things like commemorative coins would be impermissible. we do have a discussion of rules within the final report. and when it comes down to mind-readers or i think he billed himself as a motivational speaker, in terms of the report, we stayed away from the quality of any quality judgments on the type of training, because we're not the experts in public building service. but the rules do allow motivational speaker. now, if he was mind-reading or entertainment, that would not be permitted. >> so in terms of both the activities and the ancillary materials that were provided in here, there were, in your estimation, mr. miller, violations of agency rules. >> yes. and we've outlined them in our report. >> and also in terms of the procurement rules. >> yes, sir. >> regarding the acquisitions. >> congressman, they gave a bid

of -- one bidder to another bidder. and that's -- is -- about as much against the rules as you can come up with. >> now, question. because, obviously, the gsa is involved in a lot of contracting throughout the country. does the -- does your office -- does the gsa have sufficient auditing capabilities to deal with not just the auditing of a conference that the agency conducted for itself, but for the many other activities that's involved in, primary responsibilities. >> we do all the auditing at gsa. we do not rely on dcaa, except for very exceptional circumstance. my office has about 300 employees. we have 70 special agents who would actually interview individuals. and i think they have done a tremendous job with this report, and i think they moved at tremendous speed, often working 18-hour days and weekends, and i do commend the special agents and the forensic auditors that

we have. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. again, thank you for calling the hearing. you know, this is one of those unusual things. and mr. cummings was talking about being back in his district and walking the streets last week. and i've got to tell you, the same thing happened to me in northwest pennsylvania. but i wonder, we had a slide showing i believe the mission statement, the visions and goals. that's a real eye chart. let me just go through this. >> perhaps the gentleman could read from it. >> yeah, well, i'm not going to read from that. i'm not that good. let me just say, the mission -- gsa mission is to use expertise to provide innovate solutions for our customers in support of their might goes and by so doing, foster an effective, sustainable and transparent government for the american people. and then it goes into the vision part. and when you go down to the third bullet point, gsa vision is government that works ever better for the american people. it's fueled by two powerful sparks for change, namely

sustainability and transparency. the form certify a doctrine for managing resources with utmost care in an obsession with no waste. the latter is a doctrine for inviting our collective intelligence and our wisdom to work. and then it goes down to strategic goals and goes down to what the gsa will test as for solutions and offer those solutions to other agencies, government wide contracting and policy making, authorities which we find out they don't follow. you know, as i look through this, there's no wonder that the american people have lost faith in their government. now, let me ask you something. ms. johnson, who has -- to date, there was at least four regional industries in place on administrative leave, is that correct? >> regional -- regional commissioners, i think. did you say add -- >> regional administrators. >> no. >> jeff neely, powell proudy, robin graft and -- >> those are commissioners. they're from the public building

service. >> but they're still being paid. >> i believe so, but i am not there. >> mr. neely is being paid. he's on administrative leave. >> on administrative leave. my understanding is the person is -- >> any idea what these folks make? maybe mr. robertson, you're chief of staff, you surely would know what these people make. >> i'm happy to provide the exact numbers, but i believe they're all at the top of the ses scale. . so what is the top of the scale? >> i believe it's close in somewhere -- 170-range. >> 170 range. you know, mr. chaffetz made some good points. i've got to tell you. thank god this time would happen in vegas didn't stay in vegas. the disappointment of these hard-working american taxpayers to know that the gas, the watchdog, the people who are going to make sure -- listen, they have an obsession with no waste. to see this go on, day after day, in our government. asking people to give more of what they have, dipping into what they have, to support a

government that wastes more and more of their money. i don't think anybody minds paying taxes if the money is well-spent. but they sure as heck resent the fact that a government that tells them they have to pay more of their fair share cannot cut back anywhere. in fact, when you folks come in and you're in charge of it, you can't even answer the questions who did what, when did you know about it, what did you decide to do about it. who the heck is the watchdog? and if the watchdog is being fed so well, why does it even care what goes on? and i've got to tell you, it's so easy to spend somebody else's money, especially when you're not held accountable. i think it's absolutely ridiculous if the american people have to sit back and watch this. ms. dotson, you have a great record of public service. i read your resume. this is very impressive. tell me what you did in your last job before you came here. >> i was at the computer

sciences corporation. >> well, but in december of -- in 2008. you were on the presidential transition team and then came on to the general service administration. mr. robertson, tell me what you did before you came into gsa. >> before entering gsa or before the current position i held? >> i'll just go through a little bit -- maybe the last five or four years of your career. >> of my career? >> yeah. >> immediately prior to the position i hold now, i was the associate administrator for government wide policy within gsa. >> okay. >> prior to that, i was the white house liaison inside gsa. >> okay. >> immediately prior to joining gsa, i was the deputy working group lead on the presidential transition team. >> okay. let me just say one thing. for somebody in administration that talks about a clear and transparent government, a government that's more answering to the american taxpayers, i've got to tell you -- as a guy who has only been here 14 months, thank god some of us are here now.

because apparently, you folks have made a career out of spending taxpayer money have got some kind of a magic shield or you stay inside this bubble that allows you to do those things without absolutely any -- any feeling of wrongdoing. and to watch what's going on and watch those videos of what happened, and knowing the people that i represent in northwest pennsylvania work hard, some of them two jobs, two jobs for mom, two jobs for dad, to make ends meet, and they watch their tax dollars being spent and wasted this way. and it's an absolutely shame to sit here today as we take the fifth -- okay, fine, that's your constitutional right. not sure. cloudy, murky, i don't know. happened before in other administrations, all i was doing was kind of moving the ball up. it's pathetic. and i've got to tell you, i can't tell you how disappointed i am. and with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tyranny. >> thank you. this out rainfall we're hearing

is genuine and bipartisan and i don't need to feed into it anymore. except this notion that the gsa should act like private corporations, i don't think anybody is pleased when they see private corporations tyko, aig and others wasting their money. the shareholders seem powerless. taxpayers should be upset about that, because, of course, somebody is writing it off as a business expense. but 100% of this wasted money is on the taxpayer. and that's why people are so upset. it's not even mass -- it's their taxpayers' money being wastefully spent. and i have a lot of government employees and gsa employees in my area that work hard every day. and work honestly and don't waste any money. haven't had a raise for a number of years, had their pensions attacked by 15 bills, as if they're the problem when, in fact, it's these outlying situations that are ridiculous. and i think it goes deeper and more systemic than just, you know, one individual on that. let me ask the former administrator, you were actually nominated at what point in time by president obama? >> i was nominated early in

2009. >> and at that time, is the position of the gsa administrator, was it vacant? >> there was no confirmed administrator. >> and there hadn't been for a couple years, right? >> i believe i'm -- i'm always bad with chronology. it had been maybe a year-and-a-half, year. >> year-and-a-half before you were nominated. how long between the time you were nominated and the senate actually voted on your position? >> the senate -- i had my hearings in june of 2009 and i was voted unanimously in february 2010. >> so over nine months. >> yes. >> what was the delay? >> sir, the senate didn't entertain my motion and vote on it. >> you had worked in the same able see in the '90s. >> yes. >> was this activity going on in the '90s? >> no. >> tell me what the agency looked like in your mind in the

1990s when you were there. >> the agency is full of hard-working people, delivering goods and services to the american people. it was an agency that was just emerging from the clinger cohen legislative change for its mandate and in the mid 1990s, it no longer was allowed to be a monopoly provider to the government. and it became a nonmandatory supplier. so the element of competition was introduced into gsa, which i think was a tremendous improvement in gsa, in that it forced gsa to stand up and look at its customers and think about what it was delivering. it was a very exciting time at gsa. >> i want to read what you had in your written statement here, when you returned to the gsa in february of 2010, the agency was not the same as what you just described, i guess. a quarter of the executive positions were empty. strategy was nonexistent. major customers viewed our partnership as scans. the information technology infrastructure was inadequate. the schedules and other contract

vehicles were burdensome. the federal acquisition instituted at tree feed, government wide policy lacked focus and more expensive leasing portfolios had ballooned. so this is what you found different about the agency from the first time that you served there. >> yes. >> okay. and obviously, that all bespeaks, i would think, a lack of leadership, and a rutterless sort of existence. and when you were finally sworn in, what did you start doing to try to right that ship? >> the very first thing i did was to try to begin to fill the executive slots. we needed leaders in those position, and we needed them quickly. so that was literally my first effort. >> who in that chain of command would have been responsible for knowing that the kind of behavior that we're here today about was occurring? >> the chain of command around this conference would have -- it's a matrix. it would have been in the sense that it was in the public building service, it was jeff neely as the regional commissioner reporting up to bob peck, who was the commissioner

of the public building service. at the same time, it's a regional structure, and the regional commissioner reports to the regional administrator. there was no regional administrator there. jeff neely was dual-headed, so he was essentially -- >> he was watching himself. >> yes. and he then -- and that regional administrator role reported into the senior counselor, who reported to me. >> and did you set about trying to replace those people and put the right oversight people in charge there? >> we were filling the regional administrator slots. yes. absolutely. >> i mean, it's hard to run an agency when nobody is watching anybody else when there is no oversight on that. and that's what strikes me as incredible here. so when this it event happened and somebody on your staff reported it to mr. miller, was that the first time you were aware this conduct had been going on? >> when he gave us the interim communications powerpoint was when i learned of the extent of it, and that's when it hit me,

yes. >> so nobody had reported to you this type of behavior had happened in new orleans in 2008 -- >> no. >> -- and other instances. >> no. >> apparently for a number of years leading up to this. >> no, i did not know about the other conferences, frankly. >> thank you. >> thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from oklahoma, somebody who understands budgets very, very well. mr. langford. >> yes. thank you. thank you all for being here. getting a chance to voice it. let me run through a couple things that just strike me. during the time of this conference, at that same month, unemployment in the nation was 9.6%. we were in the process -- in fact, gsa was in the process of putting out stimulus dollars totalling $5.85 billion. trying to help through a very dramatic recovery. the president had just recently rebuked public companies who did conferences in las vegas that had also received t.a.r.p. money. at a very similar time, the gsa

is holding a huge conference in las vegas of this type. i have been interested, as i have gone back through the history, several folks mentioned this kind of behavior had gone on for a while so i look to the oklahoma city conference, which is in the heart of my district, and went back just four years before and noticed that in the oklahoma city conference, same number of people, $323,000 was spent. in the vegas conference, $840,000 was spent. so to say all these previous conferences like oklahoma city and new orleans and -- or -- they're not. there was something that was happening that was very unique. and that was dialing up with incredible speed on this. ms. johnson, you have an incredible career, and i mean that in all sincerity, about the private sector and public sector. i can't imagine you did not have incredible frustration at the process of dismissal on the federal side. of going through the process of people you know should be dismissed, but instead you have resigned when you know some of

the people most culpable in these decisions are still there, going through a long, drawn-out process of appeals. my question for you is, what do we need to fix in dealing with federal hiring when this kind of stuff comes up that we can work through a process judiciously, because there are a lot of great federal employees, but work through a judicious process where we can clear the house of people that give the federal government a bad name. >> congressman, i would certainly welcome a thoughtful policy discussion. i'm not a human resources specialist. there is due process for employees. i appreciate that. i appreciate the fact that there needed to be two officials involved, so that there isn't peremptory decision-making. i would yield to the experts that -- and the personnel management organization. >> i understand. but you resigned. >> yes, i did. >> though your office was the office that actually started this investigation. >> yes. >> this would not come to light unless your office would have

started it. but as the leader and at the top, you reseemed, and people that were directly there making the decision, signing on to the warrants, going through these fraudulent contracts, they're still there. >> yes, i have resigned, and yes i believe they are still there. >> let me mention a couple things. one i find very meaningful in this, trying to do a piece of charity work with this $75,000 bike team-building experience. the frustration is, $75,000 team-building experience that was designed to give away 24 bikes to needy boys and girls in the boys and girls club. and so instead of employees pulling together this and doing this out of charity, they used taxpayer funds to provide a charity event of these 24 bikes, and then used taxpayer funds to provide a ice cream party for the children when they came and picked them up. and is so everyone could feel good, but it wasn't their money.

and it wasn't even their time. they were paid to be on the clock to do that as a federal employee. and the federal taxpayer paid for the bikes, and then everyone else felt good. and that's one of those moments that we look at it and say, where have we gone? that suddenly now doing charity work is a federal employee has to come from the hard-working american taxpayer it, rather than actually engaging from it? the other side is this contracting issue with the sound company and the hotels. not to mention that the charity work done with the bikes directly violates gsa policy on disposing federal property. it's in direct violation of gsa property. then this sound contract gets preferential treatment over another company and they get free rooms, in addition to the rooms they were paid for. the hotel contract was really negotiated off line separately, so we can have additional food so we didn't -- because we didn't pay enough for this, or we're going to do all this extra food for this. this is the kind of stuff that makes people in my district that try to get a federal contract furious, and they come to our office and say, we're trying to

get a federal contract, but it looks like some sweetheart deal is done for some other company and no one can validate it. how do we start clearing the deck on this so we really do have fair competition, whether it be in gsa or anywhere else, how do we root this kind of stuff out? >> well, i believe first of all, we have good oversight process. and i appreciate that the inspector general is there, and we could go to him and say, would you look into this and find this out. because it was appalling to me, and i felt grateful someone would have the capability to do that kind of investigating. so that is certainly a piece of it. i think as alluded to by some other questions, i think leaving agencies without steady leadership is to leave an agency hanging. and although there were able interim administrators, no one had the cloud of being confirmed and able to move in and really assume the job. so i think there are a number of different things that could be

addressed. >> i field back. >> i thank the gentleman. i might note for the record, we did look it up and ses people can make as much as $179,000, which means they're paid more than members of congress. perhaps we could consider those people unnecessary, if you're centralizing control, mr. robertson. >> and they are paid much more than i am. was. >> noted. with that, we go to the gentleman, mr. walsh. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. johnson, without getting bogged down into conduct reviews versus performance reviews, why did you give that $9,000 bonus? >> i gave that $9,000 bonus because i was focused on performance and because i -- the recommendation came from the building's commissioner, who was the direct budget and supervisor of mr. neely. >> let me ask it another way.

if you could take that bonus back, if you could go back in time and not approve that bonus, would you do that? >> well, i would certainly like to avoid these questions, yes. >> would you. >> i think -- >> do you wish you had not approved that bonus? >> everything in retrospect is always hard to understand. at the time, i was expecting the inspector general's report. you know, it's -- >> i appreciate that. >> -- not a decision. >> but right now, if you could, do you wish you had not approved that bonus? >> i'm not sure how i can -- i'm not sure how i can answer that. knowing what i know about all of the rules and the -- >> let me -- appreciated. let me move on. my colleagues on both sides have rightfully focused on how did this happen, who knew what. what procedures were in place that let this happen. when did it happen. all important questions in an investigation. but what eats at me is the why. why does something like this

happen? and, again, many of these examples have been pointed out. the $6,000 commemorative coins. did mr. neely, ms. johnson, think that was his money? >> i have no idea. >> do you think it's your money? >> i do think it's my money. that's why i was so appalled. and that's why i resigned. >> you don't think that's your money. >> i -- i believe -- i believe the tax -- i'm a taxpayer. it's my taxpayers' money. >> the $8,000 spent on year books. do you believe mr. neely thought that was his money? >> i don't know what he was thinking. >> do you think it's your money? whose money is that? >> it's the taxpayers' money. >> the $130,000 spent on six scouting missions to visit las vegas. do you think mr. neely thought that was his money? >> i have no idea what mr. neely was thinking.

>> do you think it's your money? >> i believe it's the taxpayers' money. >> mr. robertson, do you think that $130,000 was your money? >> i believe that money belongs to the taxpayers. >> mr. foley, do you think that was your money? >> no. i believe it's the taxpayers' money. >> food and drink for the conference. $145,000. mr. robertson, do you think mr. neely truly thought that was his money? >> i don't know what mr. neely was thinking. >> do you think that was your money? >> that money clearly belongs to the taxpayers. >> mr. foley, do you think mr. neely thought that was his money? >> i do not know what he was thinking. do you think that was your money? >> no. it clearly belongs to the taxpayer. >> and i don't know you, and i respect your service, but why even joke? why even joke about abusing taxpayer dollars? why even do that? i mean, all my colleagues have said, rightfully, everybody knows what the american people are going through right now. >> it was --

>> can't you imagine that for $6500, the average struggling taxpayer out there could find something to do with that? for $8,000, for these souvenir yearbooks, do you think the average man or woman in any one of our districts today would know what to do with $8,000? >> again, i absolutely apologize for my remarks. i clearly recognize they were inappropriate. >> but what, mr. foley -- what made you feel like you could joke about it to begin with? see, what i want to know is, this culture, why -- the why. why did mr. neely feel like he could do what he did? if mr. neely had to foot the bill for this conference, would he have felt that he could have abused his own dollars like that? >> i don't know what mr. neely would have felt. >> it's just -- and ms. johnson, i know you appreciate this.

it's not your money. it's mr. robertson -- it's not your money. and this is what has the american people so worked up. $8,000 is a lot of money. $6500 goes a very long way. for most families today. and i would argue, that the invisible man there, mr. neely, if he had thought this was his money, we wouldn't be here today. mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. and i would note for the record that we have not been able to get a clarification whether it's 6 or 10. it appears it could be 10 round trips with family in some cases, costing over $100,000 to find out what vegas was like. with that, we go to the gentleman from another region. the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i generally applaud yours and the committee's selection of

witnesses, but you've left out one important witness in that hearing. and that's the mind-reader. maybe he could tell us what some of these people were thinking when they did that. i do have a couple of comments and questions that hopefully you all could clear up for me. i'm really concerned about a pattern that we are seeing not just in this the gsa, but in the government overall about a lack of common sense or about it not being our money. you should have a higher respect for the taxpayers' dollars than you have even for your own dollars. they are giving this to us in trust to spend for them. but you look at what's happening in the news today. you look at this convention, you look at the secret service agents, and that fiasco that happened. you look at some of the things this committee is investigating. lack of common sense in fast and furious, the freddie and fannie bonuses. and i would like to ask the gentleman from the inspector general's office, do you see

this pervasive in your agency or pervasive in the government -- the gsa agents i've -- dealt with personally doing the office we have in the district and helping out with some constituents have been great people. but are we developing in the gsa or the government in general a culture of lack of common sense or indifference about taxpayers' dollars. i price line hotels. i don't use y'all's government rate. >> congressman, all igs are very concerned to protect taxpayer dollars and to get the best value for taxpayer dollars. i think the question was asked, you know, why did mr. neely do this. we can't get into his head. but one reason was that he could. there was a lack of accountability. he was both the regional commissioner and acting regional administrator -- >> wouldn't you agree, regardless of how many rules we have, if we have an attitude of

let's see how we can sneak it in under the rules or just outright ignore the rules, the money is going to continue to fly out the door to fast and furious pace. >> well, unfortunately, people know the rules, and they know how to skirt the rules. and -- >> and that's really disappointing. and i want to take a second to point out that if this is happening in other government agencies, we need to know about it. this committee has a website, oversight.house.gov and there is a big orange button there that says whistle blower. we need to stop this, and we need to stop the culture of overspending in our government. what we have got to do is take rudy guiliani's attitude. let's start with the little things, fix the broken glass. you've got to remember, it's not your money. it's the taxpayers' money. and you owe them the highest duty with respect to protecting that money. and let me go back to the former administrator and i want to commend you for taking responsibility for that, and

resi resigning. i wish you had a chance to clean up a little bit more before you were able to go. and i do think this is something that this committee and the congress as a whole needs to look at, is how government employees can linger on and on and on, basically on paid vacation when they're on administrative leave. we're getting no value for it. and the money is just going flat-out -- out the door. do you have any comments on that? >> not really, congressman. you've heard my thoughts and my statements. i think we certainly were initiating disciplinary action, and we needed to adhere to due process, and that's what we were working with. but we were working diligently with the process we had. >> and i understand everybody is entitled to due process, and one of the reasons people choose to work for the government is to get away from employment at will. you have some rights with respect to the government. but i'm thinking we need to

look, especially in cases of clear misconduct, that we need to be able to find a way to expedite this process. and i do -- and pardon me for asking this question, but this is a game of politics. and is some people have asked me, you're resignation was timed with the day that this report came out. was that coordinated with the white house or the president's campaign? did you talk to anybody over there about that? >> it was certainly not coordinated with the campaign. i did inform the white house. we were in communication with the white house so they would be aware of it. i was resigning from my white house appointment. and it was -- >> did the white house ask you to resign? or was that your decision? >> no, they did not. i chose to resign. >> and, again, i commend you on having done the honorable thing there, and thank you for your public service. and i'm sorry you have to leave on this sour note. thank you. >>