[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INVESTIGATING CONTRACT MISCONDUCT
AT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 15, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-572PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
July 15, 2015
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 5
Written Statement............................................ 6
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 6
Written Statement............................................ 8
Witnesses:
Mr. Mark Greenblatt, Deputy Assistant General for Compliance &
Ethics, Office of Inspector General, Department of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
Mr. Robert Byrd, Former Chief Financial Officer, National Weather
Service
MMr. Peter Jiron, Former Deputy Chief Financial Officer, National
Weather Service
Discussion....................................................... 20
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Mark Greenblatt, Deputy Assistant General for Compliance &
Ethics, Office of Inspector General, Department of Commerce.... 48
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Report submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 82
INVESTIGATING CONTRACT MISCONDUCT
AT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing titled ``Investigating Contract
Misconduct at the National Weather Service.'' I'll recognize
myself for an opening statement and then recognize the Ranking
Member.
Today, we will hear about the Department of Commerce
Inspector General's recent report on alleged contracting
misconduct and improper influence at the National Weather
Service. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has
primary jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the National Weather Service.
Accurate and timely forecasts help keep Americans safe from
extreme weather events. But this vital work is undermined and
taxpayer money is wasted when senior officials at the National
Weather Service, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce are
apparently complicit in granting improper contracts.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to hear from Mr. Donald
Jiron, the former Deputy Chief Financial Officer at the
National Weather Service; and Mr. Robert Byrd, the former Chief
Financial Officer at the National Weather Service. These two
individuals have the opportunity today to truthfully tell us
why taxpayers picked up the tab for an allegedly improper
contract worth nearly half a million dollars.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that
allows a government employee to draft their own post-retirement
contract, which increases their salary and pays for their
housing, while being funded by American taxpayers. Furthermore,
in this case the National Weather Service hired a replacement
for Mr. Jiron who ended up duplicating the work Mr. Jiron was
doing as a contractor. So after paying Mr. Jiron more money
each month as a contractor and also paying a new Deputy CFO,
American taxpayers essentially paid three times as much for the
same work formerly done by one person.
Somehow, the National Weather Service was not aware of this
issue until Mr. Jiron allegedly bribed a government employee to
get a family member a job, which led the Office of Inspector
General to open an investigation. Although there is no legal
issue in the vast majority of cases that involve federal
employees who return to work as contractors, I am concerned
that this type of inappropriate revolving door problem might be
common at the National Weather Service.
Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd were invited here today to explain
what happened. Unfortunately, both former senior officials
chose noncooperation over being forthright. Both refused to
speak with committee staff voluntarily and only appeared here
today after the Committee had no alternative but to issue a
subpoena. I still hope that Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd will take
the opportunity today to address the charges made in the IG's
report.
One of the most important functions of Congress is to
conduct oversight of the executive branch. This provides the
fundamental checks and balances that our founders intended.
When Americans' trust has been violated, Congress has an
obligation to understand what went wrong so we can ensure that
it does not happen again.
I was disappointed to learn that, despite the OIG's
findings, the Obama Administration's Justice Department refused
to investigate this case. In fact, the DOJ rejected the IG's
recommendations to investigate. So I look forward to hearing
from all three witnesses this morning to shed more light on
these allegations.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Today we will hear about the Department of Commerce Inspector
General's (IG) recent report on alleged contracting misconduct and
improper influence at the National Weather Service.
The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has primary
jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS).
Accurate and timely forecasts help keep Americans safe from extreme
weather events. But this vital work is undermined and taxpayer money is
wasted when senior officials at the NWS, NOAA, and the Department of
Commerce are apparently complicit in granting improper contracts.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to hear from Mr. Donald Jiron,
the former Deputy Chief Financial Officer at the National Weather
Service and Mr. Robert Byrd, the former Chief Financial Officer at the
National Weather Service.
These two individuals have the opportunity today to truthfully tell
us why taxpayers picked up the tab for an allegedly improper contract
worth nearly half a million dollars.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows a
government employee to draft their own post-retirement contract, which
increases their salary and pays for their housing while being funded by
the American taxpayers.
As a further insult to taxpayers, the National Weather Service
hired a replacement for Mr. Jiron who ended up duplicating the work Mr.
Jiron was doing as a contractor.
So after paying Mr. Jiron more money each month as a contractor and
also paying a new Deputy CFO, American taxpayers essentially paid three
times as much for the work formerly done by one person.
Somehow, the National Weather Service was not aware of this issue
until Mr. Jiron allegedly bribed a government employee to get a family
member a job, which led the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to open
an investigation.
Although there is no legal issue in the vast majority of cases that
involve federal employees who return to work as a contractors, I am
concerned that this type of inappropriate revolving door problem might
be common at NWS.
Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd were invited here today to explain what
happened. Unfortunately, both former senior officials chose non-
cooperation over being forthright.
Both refused to speak with Committee staff voluntarily and only
appeared here today after the Committee had no alternative but to issue
a subpoena. I still hope that Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd will take the
opportunity today to address the charges made in the IG's report.
One of the most important functions of Congress is to conduct
robust oversight of the Executive branch. This provides the fundamental
checks and balances that our founders intended. It also ensures the
American people's trust in their government.
When that trust has been violated, Congress has an obligation to
understand what went wrong so we can ensure that it does not happen
again.
I was disappointed to learn that despite the OIG's good work
highlighting this case, the Obama Administration's Justice Department
(DOJ) refused to investigate this case. In fact, the DOJ rejected the
IG's recommendations to investigate.
I look forward to hearing from all three witnesses this morning to
shed light on these allegations and regain the Americans' trust.
Chairman Smith. And that concludes my opening statement,
and the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for
hers.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Today, we are holding a hearing entitled ``Investigating
Contract Misconduct at the National Weather Service.'' I'm
afraid that much of this hearing will be unfortunately theater
rather than real oversight work and I regret this.
Before I touch on that again, I do want to speak to the
Inspector General's report, which is the genesis for this
hearing. Now, I certainly do not support misconduct by
government officials. However, it looks like the problems
uncovered in this report are less about the specific conduct of
one individual than the failure of judgment and oversight up
and down the management chain in the National Weather Service.
It is widely known in the NWS that Mr. Jiron, the Deputy
Chief Financial Officer, was going to come back as a contract--
contractor after retiring. No one intervened to stop him from
writing his own statement of work. They even suggested that he
do it and others in the office actually helped him by reading
and commenting on this statement of work. It was also common
knowledge in the office that NWS was paying for his housing
costs while he was a contractor and no one ever raised a
question about this or attempted to revise the contract.
That no one knew to stop Jiron from doing those things is
more concerning to me than his personal actions. This kind of
systemic failure is disappointing and something we should hold
the NWS to account for. However, we do not have any current NWS
officials here today to discuss how they plan to proceed in the
future or what steps they already have taken. Instead, we have
two retired NWS employees who were compelled to attend this
hearing by Congressional subpoena despite the fact that they
have they too--they have both indicated that they plan on
exercising their constitutional right to not speak here today.
I'm not sure an issue with a single post-employment
contract is worthy of this spectacle, Mr. Chairman. I want to
be clear that I'm not defending these gentlemen's conduct to
the degree that we understand it but I question the aggressive
action of this Committee when the Chairman has been reluctant
to act in other areas. The systemic failure of NWS is matched
by a different systemic failure in the Commerce IG's office.
That office received allegations regarding Mr. Jiron's action
in January 2012. By August 2012 the IG was briefed on the
findings and nearly 20 interviews had been completed. The
report was essentially done at that point. Then it died.
Nothing happened with this case for years. And then almost two
years later the IG rushed to issue this report at about the
same time the IG's office was being investigated by this
Committee.
While this report may be 100 percent accurate and Mr.
Greenblatt may have done a public service in shepherding the
report to completion, I have to look at the timing of the
report's release and some--with some skepticism. Knowing that
the report was revised at a moment that saw the leadership in
the office looking for sensational products to convince this
Committee to drop a bipartisan investigation of the former IG
Todd Zinser and his office makes me question the product.
I think it is worth reminding the Members of this Committee
about that investigation of the IG's office. The investigation
began as a bipartisan effort. It included three bipartisan
letters from the Committee, including two document requests. It
included a number of staff interviews of Commerce IG employees
and it included the establishment of a network or
whistleblowers providing information to the Committee.
This investigation bore much fruit. It uncovered a pattern
of whistleblowing intimidation and retaliation by the Inspector
General Todd Zinser and his Deputy Morgan Kim. It uncovered
evidence of gross mismanagement of the office, some of which
likely violated federal law and regulations. It uncovered
possible false statements to Congress during Mr. Zinser's
confirmation process. Perhaps more importantly, it uncovered
extensive evidence of Todd Zinser and Morgan Kim's personal
efforts to obstruct the Committee's investigation.
This evidence led me to ask the President to remove Mr.
Zinser from office. I'm attaching a letter and my March Floor
statement outlining the results of this investigation, as well
as our past letters to my statement today.
This evidence led the Chairman down a different path. The
Chairman pushed the investigation over to the Council of
Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency, the CIGIE.
However, we have it on good authority the FBI sought
information to support the Chairman's letter to the CIGIE on
two separate occasions and the majority staff did not respond
leaving the CIGIE investigation to die a quiet death.
It is confusing to me that on the one hand the Chair
quietly tolerates the most obvious and well-documented
obstruction this Committee has----
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman's time is expired. However,
she is recognized for an additional minute.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. I want to finish my
statement.
While on the other hand the Chair has issued more subpoenas
in the past year than the previous six committee Chairs
combined. And last week the majority accused the EPA of
obstruction based on zero supporting evidence of those claims.
I wish this Committee would focus a little less on political
theater and a little more on real documented wrongdoing. I'm
sending the acting Commerce Inspector General a letter
instructing him to retain all records in anticipation of my
sending a referral to the Department of Justice regarding
criminal misconduct by the former Congress Inspector General
and others in the coming days. I will send that referral to the
Department of Justice and I would welcome any of my colleagues
who wish to engage in the real oversight to join me in that
letter. Thank you and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Statement submitted by Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we are holding a hearing
entitled, "Investigating Contract Misconduct at the National
Weather Service." I'm afraid that much of this hearing will
unfortunately be theater rather than real oversight work, and I
regret this.
Before I touch on that again, I do want to speak to the
Inspector General's report which is the genesis for this
hearing. Now, I certainly do not support misconduct by
government officials. However, it looks like the problems
uncovered in this report are less about the specific conduct of
one individual than a failure of judgment and oversight up and
down the management chain in the National Weather Service.
It was widely known in NWS that Mr. Jiron, the Deputy Chief
Financial Officer, was going to come back as a contractor after
retiring. No one intervened to stop him from writing his own
statement of work, they even suggested that he do it and others
in the office actually helped him by reading and commenting on
his statement of work. It was also common knowledge in the
office that NWS was paying for his ``housing costs'' while he
was a contractor and no one ever raised a question about this
or attempted to revise his contract.
That no one knew to stop Jiron from doing those things is
more concerning to me than his personal actions. This kind of
systemic failure is disappointing, and something we should hold
NWS to account for. However, we do not have any current NWS
officials here today to discuss how they plan to proceed in the
future or what steps they have already taken.
Instead we have two retired NWS employees who were
compelled to attend this hearing by Congressional subpoena
despite the fact that they have both indicated they plan on
exercising their Constitutional right to not speak here today.
I'm not sure an issue with a single post-employment contract is
worthy of this spectacle, Mr. Chairman. I want to be clear that
I am not defending these gentlemen's conduct, to the degree we
understand it, but I question the aggressive action of this
Committee when the Chairman has been so reluctant to act in
other areas.
The systemic failure at NWS is matched by a different
systemic failure in the Commerce IG's office. That office
received allegations regarding Mr. Jiron's actions in January
of 2012. By Augst 2012, the IG was briefed on the findings and
nearly 20 interviews had been completed. The report was
essentially done at that point. Then it died. Nothing happened
with this case for years. Then, almost two years later, the IG
rushed to issue this report, at about the same time the IG's
office was being investigated by this Committee.
While this report may be 100% accurate, and Mr. Greenblatt
may have done a public service in shepherding the report to
completion, I have to look at the timing of the report's
release with some skepticism. Knowing that the report was
revived at a moment that saw the leadership in the office
looking for sensational products to convince this Committee to
drop our bipartisan investigation of the former IG Todd Zinser
and his office makes me question the end product.
I think it is worth reminding the Members of this Committee
about that investigation of the IG's office. This investigation
began as a bipartisan effort. It included three bipartisan
letters from the Committee, including two document requests. It
included a number of staff interviews of Commerce IG employees.
And it included the establishment of a network of
whistleblowers providing information to the Committee.
This investigation bore much fruit. It uncovered a pattern
of whistleblower intimidation and retaliation by the Inspector
General, Todd Zinser, and his deputy, Morgan Kim. It uncovered
evidence of gross mismanagement of the office, some of which
likely violated Federal law and regulations. It uncovered
possible false statements to Congress during Mr. Zinser's
confirmation process. Perhaps most importantly, it uncovered
extensive evidence of Todd Zinser and Morgan Kim's personal
efforts to obstruct the Committee's investigation. This
evidence led me to ask the President to remove Mr. Zinser from
office. I am attaching that letter and my March floor statement
outlining the results of the investigation, as well as our past
letters, to my statement today.
This evidence led the Chairman down a different path. The
Chairman pushed the investigation over to the Council of
Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency or CIGIE
[pronounced SIG-EE]. However, we have it on good authority that
the FBI sought information to support the Chairman's letter to
CIGIE on two separate occasions and the Majority staff did not
respond, leaving the CIGIE investigation to die a quiet death.
It is confusing to me that on the one hand the Chair
quietly tolerated the most obvious and well-documented
obstruction this Committee has seen in at least a quarter
century, while on the other hand the Chair has issued more
subpoenas in the past year than the previous six Committee
chairs combined. And last week the Majority accused the EPA of
obstruction based on zero supporting evidence of those claims.I
wish this Committee would focus a little less on political
theater and a little more on real, documented wrong-doing.
I am sending the Acting Commerce Inspector General a letter
instructing him to retain all records in anticipation of my
sending a referral to the Department of Justice regarding
criminal misconduct by the former Commerce Inspector General
and others. In coming days, I will send that referral to the
Department of Justice and I would welcome any of my colleagues
who wish to engage in real oversight to join me in that letter.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I'll introduce our
witnesses.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Chairman Smith. For what purpose does the gentleman seeks
to be recognized?
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order.
Chairman Smith. And he will state his point of order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order is the witnesses have rights
pursuant to the Constitution, Fifth Amendment, Rules of the
House, and the Jefferson Manual, do they not?
Chairman Smith. They do.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. And your point of order is?
Mr. Perlmutter. Pardon me?
Chairman Smith. Would you state your point of order?
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order is these witnesses have--two
witnesses, Mr. Byrd and Mr. Jiron, have advised this Committee
that they intend to take the Fifth Amendment against self-
incrimination.
Chairman Smith. That may well be the case.
Mr. Perlmutter. Is that true? Have they advised this
committee----
Chairman Smith. We will see what they decide to do
momentarily and I think you will not be surprised if they do
seek the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Point of order?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman will continue to state his
point of order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order is that they cannot be
compelled to testify against themselves by this Committee or a
court of law if they have taken the Fifth Amendment.
Chairman Smith. That's my understanding as well.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Point of order.
Chairman Smith. Please continue.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order is to advise the attorneys
on this panel that if someone has taken the Fifth, that as an
attorney we have additional responsibilities under our Rules of
Professional Conduct at least in Colorado and as in the DC. bar
to not embarrass, humiliate, or degrade a witness who has
exercised their constitutional rights pursuant to the Fifth
Amendment. Is that not true?
Chairman Smith. That is also the case.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. And we will continue.
Our first witness, Mr. Greenblatt, is the Deputy Assistant
Inspector General for Compliance and Ethics for the Department
of Commerce Office of Inspector General. Prior to his tenure at
the Inspector General's Office, Mr. Greenblatt held the title
of Investigative Counsel, Deputy Chief Counsel, and later
Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel on the U.S. Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Senate Investigations. Mr. Greenblatt
earned his bachelor's degree from Duke University and his J.D.
from Columbia University School of Law. We welcome him.
Our next witness, Mr. Robert Byrd, formerly served as the
Chief Financial Officer for the National Weather Service. Mr.
Byrd holds an MBA with honors from Loyola College of Maryland
and has completed postgraduate MBA programs at Syracuse
University and Harvard Business School.
Our final witness, Mr. Jiron, is the former Deputy Chief
Financial Officer for the National Weather Service, and he has
not provided us with any further information.
It is not the Science Committee's practice to swear in
witnesses at hearings. However, both Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd
refused to sign the Committee's False Statements Act
Certification Form so I believe administering the oath to them
is necessary at this time.
And would Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd please rise----
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chairman, one more point of order.
Chairman Smith. --and raise your right hands.
Mr. Perlmutter. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Another point of order. Pursuant to the
Constitution, these gentlemen are entitled to have counsel to
assist them at this hearing, are they not?
Chairman Smith. If they wish, they have that right and I
believe they do.
Mr. Perlmutter. One more point of order, sir?
Chairman Smith. Yes, state your point of order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Must they--having given notice to this
Committee that they intend to take the Fifth Amendment, must
they remain here for purposes of taking----
Chairman Smith. No.
Mr. Perlmutter. --this oath?
Chairman Smith. If they take the Fifth Amendment, they will
be excused.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd, will you please rise and raise your
right hands? Thank you.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative, and please be seated.
Mr. Greenblatt, we look forward to your testimony, and
please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF MR. MARK GREENBLATT,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL
FOR COMPLIANCE & ETHICS,
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Greenblatt. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson,
Members of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to
testify today.
Last month, the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector
General issued a report detailing our investigation into
allegations of impropriety involving a senior National Weather
Service official, who became a consultant to the agency
immediately after his retirement. Our investigation identified
a number of problems related to the retention of this senior
official.
With regard to the senior official himself, the evidence
established that he was personally and substantially involved
in the procurement of his own postretirement consulting
services. Specifically, the evidence established that while he
was still a federal employee, this senior official 1) drafted
and edited the statement of work for his consulting position;
2) participated with National Weather Service officials in
setting his future rate of pay; and 3) signed the task
management plan that authorized the consulting work he would
later perform. Notably, he signed this task management plan
while he was still a federal employee as ``contractor POC,''
the contractor's point of contact. This involvement implicated
several federal laws and regulations, including the Criminal
Conflict of Interest Statute founded 18 USC 208.
Additionally, evidence established that this senior
official took inappropriate steps to arrange for the National
Weather Service to pay for his housing expenses for his
postretirement consulting position, which amounted to nearly
$52,000. The evidence also established that after he became a
contractor himself, this senior official contacted several
National Weather Service officials in an attempt to secure
another contracting position for an immediate family member.
We concluded that the senior official's actions in
attempting to influence the NWS staff were improper and in one
case may have implicated 18 USC 201, the criminal statute
prohibiting bribery of public officials.
As a result of our investigation and our initial briefings
with senior NOAA leadership, NOAA took immediate action to stop
work on the senior official's task order in early 2012. In
total, the senior official's postretirement work as a
consultant lasted 21 months and cost the government more than
$471,000.
While the OIG's inquiry focused on this senior official
because he was identified by name in multiple whistleblower
complaints, we nonetheless concluded that several other
government officials share responsibility for the problems we
identified. In particular, evidence indicated that the subject
acted at the direction and with the approval of his supervisor
at all times. 2) The subject's consulting arrangement was
facilitated and approved by other officials with responsibility
for ensuring integrity in government contracting.
Further, statements from several witnesses indicate that it
is not uncommon for National Weather Service employees to
retire and then come back as contractors to perform similar
duties. For example, a high-ranking official at NWS wondered
aloud during her OIG interview ``why we have all these people
that retire and then we go and hire them to come back.''
Similarly, a representative of NOAA's Acquisition and Grant
Office, which is responsible for approving NWS contractor
positions, indicated that federal employees returning as
contractors once they retire ``happens all the time.'' In fact,
the NWS supervisor in this case told us that he did not see any
problems with the arrangement because he ``sort of got the
sense that this is just the way business is done.''
Comments such as these indicate that there may exist a
revolving door practice at NWS that created an environment in
which problems that we identified in our report could occur.
With this in mind, the OIG is now taking steps to assess
whether a revolving door practice truly exists at NWS. For
example, on June 11 we initiated an audit of NWS's award and
administration of procurement actions that support its
workforce. The overall objective of this audit is to evaluate
whether NWS has adequate controls in place to ensure compliance
with applicable laws and regulations for personnel support
acquired through service contracts. As part of this audit, we
will assess how many former NWS employees--how many former
employees NWS may have retained as contractors within the last
several years. Through our investigative and audit efforts, we
will examine how often such hirings occur, whether they comply
with relevant contracting and ethics regulations, and whether
there are any programs, offices, and areas that may warrant
closer scrutiny.
I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
testify today and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenblatt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt, for your
testimony.
Mr. Byrd, you have not provided the Committee with a
witness statement. Do you wish to make a statement at this
time?
Mr. Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert Byrd
and I've been compelled to appear before this Committee by
subpoena. On advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
Chairman Smith. Okay. I have some questions and then we'll
look forward to your response.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order. Upon taking the Fifth, he
may leave at this point in the hearing, may he not?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is incorrect. The witness
needs to establish that he has taken the Fifth by his response
to some questions that I intend to ask.
Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. --another point of order. The witness has
already established that he's taken the Fifth. By your
questioning him, you are putting him in a position where you're
trying to set up that he will waive his right and I object to
this. That's not what we're----
Chairman Smith. Okay. To respond to the gentlewoman's point
of order, the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity
from all Committee questions.
And if the gentlewoman and gentleman will listen to my
questions, I think they'll understand since they're both
lawyers why I need to proceed to ask these questions.
Mr. Perlmutter. I'll do so with interest but don't be
surprised if I do a point of order or two between your
questions.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is always free to raise a
point of order.
Mr. Byrd, were you the Chief Financial Officer for the
National Weather Service?
Mr. Byrd. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Chairman, I
respectfully exercise my amendment right--my Fifth Amendment
right----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Byrd. --and decline to respond.
Chairman Smith. Let the record reflect that Mr. Byrd has
asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
And Mr. Byrd, please let me be very clear. Are you
declining to answer the Committee's question solely on the
ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you?
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. You may state your----
Mr. Perlmutter. Under the Fifth Amendment, he does not have
to answer that.
Chairman Smith. That I am told is not a valid point of
order and I'm going to direct the witness to answer the
question.
Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
Chairman Smith. The gentlewoman will raise a point of
order.
Ms. Bonamici. I request that if Mr. Byrd now would like to,
he may consult with his attorney.
Chairman Smith. He is always free to consult with his
attorney and that's not a legitimate point of order.
Mr. Byrd, would you answer my question and let me repeat
it. Are you declining to answer the Committee's question solely
on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you?
Mr. Byrd. Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise
my Fifth Amendment right not to respond.
Chairman Smith. Um-hum. And was Mr. Jiron your Deputy Chief
Financial Officer at the National Weather Service?
Mr. Byrd. On advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise my
Fifth Amendment right and decline to respond.
Chairman Smith. Okay. And did you approve Mr. Jiron's
postretirement consulting contract?
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Another point of order. The gentleman will
state his point of order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order. This is a point of order
that I raised initially that under the Rules of Professional
Conduct for the District of Columbia, as well as Colorado--I
assume Texas--that under Opinion 31 of the District of
Columbia--in Colorado it's 8.4(h)--that to continue to pursue a
line of questioning where a witness has taken the Fifth
Amendment can be considered to be offensive, abusive, and
harassing conduct not calculated to lead to admissible
evidence.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman has not taken the Fifth
Amendment on every aspect of every question, and I have two
more questions for him. At that point he will be allowed to be
dismissed.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Byrd, two more questions--or three
actually. Did you approve Mr. Jiron's postretirement consulting
contract?
Mr. Byrd. Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise
my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer.
Chairman Smith. And did you approve $50,000 worth the
housing benefits received by Mr. Jiron, paid for by the
National Weather Service?
Mr. Byrd. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Chairman, I
respectfully exercise----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Byrd. --my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer.
Chairman Smith. And my last question is this: Is it your
intention to decline to answer all questions put to you today
by the Committee on the basis of the Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination?
Mr. Byrd. Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise
my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Mr. Byrd your testimony is essential
to this hearing and to the Committee's Article I oversight and
information-gathering functions with regard to contracting
misconduct and exertion of improper influence at the National
Weather Service. The Committee is entitled to probe the basis
for your Fifth Amendment privilege assertion, especially as the
Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity from all
questions by the Committee.
The Committee specifically directs you to answer the
question, notwithstanding your objection. Did you approve----
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order, Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Smith. --$50,000----
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman is not recognized at this
point.
Did you approve $50,000 worth of housing benefits received
by Mr. Jiron paid by the National Weather Service?
The gentleman is now recognized for his point of order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman
has taken the Fifth Amendment with respect to every question
that the Chair has submitted to him.
Chairman Smith. And----
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order. That he is entitled at this
point to his counsel, and I guess I am to say that this is now
harassment given the fact that he has said he's going to take
the Fifth Amendment and that he should be----
Chairman Smith. The----
Mr. Perlmutter. --allowed to leave pursuant to the rules
and the Constitution----
Chairman Smith. The response----
Mr. Perlmutter. --of the United States.
Chairman Smith. My response to the gentleman's point of
order is that what we are doing is under the advisement by the
House General Counsel. And once again, the Fifth Amendment does
not provide blanket immunity to all questions and many of the
Committee's questions fall outside of subjects over which you
may legitimately claim a privilege.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order.
Chairman Smith. And the gentleman will state another point
of order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Rule 9, Clause 2 of the Rules of the House
of Representative and Jefferson's Manual 341, 342, 343 allow a
witness to not answer and does not have to respond to
questions----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. --pursuant to the Constitution----
Chairman Smith. And that----
Mr. Perlmutter. --and the ethical rules that attorneys are
bound by have to respect those particular rights of a witness--
--
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Perlmutter. --and to continue this line of questioning
I would say to the Chairman is degrading and embarrassing and
not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. And therefore,
this witness should be allowed to leave at this point.
Chairman Smith. To respond to the gentleman's point of
view, the witness can answer my question any way he wants to.
He can refuse to answer it; he can plead the Fifth Amendment.
But in any case we are again proceeding in accordance with the
recommendation and the advice of the House General Counsel.
And if it makes the gentleman feel any better, this is
probably the end of my questioning, but again, there is a
reason for establishing this for the record.
And once again, and finally, I want to ask the witness, did
you approve $50,000 worth of housing benefits received by Mr.
Jiron paid for by the National Weather Service?
Mr. Byrd. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Chairman, I
respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to
answer.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Mr. Byrd, please be advised that you
have a choice here between complying with the Committee's
directive in answering the question or refusing to do so, which
will place you at risk of a contempt citation, potentially a
prosecution for contempt, and criminal liability. Do you
understand this?
Mr. Byrd. Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise
my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer.
Chairman Smith. The Fifth Amendment does not provide
blanket immunity from all Committee questions. Indeed, many of
the Committee's questions fall outside of subjects over which
you may legitimately claim privilege.
Additionally, by refusing to answer the Committee's
questions, we cannot assess the legitimacy of your Fifth
Amendment assertion. You are directed to answer the question
and again are advised that the failure to do so may result in a
contempt citation and criminal liability.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order. The witness has rights,
does he not?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman will state a legitimate point
of order.
Mr. Perlmutter. The point of order is the witness has
rights pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, to Section--Article 11,
Clause 2, sections 341, 342, 343 of Jefferson's Manual, does he
not?
Chairman Smith. Of course the gentleman and the witness has
rights.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. So the gentleman has asserted his
rights and the Chair's continued interrogation is probably
beyond the pale of Opinion 31 and the Rules of Professional
Conduct, as well as the rules of the House of Representatives.
And at this point I would ask the Chair, can the witness leave?
Chairman Smith. The gentleman has not stated a legitimate
point of order but I'm still going to respond by saying I have
one more question for the witness and frankly it is my
responsibility to advise the witness of the consequences of his
refusal to answer the questions. That is a legal responsibility
on my part according to the General Counsel of the House.
I have one final question for the witness. Knowing what
I've just said, will you answer the Committee's question as
directed or do you refuse to answer the Committee's question?
Mr. Byrd. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Chairman, I
respectfully exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to
answer.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Mr. Byrd, you will be excused
momentarily but I want to next address some very similar
questions to Mr. Jiron and then I would expect you both to be
excused.
Mr. Jiron, you have not provided the Committee with a
written statement. Do you wish to make a statement at this
time?
Mr. Jiron. Yes, Mr. Chairman. On the advice of counsel, I
respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the Fifth
Amendment, which, according to United States Supreme Court,
protects everyone, even innocent people, from the need to
answer questions if these answers might be used against them in
a criminal prosecution.
Chairman Smith. I understand, and you've just heard me ask
some questions of Mr. Byrd. I'm going to ask you very similar
questions. They are on different subjects and it's because the
Fifth Amendment is not blanket immunity.
Mr. Jiron, prior to your retirement from the National
Weather Service, did you hold the position of Deputy Chief
Financial Officer at the end of your 38-year duration as a
public employee?
Mr. Jiron. As I said before, on the advice of counsel I'm
invoking my constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. All right. Let the record reflect that Mr.
Jiron has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination.
Mr. Jiron, please let me be very clear. Are you declining
to answer the Committee's question solely on the ground that
you believe the answer will incriminate you?
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman will state the point of
order.
Mr. Perlmutter. The point of order is----
Chairman Smith. But he's likely to get the same answer I
gave him a while ago, but he can still state a point of order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order. The witness, upon having
already asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, does not have to
proceed in this fashion to answer any other questions and
that--
Chairman Smith. That's a legitimate point of order and I
will answer it as I did a while ago, and that is taking the
Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity from all
Committee questions. And that's why I will continue to ask
about certain subjects and he is willing and able and welcome
to plead the Fifth Amendment if he so desires.
Again, Mr. Jiron, are you declining to answer the
Committee's question solely on the ground that you believe the
answer will incriminate you?
Mr. Jiron. On advice of counsel, I'm invoking my
constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. My next question is did you return to the
National Weather Service after your retirement as a consultant?
Mr. Jiron. On advice of counsel, I'm invoking my
constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. Did you draft your postretirement
consulting contract while an employee of the National Weather
Service?
Mr. Jiron. On advice of counsel, I'm invoking my
constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. Your attorney said that there are material
inaccuracies in the Inspector General's report. Do you concur
with that?
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order.
Chairman Smith. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of order as to what the attorney
said, the examination should be of the attorney, not of Mr.
Jiron.
Chairman Smith. I am simply saying what his attorney said.
He can disagree or agree and answer the question any way he
wants to.
And once again, your attorney said that there are material
inaccuracies in the Inspector General's report. Do you concur
with that?
Mr. Jiron. On the advice of counsel, I'm invoking my
constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Jiron, is it your intention to decline
to answer all questions put to you today by the Committee on
the basis of the Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination.
Mr. Jiron. On advice of counsel, I'm invoking my
constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Jiron, your testimony is essential to
this hearing and to the Committee's Article I oversight and
information-gathering functions with regard to contracting
misconduct and exertion of improper influence at the National
Weather Service. The Committee is entitled to probe the basis
for your Fifth Amendment privilege assertion, especially as the
Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity from all
questions by the Committee.
The Committee specifically directs you to answer the
question, notwithstanding your objection. Did you draft your
postretirement consulting contract while an employee of the
National Weather Service?
Mr. Jiron. On advice of counsel, I'm invoking my
constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Jiron, please be advised that you have
a choice here between complying with the Committee's directive
in answering the question or refusing to do so, which will
place you at risk of a contempt citation, potentially a
prosecution for contempt, and criminal liability. Do you
understand that?
Mr. Jiron. On advice of counsel, I'm invoking my
constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Jiron, the Fifth Amendment does not
provide blanket immunity from all Committee questions. Indeed,
many of the Committee's questions fall outside of subjects over
which you may legitimately claim a privilege.
Mr. Perlmutter. Point of----
Chairman Smith. Additionally, by refusing to answer the
Committee's questions, we cannot assess the legitimacy of your
Fifth Amendment assertion. You're directed to answer the
question and again are you advised--and again are advised that
the failure to do so may result in a contempt citation and
criminal liability. Knowing this, will you answer the
Committee's question as directed or do you refuse to answer the
Committee's question?
Mr. Jiron. On advice of counsel, I'm invoking my
constitutional right not to answer.
Chairman Smith. I am disappointed that two of our witnesses
refuse to answer questions or provide any information to help
the Committee perform its oversight function.
Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd, you are dismissed subject to
recall. And we will now take a two minute recess in order for
you all to leave the room.
[Recess.]
Chairman Smith. The Committee's hearing will resume and
I'll recognize myself for five minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Greenblatt, first of all, again I appreciate not only
your testimony today but your investigation as well. You are
doing a real public service and you are also helping us do our
job as well.
My first question is this: From what I read, it may well be
common practice at NOAA and at the National Weather Service for
employees to write their own contracts as a consultant, leave
the employ of the federal government, and then almost
immediately begin work as a consultant, oftentimes doing the
same job for more money. Do you think this is common practice,
and if so, how are we going to determine whether it is common
practice?
Mr. Greenblatt. I would say that the common practice that
we found, what the witnesses told us, related to folks leaving
the Weather Service and then coming back as contractors. That--
whether or not they wrote their own contracts or had
involvement in the procurement of their own future services----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Greenblatt. --we did not get testimony on the extent of
that. We did get a fair amount of testimony from folks saying
that the retirement and then later contracting positions, that
did happen.
Chairman Smith. Right. And are you going to continue your
investigation to find out whether it was commonplace for
someone to write their own contract and then retire and then
become a consultant?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, the Office of Inspector General has
initiated an audit to look at the scope of the problem, and
over the course of--and when I talk about the--what I'm talking
about is the revolving door practice----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Greenblatt. --how often that happened over the last few
years. Once we get our arms around the problem----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. --then I think we'll begin to dissect and
move forward----
Chairman Smith. Just give me a rough idea as to how long
you think it will take you to complete the continuing
investigation?
Mr. Greenblatt. I believe the anticipated delivery date on
that particular audit is December 2015.
Chairman Smith. Okay. So, what, six months from now roughly
we'll be able to get another report on whether that practice is
widespread or not?
Mr. Greenblatt. That's my understanding, yes.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful.
It's my understanding, too, that penalties associated with
the types of violations that have been alleged can be up to
five years in prison and up to $50,000 for each violation. Is
that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. That's under section 208, 18 USC 208.
Chairman Smith. That's correct.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, that has that and that's for willful
engagement----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Greenblatt. --in those----
Chairman Smith. The point I'm trying to make here is that
these are very, very serious infractions. They may be criminal
in nature and that's why you see penalties up to five years in
prison. These are not light, minor types of ethical or criminal
violations.
Have Mr. Jiron or Mr. Byrd faced any kind of sanctions as a
result of the allegations?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, once the Office of Inspector General
uncovered some of the activities particularly related to Mr.
Jiron's efforts to secure a position for his immediate family
member, we briefed NOAA senior leadership and they took action
to terminate the work order on that particular contract.
Chairman Smith. Thank you for that answer. Also, it's my
understanding that you recommended that the Department of
Justice investigate themselves and they declined to do so. Why
did they decline to investigate and not quite frankly follow up
on your own recommendations?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, we referred the matter pursuant to
the Attorney General guidelines to the----
Chairman Smith. Um-hum.
Mr. Greenblatt. --Department of Justice for consideration
for their own efforts. They elected to decline to prosecute. As
far as the specific reasons why, I think that would be better--
they would be better positioned----
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. --to provide the specific reasons as to why
they declined.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Their decline to prosecute was
contrary to your recommendation that they investigate, is that
correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, we're obligated to refer over cases
in which we believe there's a reasonable basis to conclude that
there was----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Greenblatt. --a criminal violation.
Chairman Smith. Right. Who was the individual who was the
decision-maker who, in your opinion, was the one who decided
not to prosecute or not to continue the investigation?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, we referred the matter to the
Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's office in Maryland
because that is where----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Greenblatt. --the----
Chairman Smith. Right.
Mr. Greenblatt. --National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration is located.
Chairman Smith. Right. Did you talk to any individual in
the Department of Justice and give verbal recommendation?
Mr. Greenblatt. I did.
Chairman Smith. And who did you talk to?
Mr. Greenblatt. The individual there was an individual
named James Crowley.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. He's the Chief in the southern division of
the U.S. Attorney's office in Maryland.
Chairman Smith. So presumably he would have been the one or
one of the individuals making the decision not to prosecute, is
that right?
Mr. Greenblatt. I don't know exactly again who made, you
know, any sort of final decision but that was the individual
that I spoke with.
Chairman Smith. Is he the individual who told you that DOJ
was not going to prosecute?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt. That
concludes my questions.
And the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to personally thank all of the whistleblowers from
the Commerce IG's office who cooperated with our investigation.
They risked their careers by bringing information of misconduct
by the leadership of that office to this Committee. I believe
stepping forward to inform us of these issues took real courage
and strong ethical principles.
While I have faith in the new leadership in Commerce's IG
office to move in a much more positive direction, I also
believe that this Committee has an obligation to those
whistleblowers who risked their careers informing us of Mr.
Zinser's misdeeds and that we continue to follow through.
Mr. Greenblatt, your office has had a fairly terrible
reputation regarding whistleblowers because of the conduct by
the former IG and his closest aides, and I hope that the acting
IG Mr. Smith takes stronger steps to restore the reputation of
this office as a safe haven for whistleblowers.
Tell me what you see that's happened to improve the
situation and would you comment on the progress?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, I can speak to my experience. I have
been with the IG for a little bit more than a year now and I
believe my staff, we have a very healthy, productive
environment. I think folks are happy; folks are given the
opportunities to stretch their legs. We're doing sophisticated
work, challenging work. I think people are fulfilled. That's
something I actually take great pride in. I hope that's a
reflection of the office as a whole. But in my experience and
my perspective we have a good thing going and I hope that it
continues in the future.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. I'm not dismissing
wrongdoing by anyone, but in reviewing this case it seems more
as if we have an institutional failure rather than individual
wrongdoing. If any of the half-dozen officials had known
better, they could have stopped Mr. Jiron for making the
mistakes that he took in regards to this postemployment
agreement. Do you agree that this is more of an institutional
failure rather than individual misconduct?
Mr. Greenblatt. What I would say is that it is certainly
more than just an individual certainly. There were a number of
people who were responsible for stopping any kind of problems
of this sort and they just didn't catch it. Gatekeepers didn't
act as gatekeepers, supervisors didn't supervise properly. And
so that's the problem.
Now institutionally, I don't know about the entire
institution; I don't want to go to broad in the answer, but
yes, it was certainly more than one individual. There's no
doubt about that and I think our report is very clear about
that.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you. Last week, the Government
Accountability Office, the GAO, released a report that I
requested along with my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce
Committee. It examined the effectiveness of the Commerce IG's
office. The most disturbing finding of that report was the fact
that the Commerce IG's office conducted no performance audits
of the--of eight of the agency's 13 bureaus and offices from
2011 to 2013 and that the OIG had not conducted a Federal
Information Security Management Act audit for seven of the
agency's 13 bureaus in the same period of time. I hope that the
new leadership in your office will be much more effective,
efficient, and aggressive in the oversight work. Would you like
to respond to that?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, I appreciate your concern. I know
that we have concurred with the GAO report and are working
actively to address the recommendations. I should say I'm on
the investigations' side of the House so I'm not well-
positioned to talk about the audit side of the House but I'm
sure we can get back to you with further information if you
would like on that specific angle.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. I would like to
say that I have faith that the new leadership in the Commerce's
IG office takes your oversight responsibilities seriously and
will strive to correct the mismanagement issues that have
crippled the effectiveness of this office in the past and I
thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
want to compliment you for trying to do something that is
important, and whenever you do things that are important,
you're going to get some people mad at you and/or jumping in.
And let me just say that I think that you have handled yourself
very well in this hearing and I am disappointed that people
felt compelled to jump on your case considering how important
what we're examining is.
We are talking about today the actual, well, I wouldn't
call it embezzlement but at the very least a waste of hundreds
of thousands of dollars--of taxpayer dollars, isn't that
correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. The amount that the senior official was
paid pursuant to the contract and his housing was over
$471,000.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. $471,000. However, if he would have
stayed in government service, he would have been paid a certain
amount of money than less than that. I mean so the actual loss
to the government isn't the 471,000 but it's hundreds of
thousands of dollars anyway.
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, and if you also add on to the fact
that he was getting full retirement at that point as well on
top of the wages--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Correct.
Mr. Greenblatt. --from the--under the contract, yes, it was
much more than $471,000 in that regard.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. So if we allow things like this to
go on--well, let me ask this. Is this a loophole in the law? Do
you see this as a loophole that someone was able to do
something legally that provided them with hundreds of thousands
of dollars of personal benefit even though the government was
not receiving any added service or benefit from the expenditure
of that money? Is that a loophole or is this a violation of
law?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, there are certainly colorable reasons
to have someone come back after they retire. Sometimes they do
have specialized knowledge, institutional knowledge that may
warrant bringing them back. So I don't want to make any blanket
statements that, you know, bringing someone back is
inappropriate. That in and of itself is not a problem. It may
set the stage for problems as in this case where the individual
was involved in drafting his own statement of work for his
future consulting services. That's where the problem lies on
that particular topic.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I actually would disagree with the last
points that you made a. I think that we have a serious problem
in the federal government, throughout the government--it's not
just this one case but--where we have people who are making
decisions that would benefit themselves based on senior people
who will be retiring soon are making decisions, whether the
Department of Defense or elsewhere, that are--have dramatically
bad impact on the taxpayers getting their money's worth. And
sometimes it's disastrous for generals, for example, who makes
decisions on certain types of weapons systems that we will use
and then going to work as soon as they retire for the company
that's producing that weapon system.
So we--I would hope that, number one, that what we're doing
today, and as Chairman Smith is trying to do is sending the
message that we--if we have an institutional mindset that sort
of doesn't confront that problem, we're going to confront it
now. If we are going to bring down the budget deficit, I would
say the most laudatory way of bringing down the deficit is
getting rid of things like this.
And so if there is a mindset among government that they--
that this is an okay thing to do even though it's costing the
taxpayers an enormous amount more money, well, let's go on the
record now, all of us, to say that is not acceptable. And the
best way we can do that is to take cases like this and
unfortunately individuals will have to be confronted with this,
and once they're confronted, the message will go out to the
rest of government employees. This could save--not could--this
will save the American taxpayer perhaps billions of dollars if
we do this and eliminate this mindset that I see as pervasive
throughout the federal government.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
testimony today.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And Mr. Greenblatt, welcome. Mr. Greenblatt, our Committee
first started investigating the conduct of the former Commerce
IG Todd Zinser in September of 2012. This was soon after he
testified before a Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight
hearing we held on the Antideficiency Act, or the ADA,
violation at the National Weather Service. I at that time was
the Ranking Member of the Oversight Subcommittee. At that
hearing almost three years ago Mr. Zinser referenced the case
you are testifying about. Mr. Zinser said ``while our
investigation is ongoing, we have determined that NOAA provided
the contractor housing valued at more than $52,000 and spent
more than $336,000 in wages for this consultant's services over
a period of 1-1/2 years. We promptly notified NOAA of our
preliminary findings concerning the consultant's efforts to
secure a job for the family member. NOAA took swift action to
terminate the consultant's employment with the agency,'' said
Mr. Zinser.
So Mr. Zinser mentioned the case you finally released in
June of 2015; all of the elements were there. Staff tell me
that all the work was largely done. And I realize you just came
to the Commerce IG's office last year but can you explain to us
why a case the IG's office believed was potentially criminal in
nature and was largely finished by August of 2012 sat
unfinished for some 3 years?
Mr. Greenblatt. I don't have a good answer for you. The
delay is not good, and when we make mistakes, I'll own up to
it. When I came on in May of 2014, we had an extensive backlog
of cases. This was one of those cases. I was given a directive
to clear out that backlog and we put considerable effort into
doing just that. We've released a number of reports of
significant value and--both internally and some that were
issued publicly. And this was one of those reports.
Part of the reason this was structured as it was in the
priority list is that the behavior was not ongoing. It had
stopped. The contract had stopped and so I think that was a
factor in it. But at the end of the day it should have come out
sooner and it was out effectively one year after I arrived at
the office.
Mr. Tonko. Well, the delay pattern, is this something that
was a common pattern?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, I don't think it was intentional in any
way. I think----
Mr. Tonko. Was it a common pattern?
Mr. Greenblatt. I think we--as I said, we had a backlog of
cases when I arrived. A number of them were older cases. We had
major staffing issues and as part of our growth and as part of
our revitalization in the Office of Investigations, we have
knocked down that backlog. When I came on, there were cases
from 2011 on the backlog and now we're only--we have cases that
are only as old as 2014. So I think we've done a good job on
that. I don't think we're all the way there yet but we have
made fantastic progress in my view.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. Well, frankly, we came away from our
examination of the Antideficiency Act work with the impression
that the office was badly managed. Hotline tips were lost or
misassigned. We were aware of work that was started and then
abruptly abandoned. GAO did a review of the office that found
real problems in policies, in procedures, and in the scope of
work undertaken by the IG. Ms. Johnson deserves credit for
continuing to push for change in the office leadership. I want
to reiterate her comments that we want to see the office moving
out and doing a good, solid job going forward. Please take that
message back from this hearing and good luck to you as you work
through your backlog.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to kind of drill down a little bit on the
gentleman's pay when he was a contractor. Your report says it
was $471,875, is that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. That was not his--the wages that he took
home. That includes housing----
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. --which was not paid to him.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. So if you take what he was actually
paid and if you were to compare it to what he got paid as a
government official but then you also added what he got paid as
a government official if you added that to his health care
benefits, his life insurance, his, you know, FICA, you know,
payments, all those kind of things, how does it compare?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, he started out--this is according to
his own information to us, what he told us, that he started out
making effectively $72 an hour and he added in--he monetized
all of the benefits that you mentioned, including retirement,
payroll taxes, annual leave, holiday time.
Mr. Bridenstine. So was it equivalent?
Mr. Greenblatt. Then it became 102--$105 an hour, a
difference of about $33 an hour.
Mr. Bridenstine. Was his pay as a contractor equivalent,
greater than, or less than his pay as a government employee?
Mr. Greenblatt. $33 higher.
Mr. Bridenstine. Per hour?
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct.
Mr. Bridenstine. And that includes----
Mr. Greenblatt. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, per hour.
Mr. Bridenstine. And that includes the housing that he had,
right?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, that does not.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. So on top of that there was housing?
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct, which did not go to him
personally.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. So tell me about the housing. What
were the housing arrangements like?
Mr. Greenblatt. So the housing arrangement went through the
Fisheries Service the National Marine Fisheries Service. They
had a contract called BOQ contract that went with a number of
residential buildings in the neighborhood near their office
where senior executives who were on temporary detail to their
headquarters would stay.
Mr. Bridenstine. So he did not own this housing?
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct.
Mr. Bridenstine. And would the housing have been empty had
he not been in there?
Mr. Greenblatt. I assume so.
Mr. Bridenstine. So it really didn't cost the government
anything for him to use--it was probably a good--I'm just
asking out of curiosity. Is that a good use of the government's
resources to put him in open housing?
Mr. Greenblatt. I think they would not have had to pay for
that particular housing. I don't know but----
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. I don't know whether they would have had to
pay for that particular unit if he had not used it.
Mr. Bridenstine. That would be very useful for us to know.
Out of curiosity the Deputy CFO's supervisor, the CFO, was
aware of these arrangements, correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, we believe so. We heard witness
testimony and there is some evidence to suggest that he did
approve it. He told us----
Mr. Bridenstine. You don't have any paperwork that he
approved it?
Mr. Greenblatt. I am not aware of specific--a specific
document that he signed approving it. I do not know of that.
Mr. Bridenstine. But his testimony indicated that he
approved it?
Mr. Greenblatt. His testimony said that he did not approve
it and that he would not have if----
Mr. Bridenstine. So he didn't----
Mr. Greenblatt. --he'd known about it.
Mr. Bridenstine. He didn't approve it but he must have
known it was going on if this guy shows up the day after he
retires as a consultant.
Mr. Greenblatt. He knew about the consulting arrangement.
He says he did not know about the housing part.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. But other witnesses told us that he did
know, including the senior official himself.
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, the senior official--not--the senior
official--the deputy CFO was working with the CFO to make sure
that he could come back as an employee immediately following
his retirement--as a contractor immediately following his
retirement, is that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct. It was at the request of his
supervisor, yes.
Mr. Bridenstine. Now, what about the supervisor's
supervisor? If we go up to say Chief of Resources and
Operations Management at NOAA, Mary Wiley, was she aware of it?
Mr. Greenblatt. I do not know. We--I do not think it went
up higher than--we don't have evidence it went up higher than
the supervisor.
Mr. Bridenstine. Did you ask that question?
Mr. Greenblatt. I--I'll have to get back to you on that. I
believe we did. I will get back to you on that.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. So that--this is very relevant to us
because, you know, the gentleman clearly, according to your
case here, he wrote a contract that he then benefited from. I
think we're all in agreement that that's problematic. But if
the people above his chain of command, how high up did they all
know about this, then we're talking about systemic problems
and, you know, that's a whole other level of issue that we have
to deal with as a government, not just within NOAA but as a
government. This is an issue probably governmentwide.
I'm about out of time. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to start by making a statement that I certainly
don't condone misconduct or violation of rules or laws or
misuse of government resources, and I doubt that anyone on this
Committee would disagree with that. People should be held
accountable, no question, but I have to say I'm disappointed in
the way this hearing started this morning. The two attorneys or
the--excuse me, the attorneys for the two gentlemen who were
here earlier, Mr. Byrd and Mr. Jiron, had notified the
Committee that they would be asserting their constitutional
rights under the Fifth Amendment and that compelling their
attendance would be to simply embarrass them.
This all could have been put on record with this statement
and the point made but instead unfortunately these people were
subpoenaed here to make this hearing into unfortunately what
turned into political theater and I--that's unnecessary and
unfortunate. Again, the point could have been made without what
happened this morning.
Mr. Greenblatt, I'm glad you're here this morning.
Chairman Smith. Would the gentlewoman yield just for a
second?
Ms. Bonamici. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. In regard to her comments that she just
finished, I hope she will check with the House General Counsel,
and if she does, she will find out that we proceeded exactly as
was recommended, and if she disagrees with the way we started
our hearing today, then she disagrees with the House General
Counsel and I hope she'll take up her comments with him.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greenblatt, the IG's findings on this matter were
referred to the Department of Justice; I believe you said the
U.S. Attorney in Maryland. How was that referral made?
Mr. Greenblatt. By----
Ms. Bonamici. Is there a form letter or----
Mr. Greenblatt. By phone.
Ms. Bonamici. By phone. So is there a record of that
somewhere?
Mr. Greenblatt. I documented it in an email to my--the rest
of my team and my supervisor at the time.
Ms. Bonamici. Okay. And how was--what was the response of
the U.S. Attorney in Maryland?
Mr. Greenblatt. They declined to prosecute the matter----
Ms. Bonamici. And----
Mr. Greenblatt. --to pursue it.
Ms. Bonamici. And did they send that in writing?
Mr. Greenblatt. No.
Ms. Bonamici. Is that typical that something like this is
done over the phone?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. And did they indicate a reason why they were
declining to pursue this?
Mr. Greenblatt. I think there were a number of reasons. I
do not want to speak for them. I think if you want their
answer, I would suggest you go to them. But what I understand
is that part of it is the delay that we had talked about
earlier on when the events occurred and when the referral was
made, but also the involvement of the supervisor. I believe in
their view it affected the--whether they would pursue it or
not. That's--again, that's me talking.
Ms. Bonamici. Okay. And so was that--what was said to you
in the email or the response--there was no email coming back
from them did you say?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, it was----
Ms. Bonamici. Just a phone conversation?
Mr. Greenblatt. --a phone call. Yes. That's----
Ms. Bonamici. Is that what they told you in the phone
conversation or is that what you think----
Mr. Greenblatt. I remember discussing those things and that
was reflected in my email as well.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. Another--there may be some
confusion about whether Mr. Jiron acted by himself to write his
statement of work and receive temporary housing as part of his
postretirement contract or whether he was assisted in these
acts, which very well may be wholly inappropriate, by others at
NWS. My understanding is that another NWS official told him to
write his own statement of work and another helped edit it and
there were multiple meetings with his supervisor Mr. Byrd and
others while working out the details while he was a government
employee. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes. And we reflected that in our report.
Ms. Bonamici. And is there any evidence that Mr. Jiron did
not do the work he was paid to do?
Mr. Greenblatt. No.
Ms. Bonamici. So he actually did? He worked as a
consultant?
Mr. Greenblatt. We believe he was there when he said he was
there. We have no reason to believe he wasn't doing things
while he was there.
Ms. Bonamici. And is it your understanding that Mr. Jiron
told multiple NWS officials that he would only come back as a
consultant if his temporary housing costs were paid because by
the time he retired, he had moved to Williamsburg, Virginia,
with his then-ill wife?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Ms. Bonamici. Okay. So I also understand that Mr. Jiron's
initial short-term contracting agreement was revised at least
six separate times over a 19-month period. So in correspondence
with the IG's office, Mr. Jiron apparently has stated that NWS
could have modified or not renewed his contract at any time
but--any of those times but chose not to. Is that your
understanding as well?
Mr. Greenblatt. It was modified eight times. It was
initially I think a 3-month contract and it was extended
overall those modifications to 21 months until he was
terminated.
Ms. Bonamici. And is there any evidence to suggest that
either Mr. Jiron or Mr. Byrd were covering up or trying to
cover up the fact that Mr. Jiron was working as a contractor?
Mr. Greenblatt. No.
Ms. Bonamici. And were--was there any indication that they
were trying to cover up the fact that Mr. Jiron's housing
allowance was being paid by NWS while he was a contractor?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, with regard to his supervisor, his
supervisor at least told us that he viewed that to be
inappropriate and would not have approved it, so he would have
had concerns about it. Others also told us that they had
concerns about it. For example, the Fisheries Service that ran
the housing contract said that they would not have approved it.
They thought he was a government employee at the time and so
because that housing was reserved for government employees,
they thought he was eligible for it in that regard and they
would not have approved it. This is the one individual who was
responsible for that contract would not have approved that had
she known that he was a contractor, not an employee.
Ms. Bonamici. But did you see any evidence that Mr. Jiron
or Mr. Byrd were trying to cover up the fact that he was a
contractor?
Mr. Greenblatt. No.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I'm out of time. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. I thank the gentlewoman for her questions
and we will now go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for
his.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the opportunity to ask questions. And, Mr. Greenblatt, thanks
for being with us today.
You know, Mr. Chairman, I've heard questions and comments
related to is this an institutional failure versus individual
wrongdoing. You know, I--yes, I serve in Congress now but I
served in the U.S. Department of Defense and the Air Force for
26-1/2 years and one of the things that--the core values of the
United States Air Force was integrity first. That means you
tell the truth. That means you don't cheat. That means you
don't lie. And that means you don't take things that don't
belong to you.
You know, there's a basic sense of right and wrong that I
think the American people have a reasonable expectation that
people within our federal government are going to adhere to. So
I'm very concerned about what we're talking about today.
Can I have the first slide, please?
[Slide.]
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Mr. Greenblatt, this slide is an email
from Donald Jiron to Robert Byrd. The subject is the SOW and
proposed hourly rate dated March 26, 2010. In this email Mr.
Jiron is informing his superior Mr. Byrd that he had edited the
initial contract for his employment as a consultant. In the
email Mr. Jiron suggested that he proposed an hourly rate of
pay for himself. Were you surprised to see this email?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well,this is the problem that we found with
the contracting process certainly was someone engaged in
writing their own future contract that would involve their own
wages. Yeah, I mean that's federal service 101. You don't get
involved in matters that will involve cash going to your bank
account.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. That affect you financially,
absolutely. Should Mr. Jiron in your opinion have known that it
was inappropriate to draft a contract for his unemployment,
establish his own hourly rate? Should he have known this?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, we believe so. I believe that was the
conclusion of the report that that's a basic tenet of federal
service. Like I said, you don't take part in matters that
affect your own bank account. And he was a longtime federal
employee, 38 years. I would be hard-pressed to believe that
there was no training, no ethics guidance at any point along
the way.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Well, do you know of the specific
legal or ethical violations that are implicated by this email?
Are you prepared to tell us that?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, it certainly implicates 18 USC 208,
which is the Criminal Conflict of Interest statute--and we
discussed that in the report--which says you can't have--you
can't personally substantially participate in a matter that has
a direct and predictable effect on your financial interests.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. And so this I think meets that standard.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. All right. According to the email, Mr.
Jiron's superior Mr. Byrd wrote--he said, ``Don, looks good in
general.'' So based on this email, do you believe that Mr. Byrd
facilitated in putting this contract together?
Mr. Greenblatt. Absolutely. He certainly approved it. He
requested that Mr. Jiron take these actions, so--and we say as
much in the report.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. How concerning is it--and you've
already answered it a little bit--but how concerning is it to
you that this exchange occurred between the CFO and the Deputy
CFO of the agency, the two that are responsible for the
agency's finances? How concerning is that to you?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, I think, as we said, these are folks
that should have an awareness of the ethics issues at play. And
this at a minimum reflects poor judgment with respect to that.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Could I have the next slide, please?
[Slide.]
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. According to Mr. Byrd's transcribed
interview with the IG, he had ethical concerns with bringing
Mr. Jiron back so quickly as a contractor. So do you have any
idea if Mr. Byrd had concerns about this, why he didn't raise
those concerns earlier?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, according to what the supervisor told
us, he said that you clear it, you--he said to his subordinate,
the senior official, you know, clear it with the contracting
folks and I'll sign off----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Um-hum.
Mr. Greenblatt. --effectively is what he told us.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. As the CFO of the agency, does he have
an obligation to notify management that he has concerns about a
contract that he personally authorized? Are there any rules in
the agency that require that?
Mr. Greenblatt. I don't know the answer to that question. I
think what he told us is that he was reliant on his subordinate
and what he believed the contracting officer was telling him
that it was okay.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. So that was my understanding of what he
would say but I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Very concerning. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I
respect your leadership and our friendship but I, too, am
disappointed by today's hearing. I've learned nothing new and
nothing that was not already clear in the Inspector General's
report. And I look forward to when our Science, Space, and
Technology Committee actually gets back to spending more time
on science, space, and technology rather than trying to
embarrass NOAA and its many excellent employees over a single
instance already handled by the Inspector General.
Mr. Greenblatt, we work very hard to encourage companies to
hire our veterans, and since so many of these veterans have
substantial experience in technology, weapons, war-planning,
logistics, and more, are we inadvertently creating a revolving
door, former federal employees acting as federal contractors?
Do you have any idea how many retired military officers and
enlisted now work for federal contractors doing DOD work?
Mr. Greenblatt. I have no idea. I would imagine it's a
large number.
Mr. Beyer. It's a really large number. This is rhetorical
but thank you for trying to answer it.
Mr. Greenblatt, you graduated from Columbia Law and I
understand you're not the House General Counsel and your--focus
on the House General Counsel. Wasn't it a waste of time,
taxpayer dollars, 37 minutes of this Committee's time to insist
that two former National Weather Service employees who had
specifically declared their intent to invoke the Fifth
Amendment show up? I was just sort of baffled by what purpose
was served by this low theater.
Understanding that the Department of Justice has already
declined to pursue any criminal charges against Mr. Jiron, do
you believe that this was--they were forced to appear in order
to create a contempt of Congress charge against them?
As a lawyer, does it make any sense to pursue a contempt
citation for the legitimate exercise of one's constitutional
rights?
Mr. Greenblatt. The last thing I'm going to do is challenge
the Chairman of a Committee that I'm testifying before at the
time.
Mr. Beyer. Well, I was hoping you'd challenge the House
General Counsel, not our distinguished Chairman so----
Mr. Greenblatt. I don't know that I'm well-positioned to
respond but I appreciate your concern.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Well, I still have a couple of minutes
left. The National Weather Service Employees' Organization
filed a complaint two years ago about the pervasive illegal use
of personal service contracts at the National Weather Service.
Apparently, they have more than 1,000 contractors, the cost of
which is over $130 million. Is there pervasive, maybe even
illegal use of personal service contracts? And according to the
National Weather Service Employee Organization, these personal
service contracts are being paid far more on average than the
civil service employees, many of whom are doing the exact same
work.
Why are there so many personal service contracts being used
rather than filling these jobs with actual federal employees?
And the cost of the contracts to taxpayers is considerable so
do you know of anything that NOAA or Commerce is doing to
address this concern?
Mr. Greenblatt. I don't. I think that would be a question
better presented to the agency that in terms of what if any
steps they're taking. I--sitting here right now I can't tell
you whether they have taken any action.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is up next for
his questions.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greenblatt, you are familiar with the letter Mr.
Jiron's attorney wrote to the Office of Inspector General
refuting claims that your office made in its recent report
detailing the contract misconduct. In that letter Mr. Jiron's
attorney states that Mr. Jiron ``followed his boss'
instructions. He had no experience with federal contracting and
had to rely on the advice provided by officials who are
experts.''
Mr. Greenblatt, do you believe Mr. Jiron had no contracting
experience given that he was the Deputy Chief Financial Officer
and worked at the National Weather Service for 38 years?
Mr. Greenblatt. What I can speak to is what I know from the
evidence and the email traffic seemed to show some level of
facility with the contracts but this is really not about the
contracting issues and knowledge of the far which that letter
gets into. It's more about the conflict of interest, the ethics
of it. That is the issue here, not the procurement process but
rather whether he was involved in a matter that affected his
own bank account. And that's the problem here and I think that
is not--I think it is reasonable to believe that he should have
known that.
Mr. Westerman. So following that on the conflict of
interest, do you believe Mr. Jiron should have had the
foresight to know the arrangement he was orchestrating was
improper and he could have walked away from it at any point?
Mr. Greenblatt. Right. I think at a minimum he could've
just talked to an ethics official. I mean there are ethics
folks that are available to talk to and ask. And that's what I
would have--that's an easy step that he and every federal
employee can do.
Mr. Westerman. All right. And his attorney states that he
did not take steps to ensure housing was provided for him in
his postretirement arrangement. Do you agree with that
statement?
Mr. Greenblatt. Oh, I think the evidence is quite clear
that he was actively participating in securing housing for him
after he returned as a consultant.
Mr. Westerman. And his attorney also claims that Mr. Jiron
would have obtained no contracting experience during his tenure
at the National Weather Service and thus should not have been
aware of applicable federal laws prohibiting his conduct
related to his postretirement consulting position. Do you agree
with this assertion?
Mr. Greenblatt. Again, I don't view it as a contracting
issue; I view it as an ethics issue. And that's pretty standard
federal service ethics rules that you cannot get involved in a
matter that involves money going to your own checking account
and that's exactly what we have here.
Mr. Westerman. Obviously the contracting issues create
ethics issues so he should have known that the contracting
issues could create ethics problems?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, certainly when he's talking about his
own hourly rate and he's negotiating with other federal
employees, including his own subordinates, about how he's going
to get the housing, which would take away costs from--his own
costs, yes, think that's something that it's reasonable for a
senior, long-time federal employee to know that.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
No minority members are here to ask questions so the
gentleman, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin
my questions I want to thank you for this hearing. And I find
myself in a very interesting position because I find myself in
a rare instance that I'm agreeing with the minority on
something, which was the theatrics at the beginning of this
Committee. But I must say you handled yourselves with dignity,
with--the theater environment was created by members of the
minority by continually interrupting what you had to do
according to the House Counsel by creating an atmosphere of
theater. The questions to Mr. Greenblatt have gone away from
the issue at hand and it's more about previous management of
his office.
And in fact one that actually did address this issue that
was brought up by Mr. Beyer indicated that this was one
incident where in fact the allegations involved multiple
incidents over a two-year period. Is that true?
Mr. Greenblatt. This lasted for 21 months, yes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Were there other incidents that were
maybe uncovered in your investigation? I read that there were
statements such as this is a normal operating practice.
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes. W got testimony from a number of
different witnesses saying that the so-called revolving door of
folks leaving the National Weather Service and then coming back
was quite common or happened all the time, things along those
lines, yeah.
Mr. Loudermilk. Do we know if it's common practice for them
to write their own contracts before they leave the employment?
Mr. Greenblatt. That we do not know so that's what--we're
comfortable saying that there's testimony about the revolving
door but I don't know about beyond that.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. Let me ask you a few questions about
this case in particular. When Mr. Jiron left as a federal
employee and he came back, did he have the same office?
Mr. Greenblatt. I--we don't know the answer--we got some
testimony that suggested he did but we don't know definitively
whether he did have the same office or same computer or phone
or anything like that.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. He did have a NOAA email address.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. But he kept his same email that he
had had before as an employee?
Mr. Greenblatt. I assume so but I don't know that for--
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. But we don't know if he had the same
computer, the same phone. There's some testimony that says he
did. What benefit did the taxpayers gain from him retiring and
then coming back? Did he essentially do the same job he was
doing as a federal employee?
Mr. Greenblatt. I would say that's a question for the
agency to respond, but I can give you what we found from the
evidence. A number of witnesses told us that, including the
folks who replaced him in that position, that they were doing
different things, that there was no overlap in what they were
doing. Some folks thought--at least one person, in fact one of
his successors told us that they thought he was a personal
services contract essentially for his supervisor doing tasks
specifically for his supervisor.
The whole purpose of bringing him back, according to the
witnesses, was to transfer knowledge. He had this wealth of
knowledge reportedly. And so when his retirement they wanted to
get that knowledge before he left. We found that there was
little of that. According to the witnesses, there was little
evidence that there was an actual transfer of knowledge as they
had--
Mr. Loudermilk. Was he being forced into retirement or did
he voluntarily retire?
Mr. Greenblatt. Voluntary.
Mr. Loudermilk. He voluntarily retired and that we have
evidence that he participated or wrote the job description. The
contract was being written before he left so therefore it would
leave one to understand that this was designed. It was
premeditated, that this was actually in place. He knew he was
going to retire so therefore we're going to write the contract
for him to come back as a contractor. Is that true?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes. Just to add one fact is that he said
he would retire and then his supervisor requested that he come
back and then they engage in the process of establishing his
arrangement.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. So--but it was arranged that this was
going to happen. So effectively what he did was give himself,
in coordination with his supervisor, a pay raise instead of
just saying staying on an employment?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, they monetized all of the benefits
that would not otherwise be available to a contract.
Mr. Loudermilk. So what benefit did the taxpayers have with
this arrangement?
Mr. Greenblatt. That's something I think you'll have to ask
the agency about what exactly he did on a day-to-day basis
during that time.
Mr. Loudermilk. Was he provided housing as an employee when
he was actually an employee of a federal government?
Mr. Greenblatt. Oh, no.
Mr. Loudermilk. Is it standard practice for federal
employees to be provided housing?
Mr. Greenblatt. No, sir.
Mr. Loudermilk. So this was highly unusual for him to leave
and then come back and be provided housing as a contractor. Is
that to your knowledge done in any contracts? Or is it common
practice?
Mr. Greenblatt. I am not aware of it and a number of folks
that we spoke with said that they found it to be inappropriate.
I'm talking about the witnesses found it to be inappropriate.
And like I said, the woman who was running that contract from
the Fisheries Service said that she would not have approved it
had she known he was a contractor.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. I think we've established some of the
things we need to. Final question, should--has Mr. Jiron or
anyone faced any disciplinary action as a result of any of
this?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, when the OIG identified a number of
problems, we approached senior NOAA leadership and then they
terminated the contract on that--I think the day after we
briefed NOAA leadership. So they terminated his contract. But
in terms of discipline, I'm not aware of anything.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you. And I'm out of time. I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Greenblatt, I have a half-dozen questions so I'd
appreciate it if you could answer them as quickly as possible
so I can get them all in.
The testimony today here is almost bizarre. It's almost
incomprehensible. I know most people back home hopefully would
find it hard to believe that things could be as corrupt as they
appear to be. But just to set the record straight in my mind,
what was the date that Mr. Jiron officially retired from the
National Weather Service?
Mr. Greenblatt. May 2, 2010.
Mr. Posey. Okay. What date did Mr. Jiron start as a
consultant for the National Weather Service?
Mr. Greenblatt. May 3, 2010.
Mr. Posey. Under a contract that he essentially drew
himself?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, he revised and edited a statement of
work that--for his own position, yes.
Mr. Posey. So while he was with the National Weather
Service he made a contract to become a consultant and come back
on the date you said?
Mr. Greenblatt. Correct.
Mr. Posey. Okay. What was Mr. Jiron's compensation during
the last month of his service as Deputy Chief Financial Officer
of the National Weather Service?
Mr. Greenblatt. He was paid--this is rough--you know, $72
an hour roughly.
Mr. Posey. Okay. What was Mr. Jiron's compensation for the
first month of his role as a consultant under the contract that
he drew up himself for the National Weather Service?
Mr. Greenblatt. $105 an hour.
Mr. Posey. Okay. So Mr. Jiron retired from the National
Weather Service one day and walked back in the very next day as
a consultant making $3,000 more per month with his housing
being paid for, with essentially no change in his day-to-day
responsibilities?
Mr. Greenblatt. I think it's generally a fair assessment,
yes. I can go into more detail if you'd like.
Mr. Posey. Okay. No, that's good. And the taxpayers
essentially took a $457,000 hit for that bad behavior, which
you have clearly documented and you've cited the laws that were
broken under the conflict-of-interest laws and you took this
information to the Department of Justice and the Department of
Justice refused to prosecute?
Mr. Greenblatt. It declined to pursue the matter, yes.
Mr. Posey. Did they have any reason why they declined to
prosecute?
Mr. Greenblatt. You'll have to ask them about this--about
the exact final decision as to why but from my understanding I
think the involvement of the supervisor was a factor in their
decision and the fact that it--the issue had happened a couple
of years earlier.
Mr. Posey. And how many employees at the National Weather
Service what have their fingerprints on this? If I went back
through all the gatekeepers they didn't do their job, all the
checks and balances that are supposed to be in place to stop
this kind of corruption, how many people had fingerprints on
this if I was to go back and have everyone looked at?
Mr. Greenblatt. Sitting here right now I would say the
number is probably in the five or six range.
Mr. Posey. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. It was not extensive. It was not, you know,
20 or 30 people involved. I think it was probably about five or
six.
Mr. Posey. And the whistleblowers have indicated that this
is customary behavior?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, the witnesses that we met with told
us in our sworn interviews that folks retiring and then coming
back to the Weather Service was commonplace or words of that
variety.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
bringing this to our attention. For too many years this kind of
behavior has been swept underneath the rug.
Mr. Greenblatt, I want to thank you for your honor and the
way that you have represented the taxpayers back home, for your
forthrightness, and I hope there are many more people like you
out there. I'm a little bit chagrined that some people are more
interested in making sure the two culprits are not embarrassed
in this Committee.
Of course, we heard the same kind of comments about Lois
Lerner, how unfair it was to embarrass Lois Lerner, who clearly
was corrupt as the day is long, targeting political enemies.
That's just not the kind of administration the people in this
country expect. And whatever it is that motivates you to do the
job that you're doing, I just hope and pray for the future of
our country and for future generations that there's more out
there like you. God bless you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for his
questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you
for holding this hearing. Thank you for the way that you've
held this hearing. Thank you for the way that you've responded
during this hearing. I find it pretty ironic that the minority,
who have decried the amount of money that this Committee wants
to authorize as we go forward, takes issue with the fact that
in a period when we have $18 trillion and we're trying to make
the agency as accountable as we can, that they are spending
taxpayer dollars appropriately, that they're decrying the fact
that somehow we're trying to make them be better money
managers.
We have a fiduciary trust from our constituents. I applaud
you for wanting to do the right thing on behalf of the American
people and I appreciate you holding this hearing.
To the gentleman Loudermilk, my good friend, I'll--when he
asked the witness what benefit did the taxpayers get, I guess I
would respond they got to say a very high and hearty thank you,
good job to this guy by paying him not twice but 2-1/2 times
what he was getting after he retired. I hope he feels like this
sent him off with a good farewell and a job well done and a lot
of money in his pocket. That's my politically incorrect
statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, Mr. Greenblatt, you had formal training. I didn't read
through your bio; I got here late. So you had formal training
as a lawyer, right?
Mr. Greenblatt. I did.
Mr. Weber. Right. And you have mentioned a couple of times
here that I think it was public service 101 or something--
federal service 101, you don't get involved with the money that
you're going to be getting paid. You don't get to make that
decision. How long have you been on the job where you are?
Mr. Greenblatt. In my current position?
Mr. Weber. Um-hum.
Mr. Greenblatt. I've been here for a little more than a
year. I started May 2014.
Mr. Weber. Okay, good. So you got trained. How many
violations of this magnitude have you seen yourself?
Mr. Greenblatt. It's hard to quantify ``magnitude.'' I have
seen other conflicts-of-interest cases. When I was at the
Justice Department Inspector General, I worked on a number of
conflict-of-interest cases--
Mr. Weber. Well, let me make it easier for you. Have you
ever seen somebody retire and get paid 2-1/2 times what they
were getting?
Mr. Greenblatt. No.
Mr. Weber. Okay. That pretty well speaks for itself. Do you
get training on how to recognize these violations? Did you get
training?
Mr. Greenblatt. Mostly on-the-job training--
Mr. Weber. Mostly on-the-job training.
Mr. Greenblatt. --but, yes, there is training on ethics
guidance frequently.
Mr. Weber. Do people in the agencies, NOAA, IE, National
Weather Service, should they receive some kind of the same
training?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, I believe everyone--you know, all
federal employees receive ethics training--periodic ethics
training depending on the agencies--
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. --and whatever components they're in, but
that--so they get that. I don't know about ethics training in
terms of investigations--
Mr. Weber. Sure. No--but they know--I mean if you were a
betting man, and I'm going to ask you a very subjective
question, would you bet that this guy probably knew that, hey,
this doesn't pass the smell test?
Mr. Greenblatt. Well, I think we found as much in our
report that he should have known. I mean working in the federal
government for nearly four decades I'd be hard-pressed to
believe--
Mr. Weber. So he didn't get training in contracting, his
lawyer said, but I mean he should have had training in common
sense and right and wrong. I mean even his parents should have
taught him that, wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes, but beyond that I would imagine there
is, over the 38 years, extensive ethics training--
Mr. Weber. So----
Mr. Greenblatt. --especially for a senior official.
Mr. Weber. --I don't mean to pry but you get paid a salary.
Does the government collect taxes from your salary?
Mr. Greenblatt. A wee bit, yes.
Mr. Weber. Oh, do they? Okay. Are you appreciative of the
fact that you've got a Committee here that actually looks after
taxpayer dollars and doesn't want to pay retirement employees
2-1/2 times what they were making at taxpayer expense?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yeah, I do appreciate the concern.
Mr. Weber. Yeah, well, I wondered what your motivation for
being here was, so you're a fiscal watchdog like the Chairman
here is.
I noticed in your report you said that there were several
government officials beyond the subject of our investigation
shared responsibility you believe, several being three, four,
five?
Mr. Greenblatt. I would identify three, yes.
Mr. Weber. You identify three? And I didn't get a chance to
read your report. Did you identify them?
Mr. Greenblatt. We identified the supervisor. Well, we
didn't identify anyone. Let's just--as a threshold issue, we
didn't identify anyone for privacy reasons. And so we didn't
identify them in terms of by name or--
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Greenblatt. --but we did identify by identifying them
as an individual.
Mr. Weber. But if you wanted to send a signal to the
agency--because you also said that there's--there's a quote in
here that says federal employees returning as contractors once
they retire ``happens all the time.'' If we want to send a
signal that this is unacceptable, should we subpoena those
three in here? I mean I'm sure two of them have already been
here in some short fashion. Should we be looking at the others
that were involved and subpoenaing their testimony as well as a
deterrent if nothing else?
Mr. Greenblatt. I wouldn't want to, you know, guide the
Committee on what it should do but--
Mr. Weber. No. But as a taxpayer, we've already established
you get paid and we do--and the government takes taxes out and
you appreciate this kind of oversight, right?
Mr. Greenblatt. Of course. Of course.
Mr. Weber. So I'm going to take that as a yes.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
There being no more Members to ask questions, I want to
thank the witness for his testimony and also members on both
sides for their questions.
Today's hearing was an opportunity for Mr. Jiron and Mr.
Byrd to explain to us why taxpayers picked up the tab for an
allegedly improper contract worth nearly half-a-million
dollars. Unfortunately, both former senior officials chose a
path of noncooperation and refused to speak with Committee
staff voluntarily and only appeared here today under subpoena.
In order for the Committee to get the information it needs
to conduct appropriate oversight of this issue, our
investigation will continue. The Committee will persist in
seeking answers from Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd and the Committee
will conduct oversight to determine if these types of actions
are common at the National Weather Service. The American
taxpayers deserve answers and we intend to pursue this issue
until we are certain that taxpayers' interests are protected.
I'm disappointed that that neither Mr. Jiron nor Mr. Byrd
chose to testify today. The witnesses are subject to recall,
and the Committee stands in recess. Thank you all for being
here.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mr. Mark Greenblatt
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Report submitted by Chairman Lamar S. Smith, Chairman
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]