your decision-making if you knew the person was just convicted of say theft or embezzlement in a private life. >> only, we were just talking about a case where somebody received counseling, some kind of counseling. when you look at the counseling situation there at epa, do you think it's helpful? do you think it's strong enough? do you think, and what and maybe mister mr. meiburg can answer this, what triggers counseling? how do i determine whether somebody should have counseling and then be a part of say keeping them warned and i know you don't have a lot to do with the final say but, mr. meiburg? >> thank you randy members. the short answer is it depends on the case and the nature of the offense. if it's an offense created out of ignorance or simply employee did not know what rule was then counsel may be appropriate but each one of

those cases have to be evaluated on its own merits based on the facts of the case and the applicable regulations. >> mister sullivan, time is running out but miss colin had asked you all about where we go from here. tell me clearly, what would you like to see done so that we can be effective and efficient and so we can basically put you out of a job? >> mister cummings, i'm not trying to get rid of you but you understand what i'm saying. >> i appreciate that. i'm concerned that when we have an investigation and because i don't have enough special agents to expeditiously investigate allegations, we eventually get to them but the old saying justice delayed is justice denied, i'm concerned i don't have enough agents to adequately and immediately address some of these allegations. that's why there's so many cases in thepipeline and if you do the math , my professional responsibility

which is in special unit headquarters doing essentially gs 15 and political appointees, the average 9.5 cases each and agents in the field average approximately seven casey and a lot of those cases in the field are multibillion-dollar fraud investigations that are very involved so i simply do not have enough agents to expeditiously investigate every case i have on my plate . >> will you continue to work with us to come up with solutions to the problem? i agree with you but you and mister mr. meiburg have been wonderful sitting down and trying to work out but will you continue to do that? >> absolutely. it's beneficial to both my office and the agency as a wholebecause we can move things down the field quicker . >> thank you very much. >> i think the gentleman from maryland and the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank youmister chairman . several of the cases to the employee misconduct that has been reported took place in

region four. where you and mr. meiburg were the administrator. one of the cases in particular that's on my mind took place on your watch referring to the gs 12 employee making over $100,000 a year is found to be stealing thousands of dollars of property from the epa. in fact, the individual failed to felony theft and was placed on three years probation but astonishingly , only received 30 days suspension by the epa. mr. meiburg, my obvious question is how in the world can an employee be found guilty of felony criminal charges of stealing from the epa and not be fired? >> congressman, i will that case but i was not efficient.

>> i want to be clear that the employee didn't fly. what the employee did was wrong but they have to tell us they are doing something wrong. >> it was criminal. >> there are two paths basically whereby you go on this. one is the path or to go to local authorities. at the time we took discipline,, administrative discipline giving me investigation which we did. >> so, it's astonishing to me that a 30 day suspension is all someone gets for pleading guilty of felony theft.

we got the taxpayers on the hook for this type of behavior. sir, you were the administrator. were you involved in disciplinary action? >> yes, i was involved in disciplinary action. >> so deciding on that case, you are saying that you are not aware of the criminal charges but made the final decision? >> i was generally aware there was the possibility but i did not know the outcome of that was. >> but you were aware of thousands of dollars and installing. >> i was aware that approximately $3000 had been found and lost at the agency . >> and in your determining decision is only worth a 30. in any individual case there are many types of hoops that

are referred to as the douglas act. there are many factors in official uses in deciding what an appropriate penalty would beand i am obligated by law to use all of those . >> it's just amazing to me that the agency doesn't punish people who are stealing from the agency. pleading guilty to criminal theft and they still have the right and privileges on the shoulders of taxpayers to continue working for the agency. i just can't wrap my mind around this. this committee has heard time and again of the epa literally playing a constant employee misconduct. >> that often are doing virtually nothing in comparison.

we hear stories of businesses all the time for a slight infraction getting serious fines and yet here we have the epa in a double standard having employees involved in criminal behavior. they just get 30 days suspensions or less. it's an absolute hypocritical double standard.and it's disgusting not onlyto me to hear these kind of things but the american people are fed up with this kind of stuff . they get slapped time and again with times because the latter is in the wrong place or whatever the slight infraction may be and yet you guys are putting up with this, the state of the affairs at the epa to me is totally unacceptable mister chairman and i just believe if the epa wants the trust of the american people and this committee, they've got a long ways to go to get their house in order and i kneeled back .

>> thank you gettleman from georgia. the gentleman from georgia mister carter is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. mister sullivan, in march 2014 and epa employee was arrested, jailed and indicted for marijuana possession. it's my understanding that this particular employee had a grow operation and was arrested on felony possession charges. in fact, i believe you highlighted this in your november 2015 report that on the epa's use of taxpayer dollars for extended administrative leave for employees who had been suspended for misconduct, according to that report this employee was placed, mr. meiburg you listening? according to this report the employee was placed on administrative leave for seven and half months. is that correct? >> yessir . >> tell me that's not correct. >> know, it's correct sir. >> it's correct.

again, he was charged with felony possession. he had a grow operation. and he was put on administrative leave and paid for 7 and a half months?>> yes sir. >> as i understand it, the epa policy only allows for 10 days administrative leave when employees have committed a crime or which they could be imprisoned, is that correct? >> that is correct, that's the new policy. i will do for to mr. meiburg. >> i will get to mr. meiburg. >> is a new policy. >> the new policy implement it after this? yes. >> okay, so it wouldn't have applied then asked the 10 day limit didnot apply there. >> that's why we paid him for 7 and a half months . >> i can't explain why. >> i can't, even if you could i couldn't understand why. do you know that, mr.

meiburg, why would epa do this? why would you do this?>> congressman, i can't the particulars on this case and what judgments were made by the individual. >> well who can question mark need them here . >> that would be the regional office where that occurred. >> who makes these decisions? do you know who we need here? we need somebody who we can fire. that's who we need here. who makes this decision, who made that decision? >> the reasons on conduct and discipline are taken by proposing officials who usually are the employees supervisor or their division director in the region and the final decision is made usually deputy administrator was a career appointee . >> and who do they answer to >> answer to a regional administrator . >> i think you said the major words, career appointee. that wasprobably the answer to the question, career

appointee . let me ask you, mr. meiburg, i've been sitting here listening and it seems that with all due respect sir, it seems you are, yeah, that's right and that's the way it's supposed to be. in the report mister sullivan, did you not indicate that epa needed to change some of their policies and protocols? >> to be correct that was an audit report but recommendations were made mr. meiburg had done that? >> we have. >> are they ready? >> they are being implemented. >> when will they be implemented? >> they are being implemented now. >> they are in place now. >> yes. >> to be specific, policy on administrative leave to limit administrative leave in any case to 10 days unless there's approval by the assistant administrator for the office of administration and resources management under very very ... >> i'm okay with that because this is the only time

something like this happened. it happened once and then we corrected it is that right mister sullivan? >> there was massive abuse with administratively prior to the changing of the rules. our audit report points that out. >> mr. meiburg have your ever worked in the private sector? >> not for many years. i thought i was going to have that opportunity following may 14 but it didn't work out that way. >> i suspect there's a story there. you expect they would tolerate this in the private sector? >> i can't comparability in the private sector. >> i can because i'm in the private sector. i guess i'm not now. but i was. you know, i mean, my colleague just made the point. you go and you find people. we got the answer today as to why they are being fined, because we got to pay people on administrative leave who been charged with felonies, that's why you're getting that finds in the wrong place. i got the answers i needed today, thank you both. that's exactly what i needed to know. mister chairman, i healed.

>> i think the gentleman from georgia, i recognized miss lawrence from michigan for her five minutes. >> thank you. we've heard discussion today about the new process for information sharing at epa and the dramatic improvement in management's response to mix conduct. i went to a plaza agency in ig for your work to streamline the disciplinary process. our hearing on the federal workforce often focused on this committee on the negatives so it's good to hear about the positives, the changes that are occurring. any of the failures that we've been hearing about or prior to the changes so i do applaudyou . i want to focus on another policy change that took place in the epa regarding

administrative leave. i also want to note that this is the sixth hearing that this committee has held over the past two congresses under management of employee misconduct issues at epa. mr. meiburg, i'm icing right? >> mr. meiburg. >> i'm pleased to hear the new policy increases oversight over the placement of employees on administrative leave during misconduct investigations and adjudication. the new epa policy also requires managers to document alternatives to administrative leaves that were considered and why they were deemed not feasible, is that correct question mark. >> that yes, that's correct congresswoman. >> would you tell me today and enlighten us, what

alternatives should managers consider before placing an employee on administrative leave? >> alternative managers good should consider alternatives about what other kind of work the individual could be doing instead of your their regular duties if it turns out the investigation will impede their regular duties so that would be the first place you would look, to find work they can do while they are proceeding and occurring. >> you expect this new policy to reduce the amount of time that employees are placed on administrative leave, is that the goal? >> yes indeed it is. we've been very sensitive to the comments from the members of this committee about concern about the abuse of the ministry of leave andwe want to curtail that practice area . >> so now this is in february, am i correct? >> that's correct. have you seen any difference, has there been a reduction? >> we seen a dramatic difference since the policy put in place, we've only had

two requests that have come forward and the fact that request were not coming forward by itself is a good sign policy is going into place and of the two requests that came forward, one was approved because of a risk to safety of epa employees and the other was denied . >> i often like to interject into these conversations that i served in a federal agency and was in hr, labor relations and really had the responsibility of looking at how you deal with separating inappropriate behavior but respecting the rights of an employee, it's a delicate mix. you have to hold employees accountable and i can tell you sitting here today, i want employees held accountable. it is our expectation of our public but every employee is a citizen of the united states. they have rights and the agency should have and i'm glad to hear that you review these processes to make sure they are consistent, that they are up to a manager and

we hope people basically are there to do the work. to do the work that my tax dollars and every other americans expect to happen in this agency. i will continue, i hope we don't have to have six more hearings on this but i will continue to stay focused on looking at what we are doing and mr. meiburg, i expect you to continue to monitor this and be proactive and make sure that epa with all the budget cuts that we are doing here that epa is doing the work we need them to do to protect our environment, thank you. >> i think the gentle lady from michigan, i recognize the gentleman from alabama, mister palmer. >> thank you mister chairman. mister mr. meiburg, i think we've pretty well covered some of the problems that the

epa regarding misconduct but there are other forms of employee misconduct i want to address area specifically about an investigation going on in the birmingham alabama area involving the epa. which epa employees i think have acted improperly. and conducting the investigation. specifically, seeking access to property without getting the permission of the owner and actually intimidating people who are occupying houses on the property. i have an affidavit here which one of these people who reside on the property made these allegations that the officials at the us environmental agency, the testing property, the epa officials presented me with a document signed 11 sampled

the yard, epa representative was acting very intimidating and informed me i needed to sign the release over even though i did not own the property. which is a clear violation. i felt very intimidated and compelled to sign the release even though i did not want to do so. upon signing the release, i asked the epa official what was so urgent in trying to gain access to my guard. the epa officials responded they are in terrance alabama which is a suburb of birmingham to shut down the adc coke plant. does the epa discipline employees who act in such an overzealous manner? >> congressman, anytime we have an allegation that the investigation shows misconduct has occurred that we will take action to hold the employee accountable. >> do you punish that poor do you encourage it? >> again, congressman when an

allegation occurs of misconduct we investigated and as agent sullivan, or director sold and specified, one of the things that occurs on many investigations is the investigation does not find any wrongdoing. when it does we take appropriate follow-up action will be employee accountable x i would like to point out this is not the only affidavit like this. there are several others. and i'm going to release them, i'm going to add into the record or use their names at this time but do you believe it is appropriate for the epa personnel to be pressuring and intimidating citizens into endorsing epa agendas? >> congressman, i'm not familiar with the specifics that you are referring to. >> the specifics here are epa employees forced this renter to give access to property they didn't have legal access to and in an intimidating

manner and then afterwards told him the whole point of the investigation was to shut down all legal business. is that how the epa does business? do you encourage your employees to do that? you allow them to intimidate, do you allow them to operate outside the law? are you aware that this goes on? >> congressman again, i'm not familiar with the specifics of the cases. >> i'm asking you in general. >> in general we ask employees to behave in accordance with good solid standards of professional conduct. >> well, they don't always. do you believe it's appropriate for epa employees to see to shut down a legitimate business that employs many people? again congressman, our job is to go out and enforce the law, to make sure people are protected and the laws followed, that's what we do. >> i've got a number of issues with the epa, how they

do business, how they handle their investigations. senator richard shelby, center jeff simmons and i sent a letter to administrator mccarthy and regional administrator for region four, heather: dear tony. back on february 26 of this year asking for information about the epa's investigation of this area and i got a letter back saying that with respect to your concerns about the epa's enforcement approach or theories of liability against any prp associated with the site, unfortunately epa cannot engage in any discussions with third parties including members of congress as articulated in memorandums and i got the memorandum here. that seems to me to undermine our oversight ability and i intend mister chairman to look into this further. i would like to enter my

letter and the epa's response into the record if there are no objections. >> without objection so ordered. >> i yield the balance of my time, thanks mister chairman. >> i think the gentleman from alabama. the gentle women from illinois, miss kelly is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mister chair. >> mister meiburg and mister sullivan, thank you. misconduct from a few bad apples is all federal employees a bad name.as elected officials we can relate to that also. our goal was to ensure that agencies act specifically in and fairly in issues like these. this committee has worked with agencies to improve and streamline their internal procedure while preserving employee rights. today we've heard about the new policies and information sharing processes that epa and the ige. mister sullivan, in your testimony you state that since the committee's hearing on epa misconduct in april 2015, the agency's internal

adjudication process as i and i quote,dramatically improved, is that correct? >> yes miss kelly that's correct . >> mister meiburg, these improvements have occurred through changes in administrative policy and process, not through legislative change, is that correct? >> yes congresswoman that correct. >> mister meiburg in your opinion you managers at your agency have sufficient tools under current law to deal with allegations of misconduct like the one we've heard about today? >> congresswoman i do in fact believe that. it is always the case as ranking membercummings said in his opening statement that we can always do better and strive to do that but we believe we have the tools we need in agency to execute effective conduct and discipline . >> it's important to remember that due process protections in our federal circuit civil service laws are there for reason. in may 2015 the merit systems protection board issued a report that stated and i quote, more than a century ago the government operated under a spoiled system in

which employees could be removed for any reason including membership and a different political party and the president or public agency wrongdoing. the result was appointment and retention, retention decisions based on political favoritism. constitutional due process protections arose from the law that congress enacted to fix that broken system. mister meiburg, is removing the process in civil service laws necessary to address areas misconduct? >> congresswoman we believe we can misconduct through the application of our processes that do in fact protect due process. >> mister sullivan you agree that without a legislative change it is possible that improvements can be made with an agency that reminds the disciplinary process. >> yes miss kelly i agree with that. >> are the changes at the epa an example of such an improvement. >> yes, i can say from my

experience they been the biweekly meetings have dramatically improved the process. >> thank you. it seems to me that agencies currently have the tools to deal with allegations of misconduct . they sometimes do not use them as efficiently and effectively as they could. i think that is exactly when mister maddie through its oversight function can help agencies improve their procedures. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thanked the gentlewoman from illinois. i will recognize myself for five minutes. mister sullivan, thank you for the testimony and work of your office at the epa. i like would like to thank you for the work of the oig in cooperation with this committee to shed light on the misconduct at the epa and efforts to bring about reform within the agency. we recognize your progress while still acknowledging there are many ongoing challenges within the agencies personnel and management. we know the long-term reform and improvements for personal management requires more than just new procedures and updates to manuals. it requires active support from leadership top to bottom to foster a culture of

integrity, accountability and best practices. would you agree mister sullivan? >> yes sir i do. >> mister meiburg, you are currently serving in one of the top leadership roles at epa. >> yes, that's right. >> you're pretty astute about the law, right? >> i am not a lawyer, would not make that claim. >> know, but you've been very articulate about the banter from both sides in regard to this claim or that claim, you are articulate about that, right? >> thank you, that's not for me to judge. >> mister highs actually engaged on you because you are the administrator that made the decision in that case and you are familiar with personnel management, right? >> yes, over the course of my career i had a number of conduct discipline cases come before me as a deciding official. >> you briefly describe and summarize a job position today? i am the agency's chief operating officer and i perform such duties as are assigned to me by the administrator. >> let's go through that.

you're serving as the acting epa deputy administrator and you should understand the law, right? >> i am again serving ... >> you should understand the law. you are crediting this based on understanding the law and all those underneath you should be following you so, you've also been nominated by the president to serve as epa deputy administrator. under the federal vacancies reform act and recent case law you realize you cannot serve in an acting capacity for an office you've been nominated for? >> congressman i am aware of the legal case you are referring to and have been assured by counsel that my service is lawful . >> wo. moreover do you realize in such a situation your actions

have no force or effect under the law and what i'm talking to you about is, you are the ceo: you are applying these laws. they basically go away. i'd liketo have the name of the council that gave you that information because it's in violation of statute and law . will you provide that to the committee? >> i would be happy to do that. >> did we discuss at the epa that under the reform act you cannot serve as acting deputy director after after you've been nominated to serve that same office. are you concert directions will be challenged given they have no force or effect under the law? congressman i havebeen in consultation with counsel to ensure . >> i like the information and names of all the people that gave you that because that's in contradiction of federal law. do you believe you should step down given that the loss is your actions have no force or effect? >> again, i've been consulted with counsel that all my actions ... >> i want all the individuals that gave you the consultations name and titles read your actions in defiance of the law by your agency and this administration baffles me.

moreover it does not surprise me. the apa under this president has a long history of disregard for the law and disrespect for the oversight of congress. your boss gina mccarthy committed perjury and made several false statements at multiple congressional hearings trying to defend the fact that waters of the us regulation. on numerous organizations administrator mccarthy not only broke the law by lying to congress but in doing so she lied to the american people in order to force misguided and overreaching regulations that have no scientific basis down our throats. perjury before congress is perjury to the american people and an affront to the core principles of our republic and the rule of law. you're sitting here impersonating the ceo being offered as that office by the president is an affront as well. that is why i have introduced articles of impeachment to remove mccarthy from office but before you get too excited , let me give you another astronomical promotion in mccarthy's place. i think you should step down

as well.you cannot serve as acting official when you are nominated to fill that post permanently. it's against the law. it's plain and simple. personal management within the epa is a mess but that is no surprise when the agencies top officials are willful lawbreakers themselves. you create a culture and that's why you were set up accordingly. that's why it's going to be really nice today because we have to figure out a way to make sure those impeachment proceedings go to the floor and make somebody atone for their actions. it's sad that we have to bring this, particularly when you should know the rules better and that goes along with the council but i will expect those names of all those counsel and their titles to this committee for review. i thank you and i'm disgusted. and i now recognize the gentlewoman on the district of columbia, ms. norton. >> thank you mister chairman and thank you mister meiburg and mister sullivan for being

here. to get back to one of the themes of this hearing, i've been interested to hear about the testimonies given on improvedcoordination . between the epa and the ig and the reason that interest me as we obviously want to reduce the time that employees spend on administrative leave when obviously they are not doing anything for the agency so i'm interested in the investigative process. irecognize that it takes time, it can cut corners . you can be sued so also, i understand that some of these investigations can be very complex area mister sullivan, i'm interested in the funding available to the agency for the job that needs to be done investigating. can you tell me what the staffing levels are for the

team that investigates misconduct allegations? >> yes ma'am, i can tell you in general the current authorized fte for the inspector general's office on the whole is 289 employees. the drop in the last five years from 360. in my office i have an authorized fte strength of 76 five years ago, now down to 61 but because of the uncertainty in the budget i haven't been able to hire back up to 61. i now have 55 full-time employees 50 of which are special agents. test test

>> the fraud cases are the bread and butter. most of our work goes into recooping the money that the epa put out. i have five full-time agents working nothing but misconduct and other agents working a combination of theft and misconduct cases in the field. >> staff levels like this remind me of what we are seeing on television with t.s.a. i cannot believe it is because everybody decided to get on the plane. t.s.a. is one thing and they have been under great criticism because they have not always

been able to keep according to the toa what weapons from getting through. that is an interesting case. this is another level of complexity. i am going to have to ask you candidly how can these investigators keep from cutting corners with these kinds of staffing levels you described at apparently have changed during your time at the agency? >> ma'am, i have seen no evidence of any of my agents cutting corners but what i testified to previously is that i am concerned cases take way too much time to come to conclusion. frankly, it is like the analogy of plans circling and when did they land? they land, using that analogy, when the investigation is

complete. >> but investigating employee misconduct is not the only responsibility of the ig. >> that is correct. we have fraud and theft cases. quite a few fraud cases now. we with constantly juggling. and we prioritize like an emergency room where we investigate and handle the most important cases first but you have to take caref of the other cases. >> what about the other cases? >> 60% of cases are combination of theft, fraud and assault. i say theft by outsiders i mean. getting into a federal facility and stealing equipment or other items. >> i think we are forgetting the

limits. >> i thank you. i recognize the gentlemen from virginia. >> mr. meiburg, this isn't the first time the committee has looked into the epa for questionable practices. one of our witnesses in a previous hearing, mark edwards, a water expert at virginia tech, testified he waited several years for this case.

this case and others should demenish the public's confidence in the epa's ability to be open and transparency. can you tell us why it takes the epa so long for these foyer requests to be served? >> i will speak generally to this. we take our responsibilities seriously and we have found in recent years there has been an increase in the number of foyer requests we have received. responding to that, we tried to put together an expert assistance team to assist us in searching for documents and making sure we are fully responsible. >> when was that team initiated? >> in the last year or so. >> are we seeing improvements on that that you can tell us about? >> we are working hard. i don't have statistics today

but we will be glad to get back to you with more. >> we are dealing are emotional issues, waters of the u.s., flint water crisis where government failed at all levels and people have been hurt. there is certainly emotional issues dealing with requests that go on. there are reasons why epa has been brought in front of us dealing with foyer and i hope that be addressed. going on to purchase cards that was introduced in, i believe, our chairman's open comments. how can epa keep better track of the purchase cards and the usage of those cars by your employees? >> congressman, we made a number of changes in response to these problems. the inspector general and own

management is concerned about this and keeping track of the activity purchased on the cards. weefl like we have made considering progress. >> has there been a lot done relative to employees to make sure we are not continuing this? >> we are always continuing to follow-up with any misconduct. >> why is it epa employees who spend thousands, on personal expenses, can get away without having to rebimburse the agency? >> congressman, we obviously share your concern about that. the cases that are before us today are cases that were over, for the most part, a couple years ago. we feel we made progress going

forward to identify those cases >> the particular individuals that extended 22,000 in international roaming charges while vacationing broad. will that employee be required to reimburse the agency? >> i am glad you brought that case up. we are going back and trying to make another effort to recover the cost. >> what is the challenge >> the challenge is which calls, they may have made employee-related calls, and we need to separate them out and make a credible claim. >> mr. sullivan, can you add anything to that relative to that specific individual? >> the individual resigned before we presented our findings to the agency and as a follow-up the agency preliminarily determined it was too difficult to decide of that 22,000, may

have been work-related. the agency came back in april and said they are taking a second look and trying to present the bill to that former employee. >> i hope a second look would be taken at it. i applaud that effort and want to see that completed. at the end, if there is involvement i would hope we could get after him and if not, we appreciate you telling us how we can assist you where we can make laws and put in place so where employees are ruining the credibility of others and attempting to the best and the cloud is put on them because of people willing to misuse their purposes.

i thank the chairman. >> i would like to go back to a couple questions raised during the discussion with mr. palmer. he was talking specifically about a circumstance in alabama, where to use his language, there was an allegedly over zelous epa employee. we hear this all of the time. it ranges from the term over zealous to shake down. anybody ever been fired for doing that? >> congressman, i cannot fight specific examples of somebody and i am going to interpret your question and i need to know if i am hearing it correctly. been fired for overreaching? >> the forcing the law --

enforcing law is what we are supposed to do it. it is possible they might overreach. they may not approve of the business. i used to be a real estate developer and i can assure you there are folks who hug trees and didn't like what i am doing. they use that power the government gives to them as an employee of the state to say i am going to push harder and stick it to this person. do you remember a single case of anyone at the epa being fired for that? >> i appreciate your view of the job of law enforcement is not always a poplar job or designed to make everybody like you. i am not aware in my own experience of a case that is similar to what you are saying.

>> if there are allegations mentioned, like someone was over zealous and exceeded their authority, let's use their term, would that rise to the level of there oig would look at? >> this is the first time i am hearing this but it would. >> i am using his as an example. my question is more general, have you ever investigated allegations of overreaching authority on the part of an epa employee? >> yes. >> do you recall anybody being terminated for those actions? >> off the top of my head, i cannot recall how the case was adjudicated. we had allegations of people

using their position to get a favor; something not read available. and we had instances of people using government property to gain. misuse a government vehicle or funds. >> okay. and there was a fairly high profile, high profile to us, because it is in the briefing materials, of an employee who lent out a trailer or piece of equipment to an environmentalist group. are you familiar with that? >> i am familiar with that case. >> and the person wasn't fired. my question is this, in my last minute, give me a couple examples of what it takes to get fired from the epa? do you have to kill somebody or a little short of that? >> it could be short of that.

in my experience, i have done terminations. the kind of behaviors involved are unpleasant and not the kind of things you would certainly want to ever have an employee engage in. when they engage on those things, on a case-by-case basis, considering employee due process, you follow and get all of the facts and prove the allegations you followed the regulations and you do in fact terminate employees >> help me understand, and i recognize we are speaking in generalties, if you had to estimate between dealing with allegations of emplimpropriety,t percentage of people quit or get fired under those circumstances? >> congressman, i don't have an exact percentage but it is not common someone proposes to

retire or resign when allegations rise. >> and they keep their benefits whether they retire or resign? >> i have no control of that. >> except serious exclusions like treason or terrorism. >> would it be easier, if we gave you the tool on a case-by-case basis to deny people who were found to act improperly deny some or all of their benefits even if they chose to resign over termination? >> i would answer saying i think we have the ability and tools to appropriately address conduct to hold employees accountable.

>> thank you. >> i recognize the gentle lady from the virgin islands. >> good morning. chairman chaffetz highlighted what i quote management failures at the epa. i am not sure if that characterization is appropriate and appears we are still in discussion about this today. i wanted to discuss what occurred since last april. it is my understanding the epa took significant steps to address weaknesss in the disciplinary process. i don't think firing people means you are a good manager. that may be the sign of a poor manager who has to constantly fire people rather than bring them up to speed and make them a

good worker. you state, and i am quoting, as a result of the work and especially ranking member cummings, we have improved our working relationship with oig which has enabled us to take more efficient administrative action. would you care to elaborate on that? >> only to say this has been a two-way street. we have reached out to the inspector general's office and they reached out to us in pursuit of a common objective which is making sure employees are held accountable and misconduct cases are dealt with appropriately while making sure we do that in a way to protect people. >> how is that affecting relationships previously? >> i could not say for the time before i got here but there should be reach out on both sides and it is commendable. >> mr. sullivan, would you agree with that and the agency's

internal ajudication process has improved? >> yes. i will explain prior to having the by-weeky meeting, if we had a misconduct investigation in denver or san francisco, the folks at head quarters had very little visibility and it may langish for months or years. whe whe whereas now every misconduct investigation pending across the agencies, mr. meiburg, employee relation folks and i meet by-weekly. and that case before that langished in san francisco or seattle is no longer allowed to do so. those cases are being addresseded appropriately. >> and you would say they are moving at a faster place to closure than before? >> absolutely.

>> you have quantitative evidence of that? >> yes, i could tell you within the past year we have successfully closed -- well the agency determined what disciplinary action to take, if any, and we closed cases at a higher rate. we cannot close the cases until we hear back from the agency. >> have you been satisfied with the recommendations the agency made on those cases? >> our job is to collect advice and it is not relevant on whether i think discipline is appropriate or not. i defer to the agency in that regard. >> you said there is a process you are describing, mr. sullivan, and you quote, i believe the this can be a best-practice model to the government. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. i spoke with chairman chaffetz and ranking member cummings and they are reaching out to use the

epa as a model to show maybe there is a way to get the cases to move faster government wide. >> i think that the alleviate this committee having to have as many hearings as we have with other agencies and week get on with the actual work of congress if we were to do that. would you support efforts to encourage government-wide adoption of this and your office would be willing to work with this committee to do that? >> we certainly do support that and we have worked with the committee. but one caveat, the epa is somewhat unique in that we don't have subcomponents. there is one epa and one ig. dhs, for example, has multiple subcomponents and that model wouldn't work with agencies like that. >> have you thought about what would work in agencies like that? >> no, ma'am, i have not. >> we have to get you thinking

about that. it seems the epa and ig showed better communication can help agencies take more action quickly in the misconduct cases. i am grateful for the work you have done since april to actually address many issues and move the cases along to closure. i don't believe, having managed many people working at the department of justice, with the deputy attorney office managing 9,000 attorneys, that necessarily firing people is the measure by which one determines you have done a good job in terms of dealing with misconduct so i am grateful for the work you have done and yield the balance of my time. >> a couple housekeeping measures. mr. meiburg, mr. mica would like to know that for the record, and to have you answer back, how many employees of the epa get bonuses >> we will supply that. >> we would appreciate that. we want to make sure we have dates certain so i will expect

the names and titles in two weeks. can't be that many. one last thing, mr. sullivan, you have aware of the federal vacancy reform act? >> in general terms. not specificity. >> are you aware of anyone with the same plausible conflict that has been made aware of today in this committee with mr. meiburg? >> no, i am generally aware of the issue involving mr. meiburg but it is not based on the council's opinion. we have not investigated that issue. >> can we have to names from the people you consulted at the epa? >> our council's office, i know i was brief in the issue, but i will get back to the committee. >> i guess we have a gentlemen, mr. duncan, recognized for five

minutes. okay. with that i would love the names within two weeks as well. the council talked to you about that and any other cases. >> i didn't speak directly to anyone at the epa's council office. i was briefed at a meeting this issue came up and according to the agency's general council it is not an issue. that is what i was told. >> i would like to know from your council this wasn't a problem. >> according to the federal v vacancies reform act, anything like this is null and void based on the premise. the culture we are building here is based on the top levels because you lead by example.

>> i understand the hearsay here. i am curious, i have read the material about the employees who have been watching all of this pornography for hours at a time, and employees admitted stealing thousands of dollars from the epa. have all of these employees, or any of these employees been fired? >> mr. congressman, again, there is a large number -- of the cases you looked at here, many employees are no longer with the agency, they are cases where people are proposed for determination and resigned. >> you don't have any employees now at the epa who have been found to have stolen money or

spent hours watching pornography and so forth? they have eith left or resigned? >> congressman, there are employees who have resigned or been terminated and there are employees who have been disciplined in other means in resigning or termination. some are still with the agency >> in what ways do you discipline somebody like that? >> congressman, there is a wide range of disciplinary actions available to a deciding official based on the factors such as how long the employee has been with the agency, the severity of the crime or misconduct and they can go all the way from the reprimands to a reduction in grade. >> i am assuming you have changed some of these policies to make sure that this type of activity doesn't continue in the future? >> yes, we changed a number of policies. i think the staff came up and briefed the committee staff on

policies and changes we have made specifically with respect to the viewing of the pornography. so, yes. >> all right. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentlemen. if there is no further business i thank the witnesses for their appearance today. without objection, the committee stands adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] coming up tonight, a hearing on telemarketing. members of the senate committee hear advocates on the consumer protection act of 1991 and rules of solicitation, information dissimnation, debt collection, hillary clinton -- health care and financial information on the phone. tune in on c-span3 at 8:00 eastern.

>> the voices are crying for peace and light because your choices will make all of the differences to you and all of us >> don't be afraid to take on cases or a new job or a new issue that really stretches your boundaries. >> respect your summer abroad on real ships rather than internships and the specter of living in your parent's basement after this graduation day is not likely to be your greatest concern. >> throughout the month, watch commencement speakers from colleges and universities around the country by business leaders, politicians and white house officials on c-span. florida representative david jolly and rick nolan discussed legislation that would ban

members of congress from personally asking for money. congressman jolly says lawmakers should spend their time working for voters rather than asking for donations. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning, i am the washington correspondent for the washington tribraun and the 109th president of the national press club. we know it takes money to run for political off offices and that takes a lot of time convincing donors to send cash

their way. david jolly was elected in match of 14 and with a re-election six months away he was shocked to learn he needed to race two million. he introduced the stop act which bans members of congress from personally asking for money. rick nolan was one of the first to sponsor the bill. he was later elected to congress in 2013, nolan said when he returned he hardly recognized the amount of time. our guest question, in addition we have reporters looking on the phone.

if anyone listening in would like to a question please send them to questions.press.org. ... when we first started this effort i knew we wanted to be a bipartisan effort right out of the gate. i spent a couple of minutes talking about the construct. i think the narrative has been told in the past several weeks. we will talk about the national and i know rick has some complents as well. you know, in many states including the state of florida, members are prohibiting from raising money.

prohibition was upheld by the u.s. supreme court in the case in hillsborough county, florida. the case indicate that had the prohibition might be constitutional on judges but perhaps it would require a different construct on elected officials and legislative body but i took the model and said let's apply that to congress. debate on campaign finance reform. we can do better when it comes

to broader campaign finance reform. this is a congressional reform that says the following. we all know the amount of money in politics. but let's talk about the amount of time it takes to raise that money. in a single congressional race where your member of congress may have to raise $2 million or u.s. senate raise where a member has to raise 20 to $40 million. consider the amount of time it takes to raise that money. and so my personal experience is this. i tell the story of two candidates. i was a first time candidate two or three years ago. i had multiple businesses, i had a finance practice, a law practice and consulting practice, but when i decided to run for congress, i was able to decide how much time to commit to the campaign, how much time to fundraising, how much time to networking, parades, you name it. but the only consequence, the opportunity cost of that time

was on my own business endeavors, that was as a first-time candidate. once elected and as mentioned in the introduction, realizing i had six to seven months to elect $2 million and consider the opportunity to raise that money. now as a sitting member of congress running for reelection, my first priority, greatest responsibility i had for every minute of every hour of every day was to represent the people entrusted me to serve and to spend hours upon hours every day raising money and not doing the job i was elected to do, i believe is a violation of the public trust. as a first-time candidate, i had the opportunity discretion, luxury to decide how to spend my time. as a sitting member of congress, i don't think we should have that same choice.

i think members of congress should be told do the job you ran to do. let's leave fundraising to the campaign apparatus to make sure resource are there to spend the money, including intern 20 years ago who took naps in the phone booth of a building, i rose up through staff ranks, i was council, i was supporting supporting the appropriation chairman, i ended up being the direct director and ended up running for congress and there are certain unique perspectives you get and this is one of them. it is a pressure on a member's time to do other than what you are elected to do. the stop act would simply say, let the campaign raise the money and let members of congress get back to work. a couple of housekeeping items just for context today, i say this every step of the way, the storyline i tell is not to judge or criticize my colleagues,

frankly in private conversations i think rick would agree with this, our colleagues are begging for some breathing room. they all ran, republicans, democrats, they ran on priorities that they want to advance for constituencies. if it's health care, transportation, immigration reform, tax reform, balance budget. members have priorities they want to work on. they're facing the same time pressures that rick and i are fazing. so this is not to judge or criticize our colleagues, it is to judge and criticize the system that has given us a part time congress and a full-time world with real-world challenges. the second i would share with you, following the 60-minute story, the narrative developed that somehow this was david jog -- jolly versus the nrcc, that's not at all. for the david jolly campaign,

yes, requirements and expectations to raise money for your party which is now something that we have seen that a generation ago that obligation was not there. it is focused on the total amount of time for fundraising. i'm sick and tired of retired member of congress pulling the curtain back and lamenting about the amount of time they spent fundraising. which is essentially is an admission that they did nothing about it while they were there. what rick and i are trying to do is say, let's start a movement today. members of congress working with people across the country to demand change while we can implement, while we actually have the ability as members of congress to change the law. that's why i introduced the stop act and with the help of the american people that has been coming in the mail and e-mail and on the phone calls in the past couple of weeks, i'm optimistic today that we can make some advancements on this issue in the near term, so thank

you to the national press club, rick, thank you for joining me in this movement. >> thank you, david. thank you, president tommy, president of the club and jamie harwits, but special thanks to my colleague david jolly for tremendous leadership for stepping out and speaking on this critical issue. with regard to -- you were saying in your introduction, i serve elected office for ten years back in the late 60's and early 70's, a couple terms in the state house, three terms here and i spent 32 years in business, domestic and international and community service and so i was kind a long hiatus. a lot of people refer to me as rick van winkle coming back after all these years and seeing what had happened to the congress.

i mean, i hardly recognize the place. it was just so dramaticically, so when david jolly suggested that i join him in introducing this stop act, it made wonderfully good sense to me because among the things that had changed, you know, so dramatically was the massive amounts of money that were going into politics as a result of the supreme courts citizens united decision, we are talking about hundreds, in fact, billions of dollars going into a campaign and elections, much of it is secret money, dark money, whatever you want to call it. most of it terribly negative, and that brought on a necessity for members and candidates themselves to raise enough money to depend themselves and to get

their message out there, because without that, you might as well go home because you're going to get defeated and it's to your friends and supporters. not to do what you can do, you know, show that you're all in as well. but i must tell you, you know, when i served in the past, we did not spend any time dialing for dollars, it just wasn't done. the republicans and the democrats did not have call centers across the street where you were expected to do that. and so in my judgment, you know, the single most important thing we can do, the two most important things we can do quite frankly are the reversal of citizens united to get all of this money out of politics, but the other single most important thing we do is -- can do is to pass this stop act because what has happened that all the

massive amounts of money has totally changed the way we do politics. it's turned members of congress, you know, in the middle-level telemarketers dialing for dollars. it's no secret, you know, other professionals, republicans and democrats have told us, you know, you should spend 20-30 hours a week dialing for dollars and you should spend another ten hours a week in fundraising events, breakfasts, luncheons, cocktail parties. you are approaching 40 hours. we are only in town three nights a week. i don't know about you, david, it's a seven-hour trip for me door to door. that's 14 hours, that's 54 hours and you haven't spent time governing yet, which is why i'm proud to say i haven't spent a minute in the call centers across the street. go to washington and go to work.

that's what being a member of congress is all about. that's what has made this country the great country that it is. and to complement david has said here, members don't want to do this, they came to washington, whether they came from conservative or liberal background, democrat, they came with ideas, they wanted to have an opportunity to express them, they wanted to have an opportunity to argue them, they wanted -- they wanted to have a vote on them, and that's how you find common ground. and you know, we spend a lot of time talking about the character of the candidates and their integrity and their vision and that's important, but process matters. process matters. if you've already consumed, you know, 40-50 hours of a week in travel and fundraising, there's not a lot of time left over for governing. and we are seeing the results of that.

i mean, they call it a gridlock. we are looking at the last couple of sessions of the congress of the united states to being among the most unproductive in the history of the country, why, well, if everybody is busy raising money and campaigning, there's no time for governing, that's why. and you know, that's how you find common ground. i served at a time when everything came up through the committee process, we were in session five days a week, you -- if you had an idea, by golly, you had an opportunity to offer it and debate it and let it rise and fall. that's how we found common ground. that's how we got things done. that doesn't happen anymore. most everything comes up under close rule. if there's going to be any amendments, they're very limited. each side gets five minutes and you're done with it. back in the day, it was not uncommon to have hundreds of

amendments on a particular bill and you argued and debated every single one of them and in the process you learned to develop respect for your colleague, you got an opportunity to hear the best ideas and the best arguments, that's how you found the common ground and that's how you got things done. and that's why the stop act is critically important to the process. if members are coming to washington and dialing for dollars, you know, becoming middle-level telemarketers, then they're not -- they're not doing the job that we were elected to do. and that's why the stop act is so important, it's gettering -- diverting time from what they need to do. it's des couraging people from running for reelection, it's des couraging people from running election to begin with. and i can think of countless examples back in my state,

wonderful successfully business person was very interesting in running, the country was good to him and he got out here when he was told the fundraising that was going to be required of him. that's not what i want to go to washington, to become a middle-level telemarketer. i want to get the country on track. make things better. make no mistake about it. it's destroying people's confidence, quite frankly in our whole political system in addition to disrupting the process and the simple truth is that members of the congress, if the congress is going to work, if we are going to fix things, get things done, if we are going to find that common ground we need to be in our committees, we need to be in our briefings on the great issues of our time. we need to be meeting with our constituents, we don't have any cristal balls, that's why you meet with your constituents and they can tell you what's

working, what's not working. we need to be debating and that's how you find the common ground. so the stop act is so essential to the process. citizens united is notwithstanding, we need to reverse citizens united in my judgment, but whether we do or not, it's critical to get the members of the congress back doing what they were elected to do, which is the people's business and go to washington, go to work on the people's business and that's what this is all about and my judgment the future of our country and the future of democracy depends on passage of this legislation and it's not going to be easy. but like david said, i had a lot of our colleagues come up to me, you know, so you're going to see a growing support for this stop act as more and more people understand the gravity and significance and importance of it and i am convinced and my

heart of hearts that it will become a reality as you pointed out. it's happening in races and in states and in counties and it needs to happen here in the nation. so thank you for your leadership on this, thank you to the press club for helping to highlight the importance of this issue, thanks to the committee sponsoring great debates on these critical issues and i'm just delighted to be here, be a part of it and more than happy and willing to take any questions that anybody might have. thank you. yes. >> what's your opinion on the new book confessions of congressmen x because what he's saying is not only that they're running -- [inaudible] >> because what he's writing seems to lend itself to term limits, because some guys might not like being force today raise this money, some want to raise the money to keep the jobs, raise money to keep our jobs.

what do you think about that? >> well, at least on that issue, you know, the congressman x is right, if you want to be here to promote the stop act, if you want to be here to help play a role in reversing citizens united, if you want to be here and have a voice in all the great issues of our time, you better have several million dollars to defend yourself and to get your message out there. so, you know, i had an opportunity to read the book yet, simultaneously somewhat unethical to say the least. i find my colleague from every perspective to be men and women of integrity who just have good ideas that differ in many ways, but they represent all the

segments of quite large and diversed country that we live in and when you bring them together as oppose to sending them across the street, you know, to a dialing for dollars center, we can find common ground, and it works. >> yeah, i would add to what rick said and it was mentioned in the, i believe, the introduction of my bio, when i was first elected, there's the story where i was told to raise $18,000 a day and it was fascinating how it was presented because in a meeting over the campaign headquarters and a member of leadership who wanted to be helpful to me, to counsel me through how to get reelected in six months and i thought, oh, boy, this is great. i'm going to get all the washington wisdom about how to get reelected. it was a second-grade math

equation on a white board. and that's where i was told, your first job is to raise $18,000 a day. my deputy chief of staff was in the room and the member turned to my deputy chief of staff and said, now here is the problem you're going to face, your boss just got elected. he wants to do all the good things for the district and your job is to make sure he's raising $18,000 a day before he does his job. i'm looking forward reading it. if you want to tell the story, rick and i demonstrated we are willing to sign our name to our cause and i would hope he or she would too. i would say on term limits, i represent the district that president obama won twice and i'm a republican who has now been elected twice. the answer to term limits is to

create competitive districts as oppose to represent their party first and simply raise money to get reelected. >> if you have questions you would like to ask, if you're watching on c-span or listening online, questions at press.org is the e-mail address, and when i call on you, please identify yourself and your news outlet. i'm going to start with a question, it's the elephant in the room in some ways, you're a senate candidate. how much is it a tactic to raise profile and secondly, it's may 16th today, getting anything passed this year seems impossible? >> so when i introduced the stop act in january or early february, i actually took a pledge to stop direct solicitations from that point onto abide by the contract of a stop act. i did that at the time and still today the front runner in a u.s. senate race from the state of

florida, third largest state. every political consultant will tell you i'm crazy and if you look at the fundraising number, it's true, that created headways, but when somebody suggests the member of congress is the most influential fundraiser on the team, that if you take direct solicitation out you're hurting yourself on campaign finance, i think that's an indictment of the system. that speaks to the the transactional nature of a solicitation in many cases. so you asked the question is it a campaign gimmick or no, i always say this, members of congress like rick and myself who pursue good policy, it naturally makes for good politics. listen, this is an issue i will tell you is 100% issue at home. should we abandon it because we are in the middle of an election or press forward because the american people are craving for it?

we have never poll tested this topic but i will tell you and rick has had many town halls than i do, it is fascinating. you talk about congressional reforms and it doesn't matter the group, the response is 100%. the american people get the stop back. virginia fox and i have a bill to put members of congress in do not call registry. that gets 100% affirmation. political ads off of television. that gets 100% response at home. good policies make good politics, the politics will take care of itself. >> let me follow up with this, you seem to be making a distinction between campaign reform and financial reform, tell me a little bit about the difference you're trying to make between those? >> because i want to get it done, i want to focus -- one of

the great political scandals of our time is the amount of time your members of congress are spending raising money and not doing their job. and understand not even in their office because it's illegal to raise money in congressional office. they're not even there because of the pressures to raise money, they're outside of their office. so i'm focusing on the congressional reform much like you saw five or six years ago, the stock act, members of congress who allegedly or potentially were trading on inside information. that was a congressional reform. i call this congressial reform because it is focusing in on what i think is a scandal within the congress which is the amount of time members of congress are shirking from doing their day job. that's not to shy from campaign reform, i would be open to working on a bipartisan package that balances the constitutional privileges of anybody that participates in an election with reasonable restrictions. >> does that include reversing citizens united because i'm

going to ask the same question to your colleague? >> i think we can do better than what we have now. it is through citizens united open up flood of new money. i would like to see how we drive down the amount of money in politics. i do think it's political speech for people to be able to contribute to a candidate's reelection, whether or not that should include unions and corporations is a question that could be revisited. >> and congressman nolan, same question back to you. >> i do, yeah. you know one of the first things i did after returning in my 32 h iatus and came to conclusions about what i thought had changed since i had served and what was good and what was bad about it and i introduced quite frankly a comprehensive piece of legislation, almost two years

ago now and i called ri stored democracy act and it did a number of things and it started with reversing citizens united. that is what has unleash it had massive amounts of secret money and required candidates to raise massive amounts of money to defend themselves and get their message out, a good colleague of mine, the senate was looking to raise $50,000 a day and he decided, you know, like no mas, i'm not going to do this anymore. it's not what i am serving for. but my legislation also called for independent reapportionment commissions, they are telling us 30-40 competitive seats in the country as david was pointing out. they should all be competitive, 535 including the senate. i quite frankly would like to see limits in my legislation included that. limits on campaign spending,

limits on the time when campaigns spending can take place, you know, most western democracies have election contest that is go 30-40 maybe 90 days out of the year. my legislation called for 50. there's nothing magic about that number, i just know 365 days a year every year is not right and has to change. my legislation provided for online registration to be more inclusive, it's remarkable the number of people who are denied the right to vote in this country and quite frankly my legislation called for a ban on members raising money and dialing for dollars. so -- and then last but not least my legislation called for restoration of what we call regular order, in fact, that's what speaker ryan was talking about. you know, the members of the congress on both sides of the aisle, they came to washington

to make a difference and, you know, i got on the transportation committee and when i learned the transportation committee wasn't going to write a bill, like really, why be on the transportation committee? you know, but they kicked that can down the road 30 something times, finally with speaker ryan he did allow the committee to write a bill and guess what, we found our common ground and we came together and we wrote a transportation bill. so, you know, you can look at each one of these items separately, i tried to put it all together into one and without regard to citizens united, that's going to take some time at best and in my judgment it will be reversed, that's going to require amendment in the constitution and go back to the states and whether we pass that or not, we need the stop act so that members of the congress of the united states go to washington and go to work on the people's business and not go across the

street to the call centers, republicans and democrats to dial for dollars. it's very disruptive and destructive of our whole policy system. >> thanks, dane from the washington post. i think you guys have -- in addition to you guys cosponsors. i don't think there's anything in the senate yet. the question is why? what are you up against? can you talk about that a little bit? there seems to be a disconnect on what the obvious solutions are and the willingness of people to do them? >> i think there's in part an understanding that the process as it is tends to be supportive of incumbancy.

saying, gee, i sure have a tough election contest and i would like to -- i would like to ask you to consider double maxing for me here. 27 for the primary and 2700 for the general and i would like to ask you for 5,000 for this pac group knowing that the pac leader is going to call him for another 100,000 to go with the 5. it's berry and that's why in many respects it's hard to get some of our colleagues to embrace the notion or embrace the idea that, you know, we need to change the way we do politics because it's just not good for the country. but i think we picked up two more since we talked to you, i think we have eight. [laughter] >> everything has to start somewhere. you know, otherwise we would be negotiating with the queen on this deal.

and this is a good start. this is a good beginning and i have every confidence that it is ultimately going to become the law of the land and, you know, the states and the counties and cities often times been the experimental area for new concepts and new ideas and in their passing the legislation, minnesota, i know members of the legislature are forbidden to be calling lobbyist for fundraising when the legislation is in session. so it's a new beginning, it's a good beginning and it's essential to -- that it become the law of the land, salvage our democracy. >> if i could add to that, dana we have six more cosponsors than i thought we might have. [laughter] >> but this is the reality, it is a heartbreaking reflection of how little gets done up here. it's also a heartbreaking reflection on where the priorities of a congress are as

a result of the amount of money of members political survival depends on raising money. that's the reality. you can see it. you know, members of congress who i talked about prior to introducing the stop act, rick was one of them, we tried to build a coalition of members so it wasn't just jolly, we were trying to build a coalition and one member, one colleague in particular jumped at it right away. i would love to, that's great, count me in, within 48 hours that member called in, i just can't do it, i'm facing reelection. i'm going to introduce a stop act and i'm going to take the pledge now and that was a hard decision, whether or not to take the pledge, every consultant was telling me not to do it, if i don't take the pledge, is it really going to get traction? all my colleagues including two in the senate race for the state

of florida, be the democratic cosponsors, you don't have to take the pledge, i will get your back, i will tell everybody in the media you shouldn't take the pledge but you can see almost the fear in the eyes of what it means for their reelection, for political survivors when you talk to members. initially, let's have it applied to any candidated registered registered with the fec, it gets congress back to work and removes some appearance of where unsolicited contributions might come. so we left challengers out. we have six more cosponsors than i thought we would. we have seen thousands upon thousands of people calling, following on social media, making videos #stop act and putting it online. it's going to take continued pressure by rick and myself and

those in the media and editorial boards that support the idea but also require leadership from presidential candidates. where is donald trump on this issue? i really want to know. where is donald trump on the stop act? he has run his entire campaign on getting washington to work again, yes, we can talk about citizens unit and campaign reform, where is donald trump on the stop act, where is bernie sanders on the stop act? it's going to take that type of leadership across the country for a movement like this and i think we can get it done. >> wes. >> wes, press club. i want to follow up, how many cosponsors do you actually have, how many are democrats, how many are republicans, wouldn't you at least upwards of 100 to get hearings and where does the

leadership in the house stand? >> so i think about eight, ten democrats. [inaudible] >> we have picked up a few since 60 minute. not just because of 60 minutes but constituents are calling and that's the type of constructive pressure we need. what is required for a hearing, simply leadership to green light it. our colleague mr. murphy has a mental health bill that has 200 cosponsors on it but it's still sitting there. i don't buy the notion that you have to have 100 cosponsors to get a hearing, a leadership decision can do it. understand the balance of how we've rolled this out again trying to be constructive, we are not criticizing the colleagues but we are criticizing the system. we we solicited cosponsors but

it has slowed and so that is where we have try today bring the spotlight of the media to this so that we can move it in congress and perhaps have leadership pushed for at least some type of hearing. >> i want to follow up on one thing. you said you'd turn the campaign finance raising over to the campaign appear -- apparatus, what would that do to the fundraising itself? i would imagine most donors want to talk to the key guy and not -- >> right. as i said earlier, that's the indictment of the current system. why is it that a member of congress is more effective at soliciting a campaign contribution than the finance director for the campaign? i mean, this really speaks to the heart of significant issues we have when it comes to campaign finance construct that governs elections.

and so that also speaks to the pressure, listen, you want to know the anger that develops, i say the quiet anger but it's a real anger? you get up here and you're told by leadership, your first responsibility is to raise money, but the staff culture buys into the same narrative. i'm sure rick has had this experience as well. i've seen other clips of members of congress, their own staff is clearing schedule and putting call time on it and their own staff is running interference because they're feeling the pressure to get the member into a call suite. let me tell you something, i have the greatest staff in the world but the people that i ask to is 7,000 people in pinellas county, florida. i decide what i am going to do to those 7,000 people in pin pinellas county, florida. you know, you think you got elect today represent 7,000 people in pinellas county, but

you got elected to be one more marble on our side of the aisle and you have to raise $3,000. that's why i introduced the stop act. >> thanks, i'm going to go to questions from journals not in the room, jamie. >> first, have you considered having some kind of online petition to get the public to put pressure and show members of congress that there's broad support for this idea out on the general public? >> so we created a website, we put all of our organizational resources behind us. we created a website called the stopact.com and introduces you to what the stop act does. rill referred to -- this is based on facts, right? incoming democratic members i believe three years ago received

package here is the model dc schedule, ten hours a week other networking, republicans have received call sheets, here is who you call and here is what you say f that say no, they this, if they say yes, say this. we put much of the material online to the american people can see this. we asked people to use #stopact, go on social media, promote this. we are trying to create a movement and we are seeing that. when you get a letter from somebody in iowa or professor in washington state, somebody in california and main who says, thank you for doing this, republicans, democrats, independents, it is remarkable. we have the website and we are trying to encourage people to use social media really to get in touch with members of congress. push their members of congress, there's no way to say no to the stop act. i agree, let's address campaign finance, don't take the excuse, well, we don't need stop act because it's dark money,

transparency, all this, that's true, it is all those issues. but don't talk about those issues from dye -- distract from the stop act. >> one question. [inaudible] >> i'm sure he's worked on this a long time. this is where, look, i would be happy to work on broad-base campaign finance reform. some talk tax credits as oppose to just strict public financing. there's a group called issue one, a bunch of former members of congress. i've gun to -- begun with issue one and protects the constitutional rights of individual that is contribute with reasonable regulation. know e that you're going to have a lot more to say about this. >> yeah, i'm a very strong supporter of public financing in

concert with a system of small donations. congressman from maryland has been one of the leaders on that and that combined with some limits on where money can be spend, how money can be spend and when money can be spend, i think it's ultimately the answer. as long as citizens united is out there, it's kind of irrelevant. step number one reverse citizens united and step number to pass stop act and then also put in a system of small donations and public financing. number of state have done it and it seems to have worked quite well. and so i think that's where we have to go as a nation. >> yes, sir. >> yes, sam brody, i kind of we wanted to pose a question from

mr. nolan, it's not a senate race but one of the most expensive house races this year, i'm curious how your involvement on a day-to-day basis effects how it affects to win reelection, have you personally stopped soliciting funds? what other things are you doing to get in line -- >> yeah, well, no, i have not been in the call centers across the street. like i said, i come to washington and go to work. but i must say that during the -- when the congress is not in session, yeah, i spend a considerable amount of time of raising money. i have a self-funded opponent worth hundreds of millions of dollars who says he will spend whatever it takes to win this election contest. my last two contests were among

the two most expensive in the country. this one looks like it would be the most expensive race in the country, and i feel very strongly about the issues that i've been a part of and brought to the table including the stop act with mr. jolly. so that brings -- and i applaud tom for and i'm not going to call anybody, i have not taken that. i'm trying to make sure that i have enough money to defend myself, you're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars against me in television ads against me as we speak, so they ran some ads last fall accusing me of vote to go fund terrorist and my staff, you know, like really, you know, this is -- the guy runs on palace factory. so my staff we did a poll and the staff came out that only 3% of the people believed the act,

really, only 3%, that's a margin of victory in my district. [laughter] >> so, yeah, i mean, i've got to have money to get some my own ads out there defending myself and getting our message out there. having said that, i could not believe more strongly in the importance of this stop act and some of you, you know, some of you may have seen, you know, vanderbilt in virginia, some did study on effectiveness in the congress and, yeah, you're looking at one of the ten most effective members of the congress. well, it's not rocket science, you know, but you just have to show up when they bring up on open rule, you know, david and i are there doing our business, we get things done. it's kind of hard of doing anything done if you're across the street dialing for dollars. that's why this thing is so important. >> over here.

[inaudible] you're talking about the process, it's wrong that they should be doing this. you bring up bernie sanders, is the system rigged? are things not getting done because of the money, can you tell us some of the things that congress won't do because the money doesn't want it. senator brown in ohio talks about how they won't do climate change because the koch brothers have too much money. >> you're a sandi supporters. go ahead. >> it's definitely happening. have you seen an issue that's been more front and center than immigration reform. we haven't considered immigration reform. you know, i've been here going on four years now, is there some reason why the congress can't consider immigration reform, is there some reason why the congress can't consider tax reform, is there some reason why the congress can't consider

climate change, is there some reason why the congress can't consider use of force resolution that's the basis of continuing wars of choice and conflict in the middle east and is there some reason why even when legislation comes up, they come up more often than not on a close rule where nobody can offer an amendment or a desk you have to go to rules committee and they'll, you know, give two or three amendments, you know, a hearing? i got one through last week to make sure that veterans and armed forces members have a seat on the inner agency task force dealing with the abuse and the use of opioids. but like i said, you know, in for several hundred years it was not uncommon to have hundreds of amendments and you weren't limited to five minutes. i mean, you argued them till the

debate was exhausted and then you had -- so, yeah, it is terribly corruptive of the political process and there are those interests that are doing just fine. they're doing just fine in our society and they're quite content with the status quo and they would like not to see the congress sitting down in a bipartisan way examining alternatives to the way we are doing business, specially the working men and women across the country who are making less today than they were 20 years ago. you know, who are paying more in many cases for health care or not getting any health care then they were 20 years ago who see themselves, their pensions in danger, you know, why don't we have a pension reform act considered before that? i could go on at great length and tell you how many issues the congress is not debating, is not

considering, not allowing consideration of as a result of this process that was ignited by citizens united and then exacerbated for the stop act. >> i just add very quickly, you know, i don't know and perhaps because i'm a more junior member of congress. i don't know that i've seen the heavy influence of campaign contributions onsetting an agenda. i can tell you what you feel at the level of newer and more mid-benchers, if you will, a bit of the influence, you see the influence of the score card community. you do see that restrict in agenda often because of political consequence going against the score-card groups is a risk that caucus or leadership is not willing to take. i actually think you see a lot of this slowdown for two reasons. so why haven't we done border security and immigration reform, why don't we have a true balance

budget initiative, why haven't we addressed president's foreign policy? two reasons, we are aren't working a full-time job up here. that's the whole point of the stop act. rick said in the beginning, we are here three days a week, how much time are you devoting to issues of the country in the face of growing crisis, you have a part time congress. the second and i think equally as damming is often times congress makes a political calculation that it's safer not to touch a difficult issue. listen, i would much rather do border security and immigration reform bill and stand in november for election justifying what's in it or what's not in it and answering the hard questions and being held accountable about a bipartisan border security and immigration package and standing

in november explaining why congress didn't do anything on it. it's safer not to touch it. i think that's wrong. let's open up the floor of the house, let's have a debate over border security and immigration reform. i would be proud in november and justify how it turns out. oar i'm going to follow up on something you mentioned a few minutes ago. you mentioned donald j. trump, billionaires who don't have to ask for any money who can just write themselves a check. >> i think it reflects the reality of where we are already, as rick mentioned citizens united and corporate money and union money, the self-financing, this is where we can get to a better bipartisan package than we have now. does it help them, yes, but i think they already have an unfair advantage. i mean, the reality is you can also talk about super pacs and recognize that if we are not already in the cycle where a candidate committee means very little, we are quickly going to get there. look at the presidential race and look at the amount of money

that was raised for bush's super pac compare today campaign committee. that's reflected in the races. you have a congressional candidate where super pac outraises him by 5x or 10x. i think it's already out of balance if you take the contrast between a candidate's committee and then the amount of that can be raised by super pacs or or what a self-funder can do. >> you want to follow up? >> would it make it worse? what's the point? >> that's why i say congressional reform. the great political scandal of our time right now is the fact that you have members of congress come to town for three, three and a half days a week and spend more time raising money than doing their job. that is why i continue to call it a congressional reform. this is a scandal.

this is a first-rate scandal, it is a bipartisan shakedown of the american people for members of congress sitting in call suits in washington, d.c. when your constituencies think you're actually working on behalf of the american people. you know, this is a true story, the other night 2:00 o'clock, 3:00 o'clock in the morning, i'm flipping channels to mr. smith goes to washington. i haven't seen in about 30 years. and i caught 30 to 40 minutes of it and the scene where he's trying to write legislation about creating a boy's camp. now, he has all the idealism in the world. that's the narrative of this movie and comes up against the long-time assistant who has been there and starts walking him through the inefficiencies. you have an idea, what are you going to do with it? it's going to go to the senate committee. it goes through all the inefficiencies, right? imagine that mr. smith goes to washington, if that that

assistant had said, you don't have time to write the legislation, you have to spend 30 hours across the street asking people for money, you know what happened in that scene? he introduced legislation that was appealing to the american people and if you'll remember he started getting envelopes from boys sending in pennies and nickels and dimes because it showed that good policies are what the american people want. and it get it is response, it gets members of congress reelected if you're doing right by the people who sent you here. >> thank you, i'm really glad you mentioned that movie by the way, my favorite part is where they're at the national press club in the movie. [laughter] >> before i ask the last question, i would like to mention a few upcoming events, on tuesday may 24th, carson and keith, two members who are muslim, may 26th, director of

disease control will discuss the zika virus. i hope she brings cookies, my last question, gentlemen, tell me about your current relationship with the d triple c and the dnrc. [laughter] >> take the arrows out of here. i have a wonderful relationship with the d triple c as david pointed out and i tried to point out here. in one respect, you know, members of the congress are victims of citizens united, and this massive infusion of money into our campaigns and political process. you know, if you intend to run for reelection if you believe in the stop act and immigration reform, if you believe in any of

the ideas that have been advanced for the resolution of problems we face as a nation, then you better have enough money to defend yourself and to get your message out there. because without money, you don't exist. we've sign the polling, one candidate has the money and the message and you're sitting there with nothing, you lose. you don't necessarily have to have more than the other person, but you do have to have enough and this country never operated that way before. i had an opportunity to see how it operated many, many years ago. you know, those of us who studied our history and know our history, you know, it didn't work that way throughout most of the country's history. we have to restore democracy and david is right, it's about congressional reform, it's about campaign reform, it's about bringing together a number of things that will get us back to

the time when representatives went to washington and they weren't intimidated by money, they weren't driven by money, they weren't compel today -- compelled to raise lots of money . whereby i support systems of small donations as well so that you have a level playing field out there. and in many respects, any one of these things by itself is nowhere near as good as a package of a half a dodzen things that bring it all together. you know, the public financing, the reversal of citizens united, the stop act, online voter registration, independent reapportionment, you know, pull all that back together and we can have a great renaissance in democracy in this country here

and restore, you know, this country to the leadership role that it has had in the world and that's getting away from us and and the way change occurs is by people stepping up like mr. jolly has here and i'm glad to be part of it as well is by calling out honestly and with integrity what's wrong and advancing some ideas to fix it and that's what the stop act is all about and that's why i'm proud and glad to be a part of it. >> listen, i would acknowledge this is a hard issue for a lot of people to talk about. i mean, the stop act would sideline the 435 best telemarketers in this town who are being asked to raise money for their parties. that's the reality. i'm not criticizing my colleagues, i'm not criticizing the nrcc or the dccc, let the nrc and dccc continue to raise as much resources as they want to r,