the minds of the american people about how government is using their tax dollars. there are those who believe governmentgovernment and its red be expanded. they believe that government should be bigger, have more resources, and play a larger role in the everyday lives of the american people. what has come to light surrounding the gsa activities does give us pause for thought, and to anyone who opposes cutting government spending, there is, in fact, much to be cut with government spending. there are five key questions that still stand out, and hopefully by the end of this hearing, some will be answered. first and foremost, why did it take 11 months for this investigation under the obama administration to come to light in a way in which meaningful action could begin?

the inspector general briefed me administration about details, excuse me, about details in an interim report, and gave details of those responsible for gross waste, and yet, indications are that some political appointees believe that even this year this report should be kept private. we at the committee find that outrageous. although it is the custom of many inspector generals to inform this committee during its early interim reporting and prior to the final report, that alone is not unusual. however, the fact that 11 months transpired gives us another reason to say, how long after an interim report is delivered and no action is taken before congress is to be informed? there are still outstanding questions regarding the resignation of arthur johnson as the gsa administrator.

first of all, who asked her to resign? what specific reason why she asked to be resigned for? was it because she was responsible for the event that unfolded at the convention? or because she mishandled the public relations of the fallout that came 11 months later? well, she has been removed as chief of staff. michael roberts is also here today, and he has remained in place. mr. roberts previously served president obama as the legislative council in the senate and served as a personal adviser to the president. it begs the question, are we really to believe that the chief of staff to the gsa administrator and the right-hand man that did not know anything about this for all of this time? and if he did not, should he not have? did he communicate the seriousness of this situation to the white house, and if so, when? why was jeff a regional public building service commissioner

who was the chief organizer of the 2010 las vegas conference, given a bonus approved by the agency's most senior officials even though they know and were discussing sensational details of what had happened at the conference? the question here from the guy is has to be all of the good work, all of the assertions of a good job, -- from the dais has to be all of the good work. and, finally, while we are determined to uncover the full truth about what went wrong and why it is equally important to look to the future, i want to thank the gsa new acting administrator, dan -- i am going to get it right, for being here today and for testifying. he called me shortly after taking the job and assured me,

as one would expect, that he did not know everything, new there was a problem, and would work diligently to fix it. that is all we can ask from the dais, is that when mistakes are made, there are remedies, correction is taken, and that it be done in a professional way with the understanding that the bureaucracy is, in fact, neither republican nor democratic, that either administration faces these problems, and the solution will lot, but pointing fingers to this administration, the last administration, or the next administration. the spending is a problem that transcends multiple administrations, but it is incumbent on the administration to change the culture as best as they can on their watch and leave to the next administration a better one than they inherited. with that, i acknowledge the distinguished ranking member mr.

cummings for his statement. >> thank you. and i would like to begin by thanking mr. miller, the inspector general at gsa, for bringing to light this gross abuse of taxpayer funds. there was work over the past year investigating. two weeks ago, i, along with others, were appalled to learn of this investigation. gsa employees afraid to trust. the inspector general's report described the actions of jeff and exhibited for many years and in the rim. he is certainly not the only official implicated in this investigation, and several others appear to have maximize

their own benefit in an environment in which they knew, they narrow they could get away with it. nevertheless, mr. wall as the host for the 2010 conference has raised some questions. there is an indefensible and intolerable pattern of misconduct, including repeatedly violating federal travel and procurement rules, holding lavish parties and luxury suites, and allowing his wife and other non-government officials to participate in some of these events at taxpayer expense. in addition, documents obtained by the inspector general indicate that mr. neely was

aware that his actions were inappropriate in one case, he invited his friends. and i quote. we will pick up the room tab. it is going to be a blast. end of quote. he then went on and wrote to this. "i know i am bad. as i often say, why not enjoy it while we have it and why we can? it is not going to last forever." well, mr. neeley, m it stops now. it was found death that his wife handled party details, ordering food at not their expense but at the expense of taxpayers. in one case, his wife

reportedly impersonated a federal employee so she could join him in a private sector conference. the impression conveyed by these documents is that he and his wife believe they were agency royalty, using taxpayer funds to bankroll their lavish lifestyle. they disregarded one of the most basic tenets of government service. it is not your money. it is the taxpayers' money. some of my questions today will be about the inspector general recommendation to get some of that money back. i want to know how we can recoup that, including from mr. neeley and other gsa employees personally. i understand they may be examining his actions and that he intends to invoke the fifth

amendment today. that is his right under the constitution, and the committee acts responsibly in respecting his decision. however, i do not support granting him community at this time, mr. chairman. on thursday, the chairman sent a letter to his attorney, suggesting that the chairman was considering immunizing him. on friday, his attorney responded positively, writing that mr. neeley will abide by the appropriate court order and what was set forth. granting immunity is a serious action that should not be entered into lightly, since it could negatively impact the future criminal prosecution or prosecutions. this requires consideration in

consultation with the justice department. our committee has had no consultations about this, and i see no reason to immunize him against the actions for which she stands accused. in addition to addressing the actions of specific individuals, we have to understand how the gsa system allowed this pattern in this case. that happened in repeat it previous cases, and to keep it from happening again. according to interviews by the inspector general's office, these have been going on for years, and especially the 2010 conference, the planning of it was similar to what happened previously. we just kind of preceded based on that. when investigators asked another witness whether the 2010 conference was an outsider, he

said it was pretty consistent with previous conferences, and even though mr. neeley wanted to do better than they did in new orleans in 2008, there was not much difference. let me close by noting that one of the most damaging aspects is that it tarnishes the reputation of hard-working government workers who dedicate their lives to public service. it gives them a bad name and is completely unfair. there are scrupulous employees across this government who follow the rules every single day. they pool their money out of their own pockets just to pay for coffee at their office. they are honest and hardworking. they should not be painted with the same brush. mr. chairman, i think you for calling this hearing, and with that, i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. it was requested that ms.

emmerson will be allowed to participate in today's hearing, and without objection, so world. all will have seven days to submit their opening. we now have the honorable brian miller, the inspector general of the general services the administration. we have ms. martha johnson, a former administration official to the general services the administration. mr. jeff neeley is with public services in the pacific rim region of the general services administration. mr. michael robertson is the chief of staff at the general services administration, and mr. david folate is the deputy commissioner of public buildings service at the general services administration. pursuant to our rules, all witnesses are required to take the oath. would you please rise and raise your right hand to take the oath? do you solemnly swear or affirm

that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the old trick, and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect that all of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. please take your seats. in order to allow time for discussion, testimony will be limited to five minutes. some of you have written statements, some do not. in either case, you may consider your written statement -- they will be placed in the record in their entirety, you can either read your written statement for five minutes or make other such comments which you think would be helpful to all of us. with that, the chair recognizes mr. miller for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good afternoon, chairman -- >> can you pull the microphone as close as you can tolerate it? >> ok. chairman issa, ranking members, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. as you know, on april 2 of this

year, a published a report regarding the gsa mismanagement of its conference in the fall of 2010. it may be very difficult, all of the bad news and repugnant behavior to find, but there is at least a glimmer of news. the oversight system worked. my office aggressively investigated, interviewed witnesses, and issued a report. no one stopped us from writing the report, and no one stopped us from publishing the report. it was said that sunlight is one of the best disinfectant. let's hope so. congress recently strengthened the inspector general, and we thank you for that. it helps us do our job in protecting taxpayer dollars. unfortunately, we may be the last resort for protecting taxpayer dollars, and

unfortunately, catching the fraud, waste, and abuse after the money is spent. more needs to be done to establish early warning systems, and that is why the acting administrator and i reminded the gsa employees to alert us as soon as they see anything wrong. when gsa wastes its own money, how can other agencies trusted to handle the taxpayer dollars? as detailed in my report, the gsa committed numerous violations of contract in regulations with the federal trouble -- travel regulations. this is a concern because other agencies need to be able to look to gsa as a model of how to conduct conference planning. in attempting to model the entrepreneurial spirit of private businesses, and the public buildings service seem to have forgotten that they have a special responsibility to the taxpayers to spend their money

wisely and economically. while the private business may use profits to reward employees and a lavish fashion, a government agency cannot. in preparing the western region conference report, numerous dedicated professionals throughout my office worked long hours to insure that the report was accurate and it drew no conclusions beyond those fully supported by the evidence. it is my hope that these efforts will enable the gsa to improve its conference planning practices in the future, so the gsa may not only be a better stewart of taxpayer dollars but act as a leader within the federal government inefficient procurement and conference planning. thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important report. i request that the report as well as my written statement be made part of the record, and i welcome any questions. thank you. >> thank you.

ms. johnson? >> chairman issa, ranking member, other members, thank you for the opportunity to allow me to have this testimony today. in 2009, i resigned from the general services administration and left my cherished korea as a public servant. i did so to step aside and allow a new team to rebuild the gsa from major missteps regarding the western region conference in october 2010. a previously served gsa in the clinton administration, leaving in 2001. at that time, the leadership was strong, and other programs were producing valley for a customer's. when i returned to gsa in 2010, the agency was not the same. some positions were empty, strategy nonexistent, and many d.r. partnership as a stand, and labour relations were acrimonious.

the leasing portfolio had ballooned. nearly two years had elapsed without a confirmed administrator. my own confirmation was delayed by nine months even though it was unanimous. by the time i was sworn in, -- what i did not know was that there was yet another problem. the western region conference and economical training event in the late 1990's had evolved into a rocket extravagant, arrogant, self congratulatory event, and leaders apparently competed in entertainment rather than building performance capabilities. the planning was well underway when i entered gsa, and i was unaware of its scope. thus, i began my tenure as administrator. i take this opportunity to congratulate the overwhelming the gsa employees, the overwhelming majority of them, his record is extraordinary.

they are more efficient than a privilege private-sector buildings, efficient management of 220,000 vehicles, trip reservations, billions in purchase card transactions. the innovative web sites, and more. as for my part, i said about reconstituting the gsa executive team. over three-quarters of the team are now in different roles than they were when i arrived. customers praise us publicly. the labor partnership is fruitful. gsa has email in the cloud. they renovated the headquarters, which will be home to 4500 people next year, allowing tsa to relinquish leases and save millions. however, this tragedy does not compensate for what was raised by the h.g. and this committee. i greeted the report on the conference without hesitation,

agreeing completely with the recommendations. i am extremely aggrieved by the call by handful of people to misuse federal tax dollars, twist contactor rules, and to file the name of the general service administration. this is hell that chapter unfolded. around late october 2010, the dignity and a straighter requested an investigation into the western region conference. they subsequently communicant progress in may 2011. we realized this was a very serious matter, and we needed all of the facts, however painful and disruptive. we are eager for the full report. in the interim, i addressed a leadership and management. i placed a new regional administrator in region 9, relieving jeff from the responsibility. we also filled the regional council with an internal reassignment. an organizational controls, the

responsibility of the gsa acquisition, the oversight of travel, caucuses, and the like. gsa has already been overhauling conferences. for example, the 50-year-old management conference was evolving from a off-site hotel to a short event at gallaudet. this year, it is a one-day conference. there are the internal conferences, and we better review the expenditures. i believe they would conclude this expeditiously, and we received a report in february 2012. we then began disciplinary actions, controls, and penalized the regions. i accepted the recommendation. i extended disciplinary action to career employees. it is a complicated process that is underway. due to the nature of this evidence, it led me to terminate

two of the employees, and i submitted my own resignation. i personally apologized to the american people. as the head of the agency, i am responsible. i will deeply regret and more the loss of my appointment for the rest of my life. >> mr. robertson? >> good afternoon, chairman. >> i think your microphone is not on yet. thank you. >> that afternoon, chairman, ranking members, members of the committee. thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be before you today. i am chief of staff of the general services administration. this is the western region conference. the trust of those we met -- we serve, the american people? there are the recommendations,

and we have taken strong action to prevent further abuses from occurring, and we will continue to work hard to restore faith. i look forward to working with this committee, and i welcome the opportunity to answer any questions. thank you. >> mr. foley? >> chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. i did not want to minimize the role of congressional oversight. i especially apologize to congressman orton. you have always been a strong advocate for gsa programs while holding us accountable as an agency, and i do not mean to belittle you or your role in any way. i attempted to make a joke in the context of a celebration

that i thought was similar to a comedic rose. as a deputy commissioner, i should have taken this as a serious responsibility. i realize i missed an opportunity to address nearly three under people in my organization and stressed the importance of the work we do. during my presentation at the awards ceremony, i was telling the award recipient that i was making his dreams come true by making him the commissioner for the rest of the day. obviously, that was a joke. i was not giving away any authority. i also made jokes about being commissioner. my understanding is that they were paying for the after evening party, and i tried to use that in a humorous way that they would have to pay for the party in the hotel. finally, i said to be acting commissioner that he would have to answer for the proposed pay increases in the video. my intent was to point out that he has a lot of responsibility and has to answer to a lot of people, 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. i preface the rest of my statement but only saying i have seen the draft report, which appears to be the same as released publicly. i have not seen any of the supporting documents and have not been briefed, so i do not know all of the details. additionally, i no longer have access to my emails or files, so i have not been able to review my memory of these events. this is from what i remember from almost two years ago. concerning the conference, i want to start by apologizing. i was not directly involved in the planning for the conference or any of the financial rand -- irregularities identified in the report. i did attend the conference. there were things that were

seeming to be over the top, but i did not believe they were being paid for by others other than individuals, not taxpayers. had it been revealed, i would have been concerned and would have reported it. i did not have supervisory control or authority over how the original budget was spent, procurement activities, or any of the employee is in the western region. they reported directly to their administrators, who in turn reports to be a administrators office. my primary role as a deputy commissioner was dealing with other federal agencies on policy issues. i am not a contract in officer, and i do not have the power to approve expenditures. i attended two receptions listed in the report, and one was by the commissioner, and i understood he would be paying for the beverages. another was to thank people. at the time, i believe they were paid for by the four hosting

commissioners. i did not believe that any government funds were used to pay for the events after hours. i am spent years of my career working for the gsa, and i believe in the value it provides to other agencies and the country. i am truly sorry for my actions and i apologize to my fellow employees and most importantly to the american taxpayers. at this point, i am willing to take any questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. neeley, you have not provided us with the testimony. do you want to make an opening statement? >> no, i do not. >> it is my understanding that you may wish to exert your constitutional authority and not make any comment. is that correct? >> yes, that is correct. topic iseley, today's about the waste, and you are

poised where you could help us better understand the spending of the $850,000 at the conference in las vegas at 2010. to that end, i must ask you once again to consider answering the questions, so if you will bear with me. mr. neeley, what is your title with the gsa could >> mr. chairman, on the advice of counsel, i respectively declined to answer based on my constitutional privilege. >> did you attend the 2010 western regional conference in las vegas? >> mr. chairman, on advice of my counsel, i'd decline based on constitutional privilege. >> did you approve the funding of the 2010 western region conference? >> mr. chair oh, on the advice of my counsel, i respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> just a few more. >> what was the original budget

for that conference? >> mr. chairman, on the advice of my counsel, i respectfully decline to answer based upon my constitutional privilege. >> 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. > are you prepared to answer any questions about your participation in the 2010 regional conference? >> i respectfully decline to answer any questions today based on my fifth amendment constitutional privileges. >> in light of the fact that mr. neely has asserted his rights under the fifth amendment, i have no questions. >> given the witness has indicated he does not intend to answer any questions, and out of respect for his constitutional

rights, i asked you to excuse him from the table but have him remain for the rest of the hearing. without objection, so ordered. we will now take a very short recess, and i will ask mr. neely and his attorney to join us through that door.

>> i want to thank all of you for your patience. i have served for 12 years. this is the first time we have had somebody to this before, so we wanted to make sure we do it according to the rules. i will recognize myself for five months -- five minutes. i am very troubled by the bonus mr. neely receives.

how can you justify a bonus if mr. miller was at the center of this misconduct? >> there are two processes. one is conduct, and the other is a performance. the conduct was wrapped up in an investigation. >> were you aware that excess money was spent? >> i have received a communication with non conclusive results. i was concerned. i wanted the full picture. the performance reviews are based on maintaining, reforming, and now transforming. i was informed that his process were the models for the nation. i granted him a four.

>> you granted that note for your final. i am going to ask you something not normally asked. would you have found a way to not grant that bonus considering what you knew? >> i am not in that position, but i believe the administrator was free to not give the regional commissioner a good performance evaluation and performance award. she was free not to give those special awards to the regional commissioner. she had in her possession of final report on the employee award program, and that was final. all the facts were nailed down

on that. she had an interim report. >> i appreciate you are able to buy for gates, but did you brevet -- did you relieve mr. neely of some of his responsibilities? >> it was an open communication. it was not an interim report. i received it through the deputy administrator, and they were communicating with us that the investigation was under way. >> let's go through this, and i will make it available for the record. was it a 30-page report the details excess spending and ceremonies, and were you aware

of that? >> i was aware of a power point slide idec, but i did not see it. >> it was not important? >> the deputy administrator saw it and share information with us. >> you personally were responsible for his bonus, but you were not willing to look at the evidence, but i thought was a conduct review. >> you have answered that, and i am sorry you can bifurcate it in that way. mr. miller, does this one incident represents the only time you have seen the excesses? have you seen similar waste spending of taxpayer money in a way that is inconsistent with requirements of law?

>> in region 9, yes, mr. chairman. but this is to use the term widespread. >> we have heard from witnesses but indicated it was widespread. >> certainly five days for our ribbon cutting is another example. are you investigating other activities that might go to the very question of objectivity of officials and democrats we have other investigations. good -- of the activity of officials and democrats we have other investigations, including bribes, possibly kickbacks, but i would have to check. >> this committee investigated

an organization formerly called the middle management service, and we found they were partying with the person they were supposed to oversee. they were taking gifts and favors, and they thought they needed a close relationship with the people they were interfacing with unjustified ignoring several rules. is that similar to what you are seeing in? >> it is similar. good >> i might remind everybody, although we produce scathing reports and try to get abortion ministration to make changes, we fail to do so, and the gulf of mexico was filled with oil because of ongoing failures.

>> mr. miller, as i walked around the district this weekend, a lot of people were complaining about having sex,-- having to write checks to the irs and there were thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in improper expenditures in 2010. they charged expenses for after our parties, and purchased food for non gsa employees. one recommendation you made was to determine whether gsa can recover funds for meals or non- employees. i think a lot of people agree with that. these employees i've played this is their money and they should pay it back -- act like this is their money and they should pay it back.

what would you do to recover the money for employees? >> when dan became the acting administrator, one of our first conversation was about sending a bill to the regional commissioner, the former commissioner, and others responsible for the parties and other expenses, and i believe the acting administrator has sent a bill. i believe he would say he has already taken steps to send a bill. >> if you do not pay it back, what happens? do they have civil remedies? >> perhaps civil remedies. >> in several interviews, witnesses told you they were scared that mr. neely would retaliate against them if they blew the whistle. this is shocking. one employee said if you cross

mr. neely, you are in trouble. the threatened you with poor performance appraisals. when another employee tried to raise concerns, a witness told you investigators that employee was squashed like a bug by mr. neely. those are the threats he allegedly made. are you aware of those statements? >> yes, and more. bias was this a significant factor enabling them to continue this practice for years? >> it is significant. they apparently had a very hostile environment, and when someone spoke up, they were apparently squashed like a bug,

and when other individuals spoke up, they were put down and not in a gentle way, so that is a factor unfortunately. >> this is the same guy mr. johnson gave a bonus 0? >> yes. >> it was not until a high- level employee raised the issue that mr. neely's actions came to light. it seems that mr. neely has a lot to answer for. the chairman has written to his attorney stating the committee was considering a community, and i applaud the chairman. we have agreed, and he has made it clear that he has now indicated when he has no immediate plans to go forward with the community, and i want

to ask you this question. given what you have uncovered about mr. neely and his actions, would you support granting immunity? >> i agree with the decision not to grant immunity. >> would you tell us why? >> i believe it should run its course and if any charges are brought against mr. neely, he should defend himself. all people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and if charges are launched, i think it would be in a court of law. >> let's go back to these threats.

were there numerous people who said they felt fear? >> yes, we had a witness that was extremely afraid, and we made the witness a confidential witness, and even though she has gotten a new job, she was extremely afraid that she would experienced retaliation. >> when they used words like squash like a bug, did you give any idea? >> i cannot go beyond what the transcript of the interview says. >> i take it you were convinced this was totally inappropriate. >> we took it seriously. when he or she said he was

afraid of retaliation. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would like to make sure we understand that when our councils provided that letter, it was based on the assertion that he might take the fifth, and we listed a number of things that could affect somebody, but most importantly, we have a conundrum that often happens, that until you subpoena somebody and they come and take the fifth, any consideration cannot begin, so rather than a conclusion, it was a form letter to make sure this committee stated properly within the bar's determination, but we wanted to make sure it was understood we were hoping mr. neely would reconsider his willingness to cooperate.

sadly, he did not. >> i want to thank you for your collaboration, and i want to make it clear you were in no way going to proceed with immunity during our discussions. >> and none of our investigations have we ever considered full immunity, and we have not even considered use immunity, so i do not expect that would be often, and i suspect we would consult with you will be for doing it. >> i appreciate it. >> we now go to the former chairman of the committee. >> you can call me a former chairman americus. >> when you discuss the preliminary report, did you go into all the details in this report?

this was on may 17 of 2011. >> that is what my calendar indicates, and this is to the best of my recollection. >> you knew about this? >> bindi, and my deputy reached over and said it is unusual we would do an interim report, but it was so you could fix usages. >> did you tell her about of bullying that took place? >> we were aware of the witnesses, but it has been about a year ago. >> that is pretty significant. it seems to me you probably mentioned it in the least. do you remember may 11? you remember this report? >> i do not remember, and i do

not have access to my schedule. >> you do not remember the meeting? >> the inspector general and i met. >> this is not an insignificant meeting. >> i am not saying i do not remember the issues. i cannot place where we had that meeting. i do not have my calendar. >> he talked about the irregularities and the pressure put on employees, and you did not take any action? >> there are a couple of things i must repeat. first, it was not a final report. i asked for the investigation, and i wanted to hear the full context. >> i heard that before. mr. neely had been told he had a lead people, and you kept him in his position, and you gave

him a $9,000 bonus. it seems almost unthinkable. if someone came into my office and said there is someone on your staff pushing people around, if someone was pushing members of the organization of around, i would have taken action immediately. i certainly would not have left him in tests -- disposition, and i would not have given him a bonus. i think this is important. i cannot imagine you seeing this report and him telling you this information and saying, it is just an interim report. we will wait until it is finalized. >> i have great respect for the inspector general. we asked for this investigation. one does not interfere with an investigation. i assumed he would be moving quickly.

>> you wanted to see the final report, but if you knew mr. neely was accused of doing this, and you knew they alluded to him pushing employees around and threatening him, why wouldn't you put him in some position where he could not do it while the investigation continued? i cannot understand why you left him there during the next eight or nine months when you knew what he had done, and even if you did not know for sure, you would have taken the precaution of putting him somewhere where he could not always someone again. i hate belize, don't you? >> i hate allays, too. -- i hate bullies, don't you? >> i hate bullies too. >> and we did not get into that aspect. a lot of it came up in the investigation. >> did you mention that to her?

>> i do not know if we did. >> you said you mentioned it, some course of action. >> it was a coercive atmosphere. we had a witness. >> you told her about a witness? >> no, because it was confidential. what did you give her enough information to where she should have been concerned about this guy? >> absolutely. >> if there was concern, why didn't you put him in a position where he could not do what he was doing for the rest of the end of statehood region rest of the investigation? >> do i only have three seconds? >> you can take your time. >> when i asked for the investigation, susan requested the investigation, and it was very clear it was serious, and

i did not want to move until i had an official, complete, non- conclusive report. at the same time, i did a number of things to manage the situation. i put a regional administrator in to #nine, supervising. we relieve him of his second job. we also immediately appointed a new general counsel for the region when the person retired, because i wanted to make sure we had a good team in the region that i could trust. we also did things about management and who controls. it was important for me not to interfere in the way it would upset the investigation.

you have to understand i was not expected to wait much longer, so those were the circumstances. >> my staff has of me to make sure something is clear. earlier you said you ordered the investigation, and later, you said susan ordered it. >> she asked the inspector general to investigate. i have designated the role of interacting. she did it. >> i want to make sure we do not have any inconsistency. our goal is to get the record accurate, and there will be mistakes. we want to make sure we know when they occur.

with that we welcome the lady from the district of columbia. >> i appreciate this hearing. first, even members of the oversight committee can take a joke. with respect to the joke regarding my role on the committee that has direct oversight over gsa, i think the joke complemented me for my oversight role, because it essentially said norton is on the phone already with you with regards to miss use. >> your clock will begin now. but i would like to clarify when action should be taken, because i have an e-mail with mr. erickson, who on may 3, 2011, did issue an interim

report. our purpose was to alert tsa to potential waste and abuse so they could take steps to avoid future issues. please be advised the investigation is ongoing and no personal action should be taken until you have received the final report. with respect to some notion that may be the officers of the agency or the a administration should have taken action, is it your of your -- your view is that action should not have been taken until april with a final report? >> i believe the e-mail is dated july 25, 2011.

>> it is, but it says on may 3. >> we gave to the interim report. on may 17, we brees the administrator, and in july 25, reads in we briefed the administrator, and in july 25 -- >> when was the final report received from a cracked a final report on the western region conference is april 2. >> that is my question. nothing could have taken place until the final report. >> the e-mailed deals with a house off report as well. -- hats off to report as well. >> does it allude to both or only one?

>> i believe he could use the two. >> what does this refer to in terms of personnel action? >> it refers to the western region conference report. >> that is my question. let me go to the next question. i am seriously concerned about whether we have a culture in the western region, whether we have a culture in the gsa. one conference of this kind has outraged the public enough, but there were suggestions in your report but this was not an anomaly, but several events have taken place, but in 2006 and in 2008 there have been conferences with fairly lavish catering, but this was not an

outsider but rather consistent. are you looking at the conferences of the western region? in 2008 and in 2006, we have a culture that needs closer inspection beyond this particular conference. >> we are looking at conferences in region 9. there have been western regions. there is no western region, first of all. >> are we talking about the same thing? >> we are not. there are 10 regions, which would make it a 11.

it appears regions 7, 8, 9, and tend not together to do a conference, and they did the conference every two years. as far as i know, there is no such thing as an eastern regions conference. it is only the western region. >> having looked at those conferences but were alluded to in 2008 and in 2006, or if not, and you have any intention to look at those to see whether our culture has developed or was developing in these regions in the western part of the united states? >> we are looking at conferences in region 9 right now. older western regions conference will be old.

>> you have any notion there was a culture that needs to be examined and rooted out? that is what i am getting at. >> many of the witnesses say the western regions conference in las vegas was not materially different from the western regions. in new orleans, oklahoma, and lake tahoe. >> we have sent 23 additional letters to other agencies. the committee intends on investigating the practice of conferences, team building. additionally, i would like to make the record very clear. since other regions did not seem to have these conferences, the first question should be why does one need it.

the second one that eggs the worst question in some ways, when i look at new orleans, if you were the western state, who would thing going to new orleans was the logical place to go, since you orleans was not in any of those regions? i think as we look at a pattern that began and continued through every administration since hoover, what we want to do is bring it to an end through this administration, but i think she makes a very good point, and we are going to be expensive in our meetings, perhaps even those paid for by the taxpayer expense so we can give them to each other. >> we go to the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was fascinated by your

opening statement, because you had been to gsa during the clinton administration and return during the obama administration, but it was not the same as when you left. i believe you would have been joining an administration that have a completely different culture, a completely different culture than the bush administration. this is an administration that believes when it is taxpayers' dollars being spent, jobs are being created. that was the crux of the stimulus, and what i voted against because americans believe when taxpayer dollars are being spent, debt is being created. i have some examples of the spending, and you said you were not aware they were being paid for by the taxpayers. this is one example of spending under your leadership.

it includes the conference logo, and everyone was given one of these. this was apparently a blackjack dealer's vest so everyone could feel they were in character when you get a conference. additionally, there is a directory with everybody's picture, and they are assigned roles. additional items were given to the people that were there, including a book on las vegas signed by mr. neely himself. the vest was made in china. they were given the other party favors while they were there. all taxpayer dollars spending, and they were given a commemorative coin. it is a commemorative coin commemorating the stimulus, a

program most americans believe did not work. it is celebrating a program that did not create jobs in ohio, and we have not seen a turnaround in our economy, but the question i have is how much did these items cost, and were stimulus dollars being used for this? it would seem to me that we have a problem that all these items are being purchased and made from china, so we are stimulating china and not the united states. the second thing is what slush funds exist so that these types of money could be moved? who in the organization would ever have that type of authority to use taxpayer dollars to buy a blackjack

dealer's vest with than a vendor logo on it? under you, how is it something like this gets approved for expenditure? what types of funds were used to buy these things? what was your policy with respect to buying things made in america, since all these things were apparently bought elsewhere, including the t- shirts made in of salvador, and i would like mr. robinson to give us a commitment that he will tell us the source of these funds used to buy these, specifically in the gsa's and budget, how is it this kind of money could. laying around to be used in this manner? this is not someone at brazenly violating their authority. this is an issue of money and

in a budgetary process being available to be moved elsewhere, when congress has a traditional amount of priorities, but the money should have been applied to in addition to reducing our national deficit? >> i am just as appalled as you are in. when i learned the extent of them and the nature of them, i began disciplinary action, some of which i cannot share at this point. i fired the people in the chain of command, and i resigned. >> i think you have a slush fund question. >> one other thing, the facts that you continue to say you do not want to interfere with the investigation by not approving a bonus is so outrageous

everyone is shocked. would you assure us you will tell us how this money is available so we can stop this? >> i am happy to give that information to the committee about where these items were purchased. i understand one of the glaring problems we haven't the time is a that these were diffused into the regions. since then, we have pulled the budget into the c.f.o. server there is centralized control. >> we identified as the items. we identified 1008 and $40 for the vest.

success and in a $25 on the coins. doffs $6,000 on the coins. no stimulus money was used. it was paid on government purchase cards. it was taken out of the federal building funds. >> a quick follow up. that is $100 a piece for the best. the coins. they are about $20 apiece. we typically spend $1 apiece, is that right? $6,300? >> yes, that is the total for the coins. i would have to go through the math. >> do you give out challenge coins? >> i have not done that.

>> i am told that i will get a discount if we have your face on one side and mine on the other. [laughter] mr. chairman, i want to thank you for your opening statement. this is not an opportunity for partisan exploitation. this is an opportunity for the oversight to look at an agency where something is dreadfully wrong. thank you for the way you began this hearing. mr. miller, you are the inspector general of gsa. how long have you been in that job? >> i was confirmed by the senate in july of 2005. >> between 2005 and when ms. johnson's office alerted you, were you ever aware of the fact

that excess spending and raucous behavior and inappropriate use of resources was going on in the agency anywhere? >> we always look for that, sir. >> i am specifically talking about this type of -- this is not the first time this has happened. it happened in new orleans, it happened in other locations. did you discover that this kind of thing was going on? it came to a crescendo here. >> we rely on gsa employees to tell us. we did not have hot line complaints about this conference. i do commend the deputy administrator for bringing it to our attention. >> she did that at the direction of the administrator? is that your understanding? >> that is my understanding. we have the administrator here. >> i am just asking you what your understanding was.

>> i view the deputy administrator as the alter ego of the administrator. >> the first time was when susan alerted you to the fact that we think something is wrong? >> she alerted us. we did not get to any hot line report on it. >> when were the events in question? >> october 2010. >> about a month and a half later. >> yes. >> did she indicate to you how she was made aware of this information? >> she said she heard rumors and overheard conversations.

>> it took about nine months, is that correct? >> we started in earnest when she brought the complaint forward. you do have to understand that there are a lot of documents to go through. part of the problem is the funds came from different sources. we had to identify funds on purchase cards, building operation funds, money budgeted -- >> is a complicated affair. >> it is. when you talk to witnesses in turning over the proverbial stone, you find 50 you find 50 more stones. >> ms. johnson indicated that she was a little surprised it took that long.

she indicated that there were many conversations and meetings between you about this and other matters, of course. did you have conversations with the administrator of about the length of time it was taking? were you given interim reports as to what you were finding? >> i believe we had a few. she mentioned the regional administrator was appointed in region nine. in august of 2011, i briefed the regional administrator about the interim report. i advised her to get a handle on the regional commissioners' travel. >> thank you. i only have 25 seconds. one of the critiques is there is too much autonomy for these regional offices and not enough top-down management. i wonder if the two of you would address that.

>> i would agree that there needed to be more central control of these financial structures, yes. >> i agree as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> what is the highest ranking, highest-paid person in each of these 10 areas? when we talk about decentralized control, we're talking about relatively large amounts of people. what would be the highest-paid -- for example, what was his pay? what was their pay? >> i am sorry, congressman. i can see if i can give you the information. >> we appreciate things being centralized, but one of the questions is, do we have high ranking, high paid civil servants in these regions? if we're going to be pulling everything back because perhaps we are paying more with that we should for responsibility not

met. >> my understanding is that in all the regions, the regional commissioners are paid more than the regional administrators. >> more than $100,000. significantly. >> i believe both of them are over that number. >> the regional commissioners are career senior executives. they do pay quite a bit. the regional administrator is a protocol appointment at the gs- 15 level. quite a bit below. >> with whomdid you collaborate the development of your testimony that was submitted? did you collaborate on anybody

in the development of your testimony? >> i wrote my testimony and i discussed it with my lawyer. >> anybody at the white house? >> no. >> why not fire mr. neely? he is still being paid by the taxpayers. he is on administrative leave. this is somebody that took a conference and made it over $800,000. $75,000 on a bike building exercise. $2,000 parties. $6,000 for the stimulus coins. a top hat program that has fraud. why is this still an employee of the united states government? >> disciplinary action has

begun against several individuals involved in planning and executing. >> why does it take so long? you were given this report in february, correct? what does it take to be fired from the gsa? >> we have begun the process for several individuals involved in planning and execution of this conference. >> why did he get a bonus? didn't the president of the united states issue a pay freeze? >> i was not part of that decision. >> you are the chief of staff. >> i was not involved in the bonus. >> who was? >> the administrator. >> why were you giving out bonuses? >> the senior executives were entitled to bonuses under -- i

do not believe the pay freeze affected those bonuses. >> the gentle lady just seemed to say entitled. i thought they were possibly going to be granted. entitlement seems to be a question the gentleman may want to follow up on. >> i did not mean entitlement. >> i think you did mean entitlement. there are a lot of good federal employees that work hard. when you see this widespread abuse of money, and then you, as the former administrator, say they are entitled to it, there is where there is frustration. it is totally unacceptable. for the president of the united states to tell the american people, we have a pay freeze in place, it is totally unacceptable.

let's look at the budget. is there anything wrong with this number that you see? $3.8 billion spent by the administration. these are outlays in the first three years. if there is anything wrong, please let me know. this is the last three years of the bush administration, the first three years of the obama administration. could you tell me about the results.gov? what does it do? >> results.gov allows federal government employees and u.s. citizens to look at and access data about their government. >> when i type in results.gov, why does it come up blank? >> i do not know, sir. >> i am unfamiliar with the

website. >> this is the disconnect. you are the chief of staff. you do not even know what it is. >> i believe the former administrator's reference to data was about data.gov. >> that is not what she said. that is terribly unacceptable. location solvers, the gsa employs people that are full- time planning coordinators. is that correct?

>> they were awarded a $12,000 finder's fee. are we hiring full-time people to be party planners? >> i do not understand that action either. that was one -- >> i struggle to figure out what you do understand. you are the chief of staff. >> we now recognize the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to commend you on this hearing and your opening remarks. this is reconstructive. i want to express my outrage at the subject under investigation, not just for

myself, but for half of the 13,000 federal employees in my district. we have many very responsible public employees, federal employees, who are embarrassed by association because of these instances. i have a question about this idea of conferences. to the extent to which this practice may be common across government. this is not something that is held in every region, but you have any idea the number of conferences, internal conferences, held throughout the organization? >> i do not have a good sense of the numbers. they included about five conferences over 26 months. >> 26 months. that is a frequent number. are there guidelines within gsa for conducting conferences? it is kind of ironic that you have the agency that is responsible for facilities, and

you had to go to a private facility -- that is an example of government spending stimulating the economy, but probably not in the right way. >> there are various policies. per diem, how much people can spend when they travel, what can they be reimbursed for, yes, there are. >> would there be any rules regarding the things that went on here? the hiring of a mind reader, entertainment bling, seven years. are there any guidelines for those types of acquisitions? >> i am not familiar with direct guidelines about mind readers and commemorative coins. our senior executives should be

operating under the common sense, and would be preserving their budgets for other things. >> you have been involved in government for quite a long time. are there rules and other agencies that you may be familiar with better more specific as to the conduct of internal conferences? >> i think the rules governing gsa and policies as they are to plan conferences with an eye to minimizing cost. in terms of minimizing cost, things like commemorative coins, would be impermissible. we do have a discussion of rules with in the final report. when it comes down to mind readers or motivational speakers, in terms of the report, we stayed away from

quality judgments. we are not the experts in public building service. the rules do allow the motivational speaker. if he was mind reading or entertainment, that would not be permitted. >> in terms of the activities and the ancillary materials that were provided, there were violations of agency rules. >> yes. >> in terms of the procurement rules regarding the acquisitions. >> congressman, one bidder to another bidder. that is as much against the rules -- >> gsa is involved in a lot of contracting.

does your office have sufficient auditing capabilities to deal with the many other activities? >> we do all the auditing at gsa. we do not rely upon dcaa. my office has about 300 employees. we have 70 special agents who would interview individuals. i think they have done a tremendous job with this report. i think they moved at tremendous speed, often working 18-hour days and weekends. >> we now go to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you for calling the hearing. this is one of those unusual things.

the same thing happened to me in northwest pennsylvania. we have a slide showing the mission statement. let me go through this. i am not going to read from that. foster an effective sustainable transparent government to the american people. this is the vision part. when you go down to the third bullet point, a government that works better for the american people. sustainability and transparency. the former is for managing resources within the utmost care and an obsession with no waste. it goes down to strategic goals and to offer those solutions to other agencies.

as i look through this, there is no wonder that the american people have lost faith in the government. let me ask you something. there were at least four placed on administrative leave. is that correct? >> regional commissioners, i think. >> regional administrators. >> those are regional commissioners. >> they are on administrative leave? they're still being paid. >> i believe so. >> mr. neely is being paid. any idea what these folks make?

>> i am happy to provide the exact numbers. >> what is the top of the scale? >> $170,000 range. >> i have to tell you, thank god that what happened in vegas did not stay in vegas. the disappointment of these taxpayers to know that the watchdogs, the people -- 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, and dipping into what they have to support a government that wastes more and more of their money. i do not think anybody mind paying taxes if the money is well spent. but they resent the fact that a government that tells them they have to pay more of their fair share cannot come back anywhere.

when you are in charge of it, you cannot even answer the questions, when did you know about it? what did you decide to do about it? who is the watchdog? if the watchdog is being fed so well, why do you even care what goes on? it is so easy to spend somebody else's money. especially when you are not held accountable. it is absolutely ridiculous that the american people have to sit back and watch this. you have a great record of public service. i read your resume. this is very impressive. >> i was at the computer sciences corp. >> in december of 2008? you were on the presidential transition team. mr. robertson, tell me what you did.

>> prior to the position i hold now, i was the associate minister for government-wide policy within gsa. i was the deputy working group lead on the presidential transition team. >> for somebody in the administration who talks about a clear and transparent government, a government that is more answering to the american taxpayers, as a guy who has only been here 14 months, thank god some of us are here now. you have some kind of a magic shield where you stay inside this bubble. to watch what is going on and watch those videos of what happened and knowing the people

i represent in northwest pennsylvania work hard. some of them work two jobs. they watch their tax dollars being spent and wasted this way. it is a shame to have to listen to this and watch as we take the fifth. it is pathetic. i cannot tell you how disappointed i am. >> we now go to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> the outrage is genuine and it is bipartisan. the notion that the gsa should act like a private corporation. the shareholders seem powerless to do much about it. taxpayers should be upset about

that because somebody is writing it off as a business expense. 100% of this wasted money is on the taxpayer. i have a lot of government employees in my area that work hard every day. they work honestly and i do not waste any money. they have not had a raise in many years. these situations are just ridiculous. it goes deeper and more systemic than one individual. you were nominated by president obama? >> i was nominated early in 2009. >> at that time, the position of the administrator, was it vacant? >> there was no confirmed administrator. >> there had not been for a

number of years, right? >> maybe about a year and a half. >> before you were nominated? how long between the time that you were nominated and when the senate voted on your position? >> i had my hearings in june of 2009 and was voted unanimously in february 2010. >> nine months. what was the delay? you had worked as the chief of staff at the same agency in the 1990's. was this activity going on in the 1990's? tell me what the agency looked like in the 1990's. >> the agency was full of hard working people delivering goods and services to the american people. it was an agency that was just emerging from the legislative change for its mandate. in the mid-1990's, it no longer

was allowed to be a monopoly provider for the government. the element of competition was introduced into gsa. that was a tremendous improvement and that it forced gsa to think about what it was delivering. it was a very exciting time. >> i want to read what you had in your written statement. >> a quarter of the executive positions were empty, strategy was nonexistent. labor relations were acrimonious. the information technology infrastructure was inadequate. the federal acquisition institute was atrophied, policies lacked focus. this was what you found different about the agency from the first time you served there? >> yes.

>> that is from a lack of leadership. when you were finally sworn in, what did you start doing about it? >> i worked very hard. the first thing was to try to begin to fill the executive slots. we need the leaders in those positions, and we needed them quickly. >> who would've been responsible for knowing the kind of behavior we are hearing about was occurring? >> the chain of command around this conference would have -- is a matrix. it would have been the regional commissioner reporting to the commissioner of the public buildings service. the regional commissioner reports to the regional administrator. there was no regional administrator there.

>> he was watching himself. >> yes. that regional administrator reported to the senior counsel. >> did you set about to replace those people? >> we were filling the administrator slots, yes. absolutely. >> it is hard to run an agency when nobody is watching anybody else, and there is no oversight. >> it is hard to run an agency when nobody is watching anybody else and there is no oversight. it strikes me as incredible. when this happened, and someone on your staff reported it to mr. miller, is that the first time you are aware this was going on? >> he gave the power point when i learned of the extent that. that is when it hit me. >> no one told you this happened in new orleans in 2008 and for a number of years leading up to this? >> no, i did not know about that.

>> thank you. we now go to the gentleman from oklahoma, somebody who understands budgets very well. >> thank you all for being here. unemployment in the nation was 9.6%. we are in the process -- gsa was in the process of putting a stimulus dollars totaling $5.85 billion. there were conferences in las vegas that had received tarp money at the same time gsa is holding a conference in las vegas at this time. i have gone back through the history. this behavior had gone on for a while. i went back four years before

and noticed in the oklahoma city conference, $323,000 was spent. in the vegas conference, -- to say the previous conferences like oklahoma city and new orleans -- they are not. there was something that was happening that was unique and it was dialing up with incredible speed. you have an incredible career. i mean that in all sincerity. i cannot imagine the incredible frustration on the federal side, of going through the process of people you know should be dismissed, but instead, you have resigned. some of the people most culpable are still there, doing long, drawn-out process of appeals. 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 great federal

employees who work through a judicious process where we can clear the house of people who give the federal government a bad name? >> i will, thoughtful policy discussion about that. i am not sure what i would suggest. there is due process for employees. i appreciate that. there needed to be two officials involved so there is not preemptory decision-making. i would yield to the experts in the personnel management organization. >> i understand. you resign. your office was the office that started the investigation. this would not come to light -- come to light, as your office start it. you resign. people that were directly there, making decisions, going through fraudulent contracts, they are still there. >> yes. i resigned. yes, i believe they are still there.

>> let me mention a couple of things that are jarring. one of them i find very meaningful. try to do charity work with this team-building experience. the frustration is, $75,000 team building experience was designed to give away 24 bikes to kids from the boys and girls club. instead of doing this out of charity, they used taxpayer funds to provide charity event, and then used taxpayer funds to provide an ice-cream party for the children when they picked them up. everyone could feel good, but it was not their money. it was not their time. they were paid to be on the clock to do that. the federal taxpayer paid for the bikes. everybody else felt good. that is one of those moments that we look at and say, where have we gone? doing charity work as a federal

employee has to come from the hardworking american taxpayer rather than engaging from it. the other side is the contract in issue with the sun company in the hotels, not to mention the charity work directly violates gsa policy. it is in direct violation. the sound contract gets preferential treatment over another company. they get free rooms. the hotel contract was negotiated offline separately so we could have additional food. we did not pay enough for this. this is the kind of stuff that make people in my district furious. they come to our office and say, we're trying to get a federal contract that looks like a sweetheart deal is done for some company and no one can validate it. how we start clearing the deck on this so we have fair competition, whether in gsa or someone else? how do we route this stuff out?

>> i believe we have a good oversight process. i appreciate the inspector general is there. it was appalling to me. i felt grateful that someone had the capability to do this investigation. that is a piece of it. as alluded to by some other questions, i think leaving agencies without steady leadership is to lead an agency hanging. although there were able interim administrators, no one had the clout of being confirmed and being able to move in. i think there are a number of different things that could be addressed. >> i thank the gentleman. we did look it up. people could make as much as $109,000, which means they're paid more the members of congress, perhaps we could consider those people on necessary if you are centralizing control.

>> they are paid much more than i am. >> noted. we go to mr. walsh. >> thank you. ms. johnson, without getting bogged down in to conduct reviews vs. performance reviews, why did you give the $9,000 bonus? >> i gave that bonus because i was focused on performance. the recommendation came from the buildings commissioner, who was the direct budgeting supervisor. >> 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? >> i would certainly like to avoid these questions. yes. >> do you wish you had not approved it? >> everything in retrospect is hard to understand.

at the time, i was expecting the inspector general's report. >> i appreciate that. right now, if you could, do you wish you had not approved that bonus? >> i am not sure how i can answer that, knowing what i know about all of the rules. >> 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. what eats at me is the why. why did something like this happen? many of these examples have been pointed out. the $6,000 commemorative coins. did mr. neely think that was his money? >> i have no idea. >> do you think it is your money? >> that is why i was so

appalled. that is why i resigned. i'm a taxpayer. it is the taxpayers' money. >> the $8,000 spent on your books. do you believe mr. neely thought that was his money? >> i don't know what he was thinking. >> do you think it is your money? whose money is that? >> the taxpayers' money. >> the $130,000 spent on six scouting missions to visit las vegas, did you think mr. neely thought it was his money? >> i have no idea. >> do you think it is your money? >> i believe it is the taxpayers' money. >> do you think that $130,000 was your money? >> i believe that money belongs to the taxpayers. >> do you think that was your money? >> i believe it is 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 he was thinking. do you think that was your money? >> it clearly belonged to the taxpayers. >> do you think mr. neely thought it was his money? >> i do not know what he was thinking. >> do you think it was your money? >> no, it clearly belongs to the taxpayers. >> i don't know you. i respect your service. why even joke about of using taxpayer dollars? why do that? all my colleagues have said, rightfully, everyone knows what the american people are going through right now. fort you imagine that $6,500, the average growing taxpayer could find something to do with that? for $8,000 for these a souvenir your books. 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 there were inappropriate. >> what made you feel like you could joke about it to begin with? this culture -- why? why did mr. neely feel he could do what he did? would he have felt that he could have abused his own dollars like that? >> i don't know what mr. neely would have felt. >> mr. johnson, i know you appreciate this. it is not your money. this is what has the american people so worked up. $8,000 is a lot of money. $6,500 goes a very long way for

most families today. i would argue that the invisible man, if he had thought this was his money, we would not be here today. i yield back. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. we have not been able to get a clarification, whether it is 6 or 10 round trips with family in some cases, costing over $100,000 to find out what vegas was like. we go to the gentleman from another region, the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i generally applaud the committee's selection of witnesses. you have left out one important witness in that hearing. that is a 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 am really concerned about a pattern that we're seeing, not

just in the gsa, but in the government about a lack of common sense, it's not being more money. we should have a higher respect for the taxpayers' dollars than for your own dollars. they are giving this to us in trust to spend for them. you look at what is happening in the news today, you look at this convention, you look at the secret service agents. that fiasco happened. you look at some of the things this committee is investigating. lack of common sense. the freddie and fannie bonuses. i would like to ask the gentlemen from the inspector general's office, do you see this pervasive in your agency, or pervasive in the government? gsa agents that i dealt with personally in the district, helping out with some constituents, have been great people.

are we developing in the gsa or the government in general a culture of lack of common sense or in difference about taxpayers' dollars? i priceline hotels. >> all agencies are concerned to protect taxpayer dollars and to get the best value. i think the question was asked, why did mr. neely do this? we cannot get into his head. one reason was that he could. there was a lack of accountability. he was the regional commissioner and acting administer. >> if we have an attitude of, let's see how we can sneak in, or just out right to ignore the rules, the money will continue to fly out the door at a fast and furious pace. >> unfortunately, people know the rules. they know how to skirt the rules. >> that is disappointing. i want to take a second to

point out that this is happening in other government agencies. we need to know about it. this committee has a website. there's a big orange but in there that says, whistle blower. we need to stop this and we need to stop the culture of over-spending in our government. what we have got to do is take rudy giuliani's attitude. start with the little things. we have got to remember, it is not your money. it is the taxpayers' money. you owe them the highest duty with respect to protecting that money. i will go back to the former administrator. i want to commend you for taking responsibility for that and resigning. i wish you had a chance to clean up a little bit more before you were able to go. i do think this is something this committee and the conference meets to look at. how government employees can linger on and on and on, basically on a paid vacation,

when they are on administrative leave. we are getting no value for. the money is going out the door. do you have any comments on that? >> not really. you have heard my thoughts in my statements. i think we certainly were initiating disciplinary action. we needed to it here to do process. that is what we were working with. we are working diligently with the process we had. >> i understand everybody is entitled to due process. 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. i am thinking we need to look, especially in cases of clear misconduct, we need to find a way to expedite this process. pardon me for asking this question, but this is a game of politics.

some people have asked me, your resignation was time 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 about that? >> it was certainly not coordinated with the campaign. i did inform the white house. we were in communication with the white house. they were aware i was resigning from my appointment. >> did the white house ask you to resign? >> they did not. i chose to resign. >> i commend you on having done the honorable thing. thank you for your public service. i am sorry you have to leave on this sour note. thank you. >> with the gentleman yield? >> a quick follow-up. you knew this report was coming. you had 11 months between a scathing preliminary and the final. resigned on the date cannot. when did you decide that he would resign? when did you first know that this report would look the way it did?

>> i knew when i received the draft report it look that way because i had no quarrel. >> you had 11 months warning. >> no, 45 days. from the time they give us the draft -- >> 60 days. >> someplace in there. i did not contest it. i have no reason to. i -- we -- part of what we worked through, because i took the role of running our response myself, is understanding what our personnel rules were and what our legal positions were. as that unfolded, it became clear to me that we needed to do something -- we needed to make a strong statement about how this was so appalling. i decided to resign. i finally came to the decision in my own head about 34 days

before resigned. i had thought about it for the entire six weeks. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. want to continue on this line of questioning. you said over several days you thought about resigning. >> the thought entered my head right away. was this something i needed to resign over? i worked my way through with the discipline was for the various people involved, what other actions we could take, but i came -- and was ready to sit down and write my resignation about three days before. >> did you consult with your chief of staff on that? >> yes. he understood my thinking. yes. >> what was your position in 2007? >> in 2007? it depends on what time. i held two jobs.

>> what were the two? >> in the u.s. and a, this body of the congress. i was a legislative coordinator in the senate. then i joined the campaign for then-senator obama. >> legislative coordinator for a senator? went from working for senator obama to them working on the presidential campaign, to then working on transitioning, to then going to gsa, to then being chief of staff. >> after about 18 months. >> from lc to chief of staff. that is great. congratulations. at what point did you talk to ms. johnson about her resignation? she said she had talked with you about resigning. when did you speak with her? >> she told me she was thinking about it that some point during the development of our response. i don't recall the day.

>> can you give me a month? the first time you talked about it? >> it was between february and april. i believe it was in march. >> who did you talk to at the white house about it? >> nobody. >> you did not convey in writing or verbally to anyone that there is a consideration of a resignation? >> no. to the best of my recollection, i do not -- >> to the best of your recollection. >> to the best of my recollection, i did not talk about the resignation. >> you did communicate something to the white house? >> to the best of my recollection, i did not communicate anything to the white house. >> did anyone from the white house talk to you in writing or verbally about the thought for the idea of mrs. johnson resigning? >> to the best of my recollection, no. >> mr. miller, you said earlier

in your testimony that it was abnormal. i don't recall the words you used. it was not the norm. >> unusual. >> thank you. why did you provide this preliminary information? >> a provided it to the administrator may 3, 2011, so that gsa could take steps to prevent future waste. i am reading from ms. johnson's written testimony that was a medic. we finally received -- let me back up. >> you name the four people that were in that meeting. according to testimony, you are part of the meeting. >> yes. >> in your questioning with the chairmans at the beginning of the meeting, he stated, "i was aware of a power point slide,

but i did not see it." in your written testimony, so maybe you want to clarify, they shared these findings with the four of us, i believe the inspector general briefed her with the power point, but you're saying you never sought. i want to be clear. you saw that back in may during that briefing? >> i have to apologize. but must be because i'm 59 years old. i have no memory of seeing it. this is based on my memory. if i could see my schedule and think about what meeting was in, i might be able to recall it. right now, i cannot recall. >> the last point i want to get to is the rays of mr. neely. i have this e-mail, certainly after you and others were

briefed about this incident. this circumstance. "i spoke to bob yesterday afternoon. he is recommending -- achieving more results in leasing than anyone else. i can support that if the messages that clear.

.

each year, over 100,000 people are shot with a firearm.

20,000 of whom are children. more than 30,000 americans die each year in gun-related incidents, including 12,000 who are murdered. it should be shocking to all americans that they gone homicide rate in the united states is 20 times higher than it is in all other comparable, suppose of the civilized, industrialized countries. so you have to ask, why are gun crimes so much more prevalent in the u.s. than the rest of the world? of course, a good place to start is the fact that we now have nearly as many guns in the united states for every man, woman, and child who lives here. guns permeate our culture.

despite the overwhelming number of guns in the united states and the correspondingly large number of gun deaths, the national rifle association and other gun groups believes the answer to that gun violence, that those guns generate, is even more guns. they want to expand and have been successful in this carry and conceal laws, and in fact, for tax those that use their guns irresponsibly. here in congress, and in far too many statehouses across the country, their side is, in fact, winning, loosening already porous gun laws and blocking the passage of any sensible gun control measures.

in fact, i understand as many as 30 states now have vigilante laws comparable to florida's, thanks to the national rifle association and the american legislative exchange council, who work hand in hand with them, tried to get this legislation through, even though it did not come from any grass-roots effort on the part of citizens. it came from the top, from the nra. working with the legislators. with threats of political repercussions if they do not comply, and of course, rewards, political and financial, when they do. invariably, they have been. there are too many elected officials who are aware of the damage that gun violence does to our society, who understand that this is an affront to our most basic values, the right to life, the right to be able to walk safely on your streets, the right to happiness that has been destroyed by the senseless

want and violence, the happiness of thousands of loved ones who have lost people in their lives in ways that virtually nothing could have been done to stop it. the sadness throughout our society for these inexplicable losses. now, some believe the erroneous idea that any strengthening of gun laws is an affront to the second amendment. others are afraid of political consequences to do what they know is the right thing. either way, it is a failure of leadership. but that is the role of the brady campaign, and each of you here today, to make your voice is heard on this issue and to

let the members of congress know what every poll has demonstrated over the last several years. the american public supports common sense laws that protect communities from gun violence. so as be paid tribute to the memories of those precious lives that were lost five years ago at virginia tech, let us commit ourselves to doing what we can today to do all we can to enact senseful laws that can prevent this tragedy from occurring time and again. we owe a debt -- we at least owe that -- to the lost lives that give us occasion to be here today. thank you all. [applause] >> thank you, congressman moran. the congressman talked about

how it is the role of the brady and the folks here to start holding our congress accountable. i would build on that by saying it is the role of the american public to start doing that, and not just based on the magnitude of this problem, which you are right, congressman, should be shocking to everybody, but because of the shockingly simple solutions that exist. we are here to ask on behalf of the american public very simple questions, like, senator vitter, do you think or do not think that george zimmerman, a man with a history of violence, should be permitted to carry a loaded gun on the streets of any state in the country? we're here to ask questions of representative cantor. do you think a convicted felon should be able to walk into any place in our country and buy a gun without a background check?

these are the simple questions around which our leaders are failing us. we are going to put a laser focus on this and start to hold the people that have been elected to represent us accountable for the decisions they're making, the decision that resulted in many of the tragedy's you will hear about today and the decision that cost thousands of lives a year. now it is my honor to introduce colin goddard, who was there at virginia tech that day five years ago, and will share his story with you. >> good morning. i would like to begin by saying i spend the first year of my life in mogadishu, somalia, and then my family moved to bangladesh. then my family moved to jakarta, indonesia before the events in east timor began to erupt. then my family moved to cairo, egypt during the attacks on 9/11 and the ensuing wars in iraq and afghanistan.

all the while, my extended family living in the states was petrified for my safety, could not wait for me to come back to america where it was safe to live. finally, once i enrolled at university at virginia tech in a small south west virginia town, i can put in the most dangerous situation in my entire life coming here in america. it was that day that started me on this path, but it was seeing what happened to me happen to other families that ultimately brought me here today, which is why i wanted to invite a symbolic group of 32, for the 32 people killed at virginia tech five years ago today, and for the 32 american we lose every single day. some people here were associated with shootings you have heard about, that were on

the front page of the newspaper, and others, shootings that you have not heard about. we wanted to take this day, that everyone acknowledges as the worst mass shooting in our country's history, to acknowledge the greatest tragedy that happens every single day that goes unnoticed. further, we are up here because of what i heard said from the elected leaders after the virginia tech shooting, after the shooting in tucson, after the shootings that happen every single day, that now is not the time to talk about gun violence. now is not appropriate to talk about solutions. so my question to speaker john boehner air, my question to majority leader eric cantor, to every member that works appear, -- up here, on this anniversary of the worst shooting of our country, when is the time? is it going to be tomorrow? which day is the time? which day would it be

inappropriate for you to talk about this issue and to talk about what we can do? it is beyond time for us, which is why we are here. to make you talk about this. to bring this in front of you and demand that you support some common-sense solutions that the vast majority of your people support. i am honored to be here with the 32 families. at this point, i would like to turn it over to them. thank you very much. [applause] >> i now want to introduce my brother matthew, who will say a couple of words about his tragedy. >> hello, i was shot at the empire state building from a guy who got a gun in florida. he was from another country. he shot me in the head. as you can see, i did not die.

but he also killed by guitarist and my friend. what can i say. i would like to challenge everyone to stand up to congress and outlawed guns. thanks. >> now we are going to hear from the rest of the 32, one by one, in alphabetical order. ginnie bishop. >> this is my younger sister nancy bishop langert and her husband richard. nancy was 25 years old and three months pregnant when an intruder broke into their home and shot them to death in cold blood, completely senseless. she was three months pregnant with what would have been my first niece or nephew and my parents first grandchild. he had been diagnosed as a sociopath when he tried to kill his own family by poisoning their milk. i am here to ask congress to

make sure that does not get into the hands of dangerous people, like the ones that it killed my family members. [applause] >> pamela bosley. >> i am here to introduce you to my son that was murdered in chicago. this is my son terrell. my son was 18 and was murdered on april 4, 2006. he helped his friends bring in drums into a church. someone took his life. he was also a son of his family. he was in his first year of college and a gospel bass player, who had the opportunity to play with so many artists. one of his dreams was to become a bass player and travel around the world, but this ended when someone shot him and had 45 -- had an illegal 45 caliber gun. the death devastated my family.

every day my son's pray that nobody gets shot. not one day goes by that i do not think about my son terrell. even though it has been six years, the pain remains the same. no mother should ever have to bury their son. i demand congress get the guns out of that answer from the people that should not have them and bring justice for my son terrell. [applause] >> sherialyn byrdsong. >> this is my husband ricky byrdsong, who for 19 years was a division 1 basketball coach. his last place at coaching was at northwestern university. we met when we were 16 years old, and, for 27 years, we experience the american dream. then on july 2, 1999, our american dream became the american nightmare.

ricky was gunned down in cold blood while he was jogging with our two youngest children, ages 8 and 10, in our quiet neighborhood in skokie, illinois. i lost my husband and best friend, my three children lost a great father. ricky had been the head basketball coach at northwestern and had written a book about coaching your kids to be winners in the game of life. after coaching, he committed his life to developing communities. he was devoted to his family and his faith. the world and my family lost a great man that day. all because of a dangerous man who never should have had a gun. naziy's killer was a neo- with a violent past. he did not just kill ricky. he went on a shooting spree throughout illinois and indiana

that weekend, shooting at 29 people, wounding nine, and killing two. jews, asians, african- americans, anyone who's race was different than his. how could this happen? this neo-nazi was not allowed to have a gun because he was subjected to a domestic violence restraining order. he went into a gun store and was turned down because he failed a background check, but he found an unlicensed gun seller in the classifieds ads, and that is how he got his gun. because the seller was unlicensed, he was not required to do a background check. no father anywhere on this planet, much less in america, should be gone down in front of his children. it is inhumane. why won't congress close this loophole? i learned as a child that the

love of money is the root of all evil. it is a sin and a shame that greed and the money drives our laws instead of consciousness and common sense. i am here today to call on congress to act now, to pack -- pass common sense gun laws, to keep guns away from dangerous people. [applause] >> we are going to ask congress, should the man who shot ricky byrdsong be able to buy a gun anywhere in our country legally? >> i am here to honor the memory of angela denise bayless, the mother of our oldest grandchild, who was shot and killed in the first school shooting here in virginia, the appalachian school of law on january 16, 2002, when people were gunned down and three were murdered.

unfortunately, in the state of virginia -- and i will be addressing virginia, because we have an enormous problem -- we continue to live under the shadows of bipartisan defeat in richmond. many politicians in richmond have fallen prey to their political agendas and fear of the national rifle association, and they have willingly opted to confuse and to cover of these tragedies. the governor's review panel report on the shooting at virginia tech is an example of this cover up, and i have documentation with me, if any of you would like it. the state of virginia paid to the victim's $100,000 for their dead children, spouses, and they paid over three-quarters of a million dollars to a firm that does business with the state of virginia to write a report that covers it up.

that is a conflict of interest by anybody's definition. the report was written to prevent anyone from being held accountable for his or her actions or inactions. we will come here every day, if it will help to wake of politicians to their responsibilities to keep guns out of the hands of those who are violent and are a danger to themselves and others. we are here to honor not only the people we have lost, but all of the victims of school shootings, those who have been wounded, and those who are psychologically scarred by these tragedies. [applause] >> lisa delity.

she is not here. sorry. mindy finkelstein. >> good afternoon. almost 13 years ago, i was a camp counselor at the north valley jewish community center when a convicted felon and mentally ill man who was a member of the arian nation tried to kill me. i was 16 at the time, but i was lucky because he failed that they. for the last 13 years, i have tried to lend my voice to this cause, telling members of congress how there is no reason he should have a gun. for 13 years, i have been brushed aside. no one seems to think this conversation is worth having. but you cannot ignore us today. look me in the eye and say there was nothing any of us could do to prevent a convicted felon and criminally insane man to walk into the jewish community center and gunned down innocent children. you are wrong. you are dead wrong. then this past year my friend brian kaplan was shot and killed

in his friend's garage in the same neighborhood where i was shot 13 years ago. he was 32 years old, he had a two-year old, and his wife was pregnant with twins. the pain that i had was not taken away. i promised myself that i cannot and will not let any more of my friends be killed because congress is not willing to listen to us. oft's why not just because what happened to me 13 years ago, but i speak on behalf of brian's three children who will grow up without their father. for them, myself, and for all those here today, please help us make sure that nobody has to suffer tragedy's like any of us have had to suffer. thank you very much. [applause] >> andrew goddard. >> good afternoon. you have already heard from my son. i am just looking at my watch. i know what i was doing five years ago today at this exact

moment. i was on the telephone with a surgeon, discussing my son's injuries, trying to keep it together for the rest of my family. nine months after i suffered the injury to our family, i went to the virginia general assembly to see what was going to be done to change things in virginia. imagine my surprise when everyone seemed to tell me, now is not the time to talk about such a thing. nine months after 32 people were killed in virginia, it was not time to talk about it. imagine my disgust when i realized it was the time to talk about a bill that would return gun rights to people with mental illness and had said they have now recovered. you cannot do anything to stop someone who is mentally in problems, having difficulties with his life, you cannot stop him from getting a gun, but we should be concentrating on the lot of people who have gone past that point to get guns again.

i have been back there every year. every year is not the time. is not the time to talk about strengthening gun laws, but miraculously, it is the time to talk about weakening them. now after this many years, enough is enough. we are going to do something about strengthening gun laws. thank you. [applause] >> lori hass. >> good afternoon. my name is lori hass. my daughter and family was shot twice in the back of her head five years ago today, and as difficult as it is for me to stand here today, i can only think of the pain and horror and sadness and the utter devastation to those 32 families that morning, and 32 families everyday, because dangerous people have access, easy access, wherever they want, whenever they want, to weapons.

but i am here to challenge and suggest we can fix this problem. a background check is a matter of moments. we have the technology, the means, the matter, and the determination. we are going to see fit at our representatives and our legislators hear our voice and understand that we need to do what it takes to do a background check on every firearm purchasers, and we need to do what it takes to get the record that this qualifiers and those records into the background check system, so that cho, because his background check was not in the system, can no longer buy a firearm. i suspect today somewhere in one of your home towns, one of your neighborhood, your friend, colleague, your child, your uncle, your honor, is being murdered and gunned down by

somebody who had easy access to a gun because they did not undergo a background check and because they -- there does qualifier, whether a felony conviction, mental of conviction, and drug abuse, or the other 60 qualifiers -- those records were not in the system. we can fix it. i am determined to do that. thank you. [applause] >> lori invited me to come up with her. i am a 33rd family member, victim of gun violence. my daughter mary was also shot in the french class at virginia tech in 2007. unfortunately, she did not survive. we have 32 students and faculty members and brothers and sisters, fathers, mothers who are not with us today. several of us spent this past

weekend in blacksburg, it at virginia tech, moralizing their lives and their enormous contributions, and it hardens us that survivors are able to move forward in their lives. it hardens us to know that we are represented on the campus by scholarships, memorial funds, and any number of great remembrances, but the fact remains, and all of our families, there are holes shaped like our loved one that will never be filled, and that is true of every person here and every single family of the 32 people, who every day as you have heard, are shot to death in this country. this should not happen. as you have also heard repeatedly today, the question is, if not us, who? if not now, when? the courts have repeatedly deferred to the congress and state legislatures to do the right thing and proper regulations of public safety to include issues related to gun

violence. but in far too many cases our state legislatures, state executive, and the congress have avoided making those hard choices. here in virginia, -- i should say, right across river in virginia -- our own governor, governor macdonald heard our pleas not to allow the repeal of our one gun a month law, which is common-sense legislation that existed for almost 20 years in the commonwealth, and then allow the bill to become law. in spite of our please. in our case, this piece of legislation slowed the shooter's plans, it did not stop them, but had they worked as part of the seamless web of common sense of gun legislation to include incorporating the background checks for those in adjudicated mentally ill, it

would have probably succeeded in preventing the shooter from getting the fire arms he used. now, i am proud to say that virginia now leads the nation in inserting mental health records into the national instant check system, but there is so much further to go. so in the name of mary, in the name of rema, and in the name of families who are here representing those whose lives were snuffed out by gun violence, i agree with our members of congress, and do the right thing. do not support legislation that increases the availability of firearms to people who should not have them, and do what is in your power to make sure that those firearms do not get into the hands of the people that should not have them. thank you. [applause] >> christine cologne? no? christine? there you are.

>> hi, my name is christina cologne. i am here for my husband, a retired milwaukee police officer. on april 11, 2009, his career ended as a milwaukee police officer when he nearly lost his life in the line of duty from a 9 millimeter handgun at the hands of a nine-time felon parolee who had only been out of prison for six months. the firearm was purchased at a gas station out of the trunk of a car by his girlfriend. dispatch calls for a subject with a gun resulted in a foot pursuit. that quickly turned into a gun battle. the criminal began firing at videl less than 7 feet away. after videl was shot, he returned fire until he stopped the criminal.

videl was shot three times and only one bullet exited. a nine-time felon parolee with a fire arm nearly took his life. vice-president biden and attorney general holder awarded videl the medal of valor, the highest honor given to public safety officers for exhibiting exceptional courage in saving and protecting others in heroic actions or go above and beyond the call of duty. videl and i are here on behalf of law enforcement officers shot and killed in the line of duty, their families and their loved ones, to demand that our elected representatives do all they can to keep dangerous people from obtaining guns. to all those lost or injured officers who were shot in the line of duty, you will never be forgotten.

thank you. [applause] >> let's challenge our leaders to distribute metals of valor for heroism, and to be heroic themselves and stand up to the gun lobby. signed a statement of principle against harming dangerous people. reject the george zimmerman armed vigilante act. is christian here? i did not see him before. kaitlin hinckley. >> five years ago, my mother and sister went to buy my siblings and myself valentine's cards at a mall in salt lake city, utah. they were gunned down by a severely mentally ill 18-year- old who should not have had the gun he purchased. my sweet baby's sister kirsten was killed and my mother will for ever suffer from the multiple gunshot wounds she inflected.

when it all happened, it was all over the news. our pain and grieving was broadcast and everyone in the community was hurting. they felt the pain, the fear, the traumatic loss, and wanted to know what was happening? when they felt like they were a part of it. everyone can tell you where they were when it happened. but when the time came to move on, they were able to turn off their tvs, put down the newspapers, and go back to their daily lives, knowing that their children were tucked safely in their beds. but our families cannot. we live this nightmare every day. we live with the pain and loss of our children, siblings, close friends, and family members. we live with the fear that unless our loss change, dangerous people will be able to get a hold of a legal fire arm and put other innocent people through this intolerable pain of forever wondering who are lost loved ones would be today. for the last five years, i have

constantly wondered who my sister kirsten would be today. i wonder what she would look like, what she would be doing, and what of her many ambitious goals she would have been able to achieve have her life that ended at 15 at that hands of someone who should never have been able to obtain a weapon that ended her life. kirsten missed so much that she should have been here for. most recently, her high-school graduation, and my wedding. i watched as my mother deteriorated before my eyes, knowing there is nothing i can do for her. she will never get better, she will never heal. i live in fear for her and her future, and for the future of my kids that i hope to one day have. it is far too easy for these

dangerous fire arms to get into the hands of the wrong people. gun dealers are not being held accountable. congress is now being held accountable for these weapons that are being sold. we all stand before you today asking you to remember what we can never forget, to say enough is enough, and to demand a change so this does not continue to happen. [applause] >> so far, as i understand, and john boehner will not meet with us. is that right? i ask, after you hear that, is it time now to start talking about this issue? is it time to start talking about what we can do to keep the guns out of the hands of people who are responsible for tragedies like these you are hearing about? nardyne jefferies.

>> good afternoon. nardyne jefferies. my daughter brishell jones was one of the three young people murdered on south capitol street in 2010. nine people were shot with multiple weapons. i am not going to dwell too much on the case because we are still in the trial proceedings right now, but the point is, i am here to support, and will be here to support any and every time that i am needed to support. guns in the wrong hands is not a pretty sight. my daughter was shot in the head with an ak-47. her head was blown wide open. it is hard to talk about. hearing the stories, knowing what you are going through, i can relate.

my father just died from bladder cancer but he had no chance after brishell was killed. he was diagnosed with cancer. he did not have the will to live any longer. elected officials, politicians, activists, all of us as a human society, we need to be a more conscious society. i think it is very selfish of the gun shops, gun manufacturers to take the attitude that we are only making guns for -- whatever the purpose they are claiming to make them for. it is not my fault that innocent people have been gunned down with the guns i have manufactured and have put into my shops. it is your responsibility to be more responsible. you cannot think that manufacturing deadly weapons, you have no responsibility

there. you do. i just want to say to be elected officials, you need to stop thinking in a selfish manner. i guess it has not happened to you, so you feel oblivious to it, you are so distant from it, but you are not. anyone can get a weapon. you can get a gun as easily as purchasing a candy bar. you can buy a gun from craigslist, on the internet, from some wal-mart stores, a trunk of a car, anywhere. for you to have the attitude that, well, i live in a certain neighborhood -- you are not safe.

the bottom line is you are not safe. my only child is now gone. i do not know what it will be like to be a grandmother because i will never have any grandchildren. i will not know what it is like to visit my daughter in college because she was killed that summer. her friends have now gone off to college and are moving along the best they can, but people that take lives, innocent people, they do not realize the devastation they leave behind. it is not just the victims of the lives you have taken and the families who you have forever changed, but you have to think about, in my case, and a lot of the cases -- the pediatricians. it is hard for all of those relationships that have been established with those victims, people have now lost. that void will never be filled again. i am definitely here to go along with the rest of the families to see these senators and let them know that enough has been enough many years ago. i am not going to sit back and tolerate any more mothers, parents, siblings, young people, middle-aged people, being gunned down.

it makes no sense. this is supposed to be a civilized nation. let's start acting like it. representatives, let's get on board. make not be so quick to the almighty dollar. money will always be there. you cannot replace lives. i cannot buy another daughter, no more than anyone else can buy another daughter, father, whatever relationship you had with that loved one. do not be so selfish. be more respectful. we are going to get in the faces of these politicians and we are going to let them know, guns in the wrong hands is very deadly. and it makes absolutely no sense. and we are not going away once the cameras leave. we are not going away when their offices closed. we will keep coming back, just as we have been doing for years, and for many years to come, and we will keep coming back, and we will have more people. unfortunately, until they get

it, we are going to have more casualties. [applause] >> william kellibrew. >> july 2, 1984, i helplessly watched at the age of 10 as my mother jacqueline kellibrew, and my 12 year old brother anthony cephas, were shot point- blank in their faces, right in front of me. he then came to me and put the gun to my head, and he had me beg for my life. as i put my hands together and begged him, please do not kill me, i will do anything, it did not go anywhere. after i pleaded to god, please do not let him kill me, marshall brent williams, who had served 11 and a half years for second-degree murder on the marine base in quantico, va.,

stood up and walked around the room. he let me go that day, but without my leader, my protector, without the person that i would have grown up with to lead me and guide me through this life. at the age of 13, i wanted to take my own life because it was unbearable. but i came from that room, to this hill, to let congress know, guns in the hands of people like marshall brent williams, guns in the hands of people like george zimmerman, do not belong. please. i am coming from that room to plead, to bed with you, and to demand, and to ask you, please reject the george zimmerman vigilante act, and please sign the statement of principle. stand with us 32 here today and the 32 victims that have lost their lives at virginia tech years ago, stand with us today

to make a difference, in all communities across america, stand with us. it is senseless violence. with this kind of model legislation, it is unspeakable, and it is deadly. we have got to do something about it. today, we plan to do something about it. thank you very much. [applause] >> dayna klein. >> good afternoon. i am here today to honor my friend pamela, a very blessed memory, who died in the shooting that permanently disabled me after i took a bullet in the arm to try to protect my then-17-week-long pregnancy on july 28, 2006 in seattle, washington. i feel it is my obligation to

not let the world forget pam, her beauty, her grace, and her commitment to making our country and our world a safer place. in that same spirit, i have made the choice to give voice to not only pam's story and mine, but to the thousands of other people in our country whose lives have been lost and permanently changed due to the horror of gun violence. i am honored to stand here today with other survivors like me who want to be sure the decision makers in our nation's capital have faces, names, and real people to think about when they consider senseless gun control legislation, like the george zimmerman armed vigilante act.

my now 5-year-old son and i call the state of maine home now and i look forward to speaking with retiring senator olympia snowe, who has one last chance in her seat in the senate to make the right decision and stand behind sensible, honest, real conversations about the state of our country and the state of the abundance of fire arms and loss of life that happens every day in our nation. i hope they will remember us, and the other legislators, senator snowe, senator collins, and the other members of our congressional and senatorial delegations, and join the legacy that pam leaves, and that all of us hoped to leave -- that we americans can create a safer

world for the rest of the members of our nation. thank you very much. [applause] >> mary kay mace. >> my name is mary kay mace. my daughter ryanne was the youngest of the students killed in the rampage at northern illinois univ. on valentine's day 2008. ryanne was only 19 when she was taken from my husband and me. she was our only child and the light of our lives. as more information became available about the shooter, i had trouble understanding why someone with such an extensively documented history of mental illness was able to purchase firearms legally. i naively assumed there were laws in place to prevent that sort of thing in the interest of public safety.

through extensively researching gun-control laws and nics, i found out that the good laws that we do have do not go far enough and are somewhat not forcible given the background check system is missing more than 1 million records of people who are supposed to be prohibited purchasers. the public assumes all crimes are committed by hardened criminals with illegally- obtained firearms, and while that may be true in many cases, there are enough instances, such as the massacres at virginia tech, niu, and tucson, where the gunmen were all mentally ill and used legal guns. legislators should now be more aware that these incidents continue to happen anywhere and to anyone, prodding them to act on the problem. in reality, i go to web sites for many candidates for incumbents running for reelection a good to websites for those running for reelection and see that most of them shy away from taking a position on the issue of common sense gun-control. it is not even listed on their issues. i'm here to tell you that gun violence can no longer be viewed as a non-issue in our country. [applause] >> who is going to take a stance

against this? tom. >> thank you. you know, i think there are three particular things that most of us have in common here. we never expected this would happen to us. two, we wondered how in the hell is that shooter got that gun. three, we do not want this to happen to you. my name is thomas. i am the father of a boy killed at columbine in 1999. of two weeks before that he asked me at the dinner table innocently, did you know that there are loopholes in the brady bill? then he bush shot in the gun - by a gun purchased through one of those loopholes. i led the fight in colorado to close that loophole.

when the legislature failed to close it, we took it to a vote of the people and we closed it with a vote of 70% to 30%. [applause] the people clearly spoke up. now i am speaking up again. on may 1st, i will be releasing a book called, "walking in daniel's shoes named because during those days when i was abdicating, i wore these shoes. these are the shoes my son war. he was wearing them on april 20th, 1999. i do it to honor him just as these people are honoring their children. there is no reason we should have to ask our leaders to do

common sense things when you can pass it with a vote of 70% in a conservative state. we should not have to go to the ballot each time. we are asking for the people here, our leaders, to listen to what they are asking for. thank you. [applause] >> brian miller. >> hello. i'm brian. this is my niece. she lost her father. i lost my brother in a massacre that occurred just on the other side of the hill here, the district building in 1994 when a man came into d.c. police headquarters, to the place i

would say you were intent on mayhem that you would avoid. he went into the second floor, opened a door, and started firing. when it was done, he was dead, fbi special agent mike miller and two of is colleagues. since that day, we have been involved as much as we can to make sure the same thing does not happen to other people. mike was killed with a gun illegally sold in kentucky and illegally trafficked to washington d.c. this sort of thing happens every day, in every state, in every city. it is something that makes no sense yet this congress protect the gun industry from top to bottom but allows it to happen. i lived in new jersey. both states have strong at gun laws. neither state allows people to

get guns and carry them loaded and concealed the way that george zimmerman did. why should the people of our state to be able to make that choice rather than this congress trying to make the choice for them? it is unconscionable and it should not happen. we're here to do what we can to make sure it does not. everyone in this country can help keep that from happening if you pay attention to where you're legislate for stand on this issue, research it, and when it comes time for an election, a maker voices heard. if they vote the wrong way, vote them out. thank you. [applause] >> in terms of what the american public can do to hold their leaders accountable, they can go online to our site, bradycampaign.org that allows them to sign a statement of

principle. if they do not sign a statement of principle stating they do not think convicted felons should be able to buy a gun anywhere in in our country than vote them the heck out of office. annette. >> my name is annette. my name -- my life was forever changed in 2007. my only child was murdered when he boarded a bus in chicago's south side. it was loaded with other writers. a teenager boarded the bus and started shooting. he was trying to oppose -- shoot and opposing a gang member. the surviving five teenagers have a violent reminders. i am left without my beloved son.

but me tell you a little bit about who blair was. he was a typical 16-year-old who was very intelligent, handsome, gifted. his teachers loved him. they wished they had more like him. he wanted to be successful in life and he made plans to succeed. his father and i did our best to instill in him values and we tried our best to protect him. our best efforts could not save him from the bullets that took his life. he was in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing. along comes a teenager with an illegal guns on the streets of chicago. how could a teenager get his hands on such a dangerous weapon baxter has to be a way to keep this from happening to other families. there are countless victims to have suffered the same fate because no one has figured out how to stop illegal guns in our

community. if only there were laws, my son would be getting ready to graduate college now, but i guess i will never get to see that. i would just up the legislators would look at all of us here today. we cannot protect our trial from the streets of chicago. he was raised the right way. do something to make it different. it can happen to you. believe me. [applause] >> genet richardson. -- jeanette. >> good afternoon. my name is jeanette and i am here because of of a college student getting shot at right in front of my home, murdered on new year's eve by a high-school dropout with an illegal weapon. when we ask what you is going

to get for the stolen weapons charge, we were quietly told that there would be no illegal weapons charge because of the loophole in the ease that we have of getting guns. any kid can get a gun, they say. i just finished working with at risk models coolers for americorps and that is what they tell me. -- at risk middle schoolers with americorps. he was a high-school dropout. he was at the school of art and design as a freshman, just visiting home. i think that was the first time in the entire time he was gone that i was glad he was not there to see it.

i am a virginian and i want this to end. we have to get some serious regular laws. we are not taking guns from people who want them. we are talking about the people who do not deserve them, the felons, the abusers. that is what we are here to do. that is all. thank you. [applause] >> geraldine rodriguez. >> my son's murder was never charged. 15 years ago in tampa, fla., on december 19th, 1996, a few days before the christmas holidays, my 70-year-old unarmed son -- 17-year-old son was murdered by

someone carrying a concealed handgun. he was never charged. my son, michael, approached an unmarked car and was shot by a domino's pizza delivery driver. he had a gun in his car that he purchased at a pawnshop in tampa. he had the gun in his car against domino's policy. jordan was also behind the wheel of a running vehicle. he chose to shoot instead of driving off. my son was unarmed.

all you wanted was directions. clifford fired and killed him after 5 seconds. my son, once again, was 17, unarmed, sober, and had no criminal record. it was the same kind of fear and hate filled tragedy that we see in the trayvon martin murder in sanford, florida. if clifford had not had a gun, my son could not have been killed. the so-called "self defense charge" prevailed. 15 years after my 17-year-old

son's murder, i continue to fight this travesty of justice. the tampa police department accepted jordan's story even the testimony clearly revealed that jordan shot immediately and placed his own gun in it are dead -- our dead son's hand to convince by standards that he was armed. in the police report, my son was described as "a cuban fog from new york -- thug from new york." my husband and i were born and raised in tampa. we travel to tampa regularly to visit our relatives.

michael was born and raised in princeton, new jersey. after our son's funeral, we visited teheran cox of the florida state attorney's office to request a reopening of the investigation. we wanted the truth to come out for many reasons. the haste and russia in which a self-defense excuse had been accepted by the tampa police. the lies and inconsistencies in his testimony. and the evidence had been brought forth. karen cox flatly denied our plea. clifford jordan was never charged. even the domino's pizza corp.

that claims to have regulations prohibiting its drivers from carrying firearms washed its hands of the killings saying they could not control the actions of their franchises. this seems to indicate to us that they do not enforce or take their own rules regarding firearms seriously. for 15 years, the pain of losing our son to a senseless murder has not been resolved. from a legal standpoint, we have done all we can to seek justice in this terrible tragedy. my heartfelt sympathy goes out to the family of trayvon martin. i respect their courage. i respect their courage.