overwhelmingly been concerned with carrying out their missions within the government's rules at the lowest cost possible. as pbs commissioner, i was not involved in planning conferences. as a political appointee, i had a policy to not be involved in the selection of contractors or vendors. in the case of 2010 western regions conference, it was a regionally organized event, and while i was invited to address the conference, i had nothing to do with its planning, nor was i involved in approving any part of its spending or program in advance. i was present for only a portion of the conference before returning to d.c. as is the case with most large federal agencies, the gsa holds training conferences for its employees. in my many years at the gsa i attended a number of conferences from. what i personally saw, the conferences i attended were not extravagant. the 2010 western regions conference described in the i.g.'s report was a serious aberration. when i arrived the first afternoon of the conference, i was shown to a very large suite. i questioned the organizers as

to the cost. they told me that all the rooms were within the government rate, including this room, and that my suite was included at the basic room rate as part of the conference's package of rooms. my first morning at the conference i made a powerpoint presentation to the entire group about national pbs goals and priorities. irattended presentations from the four western regions about their projects and performance and another about the gsa's sustainability goals. that afternoon i asked the conference organizers to invite a number of employees of their choosing to my room. my intention was to have a meet and greet with a group of regional employees attending the conference. this pre-dinner reception went from about 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. since this was my initiative, rather than an event on the organizers' agenda, i said i would pay personally for beer, wine and chips. i was told that food would be made available without additional cost under the conference contract with the hotel. the beer and wine were purchased

separately, and upon returning to d.c. i wrote a check for that cost. only within the past few weeks did i learn from the gsa inspector general that the food for this reception was apparently invoiced at $1,960. it is not unusual for an i.g. to issue a report anded in managers count on that as part of our internal oversight. in the normal course of event, the i.g. will issue a draft report and the agency will respond and ultimately the i.g. will issue a final report wits recommendations. the i.g.'s recommendation, including those calling for any disciplinary action, awarded narrowly were implemented following the release of a final report. in this case the i.g. issued a very preliminary report last may, and at that time i understood that the i.g. cautioned the gsa not to take personnel actions until the final report was complete. that final report, which contained the i.g.'s recommendations, was just published two weeks ago. until the i.g.'s draft report last year, i was not aware that there had been numerous planning trips incurred in connection with this conference, nor was i

aware until i was recently informed by the i.g. that there were questions about the competitive contracting proceeding used to find the conference hotel. as i've indicated, it is now clear that much of the expense at the hotel was excessive and unacceptable. therefore, even before having the benefit of the final i.g. report i took measures to try to ensure that something like this would not happen again. in fiscal 2011 in response to this conference and as part of my focus on overhead expenses, i cancelled a number of nationally controlled pbs conferences, instituted a review of pbs outside conference attendance and took steps to reduce spending on travel. further, when i was first interviewed about the conference by the i.g. last month, i invited. i.g. to audit other travel and conferences that pbs had conducted under my tenure. i deeply regret the behavior of the gsa employees involved in this incident and the damage it has caused. i look forward to answering any questions you may have.

as the chairman mentioned, mr. kneely is not with us today. he has used his constitutional right to plead the fifth amendment and has hired a lawyer, nor did he testify yesterday. miss daniels, you're next to testify. do you have a lawyer? >> i do not. >> can you pull the microphone, please. >> i do not have a lawyer. >> okay. >> i would just issue you a word of caution. i've read your testimony, and

there is a great deal of troubling information on there. i would certainly issue caution today as you testify. miss daniels, you may proceed. >> good morning. this is my first time at a hearing. i'm not -- i did not prepare testimony because i was placed on administrative leave last wednesday. all of my files were confiscated. i was directed to turn in all of my government equipment and cell phone to the director of hr in fort worth on thursday morning, and on thursday evening my supervisor called me late in the evening and said that i would be receiving a letter from the house of representatives requesting my testimony.

as you know, i did not provide 100 copies by close of business. i received my letter at 10:30 on friday morning, and i -- i'm not clear what testimony you are referring to unless you're referring to interviews that i held with the i.g. of which i didn't sign anything, other than the guarantee warning, and -- and without my files or anything, and i was not even sure since the title of this hearing was a pattern of mismanagement, excess and waste, i didn't feel comfortable without my computer or files to be able to even provide a testimony to that effect. i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> miss daniels, if you don't have a prepared testimony we

will allow up to five minutes, but i was referring to your transcripts in the investigative report that the i.g. did. that's what we've gone through. we've got e-mails as late as last night, and certainly there is a great deal of concern with your transcripts, so you're not obligated to have an opening statement or obligated to go any further than you already have, but we certainly afford you that right to -- to up to five minutes. >> i'll decline to provide a testimony but happy to answer any questions that i can do. thank you. >> thank you. i'll now recognize each member for an additional five minutes. we'll start the first round of questioning. mr. miller, i want to first start by better understanding how you get around rules, how you get around executive orders, how when the president issues an executive order, how members of

a -- of an agency may disregard those executive orders and figure out a way to get around it. so as my staff has put together an outline here for me, basically if you get a large number of people together, in this case western regional conference 300 people, it gives you a reason to have an off-site meeting. certainly you could have a meeting in des moines, iowa or modesta, california, but the whole purpose of having these lavish conferences is to go to places like hawaii and las vegas, palm springs, napa, new orleans. that's going to be a good question on why the western regional conference would need to go to new orleans which is not even a western regional conference, so you get a lot of people together, gives you a reason to have a conference, and then you go to a luxury resort.

how much per diem are you supposed to get on a trip? >> per diem varies from place to place, and it's listed on the gsa website as to how much per diem per day individuals would get. for example, in las vegas, the per diem for breakfast is $12, and it's stated -- there's a chart of per diem. if your question is why did they have the conference, the western region conference this year, they said that they wanted to showcase gsa talent. >> is the per diem cumulative, meaning if you pay your own way for the entire week, do you get a check at the end of the week, and is it -- and you get a lunch, a breakfast, a lunch and a dinner per diem? >> well, have you to put a voucher in, and you would get repaid the money. it's $71 for the whole day in las vegas. that's for everything, meals and

everything. the hotel room was $93, so a traveler would come back and submit a voucher, and that would be paid back to the traveller. >> so if you've got a free room or a comped room, you could then apply for that $93 at the end of the day? >> if you received a free room, you should not submit that in the voucher. if you received a free meal that the conference provided, you should not submit that in the voucher. >> and how about appetizers? >> well, according to -- we don't think the appetizers were appropriate at all. we think that the appetizers were impermissible expenses. >> and how do you get around that rule to have appetizers? >> there is a rule that says that if you have an awards ceremony and food is necessary for the performance of the awards ceremony, you may have

food as part of the awards ceremony. that was routinely skirted by region nine. >> how often are awards given at these conferences? >> i would guess fairly often. >> once a conference? >> at least. >> every day of a conference? >> i'm not sure if they received an award every day. they had -- >> what type of awards? >> well, they received a number of things. they received souvenir coins. everyone in the regions received those. >> to write off a meal, to have the expense of appetizers or a full meal, whether it's sushi or a long list of different types of appetizers we have here, what types of awards would be given? >> i'm not sure that any of those things would be appropriate at an awards ceremony, and the rule is food has to be necessary for the awards ceremony, not the other way around. you don't get the food -- you don't give out an award in order to get the food. you're giving an award and you

have a ceremony, and if incidental food is necessary for that awards ceremony, then it's permissible under the rules. it became kind of a running joke. >> but that's how they felt it was justified. >> yes. >> to get around the administration's rule of not having food, they got around it by having an awards ceremony at every conference or every day of a conference? >> many -- many times. in region nine witnesses told us that it became a running joke with the region nine regional commissioner, that even at staff meetings he would say we're going to have a meeting in another location, and we're going to have food so we have to do what, and his senior staff is said to have said give out awards, and so according to witnesses that we've interviewed, it was a running joke in region nine that in order to get food you had to give out awards. and many of these awards were

silly awards. one of our witnesses characterized them as i guess fake awards and jackass awards and things of that nature. now, getting back to the western regions conference, they gave out awards for theatrical performances. we do not consider that a proper award. the award has to be for contributions to the work of the agen agency. >> how might they also get around a lodging per diem limits? how would you get a 2,200 square foot suite or several 2,200 square foote seethes, how would you get them at every conference and multiple suites given when it's only $93? >> well, suites are provided by the hotel. sometimes as part of the negotiation a hotel will provide an upgraded room or suites as part of the negotiation.

they will throw in what they call comped rooms if they have a number of rooms paid for by the -- by the government, by the conference. >> what type of negotiation? how would you justify a 2,200 -- how in this case would you justify two 2,200-square foot luxury suites? it must be some large contract. how do you get a contract that large? >> well, gsa apparently had a very large contract with the hotel and that the large contract with the hotel would -- >> i'm sorry, mr. miller, proceed. >> with a large contract with the hotel, the hotel would throw in a room, and -- >> so how do you build up a large contract? >> well, gsa had a number of rooms that they were renting from that hotel. >> rooms alone would allow you get those large luxury suites? >> well, they had catering as

well. they had food. >> how much catering? >> it's detailed in the report. they had receptions. they had light refreshments. by the way, light refreshments are allowed in between sessions at a conference, according to the rules. the report identification food expenditures. on page 9 of the report we've identified 146,527 of expenditures on food and beverage catering.$146,527 of expenditures on food and beverage catering. >> let me move on. we are short of time here. we're going to try to stick to the five-minute rule. if you have luxury suites, how would you bring your entire family and sflends how would you have a 21-year-old birthday party for your doubter? how would you have all of these various friends and family gatherings, extended stays, on these different trips?

>> well, they would have to be a gift from the hotel. the hotel would provide an upgraded room or a suite, and if you're in the middle of negotiating a contract with the hotel, that might be perceived as a gift from the hotel. >> so let me ask you. if you set up a contract and said our per diem rate is $93. that's how much we can spend on lodging. we'd like to have five days at $93 but we're going to spend several hundred thousand dollars on appetizers, we'd like to extend our stay on the front end and back end and create a nine-day trip and by the way we'd like 2,200 square foot rooms and we can bring our family and friends for a party on the weekend. is that possible? >> not under the regulations. not under the rules. >> is it possible under what you've seen in your investigation? >> yes, yes. in fact, i think that does describe what happened.

what you're talking about is essentially inappropriate relationships with vendors, and inappropriate relationship with a hotel would be to go to the hotel and ask for favors that benefit the individuals personally, and all of that is improper. it is appropriate to negotiate a good rate for the food, appropriate food under the rules, but it's inappropriate to negotiate with vendors for personal benefits that. we you're not allowed to use your office for personal gain. >> nor can you accept -- >> correct. >> -- many other perks that were accepted here? i am out of time. i want to definitely go back to this little bit deeper, but at this time i'll recognize ranking member miss norton for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. miller, what the chairman

has just described, if someone in region nine wanted to know whether or not what they were doing was within the rules, under the present structure would they turn to -- who would they turn to in region nine? >> is that directed towards me? or to suzanne? >> yes, to you or miss britter. in region nine, what the chairman described, if -- if someone wanted to know is this within the rules, who would they go to to find out in region nine? >> they have regional counsel in region nine and regional counsel was consulted at least once about the possession -- >> who? what did regional counsel say?

>> i believe that regional counsel provided an opinion that the regional commissioner requested was not in writing, and if you can hold on a minute -- they provided an unwritten opinion about bicycles. when the charity -- >> because there was an inquiry about the base calls but not about other things? well, the regional commissioner asked about the bicycles. >> yes. >> because it would involve disposal of federal property. >> yes. mr. neely is not here. did he have the final authority on the matters, for example, just described by the chairman, or was there someone above him who had some authority and to

whom he reported on matters of the kind that have just been described? >> well, at the time -- >> can i clarify mrs. norton's point. point? they asked for legal opinion on the bicycles, correct? >>y, they do. >> and fwhafs legal opinion? >> the legal opinion was if the charity owned the bicycles, it would not be federal property. >> is that in writing? >> no, it's not in writing. >> is that in writing? >> i believe we have some evidence of that, i'm not sure if it's a direct writing or not, but we do have of that. >> they made the question? >> he requested that it not be in writing. >> so the council itself didn't want his opinion in writing.

what i'm trying to establish who was the operating officer who was in charge of this conference? and whether he in fact had the report what happened in the conference or had to ask for any permission or whether he was and island unto himself. >> the regional commissioner essentially controlled the thing. he was acting as regionaled a ming strait for for a time. there was little supervision by the central office. as a practical matter, the regional commissioner decided it. >> i'm going to have question

for mr. tangalini about the structure of the gsa in in regard. i am going to ask mr. peck a question. its unusual for people to publicly speak well of someone two has had -- has encountered what you have. do you understand why the president took out the top of the agency do you believe that was a right thing to do and a fair thing to do and i understand. i am an army service.

>> the way in which in this country it doesn't operate the way it does in parliamentary systems. i can understand the feelings for you. but in light of how the structures should be structured in this country, i understand your response. the letter of reprimand for mr. neely, we know that mr. neely was essentially an island unto himself.

he may be facing criminal charges. we believe one of the lightest forms of personality given his large responsibility and the commissioner the letter of reprimand that should take place here. especially since you understand why the president will fire you and all the top officials because of the responsibility that the top must have for what goes on, with those charged to him. >> mr. peck, i'll allow you to answer, but i would ask you to be brief. >> yes, sir. >> i believe -- it was under my impression and he was not asking

the cvs not to take action against -- >> i believe he said any personnel action, and that's a personnel action, isn't zplit there was great conversation about what we could and could not do at that time given what me know about mr. neely. and i just note that a lot more facts have come out fend. at the time we took it into account, and i took it into account in his rating, and i spoke to the other regional commissions about conferences. i took other actions at that time given what we knew about

what had happened to the conference particularly with respect to him. >> thank you, mr. peck. before we do in consulting -- we're three minutes over. in consulting with democrats in a bipartisan fashion, we have made the determination that ms. daniels, after receiving transcript over the last 48 hours. it is in our judgment on a bipartisan level that we will excuse you at this time. i would advise you as chairman of this committee that you ought to seek legal council, you're dismissed. chairman micah. >> i thank you. first of all, ms. doan.

an expenditure that rises about 300% for the public building commissioners expenditures from 2.9 million $2.9 million to $9 that raise any flags to you? the 300% increase? actually it was about -- two years. >> that was about 3/2 of 2009. the republic buildings, it says administration and personnel costs, does that raise any flags? are you aware of a request that i have and our committees have in, we sent it to mr. foley to

give us a break down of the administrative class. i only became a ware of it as the pu the public building -- so you're the chief financial officer and of course in my opening statement, i describe what was sent to us and we'll see why there wasn't much detail so much now. mr. miller, well, first of all, susan britta, you asked that this conference took place in october 2010. and november shortly thereafter, you asked a review for a review, is that correct? it looks like a preliminary briefing was not done until may of 2011. all of this was not made public

until two weeks ago. what took so long in -- in may 20111. >> chairman micah, we interviewed individuals and every time we turned over a stone, we saw 50 more with all sorts of things crawling out. >> but you never published a report. but in june, a providing for administrator johnson, you -- somehow the gsa chief, mr. robinson, michael robinson yesterday who was before ogr committee, and perform eed kimberly ha