spending. let's watch. >> i think you're certainly going to see that really no viable candidate is going to participate in the current system. as you know, in the last campaign, president obama opted out, raised an enormous amount of money that shocked everyone, from both primaries and the general. senator mccain did participate in the general to get the money. but i think in this campaign, because changes have not been made in the system that was financing presidential campaigns with the public financing, it really has become, to some degree, out of date and it's an understandable selection given that the system hasn't kept up with the changes and the costs. >> give an example. >> you have limits by state in the current example. if you go to iowa, which is somehow an important state in the presidential race, there's a

state by state limit. they kind of treat -- the system was designed originally in the '70s to say, we're going to have every state pretty much treated the same and given the same weight. that's not how the system works. if you're going to run for office you're going to go to iowa, maybe your strategy is to spend a whole lot of money in iowa. so what happens, the candidates go to the quad cities area which has a television station that broadcasts to both illinois and iowa, and they spend a lot of money in the illinois section to get to iowa. so they game all the numbers. so it's a system that has a number of things that should be changed. >> and those changes we've been talking about really over the last 40 years, as you look at the road ahead, what are the challenges? you deal with the laws that the congress and the president sign into law, what the court allows you to do, but what are those challenges? >> there are challenges both in the public financing -- public funding area and for the

underlying fica itself. in the public funding as pointed out, it's becoming less and less attractive for candidates to participate in because of the limitations that go along with it. i would note that both party conventions have sought and are receiving their public financing for the conventions that will happen later this summer. so that's an aspect of it that is still fully participated in. with respect to what happens with candidates, committees, parties, and these new super pacs, i think some of the challenges will be around the idea of this idea of independent or end coordination has become so much more important. there are some regulationth on the books regarding what is coordination and some people are questioning whether or not those are sufficient. some are questioning whether the contribution limits are appropriate any more or whether they should be increased given that outside groups can raise unlimited amounts of money, has put parties and candidates, the

entities that used to be the core of our campaign finance system, on the sidelines. so there's discussions about whether there are some modifications that might need to be made there. and then, again, in the disclosure area, to really give the public the information that it's entitled to in terms of making information, making decisions about who they want to vote for, which candidates they want to support, which candidates they want to provide contributions to, so you know where they're spending their money. if you think they're spending their money unwisely you might think you don't want to provide a contribution, use yore hard-earned money to support another candidate. all these are areas i think need more thought. we are going to know a lot more about what these court decisions mean in real terms at the end of this cycle so we'll have some data and people will be able to make some judgments at that point in time. again, it's very difficult to make changes in the middle of an election cycle. and we'll now have two full -- we'll have our first full cycle

under our belts after citizens united come the end of 2012. so hopefully that will give people some good data on which to think hard about what reforms might need to be there. i think we'll continue to hear from the public who have very strong ideas about some of the cases and what changes should be as a result. >> native of minnesota, veteran of capitol hill, commissioner cynthia bowerly of the federal election commission, thank you very much for sharing your perspective. on behalf of the students joining us from the washington center and george mason university, we appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me. from the colonial era, prohibition, to today, drink for better or worse has always been a part of the american landscape. "saturday night live" on american history tv, a history of alcohol in america. watch "back story" with the american history guys.

regale tales of beer and spirits in america saturday night at 8:00 horn, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. this week senior officials from the general services administration appeared before a number of congressional committees to testify about an incident involving the commissioner from the agency's western office. spending more than $800,000 on a las vegas conference. plus thousands more on various other work-related trips at taxpayers' expense. this panel includes testimony from the agency's inspector general brian miller. this is two hours. >> you're the new guy? >> yes, sir. >> i see no reason that you will not tell us the truth, therefore we will forego the swearing-in.

i ask unanimous consent that our witness's full statement will be included in the record without objection, so ordered. since your written testimony has been made part of the record, limit your oral testimony to five minutes. mr. miller, since we've already received your statement, unless you have anything further you'd like to add at this time, we will ask mr. tinkerlini to begin. >> good morning. members of the subcommittee, i'm the acting administrator of the u.s. general services administration. i appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee today. first and foremost i want to state that the waste and abuse outlined in the inspector general's report is an outrage, completely anti-thet call to the goals of the administration. the report details violations of travel rules, acquisition rules, and good conduct. just as importantly, those

responsible violated rules of common sense, the spirit of public service, and the trust that america's taxpayers have placed in us. i speak for the overwhelming majority of gsa staff when i say that we are shocked, appalled, and deeply disappointed by these indefensible actions as you are. we've taken strong action against those officials who are responsible and will continue to do so where appropriate. i intend to uphold the highest standards at this agency, including referring any criminal activity to appropriate law enforcement officials and taking any action that is necessary and appropriate. if we find any irregularities i will immediately engage the gsa's inspector general, as indicated in the joint letter that inspector general brian miller and i sent to all gsa staff, we expect an employee who sees waste, fraud or abuse to report it. we want to build a partnership with the ig while respecting

their independence that will ensure nothing like this ever happens again. there will be no tolerance for employees who violate or in any way disregard these rules. i believe this is critical not only because we owe it to the american taxpayers but also because we owe it to the many gsa employees who work hard, follow the rules, and deserve to be proud of the agency for which they work. we've also taken steps to improve internal controls and oversight to ensure this never happens again. already i have canceled all future western regions conferences. i've also canceled 35 previously planned conferences, saving nearly $1 million. i've suspended the hats off and have demanded reimbursement from mr. peck, mr. shepherd, and mr. kenneally, for private in-room parties. i've canceled most travel through the end of the fiscal year agency-wide and i'm centralizing budget authority and have already centralized procurement oversight for regional offices to make them more directly accountable. i look forward to working in

partnership with this committee to ensure there's full accountability for these activities so we can begin to restore the trust of the american people. i hope that in so doing gsa can refocus on its core mission, saving taxpayers money by efficiently procuring supplies, services and real estate, as well as effectively disposing of unneeded government property. we believe there's a great need for these services and the savings they bring to the government and the taxpayer. there's a powerful value proposition to a single agency dedicated to this work, especially in these fiscal times. we need to ensure we get back to basics, conduct this work better than ever. at gsa our commitment is to our service, our duty, and our nation, and not to conferences, awards, or parties. the unacceptable, inappropriate, and possibly illegal activities at the western regions conference stand in direct contradiction to the express goals of this agency and the administration and i'm committed

to ensuring that we take whatever steps are necessary to hold responsible parties accountable and to make sure that this never happens again. we need to focus this agency on the basics, streamlining the administrative work of the federal government to save taxpayers' money. i look forward to working with the committee moving forward and i welcome the opportunity to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you. ms. johnson. >> chairman denham, ranking member norton, and members of the committee. on april 2nd, 2012, i resigned as administrator of the general services administration and left my cherished career as a public servant. i stepped aside to allow a new team to rebuild gsa from the major missteps of the western regions conference in october 2010. i previously served gsa in the clinton administration, leaving in 2001. at that time the leadership team was strong, the schedules, design excellence, and other programs producing much value for their customers. when i returned to gsa in 2010, the agency was not the same.

one-quarter of the executive positions were empty. customers viewed our partnership as scans. labor regss were acrimonious. the leasing portfolio had ballooned. nearly two years had lapsed without a confirmed administrator. my confirmation was delayed nine months. by the time i was sworn in a sequence of four acting administrators had overseen the agency. i did not know there was yet another problem. the western regions conference had evolved into a raucous, extravagant, self-congratulatory event that ultimately belittled federal workers. the expensive planning for the conference was well under way when i entered gsa and i was unaware of the scope. thus i began my tenure as administrator. i take this opportunity to thank the overwhelming majority of gsa's 13,000 employees that rose to the task of renewal. their record is extraordinary. energy efficient building's competent management of the

fleet. for my part i set about reconstituting gsa's executive team after much work, customers now praise gsa publicly, the labor partnership is fruitful, gsa has e-mail in the cloud, and gsa will relinquish leases and save millions with its renovated headquarters. however, gsa's performance tragically does not compensate for the mistakes of the western regions conference. i greeted the ig report of the conference without hesitation, agreeing with all the recommendations. i'm extremely aggrieved by the gall of a handful of people to misuse federal tax dollars, twist contracting rules, and defile the great name of gsa. this is how that chapter unfolded. deputy administrator susan britta requested an investigation into the conference. the ig subsequently shared with us a power point deck in may 2011. i realize this was a very serious matter. we needed all the facts, all of

them. however painful and disruptive. while the investigation continued we appointed a regional administrator, releaving mr. kenneally of that role, established a chief administrative services office reporting to me with responsibility for gsa's administration. continued streamlining shortening training sfochlt conferences. ms. britta reviewed expenditures until she was satisfied the controls were in place. upon receiving the ig's draft report in february 2012, we began disciplinary action, revised internal controls, and adjusted budgets to penalize regions for the wasted money. the egregious and coarse nature of the evidence and the waste of resources assured a loss of confidence in gsa leadership, therefore, i terminated two appointees in the chain of command and submitted my own resignation. i personally apologize to the american people. as the agency head, i am

responsible. i will mourn for the rest of my life the loss of my appointment. >> mr. foley. >> thank you. chairman den ham and ranking member norton, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today. my name is david foley and i'm the deputy commissioner for the public buildings service. i sincerely apologize for my remarks at the award ceremony. at the time of my remarks i was not aware of the significance of irregularities. i did not intend to condone any wasteful spending or minimize the role of congressional oversight. as i said yesterday, i especially want to apologize to this committee in particular and congresswoman norton. i have the utmost respect for her and this committee. you have always been strong advocates for gsa and its programs while holding us accountable as an agency. dy not mean to belittle you or your role in any way. i attempted to make a joke in the context of a talent celebration that i perceived as being similar to a comedic roast. as the deputy commissioner i

should have taken the stage to stress that we have a serious job and responsibility as stewards of taxpayer funds. i realize i missed a real opportunity to address the nearly 300 people in my organization and stress the importance of the work we do. during my presentation at the award ceremony, i told the award recipient i was making his dreams come true by making him commissioner for the rest of the day. obviously, that was a joke. i was not seriously delegating any authority to the awareee. i also joked about some of the obligations of being commissioner. my understanding at the time was that the commissioner was paying for the charges associated with the after-hours party on tuesday evening so i tried to use that in a humorous way and suggest the awardee would have to pay for the party in the hotel. finally i said the acting commissioner would have to answer for his proposed pay increases in the video. my intent was to point out the commissioner has a lot of responsibilities and has to answer to a lot of people in the administration and congress, not to mock the various oversight roles. my remarks were wrong and i take

full responsibility for what i said. i understand the outrage about this conference, my comments, and how they have inflamed all of the issues surrounding this event. i preface the rest of my statement by saying i've only seen a draft of the ig report that appears to be the same as what has been released publicly. i have not seen any of the supporting documents and was not questioned or briefed by the ig during the investigation, so i do not know all the details. this represents my understanding based upon what i remember from almost two years ago. concerning my role in the western regions conference, again, i want to start by personally apologizing. while i was not directly involved in the planning for the conference or any of the financial and contracting irregularities identified in the inspector general's report, i did attend 2 1/2 days of the conference. there were things that seemed over the top but i believe they were not being paid for with government funds. in past conferences, items like the tuxedos and the after-hour parties were paid for by

individuals, not the taxpayer. had i known what has since been revealed i would have been concerned and reported it. because of the regional reporting structure in our agency, i did not have supervisory control or authority over how the regional budget was spent, procurement activities, or any of the employees in the western regions. the regional commissioners and their staff reported directly to their regional administrators with input from the commissioner, who report in turn to the administrator's office. my primary role as the deputy commissioner is dealing with the office of management and budget, congress, and other federal agencies on critical projects and policy issues. i am in the a contracting officer and i do not have a warrant to approve expenditures. i have spent the last 15 years of my career working for gsa and i believe strongly in the agency's mission and the values 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. let me start, mr. tingerlini. i know there's going to be a number of questions about what you are implementing today and the reassurances you can give to the american public that you have put the safeguards in place to address this. i want to just touch on, before we get started with the questions, what is being done on transparency? you've heard -- i've been asking -- this committee has been asking for quite some time for a budget for the last five years. i assume that that is something that you have readily available today. how long will it take you to get that to this committee? >> i have your letter of april 13th. you've given us an april 25th deadline. i intend to meet that deadline. >> five-year budget?

full details? >> we will provide all the information we can get. as you heard today, there are serious concerns about the way the data has been managed within the regional structure. i will get you everything i can. >> you're also doing an internal audit right now. the ig is still doing an audit or an investigation. what do you anticipate -- what are you looking for in the audit that you are not going to get in the ig report? >> i want to do a top to bottom review of the organization, how it's set up, how it spends its money. i want to see what i get out of that. i want to see if there are issues of how we can better structure it. already we've taken a move to bring the financial offices, the regional financial officers under our cfo. we've taken some action to centralize oversight of procurement authority. and that's just the start. >> when do you expect to be done

with the audit? >> i want to take as much time as necessary to get a great picture of the status of the organization. that having been said, if there are ideas that come out of our review, we're going to implement them immediately. >> audited -- months, weeks, years? >> we would like to do it as part of the budget development process which culminates in submitting the 2014 budget in september. that having been said, if there's anything that needs to be changed immediately, we're going to change it. >> this committee would request not only the immediate changes that are being done in detail, we'd also request a copy of that audit. do you think it will take as long as september to receive a copy of the audit? >> i would call it more of a top to bottom review than an audit. an audit is a very specific activity. but that having been said, any details that we develop, we'll

be happy to share with the committee. >> thank you. mr. miller, you've referred a number of things to the department of justice, criminal action, some of the sweetheart deals. can you -- what can you share with this committee on the reference to doj? >> very little, unfortunately. i can state that we made the referral and that's about it. >> miss johnson, the timeline that i went through -- well, first of all, let me start with the first timeline that i discussed with mr. peck. ultimately i hold him accountable for not sharing, or ignoring or stonewalling this committee on the budget. obviously, there was a great deal to hide.

but over our dozen requests to have a copy of that budget over the last year and a half, we also requested and submit adler to you. is there any reason why you failed to permit us -- failed to give us a copy of the budget? >> i am sorry if there was a request in to me to supply you information that i did not acknowledge or respond to. i do not have a memory of this at this time. >> thank you. let me go into the timeline of the different travels that we've seen here. i would assume that when we see the further investigation, that it's going to result in a number of other trips? i think this committee -- i think the american public at this point is probably prepared for the worst after seeing what we have. nevertheless, let me start with may of 2010 where we had the

nine trips for the preplanning. a lot has been talked about about las vegas. you endured a lot of that yesterday with $1 million being spent on the vegas trip. my concern is the pattern here. and what happened after the fact. miss britta went to the ig in november. in may, the ig came back with the recommendation to you, advised to you, to get a handle on the regional conference's travel. this is may of last year. in june, the chief of staff michael robertson informed the white house. he was formally the liaison to the white house. he let kimberly harris, white house counsel, know about active ig investigation regarding fraud

and wasteful spending related to the western regions conference. in august, you felt it was important enough to put ruth cox, regional administrator for region nine -- let me stop there. did you put ruth cox in as the new regional administrator? >> yes, we appointed ruth cox as the regional administrator. >> why? >> we needed to fill the regional administrator's position. it had been double-filled by jeff kenneally for quite a while. i felt it was -- i'd been working hard to get regional administrators in all the regions. this was the one that was still outstanding. and i was eager to get it filled. for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the regional administrator is a -- an important person in the line -- in the chain of command, in the line of authority, over the regions. and i'm the administrator of the

whole organization, the regional administrator is in the regions, and it's important to have that presence there. >> you advised the new regional administrator, ruth cox, to get a handle on the regional commissioner, kenneally's, travel? >> i did not personally advise her to get a handle on his regional travel. >> thank you. my time is expired, i'll come back to that. miss norton. >> thank you very much. mr. foley, i heard your testimony yesterday. as i was, of course, in the cloak room. as i said yesterday, even members of the oversight committee know the difference between a joke and corruption. so i recognize that that was a joke. the problem with the joke is what nobody knew at the time was there was honest to good neness

perhaps not as the joke had indicated but some honest to goodness nefarious dealings that have come out since. and as i reported to you, lest you feel that i took umbrage at the joke, i took just the opposite. since the joke had you or somebody had me already on the phone with a conference call questioning some of the excesses. so that wasn't really the problem. the problem was that it turned out that this whole affair was no joke. i must say, i don't understand your title. you have the title of deputy public building service commissioner -- >> deputy commissioner, yes. >> does -- do the commissioners report in the regions, do the

commissioners, building service commissioners, report to you? >> no. >> so what is your function? >> as i said in my opening statement, my primary function is dealing with the office of management and budget congressional committees and other agencies on critical projects, policy issues, and dmishtives -- >> you are basically a policy person, not a person in the line and chain of command for the public service commissioners? >> correct. i have one direct report. >> why did you go to nevada? >> i gave a presentation on the afternoon of my arrival on tuesday on our performance results, key initiatives, and outlook on the capital putting for fiscal 2011. i also stayed to the end for the award ceremony. >> i see. mr. miller. the notion of hats off will have no meaning to the general

public, has no meaning to me. as i understand it, it's supposed to reward employees for meritorious work. would you please describe the hats off program? >> the hats off program was one of many programs at gsa. each program had a different name, in region nine it was known as hats off. >> is it only in region nine? >> no, it was in other regions except for region two. all the other regions had a similar program. the idea was if an employee performed well, they would get a certain number of points. >> who would give the points, mr. miller? >> they could be given by a co-worker, they could be given by a supervisor. >> mr. miller, just a second. they could be given by a co-worker? >> correct. so one co-worker could give points to another co-worker, and the other co-worker -- >> based on, what mr. miller? is hats off for the purpose of awarding something at the end,

after a number of points have been reached? >> yes, you collect the points and you can trade the points in for a prize. under gsa regulation, the prizes could not exceed $99. in region nine, they did exceed $99. they included ipods, digital cameras, similar electronic items. >> mr. miller, what is to keep -- i don't understand the point system. i have a friend, i need some points, how does one have to justify giving points, if you're a co-worker or for that matter a supervisor? >> we found ram pant abuse of the point system and the program. we recommended shutting it down. so i believe that administrator johnson had a review by the cfo, allison dune, who was on the panel. she did a review of all the programs acrt