and i agree with mr. walsh, this is abusing people, we're better than that. we're a better country than that and this is a better agency than that. but there's no question that mr. neely's actions were inappropriate and they should have been halted. and you were his supervisor, were you not? yes or no? >> no, sir, but i don't want to -- again, the way the gsa structure works, the public building, the regional commissioners did not report directly to the national commissioner. however, there is a very strong dotted line authority to the pbs national commissioner. so certainly i could exert control when i felt it necessary. >> and you were head of public buildings, were you not? >> yes, sir, yes, sir. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. cummings. >> please tell you what you know about the 2010 intern conference in palm springs. i wonder if you can tell me, we heard about luxury suites and catered awards ceremonies. can you tell us about that? >> we're currently investigating that. the intern conference occurred between may 10 and may 14 in 2010 in palm spr

with that, we go to the gentleman, mr. walsh. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. johnson, without getting bogged down into conduct reviews versus performance reviews, why did you give that $9,000 bonus? >> i gave that $9,000 bonus because i was focused on performance and because i -- the recommendation came from the building's commissioner, who was the direct budget and supervisor of mr. neely. >> let me ask it another way. if you could take that bonus back, if you could go back in time and not approve that bonus, would you do that? >> well, i would certainly like to avoid these questions, yes. >> would you. >> i think -- >> do you wish you had not approved that bonus? >> everything in retrospect is always hard to understand. at the time, i was expecting the inspector general's report. you know, it's -- >> i appreciate that. >> -- not a decision. >> but right now, if you could, do you wish you had not approved that bonus? >> i'm not sure how i can -- i'm not sure how i can answer that. knowing what i know about all of the rules and the -- >> let me -- appreciated.

i agree with mr. walsh. this is abusing people. we are a better country than that. this is a better agency than that. but there is no question that the actions of mr. neely were inappropriate. and you were his supervisor, were you not? yes or no? >> no, sir, but i do not want to -- a way that the gsa structure works, the result commissioners to not report directly to the national commissioner. however, there is a very strong line of authority to the national commissioners. certainly, i could exert control when necessary. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. cummings. >> mr. chairman, thank you. what do you know about the 2010 interim conference in palm springs? between may 10 and may 14 of 2010, palm springs, california. >> what do you know about it so far? >> there were 150 attendees. food is also serve that that conference. we're looking into the propriety of that, as well as other obligations. and after the briefing from last year, you allow these a leveraged conferences to continue. >> when i came back >> i canceled a number of other national conferences that they did

subtle as ever from mr. walsh. and not to be outdone, one congresswoman is even bringing bertha back. saying, i have doubts that it is really his birth certificate. and i think a lot of americans do. but they claim it is so we are just going to with that. disrespect as discourse? welcome to the gop 2012. joining us now from washington is msnbc political analyst professor michael eric dyson. professor, if rick santorum complains about being subjected to mitt romney's attack ads, which he has kindly suspended while mr. santorum's child is in the hospital, how ugly is this likely to get when romney has karl rove's american cross roads super pac behind him and he starts really going for the president? >> i think there is about to be a kind of verbal assault upon president obama the likes of which we didn't see the last time around. the intensity of which shall be quite ferocious and i think unfortunately, it will be bigoted. it will have racial sub texts. it will continue to present president obama as from another plan

. >> for one, she's kept her financial house in order unlike mr. walsh i often catch myself when i'm talking. i meant something other than how it came out. i'm sure rick santorum meant something else too. >> we know the candidate barack obama what he was like. the antiwar government nig -- america was a source for division around the world. >> that just gets worse every time i hear it. >> huh? >> stephanie: there is a scooby doo moment for you. >> stephanie: president obama said change is the healthcare reform that we passed. first public comment since the supreme court argument started in the u.s., no one will go broke before they get sick. already two and a half million young people have health insurance. they want to go back to the day when insurance companies can do whatever they want to do. their philosophy is simple if you're out of work and you can't find a job tough. you don't have healthcare, you're on your own. you're already sick, you're going to die. [ applause ] >> that's what republicans want. >> stephanie: michele bachmann people choose no

the -- i want to follow-up a little bit on some of the questions that mr. walsh was asking -- mr. walz was asking, and, mr. miller, we heard you just restate something you said yesterday before the oversight government reform committee about mr. neeley saying to one witness that you interviewed that she would be squashed like a bug. let me read her entire -- where that statement that she made. i quote -- this is a quote, "she's been trying to bring this stuff up at the board of directors meeting, and she would probably get squashed like a bug when she brought up things concerning the conferences and the suites specifically at a conference, i mean, the wrc, it was not a one-time thing, but certain people got very extravagant accommodations." does that sound familiar at all? >> yes, sir, it does. >> and the witness also said that, and i quote, "the intimidation factor is pretty large," end of quote. let me return to you, mr. peck. were you aware he intime date -- intimidated employees who reported to him? >> i did not know he intimidated employees, but i did, in fact, know on more t

we go to mr. walsh. >> thank you. ms. johnson, without getting bogged down in to conduct reviews vs. performance reviews, why did you give the $9,000 bonus? >> i gave that bonus because i was focused on performance. the recommendation came from the buildings commissioner, who was the direct budgeting supervisor. >> let me ask it another way. if you could take that bonus back, if you could go back in time and not approve that bonus, would you do that? >> i would certainly like to avoid these questions. yes. >> do you wish you had not approved it? >> everything in retrospect is hard to understand. at the time, i was expecting the inspector general's report. >> i appreciate that. right now, if you could, do you wish you had not approved that bonus? >> i am not sure how i can answer that, knowing what i know about all of the rules. >> let me move on. my colleagues on both sides have rightfully focused on how did this happen, who knew what, what procedures were in place that let this happen, when did it happen, all important q

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