position that mr. neily did and i would assume some of them are performing admirably. they are trying to serve. every one of those is painted with the same brush now. i encourage you is transparency and sunshine is the best disinfectant for everything. error on the side of overgiving. and i yield back. >> thank you. >> i want to go back to this timeline. so this big trip takes place in october of 2010. there have been nine trips

associated with it. ms. brit ta gets hired and blows the whistle in november. the ig comes in. ig alerts you he's coming in. ig comes back with a document saying we have a problem here. he advises you to get a handle on the travel. then your chief of staff goes to the white house and lets them know there's an investigation going on in regards to fraud and wasteful spending. then we have a new appointee, ruth cox. she's advised.

because you didn't take care of it. a trip to hawaii in november. a five-day trip to atlanta for a nontraining conference. then to the south pacific. she alerts mr. miller. mr. miller alerts you. and yet he's still allowed to go on it and his wife, their birthday trip? you don't see a pattern here? a pattern that you've been aware of for the last year and a half. but you took immediate action.

then in march this year, last month, a four-day visit to hawaii again, a trip to na pa. >> i did not know about the trips. i knew the ig has said -- >> you knew about the vegas trip. you heard them when? >> i learned about the vegas trips. i learned about the vegas

conference in september 2010. when i understood that my senior counselor was going to attend a conference. that's when i learned about the conference. >> so you knew about the conference and the trips before the ig came in. >> no i did not. the ig informed me of the preplanning conference. it was through our investigation, which my deputy requested that we learn the extent of the expenditures, the contracting violation. >> so you were made aware and you had a meeting with mr. peck, ms. bre ta and several others. did they go on anymore trips? >> i do not know about mr.

neily's travel. >> you didn't know about any of his travel? >> i did not track his travel, no. >> did you know about any of his travel? did anybody tell you he had upcoming trips? >> i believe that -- summer in august there was a meeting of all of the regional commissioners in austin. i believe he was there. >> we are cutting government. we are seeing cuts to veterans. the president sees it's a big issue. there's seniors being cut. and the inspector general comes to you --

>> to the regional administrator. he said that himself. in august he informed the administrator she needed to get a handle on his travel. i had just put her into office. did the ig get it wrong? >> i did speak to the regional administrator in august of 2011. and i told her to get a handle to get control of mr. neily's travel and to perhaps get her f cfo to look at his travel. in may i went through the interim report that has the eight preplanning trips to las vegas. and exactly who was at these trips, which includes mr. neily

at many of them. >> what was the immediate action you took when you received this report from the ig. >> there were a number of things i did. i appointed ruth cox into the regional office. i also began the process of creating a centralized office the chief administrative services office pulling in the oversight for travel, conferences, number of other things. and we continued to streamline and shorten conferences gsa runs and we were quite focused on reducing their size and scope. i can give more detail if you like. >> ms. norton?

you had done such an incredible job. and everyone recognizes you had had had a very distinguished career. one thing that those of us who have been in the federal government are used to are goa reports. oim not here talking about other reports. and what agency has and supervisors do when they see the gao on the job is to rush to get

in front of the goa report so by the time it comes out, they are able to say we have already done x, y, z. here you had virtually run an agency before and then you ran an agency, which is why i think you're getting these questions. you're not a novemberist. you had a story career. it's hard to understand why you were not treated and let me go to the bonus. the bonus much like i treat someone or i'm sure most people do when you're asked to do a recommendation. the first thing i think about is, wait a minute. this is on me now. if i recommend that person and that person messes up, my reputation is attached to that person.

you had a specific recommendation after the report. that mr. peck -- no, neily, excuse me. was to receive a "three." apparently he lobbied and got a four. i understand mr. peck can be persuasive. your own committee though had looked at all the circumstances and come out with a three and you had had knowledge of, or you knew or should have known about the interpret report and that involved the commissioners. it is hard to understand why you didn't understand that you would be implicated personally after you knew the interim report was out and what it had said if you

actually raised this man beyond what your own committee had said. that's why it's difficult to understand how in lielgt of your interim report would have felt it necessary to give mr. neily a bonus. that's what it is. a bonus. a bonus recommended by you overruling your own committee. i wish you would make us understand what was it that mr. peck was offered factors that overcame the committee. overcame the interim report. make us understand why you would have raised that from a three to a four. >> there are two responses i can give. the first is as i have said, i

treated the interim report as inconclusive. it was not the final report. had i had -- >> in other words who thought -- wait a minute. mr. miller, weren't the allegations in the interim report substantiated and wasn't the point of the interim report to say that there were other things that were going to come out? and not that what was in the interim report should not be given value. in fact, your deputies say you should give it value. that's why we bring it to your attention. >> right. what's in the interim report is that there's a problem. we may not have the precise numbers. you know, we may adjust the numbers from the interim report to the final, but this was basically it. she also had had the final hats off report that was final at the

end of june. and she also had -- >> and hats off was under mr. neily. >> correct. and there were accusations that went to his conduct. >> yes. identi identified in that report. when i briefed administrator johnson, i also mentioned he was less than candid in our opinion to our special agents when interviewed. >> congresswoman, if it was just short of a final report, why did it take nine months to get it to me? >> are you criticizing the ig for not having rushed through to the report? he provided you with an interim report knowing full well it's taking him longer than he expected. he was finding far more problems than he expected. so he said why don't i do something to alert the top

people so they know how to proceed. i'm glad he didn't go faster. he uncovered much by not going faster. and by the way, he's still at it it. so i was -- were i to have had the final report when i made the bonus decision, i would not be here explaining about a bonus. >> this is a good point for us to transition back to me and follow up on that same question. let me go through what you did know. you knew they spent four times what they were budgeted. it says that it right here. you had this report. you discussed it with mr. peck. you knew they had 300 people that went to las vegas.

you knew they spent money on a variety of trinkets. you knew about the hats off program. you knew about the preplanning meetings and the dry run. 31 people went to a planning conference. 20 people, eight, 15, 65 you knew about the comped rooms. you knew there were many individuals taking these trips. you knew about the venders. and the possibility of improprieties and kickbacks. you knew about the team building exercise. you knew about the clowns and the videos and the $75,000 for

the bicycles. you knew there was a legal question that was brought up and then swept under the table because they didn't want it in writing. you knew about the coins printed up for this. the $6,000 stimulus coins. you knew about the spending $3,000 for the one conference in vegas alone. you knew they didn't follow legal requirements. again several laws being broken. you knew this went well beyond neily. but i think neily provides the best example of why this goes to

the level of fraud, waste, corruption and had he been here today, we'd have a lot more questions for him as well. but he has a good reason to have a lawyer. i've looked at both of this original a year and a half ago as well as the final draft. one thing is clear to me and also miss norton. it doesn't take a look to look at the pictures, parties, see the birthday parties, see the families and friends that are traveling, and understand that there's an ig -- the first ig investigation going on may have last year you had this information i have in my hand holding right now that i just went through on a top line. i can tell you i wouldn't have had anybody traveling. i wouldn't have given anybody bonuses.

especially when the president that apointed you had a directive. and your chief of staff michael robert son lets the white house know last sun and you still allowed neilly to take these trips and you knew about it? how is that immediate action? i'm surprised that the administration that the president didn't take immediate action. i'm assuming that somebody in the white house, somebody in the administration said how is that i.g. report coming? that investigator come up with anything else? we saw a copy of this. it's pretty bad. if he's giving you regular meetings, i would assume the white house would have somebody going this is going to really look bad. maybe we ought to get some regular meetings too.

maybe we need to put mr. neily on administrative leave in may of last year rather than waiting until the american public finds out about it. nothing happened for a year? and you allowed the trips to continue on? multiple conferences? i mean i can appreciate mr. tanker lee knee coming in and suspending the 35 conferences that are scheduled. how are they even scheduled? how didn't you stop those conferences? i'm amazed that with a recommendation from mr. miller that more wasn't done to stop this over the last year. mr. miller, i want to go back to something you said. you're going to be exhausted by the end of this week.

i assume all of you will be. i don't know -- i'm a freshman. but i have not seen four committee hearings on any topic yet. but yesterday mr. cummings asked you a question. it took nine months to investigate. were you commune kalting with her regular ri about the progress in the investigation and you replied back, yes we provided information, the briefing and i asked her to get a handle on the rcs travel. you testified to that yesterday. do you -- did you misspeak yesterday or did you misspeak today? >> i must have misspoken yesterday. i specifically told the regional administrator to get ahold of his travel in august of 2011. i did brief administrator johnson in may of 2011 on the

interim report. she saw the preplanning travel. i did tell her about the less than candid comments. >> how much did you meet with ms. johnson? >> we met may 17th i think and then we met again in august. maybe twice in august. >> were you also meeting with others that worked in -- >> they are in constant contact.

>> how often do you think you communicated whether it's between staff to staff or you with mrs. johnson. how often is it? >> we communicate several times a week between our staff and staff at gsa. and i know that my deputy communicates regularly with the deputy administrator and i believe they did so about this investigation. >> did anybody from the administration contact you? >> no one from the white house has ever contacted me. i have never spoken to them. >> so several times a week, the oig contacted gsa and let them know? >> did you let them know? >> no. because it's an investigation.

and we need to keep it confidential. when we contact people throughout gsa, it's about many matters. we're involved in audits. we're involved in many things. so the contact between my office and gsa are on many topics. >> let me understand. my time is expired. i will come back to this. ms. norton? i think one of the members said we ought to just get rid of gsa. it's precisely because gsa

serves a function in the government and it's such a serious matter. we have to do it the hard way. and i'm looking -- i'm trying to be as remedy oriented as i can. on the one hand, there are issues of misconduct. either the law enforcement system, our hearings will bring out some, or the system within gsa are going to fair those out. but we're still going to be left with the existing structure. i believe in good personnel. but i don't believe the government or any other agency or private business can always assure that there will be precisely the people in charge who will keep things going. so i am therefore, looking very carefully at the structure.

ms. johnson, the structure you found in place had been put in place by an acting gsa administrator. he is aparentally responsible for the present structure of the region at gsa. now the regional administrator is a political appointee. but under mr. proudy, that administrator apparently was made no more than a figure head. you say you appointed ms. -- i

forget her name. >> ruth cox. >> yes. the new administrator. but as it appears from his organization of the committee -- of the gsa the regional administrator had direct control over the two commissioners. the pbs commissioner. z and you have the reporting straight up that we have talked about today. it looks as though this person you appointed was something like a figure head just the way the cfo also called a gsa was a figure head and yet you kept

this structure. this structure put in place by an acting gsa administrator when you could have looked at it and seen it seems to me that your own -- seems to me your own commissioner. he makes sure these reports around the regional administrator and straight up to the commissioners, the respective commissioners. that means if i'm coming in, i'm looking at less authority for me because my own person there no longer has the authority that he did before. why did you accept this

organization -- this former organization was not put in by presidential appointee, but someone who acted when there was no presidential appointee. he may have gone over into two administrations and left in place this structure that we have now with a series of figure heads including at the regional level where mr. neily was able to do his jo work when he was both regional administrator of course, and pbs commissioner didn't matter because proudy before him had reorganized the place so that the regional administrator wasn't left with much authority any way. now proudy is on administrative leave because he is implicated in what happened in region nine. could you tell us whether you're satisfied with the structure you

found in place and why you left it in place? >> well, the structure that i found in place was one in which the regional administrators did the performance reviews of the regional commissioners. so they were not toothless. they weren't just figure heads. they gave performance reviews to the regional commissioners. the regional administrator had to review the commissioners. they signed off on it. they got input, but they signed off. >> so what did they have to do with budget? what did they have to do with function? >> this is the matrix. because they would receive their budgets from their and the shifts that happened was