<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:40153.wais]
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AT THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 28, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-35
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-153 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee ------ ------
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 28, 2007................................... 1
Statement of:
Doan, Lurita A., Administrator, General Services
Administration; and Brian D. Miller, Inspector General,
General Services Administration............................ 126
Doan, Lurita A........................................... 126
Miller, Brian D.......................................... 209
Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa.. 117
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, Congressional Research Service
report..................................................... 161
Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia:
Prepared statement of.................................... 114
Minority staff report.................................... 72
Doan, Lurita A., Administrator, General Services
Administration, prepared statement of...................... 129
Miller, Brian D., Inspector General, General Services
Administration, prepared statement of...................... 212
Waxman, Chairman Henry A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California:
Prepared statement of.................................... 62
White House PowerPoint presentation...................... 4
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AT THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Waxman, Maloney, Cummings, Davis
of Illinois, Tierney, Clay, Watson, Lynch, Higgins, Braley,
Norton, McCollum, Van Hollen, Sarbanes, Welch, Davis of
Virginia, Burton, Shays, Mica, Platts, Duncan, Turner, Issa,
Foxx, and Bilbray.
Staff present: Phil Schiliro, chief of staff; Phil Barnett,
staff director and chief counsel; Kristin Amerling, general
counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications director and senior
policy advisor; David Rapallo, chief investigative counsel;
John Williams, deputy chief investigative counsel; David
Leviss, senior investigative counsel; Susanne Sachsman,
counsel; Molly Gulland, assistant communications director; Mark
Stephenson and Daniel Davis, professional staff members; Earley
Green, chief clerk; Teresa Coufal, deputy clerk; Caren Auchman,
press assistant; Zhongrui ``JR'' Deng, chief information
officer; Leneal Scott, information systems manager; Will
Ragland, Kerry Gutknecht, Sam Buffone, Bret Schothorst, and
Lauren Belive, staff assistants; David Marin, minority staff
director; Larry Halloran, minority deputy staff director;
Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight and
investigations; Keith Ausbrook, minority general counsel; Ellen
Brown, minority legislative director and senior policy counsel;
John Brosnan, minority senior procurement counsel; Steve Castor
and Charles Phillips, minority counsels; Edward Kidd, minority
professional staff member; Patrick Lyden, minority
parliamentarian and member services coordinator; Brian
McNicoll, minority communications director; and Benjamin
Chance, minority clerk.
Chairman Waxman. The meeting of the committee will please
come to order.
Today's hearing has been called to investigate allegations
of misconduct at the General Services Administration. There are
probably plenty of Americans who have never heard of GSA, but
it is the Government's premier contracting agency. It focuses
on the nuts and bolts of Government's logistics. GSA manages
nearly $500 billion in Federal assets, including Federal
buildings, courthouses, and other facilities, and it handles
the purchase of billions of dollars worth of services on behalf
of other Government agencies.
The Administrator of GSA is Lurita A. Doan, and she is with
us today. Also with us is Brian Miller, the Inspector General
of GSA. And we are pleased to have, as well, Senator Charles
Grassley, who has been following these issues closely, joining
us, as well.
We welcome all three witnesses and look forward to their
testimony.
One of Congress' most important oversight goals is to
ensure that our Government serves the interests of the American
taxpayer, not the interests of favored contractors, a
particular Federal agency, or a single political party. The
American people expect Government officials to uphold a public
trust. That is what the taxpayers are paying them for, and
nothing else.
Over the past several months, however, multiple allegations
have surfaced about actions by top GSA officials that do not
serve the interests of the taxpayers. These are the allegations
we will investigate today.
The first issue we will examine is a political briefing
that took place at GSA on January 26th of this year. This
briefing was conducted by Scott Jennings, Karl Rove's deputy at
the White House. Mr. Jennings has been in the news for his
involvement of the firing of the U.S. Attorneys, and is one of
the White House officials that both the House and Senate have
asked to testify.
Also at this briefing were Administrator Doan and 40 other
political appointees at GSA, some of whom participated by
videoconference. The briefing was held at GSA facilities during
the work day, but there were no career GSA officials allowed at
the briefing.
We have obtained the PowerPoint presentation that Mr.
Jennings gave to the GSA officials that day. This is the White
House Office of Political Affairs.
It would be perfectly appropriate for a meeting at the
Republican National Committee or with campaign operatives, but
it is the last thing taxpayers would expect at a Government
agency like GSA.
Here is one of the slides. I think we have it on the
screen. This is from Mr. Jennings' presentation. In this slide
Mr. Jennings identified by name the 20 Democratic Members in
the House that the White House is targeting for defeat in 2008.
We have another slide. This one identifies by name 20
Republican Members that the White House considers most
vulnerable in the upcoming election. The White House briefing
was partisan. It was strategic. And it had absolutely no
connection to GSA's Government mission. When the White House
presentation was over, Ms. Doan asked her staff, ``How can we
help our candidates in the next election?''
Well, here are the facts as we know them: One, GSA's top
political appointees were assembled to hear a confidential
White House briefing on the Republican campaign strategic for
2008; two, they were asked to consider how GSA resources could
be used to help Republican candidates; three, they did this in
a Federal building during work hours at taxpayer expense.
This appears to be a textbook example of what should never
happen at a Federal agency. Unfortunately, the January 26th
briefing may not be the only example of politicization of the
Government's premier procurement agency. Inspector General
Miller will testify today that GSA's Administrator Doan and her
top staff intervened in a contract with SUN Microsystems to
reverse the judgment of three career contract officers.
According to the Inspector General, the Administrator's
personal intervention resulted in a sweetheart deal for SUN
Microsystems that will cost taxpayers tens of millions of
dollars.
I want to read one sentence about the SUN contract from the
Inspector General's testimony. ``As a direct consequence of her
intervention and in breach of GSA's fiduciary duty to the U.S.
taxpayers, the pricing concessions made to SUN means that the
U.S. taxpayers will inevitably pay more than they should.''
That is a remarkable finding, but it appears to be
corroborated by evidence received by our committee, including
the statements of contracting officers involved in the
negotiations.
Perhaps even more disturbing, the information we received
appears to directly contradict statements that Ms. Doan made to
Senate Grassley about her involvement in the SUN contract. Ms.
Doan wrote Senator Grassley that, ``I had no knowledge of the
negotiations or basis for decisions made regarding this
contract.'' But, as will become apparent today, there is a
written record documenting Ms. Doan's personal involvement in
reversing the position of career contracting officials.
A third issue we will explore is the no-bid contract that
Ms. Doan gave to her former business associate and friend, Edie
Fraser. According to the Inspector General, this is a serious
violation. In his testimony he states, ``We are talking about
the violation of a key contracting principle: promoting open
competition and avoiding any appearance of personal favoritism
in awarding Government business, by the leader of Government's
premier civilian contracting agency.''
On this issue, too, there is a troubling question about Ms.
Doan's candor. The Inspector General found, ``The record paints
quite a different picture than what Administrator Doan told the
OIG investigators.''
In our own investigation, we also found striking
discrepancies between the assertions of Ms. Doan and the
evidence we gathered.
Well, there are a number of documents that I would like to
make part of this hearing record. These documents include the
White House PowerPoint presentation, the briefing memo prepared
by the staff, the documents cited in the briefing memos, the
transcripts and depositions the committee has received, the
audit and investigative reports provided to the committee by
the Inspector General, and the documents that Members will be
referring to today in their questioning. Without objection,
they will be made part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.057
Chairman Waxman. There is a common thread that ties
together the allegations we will be exploring today. There are
basic rules that are supposed to apply to Federal officials.
You can't engage in partisan politics while you are on
Government time. You can't give no-bid contracts to your
friends and business partners. And you should put the taxpayers
first when negotiating contracts.
The question the committee needs to examine is whether Ms.
Doan and her team at GSA violated these bedrock principles.
Americans want a Government that works. They don't want basic
Government services politicized and they don't want their tax
dollars squandered. Today we will have an opportunity to
explore how well Ms. Doan is meeting these standards at GSA.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.065
Chairman Waxman. I want to now recognize Mr. Davis for his
opening statement, and then we will proceed right to the
witnesses.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know how much I respect you and how much I value our
work together, but your description of this investigation
brings to mind what Mark Twain said about fraud science--one
gets such wholesome returns of conjecture out of such a
trifling investment of fact--for that is what we are dealing
with today: accusatory conjecture based on the selective and
biased interpretation of very few facts.
The title of today's hearing pretty much says it all:
Allegations of Misconduct at the General Services
Administration, not facts, not findings, not even credible
complaints, just allegations picked up from hostile media
reports based on unvetted sources. We will see at the end of
the day these allegations will still be, as the dictionary
defines the term, assertions unsupported and by implication
regarded as insupportable.
Sadly, this hearing represents the fullest expression yet
of the modus operandi adopted by the new majority. Citing
yesterday's news clips, releasing accusatory conclusory inquiry
letter, through amplification and repetition of mere
allegations, seek a conviction in the court of public opinion,
and call a hearing. First the verdict, then the trial.
This process renders hollow the promise of collegiality and
consultation with the minority. Only after the fact are we told
witnesses have been threatened with subpoenas unless they
submit coercive, transcribed interviews, never anticipated by
committee rules. In these non-deposition depositions, the prior
notice and other procedural protections otherwise due to
witnesses in the minority can be ignored. Future witnesses be
advised: when the committee expresses their hope to proceed
without a subpoena, volunteer for a deposition. That way we
will all have time to prepare and we will all know how and when
the transcript can be used to support official committee
business.
In this case the committee has expended significant
resources searching for anything to support their a priori
conclusions, but they found virtually nothing. We received and
reviewed over 14,000 pages of documents from the General
Services Administration. Without consultation with the minority
staff or the ranking member, the majority staff, largely
through the threat of subpoena, conducted 14 transcribed
interviews securing the voluntary attendance of current and
former GSA officials from as far away as Boston and Denver.
Two GSA officials flew from Boston to Washington, D.C., for
interviews regarding the Hatch Act violations. The Boston
officials were questioned for as little as 30 minutes in one
instance and 40 in another. No reason was supplied why these
interviews couldn't take place telephonically. Agency counsel
was not permitted to be present at these interviews. Personal
counsel was said to be permitted; however, four witnesses
stated for the record they were not told they were permitted to
retain personal counsel for these transcribed interviews.
Nevertheless, one interviewee did bring personal counsel.
Not surprisingly, this flawed process has produced an
equally flawed product. As discussions at length in the staff
report we are releasing today, the accusations leveled against
the GSA Administrator, Ms. Lurita Doan, are either flat-out
wrong or based on a distorted and myopic view of the management
responsibilities of the head of a major Federal agency.
I would ask unanimous consent at this point that our
minority report to our Members be included in the record.
Chairman Waxman. Without objection, we will put it in the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.103
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Lurita Doan is a talented, motivated
professional. Born in New Orleans, she was one of the first
African American children to integrate the city's private
schools. She was only 7. That first day, she was knocked down,
kicked, and hit with a brick, but she persisted. She earned her
undergraduate degree from Vassar and a master's degree in
renaissance literature from the University of Tennessee
Knoxville. A self-described unabashed entrepreneur, she started
a successful technology business, which she sold before
entering public service. She and her husband of 22 years have
two daughters.
Perhaps the saddest, most reprehensible aspect of this
defective oversight was the attempt to drag one of Ms. Doan's
daughters into the web of circumstances being spun to ensnare
her mother. That a business friend of Ms. Doan provided her
daughter a reference for an unpaid Capital Hill internship
application is offered as evidence to support alleged
misconduct in dealings between two professional women years
later. It is as implausible as it is inappropriate. Even the IG
report refers to that. It is just sad, and it shows how low
this has gone.
The breathlessly described no-bid contract hardly turned
out to be the elaborate scheme to enrich an acquaintance,
alleged by the majority. We found only that Administrator Doan
wanted very much to acquire a study of GSA's use of small
businesses, particularly those owned by minorities and women.
It is a topic about which she knows much and cares deeply. She
was understandably embarrassed and dismayed that the agency she
just took over had received an F from the Small Business
Administration for small and minority business utilization.
She was determined to improve GSA's image and score. The
evidence supports the conclusion her motives were clear, if her
methods a bit over-zealous. She wanted to engage the services
of a well-regarded diversity consulting firm, Diversity Best
Practices, to help fix the problem. The Administrator
erroneously believed that she had the authority to acquire
these services for $20,000 on an expedited sole source basis.
When she learned otherwise, the arrangement was called off. No
work was ever performed. No money changed hands.
She has expressed regret that it happened, but continues,
as is her way, to advocate forcefully to improve GSA outreach
to small minority and women-owned businesses.
With regard to the contract extension to SUN Microsystems,
there is simply no evidence to support the allegation that Ms.
Doan acted improperly. Ms. Doan never spoke to or pressured any
of the contracting officers to exercise the SUN option. In the
end, the contract extension terms were judged by the
contracting officer to be fair and reasonable.
Similarly, there is no evidence to support the allegation
that she intervened in the suspension and debarment process.
She merely asked her chief of staff for a briefing on a manner
which could have resulted in a Government-wide prohibition
against awarding any contracts to most of the major national
accounting firms. Can you imagine debarring the big four
accounting firms from doing business with the Government
without the Administrator even knowing it? That is the
alternative. Such an inquiry was ordinary and appropriate. It
would have been negligent not to be apprised about the
ramifications of so significant an action.
I sat up here several months ago when we were going over
security clearances and the Deputy of OMB said he wasn't
informed about it and we gave him the devil for not being
informed on what was going on underneath him. We expect people
to at least know what is going on beneath them.
The agency's suspension debarment official stated, ``At no
time did I receive any direct or indirect instruction or
comment from the Office of the Administrator.'' He said he
processed and concluded the matter as directed by the factual
record, in accordance with the prescribed process.
Then there is the alleged Hatch Act violations. It appears
that on January 26, 2007--remember that date--at the conclusion
of a staff luncheon--this is during lunch--attended by GSA
political appointees called by the administration--this is not
Ms. Doan's meeting, this was a meeting called by the
administration, something they routinely do in Executive
agencies. Ms. Doan didn't put out the White House political
affairs order. She just simply attended the meeting. The
Administrator made an off-hand comment about helping our
candidates. That comment has somehow been connected to other
conversations about inviting public officials to GSA building
dedications, efforts to invite Speaker Pelosi to an event in
her District, and to include Senator Mel Martinez in a similar
event in his home State of Florida are anecdotally relayed, not
that she said anything, relayed as evidence of prohibited
partisan activity on Federal property. Such comments may be
impolitic, but several factual realities defeat the effort to
make them evidence of unlawful political activities.
What candidates? What election? In January of this year,
neither Representative Pelosi nor Senator Martinez was a
candidate for any public office. No other candidates are
mentioned. Based on the evidence before us, the only politics
at GSA appear to be intramural, and it is a tough sport.
Administrator Doan has had some disagreements with the GSA
Inspector General. She thought him needlessly adversarial in
assessing the inevitability of the subject of judgments of
contract officers. That, it seems, is where her problems began.
The IG, a former Federal prosecutor, takes issue, often
publicly, with current GSA leadership on the reach and role of
his office. That is his right. But the statement provided to
the committee by the IG for today's hearing is an extraordinary
narrative. Apparently, hell hath no fury like an IG scorned.
Rather than audit results or investigative findings, he brings
us anecdotes, conjecture, innuendo, and invective to impugn the
judgment and character of the GSA Administrator.
His statement mischaracterizes information provided to this
committee, and it appears his office provided information to
the majority and others that was not made available to us. We
will have more than a few questions for the IG today.
Finally, I want to bring the committee's attention to an e-
mail that was sent last night by Ms. Shana Budd, the GSA
contract officer who finalized the SUN Microsystems contract
extension. She takes issue with the majority's attacks on her
integrity and her work. It is important for Members and the
public to understand the demoralizing professional and personal
toll of the investigative tactics being used by the majority in
this instance.
This was an unsolicited e-mail. This wasn't under threat of
subpoena from us. This is an unsolicited e-mail that came in
last night from a GS-13 career civil servant doing her best for
the Government. It is the kind of professionals we want to
serve in Government. Here's what it says.
``Pat, have you seen this? My words and sentiments have
been twisted so badly that it is at the point where they are
making false statements about what I said. The author of this
memorandum''--meaning the majority's memorandum--``is
committing a crime by hand-picking small phrases and comments
out of the broader context of the interview, which obviously
destroys the reader's ability to comprehend the true meaning of
my statements. The author is dramatically twisting my words for
the purpose of meeting his ends.
I am astonished. I am dumbfounded. This is destroying my
well-deserved good name and reputation. It is also attacking my
ethics, procurement integrity, and business judgment, all of
which are upstanding and highly regarded. It seems to me I
would be well served in consulting with a private attorney in
order to protect the previously mentioned assets which are
priceless.
How very, very disturbing that something like this can
happen in this country that I love and believe in. I am an
honest citizen and hard-working, talented professional who has
dedicated my life to civil service in dedication to the
American people. I possess impeccable procurement integrity and
excellent business judgment. I remain immensely proud of the
work I did on the SUN Microsystems contract, because I know
beyond a shadow of a doubt that every action I took was in the
best interest of the Government and the American taxpayers, of
which I am one.
To think that actual Congresspeople would level these
charges against me brings tears to my eyes and a squeeze to my
heart. It is shattering my image of the American electorate as
people who stand up for what is right, do the right thing, and
most certainly protect honest, conscientious public servants. I
lived in northern Virginia for many years, and the U.S. Capital
was always my favorite place to take visitors. I love what I
thought I stood for. Now I don't know what I will think next
time I see it. Who would have thought that doing my job, going
the extra mile, and taking a stand for what is right would lead
to this?
I am honored and proud to serve my Country in the capacity
of contracting officer. I am proud of the warrant that hangs on
my wall. And I am supremely confident that I perform my job
with utmost integrity in an honorable, truthful, level-headed,
sensible, quality oriented, professional manner that serves the
public very well. This is unjust and unfair.
How ironic that the very people who are accusing me of
having poor integrity are, themselves, the ones who possess
poor integrity. I believe that there is a term for this very
behavior used by mental health professionals. It is called
psychology projection. The encyclopedia describes it as
follows: psychology projection or projection bias is a defense
mechanism in which one attributes, projects to others, one's
own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and/or notions.
Projections reduce anxiety by allowing the expression of
the unwanted subconscious impulses and desires without letting
the ego recognize them, and it is time for the congressional
committee to do its job right, and they can start by not
attacking good people. I will not just sit back and accept
these unjust and undeserved insults. I will fight this to the
bitter end for myself and for every average, honest American
citizen. Shana Budd, Contracting Officer, GSA Region 8, Denver
Federal Center.''
And let me just add we got her permission to read this into
the record. She is not a schedule C; she is a career
professional.
I look forward to today's hearing and asking Administrator
Doan to allow to clear her name and reputation, as well.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.106
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. We will
let the facts speak for themselves.
I do want to point out that Shana Budd's testimony in her
interview will be made public and people can see what she said
in that interview and then judge whether her comments in the e-
mail are justified.
Let me also just point out two other procedural things,
without getting into the facts. One, we issued no subpoenas. If
people came and volunteered to talk to us because they knew we
might issue subpoenas, well, that is just the way it works, but
we did not issue any subpoenas. Second, the Republican staffs
were present at every interview, so keep that in mind, as well.
We are pleased now to have with us Senator Grassley.
We are delighted that you took the time to come from the
other side of the Capitol because of your involvement in this
issue, and we welcome you here today. We are eager to hear what
you have to say about the matter, because I know you have been
involved in this question far longer than any of us.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, just a point before we get to
Senator Grassley, are we doing opening statements?
Chairman Waxman. No, we are not going to do opening
statements. We have the witnesses, and then we will proceed
right to the questions.
Mr. Mica. So there will be no opportunity for any of the
Members to comment?
Chairman Waxman. That is correct, until they get to their 5
minutes.
Mr. Mica. Well, I would like an exception to that. I am the
ranking member of Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
and we have responsibility, legislative responsibility, over
GSA, and we have also worked on this particular issue, since
you have raised the point, and I would like time for an opening
statement. I would be glad to defer first to the Senator, but
we have spent a lot of my personal time and staff time to
investigate this matter.
Chairman Waxman. I certainly will want to----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the general rule of
the committee, as I understand it, is that Members get opening
statements. In this case, I would ask that we follow the rules
of the committee and allow Mr. Mica to make an opening
statement.
Chairman Waxman. Well, Senator Grassley does have a time
schedule. Would you allow him to go first and then you make
your statement?
Mr. Mica. Yes, I think that would be fine. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Senator, we are pleased to have you.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF IOWA
Senator Grassley. I thank the members of this committee for
their commitment to oversight, one of our most sacred
responsibilities as a Congress. Today's hearing, focusing on a
number of issues related to decisions of GSA and other senior
officials, and ultimately their impact on the American
taxpayer.
My concerns began last year, when I learned that the
relationship between GSA Inspector General Mr. Brian Miller and
GSA Administrator Ms. Doan was strained and deteriorating. I
hope you know that I had a long history of looking into
wasteful Government spending and the very important role that
is played by Inspectors General, and I hope that you understand
that it doesn't matter to me whether we have a Republican or
Democrat administration, I try to do the job of oversight
equally the same.
I believe that the IG in any agency is our first and main
line of defense against waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers'
money and misconduct by Government officials. The IGs, quite
simply, are watchdogs, and I have been and will continue to
watch the watchdogs. It is incumbent on Congress to ensure that
the IGs are doing their job, that they have the resources to do
their job, and that there is no undue interference with an IG's
ability to do his/her mission.
Currently, GSA holds contracts with thousands of
contractors worth billions. Someone has to ensure that these
contracts yield the best deal possible, and that contractors
involved honor all terms of each contract. In the GSA, this is
a team effort involving GSA contract officials and the IG. This
is a delicate balance, but one that has proven to work, proven
by millions and millions of dollars of savings.
When I learned that the relationship between GSA
Administrator and the IG was becoming more and more strained, I
decided to get to the bottom, and I am not pleased with what I
found. I can certainly accept that agency heads and their IGs
may not always see eye to eye; however, I cannot accept any
move by an agency head to undermine the independence of the IG.
That independence is the heart and soul of the IG Act. It is
what allows the IG to present objective findings in their
investigative reports.
When it was brought to my attention that the Administrator
intended to remove the reimbursable fundings that the GSA IG
depends on for audits of contracts in their pre-award phase, I
immediately looked into the impact that it would have on the
Inspector General's work. In the end, the money for the
reimbursable audits was restored in fiscal year 2007, but the
entire situation provided insight into the flawed budgeting
concept that has the unintended effect of encroaching on the
independence of the IG.
So on February 23, 2007, I asked the Senate Appropriations
Committee to fix the problem by providing a direct
appropriation for GSA IG's pre-award audits. The reimbursable
audits cost the GSA only $5 million per year, but have been
responsible for saving more than $2 billion in the last 2
years, alone. I think $10 billion (sic) in and $20 billion out
sounds like a pretty good deal.
I have asked Administrator Doan about her relationship with
the IG, and she has assured me that she understands and accepts
the importance and necessity of the IG's independence. She says
that she is trying to bring fiscal discipline to the entire
agency, including the Office of IG. I accept that, because that
is a worthy goal. But, despite her assurances to the contrary,
though, her actions and words have not convinced me that she is
committed to utilizing the GSA Office of the Inspector General
to its maximum potential, as intended in the law.
She has indicated privately and publicly that the IG has
been heavy handed in dealing with GSA employees. She has even
suggested that the IG officials have intimidated other GSA
employees and contractors. These are very serious allegations
against Federal law enforcement officers and accredited
auditors, and if true they deserve the highest level of
investigation by both Congress and the executive branch.
Despite numerous attempts to get details, though, on these
allegations from the Administrator, I have received nothing but
innuendos and unspecified allegations.
During the course of my investigation I discovered that
there was one specific allegation relating to a contract
involving Government vendor SUN Microsystems. The GSA IG
conducted a very thorough investigation of the matter and could
find no one in the GSA's regional office that felt intimidated
by IG officials. However, during the course of that
investigation I did learn some very interesting facts about
this particular SUN Microsystems contract which may be the root
cause of the dispute with the IG.
The first piece of information that caught my attention was
this: in spite of repeated warnings by senior GSA officials
since 2006 that SUN Microsystems had allegedly committed civil
and/or criminal fraud on two of these contracts, GSA, with
Administrator Doan's blessing, proceeded to re-award the
contract to SUN on September 8, 2006, with no conditions,
strings, or precautions regarding alleged fraud.
The IG began post-award audits of these contracts over 2
years ago. Those audits were finally completed yesterday. The
scope of the alleged fraud has been established and verified.
The allegations of fraud by SUN will now be referred to the
Department of Justice for further consideration.
By August 2006, several GSA contracting officials, all the
way up to the Administrator, were fully knowledgeable about the
alleged fraud, yet none took appropriate corrective action to
address alleged fraud. Why? Well, the alleged fraud on these
contracts involving defective pricing, unauthorized charges,
unpaid discounts is valued at $10 million. Even SUN
Microsystems had admitted to GSA that they had been negligent
in providing proper pricing and discount information to GSA.
SUN has provided a corrective action plan to prevent this from
happening in the future. Whether this corrective action plan is
effective remains to be seen, but that doesn't wipe out years
of negligence by this Government contractor.
The second piece of information that concerned me was that
this new SUN contract, which will go through 2009, was
negotiated on terms that are extremely unfavorable to the
Government. The terms were so unfavorable, in fact, that,
immediately upon signing, taxpayers lost millions of dollars
due to improper discounting and pricing calculations. The lost
savings could be as high as $20 to $30 million, based upon IG
investigation.
This was the very same issue that the GSA IG was
investigating before the contract was renewed. It seems that
everyone involved--the IG, the contracting officer, senior GSA
officials--was aware that the new contract was bad for the GSA,
bad for Government, and, of course, bad for the taxpayers.
GSA's first response to the allegations of fraud developed
by the IG was to grant another in a long line of contract
extensions to SUN on August 30, 2006. This brought a little
time. Then a new contracting officer was installed on August
31st, a contracting officer with no previous experience with
this very complicated contract.
Finally, on September 8th, just 8 days later, GSA awarded
the contract to SUN, this contract that is even worse for the
Government than the one previously negotiated over the past
year by the two previous contract officers, both of whom were
replaced between February and August 2006.
To make matters worse, the Administrator told me in a
letter dated March 13, 2007, that she was made aware of the
potential criminal fraud by SUN on August 29, 2006, which was 2
days before the new contract officer was appointed and 9 days
before the new contract was awarded.
After the IG informed her of the alleged fraud on SUN
contract, she reportedly told the IG, ``It is essential for GSA
to sign the contract with SUN.'' That was on August 29th. Two
days later, Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner Williams
told the contract officer that he and Administrator Doan,
``Considered the SUN contract strategically important and
wanted it awarded.''
What is even more shocking is that the FSA staff, the arm
of the General Services Administration responsible for
negotiating this contract, were made aware of SUN's alleged
fraud as early as February 12, 2006, and possibly earlier, at
least 7 months before the contract was awarded.
What was the rationale for going ahead with this contract?
Was it GSA's fear of losing the contract to another agency like
NASA? Was it the loss of income from the fees, or simply a
desire to continue doing business with this contractor for some
other still unknown reason?
Hopefully continued investigation such as this hearing
today will eventually reveal what went wrong and answer these
questions.
I want to close by making a very important point. It was
teamwork of the IG and the contracting officials that uncovered
both the potential fraud and the problems with the new
contract, and it was the IG Brian Miller's outstanding
leadership that created an environment where these good things
could happen. Yet, despite their very best efforts, their
warnings fell upon deaf ears at the highest levels of GSA. The
message this sends to Government contractors is very clear: it
doesn't matter how poorly you manage the Government's money or
how badly you violate the Government's contract, the doors of
the U.S. Treasury are wide open. Help yourself to what is in
the coffers. Take what you need. GSA will do business with you
on your terms.
So, Mr. Chairman, let me make one point crystal clear,
including my duties. The Government coffers are not open. We
are watching the activities of Government contractors, senior
agency officials. The perpetuation of fraud and violation of
law should not be tolerated, period.
There are systems in place to prevent this, like the IG Act
and what you are doing here, congressional oversight. When
money is lost due to a flawed contract, negligence, or fraud,
we must remember that money is not the GSA's, it is not
Congress' money, that it is money out of the pockets of hard-
working American taxpayers, and among our most important
responsibilities is to ensure that it is spent responsibly,
wisely, and according to law.
If fraud occurred on this contract and SUN owes the
taxpayers money, as the IG reports, then the money must be
recovered, those responsible must be held accountable.
Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Senator Grassley. I
appreciate your being here. You have been legendary as an
advocate, and also for your tenacity in looking out for the
taxpayers of this country, and I appreciate your insights into
this issue.
I know you have to go, so what we are going to do is Mr.
Davis has a few questions, I have a few questions, and then we
are going to excuse you.
Senator Grassley. OK.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Senator, I appreciate your being
here. I, too, as the chairman of this committee, we would go
where the facts took us, and Mr. Waxman and I together went
after the administration when we thought they were wrong and
defend them when we think they are right. We all want savings.
And Ms. Doan is a big girl. She can take care of herself on the
questions to follow to explain her role in this.
There is no evidence that she negotiated directly with SUN
Microsystems that you can find, is there? You don't have any
evidence that she negotiated directly with SUN Microsystems, do
you, Senator?
Senator Grassley. What I have evidence of is that there was
questions raised about alleged fraud over a long period of time
that should have been taken into consideration by anybody doing
business with this company.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Right, but you don't have any
evidence that she negotiated with----
Senator Grassley. At this point everything is alleged.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Right. I think she can answer these
questions.
I would just add that I spent my career before I came here
as a Government contracts attorney. In most agencies the IG
doesn't do the pre-audit report. This is done by the
contracting auditors or the DCAA. This is kind of the exception
to the rule where the IG does. But let me just say this. Let's
assume that GSA allowed this SUN scheduled contract to lapse.
Let's just assume for a second we have reached an impasse, they
have been through three contracting officers. If the contract
lapsed, what would happen then to agencies that require needs
for SUN products to purchase them under individual
acquisitions? If they are not on the GSA schedule and an agency
needs it, how do they get it?
Senator Grassley. I'm not doing the business of GSA, but it
seems to me when there are questions about fraud that come up
that if there was a necessity to go 1 more day or 2 more days
or 10 more days to keep Government functioning, that you would
do it with complete openness, that there is very much questions
involved.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I agree with you. Well, Senator, the
only thing I would note here is this had gone on for weeks and
months with extensions that were far more costly to taxpayers
than getting this resolved. And also, getting it on the
schedule is just a license to hunt. Once you are on a schedule
doesn't guarantee you one, correct. That is why it is so
difficult to understand, for people to make these statements
about it costing millions of dollars.
What happens, as I understand the process, is ordering
agencies--in this case, it is a license to hunt. You are on the
GSA schedule, but for an agency to then buy your product they
have to compete it off the schedule against competing
companies, who also have to negotiate their prices, and the
price that was negotiated here is just kind of a starting
place. They generally go down from there, and that makes it
difficult to measure.
But I think you are right that we need to take a look at
this, and when agencies negotiate these things it should be
subject to congressional oversight. We look forward to, I
think, a robust conversation about that today, and I'm sure the
Administrator can tell you what her thought process was, as the
policymaker. As you know, IGs' roles aren't to make policy,
they are to make audit recommendations.
Senator Grassley. You have to remember that in Government
contracts it is a little bit different than in a commercial----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Very different.
Senator Grassley. The people who want to do business with
the Federal Government have responsibility to make more
information available to the Government.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Absolutely.
Senator Grassley. And you would expect that any deal that
the American Government gets would be, if nothing more than
reason because of quantity, we would get a better deal than
they give to the commercial side.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Senator, I am not sure that is
always true. For example, in Medicare prescription drug prices
I'm not sure that Government would get a better deal than you
get off of some of these larger buying agencies. I think you
would agree with me on that. But, aside from that, let's look
at this. I appreciate your bringing it to our attention.
What I think the evidence will show today is that you had
an impasse. It had been through three contracting officers, and
if they went off the schedule, the Government was going to get
its product somewhere. I think they can defend or not the
merits of this, but I think the evidence will show that Ms.
Doan didn't negotiate a thing in this case. She simply said we
have an impasse, let's try to resolve it, and both sides at one
point switched their contracting negotiators.
Thank you.
Senator Grassley. Well, in regard to drugs, the Government
might get a better deal, but our senior citizens only have the
choice of 25 percent of the drugs that they otherwise have
under the plan we have right now.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Senator, it is the same problem
here. If you don't get a deal here, and SUN Microsystems isn't
on the GSA schedules, and the Government has a need for those
products, you go out into the marketplace and you pay a lot
more.
Senator Grassley. Are you done with me?
Chairman Waxman. No, Senator, I want to ask you a few
questions.
Senator Grassley. Yes, I'm glad to answer your questions.
Chairman Waxman. It seems that what GSA is supposed to do
is go out and negotiate fair and reasonable prices for other
Government agencies to get the services or products that they
might use in their Government activities. We are going to go
into this issue more in detail, but, from my understanding, GSA
had a contractor, SUN Microsystems. SUN Microsystems was giving
a lower price to their commercial customers and then would turn
around and charge the Government more for the same services,
which was contrary to GSA rules.
So when they negotiated the contract and renegotiated the
contract they said you can't do that, and they went through a
long period of time of extensions. What they needed to do, if
they couldn't get their contractor, SUN Microsystems, to give
the best price to the Government, they needed to look for
somebody else. But we will go into that more in detail.
What I want to ask you is you have been looking at this
issue, and you asked Ms. Doan for her comments, and now you
have seen what she had to say to you. You have looked at the
documents and the e-mails from Ms. Doan. Do you think that this
raises any question, after you reviewed all this matter, about
the accuracy of the assertions that Ms. Doan made to you in the
letter to you?
Senator Grassley. I think it is typical of too many letters
I get back from various agencies of Government, including this
one, and this is an example of what I am talking about, so I am
in agreement with you that we need more information and have
not been entirely candid. But there is an institutional disease
in bureaucracy under Republicans or Democrats that you have
always got to pull teeth to get answers to your questions.
Chairman Waxman. That is true enough, and that is why I
think Congress has to do its oversight responsibility. Do you
think this is a worthwhile activity for an oversight committee?
Senator Grassley. Listen, you wouldn't be doing your
constitutional job upholding your oath if you weren't doing
what you are doing today and do more of it.
Chairman Waxman. And let me ask you this question: who
appointed Ms. Doan and who appointed the Inspector General for
her agency?
Senator Grassley. Listen, the buck stops at the Oval
Office.
Chairman Waxman. So both were appointed by the same
President?
Senator Grassley. Yes. And I want you----
Chairman Waxman. And they are having a disagreement because
the Inspector General, in pursuing his job of watching over
this agency, has pointed out that he thinks they have given
contracts where the taxpayers are paying more money than they
should?
Senator Grassley. Yes.
Chairman Waxman. Well, we will go into it with them,
because we will have them both here, but it just strikes me
that when the Republicans say this is partisan and unnecessary
and unfair, I am pleased to have you here to say that this is
the kind of thing that we ought to be doing, watching out for
the taxpayers.
Senator Grassley. I want you to know that Inspector
Generals are in the first line. They should be very, very
independent. They ought to probably have more independence than
the present law gives them.
I have been involved in the firing and resignations of IGs
that haven't been doing their job, at least five, and, you
know, they help us to do our constitutional job of oversight.
Your job, my job would be much more difficult if we didn't have
Inspector Generals.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you. I certainly agree with you.
Thank you very much for being here. We know you have a busy
schedule.
I would like to ask the Members, by unanimous consent, even
though we were going to have opening statements only by the
ranking member and myself, that we allow Mr. Mica to give an
opening statement, and then we will proceed to the witnesses.
Does that meet everybody's agreement?
[No response.]
Chairman Waxman. If so, Mr. Mica, you are going to be
treated with special courtesy today and we recognize you at
this time for an opening statement.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Having served with Mr. Waxman, for 15
years, I know he has been around a lot longer in Congress, I
appreciate that.
As I did state, I took over the responsibility of ranking
member of Transportation and Infrastructure. One of our
subcommittees is Economic Development and Public Buildings, of
which we have legislative responsibility for GSA. Quite
frankly, I didn't know the GSA Administrator from Adam's house
cat several months ago. I might say that, just by way of
information about myself--and we just heard from Senator
Grassley--I started out some of my career with the
responsibility of reviewing local government and then some
State government operations.
One of the first things I did was send a local Republican
official, a county official, helped send him to jail for waste,
fraud, and abuse, so I don't play those games. If someone is
abusing their office, I will go after them. Mr. Waxman and I
and Mr. Davis, we have been on the committee and we have done
that over the years, and I think we have that responsibility in
the future.
That being said, I have at least two times questioned the
Administrator with some of my staff. When I first read some of
the accounts in the Washington Post, I guess, that printed this
story about a no-bid contract, I, too, became concerned. So I
started looking at this and talked to her. I didn't know much
about her. I found out she was a professional businesswoman who
had great experience. I thought, my god, she is giving some
kind of a favor and a bid to a company she dealt with in the
private sector. This looks like some sort of a payback.
Then I was absolutely stunned when I found out that she had
not received any money from the company, this diversity
company, that, in fact, she had paid $400,000 for contracts and
this company, in fact, had a good reputation in looking at
diversity issues, and she had conducted some of that in the
private sector, so I was sort of stunned by what I found.
Then I found out that GSA, and not knowing much about GSA
because I hadn't been responsible for oversight in this area,
was actually about to get or had gotten an F grade in
diversity. So here's an agency, and she is a minority
Republican appointee who comes into an agency and finds an
agency that is getting an F grade in its performance relating
to racial diversity in the Department.
I think her biggest mistake at this point is trying to
think she could do something like she did in the private
sector, is move something forward to correct the situation.
Having already contracted in the private sector with someone
who did a good job on diversity questions, she tries to get a
contract to avoid an upcoming again analysis and review of the
agency's poor performance.
So I looked at that and I thought there is nothing here. I
mean, in fact, she should probably be applauded for trying to
come into an agency that has a horrible reputation on diversity
and racial questions of employment in the agency, and as a
minority appointee trying to do something about it.
So then I thought, well, I heard a little bit about the
partisan politics, possible violation of the Hatch Act. I
thought, well damn, me and Henry, we have her on this one. Then
I find out that actually she didn't even initiate the
conference. I thought, well, maybe she did this before the
election. Then I went back to see when was she appointed. She
was appointed in June of last year. July, August, September,
October, November, December, January, February. Here we are in
February, so she has been an 8-month appointee. Was she trying
to influence the election in the fall? This actually took place
January 28th, I think the date was, the end of January, in a
conference call not initiated by her. So strike out No. 2.
Then we get to the SUN contract. Ohio, we have her this
time because she was involved in knowing all about the SUN
contract.
Here's the dates on the SUN contract. Negotiation with SUN
started, the first and second contract extensions were executed
by Robert Overly over a period of 7 months. A second contract
extension was granted to expire February 2005. Well, where the
hell is Ms. Doan? She didn't come in until June, and then the
dates we just got even from Senator Grassley, she had been on
the job for 45 days trying to get something done on something
that had been pending, I understand, for 5 years.
I have been involved in investigations and reviews on this
committee for 15 years, and I am telling you this unfortunately
looks like it is a targeted attempt to go after a minority
appointee. I find that very offensive in this process.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for the time.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Mica. You can
stay for the rest of the hearing if you want to hear the
witnesses, but I know you have made up your mind.
We will now proceed to listen to the two witnesses that
involve the issues that have been put before us.
I am very pleased to welcome the Honorable Lurita A. Doan.
She is the 18th Administrator of the General Services
Administration. Prior to becoming GSA Administrator in May
2006, Ms. Doan was the president of New Technology Management,
Inc., a company she founded in 1990.
Ms. Doan, we want to welcome you to our hearing today. I
want to tell you that your prepared statement will be in the
record in full. We would like to ask, if you would, to try to
limit your oral presentation to around 5 minutes, but we will
not be strict on that because it is important that we hear from
you.
It is the practice of this committee to put all witnesses
under oath, and I would like to ask you to stand and please
raise your right hand to take the oath.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Waxman. The record will indicate the witness
answered in the affirmative.
We are pleased that you are here, and I am going to now
recognize you for your comments.
STATEMENTS OF LURITA A. DOAN, ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION; AND BRIAN D. MILLER, INSPECTOR GENERAL, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF LURITA A. DOAN
Ms. Doan. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Davis, and members
of the committee, I appreciate the invitation to appear before
you today to address the matters raised in the March 6th
invitation.
This is my first time testifying as Administrator of the
General Services Administration.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one of my favorite movies,
but I have to admit that I never thought that I would be living
the movie, and yet here I am.
Thank you for the opportunity to resolve a number of issues
that have appeared in the media. I welcome this opportunity to
set the record straight.
I have submitted a detailed written testimony, but let me
highlight the key elements. They are: fiscal discipline,
oversight, and results.
First, the cost of imposing fiscal discipline. Within hours
of assuming office this past June, I initiated a line-by-line
review of the entire GSA budget. We had over $100 million
deficit for fiscal year 2006. We had flunked our annual audit.
The revenue from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006 had
plunged by over $4 billion. Morale was low, and there was talk
of mandatory buy-outs.
I had three goals: eliminate sources of wasteful spending,
apply oversight equally to all divisions within GSA, achieve
results by encouraging GSA employees to innovate, improve GSA
performance, and save taxpayer money. These were priorities I
had identified in my confirmation hearing.
We identified and eliminated non-performing programs. We
hacked unnecessary travel to places like Australia and Kuala
Lumpur. GSA divisions cut spending by 9 percent, and we didn't
even have to touch employee salaries. It was with great pride
that we submitted a budget to OMB with retroactive cuts for
fiscal year 2006, fiscal year 2007, and even proposed cuts in
fiscal year 2008.
GSA employees knew the sources of wasteful spending, and
they were elated to know that under me there were no sacred
cows. Today, through the hard work of our GSA team, our morale
has improved. GSA was recently ranked as one of the top 10 best
places to work in Federal Government. We have a balanced
budget. And we got a clean audit.
I am really proud of the transformational changes made to
the GSA's schedule process, where we just awarded our first GSA
schedule within 30 days of the application. Only 10 months ago
the average time was 157 days.
The fast reorganization is successfully underway, and GSA
has turned around and created a positive relationship with the
Judiciary and the Department of Defense, and these are our two
biggest customers.
We did all of this in 10 months. Bold, new leadership was
what the President wanted, and that is exactly what he got at
GSA.
The early fiscal discipline is now yielding improved
performance, but I am going to tell you change is difficult,
and not everyone wants to improve. Some cling to the old and
refuse to cut spending and will do anything to protect
bureaucratic turf, and this is what happened at GSA. I believe
the Office of the Inspector General may have been angered by
any suggestion that their operations could be improved or that
any spending could be cut.
I probably should have predicted what followed:
investigations intended to intimidate were launched, but never
ended, and the old-fashioned squeeze was on. I refused to
yield, and I still believe that my actions were right, but I am
going to tell you I am not a perfect person. I make mistakes,
and honestly I am probably going to make a few more, but there
was no wrongdoing.
In Washington, it seems to me that budgets are fiercely
protected, but that sometimes these legitimate policy disputes
cross the line and become personal attacks, and I believe that
this is what happened to me.
Mr. Chairman, you do not face the Administrator of GSA but
the full fury of an absolutely angry Mom when someone from this
committee alleges that 3 years ago there was some wrongdoing
involving my then-14-year-old daughter who participated in a
mandatory, school-wide community service program as an intern
to Senator Debbie Stabenow 3 years ago, long before I entered
public office. I am sure you know Senator Stabenow, and I am
sure you know that she would never do anything that is wrong.
I know that this attack was probably inserted in the
invitation by a too-eager staffer who thought that bloodsport
involving children was acceptable. To that committee staffer
who thought that attacking one of my kids would be fair game,
let me tell you directly, shame on you. Shame on you for
getting so caught up in the give-and-take of politics that you
lost your sense of decency and fair play and let partisan
passions overwhelm good judgment. Shame on you for not thinking
through the terrible and unintended consequences on good people
everywhere interested in public service.
You know, like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith I stand here. I
am going to be honest. I am facing a gazillion allegations, but
the curious thing is that all of these allegations stem from a
single source, and all of them became public as a direct result
of my attempts to impose fiscal discipline throughout GSA.
I knew that when I moved to restore fiscal discipline and
bring some sunshine to poor managerial practices that I was
going to be in for a lot of criticism, but I was surprised by
the scandal-mongering involving attacks on children, that I now
have hate mail sent to my home, and am vilified in the national
media.
The time to focus on the facts has come and the political
points that can be scored from trumped-up charges put away.
When you examine my testimony--and I hope that you will take
the time to read it. I know it is a little lengthy--I hope that
you will see that each of these different allegations and
attacks on my character are groundless, that I did not
interfere, and that I was simply exercising my right as
Administrator to know what was going on at the GSA.
But I think that this hearing is important for two other
far more important reasons. The first regards wasteful
spending. I think that what we say and what we do here today
could set the tone for how other Federal agencies look at
oversight and accountability and how aggressive they are to be
in identifying and eliminating specific causes of wasteful
spending.
GSA, as far as I know, was the only Federal agency that
submitted a budget that voluntarily called for retroactive cuts
to its budget. It took courage to do that, but I fear that if
it becomes common practice for agency heads to face a never-
ending barrage of personal attacks for doing so, that you can
be sure that no such effort, it is never going to be made
again.
Second, this hearing could possibly, it seems to me, set
the atmosphere for how we approach the issue of oversight. Much
of my testimony deals with my determination to extend oversight
and accountability equally throughout GSA divisions, including
the Office of the Inspector General. Those of us in Government,
we have a great opportunity to begin an important dialog that
has, at its core, two questions: first, is oversight something
that applies equally to all spending decisions? Or should
oversight and accountability only be applied to selected
Government organizations or programs?
I thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to
answering your questions. I hope that I will give you a chance
to get to know me just a little bit better.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Doan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.124
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Ms. Doan, for your statement to
us.
Without objection, we will now proceed with the chairman
and the ranking member controlling 15 minutes of time, and I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa. I was only going to
yield him 5 minutes, but I will yield 15 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Davis.
Good morning.
Ms. Doan. Good morning.
Mr. Braley. Let's begin by reviewing what GSA does and what
its mission is. GSA is a Government agency that manages Federal
buildings, buys equipment and supplies, and works with other
agencies to purchase goods and services. As the chairman noted,
the impact of this service is huge, because the GSA helps
manage nearly $500 billion in Federal assets.
According to GSA's Web site, its core mission is to help
Federal agencies better serve the public by offering at best
value superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition
services, and management policies.
I assume you would agree with the mission statement that is
posted on the Web site?
Ms. Doan. I do, although I will tell you we are improving
it, because we are just finishing our new strategic plan.
Mr. Braley. But I assume that you would agree with it as it
is currently stated?
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Braley. And do you also agree that the GSA's core
mission does not include engaging in partisan political
activity?
Ms. Doan. I do not think that any Government agency should
be engaging in partisan political activity.
Mr. Braley. Let's talk about the meeting that you
referenced in your opening statement on January 26, 2007. I
believe most people rightly assume that the GSA's mission is
not political, just making sure that Government buildings are
well-built and well-maintained and that Federal employees have
the resources and supplies they need to do their job. But on
January 26, 2007 you held a meeting at GSA headquarters that
raised serious concerns about possible illegal political
activity, and I want to ask you about that meeting.
It is our understanding that the meeting occurred at GSA
headquarters on Government property. We have been told that you
were there as the highest-ranking GSA official, and your chief
of staff, John Phelps, was there, as well as dozens of other
political appointees working at GSA. Overall, there were nearly
40 Republican political appointees who joined the meeting
either in person or through a video conference.
The committee has been told that the reason for this
meeting was to hear a presentation from Scott Jennings. Scott
Jennings is Karl Rove's deputy at the White House. He is the
deputy director of political affairs for President Bush. Is
that correct so far?
Ms. Doan. No it is not.
Mr. Braley. And what was not correct about that statement?
Ms. Doan. John Phelps did not attend that meeting.
Mr. Braley. And did not participate by phone?
Ms. Doan. And did not participate by phone.
Mr. Braley. And was not involved in any way in the meeting?
Ms. Doan. To my knowledge, he was not in any way involved
in the meeting.
Mr. Braley. The committee has been informed that Mr.
Jennings gave a PowerPoint presentation at the meeting. Were
you aware of that?
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Braley. And we have been told that he discussed the
2006 elections during that presentation. Would you characterize
his presentation as a purely factual presentation about the
results of the 2006 election?
Ms. Doan. I am a little bit embarrassed to admit this, but
I can say that I honestly don't have a recollection of the
presentation at all.
Mr. Braley. Well, I assume that, given your past
experience, you have sat through PowerPoint presentations
before?
Ms. Doan. I have sat through----
Mr. Braley. And that during PowerPoint presentations,
information is projected in slides, and usually those slides
are reviewed by the person making the presentation to reinforce
verbally the visual images that are displayed on the slides?
Ms. Doan. Oftentimes they are.
Mr. Braley. Is that your general understanding of what took
place on this date?
Ms. Doan. Yes. I believe that is true. I believe there were
PowerPoint slides, and I believe Scott Jennings did speak.
Mr. Braley. The committee has obtained a copy of the
presentation that Mr. Jennings gave at your office, and I would
like to ask you about the topics that he discussed with the
staff. At this time I would ask the staff to put up slide 555,
which is the first cover slide for the PowerPoint presentation,
showing that this was prepared by the White House Political
Office headed by Karl Rove.
That is what the cover slide says; is that correct?
Ms. Doan. Yes. I am looking at the one you gave me.
Mr. Braley. And then let's look at slide 578. This is a
slide that has at the top 2008 House Targets, Top 20. Do you
see that?
Ms. Doan. I do.
Mr. Braley. And there can be no dispute, from the content
of this slide, that this slide is depicting Republican targets
that identify Democratic seats that are vulnerable in 2006.
Isn't that what it says?
Ms. Doan. I'm reading. It says House Targets, Top 20.
Chairman Waxman. It shows 2008.
Mr. Braley. Yes. And it shows, District by District, the
individuals, what the percentage of that District was in the
2004 election and what percentage that particular Democratic
candidate received in the 2006 election; correct?
Ms. Doan. Yes. Honestly, I have not seen this chart until
yesterday. I don't remember. I mean, I really, truly don't
remember seeing this chart until yesterday, when I tried to dig
it up, and I have to say I don't know what the explanation was
that accompanied this. I truly do not remember this part of the
presentation.
Mr. Braley. Well, you are familiar with what the word
target means, right?
Ms. Doan. I think we could say that I am one right now,
yes.
Mr. Braley. Yes. And what this means is that the
Republicans are trying to target these seats to win them back
in 2008. That was what was discussed at the presentation.
Ms. Doan. I appreciate your interpretation of that.
Chairman Waxman. If the gentleman would yield for 1 minute,
I just want to verify, did you know that your office supplied
this chart to us?
Ms. Doan. Yes, I did, but I did not review the actual data.
There was different groups that were involved in this, since
this was not my meeting. I did not convene it. I didn't run the
agenda of it. I didn't invite Speaker Jennings, Scott Jennings,
to the meeting. I actually didn't have any involvement in it.
The group that was involved in that, they prepared that
submission for you.
Chairman Waxman. You were just there, though?
Ms. Doan. I attended the meeting. Yes, I was there.
Chairman Waxman. OK. Well, I am going to let Mr. Braley
continue.
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Braley. You would agree that a reasonable
interpretation of this slide is that it was a political attempt
to try to target the top 20 Democratic candidates for defeat in
2008?
Ms. Doan. No, I would not say that. I would say that this
is a slide that says 2008 House Targets, Top 20. I do not want
to try to speculate on what was intended by Mr. Jennings on the
slide. I really think you have to ask him.
Mr. Braley. Well, I think reasonable people interpreting
and viewing this material can probably get a pretty good
understanding of what Mr. Jennings was doing there.
The next slide I would like to talk about is slide 579.
This is a slide that has as a heading, 2008 House GOP Defense.
Have you seen this slide before?
Ms. Doan. I saw it yesterday is when I remember. I'm sure I
probably, possibly saw it during the meeting. I don't remember
it during our meeting, but honestly, as I said before, I don't
really remember the PowerPoint presentation very clearly during
that meeting.
Mr. Braley. And this slide lists a number of vulnerable
Republican House seats that are being targeted for protection
in the 2008 congressional elections; isn't that a reasonable
conclusion that you can draw from this slide?
Ms. Doan. Congressman, I will accept your explanation of
it.
Mr. Braley. And then, if we look at slide 581, this slide
has the caption, Battle for the Senate, 2008, and identifies
potential pickup opportunities, one category described as
Republican offense listing six States, one category described
as Republican defense listing eight States, and then listing
other noncompetitive States. Do you agree that a reasonable
person interpreting what is contained on this slide could
conclude that these are targeted Senate seats that the
Republican White House is trying to protect or pick up?
Ms. Doan. Senator, I will accept your interpretation of
this slide. I mean, I'm sorry, Congressman. A promotion.
Mr. Braley. I am very proud of my title as Congressman, so
thank you.
Ms. Doan. Demotion. I'm sorry. I'm not even going to get
into that, guys.
Mr. Braley. Can you tell us what, if anything, these slides
have to do with the GSA's core purpose of procuring supplies
and managing Federal buildings?
Ms. Doan. This brown bag luncheon I believe has been
mischaracterized. This is a meeting that is a team-building
meeting that is hosted by our White House liaison, a GSA
employee, a non-career employee, and it is hosted every month.
I try to attend whenever I can. Occasionally I realize I am
late either coming in or leaving early, but I do try to be
supportive. We look upon this as team-building. We have had a
variety of speakers who speak in whatever their particular area
of expertise is. That is what we do in these luncheons. I am
trying to build a superior management team at GSA, and any kind
of team-building activities that I can do, I----
Mr. Braley. With all due respect, Ms. Doan, I don't believe
you answered my question, which was----
Ms. Doan. I'm sorry.
Mr. Braley [continuing]. To ask what these slides had to do
with the GSA's mission.
Ms. Doan. I'm sorry.
Mr. Braley. I think the answer to my question is clear.
This was a partisan political briefing. It occurred on GSA
property during work hours and had nothing to do with the GSA
mission. You identified team-building as one of the purposes of
this meeting. Can you explain to the taxpayers of this country
how holding this partisan political briefing helped with team
building?
Ms. Doan. As I had said a little bit earlier, this is a
brown bag lunch. It occurs on the lunch hour of our non-career
employees. This is not my slide presentation. And I really do
ask you, if you need to have an accurate interpretation of what
that PowerPoint slide presentation means, please, you know, I
would ask you to ask Mr. Jennings. This is his product and he
was a guest at our meeting.
Mr. Braley. Well, when the presentation begins with the
White House Office of Political Affairs on the cover slide and
the slide presentation has multiple references to the
Republican's wanted, 72 hour get out the vote effort, and its
impact on a host of different congressional races, which is
what is contained on the other slides that are in this
presentation, I think the American taxpayers have a very good
reason to wonder whether the only team that was being helped
during this briefing was the Republican party team. The Federal
Hatch Act says you can't use the workplace to engage in team
building for any political party.
You have suggested that this wasn't intended to have a
partisan purpose in your presentations, and yet the committee
has been informed by multiple sources that after Mr. Jennings
finished his presentation, you took the floor, thanked him, and
then posed a question to the entire group of participants. And,
according to those sources, you stated, ``How can we use GSA to
help our candidates in the next election?''
Now, reminding you that you are under oath, can you tell
the committee whether, in fact, you did make that statement?
Ms. Doan. I do know that I am under oath, and I will tell
you that honestly and absolutely I do not have a recollection
of actually saying that.
Mr. Braley. The committee has interviewed and deposed
witnesses who participated in the briefing, and these were not
the type of off-the-record discussions the White House is
currently recommending in the Attorney Generals investigation.
One of those, Justin Bush, is a Republican political appointee
at GSA, and he is quoted as saying that your comment was, ``How
can we use different GSA projects, building openings, and the
like to further aid other Republicans.'' Do you have any reason
to doubt Mr. Bush's memory?
Ms. Doan. Honestly, I have told you I do not have any
recollection of saying that, but I do know, I have been brought
to understand that there is actually a difference of opinion
among the attendees about what exactly was said.
Mr. Braley. Well, another attendee, Jennifer Millikan, is
the Deputy Director of Communications at GSA and also a
Republican appointee. She stated that you said, ``How we could
help candidates.'' Do you remember saying that?
Ms. Doan. I have no recollection of saying that.
Mr. Braley. Do you disagree with your own press person that
comment was made by you?
Ms. Doan. Congressman----
Mr. Braley. A comment about helping candidates, our
candidates?
Ms. Doan. Congressman, I don't know how many times I have
said this, fourth or fifth time, but I will repeat again that I
cannot, I do not recollect this. I honestly and absolutely have
no recollection. But I will tell you that the IG has requested
an investigation from the Office of the Special Counsel into
this matter. That investigation, to my knowledge, is still
open. It is currently running. We at GSA, I, in particular, we
are cooperating fully, and I would actually ask you to please
allow the investigation to run its course.
Mr. Braley. Well, part of our function here is to perform
congressional oversight, which by its very nature includes
investigation. That is the purpose we are here today.
Another attendee, the Chief Acquisition Officer of your
agency, Emily Murphy, also a Republican political appointee,
said that at the meeting you stated, ``How can GSA help our
candidates or help position our candidates.''
Her assistant, Kristyann Monica, backs up her account and
says that you said, ``How can we help our candidates in the
next election.''
We also have a statement from Matthew Sisk, the Special
Assistant to the Regional Administrator for Massachusetts,
likewise a Republican political appointee, as well as Michael
Burkholtz, a Senior Advisor to the Chief Acquisition Officer at
GSA. These are not partisan Democrats attacking you, as you
have alleged. These are statements from six different
Republican appointees who work at GSA, and they all told us the
same thing about your making express reference to political
comments during this meeting.
Do you think all of these people are lying?
Ms. Doan. I cannot answer for them. I can only answer for
myself, and I will tell you that I honestly have no
recollection of making that statement.
Mr. Braley. Giving you one last chance to clarify the
record, I am going to ask: did you ever make the statement,
``How can we use GSA to help our candidates in the next
election,'' or words to that effect?
Ms. Doan. Congressman, I cannot recollect making that
statement.
Mr. Braley. The reason this is so important to me is
because you directed comments to staff of this committee and
you said, ``Shame on you for getting so caught up in the game
of politics that you let partisan politics affect your
judgment.'' Turning that mirror around, Ms. Doan, I think there
are people on this committee who wonder whether the same
statement could apply to you, in light of what these Republican
political appointees have testified you said during this
meeting on GSA property with GSA employees in attendance. Can
you understand that concern?
Ms. Doan. I do not believe that there were any 14 year olds
at that meeting.
Mr. Braley. You don't believe that you could be perceived
as having participated in a meeting where partisan political
politics was the main subject with GSA employees in attendance
on GSA property and asking a question which you cannot recall
where you talk about helping our candidates, how that could be
perceived as maybe being possibly clouded by partisan political
judgment?
Ms. Doan. I do not believe that this was an inappropriate
meeting. I believe that all around Government there are non-
career employees who meet to discuss different ways to advance
policies and programs of the administration. But that is not
the same as asking Federal employees to engage in partisan
political activities in the workplace. I simply do not have any
recollection of ever saying that.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. I am now going to yield to Mr. Davis, but
one quick question on this whole thing.
It was a brown bag lunch for those who were there, but this
was a teleconference, and even people as far away as California
were participating in this meeting; isn't that correct?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you.
And Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And the White House called this,
right? This is what they do on a regular basis, where they like
to get together with their Schedule C's?
Ms. Doan. Yes, it is.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How often do these occur at GSA?
Ms. Doan. Usually they occur monthly.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Ms. Doan. And they are convened and arranged by our White
House liaison.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So the White House liaison,
basically, the White House says we want to talk to our Schedule
C's. These are employees who serve at the pleasure of the
President?
Ms. Doan. Right. We have a requirement to try to advance
the policies of the administration and execute them and make
these initiatives successful.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now, you didn't see these slides
ahead of time, did you?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You didn't help prepare these
slides, did you?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You had no idea what they were going
to say, did you?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. In fact, you weren't even paying
attention, it sounds like.
Ms. Doan. It is embarrassing to admit it, but it is true.
If I could just say, it was a very busy week for me. I had
received a letter from the committee. We were in the middle of
preparing all of the document requests.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But when the White House does these,
they like the agency heads to be there?
Ms. Doan. I try. I think it is important for my employees
to see that I am engaged in all aspects of GSA and I do try,
even if I have to leave early or come late.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now, we are told by some witnesses,
there are some witnesses that say you said something, some that
say you didn't, and it was a long time ago, but did anybody at
any point say these were inappropriate subjects, or somebody
said we should move away from this? Do you remember any of
that?
Ms. Doan. I really do not remember anything about this
meeting.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. But you don't deny what people
are saying? You are not denying----
Ms. Doan. No, I'm not denying what they are saying; I'm
simply saying there were cookies on the table, I remember
coming in late, I remember we had, it seemed like, quite a few
people who were actually missing.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Well, let me just ask you this: when
there are building openings and the like, it is the policy, and
is it your policy and the GSA policy that incumbent Members of
Congress from both parties be invited to those events?
Ms. Doan. Absolutely. GSA has an incredible record on this.
We have Federal buildings, we have courthouses, and we have
traditionally and consistently invited all members of State
congressional delegations.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. There was no conversation about
excluding Democrats or excluding one party from any of these
openings, was there?
Ms. Doan. Absolutely not. In fact, we try to get everyone
to come, and if any of you have not been to a building
opening--I see, Congressman Higgins, you will have an
opportunity certainly at the Buffalo Courthouse in a few
years--but if you have an opportunity to come to one of our
building openings, they are incredible things. You can see the
truly splendid work that we do at GSA. I think we are really
proud of that, so we invite everyone.
I think, if you look at my actions, you will find that I
have spent an enormous amount of time in outreach activities
and responding to Democrats in the last----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Ms. Doan, what I gather is this is a
presentation that the White House was giving to Schedule C
employees. You obviously had a lot of other things on your
mind. You didn't call the meeting. You didn't approve the
slides. You didn't even know what they would talk about----
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia [continuing]. In a general sense. And
you said, ``Well, what can we do?'' Is that basically the gist
of what I understand the majority is saying? You look and they
are saying this is somehow illegal violation, they want to run
you out of town.
Ms. Doan. Honestly, I don't even remember that.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I understand.
Ms. Doan. I know you are trying----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I think this goes on every day. It
happens in Republican and Democratic administrations. This was
during the people's lunch hours?
Ms. Doan. Yes, it is.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And generally their lunch hours are
free for people to do--you don't regulate what people do during
their lunch hours?
Ms. Doan. Well, we don't even regulate what time your lunch
hour is. Usually you can take your lunch hour whenever you
want.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Some Members came during their lunch
hour to do this, and the allegation, I think, from the other
side is that somehow, because there was a video conference to
listen to the White House, that somehow you are to blame. You
didn't arrange this? This came at the request of the White
House?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Chairman Waxman. For the record, in California it is not
lunch hour, so somebody is videoconferencing this in
California. While it is a lunch hour here, it is early morning
there.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. They might be having an early lunch,
Mr. Waxman.
Ms. Doan. That is true. In fact, you could take your lunch
whenever you choose, so if you wanted to arrange your day
differently or if you were on----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Well, I guess if they really want to
pursue this they can go back to the time slips----
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia [continuing]. And they could just see
if somebody took an 8 a.m. lunch and a 12 lunch, and maybe they
can find some act of genocide there that they can hang some
Schedule C on, as well.
Let me go ahead to SUN Microsystems, because there have
been a lot of allegations on it. I mean, this has happened. I
have been in this town a long time. I worked in the Nixon White
House. You know, this is a political town, and these are
political appointees, and there is no allegation here that
there were any actions taken by GSA to retaliate against
anybody. We just finished one election there weren't even
candidates in these races. So it has to be put in perspective,
and it just shows how desperate they get to focus on some
meeting that was called by the White House that you attended
and some statement. There are variations, if everyone will read
the record, in terms of what people recollect you saying and
other people saying at that point.
Now, on the SUN Microsystems issue, a lot was made of that
from Senator Grassley over here, and he clearly wasn't that
familiar with the fact that this is basically a license to
hunt, that all SUN Microsystems was trying to do or you were
trying to do is keep them on the GSA schedule; is that correct?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now, because you were on the GSA
schedule with certain prices, that isn't necessarily the price
the Government pays, is it?
Ms. Doan. No. In fact, we ask that any Government agency
also attempt to negotiate a lower price, and, of course, then
they would compete it probably with maybe two other or three
other contractors.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So that is a ceiling?
Ms. Doan. Yes, that is the high end, and then you are
trying to drive the price down from there.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And, in fact, often the prices that
are negotiated, because once the SUN Microsystems or any
company is on the schedule, they have to compete with that
ceiling price against other companies to get the business; is
that correct?
Ms. Doan. Yes. This is all about competition.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And SUN Microsystems is a big
company, isn't it?
Ms. Doan. They are quite large.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I mean, less than 10 percent of
their business is Federal, as I understand it.
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So in the scheme of things, their
numbers don't rise or fall when they are doing business with
the Government, unlike a lot of Government contractors; is that
fair to say?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So they could, in theory, just walk
away from this. And who wins then? Give us your perspective
about why you felt it was important to try to keep SUN
Microsystems within the Government. And I just add, we have
already heard Senator Grassley testify that on Medicare Part D
maybe the Government can negotiate low prices in some areas,
but there are other areas where people walk, where
pharmaceuticals walk and don't offer their products and don't
give the Government the opportunity. That is similar to what
could happen in this case. Just walk us through your thought
process of why you wanted to bring this to a resolution one way
or the other.
Ms. Doan. SUN is a major IT vendor of really mammoth
proportions. They are very important, especially connected to
the Internet. Obviously, at least at GSA we use the Internet
quite a bit. GSA is the premier procurement agency for the
Federal Government. Our job is to make sure that all different
types of technologies, the most innovative, the most leading
edge types of products and services are available to our
Government community to purchase. And so I feel that, as the
Administrator of GSA, and certainly the Commissioner, I
believe, of Federal Acquisition Service would say, it is our
obligation to make sure that we have the widest array of
products and services available to our Federal Government
customers. And for that reason, if nothing else, it is really
important that we try to work with all of our many vendors to
get them on the schedule.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let's assume for a minute that we
had gone the way of the IG and you just knocked them off the
schedule, so you are not getting on the schedule. And you had a
Government agency that wanted to buy a SUN Microsystems
product, either for continuity of operations or for some other
reason, that they had the product that met the Government's
particular need and they weren't on the schedule. How would
that agency then go about buying the product, and what is the
likely cost in that case vis-a-vis buying off the schedule?
Ms. Doan. Well, I probably would have to ask you to have
Jim Williams give you a lot more clarification on that, but I
will tell you that I think that the Government agency would
probably, just in a general way, be scrambling a little bit,
because one of the neat things about the GSA schedule is it is
very easy to use. It is very easy to get something immediately.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But they could go out for a
procurement to try to----
Ms. Doan. They could, but that would take a lot longer
probably.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Would it cost more, probably?
Ms. Doan. It would certainly cost more, because you would
also have to then add into the cost the procurement officials
who would have to be involved, the statement of works, the
source selection committee.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So there are good policy reasons for
trying to keep them within the Government ambit on the
schedules?
Ms. Doan. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now, the IG has made a lot of the
fact that you mentioned that they might go to NASA soup. Could
you explain to us what NASA soup is--I'm familiar with it, but
I'm not sure other Members are--and what this would mean, not
only to GSA but to the costs to the American taxpayers?
Ms. Doan. NASA soup is another Government-wide acquisition
contract. It is called a GWAC. This is a contract vehicle where
other----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Similar to a schedule?
Ms. Doan. It is similar to a schedule. They can provide
goods and services; however, usually the fee is quite a bit
more that the Government agency would pay on top of the cost of
the product.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So, as a general rule, it is your
belief that NASA soup is a more expensive vehicle for these
than the----
Ms. Doan. That has always been my belief, and I think I am
pretty well documented in the press for saying that.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. And also there was a fee
involved, correct?
Ms. Doan. Yes, there is.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. If an agency were to buy off NASA
soup instead of the GSA schedules, that fee would then go to
NASA as opposed to your agency, which was suffering budgetary
constraints; is that correct?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That is an additional reason to try
to keep them within the ambit, if you could?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now let me ask you this. Did you
personally appoint the contracting officers in this case to
negotiate this?
Ms. Doan. No. I did not even know who they were until I
read their name in Congressman Waxman's invitation letter.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Well, what was your role? Was your
role here just to try to get a decision, that this had been
bubbling for years, we were on extensions, which are generally
more expensive than negotiating a new contract, and you just
wanted to get a resolution? What were your instructions to Mr.
Williams, or whomever you delegated this to?
Ms. Doan. Well, it was Commissioner Williams, and it was
very simple. I think I was actually at a much higher level,
Congressman Davis. My job is simply to provide some managerial
oversight into the different processes at GSA. What I was
interested in was making sure that we were getting the very
best value for the American taxpayer. I believe that having SUN
Microsystems on the GSA schedule is an important aspect of
that. I simply turned to Commissioner Williams and I said,
Could you look into this. He then took it from there.
And we have some very, very competent and incredibly
qualified contracting personnel.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But there had been an impasse
before. I mean, we had been looking into this for months.
Ms. Doan. They were at a total impasse, and I think our
contracting folks did just an extraordinary job of bringing
this to conclusion.
We are very proud of the work that they have done. I am
proud of my employees.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I understand that, and we can get
into it later. Obviously, IG has a different perspective on
this.
Did you say cut a deal no matter what? Or did you just say
let's bring it to a conclusion? That is important for us to
know.
Ms. Doan. I don't remember saying cut a deal no matter
what. I do remember saying let us look into this and see what
can be done, something along those lines.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So you were just trying to resolve a
problem that had been ongoing for some time?
Ms. Doan. Yes. I'm more about options. I am more about
saying what are our options, what can we do to try to make
things better.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I understand that the Federal
Acquisition Service Commissioner, Jim Williams, informed Mr.
Miller, the IG, that a contracting officer was being
intimidated by an IG employee and asked him to look into it.
Did you followup with the IG about this complaint?
Ms. Doan. Yes, I did. At one of our monthly meetings--this
was about a month after Commissioner Williams had brought that
to the Inspector General's attention--I asked him in the
meeting, I said, ``So, you know, whatever happened. I was
hoping I would hear from you on that.'' And then I was told, in
what seemed to me a sort of lackadaisical manner, well, you
know, I looked into it. Nothing was there, or something along
those lines. I don't want to try to do a direct quote because I
don't remember.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You don't have a good relationship
with the IG, do you, in your agency?
Ms. Doan. Not in the agency, but I think that it has been
wildly mischaracterized in the press. I think we have a budget
dispute that has now spiraled into other areas. I believe that
the Inspector General believes strongly in independence and
oversight, and I think the challenge there is that I do, too;
it is just that I believe all, even oversight, needs to have
oversight.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Let's go to another issue that
has been raised here, and that is on the Diversity Best
Practices and the contract with Ms. Fraser. Can you contract
your relationship with Ms. Fraser? She was a vendor. I mean,
she bought from you; isn't that correct? Isn't that how you
knew her?
Ms. Doan. Yes, that is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And for diversity practices did you
feel that the services her company offered were some of the
best in the field?
Ms. Doan. The work that Diversity Best Practices does is
almost unparalleled in the area of opening doors and providing
opportunities for small, minority, women-owned, service
disabled veteran businesses. They have done extraordinary work
over many, many years.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And you had used them in your own
company, right?
Ms. Doan. Yes, I did.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. She never hired you for anything,
did she?
Ms. Doan. No, she did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You hired her?
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Now, walk me through your
thought process in terms of this $20,000 purchase order that
has been alleged. Was this purchase order, did any money change
hands?
Ms. Doan. There was no money that changed hands, no
Government contract was issued, no deliverables.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That may be a technical term whether
a contract was issued, but nothing was ever--as I understand
it, no money changed hands, no performance. This was nixed
pretty early on; is that correct?
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. What was your thought process in
moving forward with this? The IG in his report says you should
have known the thresholds. It intimates that you were trying to
give a sweetheart deal to a friend. Why don't you give us an
explanation of that, from your perspective and your thought
process?
Ms. Doan. GSA was failing in opening doors to small and
minority businesses. We got an F on our score card from the
SBA. Sadly, it seems like there is a possibility it might have
been well deserved.
I thought that doing a study of what we were doing with our
outreach to small, minority, women-owned, and service disabled
veteran businesses would reveal what are the things that we are
doing well, what are the things that we are doing poorly. And
the idea there is that, once you understand this from an
objective source, then you can make a decision to try to do
more of one and less of the other.
As I said in my statement, this is both a personal and a
professional embarrassment to me.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. My time is running out.
Ms. Doan. I'm sorry.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. The question is: why didn't you
compete this out and go to a number of firms? What was your
thought process in just giving it to this one company that you
knew could do the job?
Ms. Doan. It is because they are the unparalleled expert in
the field of diversity studies. I signed what I thought was a
draft outline, a service confirmation order. I moved it on. I
thought I was putting it through the processes. I thought it
was going to be turned into a purchase order, or whatever. What
my job was to do was to try to take action to show that I
wanted to turn this around and to move it forward. This is what
I was trying to do.
The minute it was brought to my attention that this was
done in error, and that was when my chief of staff called me
and said it was not going to be able to happen, I said fine.
They said they issued a termination. They did. The whole
timeframe from start to finish was about 10 days.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
What time will our official lunch be and when will it begin,
11:30 or 12?
Chairman Waxman. Well, we are going to continue on with our
hearing.
I will now proceed in regular order with each Member being
called in order under the rules for 5 minutes. I want to
recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Doan, welcome to our committee. I must tell you that
when I heard your opening statement I was very impressed, but
as I listened to your answers to Mr. Braley I became very
concerned.
One of the things I am concerned about is your memory. You
just, in answer to Mr. Davis' question, went back to the Edie
Fraser contract. You were able to tell us all kinds of things
about that. That happened back in July 2006. Mr. Braley
methodically and excellently asked you about an incident that
happened 2 months ago, and it is interesting to me that you
don't remember certain things during that time. As a matter of
fact, you seemed like you didn't remember much of anything, but
yet and still you remembered quite well the Edie Fraser
contract situation. That concerns me.
I must tell you that, you know, this committee has serious
questions about whether you violated the Hatch Act, which
prohibits Federal employees from engaging in partisan politics
at the office. You received training on the Hatch Act several
months before the January 26, 2007, meeting, did you not?
Ms. Doan. Yes, I did.
Mr. Cummings. And under your understanding of the Hatch
Act, are you permitted to ask staff to help a particular
candidate or particular party?
Ms. Doan. No, I am not.
Mr. Cummings. Ms. Doan, we asked the Congressional Research
Service, which is independent, about the incident at GSA
headquarters on January 26th, and CRS told us that--well, CRS
is a nonpartisan research arm of the Congress, so you will be
very clear. We asked CRS about both the White House
presentation and about your alleged comments afterwards. You
said you didn't remember that 2 months ago. I know that.
In response, CRS issued a report which I would like to make
a part of the official hearing record.
Chairman Waxman. Without objection, that will be the order.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.135
Mr. Cummings. This is what CRS said. First, on the White
House slides that Mr. Braley referred to, CRS said that this
presentation raises concerns ``the sponsor or presenter is
closely affiliated, identified with a partisan political
campaign, invitations are directed only to political employees
of a Department, and the objectives and agenda of the program
appear to have a partisan slant.'' Doesn't that describe what
Mr. Jennings did to a T, as best you can recall?
Ms. Doan. Could you do each one of those? Do I have to
answer them all at one time?
Mr. Cummings. Well, first of all, you said--let me go back.
Ms. Doan. OK.
Mr. Cummings. You said something very interesting. You said
that these meetings, these brown bag lunches, were for the
purpose of team building, and I assume that you want your
entire team to be built.
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. But these team-building lunches were only
Republican appointees. So help me with that. On the other hand,
you then seem to take a position that, oh, you just kind of
mosied in late and didn't remember the very essence of the
presentation. So it is sort of hard for me to ask you questions
when you don't have a memory from 2 months ago. I am trying to
refresh your recollection.
Ms. Doan. Thank you, Congressman, and I appreciate your
giving me the opportunity. I do want to try to make this clear
to you.
First, as far as what you are considering my memory lapse,
I have to tell you diversity opportunities for small and women-
owned business, this is a passion for me. This is something I
have dedicated years to. I love this. It is important. Of
course I am going to remember it.
I have to tell you polls and stuff like that, this isn't my
thing. This isn't what really motivates me or energizes me.
I had an incredible day on the 26th. I had the article in
the paper. I had the letter from the committee. I had just
gathered together the group of folks who were going to
assemble. And you guys got some of these documents. It was a
huge submission that we gave to you all. This was our first
time we had ever done it as a team, you know, made a submission
for Congress. There was a lot going on.
I came in just a little bit late at the beginning of the
meeting. I apologized for coming in late. I didn't need to.
But, frankly, I had a lot on my mind that day.
Mr. Cummings. Well, the question is: isn't team building
important to you?
Ms. Doan. Team building is important to me, but this was
not my meeting, and happily I didn't--this was one meeting
where I did not have to take the lead. I could just sit back
and coast on that.
Mr. Cummings. Do you believe from what you have seen so far
and heard so far that this was a violation of the Hatch Act
based upon what you learned from your lessons about the Hatch
Act?
Ms. Doan. Congressman Cummings, I am not trying to be, you
know, snappy or something with you, but I will tell you I am a
businesswoman who is now in a Government job for her first
time, and I will tell you that I cannot make a judgment on
this, but I do know that the Office of Special Counsel is
looking into this. I know that they are experts on it. I know
they are going to make a decision, and I am going to live with
it.
Mr. Cummings. Knowing what you know now, would you do it
again?
Ms. Doan. I think I would have to----
Mr. Cummings. Would you invite a White House----
Ms. Doan. Absolutely. A White House liaison invites all
sorts of people. We get people from personnel----
Mr. Cummings. And have charts that talk about targeting?
You would do that, too?
Ms. Doan. I think that we will probably review charts in
the future. There is no doubt about that. I think everything
that you do you try to be better every time you do it.
Certainly, especially given the concerns of this committee, I
do not want this committee to be focused on these issues. We
have important things we have to do at GSA.
Mr. Cummings. That is our job. That is our job.
Ms. Doan. I know. That is why, as I said, we will do what
we have to to make sure that we have the confidence of this
committee in the future because we do have important things we
are trying to do at GSA. And I want you all to be working with
me on it to try to make things better.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Doan. Thank you, Congressman Cummings.
Chairman Waxman. Did you need----
Mr. Cummings. Just one question. Did you give $200,000 to
the GOP?
Ms. Doan. I'm sorry? What?
Mr. Cummings. Did you give $200,000 in contributions to the
GOP?
Ms. Doan. Yes. I am happy to say that I----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have
regular order?
Ms. Doan [continuing]. Am a Republican and a supporter of
the party. I am proud of it. I am happy that we have President
Bush as our President. I think he is a great man in very
troubled times. I am not ashamed of this.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much.
The Chair would now recognize for 5 minutes Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Let me yield just a moment.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. News flash. The President appointed
a Republican to head GSA. I mean, this shouldn't surprise
anybody.
And let me just say I assumed that this chart was given all
over town. It wasn't given to me, but they probably gave this
to all the different agencies, and that may or may not be a
good thing and this committee is welcome to look at it, but I
think to lay it on Ms. Doan when you have every Federal agency
holding meetings with Schedule C, some of them weekly, monthly,
she didn't call this meeting. I think we need to put it in
perspective. What it tells me is that they are bankrupt. They
are going after personal items. They are bankrupt, so now they
are going after a White House political presentation.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
That is kind of interesting, to follow what the ranking
member said, that originally they went after her for this
contract. When she came in, didn't you say that they were
getting an F grade, or about to get another one?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Mica. This is on diversity. This is some of the
diversity of racial employment practices at GSA?
Ms. Doan. Philippe Mendosa, who is our Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization Administrator, came to me.
It was probably my sixth--I don't want to give exact dates--5th
or 6th day on the job, and he told me that GSA was getting a
failing score from the SBA and what could we do. We were
failing in our opportunities to provide outreach to small
minority owned business, you know, service disabled veteran
businesses, HUD zone businesses, just----
Mr. Mica. So that is the reason----
Ms. Doan. You know it. I jumped on it. I was on it.
Mr. Mica. OK. As a Republican minority appointee, this was
something important to you, and that is why the $20,000
contract--how much does GSA let in contracts, $66 billion?
Ms. Doan. Between $56 and $60.
Mr. Mica. And this is interesting, because I am going to
follow the IG, because I don't like his performance. Grassley
talked about getting five fired. I may want to work with him on
six, because I am not liking the picture that I see in some of
the leaks and things that came out of the IG's office to go
after you, and they targeted you. They targeted you because you
just told us, in fact, that the day that this occurred was the
day you got the so-called political action that was taken, and
this conference call was taken the same day that you got the
inquiry from the committee?
Ms. Doan. No, no. It wasn't the same day. It was in the
same timeframe.
Mr. Mica. In the same timeframe?
Ms. Doan. We were in the process of--yes, we were preparing
the submission.
Mr. Mica. That is the point I am making. And this was a
fishing expedition to get you, and what they are doing to you
they are going to try to do to other appointees, so this is a
good warning for folks. Someone who came out as a successful
minority business person and took on GSA, she has been there 8
months, and they have made this 8 months hell for her. Wouldn't
you agree with that?
Ms. Doan. It has been challenging.
Mr. Mica. So look at the timeframe. Every part of the
violations under the SUN contract, all of that took place
before you ever got there. You came when? June?
Ms. Doan. June 2006. June 1st was my 1st day on the job.
Mr. Mica. We have the record of when that took place, and
you were trying to--SUN, you said, was a very important
component to Government services throughout the Government.
Ms. Doan. We have 27,000 vendors, and I want to say, in
case it is on TV or something, all of my vendors are important
and I am grateful for your business.
Mr. Mica. All right. Again, on the video conference, which
they are trying to make a big deal out of, that was the
Political Office of the White House. Schedule C's are what?
Political appointees, serve at the pleasure; is that correct?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Mica. And what are you?
Ms. Doan. I am a proud political appointee.
Mr. Mica. OK. Approved by----
Ms. Doan. By the President of the United States. Yes.
Mr. Mica. And the Senate?
Ms. Doan. And I am Senate confirmed. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Now, again, this is a fishing expedition. I have
never seen anything like it, and targeting. So they couldn't
find anything on the $20,000, and it wasn't a contract. It was
never a contract. Was it a contract?
Ms. Doan. There is a lot of debate back and forth as to
whether it was.
Mr. Mica. Was a contract let? Was a contract let? Answer
me.
Ms. Doan. No, it was not. And I will tell you----
Mr. Mica. OK. There was no contract let?
Ms. Doan. Could I say one thing, Congressman? People always
say, you know, you did a lot of business with the Government.
How come you really couldn't tell the difference? And one of
the things I would like to show you, if you don't mind, is this
is what I signed. It was a service order. Attached to it was a
draft outline of the study, what we were going to do, trying to
open doors and opportunities. This is what I am used to seeing
as a Government contract. This is a standard form 33 that
usually is the Section A, the front page of every Government
contract. It requires the signature of a contracting officer.
This is what I am used to seeing. This is what I call a
Government contract. The service order to me, I am trying to
move this study forward.
Mr. Mica. And some of this appears that this is where you
initially rubbed the wrong way with the Inspector General's
Office. Is this where the edict came down?
Ms. Doan. No. Actually, I think it started pretty much in
my first week or second week in the job where he asked me for--
--
Mr. Mica. You added to the----
Ms. Doan. No, no. It was a totally different thing. He
asked me for basically additional SES slots, which would have
taken all the ones that we had, and at the time we were trying
to hold them for the fast reorganization, so I think we got off
to a little bit of a bad start there.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
I recognize Ms. Watson for 5 minutes.
Ms. Watson. Ms. Doan----
Ms. Watson. I have one additional question. Can I ask that,
or does the minority----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do it on our time.
Ms. Watson. Retrieving my time, Ms. Doan, the political
activities of GSA seem to be part of a much broader and more
troubling trend throughout the entire Federal Government under
this administration. We have learned, for example, how the
White House and the Attorney General politicized the hiring and
firing of U.S. Attorneys--that is going on right now, that
debate--and our Nation's top law enforcement officers. In fact,
we now know that Karl Rove's deputy, Scott Jennings, was
involved in both scandals.
This is not the only example. There have been civil rights
enforcement at the Justice Department, and they have been
undermined by political appointees; drug approvals at the Food
and Drug Administration have been based on political
calculations, not the best science; intelligence was twisted by
White House officials to build a political case for war in
Iraq; and not many people realize this, but there are now more
political appointees working in this administration than in any
time in our Nation's history.
Now, Ms. Doan, I know of your political activities, and I
know of your donations, and it is fine to be politically
active. It is your right and your obligation as a citizen, and
we understand that. But we have to maintain the rule of law.
When you become a Government employee and when you become
responsible for thousands of Government employees, then you
have a heavy new responsibility.
You can't turn that agency into a political tool. When this
was held up and you said that you did not remember hardly
anything in it, that you came late and you had to leave, you
have a heavy week, it is like turning your head away from
political activities under your responsibility.
My concern is that what has happened at the GSA may be
happening at other agencies throughout this Government, and we
surely see signs of that. So, Ms. Doan, do you know whether Mr.
Jennings gave this presentation at any other Federal agencies?
Ms. Doan. I don't know anything about that.
Ms. Watson. OK. But he did give it at yours?
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Ms. Watson. OK. Do you think he prepared this just for the
GSA? Or is it more likely that he adapted something he already
had?
Ms. Doan. Congresswoman, I have no idea. I think you really
would have to ask Mr. Jennings that question.
Ms. Watson. OK.
Chairman Waxman. Would the gentlelady yield to me?
Ms. Watson. I will yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. It sounds like it is not just GSA, because
the way the Republicans on our committee say it is just routine
practice, it is done everywhere, well, I think we ought to find
out if that is the case, because it is a violation of the Hatch
Act. Thank you.
Ms. Watson. Yes. I hope that he didn't just target your
agency to hold you responsible for politicizing whatever goes
on at GSA in your agency, and why did he choose you, so I have
some suspicions there.
Ms. Doan. I cannot possibly speculate.
Ms. Watson. I know. I am not asking you to. I am stating an
opinion for what I heard.
Ms. Doan. OK. I'm sorry.
Ms. Watson. And I don't think that this presentation is
just tailored to GSA. Instead, it reads like a presentation
that might have been given to other agencies across the
Government, and I think that this committee has the authority
and the right to have oversight. Why did they choose your
agency to make this presentation? This is clearly targeting
Democrats to take their seats. Clearly, that is the purpose of
this.
Chairman Waxman. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Watson. I will yield, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. The last few seconds she has.
You said politics is not your passion.
Ms. Doan. No, no. I did not say that.
Chairman Waxman. But you gave $200,000----
Ms. Doan. I said polls, polls.
Chairman Waxman. I see. But politics is one of your
passions. You gave----
Ms. Doan. Politics should be the passion of every American
citizen.
Chairman Waxman. Yes.
Ms. Doan. This is what makes our country run.
Chairman Waxman. Great. You gave $200,000 to the Republican
Party and you spoke at the Republican National Convention;
isn't that accurate?
Ms. Doan. If I could just----
Ms. Watson. I am going to reclaim my time.
Chairman Waxman. Regular order. You don't have any.
Ms. Watson. Sorry. I am going to reclaim my time.
Chairman Waxman. You don't have any time.
Ms. Watson. You cannot tell me that, and would you please
let me reclaim my time.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, can we have regular
order.
Ms. Watson. How much time do I have?
Chairman Waxman. Without objection, we will extend a
courtesy to the gentlelady for 1 additional minute, and we will
do the same for other Members.
Ms. Watson. Thank you very much. I am trying to make a
point here. I think, Ms. Doan, your agency has been targeted
and you have been used to spread White House politicizing in
your Department. I am so pleased that we are doing what we
should do, and that is to have these oversight hearings to hear
where there are violations of our laws, rules, and regulations.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Ms. Watson.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, just an inquiry. Parliamentary
inquiry.
Chairman Waxman. What is your parliamentary inquiry? Yes,
please?
Mr. Mica. Parliamentary inquiry is you just granted 1
additional minute to the majority side. Is this a new change in
policy, and can I obtain 1 additional minute on the minority
side?
Chairman Waxman. Well, you had 5 additional minutes that
other Members didn't have, and I asked without objection she be
given another minute, and I would hope if a Member----
Mr. Mica. Well, if it wouldn't be granted to me could it be
granted to another----
Chairman Waxman. I will now recognize----
Mr. Mica. If we could have----
Chairman Waxman. The regular order is Mr. Issa, who is now
recognized.
Mr. Mica. The committee is responsible for investigations
and oversight. Are we going to be equal in conducting
investigations and oversight or are we going to give the
majority----
Chairman Waxman. Your point is----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Additional time and not the
minority? I want that question answered.
Chairman Waxman. Oh, please.
Mr. Mica. I want the question answered.
Chairman Waxman. Oh, please. If someone asks for
additional----
Mr. Mica. This is one of the most important committees in
the Congress, and----
Chairman Waxman. Do you want the question answered or do
you want to speak?
Mr. Mica. Investigations and oversight, and are you going
to grant special consideration to their side of the aisle and
not to this side of the aisle? Now, I chaired for 10 years----
Chairman Waxman. Does the gentleman wish an answer, or does
he wish to talk?
Mr. Mica. And I chaired two of the subcommittees in this
committee, Civil Service and----
Chairman Waxman. The Chair will now recognize----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. And also Criminal Justice----
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman is using his time.
Mr. Mica. I never, never denied the opportunity for a
minority Member or cut them off in questioning, and I expect
the same courtesy for my Members. What is the policy? This is a
parliamentary inquiry in procedures, the conduct of one of the
most important investigative committees of the U.S. Congress
that dates back its function to the early 1800's.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman stated a parliamentary
inquiry and the Chair is prepared to answer his parliamentary
inquiry. Under the rules, Members are given 5 minutes for
questioning. By unanimous consent an additional minute may be
given. Under the rules, we ask that only opening statements
today be given by Mr. Davis and myself. We asked unanimous
consent for the gentleman that is complaining to have 5 minutes
that other Members didn't get.
If a Member on the Republican side or the Democratic side
asks for additional time, it will be up to the Members, and I
would hope that Members would be generous enough not to cut
people off. So the time now is to Mr. Issa, and I will start
the 5-minutes for him so he will have his complete time.
Mr. Issa, you are recognized.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On my 5 minutes, I would like to ask that regular order be
strictly adhered to unless there is unanimous consent, and I
trust in the future we can eliminate this problem by doing so.
I think if we are going to ask the GSA and other organizations
to strictly adhere to the rules, regulations, and laws, we
should do no less.
Administrator Doan, I am frustrated because I came out of
the business world, too, and I came to this committee to fight
the bureaucracy that sits around us and behind us throughout
all of Government, the people who are there when you arrive and
will be there when you are gone.
Now, I just want to concentrate on one simple thing. Your
team, your team building, these are people chosen, some
confirmed and some just straight appointments, but, like
yourself, many are confirmed by the Senate. They are chosen by
the elected President of the United States to oversee and to
provide policy guidance and control over the largest body of
human beings that exist on the face of the Earth working for a
government, our U.S. bureaucracy; isn't that right?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Issa. And in your 8 months I think you probably found
what I found in my nearly 7 years now: that this is a
bureaucracy that will resist you at every point, isn't it?
Ms. Doan. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Issa. So when you talk about team building, including a
reminder that you worked at the pleasure of the President, it
is not inappropriate for you to understand, as the slides, the
one they don't tend to show you, show that this President was
right in the middle in his last mid-term of how many seats he
lost in the House. That is informational, isn't it?
Ms. Doan. Yes, it is public domain.
Mr. Issa. And when you are looking at the presentation by
the President and how the President views his working
relationship and how he views his--you are receiving a briefing
from the man who appointed you and for whom the Senate
confirmed you?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Issa. So, you know, the amazing thing here--and I don't
want to take a lot of time talking about the Body up here--but
would it shock you to find out that members of perhaps this
committee's majority staff, and certainly personal staff
members of some of the people on that side and some of the
people on this side, they go to either the Republican committee
or the Democrat committee and they make fundraising calls on
their lunch hour for Members of Congress, these Federal
employees? Would that shock you to find out?
Ms. Doan. Thank you for telling me.
Mr. Issa. Would you be shocked to find out that, well,
chiefs of staff, chiefs of mission, if you will, to our
Districts come back here to be briefed on Federal expense,
Federal expense. We bring them back here, we put them up in
housing, and guess what, they go to evening events either at
the Democrat committee or the Republican committee's expense to
find out how they can do a better job of keeping their Member
in office. Would that surprise you?
Ms. Doan. I didn't know that before, but thank you.
Mr. Issa. Well, the American people probably are surprised.
And yet, in fact, that is a system that the chairman is well
aware, chairwoman, and so on, are all well aware of.
But I want to go back to the team building. You have been
building a team to take this incredibly large bureaucracy, one
that was receiving F's for how it dealt with disabled vets that
had businesses, veterans that had businesses, African Americans
that had businesses, women that had businesses, and, for that
matter, small businesses, in general. It had an F for reaching
out and providing opportunities for those contracts. That is
one of the major things you are working on, isn't it?
Ms. Doan. That is one of many initiatives, but it is a
passion of mine, yes.
Mr. Issa. And it is something that this Congress and this
Oversight Committee has wanted you to do, isn't it?
Ms. Doan. That is very true, because, you know, it is hard
enough as it is if you are a small or minority or woman-owned
business or a service disabled veteran. You know, I don't want
working with the Federal Government to be yet another barrier
or challenge for them.
Mr. Issa. Well, I tell you, I was recently given a small
award by my university, and I was honored with Ronny Harris,
the Golden Gloves champion of Mexico City. He is an African
American, small businessman in Ohio, and he finds it very
frustrating, with a successful business, doing business with
the Government. And you know what? It has nothing to do with
the fact that he happens to be minority owned. It is just hard
to do business with agencies, including the GSA. So I, for one,
commend you for concentrating on what is important, which is
building a team that will break through the bureaucracy and
will meet the objectives that the American people care about,
and one of the most important is making your organization
responsive to small and emerging businesses and giving them
opportunities.
I would like you just to tell us for a minute in the
remaining time how you are doing that and how this committee
should be helping you do more of that.
Ms. Doan. At least we are trying as hard as we can to do a
much, much better job. The first thing we have done is we have
finally been able to start awarding schedules in 30 days. This
is the best and first opportunity for small and minority
businesses to be a prime contractor, and that helps them with
cash-flow.
The second thing we have done is we have just made the
largest award of actual work, not just a hunting license, but
the get-go contract for IT infrastructure support to a service
disabled 8A company. We are really proud of that. It is the
largest award of its kind. We have alliance small business. We
have a lot of small business opportunities that are going to be
out there. Even our satcom, our satellite procurement that is
ongoing, very unusual, it is going to have a professional
services component that will be for small and minority
businesses. We are trying really hard to carve out
opportunities because, you know, everybody can talk a good
story, but when you are in the small business community you
want efforts that have real meat to them. You want actual
funding to go to your business. You don't want it to just be an
open vehicle that has nothing behind it. This is what we are
trying to change.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Doan. Sorry. I didn't mean to talk so long.
Chairman Waxman. We allow full answer to the questions, but
the question period is limited.
I want to recognize Mr. Higgins, and as I do I want to
inform all the Members that it would be a violation of the law
for them to make phone calls from their office soliciting
contributions. We have to go elsewhere to do it. We don't use
our offices, nor many of us think Government offices should be
used.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me note, but the
rules pertaining to fundraising are different than other items.
Members politic in this building all the time. Democratic
conferences, Republican, talk about politics within this
building and within the Capitol, the conferences. You can't
raise money. No one solicited money in this case.
Chairman Waxman. All right. I accept your point.
Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me, before I ask Ms. Doan several questions, let me
just clarify this issue of lunch hour and whenever this had
occurred. It doesn't matter under the Hatch Act whether it was
during the lunch or whether she invited employees. Under the
Hatch Act, the Administrator is not allowed to be present at a
political event on or off Federal property in which these
activities happened, if her subordinates were at the event,
even if they came voluntarily, because it is considered
inherently coercive.
Ms. Doan, the committee has obtained internal e-mails
between the White House and GSA regarding political
presentation of Scott Jennings that he gave at GSA. I want to
ask you about those. They will appear up on screen here.
Ms. Doan. Is that what this is?
Mr. Higgins. Yes. It is in your packet. I'm sorry.
Let me first direct your attention to the e-mail dated
January 19, 2007, which is on page 1 of your documents. This e-
mail is from Jocelyn Webster, who works for Mr. Jennings at the
White House, and she is writing to Tessa Truesdale. I
understand that Ms. Truesdale is your confidential assistant?
Ms. Doan. Yes. She works in the Administrator's office for
me.
Mr. Higgins. In this e-mail Mr. Jennings' assistant is
sending a copy of Mr. Jennings' slides to GSA. This is what Mr.
Jennings' assistant says. ``Please do not e-mail this out or
let people see it. It is a close hold and we are not supposed
to be e-mailing it around.'' My question is, can you tell me
why Mr. Jennings' assistant says this is close hold and why you
are not supposed to be e-mailing this around?
Ms. Doan. I can't imagine, since I am not actually on this
e-mail. I think probably either Jocelyn or Joycelyn--I'm not
sure what her name is--Joycelyn Webster or maybe Tessa
Truesdale could answer that. But this isn't my e-mail.
Mr. Higgins. I would like you to look closely at the e-mail
from Mr. Jennings' assistant.
Ms. Doan. Is that the same one?
Mr. Higgins. Yes.
Ms. Doan. OK.
Mr. Higgins. An image of the e-mail is up on the screen. If
you look at the e-mail address, you can see that Mr. Jennings'
assistant is sending this from GWB43.com account. The GWB43.com
domain is owned by the Republican National Committee. Do you
know why Mr. Jennings' assistant e-mailed this from a
Republican National Committee account instead of a White House
account?
Ms. Doan. No, I do not. This is not my e-mail and it was
not addressed to me.
Mr. Higgins. Do you know of any reason why Mr. Jennings'
assistant would try to hide that she was communicating from the
White House?
Ms. Doan. No. I don't. I am not familiar with her and this
is not my e-mail or----
Mr. Higgins. Let me put up another e-mail on the screen
that is document 2-432. This is on page 2 of your packet.
Ms. Doan. Yes. I have it.
Mr. Higgins. This one is from Mr. Jennings, himself. He is
using the Republican National Committee e-mail account, too. In
this e-mail Mr. Jennings is using his GWB43.com account to
communicate with GSA's White House liaison, J.B. Horton. My
question is: were you aware that your staff was communicating
with the White House officials who used e-mail accounts
controlled by the Republican National Committee?
Ms. Doan. No, I was not.
Mr. Higgins. Let me show you another e-mail on page 3 of
your packet. This one is from your confidential assistant, Ms.
Truesdale. She had apparently been contacted by GSA staff who
wanted to do a trial run with a copy of the presentation on
GSA's audio-visual equipment. Ms. Truesdale says that she can't
share the document for use in a pre-meeting walk-through. Here
is what she says, ``I just heard back from the presenter, and,
as much as the information is highly sensitive, he would prefer
not to e-mail it.''
Ms. Doan, the e-mails show that Mr. Jennings regarded the
briefing as ``highly sensitive.'' His assistant also called
them close hold, that other people should not see. Do you know
why he would regard the briefing as highly sensitive?
Ms. Doan. No, I don't. I think you would have to speak to
the person whose e-mail and all this attachments that it was.
Mr. Higgins. I think the answer, Mr. Chairman, is obvious.
The briefing is highly secretive because it contains partisan
political analysis and strategy. The White House didn't want to
share their target list with Democrats and they didn't want
Democrats to know whom they regarded as most vulnerable
Republican Members.
It is perfectly appropriate for party leaders to compose
these kinds of political hit lists and to hold discussions
about political strategy among party officials. It is not
appropriate to use Government agencies to advance partisan
political agendas, yet that is exactly what happened here.
GSA's top officials were assembled to hear a presentation
about targeting Democratic Members in the upcoming elections,
and then they discussed how GSA could help Republican
candidates. They did this in a Government building during a
week day where these officials should have been doing business
of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other observation.
Mr. Jennings and other White House officials appear to be using
their Republican National Committee e-mail accounts on a
routine basis to discuss politically sensitive topics. We know
from documents obtained by the Judiciary Committee, for
example, that Mr. Jennings used the identical Republican
National Committee account to discuss the U.S. Attorney firings
that he was involved with, and we know this from the
committee's work that the Abramoff investigation, that the
White House used Republican National Committee e-mail accounts
to communicate with Mr. Abramoff and his staff.
I think this is a subject the committee should investigate,
and it would be a serious abuse if White House officials were
using these political e-mail accounts to subvert the
requirements of the Presidential Records Act.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank
you, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Burton.
Mr. Burton. I used to be the chairman of this committee. My
picture is here some place.
Ms. Doan. I know. You look just like it.
Mr. Burton. I want to tell you, Ms. Doan, I really
appreciate you coming here and being very open, and I want to
thank you for the $200,000 for the Republican Party. I wish
more people would do that.
Now, I have great respect for my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. I have worked with them on a lot of
legislation, and Henry and I, the chairman, he was my ranking
Democrat for 6 years. I want to give you a little bit of a
history lesson, because this is pretty interesting.
We had over 100, maybe 150 people that we had as witnesses
that were dealing with the Clinton administration that either
took the fifth amendment or left the country. They wouldn't
even talk to us. We had to issue over 1,200 subpoenas to get
people to come up from the White House to talk to us. And every
time we did that Henry would say, ``This is a witch hunt. This
is a witch hunt.'' So I just want to say to my good friend,
Henry, you know, there is nothing as self righteous as a
reformed lady of the evening.
Now, let me go into a few things that happened during my
tenure as chairman. We had two guys that were downloading FBI
confidential files into home computers, which is illegal. These
are top secret things. Two guys, Marceca and Livingston. You
know, when we had them before the committee they could not
remember who hired them at the White House. Now, Mr. Aldridge
who was the FBI agent who worked down there, said that he was
told by the chief of staff that Hillary Clinton hired them.
But, of course, when we brought that up in the committee, my
god, this is a witch hunt, you can't talk about that. But they
were downloading FBI files into home computers so they could
get stuff on Republicans to give us a hard time.
We had a guy named Johnny Chung come before the committee
who told us he got $300,000 from the head of the Communist
Intelligence Agency in Hong Kong in a restaurant saying that he
wanted to give it to the Clinton administration because he said
he thought President Clinton was doing a good job and he wanted
him re-elected. This was illegal. But, once again, this was
just a witch hunt.
We had a guy named John Whong--that was Johnny Chung, the
first one. John Whong, who was a member of the Lippo Group,
said that the Lippo Group of Indonesia gave the Clinton
administration millions of dollars in illegal campaign funds.
But, once again, this was a witch hunt.
We had people come from the White House. I had the chief of
staff at the White House, his assistant, the chief counsel at
the White House, person after person at the White House come
down here and testify about all these things, and they couldn't
remember a thing.
We had what we called an epidemic of selective memory loss.
It was really a difficult time. And all the while that this was
going on my good friend, Mr. Waxman, kept saying in the media
and all over the country, ``Burton is on a witch hunt. This is
terrible. These are horrible things that were going on.''
So I just want to tell you, Ms. Doan, you are here. You
have not taken the fifth amendment. You have not fled the
country. You are a patriotic American. I appreciate what you
are doing by testifying here today. And don't let these guys
intimidate you. And you haven't and I really appreciate that.
Now, I have high regard for my Democrat colleagues, and I
see a lot of new Members over there, but before you start
pointing fingers about something that really can't be proven--
this is all spurious arguments that are being made. But before
you start pointing fingers please do me a favor. Do me a favor.
Go back and look at 6 years of investigations that we conducted
when I was chairman of this committee and find out how many
people in the administration couldn't remember things, how many
people wouldn't talk, how many fled the country or took the
fifth amendment, and then come back and say to me, ``Well, we
want to be fair.''
I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. On the e-mail----
Chairman Waxman. Before you yield to Mr. Davis, I just want
to point out--make sure this time doesn't count. Stop the
clock. You have 1 minute left. I just want to say to Mr. Burton
his characterizations today are inaccurate, wrong.
Mr. Burton. This is my time. Let me just say let's go and
get all the newspapers and the reports from the committee and
look at them. We will find out how inaccurate they are. Look at
the papers and look at the records. You did that for 6 years,
and now you are going to have to eat it.
Chairman Waxman. If I might just conclude very, very
briefly----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I just want to get----
Chairman Waxman. I would like to put in the record a report
that we did on Mr. Burton's investigation so people can see
what we thought was going on, and we also heard what you had to
say that you thought was going on. Without objection, that
report will be made part of the record.
Mr. Burton. As long as mine is in there, I don't object.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Davis has the last minute.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
You know, officials appointed by the President with the
advice and the consent of the Senate who are in policy-
determining positions and certain Presidential aides have
restrictions, I mean are exempt from restrictions, the no
politics portion, so I don't think a lot of this applies to
you, but, anyway, the Office of Special Counsel is looking at
this.
Ms. Doan. They are.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Despite Members' individual opinions
on this, I think what will be there will be. What I think is
clear here is that this is now turning into an assault, less on
you--I think you have acquitted yourself well today--than on
the administration, and raises other issues I suspect the
committee will be looking at over time.
I just want to ask for the record, the e-mails that came to
your aide that were put up on the board a couple of minutes
ago, did you ever see those? Do you recall seeing them?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So a lot of e-mails go to aides and
stuff that never gets on your desk; is that correct?
Ms. Doan. That is very true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. I wanted to clarify that for the
record.
Once again, this is nothing that she did. This is something
the White House evidently does on a fairly routine basis, and
as far as you go, the initial allegations against you have now
turned into just a lot of political mud fighting,
unfortunately.
Thank you.
Ms. Doan. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
We will now go to Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Looking at the GSA mission statement again, it talks about
respect for fellow associations, professionals----
Ms. Doan. Excuse me, Congresswoman, could you talk just a
tad louder.
Ms. McCollum. Well, there has been so much yelling going on
I thought maybe a softer voice might be appreciated.
Under the GSA general missions, your values are listed:
ethics----
Chairman Waxman. Ms. McCollum, would you speak right into
the mic? I'm even having trouble hearing you.
Ms. McCollum. I couldn't get much closer to it, Mr. Chair.
Maybe I don't have a good mic.
Ethics and integrity in everything we do, respect for
fellow associates, teamwork. When you received the briefing on
the Hatch Act, did you sign off any information? Did they give
you any booklets to get home?
I worked in the private sector for a long time and on our
ethics in retail to make sure that my employees were doing
things, they were handed a booklet. They signed off on
something, and once you signed off on it you became responsible
for it. It was your responsibility to read it all. Do you
recall if you were given anything?
Ms. Doan. Congresswoman, I know I am under oath, so I have
to tell you I can't remember, but what I can do is we can check
and then I can come back to you with this after the hearing
with exactly. I do know that I had an ethics letter that I had
signed when I became a Presidential appointee, and that was
done by the General Counsel's office, you know, and I signed
off on that. I know I did that. I did attend a Hatch Act
briefing, but what I am having a little trouble remembering is
whether there was actually a document that at the time of the
briefing I had to sign off. But I can check and followup with
you on that. Would you like me to do that?
Ms. McCollum. Well, once any one of us signs off on those
things we assume a responsibility, a very serious
responsibility, especially when we are supervising individuals.
Class C employees are not exempt from the Hatch Act. They are
not exempt. So I want to go back, very seriously, to a letter
on March 13th that you sent to this committee, in which you
stated there were no improper political actions that occurred
during or as a result of the January 26th teleconference. But
your statement doesn't square with the facts, because Class C
employees are not exempt from the Hatch Act.
You also today--and I believe you read it, so you might
want to find it, because I don't want to misquote you or
misrepresent anything you have said--you talked about advancing
the policy of the administration. Well, what happened at this
lunch is you were advancing the policy of Karl Rove and Mr.
Jennings, either with the best of intentions or with no
intentions, by what happened.
So let's go back to the slides. These slides are clearly
partisan. They are from the point of view of Republican. They
are not saying team, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.
They say us versus them, in fact. Slide 2-566 is called Lost
Ground with Swing Voters.
Ms. Doan. Which one? Do you have a page number or
something?
Ms. McCollum. It is 566. It is upside down. It is up there,
but right side up. Lost Ground with Swing Voters, Republicans
or Democrats. This is the Republicans losing ground, is it not?
Ms. Doan. Can I check with somebody?
Ms. McCollum. Well, we will go to another slide.
Ms. Doan. Honestly, I am happy to give an official opinion,
and if you say that it is we can just assume it is and let's go
on.
Ms. McCollum. Slide 2-567, Bigger Losses Among Men. Who had
the bigger losses, Republicans or Democrats? It is Republicans.
The next slide, 568, Long-Term Problems Among Latinos and
Youth Vote. Who has the long-term problem? Democrats? It is
not. The us in all of these slides are referring to the
Republicans.
Here is the last one I am going to show, 576. This one
shows the Republicans' 72-Hour Get Off the Vote Effort made a
difference in several races.
You concede that this slide refers to our strategy, meaning
the Republican strategy? They are not talking about the
Independent strategy or the Democratic strategy in 2008. So I
am asking you, your statement in writing, you regarded this
briefing as team building among GSA appointees. What kind of
team do you think this presentation was building? An
Independent, a Democrat, or a Republican team?
Chairman Waxman. The gentlelady's time is expired, but the
witness will be permitted to answer.
Ms. Doan. I think she was just really probably trying to
make a statement, so that is fine.
Chairman Waxman. It sounded like a question to me. You
don't want to respond?
Ms. Doan. Was it a question?
Chairman Waxman. What kind of team were you building?
Ms. McCollum. What kind of team were you building?
Ms. Doan. I am building the most incredible team in all of
Government with incredible managers. Honestly, you guys, if you
get past this and everything let me send you their bios. You
have to look at these people. You have never seen anyone like
these managers that I brought in. I have brought in people.
These are not your regular Government people. These are people
from the outside. This is new blood. It is a great team. You
have to give them a chance. You really do.
Chairman Waxman. OK. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Mr. Shays, you are next for questioning.
Mr. Shays. May I ask how many Members on the other side are
still waiting to ask questions?
Chairman Waxman. We have a lot of them over here.
Mr. Shays. This is my time and I would like to reserve it.
Chairman Waxman. OK. The gentleman will be called on later.
Next in order in the committee is Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My questions are really trying to go to the process inside
of GSA, and so I am particularly concerned about the questions
that have been raised on the SUN Microsystems contract. It
appears that for 2 years the career contracting officials
inside of GSA were refusing to renew the contract because SUN
wasn't giving the kind of pricing that it was giving to its
commercial customers, as I understand it. And then the
Government, which really means taxpayers, paid tens of millions
of dollars more than we should have paid because SUN concealed
larger discounts that the company was giving to the private
sector. I am curious as to your role in this.
The committee interviewed one of the career contracting
officials on the SUN negotiation, a fellow named Mike
Butterfield, and he was opposed to signing the contract, as I
understand, and he told the committee that he had warned that
signing a deal with SUN ``would mean getting discounts that
would be inferior.'' But after he made his recommendation to
end the negotiations, Jim Williams, who is your Commissioner of
the Federal Acquisitions Service, told him that you wanted the
SUN contract done anyway. I believe his exact words to Mr.
Butterfield were, ``Lurita wants this contract awarded.''
So my question is: did you tell Mr. Williams that you
wanted the SUN contract to be done in spite of all of these
reservations that had been brought forward?
Ms. Doan. I cannot give you an exact, verbatim quote, but
what I can tell you is the sense of it, and that is that I
spoke with Commissioner Williams and told him that I needed him
to use his best judgment, put his best people on the effort,
and try to understand what is the sense of it.
I think, if you could just possibly allow me to give you
just a little bit of the context of all of this, it only came
to my attention because I was sort of abruptly told that SUN
Microsystems had been referred for some kind of criminal
judgment--that is probably not the legal word--to the
Department of Justice, and I was absolutely astounded, because
this was the first I had ever heard of this, and yet I had had,
you know, multiple meetings with my Inspector General. It had
somehow never come up. So that was sort of the entry point
where I became engaged.
But at no time in either event have I ever intervened. I do
not believe that I have been intrusive in any way. I do believe
that, as the head of the agency, I have not just a right but
also an obligation to be informed, to understand what is going
on, and to make some actions transparent to everyone within our
community. So obviously SUN Microsystems is a technology vendor
that falls under our Federal Acquisition Service. Our
Commissioner, Jim Williams, we were all, all of senior
management, totally, totally in the dark. We did not know any
of these challenges were going on connected to the Department
of Justice, because we had not been apprised. We had not been
kept informed. We had not been briefed. This was just
completely mind boggling to me that something of this scope
could have happened, with repercussions across the entire
Federal Government, and that nobody, not anybody, would have
seen fit from the IG's office or, you know, nowhere, they never
came to me, they have came to my chief of staff, they never
came to the Commissioner, who is directly affected and
oftentimes meets with these people every day. They never did
that.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. Actually, I am not as interested
in that particular----
Ms. Doan. This is not my time? I'm sorry. I thought that
was my time to talk.
Mr. Sarbanes. I'm not as interested in----
Ms. Doan. Sorry. This is my first hearing.
Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. That particular issue. What I am
going to is the people that were most familiar with the
contract who were bringing forth their concerns, it is
interesting, because you said the context you wanted to give me
was that your message back was exercise your best judgment, but
that directly contradicts the message that Mr. Butterfield
feels he was receiving, which was, despite your concerns about
this contract, we want this to be done. And when Mr.
Butterfield held his ground and refused to sign the contract,
what happened to him?
Ms. Doan. I have never met Mr. Butterfield and I didn't
realize that he was a contracting officer. I do not know what
happened to him. But I will tell you that what you are saying,
I truly believe what you are implying, rather, seems untrue.
What I know is that Jim Williams is a great Commissioner for
the Federal Acquisition Service. He has stellar judgment, and
we have great contracting officers. I don't know what Mike
Butterfield said. I don't really know what Jim Williams says.
But what I do know is that----
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, Mr. Butterfield----
Ms. Doan [continuing]. I have said that----
Mr. Sarbanes. What he told the committee was that he was
replaced by another contracting officer named Shana Budd, who
then signed the contract. And the Inspector General----
Ms. Doan. No, excuse me, who negotiated a great deal for
the American people, and in the process of doing that signed a
contract.
Mr. Sarbanes. Yes. Well, our information is that it wasn't
a great deal for the----
Ms. Doan. We must beg to differ on this.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, just 30 seconds.
Chairman Waxman. Without objection, the gentleman will be
given 1 additional minute.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you very much.
What I am concerned about is the message that gets sent
down from high levels to professionals in these agencies, and
this is adding sort of the third leg to a three-legged stool I
see in terms of an assault on Federal employees.
The first piece that we have seen in your hearings, Mr.
Chairman, is cutting resources to people that are trying to do
their job. The second piece is contracting services out without
the oversight that ought to be with them. And the third piece,
which is evidenced here, is that when people try to do their
job and they bring their best judgment to the table they are
overruled from above in a way that I think is demoralizing for
people in that agency.
Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
recognizing me.
I want to say to you, Ms. Doan, I think you have a
remarkable history and you should be very proud of your
accomplishments as a minority businesswoman who did something
any American would be so grateful to do--create a business that
you could be so proud of. And you did it, and many of us
haven't. I congratulate you for that.
I also want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for
your service to our country, for your willingness to step in
and basically make so much less than you make in the private
sector, and want to serve a President you believe in. And I
particularly appreciate it because now the President isn't so
popular, and the in thing is to say you hardly know the man,
and good for you.
You know, with hindsight I would have recommended to the
White House they not do this chart and I would have recommended
they should know to have probably said to you, you know, this
shouldn't happen on a Government site. But this wasn't about
how you were going to raise money and it wasn't how you were
going to undermine Democrats. It helped explain why we lost.
And I think we, Republicans, you know, we lost because of
corruption issues, we lost because we weren't doing things as
well as we should have. You know, a terrible thing for someone
to have learned. Frankly, I am happy that would have been
conveyed so it would tell you that, you know, if you want to
help your country and you want to help someone you believe in,
just do a good job. That is the message that I heard.
It is my understanding--and I want to say this--that when
you have had events, that you make sure Republicans and
Democrats all know about it. And I fully understand if a
Democrat administration is in power, you know, they might
notify our two Senators, or at least one of our Senators first
before they notify me, but they are going to invite me and they
are not going to say I have done a great job. They will say the
Senator has. I understand that, and I don't lose sleep about
it.
I feel like this committee is straining out gnats and
swallowing camels at this particular hearing. We have had a lot
of very important hearings. This isn't one of them.
With that, I would like to yield time to my colleague.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
You never met Mr. Butterfield to your recollection; is that
correct?
Ms. Doan. I still have not yet.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And I'd just refer the gentleman to
Ms. Budd's, who did negotiate that, her comments that we put in
the record earlier in the day.
SUN Microsystems were referred to the Department of
Justice, is my understanding from the IG.
Ms. Doan. That is what I believe.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you do anything to stop them
from being referred? Did you step in the way and say we can't
do this?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You just let the ordinary process
take its way and let the----
Ms. Doan. Apparently, it actually had already been done,
but nobody bothered to inform me. It had already happened 2
weeks before.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And it would be helpful to know
that, wouldn't it?
Ms. Doan. It would have been nice to at least have a
courtesy memo dropped to me or something.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And that is really part of the
problem here, isn't it? The IG, who is supposed to report to
you, just----
Ms. Doan. And he doesn't, and it is hard because we sit
with our vendors and they feel in many ways that we are two-
faced and we are not, you know, we are not understanding of
their issues, and it is very hard when you are sitting in a
meeting with someone and they know they have been referred to
the Department of Justice and you are smiling and doing a meet
and greet and you don't bring it up, and it looks like we are
duplicitous, when the truth of the matter is we were simply
uninformed.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. We don't debar companies for
referrals to Department of Justice, do we?
Ms. Doan. No, we do not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. It is not in the rules, is it?
Ms. Doan. No. I think there has to be a ruling and a
finding and wrongdoing found.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Yes, there has to be adjudication.
Ms. Doan. Nothing has happened in that area yet, to my
understanding.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So if you were to debar them or
throw them out for this and there had been no adjudication, you
would probably be in violation of the law, wouldn't you?
Ms. Doan. Yes, but I don't think debarment would be
happening even as a result. That is for the Department of
Justice to decide what has to happen.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Exactly.
Ms. Doan. I think.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. If they were convicted----
Ms. Doan. Can I just correct it, because I don't know the--
--
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You are not an attorney.
Ms. Doan. The General Counsel for GSA is making wild
signals to me.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Not renewing the contract would be
de facto debarment.
Ms. Doan. Yes. right.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That is my point.
Ms. Doan. OK. I am sorry.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But if SUN Microsystems is
adjudicated, if Justice sees merit in this and moves forward,
they could still be debarred, right?
Ms. Doan. Yes. It would then come to our suspension and
debarment official and then he would take that action.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And that has not happened, has it?
Ms. Doan. No, that has not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And if that came up, then you would
review it on its face and weigh all the other factors?
Ms. Doan. Well, I wouldn't be. I actually have delegated
that authority to the suspension and debarment official at GSA.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Well, that brings me up, because
there were some allegations earlier about there was--and you
might say this where the Big Five accounting firms or Four--I
don't want to slight anybody--en masse, and you were told about
that, and what would that have done to the Government to not
have been able to get the accounting from the biggest
accounting firms and have them eligible to do audits. That
would have crippled.
Ms. Doan. It would have been devastating, especially since
initially, when e-mail came to me, it was 2 weeks before the
end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But you didn't do anything to
interfere with that, did you?
Ms. Doan. No. It was a Sunday. I just wanted to be
informed. I was hoping people could wait until Monday to do it.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Can you imagine what would have
happened if a debarment official debarred the Big Four
accounting firms with Government audits coming on and we had to
go to smaller companies that did not have the level of
expertise to get this done, and all of the sudden----
Mr. Shays. Could I ask for a unanimous consent?
Mr. Davis of Virginia [continuing]. You didn't know about--
--
Mr. Shays. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent for
my colleague. It is my time.
Chairman Waxman. This is your time.
Mr. Shays. It is my time. And could I ask for unanimous
consent for an additional minute?
Chairman Waxman. I will let Mr. Davis complete his
sentence, but we have----
Mr. Shays. Could I ask for a unanimous consent for an
additional minute?
Chairman Waxman. The Chair will object, because we do want
to get another Member able to ask questions.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I think my point is simply this. My
understanding is that you just made an inquiry at that point
and wanted to be informed. You did nothing to interfere with
that decision.
Ms. Doan. I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But had you not been informed and
that, in fact, took place, can you imagine coming up before
this committee at that point and saying you were out of the
loop.
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Let me ask you this question. Jim
Williams, your Commissioner of Federal Acquisition----
Mr. Shays. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of order.
Chairman Waxman. The Chair has not taken his time.
Mr. Shays. And are you yielding yourself----
Chairman Waxman. I am asking a question. That is my answer
to your point of order.
Mr. Shays. I'm asking if you are yielding time. I am
raising a point of order. I would like to know----
Chairman Waxman. What is the point of order?
Mr. Shays [continuing]. If you are yielding yourself 5
minutes now.
Chairman Waxman. I am yielding myself 1 minute.
Mr. Mica. Point of order. Point of order. Question. The
parliamentary inquiry about the rules----
Chairman Waxman. Look, you have carried on enough today. I
would like to ask a question.
Mr. Mica. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Waxman. Jim Williams, your Commissioner----
Mr. Mica. I have a parliamentary inquiry----
Chairman Waxman [continuing]. Of Federal Acquisition
Services----
Mr. Mica. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Waxman [continuing]. Told the committee that he
knew of the----
Mr. Mica. Parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Waxman [continuing]. Department of Justice
referral in early August.
Mr. Mica. Parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Waxman. Did he not tell you that? And do you know
why he didn't tell you if he didn't.
Mr. Mica. Parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Doan. I don't know what Jim Williams told you all. What
I do know is that I was--I think it was--I don't want to go
with the date, but it was, like, 26, 27, somewhere, 29,
something like that. That was when I first heard about it. It
is not, I believe--I don't know who heard about it first. I
think you would have to probably followup with me afterwards. I
can do something in writing and figure out exactly that time
line.
Chairman Waxman. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. Parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Waxman. It is Mr. Welch's time. What is your
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. Mica. Parliamentary inquiry relates to yielding 1
additional minute to the minority Member who requested it. He
waited patiently for his time. Others were yielding----
Chairman Waxman. I am sorry. That is not a parliamentary
inquiry. It is, rather, a complaint, and I think an unfounded
one.
Mr. Welch.
Mr. Shays. I do have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman,
and it is a sincere one. I just want to----
Chairman Waxman. All of your statements are sincere. What
is it?
Mr. Shays. Well, I know, but I would like you to listen,
and my request is this: would you think that your obligation is
to yield yourself 5 minutes, because what I see is you yielding
yourself 1 minute in between our questioning, and then we never
know when your time is. So wouldn't it be logical that you
would----
Chairman Waxman. If the gentleman would permit, while I
don't think that is a parliamentary inquiry, I gave Mr. Davis
additional time. I didn't cut him off when his time finished.
It wasn't a great deal of time.
Mr. Shays. My parliamentary inquiry----
Chairman Waxman. But I, as the Chair, have the prerogative
of asking a question that related to this matter, and I said I
yielded myself time for that. That is out of my time. But, if
you will permit----
Mr. Shays. Just one question.
Chairman Waxman. Let me ask this of Mr. Welch. Do you want
to take your time now, because we are going to have to respond
to votes.
Mr. Shays. I just want to know how the process works.
Chairman Waxman. Well, you know how the process works. What
is your question?
Mr. Shays. The question is this: when you yield yourself
time isn't it appropriate to yield yourself 5 minutes and to
use your 5 minutes and not choose a minute here and a minute
there and a minute here? That is my question.
Chairman Waxman. Well, that is a good question, except the
Chair does have prerogatives, and I have seen other chairmen,
including yourself, use the prerogatives of the Chair to
occasionally ask questions. I am not going to consider that in
violation of the rules.
Now, Mr. Welch----
Mr. Shays. So you can give yourself time any time you want?
Mr. Welch. I will proceed if we have enough time for the
vote.
Chairman Waxman. I think we have 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Doan, thank you. Just one very simple question about
this presentation, and it is this: you know what the content
is. It identifies the 20 Democratic targets to be defeated in
the next election. Was that a proper topic of discussion and
presentation at a lunch at your office?
Ms. Doan. Congressman, there is an investigation open by
the Office of Special Counsel. I am not even going to try to
speculate on this. I am just going to let the investigation
take its course, let them make their decision. They are
independent. I will live with it.
Mr. Welch. In your capacity as the head of that
organization, was that a proper topic of discussion at a lunch?
Ms. Doan. Congressman, I am going to let the Office of the
Special Counsel's investigation move forward and let them make
a judgment as to what they feel is appropriate or not.
Mr. Welch. I heard you the first and the second time.
Ms. Doan. OK. Great.
Mr. Welch. And let me ask you my question the third time.
In your capacity as the head of the organization, where you
have responsibility about the administration of time within
your office, was that a proper topic of discussion?
Ms. Doan. I am going to allow the Office of the Special
Counsel to make a decision on this investigation. Since it is
open, and this is exactly what they do, I am going to allow
them to make a decision as to whether they thought it was
appropriate or not.
Mr. Welch. Yes, but I am asking you whether you thought it
was appropriate.
Ms. Doan. And, Congressman, I am going to allow the Office
of Special Counsel, which has an open investigation, to proceed
with the course of their investigation. I am not going to try
to murky the waters one way or the other, and I am going to
allow them to make their independent judgment, and I will live
with it.
Mr. Welch. Well, I would be glad to live with your answer,
if you would give me an answer.
Ms. Doan. I am happy to leave the investigation and the
decisionmaking to the Office of the Special Counsel,
Congressman.
Mr. Welch. If Nancy Pelosi called up and said that she
wanted to come over or send somebody over to identify the top
20 Republican targets, maybe some of our friends here, would
that be a topic that you would invite her or her
representatives to discuss at lunch?
Ms. Doan. We were very blessed to have Speaker Pelosi in
our new San Francisco Federal building, and I'll tell you----
Mr. Welch. I didn't ask you if she was going to come to a
ribbon cutting. Look, this is a very serious question. You have
a very serious responsibility.
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Welch. The person who heads an agency has to make
certain that there is integrity in how the time of taxpayer
money and people working for taxpayers is used, whether they
are Schedule C employees or not. Right?
Ms. Doan. Yes. I have a responsibility to----
Mr. Welch. It is a very simple question. I honestly, you
know, I listened to you not remember, not remember, not
remember, despite what is very clearly a very good memory and a
very competent record of accomplishment in your own career, so
I found that a little frustrating.
Ms. Doan. So does my husband, because I can never remember
our wedding anniversary.
Mr. Welch. You want to know something? I am deadly serious
about this because it is a very simple question.
Ms. Doan. I understand.
Mr. Welch. And I find you being evasive on this, in all
candor.
I am asking you very simply, as the Chief Operating Officer
of this very important organization, whether you think it was
proper to allow a political appointee to come in on lunch time
and identify the 20 political targets in the House races. It is
a simple question that I am asking you. I am asking you your
opinion. I am not asking you what I know to be the case if
there is an ``investigation'' ongoing.
Ms. Doan. I appreciate that, Congressman, and since there
is an open investigation ongoing and since this investigation
involves me I believe that I need to allow this independent
investigation by the Office of Special Counsel to proceed
without weighing in one way or the other and coloring their
judgment.
Mr. Welch. How does it adversely affect the investigation
if you express an opinion about----
Ms. Doan. I have not yet been interviewed.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. Using lunch to have a discussion
targeting political candidates?
Ms. Doan. Congressman, I have not had an investigation
before by an Office of Special Counsel. I have actually not
testified in front of a committee before. But what I will tell
you is that I will allow what is another organization's
responsibility, which is to make a decision on this matter, to
proceed. And I will wait and live with their judgment.
Mr. Welch. Let's say an archbishop--I am a Catholic----
Ms. Doan. So am I.
Mr. Welch [continuing]. Wanted to come in and proselytize
at lunch. Would that be a proper activity at lunch?
Ms. Doan. I don't know. I might have to take the Fifth on
this. I don't know the murkiness of that.
Chairman Waxman. Would the gentleman yield?
You are going to have to answer this question to the
Special Counsel. Why can't you answer this question to us?
Ms. Doan. And when the Special Counsel asks me, this is
their purview. When they investigate and----
Chairman Waxman. It is also our purview----
Ms. Doan. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman [continuing]. To ask you whether you think
it is appropriate. I think it is a violation of the law.
Ms. Doan. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Waxman. Do you think it is appropriate?
Ms. Doan. Mr. Chairman, you are allowed to have an
opinion----
Chairman Waxman. I want your opinion.
Ms. Doan [continuing]. And this is a free country, I am
allowed to have one, too, and my opinion is that I get to
wait----
Chairman Waxman. We are asking your opinion.
Ms. Doan. I am telling you. My opinion is I get to wait
until the Office of Special Counsel makes a decision, and I
will live with it.
Mr. Welch. That is not an opinion.
Ms. Doan. Yes, it is.
Mr. Welch. That is a----
Ms. Doan. It is my opinion.
Mr. Welch. That is a tactic.
Ms. Doan. No, no, no.
Chairman Waxman. That is a tactic----
Ms. Doan. Politicians have tactics.
Chairman Waxman [continuing]. Of evasion.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. We have
a series of votes on the House floor. We will recess to respond
to those votes, then Members who have not been recognized will
complete the questioning of Ms. Doan. Then we will hear from
the Inspector General.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, if you might, please, if you
could recognize me and allow me to yield my time to the ranking
member so that he might have my time when we return, I would
greatly appreciate the favor.
Chairman Waxman. You want to do that now?
Mr. Turner. If you would allow.
Chairman Waxman. We do have to respond to the vote.
Mr. Turner. And then he could take his 5 minutes when we
return from voting.
Chairman Waxman. I will check the rules on that, but I
would certainly want to be as generous as possible to my
colleagues.
We will now adjourn to respond to the votes.
[Break.]
Chairman Waxman. The meeting of the committee will come
back to order.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Yes?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me just say at the outset that I
know some of my colleagues have expressed some consternation
about your inter-toning. When I was chairman I would
occasionally, as you know, tone in after a question for
clarification, and we have always had an understanding. We
don't try to abuse it, and I know you are bending over backward
to be fair, but that is in tune with how I acted, as well. I
just wanted to clarify that. This has been a rough hearing. We
have some disagreements about this, but, you know, I appreciate
your trying to answer some of the inquiries and just note for
the record that I intoned when I was chairman, as well.
Chairman Waxman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And we are trying to get through
this.
Chairman Waxman. I appreciate that, and I want to be fair
to all the Members on both sides of the aisle on this
committee.
Mr. Tierney, it is your turn.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Just a minute, Mr. Tierney. Ms. Norton was
ahead of you. I didn't see her walk in, but she is here, and I
am going to recognize her to take her turn.
Ms. Norton. This may not be a welcome occasion. More than
most Members, I am saddened by this occasion, surprised even by
it, because I have gotten to know you since you have become
Administrator. I share jurisdiction with this subcommittee. I
also know personally about your accomplishments and am proud of
your accomplishments, particularly as an African American
businesswoman. I know how likeable and bright you are.
One of the reasons why I think, for the administration
people here, you have an obligation because you are not doing
your job when these people are making their transition from the
private sector. Anybody in the White House who had this woman
in on that call, you ought to be--that is who ought to be
punished.
Look, I am not going to ask the political questions,
because the most serious things that have happened here, as far
as I am concerned, the political questions are very
embarrassing, very straightforward, will be understood by the
public. I am more concerned about the IG and the SUN
Microsystems, and I can't ask about both of them.
Ms. Doan, I worked with the appropriators when you combined
Government policy and congressional affairs, because that,
again, gave the impression of politicizing the Office of
Government Policy. Maybe it wouldn't have looked that way in
the private sector. That is an agency where GSA is the lead
agency, but it controls travel and space use all around the
Government. It is kind of the CR. It kept that from happening.
But the IG, somebody should have told the Administrator how
sacred the IG was.
In your testimony--and you have to explain how you explain
this--on page 4 you describe what amounts to your attempt to
order the IG. In black and white here it looks like the
Administrator is having problems with the IG, the way he spends
his money. And you say that the divisions were required to
supplement the Office of IG with an additional $5 million above
and beyond the budget that Congress had approved and
appropriated, and you quickly moved to address this imbalance.
Administrator Doan, were you not aware that, in removing
this $5 million, you were not removing money from the IG's
budget. Each division has set aside funds that are, indeed,
included in the budget of your agency so that pre-audits may
occur. Pre-audits are what divisions do to make sure that they
will not be hauled before Congress for violations or for not
getting the best deal for the Government.
Your agency manages $56 billion in contracts for the
Defense Department, Homeland Security, and other agencies. By
taking that $5 billion (sic), which divisions request pre-
audits be done of their work, very businesslike practice, to
assure they were getting the best deal for the Government, you
left the impression that you did not want, particularly in
eliminating the entire amount, that you did not want pre-audits
in order to assure that the best deal was being done. Far from
what your testimony says, as if somehow the IG was over-
spending, the money had been included and you apparently had to
restore it because the Hill went ballistic. This money was
included so that this $56 billion in contracts could be pre-
audited to catch the kinds of errors and bad deals that this
committee has already heard a great deal about last year and
this year.
Why do you characterize in your testimony as the IG
spending beyond his budget? Were you aware that this money was
already in the budget of your agency to do pre-audits and that
you were de-funding all pre-audits for $56 billion of contracts
when you did that?
Ms. Doan. Do I have time to respond?
Chairman Waxman. Yes, please. Please respond.
Ms. Doan. Congresswoman Norton, thank you for your kind
comments at the beginning.
To give you a very brief context, as I mentioned in my
hearing submission and in my oral presentation, when I came to
GSA this was an agency that was in distress, and I mentioned
that it was over $100 million deficit that I had to immediately
work to address. What I found was that the $120 million that
was sort of in the red, if we are going to go from a business
point of view, was actually in the division that ironically was
now being tasked with paying the $5 million supplemental to the
Inspector General.
I am not undermining oversight. I am totally supportive of
oversight.
Ms. Norton. I am just asking you a question. Did you know
that money was included in your budget precisely for pre-
audits, and that he was not over-spending his budget?
Ms. Doan. What I know is that this funding was coming from
a failing division that was already $120 million in the red and
they were required to supplement it. What I have always said is
I approve----
Ms. Norton. And so you think----
Ms. Doan [continuing]. Of oversight because I want it to
occur----
Chairman Waxman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Doan [continuing]. In the appropriated dollars from the
Inspector General. That is all I have asked. Do as many as you
want, be as independent as you want, but do it within your
appropriated funding.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you.
Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Doan, I think today's hearing is pretty much about
judgment, and yours in particular, and I know we are not going
to go into political slides again. I accept the fact that you
apparently want to give no opinion on that. But on the
diversity issue, before you decided to give a contract to Edie
Fraser had you ever personally reviewed the Small Business
Administration report that granted an F to the agency?
Ms. Doan. I'm sorry? What?
Mr. Tierney. Before you decided to look in the direction of
Edie Fraser, had you ever personally reviewed the SBA report
that gave an F to your agency on the diversity issue?
Ms. Doan. I had spoken with Philippe Mendosa, our OSDBUA. I
trust him, and he at that time was warning me, giving me a
heads-up, it is coming.
Mr. Tierney. OK.
Ms. Doan. It did, indeed, come.
Mr. Tierney. So had you looked at the report, the SBA
report, before you wanted to contract Edie Fraser----
Ms. Doan. I believe that Philippe Mendosa tells the truth,
and when he tells me that----
Mr. Tierney. Ma'am, this isn't rocket science. I am asking
you a question, and I am asking you to answer it. The Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington stuff is old already, and it is not even
over for this hearing, so just please answer the question. Did
you personally look at the SBA report before you looked in the
direction of Edie Fraser for a contract?
Ms. Doan. I appreciate what you are trying to ask----
Mr. Tierney. No, you don't, because you are not answering
it. Did you or did you not?
Ms. Doan. Congressman----
Mr. Tierney. Did you or did you not personally look at the
SBA report?
Ms. Doan. Congressman Tierney----
Mr. Tierney. Are you going to--Mr. Chairman, would you
direct the witness to answer and be responsive?
Ms. Doan. Would I be allowed to just----
Chairman Waxman. This is the time for Members to ask you
questions.
Ms. Doan. OK.
Chairman Waxman. There is a limited amount of time.
Ms. Doan. I am sorry.
Chairman Waxman. If it is a yes or no question, answer it
yes or no. If you say you don't know, that is fine.
Ms. Doan. OK. I appreciate it. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Just answer the question directly.
Ms. Doan. This is the first time I talked with him. I was
trying to be respectful.
The answer to that, Congressman, is no.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. Now, had you talked to the people,
your own Office of Minority and Disadvantaged Matters, about
that report, about the F?
Ms. Doan. Yes. I talked with Philippe Mendosa.
Mr. Tierney. And did you do it in detail to find out what
that report and findings were, what the data was behind it?
Ms. Doan. Yes. We had a pretty long talk. I think we spoke
in our first meeting for----
Mr. Tierney. So the answer is yes?
Ms. Doan. Yes. The answer is yes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much. If I direct your
attention to page 16 of your packet, please, I want to show you
a fact sheet that the GSA career people put together during the
SUN Microsystems contract negotiations. It says in the post-
audit audit, which covered 1999 to 2005, we have forfeited
$70.4 million in reseller price reductions and $7.04 million in
GSA price reductions, for a total of $77.4 million. That was
the last 5 years. The career auditors also discussed what would
happen for the next 3 years of GSA signed the contract, and the
fact sheet says about that, for the remaining 3 years on the
extension option, if we accept SUN's proposed price reduction
clause, we estimate we will lose a minimum of $13.1 million in
reseller price reductions and $1.31 million in GSA contract
price reductions, for a total of $14.41 million.
Had you read that or familiarized yourself with that part
of the report before Shana Budd took over for Mr. Butterfield?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not, because I did not in any way----
Mr. Tierney. OK. So without having read that----
Ms. Doan [continuing]. Get involved in this process.
Mr. Tierney. Without having read that, all right, Shana
Budd comes on, and she then, within 9 days of the time she
takes the job, for a matter that has been going on for a couple
of years, within 9 days she then signs a contract with returns
highly unfavorable to the taxpayer, and when we asked her about
it, the committee asked her about it, she said, well, she
doesn't rely on auditors to determine contract prices. Her
approach is just to do what the contractor wants. That is a
serious judgment issue.
You are her boss. You don't look into this report or even
know what the projected losses are or what the past losses are.
You hire a woman whose approach, apparently which you adopt, is
that she just wants to do what the contractor wants to do.
The Inspector General then goes on to say that, with regard
to your involvement in this, it is the first time we are aware
of which an Administrator has personally intervened in this
way.
Now, you, on the other hand, tell Senator Grassley in his
letter that you weren't involved. I wasn't briefed by FAS in
August or any other time on the SUN Microsystems contract
deficiencies. I had no knowledge of the negotiations or the
basis for decisions made regarding this contract.
I direct your attention to page 4 of your packet. On August
27, 2006, Marty Wagner, Jim Williams' Deputy at FAS, the
Federal Acquisition Service, sent an e-mail to your chief of
staff, John Phelps, explaining that the SUN contract was likely
to be canceled because they couldn't meet contract requirements
on pricing. Your chief of staff forwarded the e-mail directly
to you with this message: ``Lurita, wasn't sure you had seen
this or not. Looks like Jim's prediction came true.'' He is
referring, of course, to Jim Williams, the Commissioner of the
FAS.
Three minutes later you wrote back your chief of staff, Mr.
Williams, saying, ``This is truly unfortunate. There will be
serious consequences felt across the FAS.''
Less than an hour later Mr. Williams writes back to you
stating that he has scheduled a meeting with the president of
SUN's Federal sales to see what can be done to resurrect the
partnership.
Then you have an e-mail exchange between Washington
Management Group, a fellow named Larry Allen--I'm looking at
page 7 of your packet. Mr. Allen works for the Washington
Management Group. That firm represents SUN in the negotiations.
Mr. Allen also runs a group called the Coalition for Government
Procurement that just happens to have SUN as a premier member.
In that packet you will see an e-mail dated September 7,
2006, from Mr. Allen that says, ``Ms. Doan, I understand that
new life has been breathed into the SUN situation. They are
meeting with Mr. Williams today, among other things, and I
understand that a new deal is, indeed, possible within the 30-
day timeframe you have envisioned.''
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Tierney. My question is, Ms. Doan, how can you tell
Senator Grassley that you had no involvement in this at all and
then look at that trail of e-mails?
Ms. Doan. Because I was not directly involved in this
matter at all. What I did do is exercise proper oversight that
I should do as the administrator of GSA. Larry Allen is, to my
knowledge, the head or president or something of the Coalition
for Government Procurement. This is the capacity in which I
know him, in which I have met with him, with all of our
schedule holders and things of that nature. I think you are
mischaracterizing this and I think it is a little bit
outrageous what you are trying to say.
Mr. Tierney. Just read the--I am not mischaracterizing. I
directed you to the e-mails. Just read it. I was reading
literally from it.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's----
Mr. Tierney. That is not a characterization; that is a
quote.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Davis, you can be recognized now.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Five minutes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You were not directly in the
negotiations with SUN Microsystems, correct?
Ms. Doan. No, I was not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Basically, you were up there saying
we would like to keep this going. What would have been the
ramifications on the supply schedule if SUN Microsystems were
not an option for Government buyers?
Ms. Doan. I think this would be very dire for the Federal
Government.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Can you explain why?
Ms. Doan. Because SUN Microsystems has servers, it has
software, it has java scripts, that everyone in the Federal
Government uses. They may not be aware of it, but it is one of
the things that is the backbone of their Internet and many
other areas.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And if you didn't offer your supply
schedule, is it likely it would have been offered on other
supply schedules, perhaps at even more disadvantageous rates?
Ms. Doan. I think it would have been much more expensive
for the Federal Government to purchase SUN products.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You can't just measure it by what is
on your schedule.
Now, let me just ask you, on the procedures on this, as I
understand it, once on the schedule SUN is not guaranteed any
business at all, correct?
Ms. Doan. No, they are not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. A Government agency orders items off
the schedule after it reviews the prices of at least three
schedule holders; isn't that correct?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So SUN would offer their prices. If
they weren't competitive, a Government buyer could go somewhere
else, is that correct, to some of the other schedule holders
that offer same or similar services?
Ms. Doan. That is true.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And the chosen contractor would have
to represent the best value. Now, throughout the process,
ordering agencies are encouraged to seek and often receive
significant price reductions above and apart from the discounts
that are encompassed in the schedule prices. So even if the
schedule price is something, isn't it true--and we have been
through this before--that very often the negotiated price is
far lower than what is on the schedule?
Ms. Doan. Yes. That is what we hope and anticipate.
Mr. Tierney. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I would be happy to.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. If SUN Microsystems wasn't on the
schedule, somebody else would be; is that correct?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. No. I can answer that.
Mr. Tierney. SUN Microsystems was the only one offering on
that schedule, was it?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. No. There were a lot of people on
the schedule.
Mr. Tierney. Exactly. That is my point.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Well that is my point.
Mr. Tierney. And your staff had filed a report that said it
was going to cost $77 million plus if you sign the agreement
with them to put them on the schedule.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me----
Mr. Tierney. I am hard pressed to see what you are losing
by not having them on.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. As someone who has spent their
career on this, I can explain it very quickly. There are going
to be some Government servers that are SUN systems that are
going to want to continue with SUN products. If they can't get
it off the schedule, they would go to NASA soup or GWETS or
they may go off the schedule entirely and buy it on the market,
which traditionally had been much higher prices. That is one of
the concerns with this.
Now, let me just ask, the contract that Mr. Butterfield was
negotiating--maybe this is to a detail you don't know, but
maybe you have learned it after the fact--we didn't say yes to
the contract he said no for. There were changes, weren't there,
after Mr. Williams negotiated it?
Ms. Doan. That is true. It was a negotiation, which means
there is give and take on both sides.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And when Mr. Butterfield was
relieved at that point and Shana Budd came in and negotiated,
she negotiated a different agreement than what Mr. Butterfield
had offered; isn't that right? Both parties moved?
Ms. Doan. That is my understanding, that both parties
moved.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And maintenance was one of the key
elements of this?
Ms. Doan. Yes, I believe it was.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. A key element throughout. So I think
it is important for this committee to understand how schedules
work, how these are negotiated. That is certainly appropriate.
But I think the key here is all you were doing as the
Administrator was to just keep the negotiations going.
Ms. Doan. That is exactly right.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Because you recognized what it could
do to the schedules, what it could do to Government buying
options if you didn't reach an agreement. You never dictated an
agreement, did you?
Ms. Doan. That is exactly correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You didn't walk into a room and
negotiate directly with SUN Microsystems, did you?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You didn't appoint the contracting
officers that negotiated it, did you?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So I think if Members have
questions, we are asking the wrong person. To my way of
thinking, she did the appropriate thing to try to get a more
inclusive schedule. SUN Microsystems' business, less than 10
percent of it is with the Federal Government. If we say no to
them, they can walk around the world and sell their products,
and they don't have to sell at discounts here when they can
sell at a fuller price other places.
We have held hearings on this before. One of the
difficulties is trying to get companies that traditionally
don't sell to the Government to sell to the Government, where
we can get the variety of prices and the options and the
technologies that are being developed in the private sector and
apply them to Government. But because Government has a
different set of regulations, a different set of accounting
standards, a different set of rules, some companies just find
it disadvantageous to redo all of these kind of things. We try
to work through the procurement process to find options to
bring them in.
So I don't know that there is anything necessarily improper
about this. Time will tell if this was the right approach or
not. It is hard to say if you save or lose money, because we
don't know how SUN Microsystems competes with other products
that are on the schedule right now once you have to go to three
for Government buyers to choose whether they want SUN
Microsystems or something else on the schedule and get the best
deal; is that correct?
Ms. Doan. That is correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Doan, for being here today. Ms. Doan, it is
my understanding that, as Administrator of the GSA, you manage
over $56 billion in contracts. What percentage of the GSA
contracts is currently held by minority owned businesses?
Ms. Doan. I do not have that fact at this moment. Can you
hold 1 minute?
Mr. Clay. Sure.
Ms. Doan. Could we followup with you after the record for
that precise number?
Mr. Clay. You certainly can. I would appreciate a
description of what types of programs you have.
Let me ask you, during your 10 month tenure, how many
contracts have you personally awarded to minority owned
businesses?
Ms. Doan. I haven't personally awarded any contracts to
minority or large businesses.
Mr. Clay. OK. All right. You stated in your written
testimony that it was outrageous for the committee to cite
that, as an example of the personal assistance Ms. Fraser
provided to you--she assisted your high-school aged daughter in
securing a congressional internship--you denied that Ms. Fraser
assisted you and called the suggestion despicable; yet, in her
interview with the committee Ms. Fraser was asked this very
question and confirmed that she called a Senate office to seek
an internship for your daughter.
Here is what Ms. Fraser told the committee: ``I am really
glad you asked that question because I think it is a really--if
there is any humor in this whole situation, you know, when she
said to me, you know, Edie, I am so dedicated to the
Republicans, you are so dedicated to the Democrats. My daughter
needs to learn there is another side. And so I called the
administrative assistant to Senator Stabenow and said, 'This
high school kid, you know, all their high school has
internships in Government and in the Senate. Would you take her
on?' ''
So, Ms. Doan, it was Ms. Fraser who said that she did this
for you. By the way, no one has suggested that your daughter
did anything wrong by accepting Ms. Fraser's help, but perhaps
you would like to reconsider your statement to Congress that
Ms. Fraser did not provide any assistance, in light of Ms.
Fraser's clear testimony that she did.
Ms. Doan. What I believe I said--and if I am incorrect
maybe I will check my letter that I wrote to the committee.
What I said is that this is a 40-year program that is hosted by
Madiera High School that has been well documented. It provides
90 interns, non-paying, throughout the entire Federal
Government. I am happy to hear that she had support from so
many different people, but this is how--they have interns in
many, many offices, both Democratic side and the Republican
side, the House, and the Senate. Every junior at this high
school does this. It is a very well-recognized program. That is
what I believe, something of that nature I think I wrote in
that.
I still believe, and I will say this, the fact that you are
willing to keep pushing this point absolutely indicates your
willingness to drag whatever kind of extraneous things in.
There is nothing wrong. I was not the Administrator at the
time. This is a high school child----
Chairman Waxman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Clay. I will yield to the gentleman from California.
Chairman Waxman. I just want to read that, what you said in
your statement. This is what you said: ``Over 3 years ago, as a
high school junior, my daughter participated in a mandatory
school-sponsored community service program. School counselors
worked directly with Members of the House and the Senate to
arrange for entry-level, non-paying positions. My innocent
daughter was assigned to the staff of Senator Debbie
Stabenow.''
Now, what Mr. Clay is pointing out is that we know it
wasn't school counselors but your good friend who was the one
who recommended her.
I yield back the balance.
Ms. Doan. Am I allowed to comment at all, because this----
Chairman Waxman. If there is a question.
Mr. Clay. Please do.
Ms. Doan. There is nothing on this that is incorrect. There
is nothing on this that is incorrect. The high school
counselors at Madiera work with the House and the Senate, and
they absolutely have internships. We have probably people on
this committee who have these interns here.
Mr. Clay. Well, Ms. Doan, why would Ms. Fraser make this
statement? Can you shed any light on that?
Ms. Doan. No, I can't shed any light on that. I can share
with you that people often try to help when other people say
there are things that are of interest or concern or things.
This is what we do. We care for one another. People do things
like this. This is very kind of her to have done that.
Mr. Clay. And that is all fine and well, but I think that
the concern here is that this is conflicting testimony between
Ms. Fraser and you and what you have told committee
investigators.
Ms. Doan. This is not conflicting testimony. It says here
that high school counselors worked directly with Members of the
House and Senate to arrange for entry-level, non-paying
positions.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Doan. This is a statement of fact.
Chairman Waxman. I would ask unanimous consent that I have
a minute so I can pursue this issue, without objection.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Without objection, but I would like
to also reserve just a clarification question at the end of
that.
Chairman Waxman. Absolutely.
Ms. Doan, I know you are outraged about this whole thing.
You expressed it with a great deal of emotion. But your
statement was it was school counselors. We pointed out that
Edie Fraser claimed that she helped her daughter. I am not
saying that there is anything wrong with it, but it is
something----
Ms. Doan. Thank you. I appreciate that, because the
implication there was that there was something improper going
on.
Chairman Waxman. No, the implication of it was that she
helped you. You had a relationship, she helped you, and
evidently you wanted to help her with that contract, and there
was a give-and-take kind of relationship.
Ms. Doan. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, Congressman,
Congressman Clay prefaced it--and I don't have the exact
transcript, but he prefaced it with something like, ``In the
process of her performing personal services for you.'' That was
improper, in my mind. That implied a certain amount of
impropriety.
Chairman Waxman. But you don't deny that she helped?
Ms. Doan. She apparently did help, and I am very grateful
that she did.
Chairman Waxman. OK. That is fine. Let's just get the
record complete.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Yes, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I have had interns from the Madiera
School. It is not in my District. It is not uncommon for kids
from Madiera to apply across the Hill, and it is not uncommon,
by the way, for people to recommend people that are applying.
These are unpaid internships during the school year when,
frankly, many offices can use interns. Summer time it is
different. These are during school year. And we work directly
with the counselors, because we have to fill out forms----
Ms. Doan. Exactly.
Mr. Davis of Virginia [continuing]. Telling how the kids
do. I don't see any conflict in this at all. If this is the
best you can do, I think we are wasting our time.
Chairman Waxman. Well, I certainly don't think it is a
conflict. I think people ought to understand the complete
picture.
Let's see, Mr. Lynch, it is your turn now.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having
this hearing. I also thank the ranking member.
We seem to be getting tied in knots about your testimony,
previous testimony, current testimony. I am getting a little
frustrated, just like you are, trying to figure out what you
are exactly saying.
You just told us a moment ago that you weren't involved
with the SUN Microsystems deal, you were just involved in the
oversight of it. Now, you weren't directly involved, you just
did your job in an oversight capacity.
Now, I just want to compare what you said to Senator
Grassley. This is a quote. When asked about the SUN
Microsystems, you said, ``I had no knowledge of the
negotiations or the basis of the decisions made regarding this
contract.'' That is a very broad statement, and it is
completely inconsistent with what you have said here today. I
just want to tell you--and this may go further. I know you know
that you are under oath. What is troubling to me is this--and
there is a lot of peripheral stuff, but there is some central
stuff about what is being testified to here today.
You have testified to the facts that at the GSA
headquarters, the headquarters of this agency, a Government
institution, that there was a meeting, a presentation, a
teleconference at which you were present. The object of that
meeting, especially, was for influencing the election. More
specifically, the object of the meeting was to target, and, if
successful, remove Members of Congress who are charged with the
oversight of your agency. This goes to the integrity of the
electoral process that has been violated here, not just in the
Hatch Act but also embodied in the Voting Rights Act.
There were Members of this Congress that were targeted by a
Government agency, by a sitting Government agency with the head
of that agency present, and also special assistants to the
White House present to influence the election. That is central
to what you did. That is central.
Now, you haven't claimed the fifth amendment, which maybe
you should have, but you have come here today and you have
testified, you have really adopted the Sergeant Shultz defense,
you know nothing. But I want to just recount what you have
testified here today. And I came here in an objective fashion
just to listen to what you had to say.
You have testified that you remember the time you have
arrived. You testified as you knew who was in the meeting, who
was not in the meeting. You testified that you know who called
in and who did not call in. You testified as to what food was
served. You testified--if you want to read the transcripts, go
ahead--you remember the folks that were telecommunicated in
from California. You testified that you saw before a PowerPoint
presentation, which is an enhanced cognitive medium, but then
you have a blank spot in your memory as to what you recall
about the PowerPoint presentation targeting Members of
Congress.
We have the testimony of six Republican colleagues who have
your own testimony as to what can we do to help the Republican
Members of Congress, and that is terribly troubling, in my
estimation. Maybe this will be worked out in the subsequent
investigations. I am not sure. But certainly just the core
facts that you have helped establish here, you know, leads me
to believe that there is further action necessary to be taken
on this, and it is not good for you. I have to say, your own
testimony has been very damning, I think, that you have had
this very selective lapse of memory before Members of Congress.
You know, I think the whole episode is utterly disgraceful,
in my opinion, and, you know, maybe there are Members here that
think that you helped yourself here today by testifying, but I
need to be quite honest with you. The only thing that you have
removed here is the original impression that it was
incompetence, it was incompetence, because now it appears that
your action was purposeful.
I just have to say, as a Member of Congress trying to
uphold the Constitution, trying to uphold the integrity of
Government, that I am deeply disappointed in your testimony
here today and I will do everything I possibly can to get to
the bottom of this and to restore the integrity that I think
has been diminished by your own actions.
Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair wishes to recognize himself for 5 minutes just to
ask a few questions. Maybe I won't even take the full 5
minutes.
There were two contracts that we have been discussing. One
was the SUN Microsystems contract. In your March 13th letter
you said, ``I was not briefed by FAS in August or at any other
time on the SUN Microsystems contract deficiencies.'' FAS is
the Federal Acquisition Service.
Ms. Doan. Right.
Chairman Waxman. Now, we interviewed Mr. Williams and we
asked him whether he briefed you on the SUN contract and he
said he did. He told us directly that he updated you on the SUN
situation several times during the contract negotiations. Was
he lying to us? How do you explain this contradiction?
Ms. Doan. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to ask you to read it
back to me again, but I think----
Chairman Waxman. You said that you weren't involved and he
said he briefed you.
Ms. Doan. In the August timeframe, I believe we talked
about. Is that what we talked about? I think I would much
rather sit there and, you know, add up the dates and stuff like
that and organize it for you and provide it.
Chairman Waxman. Did he brief you?
Ms. Doan. Some time in early September.
Chairman Waxman. I am not asking you when. Did he brief you
on this contract?
Ms. Doan. Well, I thought the date was the issue we were
discussing here.
Chairman Waxman. Well, your March 13th letter you said he
had not briefed you. I presume this is before you agreed to the
contract. Did he brief you or not?
Ms. Doan. Well, no, he didn't brief me.
Chairman Waxman. He did not brief you?
Ms. Doan. He just spoke, you know, once on the phone. I
don't know.
Chairman Waxman. Only once on the phone.
Ms. Doan. I honestly cannot--we never sat down and actually
had a briefing. We just had a brief discussion on the phone.
Chairman Waxman. On how many occasions?
Ms. Doan. He said one or two times. I am just following,
maybe twice.
Chairman Waxman. OK. And then on the----
Ms. Doan. I think the issue is August versus September.
Chairman Waxman. Do you consider it a briefing if it is a
telephone conversation when someone tells you about a contract?
Ms. Doan. No. I consider a briefing when you are actually
provided with substantive information related to a matter at
hand. That is what I consider a briefing.
Chairman Waxman. I would just point out that you sent a
letter to Senator Grassley to say, ``I was not briefed by FAS--
`` Federal Acquisition Service--``in August or at any other
time on the SUN Microsystems contract deficiencies.'' That is a
pretty clear statement, but now it seems as if you are backing
off that statement. You did have a couple phone conversations
telling you about it? Yes, you did have phone conversations?
No, you didn't have a couple phone conversations?
Ms. Doan. I don't consider that a briefing.
Chairman Waxman. OK. That is Clintonian. Now, on the other
contract, you were directly involved in the contract for Edie
Fraser, weren't you?
Ms. Doan. I do not believe that was a contract, but yes, I
was directly involved in directing the action to try to start a
study for minority and women-owned and diversity----
Chairman Waxman. OK. You were directly involved in that.
But these others you were indirectly involved. You are the head
of GSA, and that is the agency in charge of giving out those
contracts, so other things were delegated to other people, but
on the Edie Fraser contract you were personally involved; is
that a fair statement?
Ms. Doan. Yes, it is a fair statement at the beginning of
the action. After I approved the draft outline, I then moved it
on to be processed through the contracting shop and the office
for the procurement.
Chairman Waxman. OK. Thank you.
Well, I want to thank you.
Does the gentleman have any additional questions he would
like to ask, maybe make some comments about the way life is
going?
Mr. Mica. Could you yield?
Chairman Waxman. Certainly.
Mr. Mica. How much time?
Chairman Waxman. Whatever time is left, I would be glad to
give it to you.
Mr. Mica. OK. Well, again, let's just take it in reverse
order. The $20,000 contract that you attempted--and it wasn't a
contract, was never awarded.
Ms. Doan. It was not.
Mr. Mica. OK. The video conference, this says the White
House. The first chart there is the White House Political
Office? Is that what that says, the White House Political
Office?
Ms. Doan. Yes.
Mr. Mica. Is that who conducted that? Did you initiate the
videoconference?
Ms. Doan. No, I did not.
Mr. Mica. OK. And then SUN Microsystems, the third
question, you were never fully briefed? You never sat down and
had a full briefing about the terms of the contract, and most
of the problems had occurred before you got there?
Ms. Doan. All of that is true.
Mr. Mica. In 15 years, you know, they tried to get you on
this $20,000, and this is embarrassing, too, what they are
doing to your daughter, 2004 to intern with a Democrat Senator.
But I have never seen such an attempt to go after a minority
appointee of any administration in this fashion, and the thing
about this----
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. It will discourage others from ever
coming into the----
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. What you are doing here today.
Chairman Waxman. Ms. Doan, thank you very much for your
presentation.
Ms. Doan. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member
Davis. Thank you, committee members.
Chairman Waxman. We will probably ask you some further
questions for the record.
We are now pleased to call our next witness, Mr. Brian D.
Miller, the Inspector General of GSA. Before assuming this post
in 2005, Mr. Miller worked as Federal Prosecutor in the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where
he helped prosecute Zacharias Mousaui and John Walker Lindt. In
this position, he also supervised numerous audits and
investigations involving procurement, grant, and health care
fraud.
Mr. Miller, I thank you very much for being here. Your
prepared statement will be in the record in full. I would like
to ask you now to proceed with your oral statement.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN D. MILLER
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, ranking
member, and thank you, members of this committee, for inviting
me here to testify.
I would also like to thank Senator Grassley for taking the
time to testify here this morning about the importance of
oversight and the role of an Inspector General. Indeed, it is a
privilege for me----
Mr. Mica. Parliamentary inquiry and procedure. Was the
witness sworn in?
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman is correct. It is our
practice to swear in all witnesses, and we want to put you
under oath, as well.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. I thank you. Now let's start all over
again.
Mr. Miller. OK. It is a privilege to be here this
afternoon. I have devoted most of my professional life to
public service. For roughly a decade-and-a-half before becoming
Inspector General at GSA I served as a career Federal attorney.
As a U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, the
ranking member's own District, I worked on a variety of cases,
including terrorism cases, as the chairman has noted.
In July 2005, the Senate confirmed me as Inspector General
of GSA, and it is, indeed, an honor for me to lead the Office
of the Inspector General. Our audits and investigations
safeguard the integrity of Government operations and provide
cost avoidance for taxpayers in the billions of dollars.
For years my office enjoyed good working relations with GSA
managers who appreciate our work. My relationships with former
GSA Administrator Stephen Perry and Acting Administrator David
Bibb were excellent. They recognized that independent oversight
was a tool for good management. And I have been trying to
establish a good working relationship with Administrator Doan
and will continue to do so.
It is important for me to note here that it is my duty, as
Inspector General, to investigate allegations of wrongdoing and
to conduct audits. I would not be doing my job if I were to
look the other way at credible allegations of wrongdoing or
pass over an embarrassing audit, as Senator Grassley has noted
this morning.
The taxpayers and the Congress rely on IGs to do their job
to ferret out fraud, waste, and abuse, and to help their
agencies run more efficiently and effectively.
At the end of the day, it is about accountability,
accountability to the President, to the Congress, and, most
importantly, to the American taxpayers.
Now, this committee has asked me to address three issues in
connection with the actions of the Administrator: first, her
intervention in a major contract negotiation, SUN Microsystems;
second, her sole source award of a contract to a friend; and,
third, her alleged role in encouraging use of GSA resources for
partisan political purposes.
Six months ago GSA awarded a contract extension to SUN
Microsystems. Our auditors showed that it was a bad deal for
the Government. The contracting officer thought it was a bad
deal. All of GSA's management, up to and including Commissioner
Jim Williams, agreed it was a bad deal. And a notice was sent
to SUN that the contract would end.
But then Administrator Doan found out and word went out
that SUN was a strategically important vendor and that the
Administrator wanted the contract awarded. The contracting
officer could not extend it, so a new contracting officer was
assigned. Eight days later, the contract was renewed.
Why is this such a bad deal? Well, the auditors warned that
SUN's past charges looked fraudulent and told GSA management.
Frankly, the deal should have been terminated when allegations
of potential fraud first surfaced.
I agree with Senator Grassley that once the potential for
serious fraud was identified, the deal should have been slowed
down, at the very least. Instead, it was speeded up. None of
this would have happened if Administrator Doan had not
intervened and directed GSA to make the award.
Now, turning to the Public Affairs Group contract,
Administrator Doan was wrong in attempting to award a sole
source contract to the company of a personal friend, Edie
Fraser. She was wrong to keep trying to get this project
awarded to her friend, even when told the first contract was
improper. And she was wrong to try and cover up the extent of
her improper efforts.
Administrator Doan has tried to say that she did nothing
improper and that, anyway, it wasn't a contract, but that is
not what her own General Counsel has told her. Administrator
Doan has claimed that she did everything she could to clean up
the mess, but that is not what her own General Counsel told
this committee.
Turning to the Hatch Act issue, when my investigators
received credible information about a potential Hatch Act
violation, we referred the matter to the appropriate
investigatory agency, the Office of Special Counsel. That is
our duty.
Now, in tandem with these events, the Administrator has
advocated for reduced oversight and has made many statements to
that effect. Unfortunately, the Administrator has demonstrated
a disregard for the very contracting rules that oversight is
meant to detect.
I notice my time is out. I would like to thank the
committee, and I stand ready to answer questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 40153.165
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, he will be right back. Do you want
us to begin?
Chairman Waxman. Why don't you just finish your statement.
We did give Ms. Doan additional time, and I think it would be
only fair to let you have additional time to complete your
statement.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is not much
left.
In fact, she may have violated basic rules of conduct for
an agency head while, at the same time, worked to pare back the
mechanisms for uncovering such violations. What may explain
both is the lack of respect for law and law enforcement.
I would be happy to answer questions.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis, I am going to recognize you to control 15
minutes, and we will let you go first, then our side will
control 15 minutes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Miller, I heard you say that you
are accountable to the White House, to the Congress, and to the
American people.
Mr. Miller. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Aren't you also, under the statute,
accountable to the head of the agency to keep the establishment
and the Congress fully informed?
Mr. Miller. Indeed.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You mentioned that?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You didn't mention that.
Mr. Miller. Well, I would be happy to mention it now.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And you are not an accountant; is
that correct?
Mr. Miller. Pardon me?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You are not an accountant; is that
correct?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You are not a CPA; is that correct?
You are a prosecutor by career, right?
Mr. Miller. Correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Your prepared statement today takes
credit for saving the Government a lot of money. How much did
the investigation of this diversity study cost in your own
staff time and expense? Any idea?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I don't have that number right
now, but let me tell you that when this complaint originally
came in, it came in with documentation to our office. It was a
credible complaint. We looked at it. We decided that it was
credible. We had to interview the Administrator.
I personally went up and told the Administrator that we had
received this complaint and that my agents would have to go up
and interview her.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You didn't save any money on this
one, though, did you, because it was canceled? Am I right? You
didn't save any money on this one?
Mr. Miller. Part of our job, Congressman, is----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Just yes or no.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Is to investigate----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Is that a yes or a no? Did you save
any money on this investigation? The answer is no, isn't it?
Mr. Miller. I believe it----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Because the contract was never----
Mr. Miller. There was no money paid on that contract. That
is correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now let me ask you this. What
obligation does the IG and his investigators and his staff have
to prevent disclosure of investigative information to outside
sources in ongoing investigations? Can you tell us what your
responsibility there is under the statute?
Mr. Miller. I will, but I hadn't finished my answer to the
last question.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I have limited time and I want to
have the answer to this question.
Mr. Miller. OK. The question is responsibilities to
safeguard confidential information. We do have a responsibility
to do that and we do take measures to safeguard confidential
information, Congressman.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now, do you think that the premature
disclosure of investigative information, even when permitted by
law, can cause substantial harm to an ongoing investigation?
Mr. Miller. It is possible, Congressman.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do you think that the GSA IG
investigative information in the ongoing investigation of
Administrator Doan was provided to the Washington Post
reporters who authorized the January 19, 2007, article
entitled, ``GSA Chief Scrutinized for Deal with Friend?''
Mr. Miller. Congressman, we did not disclose any part of
the investigative file to anyone who is not authorized to see
it. I don't know how the Post reporters got that information. I
was surprised to see it.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you do any investigation to see
how it might have gotten out of your office?
Mr. Miller. Well, we did ask around. In fact, we received a
call in January, January 25th, from Mr. Nardoti, Administrator
Doan's private attorney. He called our lead investigator and
said that on January 19th the Washington Post reporters had
documents, they showed Administrator Doan documents that came
out of the investigative file. I think they claimed it was her
supplemental statement correcting mis-statements in the
earlier----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That information, under the law,
shouldn't get out; isn't that correct?
Mr. Miller. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And your office--you are under
oath--had nothing to do with this?
Mr. Miller. I am confident that my office had nothing to do
with it. If I may finish, we immediately looked into this. Mr.
Nardoti said that the Post reporter showed the information to
Administrator Doan and to the acting General Counsel. When we
heard this, we immediately interviewed the acting General
Counsel, who said that didn't happen, that the Post reporters
did not show him any documents from the investigative file, and
that to his knowledge they had not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. What did you do to investigate the
leak at that point, though? It is clear that something had been
leaked, correct?
Mr. Miller. Well, at that point the head of my
investigations said that the allegation by Administrator Doan's
attorney was not credible. In fact, the lead agent called him
back and told him that.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So there was no documents that were
leaked to the Post that shouldn't have been out there; is that
correct?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, they didn't come from my office.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you investigate----
Mr. Miller. I am confident my office did not disclose any--
--
Mr. Davis of Virginia. What did you do to ensure that it
didn't? Did you do an investigation in your office to make sure
that they didn't? Did you talk to employees, put anybody under
oath, or anything?
Mr. Miller. Well, Congressman, I am trying to answer your
question----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I want you to answer it.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. As best I can. It is a little
involved, and I ask you to bear with me, but at that point our
lead agent called Mr. Nardoti back and told him what the
General Counsel said, and he gave a nervous laugh and said,
Well, gee, I will have to go talk to my client again. Well then
he calls back on February 1st with a changed story, and the
revised story said that Ms. Doan saw the statement in the Post
reporter's hands, and that he also talked to another party that
indicated subpoenaed e-mails had been turned over to the press,
and he then told us he was filing a PCIE complaint.
Now, part of the mystery was solved 2 weeks later on
February 13th. The attorney for PAG--Public Affairs Group--sent
a letter to us saying they were producing an e-mail for the
first time to us because they had learned that it had been
leaked to the press. That is before it even got to our office.
PAG tried to characterize it as outside the scope of our
request, but it was a September 6th e-mail ending in 309.
At any rate, that second half of Mr. Nardoti's statement
was clearly explained that it came from the Public Affairs
Group.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Mr. Miller. I am trying to answer in the sense that we also
learned that there was a complaint filed with the PCIE, and we
did not want to interfere with the investigation of the PCIE.
Now, we also asked the Administrator for copies of
documents that she was producing to this committee relating to
the PAG investigation, and in connection with that Mr. Nardoti
wrote us a letter saying she would not produce them in light of
the PCIE complaint.
I responded to her, in response, preparing for that
response, I did ask everyone who had access to those documents,
whether or not they had disclosed them to anyone except other
Governmental officials with a legitimate interest in the
investigation. So we did make inquiries. We did not--if your
question is did we take sworn statements, the answer is no.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. The first public disclosure of
the problems between you and the Administrator were revealed in
a Post article December 2nd. Do you remember that article?
Mr. Miller. I do generally.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. The Post stated that they had
obtained notes from a private meeting you had with the
Administrator. One of your assistants took notes in that
meeting, and those notes found their way to the Post. The Post
wrote that, according to these notes, the Administrator
compared Miller and his staff to terrorists. Do you know
anything about that leak?
Mr. Miller. I don't know where the Post reporters got those
notes. I do----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You don't think they got them from
Ms. Doan, do you?
Mr. Miller. I don't think that they got them from Ms. Doan.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Is it appropriate----
Mr. Miller. They did not----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Is it appropriate for the notes of
one of your staff to appear in the Washington Post in a meeting
like that?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, those notes--we did share some of
those comments and those notes the congressional staff, and I
don't know where the Post----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Which congressional staff? when did
you do that?
Mr. Miller. We shared them with congressional staff, maybe
in October.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Which congressional staff?
Mr. Miller. I believe that I shared them with
Representative Platts' staff.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Mr. Miller. I may have shared them with other oversight
staff.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You think they may have leaked it?
Of course, this meeting that we are talking about here, these
notes that found their way, you are assuring me they didn't
come from your office?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, as far as I know, those notes did
not come from my office to the Post reporters.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And you hadn't talked to the Post
reporters prior to the article on December 2nd; is that
correct?
Mr. Miller. Well, they did call me and asked me to confirm
the read out of the notes, and I said, look, I am not going to
confirm or deny, I am not going to comment on the relationship,
my relationship with the Administrator. And then I talked about
the positive mission of my office.
I did have one prior conversation with the Post reporters
several months before that about how GSA contracts operate, in
general.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you initiate that conversation
or did they initiate that conversation?
Mr. Miller. I believe they did.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Mr. Miller. And we talked about firm fixed price contracts
versus time and material contracts. There was not one word
mentioned about my relationship with the Administrator or any
of the issues going on between me and the Administrator.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now, you say that Allen Swindeman,
General Counsel, told this committee that he asked the
Administrator several times to terminate the contract and that
she refused. That was your briefing to the committee; is that
correct?
Mr. Miller. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That Mr. Swindeman told this
committee that he had asked the Administrator several times to
terminate the contract and that she refused, talking about the
$20,000 contract?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I believe that is on the Web site in the
chairman's letter.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But he never told the committee any
such thing that we are aware of. Are you aware of him telling
the committee that, or did you get that off the Web site?
Mr. Miller. I got that off of the Web site and the
chairman's letter.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So you getting the information from
the majority in this case. OK.
Have you given any information about the committee's
investigation that you have included in your report and
testimony today, have you been given any information about the
committee's investigation that you have included in your report
and testimony today besides that?
Mr. Miller. I would have to go back and look at the report.
We did look at the chairman's letter, and I would have to go
back and take a close look and see----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How much of your testimony comes
from what the majority has put on their Web site and how much
of it comes from your independent investigation, because the
information about Mr. Swindeman's discussion, from our
investigation, is flat out false. So what does that say about
your credibility?
[No response.]
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You don't have any independent
investigation; you just took it off the majority Web site. That
is what you are saying?
Mr. Miller. That is not correct, Congressman. Most of my
testimony is taken from our----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I asked about that particular issue.
Mr. Miller. Most of the report is based on the
investigation that my office did.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Most of it?
Mr. Miller. Most of it is----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But not all of it?
Mr. Miller. There----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. The statements that Mr. Swindeman----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. It seems that a significant----
Chairman Waxman. Wait. Give him a chance to answer.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. He has answered it. He just took
this off your Web site. Am I wrong? That is where you said you
got the information?
Mr. Miller. Well, the statements that I was referring to
that Mr. Swindeman made, I actually said he said to this
committee----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Correct. That is why I was moving
off. I'm not going to let him run the clock out on us.
Let me just ask this: it seems that a significant area of
disagreement between you and the Administrator centers on the
OIG's performance of contract support audits; is that fair to
say?
Mr. Miller. I don't believe so.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. The disagreement between you and the
Administrator, is it your view that it is important that your
office provide this audit assistance on contract support?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Congressman, I think my disagreement with
the Administrator is more on oversight. She has made numerous
statements that she would like to reduce oversight.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But you have also, in your own
testimony you went after this SUN Microsystems, and that is
contract support, correct? I mean, a significant part of your
testimony today----
Mr. Miller. Sure.
Mr. Davis of Virginia [continuing]. Was focused on that. So
all I was saying is a significant area of disagreement was on
contract support. Now, my understanding is that in most
agencies they either use DCAA or auditors that do acquisition
support exclusively, as opposed to auditors from the IG's
office. Isn't that true in a lot of agencies?
Mr. Miller. I don't know what the practice is at other
agencies.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You don't?
Mr. Miller. I know that many of them do use DCAA.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. What is different about our agency is that
there was a GAO report, and the GAO recommendation was that--
and it was agreed to by GSA. It was actually an arrangement
developed and established by the Office of Management and
Budget. It was a Bush administration initiative to set up this
reimbursable agreement for us to do these pre-award price
audits.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But it doesn't happen that way in a
lot of agencies. That is my only point.
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Is your office paid by the GSA
contracting activities for this audit support?
Mr. Miller. There is a reimbursable arrangement where they
reimburse us for our audit activities.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How much per year does your office
receive for these services, ball park?
Mr. Miller. Ball park, it is between $4 and $5 million.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. What is your total budget?
Mr. Miller. Total budget for last year was around--I would
have to get back to you with the specific number.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Ballpark, $40 million?
Mr. Miller. About $43, maybe more, maybe less.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Is it your understanding that your
office's role in providing pre-and post-award contract audit
reports is to support the contracting officer?
Mr. Miller. Yes, generally.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That is not an oversight role in
that sense, correct?
Mr. Miller. I'm sorry?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Your role in providing pre-and post-
award contract audit reports is to support the contracting
officer who makes the decision. You are not vested with making
the decision?
Mr. Miller. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You were advisory, correct?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I mean, do they always take your
advice?
Mr. Miller. No, they don't always.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. So it is not odd for a
contracting officer to say thank you very much but I'm going to
settle it, correct?
Mr. Miller. They have a warrant and they are responsible
to----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Correct.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Exercise their own judgment.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. In our acquisition system, it is the
contracting officer that makes the final decision to award a
contract, exercise an option, or take any other contract
action, correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. As I understand it, one of the roles
of the Office of the Inspector General is to impartially
evaluate the agency's programs and functions. Do you see any
tension between the evaluation role and the role of advisor to
the contracting officer in a particular acquisition?
Mr. Miller. Do I see any conflict between----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Any tension, not conflict. Do you
see any tension between your evaluative role and the role of
advisor to the contracting officer in a particular acquisition?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I think I would have to think
about that question.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That is fine. You can get back to us
on it.
I think my time is up now. We will have more questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, may----
Chairman Waxman. Yes.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. I explain, I guess, an answer a
little more fully? We did interview Mr. Swindeman. The report
of his interview is in our investigative report, so we did rely
on those statements from Mr. Swindeman, as well. I would like
to point that out.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Wait a minute. I am looking at the
list of witnesses and exhibits for today, and I don't see it. I
have a number of others. I am looking here at the report of
investigation for official use only. This is on page 26, if you
want to move to page 26. That is your list of witnesses and
exhibits, and I see a number of exhibits but I do not see that.
Mr. Miller. With the Chair's indulgence may I consult
with----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Sure. Please. And maybe you could be
confusing Moentrip, who was the acting General Counsel. Is that
what happened?
Mr. Miller. OK. I will withdraw.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That is fine. For the record, we
just----
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Congressman.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair will recognize himself to pursue some questions.
By the way, your investigation of the leak was more
extensive than the White House investigation of the outing of
the CIA agent which was involving national security. They did
nothing. We had a hearing on that a couple weeks ago. They did
absolutely nothing. They didn't ask any of the employees,
didn't ask anybody who had access to this information how it
got out, how it was being marketing to different press people,
even though it affected national security and might have
threatened the life of a covert CIA agent.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Maybe they could transfer Mr. Miller
to the White House and everybody would be happy here.
Chairman Waxman. Then he could make political presentations
about the upcoming Republican campaigns.
I want to ask you about a statement that you made regarding
the SUN contract. You said that Ms. Doan's actions were a
breach of GSA's fiduciary duty to U.S. taxpayers. Why did you
say this?
Mr. Miller. Well, because for the first SUN contract--there
were two contracts with SUN prior to that were consolidated
into one SUN contract. We did a post-award audit. We did two
post-award audits on that and learned that SUN had overcharged
us by $27 million, so the first SUN contract cost $27 million
in defective pricing. To push through another contract with SUN
following that is what I was trying to express was not in the
best interest of the taxpayer, especially when we had done a
pre-award audit indicating that the rates, the discounts that
SUN was offering were not the best discounts to the Government.
They were offering commercial customers better discounts than
they were to the U.S. taxpayers.
Chairman Waxman. And that was inconsistent with the rules,
wasn't it?
Mr. Miller. It was. Yes, sir.
Chairman Waxman. Now, you also said it is the first time we
are aware of in which an administration has personally
intervened in this way. Why did you say that?
Mr. Miller. My staff is not aware of an Administrator
becoming involved in any negotiation in the same way at any
time in the past.
Chairman Waxman. Well, she says she wasn't involved.
Mr. Miller. Our office has not been aware of any
Administrator being involved, even in the way that she says she
was involved, with the e-mails and with talking with the
Commissioner of FAS, and certainly with the word going out that
this was a strategically important contract and needed to go
through. On August 29th she called an impromptu meeting with
the head of audits of my staff and with my counsel, and at that
meeting she told them how important the SUN contract was and
that it needed to go through.
They attempted to explain the programs with the SUN
negotiation----
Chairman Waxman. And this was with Ms. Doan, herself?
Mr. Miller. With Ms. Doan, herself.
Chairman Waxman. Never would have thought that.
Mr. Miller. She cut them off when they tried to explain the
problems with the SUN negotiation.
Chairman Waxman. Now, they were trying to explain to her
what her own contracting officers had said, that if they go
ahead with this contract the taxpayers were going to have to
pay millions of dollars in additional funds for a service than
otherwise would be the case; is that right?
Mr. Miller. That is right.
Chairman Waxman. So she acted as if she wasn't involved in
this. I guess the question is what does involved mean. It is
sort of like what is a briefing. A briefing seems to be in her
mind only a sit-down meeting where charts and pointers are
involved. But you actually had a sit-down meeting with her, or
was it a telephone conversation?
Mr. Miller. Actually, it was the head of my audits, Andy
Pagent.
Chairman Waxman. Yes.
Mr. Miller. He was the Assistant Inspector General for
Auditing and the Counsel for the Inspector General, who went up
and briefed her on this, at very short notice.
Chairman Waxman. Yes. Well, if they didn't give this
contract to SUN Microsystems, wouldn't they have had other
bidders come in and have some competition and see if somebody
else could do the job at a cheaper amount?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, that was our position. In fact,
our Deputy Inspector General suggested that one way to resolve
the impasse was for GSA to team up with NASA, the NASA soup, to
force SUN to give the Government better discounts, because by
joining forces with NASA we have more leverage on SUN and we
would be able to push the discounts to get greater discounts at
a better price for the taxpayer.
Chairman Waxman. Well, that would have been good. Did Ms.
Doan seem to worry that NASA might provide a contract with SUN
Microsystems and that she wouldn't get the money that GSA gets
for that contract; is that right?
Mr. Miller. Well, that is what I understand was her point
to the head of my auditing and to the counsel. She did mention
the NASA soup. Now, I wasn't there so I can't say for sure what
was said.
Chairman Waxman. Well, the only comment I would make to
that is her job is to protect the taxpayers, not to have the
taxpayers pay more just so she could get a percentage for her
agency.
Mr. Miller. Well, at GSA, obviously, if the price goes up
GSA gets a commission, so to speak, a fee, and so the revenues
going into GSA actually increase, but if the price goes down
the fee decreases. By our pre-award audits, we can actually
push. If the contracting officer accepts our recommendations,
the prices can actually go down and it may result in fewer
funds going into GSA.
Chairman Waxman. How are NASA soup prices compared to
GSA's? I am told NASA's are often better. Is that the case?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I don't know personally. I
understand that NASA soup may actually adopt GSA's price
negotiations. I'm not sure.
Chairman Waxman. Now, this is a schedule that goes out
Government wide, and GSA is supposed to bargain tough, hard----
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Chairman Waxman [continuing]. And negotiate the lowest
prices, because otherwise that is what everybody in the
Government assumes they have done when they go out and take
advantage of a contract negotiated by GSA; isn't that correct?
Mr. Miller. That is correct. And it does have an impact to
resellers, as well. The price negotiation drives the price, the
discount that resellers of the same product sell to Government
agencies, so it can have a massive impact.
Chairman Waxman. Well, that involved money. Now let me ask
you about a third statement you made involving Edie Fraser
contracting.
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Chairman Waxman. And I gather that didn't go through, but
in your testimony you said that the record paints quite a
different picture than what Administrator Doan told the OIG
investigators. This sounds like you are saying that she was not
candid. Why did you say this?
Mr. Miller. Well, as I was trying to explain to the ranking
member, but I didn't get a chance to explain, was the
allegation came in. We thought the agent would simply interview
the Administrator and we would close the report, write a letter
or report to the White House liaison, but instead she told a
story to our agents that could not possibly be true. As a
result, we had to go forward with our investigation of the
Administrator.
Now, several days later her attorney sent a letter trying
to explain that the statements she made were incorrect,
inaccurate.
Chairman Waxman. What did she say that was not true?
Mr. Miller. Well, as I recall, I wasn't actually at the
interview, but what the agents told me about the interview was
she denied signing the contract and she actually folded up the
paper to say that it wasn't this, it was something like
something else, and she folded it up, and when you put those
pieces of paper together you get two paragraphs that have the
same number, and it just was not a plausible story.
Other statements are statements that it wasn't a contract,
that she also minimized her relationship with Ms. Fraser.
Chairman Waxman. What is the significance? I know she said
a lot today that it wasn't really a contract. What is
significant? Why does she keep on denying this is a contract?
She said it was a draft outline of the work to be performed,
but she has difficulty saying that the document was a binding
contract. I find it surprising a person coming from a business
background, as Ms. Doan does, would have so much trouble
understanding whether or not she has entered into a contract.
Was it a contract or was it not a contract?
Mr. Miller. I believe it was a contract, Mr. Chairman.
Also, the General Counsel at the time, Allen Swindeman,
believed it was a contract, as did the now Acting General
Counsel, Lenny Loewentritt. In fact, that was the reason why
there had to be a letter of termination. In fact, when asked
about the letter of termination, I believe Ms. Doan said that
was to correct the perception on the part of Ms. Fraser that
there was a contract, when, in fact, we saw e-mails back and
forth between her and John Felts after the termination letter
went out where John Felts says, Well, I will have to tell Edie
that we have more work to do on our end to get this moving
forward.
Chairman Waxman. You started to say before that she
minimized her relationship with Ms. Fraser. What is the
significance of that?
Mr. Miller. Well, over a 3-year period Ms. Doan has paid
over a half million dollars to Edie Fraser's Public Affairs
Group, to Ms. Fraser for consulting and other----
Chairman Waxman. That is interesting, because under
questioning from the Republicans they made the statement that
Ms. Doan--so Ms. Doan did pay money to her, so she was working
for Ms. Doan?
Mr. Miller. That is correct. It was for sponsorships and
consulting. The consulting services was to promote Ms. Doan
personally and as President of NTMI, and the fee for that was
$20,000 a month, and it is interesting to note that the fee
that Ms. Doan fixed was $20,000, and she said that she decided
that on her second or third day at GSA.
Chairman Waxman. We are told over and over again $20,000 is
a small sum of money, and, besides, it didn't happen. She
didn't actually enter the contract. So do you think it is a big
deal or not?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, I think what the problem is, as I
explained, we thought that our agents would interview her, she
would accept responsibility and admit the mistake. Instead she
did not. She told a story and it forced us to continue to
investigate. It forced us to issue subpoenas. We had to wait
for documents to come back on subpoenas.
I think the issue is that of candor, of accepting
responsibility, of being truthful with law enforcement. She
mentioned that--and I think she said publicly--that she worked
hard to terminate the contract, the relationship, when, in
fact, the e-mails and the documents that I believe are in the
committee's possession show that she was still trying to get
this going as late as, I believe, early September, September
4th or so.
I mentioned the August e-mail where----
Chairman Waxman. That is astounding. You are saying she
wasn't candid with law enforcement. Are you saying law
enforcement is your independent investigation?
Mr. Miller. Yes. I meant our agents.
Chairman Waxman. Your agents?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Chairman Waxman. OK.
Mr. Miller. And the statement from her attorney admits that
she made mis-statements to our agents. That explains the need
for the supplemental statement.
Chairman Waxman. Yes. Can you explain the leadership role
the GSA Administrator plays in the Federal acquisition
community and why it is important for her to demonstrate a
familiarity with the Federal acquisition regulations? Your
investigation concluded that when she awarded this contract she
ignored several of the most basic rules of Federal contracts,
such as a principle that contracts should be awarded on a
competitive basis.
Mr. Miller. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As head of the premier
civilian procurement agency, it is important that the chief of
that agency follow the procurement rules. As Inspector General,
our job is to make sure that everyone follows those rules and
procedures.
Chairman Waxman. That is a basic principle of Government
contracting that you award a contract based on what is best for
the Government, not based on your friendship with somebody;
isn't that a correct statement?
Mr. Miller. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. And, you know,
at the time, Public Affairs Group was owned, I believe
ultimately, by General Electric, so it was a subsidiary of
General Electric at the time.
Chairman Waxman. Now let me just conclude, because I see
the yellow light is on. You raised these concerns. It sounds
like you had a pretty acrimonious relationship with her. You
didn't feel she was being candid with you and your agency, even
though she has an obligation to be. Her response was to try to
cut your budget, wasn't it?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, there were efforts on the part of
the Administrator to try and cut our--actually, prevent us from
presenting our budget to OMB, and she actually stopped and said
I had a proposal to add criminal investigators, and she simply
would not----
Chairman Waxman. You felt that was a recrimination against
your criticism? Yes or no, and then I have one last question
before my time is up.
Mr. Miller. I don't want to go there.
Chairman Waxman. OK. The last question I want to ask you
is: are you concerned about the slides that involved a
political presentation on the premises of GSA that was
Republican partisan from the political person at the White
House about how people ought to get involved, or at least know
what is happening for Republicans, and about her statement that
a number of witnesses gave to us that she said, How can we help
our candidates in this next election?
Mr. Miller. As I have said, a confidential source told our
agents all that, and it was very concerning. We did our duty,
which was to refer to the appropriate investigatory agency, the
Office of Special Counsel.
Chairman Waxman. Do you know whether everybody does this?
It sounded to me from her defenders was that everybody does it,
all the agencies do that, all administrations do that. Do you
know that to be the case, and does that mean everybody violates
the law?
Mr. Miller. I certainly hope that is not the case, Mr.
Chairman. As Inspector General, I have sworn an oath to follow
the law. As Administrator, she has sworn an oath to follow the
law. I hope that other officials follow the law.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much.
We will now proceed to Mr. Platts for 5 minutes.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Inspector General Miller, I appreciate your
testimony and also your service at GSA.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Platts. I apologize for being in three other places at
the same time and having to run back out of here, but I know
the one issue was raised about the documents that were shared
with my committee staff and then of the same topic was
addressed in a Post story.
One, I appreciate the Inspector General having met with my
staff, as we sought to, I would say, take a similar approach as
Senator Grassley to try to diminish the problems that were
between the IG's office, Administrator, and my staff had
conversations with OMB, with Clay Johnson's office to try to
resolve these issues.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Platts. But I wanted to make clear that, in the
documents that were shared by you--and I appreciated your
working with us--that, neither prior to the story being
published or since have any of my staff that were part of that
meeting or I shared any of those documents with the Post or any
other journalist to address this issue through the media. I
think it is important that we understand our efforts were in a
similar vein to Senator Grassley to just trying to have a good
Government resolution of the issue.
Mr. Miller. Sure.
Mr. Platts. But I do appreciate your service and efforts in
taking your responsibilities seriously.
I apologize that I am not able to stay. I am going to yield
the balance of my time to the ranking member.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Platts. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I appreciate your help and your
staff's help on these issues. Thank you.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Miller, let me ask who else did
you brief besides Mr. Platts, because you threw his office out
there. Did you brief Mr. Grassley's staff at that time?
Mr. Miller. I believe I--it is hard for me to reconstruct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Well, we are trying to reconstruct
where the documents came from, and Mr. Platts has said he
didn't. Did you brief Mr. Waxman's staff at that point?
Mr. Miller. I don't believe I did. You are asking me to
think back from July through----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Correct. If you don't remember, you
don't remember.
Mr. Miller. When did the story come out? December?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Correct.
Mr. Miller. And I met with oversight, I met with Senate
oversight staff, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me ask you this. You were on the
invite list for the January 26th brown bag lunch. Did you
attend?
Mr. Miller. I did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did anyone from your office attend?
Were there any Schedule C's that attended?
Mr. Miller. No, sir.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You made a referral to the Office of
Special Counsel, correct?
Mr. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did the referral include the White
House for the slides, or did you just include Administrator
Doan?
Mr. Miller. The referral referred the allegations. As I
understand it, a confidential source talked to agents in my
office. They contacted agents at the Office of Special
Counsel----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Correct. I am just saying----
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Telling them what the allegations
were.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. In terms of the allegations, were
the allegations directed at the Administrator or were they also
to Mr. Jennings at the White House who gave the political slide
that has been the subject today?
Mr. Miller. I would have to go back and look at the file,
Congressman. I believe I gave a copy of the referral to the
chairman on his written request.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. We have not received a copy of the
referral, Mr. Waxman, from your staff. It would be helpful to
have that.
My question here is was this labeled just at Administrator
Doan or was it the White House, as well? And you don't
remember?
Mr. Miller. I don't know, Congressman.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Can you ask your staff? Would anyone
here know?
Mr. Miller. I think----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So you supplied it to Chairman
Waxman's staff, but you haven't provided it to us, basically?
Mr. Miller. Well, the chairman wrote a letter to me asking
for it.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Right. And he copied me.
Mr. Miller. I don't know if he copied you or not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Generally you do.
Chairman Waxman. Yes, we always copies letters to you and
we always share the information we get in response to those
letters, so I can't explain it.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. We would like to know that.
Chairman Waxman. We will check our files.
Mr. Miller. I will provide a copy of the referral to you.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I just want to know if it is aimed
at Administrator Doan or if it is also aimed at the White
House, who, after all, called the meeting. It was not called by
Administrator Doan, correct?
Mr. Miller. Congressman Davis, I wouldn't say that it was
directed to any one person or another person.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So you are not even saying here it
was directed at the Administrator?
Mr. Miller. What we got were credible allegations that
appeared to be a violation of the Hatch Act. My investigations
office referred it over to the Office of Special Counsel.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But the media reports and the other
allegations seemed directed just at her, and she didn't call
the meeting, and at the same time she didn't make the
presentation, which if you have watched today has really been
the subject of some controversy, whether the administration was
right to come in and make these presentations in a Federal
building. She wasn't the one who originated this.
So my question would be--and I guess this goes over to Mr.
Waxman--is there a retaliation going on or anything. Was this
directed at her or was it directed at the whole presentation,
and you don't know the answer to that is what you are telling
me? You made a referral to the Justice Department or just the--
not to Justice, or did you just make it----
Mr. Miller. Office of Special Counsel.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Just to the Special Counsel on Hatch
Act?
Mr. Miller. Yes. As I explained earlier--I think you may
have been out of the room--I have to do my duty as Inspector
General.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I agreed with that. I am just asking
if that included the White House or just the Administrator.
Mr. Miller. When we get credible allegations in, we refer
them to the appropriate investigatory agency.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I understand, but my question is,
the allegations, if you look at this, would have included both,
would they not?
Mr. Miller. Well, as I understand it, the Hatch Act issue
is within the sole jurisdiction of the Office of Special
Counsel.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Correct. But the referral----
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Jennings could well have been exempt
from the Hatch Act.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. He may or may not have. Do you know
if Mr. Jennings was exempt from the Hatch Act or not?
Mr. Miller. I am not an expert in the Hatch Act.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Exactly my point. Actually, Ms. Doan
has some exemptions under the Hatch Act, as well, as the
Administrator.
Mr. Miller. The Office of Special Counsel is, and that is
why, when we----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But you understand my point. My
point is was this inclusive of the entire presentation and the
slides from the administration, or was this just about Ms.
Doan, and you don't know the answer?
Mr. Miller. I think what happened was someone told our
agents that this happened, it looked like it was wrong, and
that it may violate----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. What happened?
Mr. Miller. I think the allegation--and, again, I wish I
had the referral in front of me, but----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You knew this was the subject when
you came here today, so I am----
Mr. Miller. Well, as I understand it, I also knew that my
office was not very involved in this, that we handed it off to
the Office of Special Counsel. But, as I understand, the
confidential source said that there was a presentation on some
sort of election results, maybe. I don't quite remember what--
then, again, I would rather just go back and check the
documents and then respond.
Chairman Waxman. We will hold the record open to receive
it.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I just wanted to get him while he
was under oath though to get it, because when he sends them
later I don't know if that applies, and I just want to make
sure you don't know the answers right now. You will get back to
us?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I will get back to you.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to continue a little bit along that line. When
you were speaking to Chairman Waxman and you referred to law
enforcement officers----
Mr. Miller. Yes?
Mr. Issa [continuing]. Now, that term is really a term from
your years as a U.S. Attorney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, isn't
it? And, in fact, that is really your career? You are a career
prosecutor, you are not an accountant?
Mr. Miller. No, sir.
Mr. Issa. You don't understand how to deal with
bureaucracies, where the problems are? I know you are smiling,
but I want to understand this. You are not just about the Hatch
Act. In fact, that is not within your jurisdiction. Your
jurisdiction is supposed to be to find the waste, fraud, and
abuse within the GSA, right?
Mr. Miller. Correct, and to investigate credible
allegations of wrongdoing.
Mr. Issa. OK. And it seems like we are spending an awful
lot of time on a $20,000 non-contract, but let me just run you
through a couple of questions here, because I want to
understand it related to Administrator Doan.
She could have taken $200,000 worth of her employees' time
and had them do research and prepare and try to consult, right?
She has the ability to have those people work for her and do
what she needs to do?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, first of all, I do believe it was
a contract. I believe that is what the General Counsel then
concluded, Allen Swindeman, and also the acting----
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that, but----
Mr. Miller [continuing]. The acting General Counsel, Lenny
Loewentritt.
Mr. Issa. Right. I appreciate that, but that is a personal
service contract, if we are going to put the word contract on
it. It was a request for a service that would cost $20,000
which she wanted done in order to further the office's ability
to execute things. And I want to simply ask you, she could
have, in fact, gone to her people and said, go study and read
and spend $200,000 accomplishing the same thing? Wouldn't have
been a problem at all, right? She has the ability to use her
own resources, millions and millions of dollars worth of human
beings' time, to do that? As the IG, I am assuming you can
answer that with some credible validity.
Mr. Miller. Well, Congressman, I would assume that she
would also look at the in-house capability to do that job, as
well----
Mr. Issa. Right. I asked you a question----
Mr. Miller [continuing]. And she would follow all the
procurement rules.
Mr. Issa. No. You know, the point is I am asking the
questions, I would like the answers to my questions.
Mr. Miller. Sure.
Mr. Issa. I believe that you have been on a witch hunt and
that this is, in fact, an IG who, instead of looking at the
waste, fraud, and abuse, is going after one person, a big
prosecution, if you will, of one individual, and that is my
opinion. We will see in the long run how it pans out. But I do
see $20,000 in an agency of $54 billion, and I am going back to
my questions. You are not really comfortable looking into the
nuances of all the contracts. You picked this $20,000 service
agreement in order to go after; is that correct?
Mr. Miller. That is not correct, Congressman. I would
really like the opportunity to try and explain to you----
Mr. Issa. My time is very short. It is 5 minutes, so when I
ask a question that is a yes or no I will take a yes or no, and
you are welcome to it, or a little beyond that.
Mr. Miller. Absolutely not. It is not a witch hunt.
Mr. Issa. OK. What other areas are you working on in the
$54 billion that is being spent by the GSA?
Mr. Miller. Well, we recently settled a case with Oracle
and PeopleSoft for $98.5 million. That was settled in October.
I am Vice Chair of the National Procurement Fraud Working Group
in the Department of Justice.
Mr. Issa. Is that as a result of your position, or is that
something you had before you came to this position?
Mr. Miller. I was appointed to that when it was formed in
October.
Mr. Issa. You know, look, I have no question you are a fine
prosecutor with a great history of being able to do those
things. I am just trying to understand why a mistake which was
corrected by the GSA, itself, the contract, if you call it
that, was canceled, even though there is nothing in that
contract that says it would be canceled, it was canceled
without a penny being spent.
My real question is: when you said earlier if Ms. Doan had
said, oh, I made a mistake, you implied that would have been
the end of it. Now, in your years as a prosecutor, do cases end
if you think they are criminal or wrong? Do they end because
somebody says I am so sorry? And her belief that it wasn't a
contract and she didn't do anything wrong, does that somehow
change the facts on the ground for you, because that is what
you said here under oath today was that, in fact, if she had
just apologized it would have been OK, if she had just admitted
that.
Mr. Miller. Well, Congressman, first of all, I didn't say
if she just apologized. My point was that this was a credible
allegation. We have a responsibility. I don't have a choice. I
have a duty to followup on credible allegations of wrongdoing.
This was a credible allegation. It came complete with
documents.
Mr. Issa. Because my yellow light is on, I just want to do
one followup. She, in fact, said she didn't think it was a
contract. As such, she wasn't apologetic for it, and that is
what caused you to continue on with the prosecution, is what
you said here today.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time is expired. You will
be given opportunity now to answer the question.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that is not
what I said, Congressman. What I said and what I meant was that
we have a duty to followup on allegations. I went up to her
personally and say, you know, I'm sorry, but our agents are
going to have to come and interview you. We have this
complaint.
We fully expected that she would be totally forthcoming
with our agents and that would explain the whole matter, there
would not be any other leads to followup on, and that we would
just close it out. I was actually wondering who do I write the
letter to--is it the White House liaison--because this does not
happen very often. And the agents come back and said no, she
told a story that they did not believe was a correct story, an
accurate story, and then we had to make a decision. We had the
followup to see, gee, what are the facts here. I do have an
obligation to follow the facts.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. And no more, but no less.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Mica, I think you are next.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry I didn't get to hear all of it. I heard your
testimony, but not all of the questions. I hope I don't repeat
any.
Mr. Miller, one of your responsibilities as the Inspector
General is to look at things that aren't going right or
problems with contracts within GSA; is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Generally, yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Were you aware of, like, say, in a human
resources situation, it may or may not have been important to
you, but were you aware of some of the failings as far as GSA
in getting--I guess they were going to get a failing score or
they got a failing score on some of the diversity issues in
regard to GSA. Were you aware of that?
Mr. Miller. We were aware of that issue and that problem,
yes, sir, and----
Mr. Mica. Did you investigate it, or was there any review
by you? Did you ever see the memo that was referred to that Ms.
Doan did not read but she was briefed on, by Mendosa?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I am not exactly sure what you are
referring to, but there is an SBA score card----
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. That I believe came out in
December 2006, that gave an F rating to the GSA.
Mr. Mica. A failing. But, again, this wouldn't be a
concern, but you were not aware of it?
Mr. Miller. To the extent that we are part of the agency,
we are concerned about that. It doesn't fall within the mission
of the Office of the Inspector General.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, I think one of the things that
Administrator Doan, her concern, and probably rightfully so, an
African American female Administrator of agency, one of her
concerns was to come in here in this position from the private
sector and see the public sector getting a failing score, or
about to get a failing score, maybe for a second time. I guess
she was really trying to push this contract to get a review
through this group. Was it Diversity Best Practices, Ms.
Fraser? She was really pushing that, wasn't she?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, for her to be involved in those
issues is perfectly fine. I understand that. Our concern was we
got an allegation----
Mr. Mica. But she was trying----
Chairman Waxman. Would the gentleman yield? Just one point
for the record.
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Chairman Waxman. That failing score wasn't something that
motivated it. That failing score was after this contract had
fallen through.
Mr. Miller. That is what I understand, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mica. It is my understanding that GSA already had a
reputation for a failing score, that this isn't like a new
revelation, and she was briefed that they were going to get a
failing score and was trying to do something about it, but it
wasn't very important to you, but she was really pushing this
because I think even the General Counsel had advised her. She
had signed off on this contract, but was the contract executed,
fully executed?
Mr. Miller. I believe it was, Congressman.
Mr. Mica. But she was really pushing this to get this
diversity study? And you advised her not to, or was that the
General Counsel, Mr. Allen Swindeman--is it Swindeman?
Mr. Miller. I believe Allen Swindeman strongly counseled
her----
Mr. Mica. You did not advise her? It was Mr. Swindeman?
Mr. Miller. That would have been the General Counsel's
role.
Mr. Mica. OK. And Mr. Swindeman or the General Counsel
allegedly told the committee that they had evidence that he
repeatedly advised that the contract be terminated; is that----
Mr. Miller. That is my understanding.
Mr. Mica. But you never advised that. Did he advise you
that something was wrong?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Swindeman.
Mr. Mica. Yes, the General Counsel. I don't think Doan was
going to call you.
Mr. Miller. Well, it would not have been his role. He did
not advise us.
Mr. Mica. Well, how did you find out, then?
Mr. Miller. We received a complaint, an anonymous complaint
with documents of the contract.
Mr. Mica. And was that before or after?
Mr. Miller. I guess it would be after the contract was
signed.
Mr. Mica. After the contract was signed.
Mr. Miller. I don't recall the precise date. I can look it
up.
Mr. Mica. But when did the General Counsel contact you?
Mr. Miller. Pardon me?
Mr. Mica. Did the General Counsel contact you?
Mr. Miller. No.
Mr. Mica. It was an anonymous?
Mr. Miller. It was an anonymous----
Mr. Mica. OK. Then did you contact him?
Mr. Miller. Who?
Mr. Mica. The General Counsel. You get a complaint----
Mr. Miller. Our agency----
Mr. Mica. First thing I would have done is call the General
Counsel and say, I have a complaint here that she is trying to
push this contract that has been signed, and you advised her
against it. Did you talk to him?
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired, but
please answer the question.
Mr. Miller. My agents did interview Mr. Swindeman. They
also interviewed Mr. Loewentritt of the General Counsel's
office. Our obligation was to followup on the contract, on the
allegation. We had the allegation, the complaint, and the
contract. We then, our agents interviewed the Administrator.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Miller, I believe the Inspector Generals have a vital
role to play. I get uncomfortable when I think they focus on
minutia and then ignore big pictures. Frankly, you know, this
is a----
Mr. Mica. Could you yield for just----
Mr. Shays. Let me just make my points.
So I have a problem with that. And the second issue I have
a problem with is I have a problem if I feel like an Inspector
General is just doing something to get you, and so when I look
at this meeting that I think never should have happened and I
know that you were invited, what I find curious is why someone
didn't go to the chief of staff of the Secretary or the
Administrator and say, you know, this is a really dumb idea. I
think it borders on a bad meeting. Was it just that you knew
there was a meeting but you didn't know what was going to
happen in the meeting?
Mr. Miller. That is correct. I get e-mails for these brown
bag lunches all the time because I am a Presidential appointee
appointed by President Bush, and I am copied on all of those--
--
Mr. Shays. You didn't know what the purpose of the meeting
was?
Mr. Miller. I looked at the e-mail briefly, and went on to
my other e-mails.
Mr. Shays. So the answer is, like, other people come before
you looked at the--but did it make clear in the e-mail what it
was about?
Mr. Miller. I think what I read was that it was Mr.
Jennings coming over for a brown bag.
Mr. Shays. That is it?
Mr. Miller. That is all I recall.
Mr. Shays. OK. The next issue I just want to ask you, with
the issue of the contract, the diversity contract, basically I
look at it and say no contract, no service performed, no money
transferred, end of story. What am I missing in this?
Mr. Miller. Thank you for asking that. I think what you are
missing is when our agents interviewed the Administrator they
received a story that couldn't possibly be true, which forced
us to continue to investigate to find out what happened.
Mr. Shays. To me, no contract, no money spent, no service
performed. That is the way I look at it.
But let me yield to my colleague, the ranking member. Did
you want to quickly get something?
Mr. Mica. The committee doesn't have the Special Counsel's
memorandum, the----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Yes, do you have notes from the
interview of Mr. Swindeman?
Mr. Miller. I believe we do.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Could you make those available? And
here is why I ask. Our information--we interviewed him--is that
he wrote one memo to the Administrator. There are no phone
calls and no e-mails. That is at variance with what you are
representing. We just need to see if we can get that squared.
Let me ask a couple other questions.
You assumed your duties as the GSA IG in July 2005?
Mr. Miller. Correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And in June 2006, Administrator Doan
assumed her duties. The GSA at that point was experiencing
serious fiscal challenges, with the possibility of Anti-
Deficiency Act violations; is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I don't believe that is correct. I
believe they were running a surplus of over--I would have to
check into it, but I believe they have always run a surplus,
and last year it was over $400 million.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. So you don't think that there
were serious fiscal challenges?
Mr. Miller. There are always serious fiscal challenges, and
I applaud Administrator Doan's attempts to exercise fiscal
discipline.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you take any actions in your
office to address the fiscal challenges, or did you feel that
wasn't your problem, that was part of the rest of GSA? I guess
that goes to the nub of it.
Mr. Miller. No. We obviously had a very serious fiscal
problem, because Administrator Doan informed us that our 2007
money was going to be terminated, and so all of the sudden we
had $5 million or $2.5 million----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I know she----
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Taken out of our current operating
budget.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But had you done anything else to
streamline your budget in response to her request to tighten
the budget?
Mr. Miller. Well, we tightened all around. We had to
tighten.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. What did you do to tighten?
Mr. Miller. Pardon me?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. What did you do in your office to
tighten the belt?
Mr. Miller. Well, we reduced hiring. We actually looked
at----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you put a freeze on?
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Two dozen auditors were in danger
of RIF, of reduction in force, so we were looking at those.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That was under her rules, not under
yours. What did you do? What did you do?
Mr. Miller. No, that was my--I mean, I was looking at how
to manage the office without the reimbursable moneys.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But, aside from the reimbursable
moneys, notwithstanding that, if the agency was undergoing
fiscal constraints did you come forward and say, Look I don't
think you need to take away that money. I will do these to
reduce operations. That is what I am asking. As a loyal member
of the team----
Mr. Miller. OK. I understand your question now. I believe
that I am duty bound, as an Inspector General, to make sure
that we have the resources to do our job.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Doesn't everybody? So the answer is
you didn't do anything?
Mr. Miller. May I explain?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Yes, but my red light is on. I just
wanted to make sure. You can answer that, but also do this. I
think every agency head feels it is their job to do that, and
if everybody does that, when the Administrator comes down and
says, can you tighten up, can you let this go, you are all
going to say no and you are all going to complain.
Mr. Miller. I believe the point you are missing here is we
have a separate appropriate.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Right.
Mr. Miller. The money that goes to our office is a separate
appropriate. Our request or our budget requests are attached to
the GSA budget. Never before has any Administrator said no, we
are not going to pass it on to OMB and to the Congress or
extensively edited what we said, taking out phrases like fraud,
waste, and abuse. So it is not coming out of the GSA budget. It
is a separate budget.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Are you the only separate line in
GSA? Aren't there other agencies that have separate lines in
the budget, as well?
Chairman Waxman. That will have to be the last question.
Would you answer it, and then I think we have to conclude this
hearing.
Mr. Miller. I believe other IGs have separate
appropriations.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But within GSA are there other
separate lines of appropriation?
Mr. Miller. I do not know the answer to that, Congressman.
One very last point is that the $5 million that the
Administrator was taking was still going to be spent. It was
not a budget-cutting issue at all. It was going to be spent. It
was simply going to be spent on small contractors. So it was
not a budget issue.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me----
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just ask if we
could keep the record open on that just to clarify some
questions and inconsistencies.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. We
appreciate your testimony. We may have further questions that
we will submit in writing to you, and we would appreciate a
response in writing for the record.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, ranking
member. Thank you, Members.
Chairman Waxman. Let me just conclude, and I will give Mr.
Davis a chance if he wants to say anything to conclude, but I
think that the basic rules of Government is that Federal
agencies are not to be used for Government politicking. The
rules for anybody heading up an agency is that they have to
follow the rules that say that Government resources are not to
be used for partisan politics, they can't give no-bid contracts
to their friends, and they should listen to their career staff
and auditors when it involves millions of dollars out of
taxpayers' pockets.
I just want to close by pointing out what Senator Grassley
said. This investigation is not only worthwhile, but that we
would be ignoring our constitutional oversight responsibilities
if we didn't hold these hearings. I think that it is clear in
my mind that Senator Grassley was correct. GSA involves
billions of dollars, and if we are seeing millions of dollars
squandered I think we ought to speak up about it, because if
money is being squandered it comes out of the taxpayers'
pockets, and it may be millions today but it could be billions
tomorrow if people just don't follow the rules.
Thank you.
Mr. Davis, any concluding statements?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Waxman, let me just say of
course it is appropriate oversight for this committee to look
at how all of our agencies, including GSA, operate. I would
have basically favored a hearing today that would have been
more programmatic in terms of looking at the issues in GSA.
There are a lot of issues there. We have the merger of FTS and
FSS and how that has operated. I think the issue in terms of
SUN Microsystems could be an interesting exercise. But I think
it has become way too personalized in this particular case.
Mr. Miller, I hope that you and the Administrator can patch
it up and work together. We count on everybody working as a
team. That clearly hasn't happened in this case. I am not going
to throw brick bats in terms of who is to blame, but if we
leave here today, if we can focus and recognize you have a
reporting responsibility to her and you also have independence,
and balancing that appropriately is something we rely on you
all to do. When it gets to this stage, I think it becomes way
too personal.
Let me just say, in terms of Government politicking, I
don't know how you take politics out of Government, but we will
look at these issues as we move forward. Mr. Waxman and I have
talked about some issues raised today that are not personal to
the Administrator. But I can tell you Cabinet officers are all
the time out campaigning for and against Members. I am sure
their staffs are part of that. I had a Cabinet Secretary come
in and campaign against me in my reelection in 1996. I am not
sure what the appropriate balance is. We will explore this in
future hearings.
I thank you for being here.
Chairman Waxman. We do have laws.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Yes, we do.
Chairman Waxman. And the laws say that you can't, on
Government time, at Government resources, go out and campaign.
When Cabinet Secretaries go out and campaign, they do it at the
expense of the campaign. It may be personal to Ms. Doan because
she is the one heading this agency, but we have had a Senator
and her Inspector General, and I must say my own conclusion is
that she is not always being very candid in telling us the
truth, and that makes her problems much worse, because she has
to be honest.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. There is no evidence here that she
campaigned at all on Government time. She was sitting there at
a meeting that was called by the White House, and participated
in that.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, as you summarize, I do think some
positive things could come out of this. I did not know that the
White House could videoconference in this fashion. We might
want to look at that, because I am now learning that this went
on, and even Mr. Miller said he participated or was invited to
participate. That is one thing. I did not know the GSA
Administrator didn't have discretion to do a contract for
$20,000 and was prohibited from doing that.
The third thing I think----
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Mica, ignorance of the law is no
excuse. The law is there. The rules are there. She has to
follow it.
Mr. Mica. Absolutely.
Chairman Waxman. Would you make your concluding statement
so we could adjourn?
Mr. Mica. Absolutely. But another thing I would like to
look at is diversity in some of these agencies.
Chairman Waxman. Great.
Mr. Mica. This agency----
Chairman Waxman. We will do that.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Failed.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much. The meeting is
adjourned.
Mr. Mica. They failed. And you failed, too.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
<all>