paying for the refreshments and beverages. the second was on the last night to thank everyone for their efforts. at the time i believed that one was paid for by the four hosting regional commissioners. i did not believe that any government funds were used to pay for the events that occurred after hours. i have spent the last 15 years of my career working for gsa and i believe strongly in the agency's mission and the value it provides to other agencies and our country. i am truly sorry for my comments and apologize to this committee, the administration, my fellow gsa employees, and most importantly the american taxpayers. at this point i'm willing to take any questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. neely, you have not provided us with any written testimony before the committee. do you wish to make an opening statement? >> no, mr. chairman, i don't. >> it is my understanding from your counsel that you may want to assert your constitutional privileges and remain silent. is that correct? >> yes mr. chairman, that's

correct. >> mr. neely, the topic of today's hearing is gsa's culture of waste and spending. you are uniquely positioned to provide testimony that will help the committee better understand the gsa's spending of more than $850,000 at the conference in laefrs in 2010. to that end i must ask you once again to consider answering the questions. so if you'll bear with me. mr. neely, what is your title at gsa? >> mr. chairman, on the advice of counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> mr. neely, did you attend the 2010 western regional conference in las vegas? >> mr. chairman on the advice of my counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> mr. neely, did you approve the funding for the 2010 western regional conference? >> mr. chairman, on theed a vice of my counsel i respectfully

decline to answer based on my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> a few more. mr. neely, was the original -- what was the original budget for that conference? >> mr. chairman, on the advice of my counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> mr. neely, are you currently employed by the gsa as a federal employee? >> mr. chairman, on the advice of my counsel i respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> lastly, mr. fleely, are you prepared to answer any questions here today about your participation in the 2010 western regional conference? >> mr. chairman, i respectfully decline to answer any questions here today based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> mr. cummings, do you have questions? >> in light of the fact that mr. neely has asserted his rights

under the fifth amendment i have no questions. >> thank you. give than the witness has indicated that he does not intend to answer any question, out of respect for his constitutional rights, i do now ask the committee to excuse the witness from the table for the -- but to have him remain for the remainder of the hearing. without objection. >> i have no objection. >> without objection, so ordered. we will now take a very short about a four-minute, three-minute recess. i'd ask mr. neely and his attorney to join us through that door.

>> taking a short break here, getting the room reset, we heard already from a number of people. one person we didn't hear from is the regional commissioner who led the las vegas convention, he invoked his fifth amendment right. and we're going to be waiting here in the room shortly as the rest of the panel who has given their opening remarks takes the questions and makes answers from the members here in the oversight and government reform committee. again, the official at the center of this latest general services administration scandal

is -- has invoked his fifth amendment right to remain silent today. at this house oversight committee hearing. that's jeff neely. he heads the gsa's pacific rim office. and he's been put on administrative leave. he organized the october 2010 las vegas gsa conference and the expenses at that conference for four days topped $800,000. we're going to hear also from witnesses including the former head of the agency, martha johnson, she resigned after the gsa inspector general's report came out. the inspector general himself also testifying, brian miller, he recently referred to the las vegas matter to the justice department for possible criminal charges. you're watching live coverage here on c-span3.

>> could we have the clerk remove mr. neely's name. i want to thank you all of you for your patience. i served for 12 years, mr. cummings for longer, this is the first time we've had somebody do this before one of my committees. so, we wanted to make sure we did it exactly according to the rules. with that i'll recognize myself for five minutes. miss johnson, i appreciate your

opening statement and the work that you said you did. but i'm very troubled by the bonus that mr. neely received. how can you justify a bonus for somebody that you knew at the time of his bonus from mr. miller, in fact, was at the center of this misconduct? >> congressman, there are two processes. one is the conduct process and one is the performance process. the conduct process by which i could discipline someone was wrapped up in an investigation which i requested from the i.g. it took much longer -- >> i appreciate that but -- were you aware that excess money was spent at that conference, significant excess? >> i had received a communication from the i.g. with non-conclusive results. i was concerned, i wanted the full picture. so when we moved to the

performance cycle, the performance reviews for senior executives are based on a -- i was informed that his leasing processes were the model for the nation, leasing is one of our critical issues, i granted him a four. >> mr. miller, you gave that preliminary some 11 months before your final. i'm going to ask you something not normally asked. would you have tried to find a way not to grant that bonus considering what you knew and had briefed on concerning mr. neely and others? >> mr. chairman, of course i'm not in that position. but you know, i believe the administrator was free not to give the region 9 regional commissioner a good performance evaluation, and a performance award or a special act award.

she was free not to give those special awards to the regional commissioner. she had in her possession a final report on the hats off program t employee reward program. and that was final. that went final the end of june. so that was final, all the facts were nailed down on that. she had the interim -- >> and i think you made your case that it was a discretionary and the discretion miss johnson, was yours not to grant that. i appreciate that you're able to bifurcate some of these but let's go through it. did you in fact relieve mr. neely of some of his responsibilities because of the interim report? as you state in your opening statement? you made changes -- >> it was an open communication. it was an interim report. i received it through the deputy administrator who -- and the i.g. was giving us a communicating to us that the report was -- that the

investigation was -- >> let's go through this. i'll make this available for the record. although it says for official yooxt was at 30-page report that detailed the excess spending and the ceremonies and so on? and were you aware of that? >> i was aware of a power point slide deck but i did not see it. >> so, it was not important enough for you to see? >> the deputy administrator had seen it and shared the information in it with us. >> so i'm trying to understand. you personally were responsible for mr. neely's bonus, but you were not personally willing to look at the evidence of why he shouldn't receive a bonus? >> again, that was a conduct review. >> okay. i think you answered that. i'm sorry that you can bifurcate it quite that way. mr. miller, does this one incident represent the only time that you've seen the kinds of

excesses in this and other units, you don't have to be specific on ongoing investigations, but have you seen similar waste, excess days, spending of the taxpayers' money in a way that is inconsistent with the requirements of law or at least the intent? >> in region 9, yes, mr. chairman. >> this was to use the term widespread? >> unfortunately, we don't have a report concluding that. we have heard from witnesses that indicate that it was widespread in region 9. >> certainly five days for a ribbon cutting with multiple people is another example. >> yes. >> do you know, not with specific examples, but do you know or suspect or are you investigating other misconduct including kickbacks, bribes, and other activities that might go to the very question of the objectivity of purchasing and other gsa officials? >> we do have other ongoing investigations. >> including kickbacks?

>> including all sorts of improprieties, including bribes, possibly kickbacks but i'd have to check on precisely bi lly ki backs. >> this committee some years ago when i was in the majority but a subcommittee chairman investigated an organization formerly called a mineral management services. we found that in fact they were partying with the people they were supposed to oversee, they were taking gifts and favors, and they thought that they needed to have a close relationship with the people they were interfacing with, and justified ignoring federal rules as to gifts based on that. is that similar to what you're seeing at gsa? >> yes, mr. chairman, very similar. we are investigating those sorts of things. >> as i recognize a ranking member i might remind everybody that although we produce scathing reports on mineral management service and tried to

get the then bush administration to make changes and the then obama administration make changes we failed to do so and the gulf of mexico was filled of oil because of that agency's ongoing failures. with that i recognize the gentleman from maryland and would ask he have an additional one minute. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. miller, as i walked around my district this weekend, a lot of people were complaining about having to write collects to the irs. and in that light and based on your report, there were thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in improper expenditures in 2010 with regard to this 2010 conference. gsa employees stayed in luxury resort suites, charged expenses for after hour parties, purchased food for non-gsa employees, just to name a few of the examples. one of the recommendations you made in your vort that, and

tangherlini became acting administrator one of our first conversations was about sending a bill to the regional commissioner, the former pbs commissioner and others responsible for these in-room parties and other expenses. and i believe that the acting administrator has sent the bill. he's on the next panel, and i believe he would say that he has already at least taken steps to send a bill. >> if they don't pay it back what happens? you have a criminal or a civil remedies to try to get it back? >> perhaps civil remedies. >> mr. miller, in several of the

interviews your investigators conducted witnesses said they were scared that mr. neely would retaliate against them if they blew the whistle. this is actually shocking to the conscience. for example, one employee said if you crossed mr. neely and i quote, then you're in trouble. you know, he threatens you with poor performance appraisals, end of." when another employee tried to raise concerns about the extravagant conferences the witness told your investigators that that employee was, and i quote, squashed like a bug. end of quote. by mr. neely. those are the kind of threats he allegedly made. are you familiar with these statements? >> yes, i am, sir. those statements and more. >> was this fear of retaliation by mr. neely a significant factor enabling him to continue his inappropriate actions for

years? >> congressman, it is a significant factor. they apparently had a very hostile environment. when someone spoke up they were, quote, according to a witness, squashed like a bug, unquote. and that another witness said that one individual spoke up they were i think quote put down and not in a gentle way, ends of quote. so that is a factor, unfortunately. >> this is the same guy that mrs. johnson gave a bonus to? >> yes. >> in fact, it wasn't until deputy administrator gsa at a high level, democratic political appointee raised this issue to you that mr. neely's actions came to light. it seems clear that mr. neely has a los to answer for. let me ask you one final question. the chairman has written to mr. neely's attorney stating that the committee was considering conferring immunity on mr.

neely. and i applaud the chairman, he is a great -- he made it clear and correct me if i'm wrong mr. chairman, he has now indicated that he has no immediate plans to go forward with immunity and i want to ask you this question. i agree with the chairman absolutely. mr. mill e given what you have uncovered about mr. neely, and his actions, would you support granting him immunity at this time and do you think it would be a good idea. the chairman's not going to do that but i'm curious. >> i agree with the chairman's decision not to grant him immunity. >> can you tell us why that is? >> well, i believe that the criminal justice system should run its course and that if any charges are brought against mr. neely he should defend himself, he does have a right, a fifth

amendment right, and all people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. and if such charges do, are lodged against mr. neely, i think it's the appropriate place is in the court of law. >> let's go back for a moment to these, this retaliation and these threats. did you hear people, i mean, during your investigation were there numerous people who said that they felt fear? >> congressman, yes. we had a witness that was extremely afraid and we made the witness a confidential witness and that witness even though she had left and gotten a new job was extremely afraid that even in her new job she would experience retaliation. >> and when they used words like squashed like a bug, did you give any idea what they meant by that? were there things he had done to people that came to light? >> i can't go beyond what the transcript of the interview

says. >> i take it that you are -- were convinced that this was conduct that was totally inappropriate. >> congressman, we took it very seriously. and we believed our witness when he or she said that he or she was afraid of retaliation. >> thank you very much. >> would the gentleman yield. >> of course. i like to make sure we both understand on the record when our counsel provided that let tear his counsel it was based on his assertion that he might take the fifth. and we listed a number of things that could affect somebody. but most importantly we had the conundrum that often happens in the law that until you subpoena somebody and they come and take the fifth any other consideration can't actually begin, so rather than a conclusion that we would consider that it was sort of a form let tear make sure that this committee stayed properly

within both the d.c. bar's determination but also frankly, we wanted to make sure it was understood that we were hoping mr. neely who gave testimony three weeks ago before the i.g. would reconsider his willness to cooperate. sadly he did not. >> mr. chairman. i want to thank you for that clarification. i wanted to make it clear, that really, that helps tremendously but i wanted to make it clear that you were in no way going to proceed with the immunity. i mean, after -- during our discussions. >> in none of our investigations to date have we ever considered full immunity, transactional immunity and not considered use immunity. i don't expect that will be often and i would expect we would consult with you well before doing it. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> and we now go to the former

chairman of the full committee. >> you can call me chairman emeritus. i don't mind. >> should i emphasize the emeritus. >> mr. miller, when you discuss the preliminary report with miss johnson, did you go into all of the details or most of the details in this report? >> i believe i did. >> did you -- this was on may 17th of 2011? >> yes. that's what my calendar indicates and that's the best of my recollection. >> so she knew about these accusations on may 11th. >> indeed. and my deputy bob ericson leaned over and said this is very unusual that we would do an interim report but it's so that you can fix future abuses. >> did you tell her about the bullying that took place? >> i think we may have alluded to witnesses that were afraid of retaliation but i'm not positive. it's been about a year ago. >> that's pretty significant,

though. if you were talking to her and there were people pushing other employees around it seems to me you probably mentioned it at least. >> i believe we did but -- >> miss johnson, do you remember may 11, you remember this report? >> congressman, i apologize, i don'ts remember that meeting and i don't have access to my schedule. >> you don't remember the meeting? >> well, the inspector general and i met with some regularity and i -- >> this is not an insignificant report. >> i'm not saying i didn't remember the issues. i don't -- i can't place where we had that meeting and i can't jog my memory. >> you can't remember the time, the date? >> no. i don't have my calendar with me. >> he talked about the irregularities. >> yes. >> and mentioned the pressure put on employees if not bullying? and you didn't take any action about that? >> i -- there are a couple of things i must repeat. first of all, it was an interim communication. it was not the final report.

i asked for the investigation, and i wanted to hear the full context. i did not want to work with non-conclusive -- >> i heard that before. i heard that before. >> all right. >> what mr. neely was still in his position you had been told that he had bullied people or pushed them, and you kept him in his position, and you gave him a $9,000 bonus. it just seems almost unthinkable. i mean if somebody came in my office and said there's somebody on your staff that's pushing other people around on your staff and i don't have a staff anywhere near the kind, the number of people that you dealt with, but if somebody was pushing members of the organization around, i would have taken action immediately. i certainly wouldn't have left him in his position and i certainly wouldn't have given him a bonus. so you know, i wish you would elaborate a little more on that. i think this is really important. i can't imagine you seeing this report, talking to mr. miller, and his associate, and him telling you this information and

you say well, it's just an interim report, we'll wait until it's finalized. >> i have great respect for the inspector general and he and i worked together a great deal. we asked for this investigation. one does not interfere with an investigation. he was, i assumed, moving quickly and would be getting me the final report promptly. >> let me say this. you wanted to see the final report. but if you knew mr. neely was accused of doing this in the interim report and you knew that he had -- they alluded to him pushing employees around and threatening them why wouldn't you take him and put him in some kind of a position where he couldn't do that while the investigation continued? i just can't understand why you left him there during the next what, eight, nine months when you knew what he had done or had a pretty good idea and even if you didn't know for sure, you would have taken the precaution of putting him some place where he couldn't bully anybody again. i hate bullies. don't you? >> i hate bullying too. >> congressman, if i may for the

record. the bullying and the coercive atmosphere we probably laid out the facts at the may 17 meeting. we probably didn't get very much into the bullying aspect. a lot of that came up later on in the investigation. so to be fair -- >> did you mention anything about that to her? >> i don't recall if we did. >> you said a few minutes ago that you mentioned it. >> well -- >> coercive action. >> it was coercive. we did have a confidential witness. >> you told her about the confidential witness? >> no. the witness is confidential. we did tell her -- >> did you give her enough information to where she should have been concerned about this guy? >> absolutely. >> well that's the points. if there was concern about mr. neely, why didn't you put him in a position where he couldn't do what he was doing at least during the interim for the rest of the investigation? >> do i only have three seconds?

>> go ahead. >> take the time you need. >> all right. i -- when i asked for the investigation, this was a very -- when susan brita requested the investigation and as we received that interim communication, it is was very clear that it was very serious. and i did not want to move until i had a formal official complete non-conclusive report. at the same time i did a number of things to manage the situation. first of all, i put a regional administrator into region 9. supervising immediately mr. neely. he did not have an immediate supervisor in the region and we appointed a regional administrator in june. relieving him of his second job and putting direct supervision in there. we also immediately appointed a new general counsel for the region when that person retired. so that i wanted to be sure we had a good team in the region

that i could trust around him. we also did a number of things management controls and conference management i can get into. but it was very important to me not to in any way interfere in a way that would upset the investigation that the inspector general is doing. you have to understand i did not think it would take nine more months to complete. i thought it looked pretty complete from what i was hearing and i wasn't expecting to wait that much longer. so that those were the circumstances under which -- >> thank you. my staff has asked me to make sure one thing is clear. earlier you said under oath that you ordered the investigation, then late every you said susan brita ordered it. >> susan brita, my deputy administrator. >> actually ordered it. >> yes. she asked the inspector general to investigate. i had designated to her the role of interacting with the i i.g. >> so it's correct that soonen

brita. >> she did. >> i didn't want inconsistency there. our goal is just to get the record accurate and there will be mistakes made and we want to make sure they are clarified. we recognize the gentle lady from the district of columbia, miss norton. >> thank you. i appreciate this hearing. i have a couple of points to make. first i want, mr. foley, even members of the oversight committee can take a joke. with respect to the joke regarding my role on the committee which has direct oversight over gsa, far from belittling me. i think that the joke complimented me for my oversight role because it essentially said norton is on the phone already with you with regard to one of the abuses that we're -- >> your clock will begin now. we figured that was the joke portion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to