crisis that was pretty descriptive about how he thinks a lot of policies v haveeered off track. >> it was surprising. any time he talks about the president is usually in a negative tone. the over-regulation when dealing with dodd-frank and health care reform, things -- these are things he hammers away. c + is not the best grade you can get. he seemed like he had some nice things to say about how the president handled the economy going forward them to one topic we did not get to his potential bilateral trade agreements with china. is that in the offing? >> he has spoken about it before

but we have not heard much beyond that. the partnership is being negotiated now which asian countries and does not involve china. he has reason i spoke about a bilateral trade agreement but nobody else has done that yet. >> governor romney has been a real hardliner on this issue so the chamber might be conflicted. which candidates policies they will push them to do you foresee mitt romney meeting with the u.s. chamber in the next couple of months? >> i think it would make a lot of sense because he seems to have a real alliance with the business community. some people might see it as preaching to the choir. some people are firmly behind him. it might be expected. >> this might be seen as overly

political toward the national scene. gentlemen, thanr being here. >> thank you. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> they said the u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars.

colonel coward said don't send money, send me a officers that can oversee this stuff, i need more people

the official at the general services administration scandal invoked his fifth amendment rights. he allegedly organized in october, 2010 gsa conference in las vegas that cost more than $800,000. he has since been placed on administrative leave and martha johnson resigned a few days before the agency's inspector general released a final report on the scandal. mr. miller has recommended criminal charges in a referral to the justice department. this hearing is just over three hours.

americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them as well spent. americans deserve an efficient and effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and reform committee is to protect these rights, our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. it is our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the american people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is our mission statement.

citizen watchdogs includes the inspectors general. we're here today to get answers to questions that should have been asked and answered long, long time ago. the details that have come to light about the gsa conference held in las vegas have raised serious questions in the minds of the american people about how government is using the tax dollars. there are those who believe that government and its origin should 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 gives us pause for thought and to anyone who opposes cutting government size and spending that there is much to be cuts in 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 would begin? some say this report should have been kept private and we find this outrageous. it is the custom of many inspectors general to inform this committee during early interim reporting and prior to a final report, that alone is not unusual.

however, the fact that 11 months transpired gives us a particular reason to say how long after an interim report is delivered and no action is taken before congress is to be informed. there was still outstanding questions involving the resignation of martha johnson, a gsa administrator. who has to resign? what is the specific reason? was it because she was responsible for the events that unfolded at the convention or because she mishandled the public-relations war fallout that came 11 months later? martha johnson has been removed as chief of staff and michael robinson, who is here today has remained in place -- michael robertson. he previously served president obama in the senate and served as a personal adviser to the president. are we really to believe that the chief of staff of the gsa

communicated properly? why was jeff a building service commissioner who was the chief organizer of the 2010 conference given a bonus approved by the agency's most senior officials even though they knew and were discussing sensational details of what had happened to the conference? the question from the dais has to be -- all the good work and assertions of a good job if you have this kind of abuse, can they balance out to be a positive bonus totaling over $900,000 deb?

we want to determine the full truth about what went wrong and why it is equally important to look to the future. i want to thank the gsa's new acting administrator, dan congrini ? i will get a ride much sooner. he told me shortly after taking the job -- he assured me as one would expect that he did not know everything and knew there was a problem and would work diligently to fix it. that is all we can ask is that mistakes, when made, are remedied and corrective action is taken and it be done in a professional way with an understanding that the bureaucracy is in fact neither republican nor democratic and that every administration faces these problems and solutions will not come by others pointed fingers to this administration or the last administration or the next administration.

wasteful spending is a problem that transcends multiple administrations but is incumbent on the present administration to change the culture as best they can on their watch and lead to the next administration -- and leaves the next administration a better one. i recognize mr. cummings for his opening statements. >> thank you very much. i want to begin by thanking mr. miller, the inspector general at gsa, for bringing to light this gross misuse of taxpayer funds. i was appalled to learn the results of this investigation, that gsa employees could be made this way. the inspector general's report

describes the actions of jeff a career gsa employee for many years and senior level executive of the pacific rim region based in san francisco. he is certainly not the only official implicated in this investigation and several others appear to have maximized their own benefits in an environment in which they know they could get away with it. nevertheless, mr. neely's role has raised significant questions. he engaged in an indefensible and intolerable pattern of misconduct including repeatedly violating federal travel and procurement rules, holding lavish parties in luxury suites, and allowing his wife and other

non-government officials to participate in some of these events at taxpayers' expense. in addition, the documents indicate he was aware his actions were inappropriate. in one e-mail, he invited personal friends to the conference, writing, we will get you a room near us. we will pick up the room tab. it will be of glass. did he then wrote this. -- it will be a blast. he then wrote this. i know i am bad. why not enjoy it a wild weekend? -- while we can? might as well enjoy it. it stops now. his wife directed to the actions of federal employees and

ordered thousands of dollars in food at the expense of taxpayers. in one case, his wife reportedly impersonated a federal employee associated joining him -- so she could join him in a private conference. mr. neely and his wife to believe they are some sort of royalty to use taxpayer funds to bankroll their lavish lifestyle. they disregarded one of the most basic tenets of government surface and -- servers. it is not your money. is the taxpayers' money. some of this will be about efforts to get this back.

good are want to know how to get some of -- i want to know how to get some of this hour. i understand he intends to invoke the fifth amendment. that is his right. however, i do not support granting immunity at this time. on thursday, the chairman sent a letter to his attorney, suggesting the chairman was considering immunizing him. on friday his attorney responded positively, right thing that he will abide by the appropriate court order in 32 writing he will abide by the

appropriate order. granting immunity is a serious action that should not be entered into lightly, since it could negatively impact prosecution. such a decision requires consultation with the justice department. our committee has no consultations about this, and i see no reason to immunize him if he has taken the actions of which he stands accused. in addition to addressing the actions of specific individuals, we need to understand how the system allows this pattern, the extent to which did happen, and the reforms to prevent it from ever happening again. according to interviews, these activities have been going on for years. when discussing the 2010 conference, one witness said

the planning was similar to what happened previously. we proceeded based on that. when investigated, asking another witness whether the conference was an of lawyer, he said it was pretty consistent with previous region was -- whether the conference was an outlier, he said it was consistent. one of the most damaging aspect is it tarnishes the reputation of government workers who dedicate their lives to public service. it gives them a bad name, and it is unfair. we have employees who follow the rules every single day. they pull their money out of their own pocket to pay for coffee at the office. they are honest and

hardworking, and they should not be painted with the same brush. i thank you for calling this hearing, and i yield back. it >> i now ask unanimous consent that our colleague from missouri be allowed to participate in today's hearing without objection. all members will have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. we now introduce our panel. the inspector general of the general services administration. , brian d. miller. martha johnson is a former administrator of general services administrator. jeff neely is the regional commissioner at the general services administration. mr. michael robertson is chief of staff at the general services administration, and david soleil is the deputy commissioner.

-- david foley. witnesses are required to take the oath? the you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? as the record show that all witnesses have entered in the affirmative. some of you have written statements. some do not. your written statements will be placed on the record in their entirety, so you may either read them for five minutes or make other such comments you think will be helpful. the chair recognizes mr. miller for five minutes the reagan >> thank you, an -- for 5 minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. as the ranking member, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. as you know on april 2 i published a report involving miss management of its conference in fall of 2010. it may be difficult among all the bad news to find, but there is a glimmer of good news. the oversight commission worked. my office interviewed witnesses and issued a report. good no one stopped us from writing the report, and no one stopped us from issuing the report. congress recently strengthened,

and we thank you for that. it helps us to our job of protecting taxpayer dollars, but we may be the last resort for protecting taxpayer dollars and capturing 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 told the employees to warn us as soon as they see anything wrong. how can other agencies trust them to handle taxpayer dollars given to them? gsa committed numerous violations. this is of special concern, because other federal agencies need to be able to look to gsa of the model of how to conduct

planning. as an attempt to model entrepreneurial spirit, some seem to have forgotten they have a special responsibility to the taxpayers to spend their money wisely and economically. while a private business may use profits to award employees and a lavish fashion, a government agency may not. in preparing the western conference report, numerous dedicated professionals work long hours to ensure the report was accurate, and it drew no conclusions beyond those fully supported by evidence. it is my hope this will allow gsa to improve its lending practices in the future so that tsa may not only be a better stuart of taxpayer dollars but act as a leader in federal government.

i thank you for the opportunity to discuss this report. i request the report as well as my written statement be part of the record. >> thank you, ms. johnson. >> thank you for providing the opportunity to present his testimony today. on april 2, 2012, i resigned as administrator and left my cherished career as a public servant. i did so to step aside and allow a new team to rebuild from major missteps, regarding the conference in october, 2012. i've previously served in the clinton administration. at that time the administration was strong, and other programs were producing much value for our customers.

when i returned in 2010, the agency was not the same. strategy was nonexistent. major customers reviewed our partnership has said gant, and -- as scant and leasing hand alone. more than two years have elapsed. my own confirmation was delayed by nine months. by the time i was sworn in, four administrators had overseen the agency. i did not know there was another problem. the conference and economical training event in the 1990's had a evolved into an arrogant, self congratulatory event that the little federal workers. members competed in entertainment rather than building performance capability. the expense of planning was

under way, and i was unaware of the scope. the slide began my tenure. i take this opportunity to congratulate those whose record is extraordinary, building a portfolio 22% more efficient, and efficient management of 220,000 vehicles, billions in purchase card transactions. as for my part, i sat about -- i set about changing. when the strategic path is clear. customers praise us publicly. the labor is fruitful. headquarters held 2500 people. it will be home to 2400 people

this year, allowing us to save millions. -- 4500 people next year. this does not compensate for the issues raised by this committee. i greeted mr. miller's report without hesitation, agreeing completely. i am grieved by the gall to this use tax dollars. this is how that chopper unfolded -- chapter unfolded. deputy administrators and requested an investigation. they subsequently communicated progress. in may of 2011 we realized this was a serious matter, and we needed all the facts. we were eager for the full report. i addressed leadership and

conference management. i place a new leadership. we also backed the council with an internal reassignment. i established a chief administrator's office reporting to me with responsibility for acquisition. they have already been overhauling conferences. the research management conference was evolving from an off site to a hotel to a short event. we also capitalized -- categorized expenditures. i believe they would conclude judiciously.

we then began judiciary actions, revised budgets to penalize the regions. i accepted recommendations. i extended disciplinary action to career employees. it is a complicated process that is under way. this led me to terminate two employees, and i submitted my own resignation. i personally apologized to the american people. i deeply regret this. i will mourn for the rest of the life the loss of disappointment. -- of this appointment. >> thank you, members of the committee. thank you for allowing the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is michael robinson, and i am chief of staff. i am appalled and disappointed by the indefensible conduct

outlined in the report. the behavior undermines the core mission, the trust given to us by our customers and the trust of those we ultimately serve, the american people taken strong and who action to prevent further abuses from occurring, and we will continue to work hard to restore faith in our mission. i appreciate the opportunity to appear today and look forward to working with this committee and welcome the opportunity to answer any questions. thank you. >> chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. i'm the deputy commissioner of the public buildings service. i sincerely apologize for my remarks at the awards ceremony for the western regions conference. at the time of my remarks, was not aware of the significant spending irregularities. i do not intend to condone

wasteful spending or minimize will congressional oversight. i especially apologize to congresswoman norton. i have the utmost respect for you and have always been a strong advocate for gsa, holding us accountable and i did not mean to belittle you in anyway. i attempted to make a joke in the context of a talent celebration in the context where i perceive it to be a comedic growth. we have a serious job and responsibility of taxpayer funds. i realize i missed an opportunity to address nearly 300 people in my organization and stressed the importance of the work we do. during my presentation at the awards ceremony, i told the award recipient i was making his dreams come true by making him commissioner for the rest of the day. obviously, that was a joke. i was not delegating any authority. i joked about some of the obligations of the the commissioner. my understanding at the time was the commissioner was paying for

the charges associated with the after-hours party on tuesday evening, so i tried to use that in a humorous way that suggested there would have to pay for the party at mattel. finally, said he would have to answer for his proposed pay increases. my intention was to point up the commissioner has lot of responsibilities and has to answer to lot of people and congress, not to mock the oversight roles. i take full responsibility for what i said. i understand the outrage about conference, my comments, and how they have inflamed at all of the issues are on this event. i have only seen the draft report that appears to be the same of what has been released publicly. i have not seen as supporting documents and was not brief by theig and do not have the details. i no longer have access to my e- mail or files, so i can no

longer verify my memory of the events. this is based on my memory from two years ago. i want to start by apologizing. i was not directly involved in the planning for the conference or any of the financial and contracting irregularities identified in the inspector general's report. i did attend the 2 1/2 days of the conference. there were things that did seem over the top i believe there are not being paid for by government funds. in the past, things like tuxedo at after-hours parties were paid for by individual. because of the regional reporting structure in our agency, i did not have supervisor robert control or control over how the budget was spent or over the employees. the regional commissioners reported to regional of ministers who report to the administrator's office. my primary role is dealing with omb, congress and public

officials. i'm not a contracting officer and do not have a warrant to approve expenditures. i attended two of the events. one hosted by the commissioner and one to thank everyone for their help. i did not believe any government funds were used to pay for the events that occurred after hours. i spent the last 15 years of my career working for gsa and i believe strongly in the agency's mission in the value it provides to our country. i'm truly sorry for my comments and apologize to this committee, the administration, fell please, and most importantly, the american taxpayers. i'm willing to take any questions you have. >> mr. neely, you have not provided us with any testimony before the committee. do you wish to make is to

request for >> i do not. >> it is my understanding from your council which may want to remain silent and the three constitutional privileges. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the topic of today's hearing of waste andulture spending. you are uniquely positioned to provide testimony to help the committee better understand the spending of more than $850,000 at the conference in las vegas in 2010. to that end, i must ask you once again to consider answering questions. if you will bear with me. mr. neely, when is your title at gsa? >> mr. chairman, on the advice of counsel, respectfully decline to answer based on my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> did you attend the 2010 western regional conference in las vegas customer >> on the advice of my counsel, i

respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> did you approve the funding for the 2010 western regional conference quest for >> on the advice of my counsel, respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> what was the original budget for that conference? >> on the advice of my counsel, i respectfully decline to answer based upon my fifth amendment constitutional privilege. >> mr. neely, 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 year today about your participation in the 2010 western regional conference? >> mr. chairman, i respectfully

decline to answer any questions your today based upon my fifth amendment constitution. >> in spite of the fact he has asserted his right under the fifth amendment, i have no questions. >> given the witness says he does not intend to answer any question and out of his respect for his constitutional rights, i do now ask the committee to excuse the witness from the table for -- but to have him remain for the remainder of the hearing. without objection? >> i have no objections. >> without objections, so ordered. we will not take a very short recess and i would ask mr. neely and his attorney to join us through that door.

>> could we have the clerk remove mr. neely's name? i want to thank all of you for your patience. i've served for 12 years, mr. cummings for longer, this is the first time we have had somebody do this before one of my committees. we wanted to make sure we did

exactly according to the rules. with that, i will recognize myself for five minutes. miss johnson, but -- i appreciate your opening statement and werke said you did, but i am very troubled by the bonus mr. neely received. how can you justify a bonus for somebody that you knew at the time of his bonus for mr. miller in fact was at the center of this misconduct? >> congressman, there are to process these. when they conduct process and one is a performance process. the conduct process from which i could discipline someone was wrapped up in the investigation. >> i appreciate that -- were you aware access money was spent at that conference, a significant excess? >> i have received a communication from the inspector

general was non-conclusive results. i was concerned and wanted the full picture. when we moved to the performance cycle, the reviews for senior executives are based on maintaining and transforming an organization. i was informed his leasing process these were the model for the nation. leasing is one of our critical issues. i granted him a four. >> mr. miller, you gave the preliminary from 11 months before your final. i'm going to ask you not normally ask of an inspector general -- which to try to find a way not to grant that bone is considering what you knew and had briefed on concerning mr. neely and others? >> mr. chairman, i am not in that position, but the administrator was freed not to

give the region nine regional commissioner a good performance evaluation and performance award are special act award. she is free not to give those special awards to the regional commissioner. she had in her possession a final report on the hats off program and that was final. that went final at the end of june. all of the facts were nailed down on that. >> i think you have made your case that it was a discretionary and the discretion was yours not to grant that. i appreciate you are able to bifurcate some of these, but let's go through -- did you in fact relieve mr. neely because of the interim report as you said your opening statement? >> it was an opening communication. was not an interim report. i received it to the deputy

administrator and the ig was giving us, communicating to us that the report, the investigation was -- >> let's go through this. it does say this is for fiscal use only. was this a 30 page report that detailed the excess spending and ceremonies and so on? were you aware of that? >> i was at -- i was aware of a power point slide back but i did not see it. >> it was not important enough for you to see? >> the deputy administrator of seen it and shared the information with us. >> you personally were responsible for mr. neely's bothas but you are not personally willing to look at the evidence of why he should receive a bonus? >> that was a conduct review. >> you have answered that and i'm sorry you can bifurcate it

that way. mr. miller, does this one incident represents the only time you have seen the kind of excesses' in this and other units? you do not have to be specific on ongoing investigations, but have you seen similar waste, excess spending of taxpayer money in a way that is inconsistent with the requirements of law or at least the intent? >> in region 9, yes. >> so this was to use the term, widespread? >> we do not have a report concluding that. we have heard from witnesses that indicate it was widespread in region 9. >> five days for a ribbon cutting is another example. >> yes. >> do you know, with specific examples, do you know or suspect or are you investigating other conduct including kickbacks, bribes and other activities that

might go to the very question of the objectivity of purchasing and other gsa officials? >> we do have ongoing investigations, including all sorts of improprieties, including bribes, possibly kickbacks, but i would have to check back precisely and kickbacks. >> this committee some years ago, when i was in the minority -- we investigated and organization formerly called the mineral management services. we found that in fact they were partying with the people they're supposed to oversee, there were taking gifts and favors, and they thought they needed to have a close relationships with the people there were interfacing with and justify ignoring federal rules as to gifts based on that. is that similar to what you are seeing at gsa? >> yes. very similar.

we are investigating this sort of things. >> as the ranking member, i might remind everybody that even though we produced scathing reports on the mineral management service and tried to get people should ministration and obama administration to make changes, we failed to do so and the gulf of mexico was filled with oil because of that agency's ongoing failures. i would now recognize the gentleman from maryland and granted an additional one minute. >> as i walk from my district is weakened, a lot of people were complaining about having to write checks to the irs. based on your report, there were tens of thousands of dollars in improper expenditures in 2010. gsa employees stayed in luxury resort suites, a charge expenses for after-hours parties, and purchased food for non-gsa

employees. those first few examples. one of the recommendations you made is -- "determine whether gsa can recover funds for meals and non-employees per "a lot of people agree with that. these employees acted like this was their money and now they should pay a back. what can you do to recover funds from these federal employes? >> one of our first conversations with the acting illustrator's was about sending a bill to the regional commissioner, a former pbs commissioner, and others responsible for these in-room parties and other expenses. the acting administrator has sent a bill and is on the next panel. i believe he would say at least taken steps to send a bill.

>> if they do not pay it back, what happens? do you have criminal or civil remedies to get it back? >> perhaps civil remedies. >> in several interviews conducted, witnesses said they were scared mr. neely would retaliate against them if they blew the whistle. this is shocking to the conscious. one employees if you crossed mr. neely, you are in trouble. he threatened you with poor performance appraisals. when another employee tried to raise concerns about extravagant conferences, the witness told investigators that employee was "squashed like a bug." by mr. neely. those are the kinds of threats allegedly made. are you familiar with these statements? >> yes, i am, sir.

those statements and more. >> was this retaliation by mr. neely is significant factor in enabling him to continue its inappropriate actions for years? >> it is a significant factor. they apparently had a hostile environment and when someone spoke up, they were, according to the witness, squashed like a bug. another witness said one individual spoken, they were put down and not in a gentle way. that is a factor, unfortunately. >> and this is the same guy that they had given a bonus to? >> ps. >> it was not until high level democrats raise this that it came to light? it seems -- let me ask you one

final question. the chairman has written to mr. daley's attorneys saying he was considering -- mr. neely's attorney saying they were considering [unintelligible] he has indicated he has no immediate plans to go for with community -- and want to ask you this question. i agree with a chairman absolutely -- given what you have uncovered about mr. neely, and its actions, which you consider granting immunity and would it be a good idea? i have made it clear the chairman is not going to do that. >> i have made it -- i agree with the chairman's decision not to grant immunity. >> can you tell us why that is? >> i believe the criminal justice system should run its

course and if any charges are brought against mr. neely, he should defend themselves. he does have a fifth amendment right and all people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. if such charges are lodged against mr. neely, i think the appropriate place is in the court of law. >> let's go back to this retaliation and threats. during investigation, 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 that witness, even though she had left and got a new job, with extremely afraid that even in her new job she would experience retaliation. >> when they used words like "squashed like a bug," where

these things people had done that had actually come to light? >> i cannot go to the transcript of what was said. >> were you convinced this was conduct that was totally inappropriate? >> we took this very seriously and we believed our witness when he or she said he or she was afraid of retaliation. >> would the gentleman yield? >> of course. >> when are councils provided that letter, it was based on the assertion he might take the fifth and we listed a number of things that could effect somebody, but most importantly, we had the conundrum that often happens in the law which is until you subpoena somebody and they come and take offense, any other consideration can't actually begin.

rather than a conclusion we would consider its reform letter to make sure this committee state properly within both the d.c. bar's determination but also quite frankly, we wanted to make sure it was understood and we were hoping mr. neely gave testimony only three weeks ago would reconsider his unwillingness to cooperate here. sadly, he did not. >> thank you for the clarification. that helps tremendously but i want to make clear that you were in no way going to proceed with the community -- during our discussions. >> in none of our investigations to date have we ever considered full immunity, transactional immunity, and we have not even considered use of immunity.

i do not expect that would be a often and i expect we would consult with you before doing it. >> thank you. >> we now go to the former chairman of the full committee. >> you can call me chairman emeritus. >> should i emphasize the americas? >> mr. miller, when you discussed the preliminary report with miss johnson, did you go into all the details for most of the details of this report? >> i believe i did. >> this was on the 17th of 2011? >> yes. that is what my calendar indicates. >> she knew about these accusations on may 11? >> in deep. my deputy leaned over and said this is an unusual we would to an interim report, but it is so you can fix future abuses. >> did you tell her about the bleeding that took place? >> i think we may have alluded

to witnesses that were afraid of retaliation. i am not positive. has been about a year ago. >> that is pretty significant. if there were people pushing other employees around, it seemed you probably mentioned it at least. >> congressman, i apologize, i do not remember the meeting and do not have access to my schedule. >> you don't remember the meeting? >> the inspector general and i met with some regularity. >> this is not an insignificant report. >> and not saying i did not remember that issues. i cannot place where we had that meeting. >> you can remember the time or date? >> i do not have my calendar with me. >> he talked about the irregularities and mentioned the pressure put on employees if not believing. you did not take any action?

>> this was -- i asked for the investigation and i wanted to hear the full context. i did not want to work with non- conclusive -- >> it you had been told he had believed people or push them and you kept him in his position and gave him a $9,000 bonus. it seems almost unthinkable -- if someone came in my office and said there is someone in your staff pushing other people around, and i don't have a staff anywhere near the number of people you dealt with, but if someone was pushing members of the organization around, i would have taken action immediately and certainly would not have left him in his position and certainly would not have given him a bonus.

i wish he would elaborate a little more because i think this is important. you have seen this report, talking to mr. miller and his associates, and telling you this information. >> i have great respect for the inspector general and he and i have worked together a great deal. we asked for this investigation. one does not interfere with an investigation. he was moving quickly and would be giving me the final report. >> you wanted to see the final report. but if you knew mr. neely was accused of doing this in the interim report and he alluded to him and -- pushing employees around it threatening him, why would you not put him in some kind of position where he couldn't do that while the investigation continued? i cannot understand why you left him there during the next eight or nine months when he knew what he had done or had a good idea and even if you did not know for sure, you would have taken the precaution of

putting him somewhere else where he could not bully again. i hate belize, don't you? >> i do, too. >> if i could, the bullying and coercive atmosphere, we laid out the facts at the may 17 meeting and did not get much in to the policing aspect. a lot of that came up later in the investigation. >> did you mention anything about that? >> i don't recall if we did. >> you did mention the course of atmosphere. >> we did have a confidential witness. >> you told her about the confidential witness? >> no, because the witnesses confidential. >> did you give her enough information to where she should have been concerned about this guy? >> absolutely.

>> if there was concern about mr. neely, why did you not put him in a position where he could not do this again for the rest of the investigation? >> what i asked for the investigation, when susan requested the investigation and as we received that internal communication, it was very clear that it was very serious and i did not want to move until i had a complete, official, conclusive report. at the same time, i did a number of things to manage the situation. i put a regional administrator in to region 9, supervising mr. neely. he did not have a supervisor in the region and we appointed a supervisor in june. we also immediately reported new

general counsel for the region when that person retired so that i wanted to be sure we had a good team in the region that i could trust. we did things around management controls, but it was implored to me not to in any way interfere in a way that would upset the investigation the inspector general was doing. i have to understand i did not think it would take nine months to complete. i thought it looked complete and was not expecting to wait that much longer. those were the circumstances. >> my staff has asked me to make sure one thing is clear. earlier, you said under oath that you ordered the investigation and later he said susan ordered it -- >> my deputy administrator. she asked the inspector general

to investigate. i designated to her the role of interacting with the inspector general. >> i just wanted to make sure we did not have any inconsistency. our goal is to get the record of accurate. it will be mistakes made not want to make sure there clarified before they occur. with that, we recognize the gentle lady from the district of columbia. >> i appreciate this hearing. i want to assure mr. foley that even members of the oversight committee can take a joke with respect to the joke about my committee which has direct oversight of the committee. far from belittling me, i think might -- i think the joke complemented the because it said norton is on the phone already with regards to one of the abuses.

>> your clock will begin now because we figured that was the joke portion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just like to clarify when action should have been taken because i have an e-mail from a man who appears to be your deputy, mr. erickson, who on may 3, 2011 did issue the interim report can and said the purpose was to alert gsa to potential waste and abuse so gsa could take steps to avoid future issues. please be advised the it -- the investigation is ongoing and no action should be taken until you have received the final report. with respect to some notion that maybe of the officers of the

agency were administration should have taken action, is it your view that personnel action could not have been taken until april, and the final report was released or have become numb? >> i believe the e-mail is dated july 25, 2011. >> it says on may 3. >> we gave the interim report on may 3 to ms. johnson and the deputy administrator. on may 17, we personally briefed the administrator. on july 25 -- there is a second report -- >> when was the final report diluted to -- alluded to? >> april 2 was the absolute

final date. >> out as my question, nothing could have taken place until the final report? >> the e-mail deals with the hats off report that was an employee reward program. we get a draft report on the same day in may. >> does it allude to both or only one? >> i believe mr. lee had confused the two. >> what does this refer to in terms of personal action? >> it refers to the western regions conference report. >> that was my question. thank you. no action should be taken until the final report. i am seriously concerned about whether we have a culture in the western region, a culture in the gsa, one incident of this kind, one conference of this kind has

outraged the public and of, but there were suggestions, mr. miller, in your report that this was not an anomaly. that similar events or conferences have taken place. that in 2006 and 2008, there had been conferences with fairly lavish catering, that this was not a liar, but -- not an all outlier, are you looking at conferences in the western region, we have a culture in the western region that need closer inspection beyond this particular conference?

>> we are looking at conferences in region 9. there are many conferences in region 9. >> that is the western region? >> there is no western region. >> are we talking about the same thing? >> we are not. there are 10 regions of the gsa and the district of columbia would make that 11. 7, 8, 9rs that region's and 10 got together to do a conference ended the conference every two years. they called the conference to western regions conference. as far as i know, there is no such thing as an easterner region's comfort for southern regions conference. >> have you looked at those conferences that were alluded to in your report in 2008, 2006, or

do you have any intention to look at those conferences to see whether a culture had developed or was developing in these regions in the western part of the united states? >> rep norton, we are looking at conferences in region 9 right now. the older western regions conferences will be old already. the 2010 conference -- >> do you have any notion there was a culture there that needs to be examined and readout? that is what i am getting at. >> the witnesses, many of the witnesses say the western regions conference in las vegas was not materially different than the previous conferences in new orleans, oklahoma, and lake tahoe. >> we have sent 23 additional

letters to other agencies. the committee intends on investigating the whole practice of conferences, team building. i would certainly like to make the record very clear since other gsa regions or groups that could make a region did not seem to have these conferences, the first question under any administration should be why does one need it? the second that begs the worst questions when i look at new orleans as a location, if you are the western state, who would think going to new orleans was the logical place to go, if new orleans is not within any of those regions? as we look at a pattern that began and probably continued to every administration since hoover, what we want to do is bring it to an end under this administration.

i think the gentle lady makes a good point in her questions and we're going to be expensive and are looked up unnecessary conference meetings, perhaps even challenge what is paid for at taxpayers' expense. with that, we go to one of the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. >> thank you. i was fascinated by your opening statement the issue said he had been at the gsa during clinton's administration had returned after the first year of the obama administration but was not the same gsa that he left because when you returned after the for sure the obama administration, you would have been joining an administration that a completely different culture than the clinton administration and bush administration. this is an administration that believes one government spending is occurring and taxpayer

dollars are being spent, that taxpayer dollars -- taxpayer dollars being spent, jobs are being created. the american people believe one taxpayer dollars are being spent, debt is being created. i have some examples of that spending gsa is doing. he said you're not aware taxied is being paid for. this is one of those -- tuxedos were being paid for. this one includes the conference logo and everyone was given one of these. this is a blackjack dealer's best. everybody could feel as if they are in character when they get to the conference. there are given a participatory directory that has everybody's picture, and they are signed characters and rolls. one is assigned sammy davis jr., elvis, celine dion. additional items were given, including a then and now book on

las vegas signed by mr. neely. this was printed in china. the best was made in china. they were given other party favors while they're there. all gsa spending, tax payer dollars spending. they were given a commemorative coin. we'll call it a gambling ship for this aspect. it's a commemorative coin commemorating the stimulus. a program most americans believe did not work. it is celebrating a program that has not created jobs in iowa and has not seen a turnaround in our economy. the question i have is how much did these items cost? were stimulus dollars used for this? i'm talking to brad miller earlier and i appreciate his hard work.

it would seem to me that we have a problem that all of these items are being purchased and made from china and we're stimulating china and not the united states. the second is what slush funds exist in gsa that these types of monies could be moved? it's not just an issue of who approved it, but who would ever have that type of authority to use taxpayer dollars to buy a blackjack dealer's best with an event logo on it? i want to know under you, how was it that something like this gets approved for expenditure? what types of funds were used to buy these things? what is your policy with respect to buying things made in america, since all these things were apparently made elsewhere, including the t-shirts participants were given which were made in el salvador.

i would like mr. robinson to give us an answer that he will give us a commitment and tell us the source of these funds that were used to buy these, specifically in the gsa budget, how is it this type of money could be laying around to be used in this manner? this is not just an approval process, this is not just somebody brazenly of violating authority, this is an issue of money and a budgetary process being available in gsa to be moved elsewhere when congress has a tremendous amount of priorities and needs in this country and those moneys should have been applied to reducing our national deficit annually. >> i am just as appalled as you are by those examples of expenditures. when i learned about the extent of them and the nature of them, i began disciplinary action, some of which is confidential

and i cannot share at this point. i fired the two political people in the chain of command to me and i resigned. >> i think you have a slush fund question in there. >> one of the things before we go on, the fact you continue to say you don't want to interfere with an investigation by not approving a bonus is so outrageous that i think everyone in the room is shocked. not approving of bonuses not interfering in the investigation. will you tell us how these moneys are available so we can on a congressional basis stop it? >> i am getting that information to the committee. my understanding from the report is that one of the glaring problems we have at the time was that the budgets were defused out into the regions. since then, as part of the response to the report, we have pulled the budget back into the central office so there is

centralized control over the budget. > we now go -- i'm sorry -- >> i just wanted to clarify on pages 11 and 12 of the report, we identify those items, $1,840 vests. bes $6,300 on the coins. as far as we can tell, the money was paid on government purchase cards and taken out of the federal building fund, building operations. >> that is $100 apiece for the best and the point is about $20. for those of us who buy them out our own pocket it's about $1 apiece. $6,300? >> yes.

$6,325 is the total for the coins. i would have to go through the mass. -- through the math. >> @ do you give out challenge coins? at quantico, you can have them made for about $1 pretty have to ask how gsa can spend $20 having a maid. >> i am told we would get a discount if we of your face on one side and mine on the other. >> that would certainly give great value for its rarity. >> mr. chairman, thank you for your opening statement reduce track exactly the right note. this is not an opportunity for partisan exploitation, this is an opportunity for the oversight and government reform committee to look at an agency or something when dreadfully wrong and i think mr. chairman,

you struck just the right town as to the ranking member and i thank you both for the way you began this hearing. mr. miller, you are the inspector general. how long have you been in that job? >> congressman, i was confirmed by the senate in july 2005. >> 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 perhaps inappropriate use of resources was going on in the agency anywhere? >> we always look for that, sir. >> i'm talking about this kind of conference. this happened in new orleans and at some other locations. did anyone ever bring to your attention or did you discover independently this kind of thing was going on so that you could intervene to prevent what is

sadly came to a crescendo here? >> we rely on gsa employees to tell us. we did not have hot line complaints about this conference and i do commend the deputy administrator for bringing it to our attention. >> she did that at the direction of the administrator? >> that is my understanding. we have the administrator here. >> i'm asking you what your understanding was. but she acting alone or at the direction of martha johnson? >> i view the deputy administrator as the alter ego of the administrator. >> although you have been on the job since 2005, the first anyone in the agency alerted you to this kind of excess was when susan, acting on this johnson's behalf, alerted you to the fact that something is wrong here? >> she came to our office in

december 2010 and alerted us. we did not get any hot line report. >> when did the events in question occur? >> october, 2010. >> did she indicate how she was made aware of this information? >> she said she had heard rumors and overheard conversations. >> your review of this matter took about nine months, correct? >> we started in earnest when the complaint was brought forward. you have to understand there are a lot of documents to go through, part of the problems are the funds come from different sources, and to identify funds on purchase cards and building operation funds and money budgeted --

>> it is a complicated affair? >> it is, and when you talk to witnesses in turning over a the proverbial stone, you find 50 more. >> it took nine months. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. johnson indicated she was surprised it took that long. she also indicated there were many conversations and meetings between you about this and other matters. did you have conversations with the administrator about the length of time and was taken -- the length of time it was taking? >> we had a few and she mentioned the regional administrator was appointed in region 9 in august of 2011. i personally briefed the administrator about this report and advise her to get a handle on the regional commissioners

travel. perhaps you could have the financial officer take a look. ask realing to quickly. one of the critiques of gsa is there is too much economy for the 10 regional offices and not enough top-down management. i wonder if the two of you would address that. >> in light of this incident, i would agree there was and therefore needed to be more central control of the financial structures, yes. >> i agree as well. >> thank you. >> with the gentleman yield? >> absolutely. >> what is the highest-paid person in each of these 10 areas? when we talk about these centralized control -- decentralize control, we're talking about relatively large amounts of people. for example, mr. neely, what was his pay or the person you put

over him in the region? what was their pay? >> i'm sorry, i don't know. i can see if i can get to that information. >> mr. robinson, do you know? we appreciate things being centralized but one of the questions is do we have high ranking come high paid civil servants in these regions and if we're going to be pulling a reading back because they're not responsible, perhaps we're paying more than we should for responsibility not met. >> my understanding is i believe in all of the region's car regional commissioners are paid more than the regional administrators. >> more than $100,000? >> significantly. i believe they are more than that. >> the regional commissioners are career senior executive service positions and they do pay quite a bit. the regional administrator is a

political appointment gs 15 level. >> miss johnson, with whom did you collaborate your testimony that was submitted? did you collaborate with anybody in the development of your test request for >> i wrote my testimony and discussed it with my lawyer. >> anybody at the white house? >> no. >> anybody at the gsa? >> no. >> mr. neely is still being paid by the taxpayers. he still on administrative leave. still taking a salary. this is somebody who took a budget of $250,000 and spent more than $800,000 and built bicycle for $75,000. $2,000 in room party. the souvenir book at a cost of

$8,000 to the taxpayers. $6,000 for the coins given out at one of the to $30,000 parties. there are only 300 people at this. a recognition program that has fraud. my question to the chief of staff is why is he still an employee of the united states government? >> my understanding is disciplinary action has begun against several individuals involved in planning and executing -- >> why did it take so long? you were given this report in february. what does it take to be fired from the gsa? what there is a longstanding process employees are entitled to. we have begun that process >>

you are telling you are not involved in any sort of bonuses? >> i was not involved in that bonus. >> the administrator? why were you getting out bonuses when there was a pay freeze? >> senior executives were entitled to bonuses, i don't believe the pay fees affected those bonuses. >> the gentle lady just seem to say entitled. i thought it was they were possibly going to be granted. entitlement seems to be something to follow on. >> i did not mean in title. >> i think it is exactly what you meant. there are plenty of patriotic

people who are frugal with their money but when you see is widespread abuse of money and view it as the tumor -- say as the former administration, is a totally unacceptable. for the president of the united states to look the people in the eye and say we have a pay freeze in place while you are getting bonuses and going on trips is totally unacceptable. let's look at the budget. put up the budget graphic. is there anything wrong with this number that you see over here? $3.8 billion spent by the administration. these are the first three years. if there's anything wrong you see it that graphic, please let me know. this is the last three years of the bush should ministration, the first three years of the obama administration. can you tell me about results .gov? what does it do?

>> it allows, among other websites, federal and government employees in u.s. citizens to look at and accessed data about their government. >> so when i type that end, why does it come up blank? >> i don't know. >> you are a bit chief of staff. >> i'm unfamiliar with the website. >> this is a disconnect -- she cites this as one of a handful of great accomplishments at the gsa and you don't even know what is? >> i believe the former administrators reference to data -- >> that is not what she said. she said results.gov and it's blank. i did not even go to it until you highlighted in your testimony and i would appreciate the gsa getting back to us. that's unacceptable. location solvers. the gsa employees people are

full time planning coordinators', correct? >> that is my understanding. >> in this situation, location solvers are hired and were awarded a $12,000 finding feet. are we hiring people to be parting planners -- party planners then this goes out and gets a commission? >> i did not understand that action either. >> i struggle to figure out what you do understand and what you do know. or the chief of staff and we expect you to understand these things. >> 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. 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, questions, when did you know about it? what did you decide to do about it? who is the watchdog? well, why do you even care whatit is so easy to spend

somebody else's money. especially when you are not held back and watch this. public service. 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. when this happened and somebody reported it to mr. miller, was

up the first time you are aware this was going on? >> when he gave us the interim, communications power. was when i learned. >> nobody had reported this behavior in new orleans and 2008? >> no. i did not know about the other conferences directly. >> thank you. >> thank you. we go to the gentleman from oklahoma. somebody who understands budget very well. >> thank you for being here. i am going to run through a couple of things that strike me. during the time of this conference, at that same month, unemployment in the nation was 9.6%. we are in the process -- tsa was putting on stimulus dollars totaling 5.8 $5 billion. -- $5.8 billion. the president had rebuked public

companies who did conferences in las vegas that had also received money. the gsa held a conference in las vegas. i have been interested as i have gone back to the history so i looked to the oklahoma city conference. i went for years and noticed in that conference, the same number of people, $323,000 was spent. in the biggest conference, $840,000 was spent. to say these previous conferences like oklahoma city and new orleans -- they are not. and there was something happening that was very unique. that was dialing up with incredible speed. you have an incredible career. i mean that with all sincerity. i cannot imagine -- the process

of dismissal on the federal side of going to the process of people you know should be dismissed, but instead, you have resigned. when you know some of the people most culpable in these decisions are still there going through a long process. my question for you is, what do we need to fix in dealing with federal hiring? so we can work through a process judiciously because there are a lot of great federal employees. how can we clear the house of people that give the federal government a bad name? >> i welcome policy discussions about that. i am not a human resources specialist and i am not sure. there is due process for employees. i appreciate that. i appreciate that there needs to be two officials involved so that there is not preemptory decision making. i yield to the experts in the

personnel management organization. >> resigned. >> yes. >> your office with the office that started this investigation. this would not come to light and last year office started it. as a leader of the top, you resigned. people that were there making the decisions going through these fraudulent contracts, they are still there. >> yes, i have resigned and yes i believe they are still there. >> let me mention a couple of things that are jarring. in the gsa process -- trying to do a piece of charity work with the team building experience, the frustration is, $75,000 and team building that was designed to give away 24 bicycles to needy boys and girls in the boys and girls club. instead of the employees doing this out of charity, they used taxpayer funds to provide a

charity event of 24 bicycles and then use taxpayer funds to provide a -- a party for the children when they picked them up. it was not their money. they were paid. the taxpayer paid for the bicycles and everyone else felt good. that is one of those moments where we say, where have we gone? suddenly doing charity work as a federal employee, has to come from a hard-working american taxpayers rather than actually engaging? the other side is the issue with the sound company and the hotels. it is in direct violation. then the contract gets preferential treatment. they get free rooms in addition to the rooms they were paid for. the hotel contract was negotiated offline separately so it could have additional food

because we did not pay enough for this. this is the kind of stuff that makes people in my district that try to get a federal contract furious and they come to our office and say, we are trying to get a federal contract and it looks like some sweetheart deal is done from some other company and nobody can delegated. how do we start clearing the deck so weak have fair competition? >> first of all, we have a good oversight process. i appreciate the inspector general being there and we can have him look into that. it was appalling to me and i felt grateful that some had the capability to do that kind of investigating. that was a piece of it. i think, as alluded to by some other questions, i think leaving agencies without steady leadership is -- to leave an agency hanging. although there were able

administrators, nobody has the clout of being able to move in and raley -- i think there are a number of different things that could be addressed. >> i might note for the record we did look it up weses people can make up -- they are paid more than members of congress. perhaps we could skid -- we consider those people and necessary. >> they are paid more than i am. was. >> noted. we go to the gentleman, mr. walsh. >> thank you. without getting bogged down in to conduct reviews versus performance reviews, why did you give that $9,000 bonus? >> because i was focused on performance and because it was a

recommendation coming from the buildings commissioner who was the direct budget supervisor of mr. neely. >> if you could take that bonus back and could not approve that, would you do that? >> 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. can't you imagine that for $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 thethat 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>> 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. pipa 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 conference meets to look at. but it 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 paul le process. that is what we were working with. we are working diligently with

will 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. 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. 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>> 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>> 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 >> 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 was so appalling. that iti 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 came

-- and was ready to sit down and write my resignation about three days before. >> did you consult with your>> 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 "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. 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. and at>> you did communicate

something to the white house? >> to the best of my recollection, i did not communicate anything to the white house. 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 thataccording 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. yearsst be because i'm 59 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. next year, people have to have good collaboration/people skills. i have made an adjustment in a couple of the cases this year. it has to be in the message like a fire siren. he was acting r.a. forever and a day." that was sent from you regarding his $9,000 in -- i

find it a little shocking that that would be the only thing we would have, the only correspondence we would have. it looked like he signed two things. r.a. forever and a day. hersecondly, he is achieving more results in leasing than anyone else. is there any kind of guideline that has to go through to determine if there are measurable outcomes and objectives that someone at this level is meeting in order to receive a bonus? >> the process involves the performance review board.

i believe they had a fair amount of documentation. the deputy administrator was briefing me. she was briefing me fairly regularly. we sit right next to each other. we'reshe was informing me of their thinking and where they were wrestling with a recommendation where they were pretty straightforward. there was a lot of dialogue. >> do you agree he should gotten this $9,000 bonus? >> the other congressmen was asking what i would do in hindsight. i still am not sure how to think about the two different expectations on the are around assessment performance and conduct, and how much i would have interfered with a conduct a review that i considered very serious, if i had moved in a different direction with the performance process and made that less independent. >> thank you. i yield back. >> we now go to the gentle man

from south carolina. >> thank you. have you made a referral to the united states attorney's office? >> to the department of justice, yes. i hope it is a different group than a group that handles fast criminal charges, or just, fyi? charges. >> all right. mr. chairman, the need for a hearing like this epitomizes our fellow citizens frustration with at government. they are absolutely convinced that we spend their money differently from the way we would spend our own, and they are exactly correct. the rest of america cannot comprehend the $44 breakfast. they are pouring generic brand

$44 breakfast. the rest of america would never conceive of a $7 mini sandwich. neither would you, if you're spending your own money. whoyou don't go out of your pocket and buy commemorative coins. that. we don't hesitate to spend taxpayer money on a trinket like that. giving bicycles to indigent children is a wonderful idea. i hate that you rob yourself of the satisfaction of knowing what it feels like to do it yourself instead of spending someone else's money to do it. the ostensible purpose of this hearing was to exchange ideas.

alexander graham bell had this marvelous invention called a telephone. or, better yet, video conferencing. the notion that you have to spend $800,000 to exchange ideas is laughable, and perhaps criminal. the part that goals me the most is the hypocrisy of gsa not even following its own damn rules. you are so quick to make everyone else follow the rules, and you cannot follow your own rules. you have any event player on staff. that will come as quite a surprise to most taxpayers. what will come as more of a did not even use him. you paid somebody else to plan the event despite the fact you have yvette players at taxpayers' a salary.

-- event planners at taxpayers' salary. gsa has to send 15 scouts to las vegas to check out a hotel. do you not see the outrage in that? mr. robertson? do you see it? >> absolutely. this conference was outrageous. >> well, i am not going to be as self congratulatory as of the people are. i think the fact we're having a hearing is a loss. most people don't need a hearing to know that you don't spend other people's money the way money was spent at this conference. we don't need a list of recommendations from the inspector general. we don't need to be reminded

is it is criminal. in mind reader? my guess is they will not need a mind reader to find out the american public has lost confidence in the institutions of government and the response. i want an indictment. not a memo, an indictment. i went through your report and i wrote, what is the penalty for doing what you found they did. what is the penalty for a discount on a per se for your personal use because -- on a per se for your personal use? what is the penalty for tipping off a competitor?

that sounds criminal to me. mr. chairman, well this was being planned and executed, i was working at a small da's office in south carolina. we had to furlough a secretary who was making $20,000 a year. we started a fund of the of our own pockets to pay for birthday present. -- out of our own pockets to pay for birthday presents. we never thought about using taxpayer money. it is a sacred trust. instead of a team building exercise, you might want to investigate a trust building

exercise. you have lost it. >> that concludes our first round. the gentleman's out rate is a bipartisan reflection. there are a few things that were not covered. i recognize myself. mr. miller, exhibit 2, a letter we have, although she was the original cravaack tour that caused your investigation to begin, she writes, ruth cox, "wanted to know why the report had to be made public since she was told otherwise. are you familiar with this? >> yes, i am. >> i appreciate your

completeness. how do you explain anybody considering this would be retained as private? particularly after such a long time of us not knowing about it. >> i cannot explain that. we always intended for this to be public. it is of such magnitude and of rage it had to be made public. -- outrage it had to be made public. >> we regular received briefings from ig's. the budget exists for a lee is on the with this branch. i am concerned. you have done a wonderful job in this report. it is going to change a lot of things. if you had to do it again, when would you have briefed this committee for oversight? >> we wanted to nail down all of the facts before we put the report to print. i am receiving your message that we should come to you sooner, much sooner than we have a draft report.

the process was we wanted to get something together quickly to when the administrator and others -- to warn the administrator and others. we did that quickly. it took a long time to nail down the facts. every possible way. we got a final report to her in february. she requested an extension of 30 days. i am happy to talk with you about when we should bring these reports to you. these are reports. they do contain a criminal conduct.

>> i appreciate the criminal conduct. one of the concerns we have is we need to know from an oversight standpoint earlier. i will say this on the record to you, to all of the ig's, the 70 plus, it is my intention to work with the ranking member to produce a guidance letter that would spell out expectations. if the expectations were, we are going to try to be consistent with what occurs. if that is something we do not see, i will also draft legislation with the ranking member to try to put it into law. it has not been a problem in the past. good work, i am not making any remarks on the quality of your work. it is unusual for us not to receive a heads up much sooner, particularly when it would have allowed us -- the 23 letters i sent to other agencies -- to

begin looking at the effects of so much money. we work closely. we were monitoring the through the funding a plethora of areas in which so much money could be misspent. the former ig and this committee worked constantly on this. while we were doing that, this would have been helpful. that is the only criticism. i am going to go with mr. robertson. you with the liaison to the white house. i know the word administration versus white house obverses president -- house versus president gets used. in your role as the communicator, representing the white house liaison, that role in which your job was to communicate, to have no surprises, nothing unknown to

the people of the white house, political and and political, would you normally have reported something like this? >> the role of the liaison is two on board appointees -- to on-board appointees. >> when you worked for senator obama, i am sure your chief of staff told you, no surprises. >> i do not remember having that conversation. >> you would have kept something like this, you would have kept a secret? would you have told the chief of staff? >> i do not know how to answer a hypothetical question. >> this is not all that hypothetical. all of us, we have the same situation that senator obama has. when you work for the member of congress, it is a given that the one thing you do not do is

let somebody be surprised with a scandal. you still have your job. you are still a political appointee at the highest level. you a problem making less than $109,000 -- you are probably making less than $179,000. during the time that you really is on, would there not be an expectation that you would inform people at the white house? >> during my time, i executed that duties assigned to me by my administrator at the time. >> the word liaison does not mean anything? >> the primary duty is to on- board into agencies and departments. >> the administration does not use liaisons to communicate back and forth to keep staff informed about things that may be significant?

>> my role was to on-board appointees. >> when did you first become aware of this scandal? >> i had second hand knowledge in may following the briefing given to the administrator. it was mentioned to me that this was an ongoing investigation. >> since may of last year, more than a year, have you talked to anyone in the administration who may have communicated it to anybody inside the white house or related areas? >> do you mind repeating the question? >> it is a broad question. once you knew this terrible scandal, did you talk to your friends or other people employed either by the office of the president or related areas within the administration? did you communicate this to

anyone? >> i communicated it to the robert byrd people. >> who are they? >> -- to the appropriate people. >> who are they? >> with my ongoing work, i sometimes communicate to the white house about the policy priorities inside gsa as well as any issues within the agency. >> to the best of your recollection, when did you first report this to those people? >> to my recollection, the first mention i made about the ongoing investigation which i was not assigned -- the deputy administrator and a senior counselor were assigned to this investigation. after becoming aware of the existence of the investigation, i mentioned it to a white house

staffer among other things. >> that is a pretty good answer. the word when was in my question. >> that was shortly after the may 2011 time frame. >> you hear about it in may. you report it promptly. >> i would say it was sometime after may. >> who was the staff member? >> it was a member of the council who worked with on a regular basis. >> i said to. >> it was a lawyer in the white house counsel's office. kim harris. >> i did not want to take this long there.

we do have another panel. i do appreciate the member's longer than would be prudent. >> thank you. mr. johnson. i am sitting here and listening and watching. i am trying to figure out some issues. first of all, i know you are an honorable woman. i know you have a reputation for excellence. i want to go back -- tell us why you resigned? this is not a trick question. a lot of times, when something happens, although a person at the top does not feel that it

was their fault, they know they were in charge. sometimes, you will hear a president say, it was under my watch, i take full responsibility. on the other hand, some may feel they could have done something different. that they, in other words, could have stopped things from happening. or that they did something to cause these things to happen. i am wondering, why did you resign? >> yes. i resigned because i wanted to step aside so the gsa could have new leadership going forward. the nature of the conference, the coarseness, the video tapes, the impact it was having disturbed me. i wanted to, as much as i could, reassure the american people that somebody was taking it seriously. through my resignation i could send the message that this is

unacceptable and it is not the norm. >> listening to the way you came in and the delay in your confirmation and when you came in and what you came into, and then i watch you. you said something you probably do not realize he said. he said it twice. -- you said it twice. not in response to a question. you volunteered this. i think may have been the chairman who was asking you. the comment was made about the salaries of certain employees. it said, they make more than the administrator. it said it twice. -- you said it twice. it seemed upset about it. it seems like there are things going on at tsa that are out of

control. in other words, the administrator comes in and there are things that have been going on. i look at what we read about what mr. neely has been accused of doing. i do not want to get into that. i am wondering, are there things you felt you had no control over? the reason this is so significant is because, i believe the chairman is as concerned as i am about getting to the reform that is necessary. it is almost like, the administrator is here. there is something happening down there. when i read the facts of what went on here, a fund that you can almost pull out $1 million

to hold a conference? so that people can talk about this money as if it is their money? the chairman made a good point. they can use it for whatever they want. do we need a different kind of control here? you might want to chime in, mr. miller. we will get to the bottom of this and accuse one administration of doing it and the other administration of doing it, but if we do not get to exactly controlling what is going on there, we will never solve this problem. 10 years ago -- 10 years from

now, we will have a new set of people appear and they will not be talking about a $900,000 of that, they will be talking about a $2 million event. am i reading you write? -- right? saying, youe you're don't have to tell me. this really does is me off -- pisses me off that you have these people doing these gritty things. -- greedy things. >> i appreciate that, congressman. you want to be sure there's

leadership of place in these organizations and as they are not left and this status. it takes time for a person coming in to learn the organization. i think that the leadership aspect is a pretty important part of the story. with any large organization, you do it need this oversight. attached some various people with oversight. where i trust it, i needed to confront the fact that i had trusted and yielded this and i resigned as a result. >> all of these issues with the in the administrator that will address you in a few minutes.

i applaud him and taking stronger action to show strength and central office control over the budgets of the regions. one reason they could spend this money is because their budgets, they did not have accountability for their budgets. so, they could move money into a conference and use purchase cards and that sort of thing and i believe you will be told that the cfo will be able to see those transactions. the regents had a lot of power and autonomy. i know that they are taking steps to have the deputy head and a shudder take more control of the regions.

>> let me say this. i agree with the chairman. giving us some kind of heads up. sometimes, who is the fellow in charge? you mentioned his name. earl said something i will never forget. he said, try to operate in a way where the rules did not get violated. in other words, he tried to be in front of the train instead of waiting for things to happen. it is helpful for us. we would love to have information on this one. we could have done some things, brought some people in and said, how do we make sure this does not happen instead of making sure it happens? we probably could have saved some people -- we could have saved some money. we could have been able to save some embarrassment. the last thing i want to say is, this will only take a second. a lot of times, groups, i am telling -- sang this to ourtsa employees, a lot of times

groups are judged by their weakest link. it is said. people look at what a few people do in that group and they judge the whole group. i want to say that we have a lot of great federal employees. you know that. they are doing a of a job. -- a hell of a job. i did not want them to be punished by this. people collect money for the coffee. they are spending their own coffee money. they do all of those little things. it is coming out of their own pocket. many of them have taken -- they cannot get a pay raise for two years.

they are put on furloughs. i do not want the public to judge our federal employees by these weak links. i want to thank you very much. thank you. >> thank you. as we close this panel of like to let mr. miller know we will be back -- this panel i would like to let mr. miller know we will be back. we are unlikely to ask the back in the same setting. your experience here, we may ask if he would help us as we begin to sort out some of the frustrations you saw between political appointees. it might have a hard time recruiting senior individuals. and of course, some of your frustration that may exist as to what it would take to eliminate a member of civil service after egregious behavior. >> i would be happy to be of any support i can be.

>> we would make sure it is not here again. >> thank you. >> with that, we will take a short recess before the second panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> zero second panel -- our second panel. he was kind enough to call me after his appointment. we look forward to your opening statement. in light of the first panel, your comment on changes you anticipate. we recognize you for five minutes. >> good afternoon. >> i apologize. pursuant to the rules, all members will be sworn. would you please rise? they swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give

would be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? let the witness -- let the record show he entered in the affirmative. >> good afternoon. i'm the acting administrator of the u.s. general services administration. i appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee today. first and foremost, i want to state that the abuse outlined in the inspector general's report is an outrage and a difficult to the goals of the administration. the report detailed -- just as importantly, those responsible violated rules of common sense, the spirit of public service, and the trust the american taxpayers have placed in us. i speak for the majority of staff when i say we are shocked and disappointed by these actions. we have taken strong action

against those who are responsible. we will continue to do so where per bit. i intend to uphold the highest standards -- where appropriate. i intend to uphold the highest standards. if we find irregularities, i will engage the inspector general. as indicated in the joint letter that bryan miller and i sent to all staff, we expect an employee who sees fraud or abuse to report it. we want to build a partnership with the ig that will ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. there will be no tolerance for employees who violate or

disregard these rules. i believe this is critical. we owe it to the american tax payers and also to the many employees who work hard, follow the rules, and deserve to be proud of the agency for which they work. we have also taken steps to improve oversight. already, i have canceled all future conferences. i have also canceled 35 conferences, saving a million dollars. i have suspended hats off and it demanded reimbursement for private parties. i have cancelled most travel agency-wide. i am centralizing budget authority. i have determined oversight for regional offices to make them more accountable. i look forward to working in partnership with this committee and making sure there is accountability so we can restore the trust of the american people. i hope that in so doing, gsa can focus on saving taxpayers money by officially procuring

supplies and real estate and disposing of unneeded government property. we believe there has rarely been a time of greater need for these services. there is a value to a single agency dedicated to this work. we need to make sure we get back to basics and conduct this work better than ever.

our commitment is to a public service, i would do the, and our nation, and not to conferences, awards, or parties. the an acceptable and illegal activities at the western regions conference stand in direct contradiction to the goals of this agency. i am committed to ensuring we take whatever steps necessary to hold responsible parties accountable and make sure this never happens again. we need to focus on the basics, streamlining the work of the federal government. i look forward to working with the committee moving forward. i welcome the opportunity to answer any questions at this time. >> thank you. i recognize myself. do you know if the administration plans on putting you up for confirmation? >> i have not talked to anyone. >> i appreciate that. i want to make sure the record is clear. the earlier panel made it clear that a series of acting administrators was part of the lack of control that led to johnson receiving an agency that was already in trouble. hopefully, omp and opm, it is all being heard. i appreciate that you embraced the number of recommendations.

would you have an exception to any of the recommendations from the inspector general, realizing that mr. johnson had already embraced all of the recommendations? >> we met on the first day to talk about the report and about building a strong report going forward. >> the inspector general made us aware that, in his answers to his questions, that there were ongoing investigations, including ones that fall more in the nature of corruption, kickbacks, bribes, would you commit to ensure that the chairman and ranking member be informed to understand the gravity of the events, if not all the details? >> to the extent i can do that, i would be happy to work with the committee on those issues. >> we would appreciate that. my ego can take not knowing about something. what i cannot do is deny the ranking member it possibility

for looking for possible changes in a prompt. of time. -- period of time. do you feel like you be able to resolve the issues? do you have confidence in the team that you have in place? >> well, i intend to conduct a review of the organization. as a new person coming in in these circumstances, i have to have confidence in the people

that i have, i also have to have that confidence demonstrated. i have to have a sense of how we structured the organization, put our resources into play. clearly, there was serious gaps as evidenced by what took place here. >> you know the have a fairly large amount of political appointees at work for you, just as you were a political appointee. were you given the full ability to clean house, to determine the appointees that you would keep and those that would have to replace? >> i believe that i was given full latitude to make decisions about the general services administration. the president has placed a number of political appointees on down. were you given the ability to retain or to dismiss any or all of those individuals that you

fight not to meet those standards necessary going forward for what you would find to be predictable? >> at the time, i never had a discussion about that, but i did ask if i would have full authority to make recommendations on how we should structure the organization, and that i was given assurance i would. >> your predecessor showed considerable frustration by the chairman and ranking member, specifically in two areas. those that might not have done well and they are still being paid by the taxpayers and the political appointees who made significant less than those individuals. do you share that frustration? >> i need to understand the reason why we had the gsa structure that we do and in the sense that i heard amount i

understand the nature of her frustration, but i would like to know why we have the structure that we have and see if there are ways that we can make it better. >> the gsa, have you been successful in recovering any money it so far from individuals who received the benefits that were not warranted, either those that made the decisions to spend money or those who except it? >> we began that process late last week. i don't think we have received any money at that time? >> how much are you open to receive back from the taxpayers? >> we have the case of the three individuals that have reimbursement for the parties. we also have the contractor that charged us for hotel rooms when they were actually getting the hotel rooms from gsa. i want to go through the entire

bill of particulars and see how much of that we can give back. >> our indication is that approximately $100,000 was spent. this is an egregious and not the one of the most egregious for the 10 trips that included other luxury hotels on the strip and so on that were visited by both individuals and their families. will you seek to get any of that money back from those that had vacations with their families paid for by the taxpayers? >> i will work closely to make sure that to the extent that any funds are able to be recovered, we will recover them? >> if you find you cannot recover because the statute does not allow for it, this is one of the reforms that i believe that the chairmen in my role and the ranking member and all of us want to do is to make sure that you are empowered when people receive something they are not to, to make sure

that they're not able to do that. >> you are inheriting an organization that had other problems. some of the members that were here working on it. ms. norton in her role over there, have been frustrated for a very long time that there is a huge amount of waste within the management and disposal of federal property. that is not the subject of this hearing but it will continue to be the hearing of both individual and joint hearings. i would hope you would be prepared as quickly as possible to address those issues. they're going to be a billion dollar concerns to us. , lastly, we have been able to get from the inspector general is a pretty good production of documents.

would you commit to make sure that we get documents preferably an electronic form pursuant to our request? >> we have provided nearly 50,000 documents to the committee. we had the initial request which came in just about this time last week, so, we have been working to try to provide the committee with all the documents we can. >> of like this to be an example of how it does not take months or a year to get document productions. so far, the work has been excellent. that was the reason for the question, but also a comment that it has been good so far. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i am hopeful that we can bring

our guests back. >> i have no doubt that you have several hearings of this basis. >> use sheriff your plan to review the previous conferences and this was a controversial hats off program that avoided electronic cameras -- awarded electronic cameras and such to appointees. you also suspended all other award programs. >> all other similar awards programs. >> how did that start? >> i really don't know. that is what i'm trying to to understand. i'm trying to look at things like award programs and see what purpose that they served, is

there something good underlying them? what contractors obligations do we have? it is part of day review. >> if we move forward on the program, it could be reused. if it does not, we are in charge of disposal of federal property. >> what type of awards programs do you feel are corporate, if any? >> i think those are one of the things we have to look at, is this tied to the purpose of comes your performance? we should find ways that we can emphasize savings within the gsa. >> you heard the testimony of the former administrator and the

fact that almost all the members here are very concerned and i think it was one of the week parts of the testimony that we had a $900,000 bonus. they explained the process by which one thing was separate from another thing. how do you deal with that? if there's anything, i remember when we had aig and all of these companies giving bonuses for bad behavior. i am very upset about it. i think that the last thing you want to do is to give bonuses. the public does not understand it. even if there is a to track process, some kind of way that

we don't want. you don't want the public to be confused about people going out there and party with their money. at the same time, getting a bonus. this is like slapping them in the face. what are your plans with regards to that? have you talked about it? >> in my role as assistant secretary and management. and we are tried to make sure as we look back at how to

be managed performance that we should look at the conversation we're having and if there are any issues out there. >> and might have been rules that have been totally disregarded. and basically saying to hell with those people who are supposed to be over the oversight. how do you -- it seems like you have got to dig deep to get into

this. i do not know if this is circus stuff. how do you get to that. to you get to the it demonstrators testimony? >> yes. >> did you get to my last question? there are a menace traders but there seems to be a disconnect -- there are administrators but there seems to be a disconnect. it seems obvious to me that there are headquarters and regional operations and to some extent we need to build a stronger connection at the duties level. but chief financial officer of the gsa should serve as the chief financial officer straight down to the region's periodization -- to the region.

that is one of the things as we conduct the top to bottom review, we can ask ourselves some questions, it is this the best way to provide accountability and oversight? if not, we should change it. >> i wish you well as we go forward. we have seen what the failure to provide somebody a position permanently can do. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we saw the gsa mission

statement. are you thinking about revising that? >> i think that we should start with a mission statement and the goals. i have not been there to say it is has been the exact right one or the exact wrong one. it has economy and effectiveness. even if we were to change it, we would not lose those important parts. >> it would be your belief that the gsa gets the best jobs for the government and officially manage what the government has? >part of that would be taking care of tax dollars. >> the title of this hearing

was, do we have a culture problem with cithe gsa or broader government? do you think this is a cultural problem or more of a cancer? >> well, i think the we have a cultural problem in region 9. let's just say that i know enough to say whether we do or do not have a cultural problem across the organization. i have received dozens and dozens of e-mail from employees who are very bit as outraged and as angry about what took place here. >> it is my hope that this is a cancer and we will be able to excise it from wherever it existed and did the government agency. this committee has started investigating the spending habits of some government

agencies. i did want to touch on one other point. in regards to the acquisition of services, the ig identified a number of problems. this is not the first report with problems disclosing the maximum price. gsa officials have failed to abide by small aside. do you think this is intentional misconduct or ignorance or poor training? >> i can tell you that it is unacceptable and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. one of the actions we have taken

recently as two make the ability to grant warrants or the ability for procurement actions. we have to think about what our standards are and what our performance is. how we create structures of accountability. hopefully, we can make the improvements to make sure that nothing like this can happen again. >> members of congress have district offices were they your complaints and problems from constituents. just in the last few months there have been an alarming number of folks who have complained about the government contracting process, not just with the gsa, but other agencies. you ought to be able to walk away feeling like you were treated fairly by the government. as a former small-business owner, i know it takes a lot of time and thousands of dollars to prepare a proposal, especially for a government agency. and to have your bid disclosed

to a competitor or to have your bid when it was the lowest passed over is very frustrating to people. you just throw up your hands and do not have the money to hire a government contract in. you end up with good people who can offer products and services at a better cost just refusing to go through the red tape. >> contracting is not always easy, but it should be fair. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from the district of

columbia. >> thank you. i must say i welcome the president's decision to bring you to the gsa. i'm very familiar with your own record. because of the top post you have had. the president simply takes out the top of the agency, including the administrator who may not have been conversant with what was happening below. to go after someone hands on not as if the top has nothing to do with the way the agency is run.

the metropolitan transit authority more than equal to to take on what needs to be done here. you heard the administrator speak about how she felt it may be that you can continue what she began and it may be that you have a different version. there was a question asked by one of our colleagues on the other side that i thought -- it was not ever answered, at least not to my satisfaction. john let me ask about -- let me

ask you about how decentralized this agency is. there is one theory of management, which i think it's a very efficacious one that goes if you delegate to managers hands on responsibility and hold them accountable, they become more creative. when you have a situation like this and you ask about whether or not the agency has any chain of command whether if four important issues like spending the management of the tops as i do not know anything about it, one wonders whether this agency is simply run at the regional level with washington having no responsibility for holding the region's accountable. i would like to discuss what you

think of the chain of command now. if you think is too decentralized, if you think its operations and its budget -- i think you said something about the cfo. but whether in general this agency has simply allowed itself to be run -- what is it? 11 regions running one agency. >> i think autonomy is important if you're going to allow your leaders to innovate, but autonomy without accountability can lead to these situations here. >> for example, did he report to anyone on spending, or was he the final check on spending, including his own spending? >> i do not exactly understand the nature of the reporting structure that mr. neely was

operating under a the time. my concern is that the financial management office of the public buildings service was autonomous from the chief financial officer. each of the different authorities -- different regions have authority over their own budget within their region. they have autonomy over the administration of those budgets. we even found in trying to get the records that it is very hard to get the records from the regions of the actual spending. early on, the quickest thing we can do to try to make sure we have a stronger sense of accountability to avoid this problem again in the near term and going forward is to centralize the authority over the financial management of the agency within the agency chief financial officer and make each one of those service -- each one of them report to the financial

officer. >> gsa orders for federal agencies. if you want to order something, you order through the gsa. how can it be that they ordered through this program electronic cameras and the like, that got out of hand because the gsa ran the procurement of these electronic devices and with little oversight from the top. they simply regarded these stores as something the group on their own and something they could use to afford to their own employees. i'm wondering about the link between their own procurement authority and using the authority within the agency in a

way i've never seen done in federal agencies elsewhere. >> from what i understand -- and this is from mr. miller's report on the hats off program, that was focused on the electronic equipment and the gps's in just region 9. >> on talking about region 9. >> what i also understand was going on in region 9 is they were violating -- if not the procurement rules, they were violating the personnel rules and the limit of what you could give in that regard. i think the rules are in place. and what we had was the case of people simply ignoring them. >> i just wonder -- if you are going to get out of valuable things like ipodss and

electronic equipment, it seems somebody ought to have done something pretty wonderful in the agency. >> the chair recognizes himself for questioning. you have a herculean task ahead of you with restoring public trust, not just in t it -- gsa, but most folks do not have much confidence in any of the institutions in government, including those of us sitting here. it is a big challenge, but a fundamental challenge. you have to do it. far be it from me to tell you how to do your job. i have never run anything the size of gsa. but i can tell you in a little d.a.'s office in my hometown county, when we have budget cuts, we suspended all trials. i would encourage you to do something.

if it can be done by telephone, it must be done by telephone. if it can be done by video conferencing -- i can understand at some level team building. i've never been part of a team building exercise. i'm sure i have, but i do not remember enjoying it. but for the folks watching who are struggling, it is hard for them to understand what they have heard today, what they have read about this conference. let me ask you this. if one of our fellow citizens or government employees is aware of waste, fraud, abuse, personal gain, is there a repository? they do not have access to the

inspector general. how would an ordinary government employee betsy's waste, fraud, and abuse, how would they -- that sees the waste, fraud, and abuse, how would be reported? >> i know there is a website in which to report these things. but a private citizen can report waste, fraud, and abuse that they think is related to the gsa to the gsa id by going to www.gsa.gov and we also have an e-mail address, frau net. and we have an 800 number as well. we encourage anyone who thinks they have seen waste, fraud, reduced to reach out to the gsa as well. >> thank you. where is the line between nuances that need more training

and just character deficiencies? honestly, some of what happened at this conference, there's no training in the world that will fix that. it is just a character flaw. from a hiring standpoint or a retention standpoint, if you are having to train someone that they cannot go to a hotel employee and ask for a discount on a personal purse or pocket book, it strikes me there is no training in the world that will fix that. there has to be immoral component to it. how you address that from your position? >> it is a leadership requirement and it means you have to have strong messages coming from the top. that is why meeting with the inspector general, we agreed to send a joint letter to all the gsa staff and tell everyone we have an expectation that they

will raise alarm are concerned if they see something they think is untoward. gsa employees are the most skilled at understanding the travel rules, the procurement rules, the acquisition roles. they should be the ones who are the easiest ones to recognize when something is wrong. i think we have to start with strong leadership. and then we have to make sure that our leaders are actually sending the reader -- the leaders in the region, the leaders throughout the organization a similar message. but we also have to encourage employees to come forward and say it is okay to come forward if you see something wrong, because that is the way we can see -- catch things before they spin out of control and happen the way this one did. >> i have time for one more specific question. i will ended on this. most folks reading about this, watching it on the news are struggling with whether or not they will be able to go on vacation this summer.

or go on a scouting trip to figure out whether or not they like the condo -- to go on a scouting trip to figure out whether or not they like the condo or the beach house has never entered their mind. business people of exceeding their jurisdiction from a legal standpoint? -- was this people exceeding their jurisdiction from a legal standpoint? or was it a -- and abuse of discretion? to have the power to go for five times to scout out a series of four-star hotels, was it outside their jurisdiction or an abuse of discretion? most of us were surprised to learn that you have the authority to abuse to have multiple scouting trips when everything is available through on-line tores, word of mouth -- urs, word of mouth.

where is that? >> what we have done is centralize our travel and conference approval processes and our chief administrator's office. we do not think we will get in a way of anyone doing important and valuable travel and training by simply asking that they come to the front office, they come to the gsa headquarters and make a case for what is exactly they are doing. and hopefully, if this kind of thing begins to happen, we can see a pattern and stop it before it goes further. frankly, i think that people know when they are being watched and they have to make a case and that they have to document it, that will in part, stop this behavior. >> thank you for your testimony today. we honestly, i earnestly wish you well. not because i know you and purslane what to do well, but because you have to do well.

we have to do well. we cannot survive with people not having confidence in the institutions of government. on behalf of all of us, thank you and good luck. >> thank you. >> with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we're going to need to have more oversight, so how many months do you think it will take you to have the systems in place, because we would like a progress report. >> we have already started making changes. that is part of what i'm here to report on today. we have the good fortune of having the budget process, the 2014 budget development process, we are entering into that now. we're going to use our 2014 budget development process, which culminates in recommendations to omb in

september entered europe. we are going to use that process to start delving into this. but that does not mean we will waive the outcome. >> the new acting administrator of the general services administration spent the week kept -- testifying on capitol hill. i watch the rest of this hearing, or the others held this past week on line at the c-span video library, archives and searchable at c-span.org /videolibrary. >> thomas donahue, president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce marks the 100th anniversary of that organization with a discussion of the economy, employment, taxes, and trade, and our will in business -- our role in business and the economy. on tuesday, representatives from

the gsa testified before a congressional committee about how an agency office was able to spend more than $800,000 on a las vegas conference, and thousands more on various work- related trips at taxpayers' expense. ago, the inspector general did a scathing report on the gsa that cost taxpayers nearly a million -- nearly a million dollars. the lavish vacation, the spending -- i appreciate representative cummings on the oversight committee as well as chairman eisa for discussing those lavish expenditures and the wrongdoing in the las vegas vacation. the purpose of this hearing is to talk about a systemic problem, how deep it goes.

the corruption. the fraud. the waste. it is not just within the western region, but within gsa as a whole, and possibly within other agencies. this committee is going to lay out a time line of how many trips, how many people, how much money. but we are going to talk about how big a problem this is and how deep within the administration and goes. you heard yesterday the testimony of mr. robertson, the chief of staff, was also the white house liaison and on senator obama's personal staff. we will hear today from mr. peck, who from -- for the last year and a half i have asked, requested on a bipartisan lobbying with ms. norton -- we have sent e-mails, memos, held hearings, and asked for a budget

that is outside of congress's purview. we have been held up for far too long. i'm here to tell you the but stops here. we are not going to hold on any longer. the american public demands to see the budget on the public building fund, the federal building fund, and how that money has been spent. this slush fund is no longer going to be used for personal uses. when federal buildings -- when other agencies pay rent into this personal building fund, it is meant to redevelop. it is meant to sell off -- which we have been attempting to do for a year-and-a-half, sell off the buildings that are underutilized and put people back to work where we can by using these funds. the public has a right to know how much money is in this fund,

where it has been used, a full accountability of the past, and most importantly, what is going to happen in the future. we are going to hear from the new administrator this morning. about what has been done to reprimand those involved. but it goes much deeper than those who have fired, those put on administrative leave, those who have resigned. the american public deserves to have money paid back. and where crimes have been committed, people will go to jail. and if we have to have future hearings on this topic, you bet we will. this is about the distrust of the american public and its government.

this is about the waste of taxpayer dollars. and if you can sense my anger and frustration, you should see it at home. we have double-digit unemployment, the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, people out of work, twice the national average. and to see these types of expenditures, to see the stonewalling by this agency for the last year and a half hiding from the public the expenditures that have been made and what has happened with a public building fund, you bet it is an outrage. i am looking forward to full testimony this morning to get to the bottom of it. i am angered not only at the waste of money, but the fact that there would be people -- the systemic issue here is that you would actually go out and brag about it.

that you would insult to the ranking member and former chair of this committee who chaired this committee while you were having this vacation. that you would laugh about our commander-in-chief and laugh about how long you would spend his money. this goes down from the insurance to those at the top. -- the interns to those at the top. and this is a culture we will get to the bottom of. let me issue a warning, if this continues to go on, if we continue to not only see this type of spending, we will continue to audit. if we continue to see that you are not giving us the information on a bipartisan level to show us how these expenditures are happening, i am prepared to systematically pull apart gsa to the point where we will make a question to the american public of whether the

gsa is needed at all. the wasteful spending is going to stop. and the transparency is going to begin. i would now like to recognize the ranking member ms. norton for any opening statement she may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are obligated to turn to the inspector general and others today for testimony about the 2010 western region conference. it a conference run amok near las vegas nevada. the final ishee report found that expenditures related to the conference were here -- the final report found that expenditures related to the conference work "excessive and wasteful and that in many

instances gsa followed neither federal procurement laws, nor its own policy in conferences." some who planned the conference appeared to have deliberately set out to have a boondoggle of a conference. and explicitly to go "over the top" in the words of one conference planner, i remind readers and clowns and having dinner and a talent show -- hiring mind readers and clowns and having dinner and a talent show at taxpayer expense. planning at a -- and expensive party at a resort when millions of americans are struggling under debt and the worst recession since the great depression, the emerging evidence shows the conference had been building in extravagance for years. but in the last 10 years and

have escalated considerably. only now is the full extent of the spending coming to light. moreover, coupled with the conference scandal, our report by the ig of a federal employee rewards program in the same region with little or no controls resulting in yet more excessive spending. the awards program apparently helped to feed the exorbitant conference in nevada, providing ipods and other desirable technology to employees for non- work related matters. i am, perhaps, more shocked and saddened than most because i sat on the subcommittee for more than 20 years, and by and large,

have found gsa appointed officials and civil servants alike, including some of those named in the ig report, to be among the most dedicated and professional federal employees. it is particularly disappointing that the actions of a few officials have cast a shadow over the hard work and professionalism of the great majority of gsa employees. i am grateful to the president for acting immediately to take out the top officials and then bring in a professional of improvement -- of management skill and -- of proven management skill and tactics. it was the administration who first alerted the ig gwenn assigns of possible expenditures and employee misconduct in the

2010 conference. the result was the investigation and the outline of the whistle spending that is the subject of today's hearing. the gsa administrator assigned two top political employees -- and thoseesigned canno responsible for the conference were placed on administrative leave and the underlying peter was indefensible. -- behavior was indefensible. it may involve considerable reform and even restructuring of the agency. i look forward to hearing from gsa officials. thank thank you mr. chairman. >> at this