there is no justice. And that is fundamentally wrong, and
that is the overarching point.
I am not trying to pick on any one person. But when
somebody is giving bonuses to their own daughter out of their
account, that is a problem. And I don't know why it takes
months to figure it out. We have an employee who is looking at
over 600 porn sites in a four-day period and it is there in
black and white, fire them. That is the message I guess we are
trying to convey back. And I look forward to working with you.
I appreciate your sitting here. You are braver than most to
come in and chat with Congress. Coming before Congress is not
necessarily a fun thing.
But that is our concern, is holding people accountable.
Mr. Perciasepe. First of all, on the last comment, I want
you all to understand, I view this as my sacred responsibility,
to work with you. So you can ask me whatever you want. What I
don't want to do is not so much a legal thing, as the Chairman
alluded to, I don't want to say something, as one of the
leaders of the agency, that could bias and give an out or
something else for somebody who is going to undergo an
administrative process.
Mr. Chaffetz. I understand. And I think the point has been
made, and I know you have heard it. The IG has a critical
function. There are no ifs, ands or buts, excuses to not give
the IG. They should have the first crack at that. They are the
ones who are trained professionals in doing that.
And my only message again to Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Williams,
don't let them push you around. Don't go entering into some
voluntary ``we are going to stand down.'' You never stand down.
That is what I need to hear from the IG. I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
California seeks recognition. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Concern for national security played a significant role on
how the John Beale case was handled. Last October, we explored
how fears about blowing Mr. Beale's cover with the CIA allowed
him to penetrate a fraud against the agency and the government.
It may be hard to understand now, but at the time, EPA
officials believed Mr. Beale did not suspect him of lying to
them, therefore they were trying to protect his cover story,
not prove that it was a fraud. Mr. Perciasepe, given what
people thought at the time, what was the logic in tapping the
OHS and deciding not to inform the IG immediately about Mr.
Beale?
Mr. Perciasepe. So, I think you had some of the context
there. This obviously had been going on for 10 years through
multiple administrations, many different assistant
administrators, different parties. This has just been going on.
In many respects, it is a classic confidence game, where you
gain everybody's confidence and then you abuse that confidence.
It is probably more complicated than that, but I am just being
simple here.
So when this really started to come to a head and we were
saying, how could this be, people were raising the questions as
has been pointed out here several times, that the sense was,
and again, I already testified here that in hindsight I would
have asked people to do something differently. But in this
instance, whenever I was asked about it, and I think other
people, it was like, there must be some human resources record-
keeping here that would say whether he is or isn't doing these
things.
And when most folk didn't have any records, the General
Counsel's office asked the office that is the liaison with the
intelligence community, the Office of Homeland Security, what
they knew about it. And here is where we get into the situation
I think that Mr. Sullivan brought up. If they had just tried to
check their records to see what was going on, I don't think the
IG would have had an issue with that. What they had an issue
with, they went and interviewed the guy.
Now, as it turns out, and I want to be really clear about
that, because the fears of what could happen when you do that
and you tip people off are real, and I think they are more
expert in those potential problems than I am. But in this case,
I am personally pleased in terms of the message sending and
everything else that this employee is now spending almost three
years in jail and has paid back not only $900,000 that we
discovered he defrauded, but $500,000 more in calculating what
he might have financially benefitted from having that other
money.
So he has paid back already to the Federal Treasury $1.4
million and he is spending three years in jail. I wish things
had gone smoother when we got through that, but that is the
current situation we are in. That is the best rationale I could
give you, which is probably not the best one in hindsight, but
that is how I think it got into the Office of Homeland
Security.
Mr. Cardenas. So Mr. Perciasepe, once OHS discovered that
Mr. Beale was not affiliated with the CIA, how long did it take
for EPA to refer the matter to IG?
Mr. Perciasepe. My memory is not precise on this, but I
think they looked at it for maybe three months and then they
turned it over to the Office of Inspector General.
Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Sullivan, could you confirm with us, how
long was your investigation once the IG was involved?
Mr. Sullivan. We were informed on February 11th, 2013, and
we immediately put a number of agents on the case. And within
three months, three and a half months, we had a plea agreement
with Mr. Beale and his attorney and the U.S. Attorneys office.
So within three and a half months, we had kind of brought it to
at least the initial conclusion. And then it went through the
process of him, the formal plea and then the formal sentencing.
Mr. Cardenas. Okay. So Mr. Sullivan, in your testimony you
stated you cannot assure us that the IG is doing everything
possible to root out other John Beales who may be at the EPA.
Are you suggesting that there could be people masquerading as
CIA employees currently working at the EPA?
Mr. Sullivan. No, sir, I have no visibility on that, and I
don't expect that would be true. But I do have a very real,
abiding concern that the Office of Homeland Security is
interviewing employees, collecting information on employees
engaged in misconduct and not telling us. And that is a major
issue for me and my staff, and a major issue for the Inspector
General.
Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Perciasepe, are there any valid reasons
why the EPA would not cooperate timely in a fully and timely
manner with the IG under their investigations?
Mr. Perciasepe. I think we got into this, is this an
exception, before. But I think our standard operating procedure
is that we always do that, we always cooperate with the IG
fully. In this case, and again I think another year in the
future, maybe we will have a joint different view of it, but in
this case, we have temporarily, by mutual agreement, have
delayed completing the investigation of the issues in the
Office of Homeland Security.
Mr. Cardenas. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank you. I recognize myself now.
Three months that they knew this guy was a fraud and they
didn't turn it over to the IG. Would you agree, Mr. Perciasepe,
that that is three months longer than it should ever happen?
Three months to the minute that they knew this was a mater of a
fraudulent employee and not a national security individual?
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't know when during that time period
they made that revelation to themselves. But I have already
testified that I think in hindsight, I would have recommended,
to the extent that I would have had a role in that, to do
something different.
Chairman Issa. And of course, hindsight is always good, in
hindsight we know that basically the Administrator, cabinet-
level position, makes one phone call in a secured environment
and finds out whether somebody is in fact a clandestine agent
that for some reason the entity who has a responsibility to
tell them that that is their agent, because the agency head is
to be informed, in fact would be told, no, that isn't, and we
can verify that.
Reading the law, you now know as the deputy that if you
have any embedded individuals in that category, you have to be
informed.
Mr. Perciasepe. As I understand it, although I have to
admit, and maybe this is my problem, I did not know that. That
law had changed since I came back to the Federal Government.
But as I understand it, and I will look behind me and in front
of me here, that if that ever was the case, that the Cabinet-
level person and their general counsel are to be informed.
Chairman Issa. Now, I understand that Mr. Sullivan and Mr.
Williams, you can't say whether there is or isn't another Beale
embedded. But there are people who are being paid and they are
not working. You have recently discovered, you said like 71
cases. You know that, in fact, bosses are falsifying documents
so that people get paid who are not working. Is that right? You
have enough of these examples that you clearly know, if there
is this many, there is more, right?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, you don't know what you don't know, Mr.
Chairman. But we do have a number of cases in which employees
have not shown up for work but have been paid, yes.
Chairman Issa. So when you keep seeing that eventually what
you see is that at least two things exist. One is, it has
happened enough times that it probably will happen again, if it
is not happening today. And secondly, because the Justice
Department has declined to prosecute again and again, including
the example of a 20-year, five years completely unable even to
log in, no prosecution. You know that to be true.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir, unfortunately for us as
investigators, we collect the facts presented to the U.S.
Attorney's office and they make a decision based on our
resources. But it is quite common to get a declination, that is
correct, sir.
Chairman Issa. And Mr. Perciasepe, when you have somebody
who bonuses with taxpayer dollars their own daughter, in a way
that was designed clearly to circumvent anyone knowing that,
because whether she hired the employee herself or simply made
sure that the money out of her budget got there to make a bonus
available, and there is a decline to prosecute, do you believe
it is your obligation to go back to Justice to ask them to
reconsider, and did you do that?
Mr. Perciasepe. I have no authority to go back to Justice
and ask them to do something.
Chairman Issa. You mean you can't say, as the number two at
the EPA, to the number two at the Attorney General's office,
are you guys sure you don't have a case? Is this a matter of,
you don't have a case or that you are just too busy to deal
with these white collar crimes? Do you have the authority to
ask that question?
Mr. Perciasepe. I misunderstood your question. I don't know
what the exact thing that the IG does when they send it to the
U.S. Attorneys. I think it is like a warrant.
Chairman Issa. I assume it is a criminal referral.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perciasepe. My answer was only, I don't have the
authority to do a criminal referral.
Chairman Issa. They have done a criminal referral, it has
come back as a decline to prosecute. You have a management
problem, which is, you have multiple people, and Ms. Heller, I
am going to hear from you in a moment, including people with
anger management problems. Because they are not prosecuting, it
comes back to you. That means you have a management problem.
The political appointees over at Department of Justice are
supposed to be sympathetic to your management problem if crimes
were committed and it is affecting your ability to do your job.
Because it takes you a long time, if at all, to get rid of
somebody who is a criminal but technically not being
prosecuted. Isn't that the case?
Mr. Perciasepe. I don't know what instances we have where
somebody is a criminal and--I don't know.
Chairman Issa. Bonusing your own daughter? Crime. Signing
false--you know it signing five years of somebody who isn't
working, you know they are not working, the fact is, they are
unable to work, they should be put on disability. Claiming for
a year that somebody, multiple years, that somebody in a
nursing home is, in fact, telecommuting, I have deep concerns
about telecommuting because it definitely opens up the ability
for somebody sick, lame, lazy or dead to get paid if we have no
checks and balances on people who sign off saying this person
is doing work.
So I will leave that for a moment, I will go on to the main
event. Well, let me rephrase that.
Ms. Heller, I said I would give you time and I want to make
sure that I give you time. You are a victim of somebody with
anger management problems. That entire case is sitting there
waiting for another investigation, another IG to look into it.
And that individual is still doing their job and you are unable
to get back to the job, you and the other people from the
Inspector General, that you were doing when you were assaulted,
isn't that correct?
Ms. Heller Drake. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Issa. Now, you said this in your opening
statement, you are a woman with a gun. You are somebody who is
law enforcement trained. And this was incredibly frightening to
you. This was something that really put you in a feeling of,
this man could go off in the worst possible way, and it shocked
you, is that correct?
Ms. Heller Drake. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Issa. And you are not easy to shock, are you?
Mr. Heller Drake. Not at all.
Chairman Issa. Now, the thousands of women at EPA who don't
enjoy your level of training and preparation, including how to
normally diffuse, who don't carry a firearm, somebody like this
in the workplace, including his direct reports, they are still
being potentially assaulted every day in the workplace, aren't
they?
Ms. Heller Drake. Yes, sir.
Chairman Issa. How do you feel about that?
Ms. Heller Drake. It is extremely disconcerting.
Chairman Issa. I never want to feel like there is nothing I
can do. So I am going to tell you that this is going to be an
ongoing, daily part of communication with the EPA.
Additionally, my office will be sending out, I will ask the
ranking member to join me, to every Cabinet position an inquiry
based on what we heard today, asking how many other
administrative delays in which somebody who has been accused,
apparently very validly, of inappropriate behavior, not once
but multiple times, is still on the job.
I know that the ranking member, if he were sitting here
still, would agree that zero tolerance is what the President
has promised us. It is what the Administrator, I am sure, would
promise us. And I am going to do everything I can to keep the
Administration focused on cleaning house, at least of people
still being managers and in the workplace after the kind of
thing you experienced.
Ms. Heller Drake. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. I am going to close, I will give all of you
a last word.
Deputy Administrator Perciasepe, I have a problem that
needs to be resolved and closed. Your agency has, in fact,
failed to comply with subpoenas. You know it, it has been a
long time. This is your second trip back, failure to comply.
Additionally, your process for collecting information is
unacceptable. And I am just going to go through it briefly.
Mr. Sullivan, if you are looking for emails, my
understanding, Mr. Williams, you access EPA computers and you
draw the emails you need based on key word search, is that
correct?
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir, it is.
Chairman Issa. Would you ever ask the gentleman, I use that
word loosely, that assaulted Ms. Heller, would you ever ask him
and others to look and see if they have emails responsive to
some inquiry into them that you are doing?
Mr. Williams. No, sir, we would not.
Chairman Issa. And Administrator, why is it that when we
send you a subpoena, your procedure is self-search? You
essentially call up the people who we're looking into and you
ask EPA employees to self-search their emails. And by the way,
your self-searching, if they believe that they have documents
that are potentially responsive, rather than having your
general counsel or your IGs or anybody else who is by
definition not under investigation, do the search and deliver
us the documents? Do you understand how that procedure is
inherently open and fraught with obstruction, that an
individual who gets to search their own emails gets to keep you
from being culpable in obstructing, but, in fact, may very well
be taking the documents out that we most want to have and
deserve to have. Do you understand that?
Mr. Perciasepe. I can see that possibility.
Chairman Issa. Do you understand that if you do not fully
comply with a subpoena of this committee or any committee of
the Congress that you can and will be held in contempt?
Mr. Perciasepe. I can't imagine a situation where we will
not comply.
Chairman Issa. You have not complied. Do you know when
October was? Okay.
Mr. Perciasepe. I am hoping just last year, right?
Chairman Issa. Yes, just last year, although Lois Lerner's
emails haven't been provided by Treasury, either. My patience
has expired. I want full cooperation and discovery and delivery
of all relevant documents, and I will be asking that you
certify in a letter, signed letter, that you believe you have
fully complied and that you do so within one month total. It is
my intention to bring to this committee a contempt if that is
not done.
Mr. Perciasepe. Okay.
Chairman Issa. It is necessary, because running the clock
of, we will get you something sometime, is going on. In the
case of Lois Lerner's emails from Treasury, either myself or a
special prosecutor needs to have all those emails. That is
another Cabinet position. But understand here today that the
Speaker's willingness to work with and allow delay has expired,
and that is why we have requests for a special prosecutor in
the IRS case, and in Benghazi on the House Floor today, we will
be taking the next step with a select committee.
This branch of government's time and willingness to
cooperate with delay and denial has expired. It is clear that
the President you work for and the Administration you work for
has a delay and deny capability and plan and has since the
beginning. It is now very clear from other documents. So it is
time for you to realize that your time is limited. I do not
expect you to run the clock until the end of the month, or for
a month. Because in a month from now, I will have scheduled a
contempt. So we expect immediate cooperation. If you have any
technical problems, please work with us. But notwithstanding a
technical limitation, we will expect full compliance.
And I said I would give you all a final word. I will start
with you, Administrator.
Mr. Perciasepe. First of all, thank you. And I understand
what you just said. My understanding is that there are
dialogues going on with the staff, but I will obviously go back
and push ahead.
Let me say in somewhat conclusion to the overall discussion
that we have had here today, people ask me about concerns with
management at EPA. I am the Deputy Administrator. I am always
concerned about management at EPA. And my partner in helping me
deal with management at EPA is the IG. And in fact, since the
Beale occurrence happened, we have been able to dissect many
different weaknesses that have sat in the agency for years and
we are in the process of correcting them. Some of the things on
time and attendance that you just talked about, we are putting
in systems that will not enable that to go on the way it has
been. To provide tools for the managers so that they get these
exception reports and then they have to elevate them.
So while we have had the policies, and I think we talked
about this last time, I think you have very good personal
knowledge on how systems can help managers manage better, we
are trying to run into that as fast as we can. And we are
trying to do it in a way, in partnership with the IG as we get
their reviews of the different administrative procedures.
So I think upgrading management at EPA is definitely
something I am working personally on for the Administrator. We
have done things already. There is more that we have to do. And
I also want to make sure I commit to the committee here that
the Administrator's meeting next week is designed to break the
logjam so we can move forward on some of the issues that you
have heard about today.
And as soon as we can get done with the work with the
Department of Defense, we will move expeditiously on whatever
that discovers in terms of Special Agent Heller.
Chairman Issa. I appreciate that. I want to make sure the
record is clear that some of your employees, in working with
the staff, have asserted that there may be an executive
privilege claim in the case of documents with the White House.
We have recently seen White House documents as to the false and
misleading statements after Benghazi about the video that
wasn't a factor at all, but was being led.
It is the intent of the Speaker, clearly, that documents
that are appropriate, even if they go to the White House, are
discoverable, such as those. In this case, these are documents
that you will have to assert and provide a privilege law if one
exists. Otherwise, we expect full discovery. And we cannot
accept, ``We may on some have executive privilege.'' Document
by document, the President must assert executive privilege. He
is not reluctant to do it, but we expect him to do it or we
expect discovery.
So I want to make it clear, working with staff is a
discussion. Producing document by document claiming executive
privilege is in fact something that the President has to decide
with the Administrator.
Ms. Heller, any closing remarks?
Ms. Heller Drake. Sir, I don't have any closing remarks,
except to say thank you so much for inviting me today and
allowing me to share my experience.
Chairman Issa. Thank you for coming here. It is always
courageous to come as an individual and as a victim of
workplace violence or harassment. And I appreciate it, and
thank you for your service.
Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for
the opportunity to discuss our employee integrity cases, and we
appreciate this opportunity. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to underscore
my previous testimony that in general, our relationship with
Administrator McCarthy and Deputy Administrator Perciasepe is
outstanding. However, in this one area, involving the Office of
Homeland Security it is completely dysfunctional. I want to
underscore that we will, in fact, look forward to the meetings
in the future.
Bottom line is this, though, sir, we cannot negotiate away
our authority into the IG Act, and we absolutely will insist
that we be notified immediately of any allegation of
misconduct.
Chairman Issa. I appreciate that, and I will close by
saying, the ranking member has been working on an ex parte
basis to try to resolve it, and obviously it didn't work before
this. My intention is, of course to be inclusive of the ranking
member, but I will be talking to SIGI, which has a coordination
obligation. Because it is my opinion that very clearly, and you
are right, Mr. Sullivan, an IG cannot negotiate away or defer
on that which is the independent responsibility. And an
administrator asking for a stand-down has at least the whiff,
the air of a failure to respect the independence of the IG.
A day or a week is not uncommon. People can certainly go
work on other things. But this has gone on long enough that it
now represents a real question about the integrity of that
investigation that has been on hiatus. So I will be talking to
SIGI later today. I will talk to the ranking member. But this
is an ongoing interest of this committee that every day that
goes by we will be asking key staff to ask you, has it been
resolved. And I expect that at least there will be a, this is
what we did today or this is what we will do tomorrow.
So I want to thank you. This is not an easy hearing. Some
even questioned the title. But I think the title reflected at
least a portion of what is, in fact, an agency that we want to
stay active and engaged with on a number of issues in order to
do our job of oversight and make sure that the systems you want
to put into place are put into place in a timely fashion.
I want to thank all the witnesses, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9593.032