employees that looked pornography on their work computer and a third accessed child pornography at work. the inspector general found another employee made unwelcomed advances between female. utah congressman is chair of the house oversight committee. >> we've come to order, without objection the chair has authorized a recess at any time. today's hearing is entitled kmming employee misconduct at the epa. it's a topic we've addressed a few times but it doesn't seem to be getting better. we will continue to highlight this as long as it takes because in my opinion the epa is one of the most toxic places in the federal government to work and if you don't get rid of the toxicity of the employees there at the epa, we're doing a great disservice to this country. most of them are good hardworking, they care, work hard, but you have some bad apples at the epa and they're not being dealt with and not being addressed. we'll look forward to talking about this. the inspector general has done some good quality work, he and his team and, again, we will kobt to do this until we're convinced that the epa is actually taking care of this problem. today, the committee is exploring numerous cases of employee misconduct at the epa while as the committee on oversight government reform in addition to the broad responsibility for connects oversight of the executive branch or also the committee of jurisdiction for federal employees. it is our duty to explore the problems in the federal work force. we've explored misconduct at the epa before, like i said, we will continue to do so until we're convinced there's actually been a change. most notably this committee examined the extraordinary case of john beal. john beal was the senior epa employee reporting to then epa air office chief gina mccar thur, who for years falsely claimed to be a epa spy. this went on for a long time, this person ended up going to jail, having to pay one of the few people that's actually held accountable of having to go to jail on paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution. her super visor got a promotion, she's now the epa administrator, i have some questions about her ability to administrator when she had a small office she couldn't do it, now that she has a large one and the problems continue to persist. unfortunately, mr. beal's fraud is not isolated. the head of epa's office of homeland security. this is the head of the epa office had a lengthy record of sexual harassment that was not properly investigation. it was admired and retaliation against those who tried to do something about it. whistleblowers placed the blame for reaching the toxic culture, squarely on former region five administrator suzanne head man who resigned under dress in the wake of drink water crisis. remarking on this situation, epa union representative testified, there is a serious lack of accountability or transparency at epa when a manager is the problem. these incidents represent the systemic cultural problem and failure at the epa. recently the epa inspector general's office released details on investigations of more than 60, 60 cases of misconduct closed in the last several months. many of these cases contained disturbing do tails and i recognized this at c span but parents be forewarned this is not a subject for young kids at any hour, but nevertheless, we need to expose it in order to solve it. one case, a convicted child molester, convicted child molester was on epa's payroll for years, after the epa learned of this offense. what's so terrible about this situation, it just cannot explain or justify is epa knows that this person has -- is a convicted child molester and yet the epa put him in a position to interact with the public. he was out there literally interacting with the public. this person was found to have police sirens placed on their personal vehicles, on their personal car, lights and sirens, handcuffs, counterfeit badge. it wasn't until probation violation that it actually got highlighted and dealt with in another case, an epa employee was found to have stolen and pawned thousands of dollars of office equipment. yet, was not fired. she admitted taking seven times equipment in the office, taking toyota a pawnshop, putting it into her pocket and she's not fired. he actually over saw this person. it's unbelievable this person was not fired. after her felony theft conviction, she is still employed at the epa till this day. i just -- we've got a lot of good hardworking people who want and need jobs who will serve this country honorably. why in the world should somebody convicted from stealing from work, felony conviction still enjoy the employment and being paid by the united states. we have pages and pages of similar cases and one has to wonder if the epa's culture and lack of accountability is a contributing factor to tragedies like the gold king mine spill or flint drinking water crisis. the sta ktus quo can snot continue. and will continue to investigate until they're held accountable for their failures. people are going to make mistakes, we understand that. these are not mistakes, these are patterns of misbehavior that are unacceptable. i introduced a piece of legislation hr 4360 which actually passed this committee and passed the house, the official personnel file enhancement act which requires a federal agency to record in the adverse findings who resolved investigations into a separated employee's official personnel file. i hope this helps so these employees cannot toggle from one agency to the other without having their information shared with others. the bill prevents an employee facing disciplinary action from simply jumping ship to another agency that would be -- not be aware of their negative disciplinary record. >> we have another case where air cards were used excessively. a person in one trip, i don't know how yo do this, one trip spent $18,000, $18,000 on one air card traveling no restitution, no paying back the government. we have the devices. we have this $4,500 in personal international calls while on leave. what was the punishment for that, $4,500, taxpayers dot to pay that. what was the punishment, counseling. . we've got a lot to talk about. the inspector general has done a good job on this and look forward to a good truthful hearing. with that we'll recognize the ranking member mr. cumming. >> mr. chairman, i do thank you for holding today's hearing examining employee miskulkt at the environmental protection agency. this is the third hearing in our committee has held on this topic, this congress i'm enkoushlged by the epa's response, allegation of misconduct has vastly improved. i like you want to be effective and efficient. and do not want to constantly hold hearings and hear about these problems and at some point we should be able to get them resolved. serious employ -- employment, employee misconduct is easily rare. but as this committee is seen too often, agency and the inspector general responses in misconduct cases have takele far too long. the committee's hearing in april 2015, over a year ago, i asked the epa and the ig to work together to improve their coordination and employee misconduct matters and i did that, again, so that we can be effective and efficient to get things done as opposed to going around in a circle. also directed my staff to work directly with epa and i.t. to help develop new protocols to improve their disciplinary process processes. as a result the epa and the i.t. are coordinating their efforts as they never did before but as i often say, we can always do better they're holding by weekly meetings to share information about investigations, we can do do even better. they're communicating. senior officials at epa headquarters, but we can always do better. the epa and ig have developed expedited procedures for certain cases, the out come from improved coordination are indeed promising, both the epa and the ig have stated that the new procedures have decreased the time it takes for action for employee misconduct. in his testimony, credits the new information sharing process with attributing to epa taking action more quickly after the ig completes an investigation. similarly, mr. sullivan from the ig's office agrees and i want to thank you mr. sullivan for doing such a great job. and he concluded that mr. sullivan said, and i quote, misconduct bases are now being addressed faster and more consistently by the epa management, end of quote. but ladies and gentlemen, we can always do better. as i said, series of misconduct is rare, but we have to take it seriously. epa reports that it has only 14 open employee misconduct reports of investigation from the ig. for an epa work force of some 15,000, that's less than .1 of 1%. but we can do better. this committee also has expressed concern about excessive use of administrative leave, that has been a major concern of the committee, and in february the agency issued a new policy on administrative leave. under the new policy an epa employee may not -- may not be placed on administrative leave for more than ten days without approval from the assistant administrator of the office of administration and resources management. this policy introduces that addresses our concern about over use of administratively and a need for stronger oversight of this sight. chairman indicated that the hearing today will focus on approximately 20 old cases that had been closed by the ig some years ago. as mr. sullivan states in his testimony and i quote, it is important to know that most of the misconduct occurred at least two years ago. some of these cases misconduct is, in fact, egregious. it's such behavior requires a swift and appropriate agency response, but none of these cases currently pending. they're all closed. now, i want to be clear. i don't see anything wrong with looking back because i think sometimes you have to look back so that you can look effectively and efficiency move forward. we can learn from things that have happened and so, i don't have a problem with that. according to the epa and the ig, all of these cases proceeded the improved coordination process between the epa and ig. and i hope that, mr. sullivan. will address the difference you're seeing and the impact and i am sure you have your recommendations. mr. sullivan states the new coordination process between epa and the ig should serve as and i quote, best practices model for the federal government, end of quote. so i'm extremely pleased to hear that. it shows what we can do if we work hard with the agencies and investigators to improve their procedures. this type of work does not always get the big headlines. but it makes real difference. it also shows that this committee can -- what we can do through nuts and bolts oversight. while i enkouncourage by proces that's been made, i believe there are still challenges that we must and shall and can address. for instance, long investigation times, in some cases, may suggest a need for more resources for the ig. i just don't know. you'll have to address that, mr. sullivan. and there are certainly other cases that raised questions about when employees are required to report from an old convictions. mr. chairman, as we proceed, i hope that we can address these challenges together in a truly bipartisan way like we have done over the past year. with input from the agency and the ig and the other stake holder, because it's a fact that if we concentrate and try to get the ig and the agencies to work more closely together, i think we can get the kind of results that we are after and, again, we can be more effective and efficient. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, we eeld hole the record for five legislative days for any member that would like to submit a written statement and now recognize our witnesses. please welcome mr. stanley acting deputy. we also have mr. patrick sullivan, assistant inspector general for inspections for office of inspector general at the united states environmental protection agency. he's accompanied by mr. allen williams who is the deputy assistant inspector general for investigation whose expertise may be needed for specificity on certain topics during questioning. we want to thank you all for being here. we're going to go ahead and swear in mr. williams as well pursuant to committee rules all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. we'll also swear in mr. williams. if the three of you would please rise and raise your right hand. . let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. you have testified here before and i think you know the -- know the drill. try to keep your verbal comments to five minutes but we'll give you great latitude today and then we'll -- after that we'll go to questions. mr., you're now recognized for five minutes. >> chairman jacobs, ranking member cumming and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today for you about the environmental protection agency efforts to address employee misconduct. i've had the privilege of working at epa for nearly 40 years holding positions at our headquarters in washington, d.c. our regional offices in atlanta and dallas, as well as research triangle park in north carolina. for 18 years i served as region course deputy regional before retiring in early 2014. since returning to the agency in october 2014, i've been honored to serve as i think deputy administrator, discharging the duties of chief operating officer for the agency. each day i am reminded of the excellent work epa employees do on behalf of the american people. from our engineers and scientists in the field, to our technical experts and our lawyers here in headquarters. i am proud to be a part of the agency and vision to protect human health and environment. in all workplaces there are employees who engage in misconduct and unfortunately epa is no exception. when such unfortunate instances occur, we are committed to holding our employees accountable. we have and will continue to work with the powers granted to us by congress and the administrative tools that are at our disposal to ensure proper conduct is met with appropriate penalties an conversely excellence is recognized accordingly. but i must stress that the isolated misconduct of a few does not reflect and does not over shadow the dedication and hard work of over 15,000 epa employees who commit themselves every day to the important work of the agency. . epa is taking to support our first line super visors who consider ray to ensure this conduct is addressed promptly and appropriately. we have updated the first five super visors tool kit and organized focus groups to ensure that we understand their needs. in an overall effort to ensure that super visors are able to take fair legal and effective disciplinary action for the betterment of the agency as a whole. in addition, earlier this year as was noted in the ranking members comments, the agency revised it policy, addressing a concern that this committee has raised in the past. the agency now demands additional justification and review for administrative leave requests and limits the time period of leave to ten days with limited exceptions such as whether an employee poses a danger to the agency and its employees. finally, earlier this year epa administrator mccarthy issued agency wide elevation memo encouraging staff to raise issues of around instructing managers to be receptive to these concerns. this is our -- it is our hope that this directive in conjunction with providing training and tools will help our first five super visors to address misconduct quickly and effectively when issues arise. in addition to our own work, the epa's office plays a critical role in addressing misconduct and helping the agency operate at our best. as a result of the work of this committee and especially ranking member cumming, we have improved our working relationship with the office of inspector general, which has enabled us to take more efficient administrative action. we now meet by weekly to does the status of pending oig investigations into employee misconduct and have agreed upon procedures and timelines for effective information sharing. these meetings and the improved bilateral communication contribute to the epa taking action more quickly upon oig's completion of its investigations and help reduce the need for additional fact finding agency in preparing administrative actions. in closing, epa and its employees have spent nearly five decades working to safeguard public health and the enviemplt for the people of this country. i am proud of what we accomplish every day. on the rare occasions when misconduct occurs, we mustards it appropriately. i look forward to discussing the progress epa has made in this regard with you today, thank you for the opportunity and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you. appreciate that. mr. sullivan, you're now recognized. >> good morning chairman, and ranking member cummings and members of the committee. i'm for both the epa and csb, i'm happy to report that since i last testified before this committee in april 2015, the agency's internal adjudication process has improved at the suggestion of both chairman and ranking member cummings. they meet by weekly about pending misconduct cases and their adjudication. these cases are being addressed faster and more consistently by epa management. four level pyramid scheme involving gifting tables. new participants will pay a $5,000 gift to the person occupying the top level. the oig investigation determined that the special agent had made a full statement on a full disclose sure form where she concealed the fact she had received $2,500 in cash from participation in the scheme in 2015 the special agent retired from the epa. she pleaded guilty to one filming making false statements and she was sentenced to one year of probation in order to pay $8,000 in fines an restitution. in 2013 an oig special agent in the atlanta field office proactively checked the list reportedly lost or stolen through law enforcement database. this search resulted in a hit on epa digital camera pawned in decatur, georgia. the investigation reveal thadd on several occasion epa employee pawned cam corders at the pawnshop result gs in a loss to the government of $3,100 -- $3,117. the u.s. attorney declined federal prosecution. however, we were successful in presenting the case to local prosecutor and the employee pleaded guilty and sentenced to three years probation in order to pay restitution. this was a felony conviction. the employee supervised proposed suspension of employee for 120 days following an appeal. the reason for deputy downgraded the suspension to 30 days. in 2006, the oig dallas field office was informed civilian employee was cited for improper use of emergency lights on personal vehicle while also being a registered sex offender. he had previously been convicted in 1997 for indecent acts with a minor. the epa employee also a badge which accompanied the epa credentials which were displayed by the employee to the police officer. in 2006 the u.s. attorney declined to prosecute for false and possession of imitation badges epa imposed discipline in the form of 60-day suspension. 2013 the dallas police sex offender unit arresting the employee for. developed information that the employee may have viewed and possess child pornography on epa computer. examination of this computer revealed no evidence of this. the employee was terminated previous employment with epa. the systems protection board overturned the employee's termination and ordered he be rehired by the epa. in 2015 he had to enter into settlement agreement he agreed to resign. i like to say that we pledge that we'll continue to work closely with the agency, the department of justice and congress to ensure that allegations of misconduct are quickly and properly addressed. we appreciate your continued interest in the work of oig. mr. chairman, that concludes my prepared statements, i'll be happy to answer any questions, thank you very much, sir. >> let's go back to the case of child molester. conclude that part about the merit system's protection board based op the brief evidence that you shared with us that scenario of the case, what were the other considerations that he got in order to resign from the epa. >> he received a cash settlement of $55,000, i believe. >> we paid -- the american people paid him $55,000 to walk awa away? >> yes. the ig is not part of those negotiations. >> i'm not blaming you, you're the one that highlighted this. it's hard to hold you personally responsible for that. we had to pay $55,000 to this person? >> mr. chairman, in this particular case, which i'm generally aware of, the case -- as mr. sullivan noted, was one where we removal and in fact took removal action and reversed by the merit system protection board. >> how do you lose that case? >> it's a complicated case. the protection board found that the basis for the removal was not sustained and so they reversed it. >> so he's -- i mean, it's pretty stunning. isn't it? i mean, what needs to change how do we need to change the merit system protection board. what's not happening we're not protecting the american people and we're not protecting the employees that have to sit by this freak of a pervert. we're not protecting them, so how do we protect the employees at the epa and american taxpayers what do we need to do with the merit system protection board to get them to make the changes. >> congressman, i'll simply note, a couple of things, one we share your desire to protect own employees from any adverse action by other employees. that's a clear area where there's agreement. >> how is it that this person can operate in this atmosphere for so long. i mean, in the case of dallas, how is it mr. sullivan, you've looked at this case closely, how is it that this goes undetected for so long. it wasn't in our system. >> well it didn't go undetected, it was not reported to the ig. in 1999 our investigation revealed that the management region six in dallas, epa management found out about his conviction and at that time he was stopped again by the police for using lights and sirens -- i don't know about the sirens but i know about the emergency lights and that was brought to attention of epa management and he was counselled and told not to do that again. but it was never brought to the attention. >> what was his position back in 1999, what was he doing? >> he was enforcement officer doing civil inspections for the epa. >> so his job would be to do what? >> to go out to a site and look to examine to determine if there was any environmental violations. >> interacting with the public, mr. meiberg, how does this happen? i mean, if you know that this person has to register as a sex offender, has this type -- why do you put them in a position to have to interact with the public. >> mr. chairman, i don't believe there's any particular rule that says that it's -- if an employee is convicted of a crime, in general, they then have to report that to the agency. >> should that be the case? should they have to report on going. >> mr. chairman, i think that's an important issue and we're happy to work with you and the office of personnel. >> i'm just asking your personal opinion, do you believe if you're convicted of a felony? >> mr. chairman, again, i am here in my official capacity. >> okay. >> as somebody who is convicted as a sex offender, is there an internal policy to prohibit those types of perverts from interacting with the public in person? >> mr. chairman, we've asked that question and we do not believe that we have the authority to institute a policy to that effect. and we're not different from other agencies in that regard. but it's an important issue. and we agree with you on that. >> all right. somebody here on this panel better sponsor a bill to get rid of perverts interacting with the public. this is not acceptable. i can't imagine -- somebody comes with the authority of epa badge and then they've got sirens or lights on their car and they're a registered sex offender. mine, can you see the disconnect why people would be outraged if they showed up at your place of business or work or some mom with her young child and suddenly you're encountering this person. how do you stand for that. >> mr. chairman, again, law -- certified badge, law enforcement officials have special responsibilities, even more so than ordinary epa employees. >> i can't believe you loss that case. part of me thinks we're going to have to get the protection board up here and start explaining themselves how in the world they think this is in the best interest of united states of america. my time has expired. we'll recognize ms. watson coleman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning gentlemen, thank you for being here. a lot of these cases, all the cases that we're discussing were either resolved in 2014 or 15, so these are kind of old cases, right? and so since then, we've had changes in our policies and practices at the epa that would -- that would at least address allegations of misconduct that come before in terms of resolving them and as well as administrative leave policies; is that correct? >> yes, congresswoman, that's correct. we feel like in the last year we've made considerable progress moving forward. i'll agree that we can always do better. we've made considerable progress and having better communication with the office of inspector general and clear policies. >> could you explain sort of briefly what specifically has changed that you've informed the ranking foul and the super visors and what's the process for holding them accountable, aside from just interacting with the oig. >> we've discussed with all of our employees the importance of first line super visors and their responsibilities in conduct. we've also, again, as i mentioned on the administrative leave made sure this could not be used and use of administrative leave has been curtailed for more than ten days was concern of this committee. but the interaction involving the inspector general has been tremendously important because we referred cases to the inspector general when we have evidence of misconduct and ask the inspector general to investigate them. it's very helpful in the course of that investigation to have interaction we now do so that we can be clear that when we get information as quickly as possible we can move on it. >> so, thank you. mr. sullivan, are you feeling that this interaction is helping to create a better environment and more protective environment and more accountable environment in the epa. >> yes. >> once you do an investigation, once something has been referred to you, you do an investigation, in addition to your findings, do you make any recommendations back to the epa about the employee that has been investigated? >> as head of investigations for the epa, we do not make recommendations in our investigative reports. however, our auditors an evaluators make recommendations as part of their job. that's a different part of the ig. so in a typical misconduct investigation, we report the facts and ingest the facts and we will not make a recommendation. >> you will report the facts to epa plus -- the auditing? >> it depends, if we saw a systemic problem or a problem that was cross cutting, for example, in the bill investigation, we determine that there were -- the investigators standpoint that there was some safeguards that weren't being followed, for example, they were batch improving mr. beal's tna time and attendance every week which was a vun ability. so we reported that to our auditors and they did an audit. normally in our investigations, ma'am, we just report the facts concerning the specific allegation before us. >> do you feel that we've sufficiently moved in the right direction with epa holding people accountable and developing the kind of information sharing system and accountability system that that will mitt gate these kiechbds of cases in the feature. i'm not talk about the one about whether or not the individual who was a convicted sex offender should be hired if so under what conditions, but otherwise. >> otherwise i can tell you that the -- in the past year as mr. alludes to in his testimony and mine, our -- my meeting by weekly, we have streamlined the process and we've broken down some barriers an we've touched each other as human beings and managers addressing a problem. again, i want to make it crystal clear what our role in the ig, we just report the facts. we have nothing to do with ultimate disciplinary process. >> i have one quick question both of you can answer quickly, hopefully, are there other things that should be happening, either on epa on your side as the manager of the organization or as your observation as the ig looking into the organization? i'll be -- there are things in the works now. >> yes, outside one thing that we have in the works. we're trying to get additional employee labor reports to first line super visors and make sure they have good information. fortunately for most of our first line super visor, it's a very rare thing. when one comes up we want to make sure they -- we have a context for whatever action they may take. >> do you have anything to say to that in two seconds. >> we don't have enough agents to do the investigations in the past five years we've gone through 360 to authorized to 289 and i personally lost 15 to 20 agents that can no longer work cases i'm always trying to play catch up. >> hope you have less cases to have to investigate. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i think the gentleman from florida is recognized from five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it's good to hold this hearing in review of some of the contact. >> i had the had the opportunity to chair civil service on this subcommittee on this panel some years ago. and -- i'm a supporter of this civil service system and it was set up decades an decades ago. civil servants employees from abuse being politically abused, relieved of their positions. isn't that pretty much the case mr. meiberg and mr. sullivan. >> yes, congressman. it is. that's very important that we make sure that the system is not subject to -- >> i agree -- i agree to hardworking people and cast them out on some political basis and i think that should be prote protected, however, the reports we have here, i have 12 pages of some of the most egregious abus abuses, i can't find any instance in which anyone was fired. did you say there were 15,000 epa employees; is that correct. >> more than that. >> that's correct. >> did you say mr. sullivan, you have 280 investigators? >> no, sir. >> staff? >> we had 360 five years ago, now we're down to 289. >> 289 staff, what do they do? >> well, we have investigations -- >> within -- actually, with -- they're investigating looking at reviewing the conduct of the 15,000 epa employees? >> i have 50 agents right now. >> that have investigates. >> okay. >> how many of the -- last year 2015, how many people were fired from epa. >> enough to defer to -- >> how many were fired? >> i don't imagine. >> were any ever fired for that kind -- for misconduct? >> yes. >> can you supply -- do you think it's more than just my fingers and my toes? >> congressman, and i'm going to -- i want to be clear about my answer -- >> i'll tell you nobody here got fired. the only one dismiss was the contractor. now, what's troubling is some of the offenses and i just heard the deal cut to pay $55,000 of the settlement. was that true mr. sullivan? you said you weren't involved in the settlement. >> that's correct. >> is that -- was that the ped fooil. >> so we're paying child molesters $55,000, nobody gets fired. here is one, epa official in washington, gs level 15. gs level 15, he's getting a minimum of 125,000, here is the -- okay. this guy sat around for years, the past several years and watched porno, and getting $125,000 and actually i think he's still on the job. must be a great job where you collect $125,000 a year. here is $90,000 gs 13, at least 90,000 here in dc, search of the employees epa issued computer found 507 pornographic images as well as employee containing description. i won't go into all of that for public consumption here. the employee was issued a notice of proposed removal but retired. so nobody gets fired the way out as most people either retire, civil service was not set up to protect these folks. it was protect folks against political manipulation. now -- this has to be demoral liezing to thousands and thousands of hardworking epa officials to see these people who either are involving in misconduct -- they were stealing money and i can't find a single instance in which anyone was fired. they mostly retired. and when they retire, they get a pretty good retirement, don't they? there's no penalty to compensation when they retire, don't they? >> there's no penalty, people can retire or resign. >> and that is the mo. you steal, you sit around and watch porno, you get convictions outside and you're either put out -- you're either voluntarily resign and go to retirement but nobody gets fired, i yield back. >> i think the gentleman -- from florida and i recognize the gentleman from maryland mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. let me try to i understand mr. sullivan, there are 14 open cases; is that right. >> that's not 100% accurate, mr. cummings? >> we have 14 cases pending at the agency in which we've submitted the report of investigation. we have many many more on the pipeline that we have not yet written a report of investigations, so we have -- we have approximately 90 pending misconduct cases right now. >> okay. >> and the reason why i ask that is because i said to myself, now, you talk about the agents that are available to investigate and i was saying to myself, well 14 cases, i know it takes a lot of manpower, but so you've got about 90 cases that you're actually involved in. >> yes, mr. cumming, but we also have in excess of 150 additional cases, 97 fraud cases, contracting grand fraud. but we have a number of theft investigations, some assault investigations. so it runs a spectrum. so but for the misconduct we have currently 90 pending cases, 14 of which have already been present to the agency and we're awitting adjudication. the other 76 various process of us in investigating. >> we have a situation where somebody is hired and then commits a but i was just -- >> thank you, ranking member. it depends. the short answer is it depends on the case and what the nature of the offense is. if it was onoffense, it was created out of ignorance or simply the employee did not know what the rule was, then counseling may be appropriate, but each one of those cases has to be evaluated on its own merits based on the facts of the case and the law in regulations. >> ms. sullivan, the time is running out, but ms. coleman asked you all about where we go from here. tell me clearly, what would you like to see done so that we can be effective and efficient and so that we can basically put you out of a job? >> mr. cummings -- >> i'm not trying to get rid of you, but you understand what i'm saying. >> thank you, sir. i appreciate that. i'm concerned that when we have an investigation and because i don't have enough special agents to expeditiously investigate allegations, we eventually get to them, but the old saying "justice delayed is justice denied." i'm very concerned that i don't have enough agents to adequately and immediately address some of these allegations. that's why i have so many cases in the pipeline. and if you do the math, my average in my office of professional responsibility, which is a special unit i have at headquarters doing essentially gs-15s and scsers and political appointees, they average 9.5 cases each and agents in the field average about 7 cases each. and a lot of the cases in the field are multimillion dollar fraud investigations that are very involved. so i simply do not have enough agents to expeditiously investigate every case that i have on my plate. >> will you continue to work with us to try to come up with solutions to the problems? i've got the money piece. i agree with you. but you know, you and mr. meiburg have been wonderful with regard to sitting down and working out things. will you continue to do that, sir? >> absolutely. it's beneficial to both my office and to the agency as a whole because we can move things down the field much quicker. >> thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman from maryland. gentleman from georgia, mr. heiss, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. several of the cases of employee misconduct that has been reported from the ig took place in region 4, where you, mr. meiburg, were the administrator. one of the cases in particular that's on my mind took place on your watch, referring to a gs-12 employee making over $100,000 a year who was found to be stealing thousands of dollars of property from the epa. in fact, the individual pled guilty to felony theft and was placed on three years' probation, but astonishingly only received 30 days suspension by the epa. mr. meiburg, my obvious question is how in the world can an employee be found guilty and admit to felony criminal charges of stealing from the epa and not be fired? >> congressman, i'll speak to that case, since as you note, i was the deciding official. this was -- and i want to be clear that there is not a question about whether or not what the employee did was wrong. what the employee did was wrong and she needed to be held accountable for doing something wrong. when a case comes forward -- >> it was criminal. >> the criminal conviction, the settlement in the court case took place after we took disciplinary action. there are two paths you go by, one is administrative discipline and the other is potential referral to either the u.s. attorney or local authorities, which occurred in this case. at the time we took administrative discipline, the case, the question before us was what was appropriate administrative discipline, given the information we had from the investigation report, which we did. >> so you know, it's astonishing to me that a 30-day suspension is all that someone gets for even pleading guilty of felony theft. we've got the taxpayers on the hook for this type of behavior. so you were the administrator. were you involved in determining the disciplinary action? >> yes. i was the deciding official in that case. >> so, in deciding on that case, you're saying that you were not aware of the criminal charges when you made the final decision? >> i was generally aware that there was a possibility of proceeding but i was not aware what the outcome was. >> but you were aware that thousands of dollars were stolen? >> i was aware that $3,000 of camera equipment had been pawned and lost from the agency through that transaction. >> and in your determining decision, that was only worth a 30-day suspension? >> there were many factors. in any individual case, there are many factors that the deciding official uses. they're generally referred to as the douglas factor, but there are many factors that the deciding official uses in deciding what an appropriate penalty would be. and i am obligated by law to consider all of those in reaching a decision on the penalty. >> it's just amazing to me that the agency doesn't do more to punish people who are stealing from the agency, who even plead guilty to criminal theft, and they still have the right and privileg privileges on the shoulders of taxpayers to continue working for the agency. i just can't wrap my mind around this. this committee has heard time and again of the epa literally plagued with constant employee misconduct. and yet, at the same time, the epa routinely goes after businesses across this country for much less serious offenses and throws fine after fine after fine after fine to businesses that often are doing virtually nothing in comparison. i mean, we hear stories of businesses all the time for slight infractions getting serious fines. and yet, here we have the epa in a double standard having employees involved in criminal behavior, they just get 30-day suspensions or less. it's an absolute hypocritical double standard. and it's disgusting not only to me to hear these kinds of things, but the american people are fed up with this kind of stuff. they get slapped time and time again with fines because a ladder is in the wrong place or whatever their slight infraction might be, and yet, you guys are putting up with this. the state of the affairs at the epa to me is totally unacceptable, mr. chairman. i just believe that the epa wants the trust of the american people and this committee, they've got a long ways to go to get their house in order. and i yield back. thank you. >> thank you, gentleman from georgia. the gentleman from georgia, mr. charter, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. sullivan, in march of 2014, an epa employee was arrested, jailed and indicted for marijuana possession. it's my understanding that this particular employee had a grow operation and was arrested on felony possession charges. in fact, i believe you highlighted this in your november 2015 report on the epa's use of taxpayer dollars for extended administrative leave for employees who had been suspended for misconduct. according to that report, this employee was placed -- mr. meiburg, are you listening? according to that report, this employee was placed on administrative leave for 7 1/2 months. is that correct? >> yes, sir, mr. carter, that's correct. >> no, that's not. tell me that's not correct. >> it is correct. >> it is correct? >> yes. >> again, he was charged with felony possession. he had a grow operation, and he was put on administrative leave and paid for 7 1/2 months? >> yes, sir. >> as i understand it, the epa policy only allows for ten days of administrative leave when an employee's committed a crime for which they could be imprisoned, is that correct? >> that is correct, but that's a new policy, mr. carter. i'll defer to mr. meiburg. the ten-day -- >> i'll get to mr. meiburg. >> a new policy. >> a new policy implemented after this? >> yes. >> okay. so, it wouldn't have applied then? >> no. the ten-day limit did not apply then. >> so that's why we paid him for 7 1/2 months? >> well, i can't explain why -- i'm sure -- >> hey, i'm sure even if you could, i couldn't understand why. do you know that -- why -- mr. meiburg, why would the epa do this? explain to me that. why would you do this? >> congressman, i can't speak to the particulars on this case and what judgments were made about individual deciding -- >> well, who can? we need them here. >> that would have had to have been the regional office where this event occurred. i will say -- >> who makes these decisions? you know who we need here? we need somebody who we can fire. that's who we need here. who makes this decision? who made that decision? >> decisions on conduct and discipline are taken by proposing officials, who usually are the employee's supervisor or their division director in a region, and then a final decision's usually made by a deputy regional administrator, who is a career appointee. >> and who do they answer to? >> they answer to a regional administrator. >> you had -- i think you said the magic words, "career appointee." yeah, i think that was probably the answer to the question, "career appointee." let me ask you, mr. meiburg. i've been sitting here listening, and it seems that, with all due respect, sir, it seems that you're just matter of fact, yeah, that's right, and that's the way it's supposed to be. in the report, in the november 2015 report, mr. sullivan, did you not indicate that epa needed to change some of their policies and protocols? >> yes, that was -- to be correct, that was an audit report, but yes, the recommendations were made. >> mr. meiburg, have you done that? >> yes, indeed, we have, and the example -- >> are they ready? >> they're being implemented on -- >> they're being implemented. when will they be implemented? >> no, they're being implemented now. >> now? so they're in place now? >> yes. on the policy -- to be specific, the policy on administrative leave, to limit administrative leave in any case to ten days, unless there is approval by the assistant administrator for the office of administration and resources management, under very, very -- >> okay, okay. i'm okay with that. because this is the only time something like this happened. it only happened once and then we corrected it. is that right, mr. sullivan? >> no. there was massive abuse with administrative leave prior to the changing of the rules. and our audit report pointed that out. >> mr. meiburg, have you ever worked in the private sector? >> not for many years. i thought i was going to have that opportunity following may 2014, but it didn't work out that way. >> well, i suspect there's a story there. seriously, do you think they would tolerate this in the private sector? >> the private sector -- i can't speak to a comparability in the private sector. i know that in the private sector -- >> i can, because i'm in the private sector. or i was. i guess i'm not now. but i was. but you know, i mean, this is -- my colleague just made the point. you go and you fine people. well, we got the answer today as to why theoriy're being fined, because we've got to pay people on administrative leave who have been charged with felonies! that's why you're getting that fine for that ladder being in the wrong place. i got the answers i needed today. thank you both. that's exactly what i needed to know. mr. chairman, i yield. >> i thank the gentleman from georgia. i recognize ms. lawrence from michigan for her five minutes. >> thank you. we've heard discussion today about the new process for information-sharing at epa and the dramatic improvement in management's response to misconduct. i want to applause the agency and the ig for your work to streamline the disciplinary process. our hearing on the federal workforce often focused on -- especially in this committee -- on the negatives. so it's good to hear about the positive changes that are occurring. many of the failures that we've been hearing about were prior to the changes, so i do applaud you. i want to focus on another policy change that took place in epa regarding administrative leave. i also want to note that this is the sixth hearing that this committee has held over the past two congresses on the management of employee misconduct issues at epa. mr. meiburg -- am i saying that right? >> meiburg. >> meiburg. i'm pleased to hear that the new policy increases oversight over the placement of employees on administrative leave during misconduct investigation and adjudications. the new epa policy also requires managers to document alternatives to administrative leaves that were considered and why they were deemed not feasible. is that correct? >> yes, that's correct, congresswoman. >> so, would you tell me today and enlighten us, what alternatives should managers consider before placing an employee on administrative leave? >> managers should consider alternatives about what other kind of work the individual could be doing instead of their regular duties, if it turns out that the investigation will impede their ability to conduct their regular duties. so that would be the first place that you would look, to find work that they can do while the proceeding is occurring. >> do you expect this new policy to reduce the amount of time that employees are placed on administrative leave? is that the goal? >> yes, indeed, it is. we've been very sensitive to the comments from the members of this committee about concern about the abuse of administrative leave, and we want to curtail that practice. >> okay. so, now, this policy has been in place since february, am i correct? >> that's correct. >> so, have you seen any difference? has there been a reduction? >> we've seen a pretty dramatic difference. since the policy has been put in place, we've only had two requests that have come forward. and the fact that requests are not coming forward by itself is a good sign that the policy's going into place. and of the two requests that came forward, one was approved because of a risk to the safety of epa employees, and the other was denied. >> i often like to interject into these conversations that i served in a federal agency and was in hr labor relations and really had the responsibility of looking at how do you deal with separating inappropriate behavior but respecting the rights of an employee. it's a delicate mix. you have to hold employees accountable, and i can tell you sitting here today i want employees held accountable. it is our expectation of our public th public. but every employee is a citizen of these united states, they have rights, and the agencies should have -- and i'm glad to hear that you've reviewed these process to make sure that they're consistent, that they're not, you know, up to the flim of a manager, and that we hold people accountable, that basically, we're there to do the work, to do the work that my tax dollars and every other americans' expect to happen in this agency. so i will continue. i hope we don't have to have six more hearings on this. but i will continue to stay focused in looking at what we're doing. and mr. meiburg, i expect for you to continue to monitor this and be proactive and make sure that epa, with all the budget cuts that we're doing here, that epa is doing the work that we need them to do to protect our environment. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentle lady from michigan. i recognize the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. meiburg, i think we've pretty well covered some of the problems that the epa regarding sexual misconduct, but there are other forms of employee misconduct that i want to address, specifically about an investigation that's going on in the birmingham, alabama, area involving the epa, which epa employees i think have acted improperly in conducting the investigation. specifical specifically, seeking access to property without getting the permission of the owner and actually intimidating people who are occupying houses on the property. i have an affidavit here which one of these people who reside on the property made these allegations, that officials of the u.s. environmental protection agency, e pa, approached me, seeked permission to test the property. they had a document to allow them to sample the yard. epa representative was acting very intimidating and informed me i needed to sign the release, even though i did not own the property, which is a clear violation. i felt very intimidated and compelled to sign the release, even though i did not want to do so. "upon signing the release, i asked the epa official what was so urgent in trying to obtain access to my yard. the epa officials responded that they are in tarrant, alabama," which is right there, a suburb of birmingham, "to shut down the abc koch plant." does the epa discipline employees who act in such an overzealous manner? >> congressman, any time we have an allegation of misconduct, we investigate it. and if the investigation shows that misconduct has occurred, then we will take action to hold the employee accountable. >> so do you punish that or do you encourage it? >> again, congressman, when an allegation occurs of misconduct, we investigate it. and as agent sullivan -- or director sullivan specified, one of the things that occurs on many investigations is the investigation does not find any wrongdoing. when it does, we take appropriate follow-up action to hold the employee accountable. >> well, i would like to point out that this is not the only affidavit like this. there are several others. and you know, we're not going to release them, not going to enter them into the record or use their names at this time. but do you believe it is appropriate for the epa personnel to pressure and intimidate citizens into endorsing the epa's agenda? >> congressman, i'm not familiar with the specifics that you're referring to. i will be happy to -- >> the specifics here are the epa employee forced this renter to give access to property they didn't have legal access to in an intimidating manner, and then afterwards told them that the whole point of the investigation was to shut down a legal business. is that how the epa does business? do you encourage your employees to do that? do you allow them to intimidate? do you allow them to operate outside the law? are you aware that this goes on? >> congressman, again, i'm not familiar with the specifics of the cases you're -- >> i'm asking you in general. >> in general, we ask employees to behave in accordance with good, solid standards of professional conduct. >> well, they don't always. do you believe it's appropriate for epa employees to seek to shut down a legitimate business that employs many people? >> again, congressman, our job is to go out and to enforce the law, to make sure the people are protected and that the laws are followed. that is what we do. >> let me tell you, i've got a number of issues with the epa, how they do business, how they handle their investigations. senator richard shelvey, senator jeff sessions and i sent a letter to administrator mccarthy and regional administrator for region 4, heather mctear-toney back on february 26th of this year asking for information about the epa's investigation of this area. and got a letter back saying with respect to your concerns about the epa enis forcement approach and/or fears of liability against any prp associated with the site. unfortunately, the epa cannot engage in any level of discussions with third parties, including members of congress, as articulated in memorandum -- and i've got the memorandum here. that seems to me to undermine our oversight ability. and i intend, mr. chairman, to look into this further. i would like to enter my letter and the epa's response into the record, if there are no objections. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i yield the balance of my time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman from alabama. the gentle woman from illinois, ms. kelly, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. meiburg and mr. sullivan, thank you for being here. misconduct from a few bad apples gives all of the other hard-working federal employees a bad name. as elected officials, we can relate to that, too. our goal was to ensure that agencies act swiftly and fairly in cases like these. this committee has worked with agencies to improve and streamline their internal procedures while preserving employee writings. today we've heard about the new policies and information-sharing processes at epa and the ig. mr. sullivan, in your testimony, you state that since the committee's hearing on epa misconduct in april 2015, the agency's internal adjudication process has, and i quote, "dramatically improved," is that correct? >> yes, ms. kelly, that's correct. >> thank you. mr. meiburg, these improvements at epa have occurred through changes in administrative policy and process, not through legislative change, is that correct? >> yes, congresswoman, that's correct. >> mr. meiburg, in your opinion, do managers at your agency have sufficient tools under current law to deal with allegations of misconduct like the ones we've heard about today? >> congresswoman, i do, in fact, believe that. it is always the case, as ranking member cummings said in his opening statement, that we can always do better, and we strive to do that. but we believe we have the tools we need in the agency to execute effective conduct and discipline. >> okay. it's important to remember that due process protections in our federal civil service laws are there for a reason. in may 2015, the merit system protection board issued a report that stated, and i quote, "more than a century ago, the government operated under a spoiled system in which employees could be removed for any reason, including membership in a different political party than the president or publicly disclosing agency wrongdoing. the result of such a system was appointment and retention decisions based on political favoritism, constitutional due process protections arose from the law that congress enacted to fix that broken system." mr. meiburg, is removing due process from civil service laws necessary to address serious misconduct? >> congresswoman, we believe that we can address serious misconduct through the application of our processes that do, in fact, protect due process. >> mr. sullivan, do you agree that without a legislative change, it is possible that improvements can be made within agencies that streamline the disciplinary process? >> yes, ms. kelly, i agree with that. >> are the changes at epa an example of such improvement? >> yes. i can tell you from my personal experience the bi-weekly meetings have dramatically improved the process. >> thank you. it seems to me that agencies currently have the tools to deal with allegations of misconduct, but they sometimes do not use them as efficiently and effectively as they could. i think that is exactly when this committee, through its oversight function, can help agencies improve their procedures. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentle woman from illinois. i'll recognize myself for five minutes. mr. sullivan, thank you for the testimony and for the dedicated work of your office of inspector general within the epa. i would like to thank you especially for the work of the oig in cooperation with this committee to shed light on the misconduct at the epa and efforts to bring about accountability and reform within that agency. we recognize your progress while still acknowledging there are still many ongoing challenges within the agency's personnel and management. we know the long-term reform and improvements to personnel management requires more than just new procedures and updates to manuals. it requires active support from leadership top to bottom to foster a culture of integrity, accountability and best practices. would you agree, mr. sullivan? >> yes, sir, i do. >> mr. meiburg, you're currently serving in one of the top leadership posts at the epa, right? >> yes, sir, that's right. >> it seems from our discussion today you're pretty astute about the law, right? >> i am not a lawyer. i will not make that claim. >> no, but you've been very articulate about the banter from both sides in regards to this claim or that claim. you're pretty articulate about that, right? >> thank you. that's not for me to judge. >> well, i mean, mr. hice actually engaged on you because you were the administrator that actually made the decision on that case, so you're pretty familiar with, you know, personnel management, right? >> yes. over the course of my career, i had a number of conduct and discipline cases come before me as the deciding official. >> now, could you please describe your job description? >> i am the agency's chief operating officer and i perform such duties as are assigned to me by the administrator. >> now let's go through that. you're serving as the acting epa deputy administrator. and you should, though, understand the law, right? >> i am, again, serving in -- >> no, but you should understand the law. i mean, you're predicating this based on understanding the law and all those underneath you should be following you. and you've also been nominated by the president to serve as the epa deputy administrator under the federal vacancies reform act and case law, do you realize you cannot serve in acting capacity for an office you've been nominated for? >> congressman, i am aware of the legal case you're referring to and have been assured by counsel that it is lawful. >> moreover, do you realize your actions have no force and effect in the law and what i'm actually talking to you about is you're the ceo. you're applying these laws. so they basically go away. i'd like to have the name of the counsel that gave you that information, because it's in total violation of federal statute and law. could you provide that to the committee for -- >> yes, we'll be happy to do that. >> have you ever discussed with anyone at the epa the fact that under the federal vacancies reform act, you cannot serve as the acting deputy director after you've been nominated to serve in the same office? are you concerned that your actions can and will be challenged, given that they have no force or effect under the law? >> congressman, i have been in consultation with our counsel and have been assured -- >> i would like all names of the individuals that gave you that because that's contradictory to federal law. do you believe you should step down as the acting epa deputy administrator given that the law says that your actions have no force or effect? >> again, congressman, i've been consulting with counsel that all of my actions -- >> i want all individuals that gave you that consultation's name and titles. your actions in defiance of the law by your agency and this administration baffles me. moreover, it does not surprise me. the epa under this president has a long history of blatant disregard for the law and disrespect for the oversight authority of congress. your boss, epa administrator gina mccarthy, committed perjury and made several false statements at multiple congressional hearings trying to defend the fact-defining waters of the united states regulations. on numerous occasions, administrator mccarthy not only broke the law by lying to congress, but in doing so, she also lied to the american people in order to force misguided and overreaching regulations that have no scientific basis down our throats. perjury before congress is perjury to the american people and an affront to the core principles of our republic and the rule of law. you actually sitting here impersonating the ceo, being operative to that office by the president is a front to that as well. that's why i've introduced articles of impeachment to remove administrator mccarthy from office. but before you get too excited, mr. meiburg, thinking you may get another astronomical promotion in mccarthy's place, i think you should step down as well. you cannot serve as the acting official when you're nominated to fill that place permanently. it's against the law, plain and simple. the personnel management within the epa is a mess, but that is no surprise when the agency's top officials are willful, law-breakers themselves. you create that culture, and that's why you were set up accordingly. that's why it's going to be really nice for me, because we have figured a way to make sure that those impeachment proceedings go to the floor and make somebody atone for their actions. it's actually a mess, and it's sad that we have to bring this, particularly when you should know the rules better. and that goes along with the counsel. so, i will expect those names of all those counsel and their titles immediately to this committee for review. i thank you and i'm disgusted. i now recognize the gentle woman from district of columbia, ms. norton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. meiburg and mr. sullivan for being here. to get back to one of the themes of this hearing, i've been interested to hear about the discipline has been given on improved coordination between epa and the ig. and the reason that interests me is that we obviously want to reduce the time that employees spend on administrative leave when, obviously, they're not doing anything for the agency. so i'm interested in the investigative process. i recognize that it takes time, you can't cut corners, you can be sued. and i also understand that some of these investigations can be very complex. mr. sullivan, i'm interested in funding available to the agency to do the job that needs to be done in investigating. can you tell me what the staffing levels are for the team that investigates misconduct allegations? >> yes, ma'am. i could tell you in general, the current authorized fte for the inspector general's office as a whole is 289 employees. that's dropped in the last five years from 360. in my office, i had an authorized fte strength of 76 five years ago. i'm now down to 61. but because of the uncertainty in the budget, i haven't been able to hire back up to 61. i now have 55 full-time employees and 50 of which are special agents. the rest are professional support staff or scientists or computer forensic people. i have five agents assigned to our office of professional responsibility here in washington, d.c., and those agents work exclusively in misconduct investigations on gs-15s, scs and presidential appointees or political appointees. in the field i have another 34 agents that work not only misconduct investigations, they also work most of the grant and contract fraud. the fraud cases are the bread and butter of the ig. most of our criminal investigative work goes into trying to recoup the government's money, people that have stolen the money, the grant money, the contract money that epa has put out. so, to answer your question, ma'am, i have five full-time agents working nothing but misconduct in headquarters and approximately 34 other agents working a combination of fraud cases, theft cases, threat cases and misconduct cases in the field. >> when i hear staffing levels like this, it reminds me about what we're all seeing on television with tsa. i can't believe -- this is all because everybody's decided to get on a plane. i think at some point, congress has to understand that if you want people to do the job, there has to be a certain number of people to do it. now, ts sank oa is one thing, a they've been under great criticism because they've not always been able to keep, according to the gao, stuff, weapons from getting through. so that's an interesting case. this, of course, is another level of complexity. and i'm going to have to ask you candidly, how can these investigators keep from cutting corners with these kinds of staffing levels you've described that apparently have changed during your time at the agency? >> ma'am, i would -- i have seen no evidence of any of my agents cutting corners, but what i have testified to previously, earlier in the hearing, is that i'm concerned that cases take way too much time to come to conclusion because, frankly, it's like the analogy of planes circling and when do the planes land? they land when the investigation's complete. >> but investigating employees' misconduct isn't the only responsibility of the ig. >> that's right, ma'am. we have fraud and threat cases. we have quite a few threat investigations that we have right now. so, we are constantly juggling. and obviously, we prioritize every day, almost like an emergency room, you triage. we investigate and handle the most important cases first, but you still have to take care of the other cases that are in the pipeline. >> what about the nonemployee misconduct? related investigations that the ig conducts? >> yes, most of our cases are, in fact, not misconduct. about approximately -- >> nonemployee. >> yeah, approximately 60% of our cases are a combination of the fraud cases, threat cases, assault cases or theft. when i say theft, not theft by employees, theft by outsiders. some are getting into a federal facility and stealing computers or stealing other equipment. >> well, there's a limit, and i think we're beginning to see what the limits are. i wish you luck with the appropriations process. >> thank you, ma'am. >> thank the gentle woman. i now recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. wahlberg, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks to the panel. mr. meiburg, this isn't the first time this committee has looked into the epa for its questionable foia practices. that's an issue i'd like to address. epa has been notorious for having extremely long delays in responding to foia requests. in fact, one of our witnesses, recent witnesses in a previous hearing here, mark edwards, a waters expert, professor at virginia tech, testified that he awaited several years for his foia request to be completed. in fact, many of his requests were filled the day after he appeared before this committee on the flint water issue. this case as well as others i believe very clearly and should diminish the public's confidence in epa's ability to be open and transparent. and so, could you tell us why it takes epa so long for these foia requests to be filled? >> congressman, i'll just speak very generally to this on a couple of matters. one is that we take our foia responsibilities very seriously, and we have found in recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of foia requests we have received. in responding to that, we tried to put together a foia expert assistance team to assist us in searching through documents and making sure that we are fully responsive. >> when was that team initiated? >> that team was initiated within the last year or so. >> are we seeing improvements on that? that you can tell us about? >> we're working very hard. i don't have any statistics for you today, but we'll be glad to get back to you with more information. >> i appreciate that, because i know that you have to get a lot of requests, undoubtedly. we're dealing with very emotional issues, substantive issues, waters of the u.s., flint water crisis where government failed at all levels and people have been hurt. there certainly is emotional issues dealing with requests that go on. but there are reasons why epa has been brought in front of us on several occasions dealing with foia, and i'd hope that would be addressed. going on to purchase cards that was introduced in i believe our chairman's opening comments. how can epa keep better track of the purchase cards and the usage of those cards by your employees? >> congressman, we've made a number of changes in response to interest from the inspector general's office and this committee and our own management is concerned about this to put in place better systems for keeping track of activities that occur in purchase cards and flagging anything that would be suspect. so we feel like we've made considerable progress on this over the last couple of years. >> has there been an audit done relative to the employees to make sure that we're not missing things? >> on the financial audit, we've had a clean audit opinion for the last several years, but we're always continuing to follow up and make sure we have appropriate systems in place that detect any misconduct. >> well, then why is it that epa employees who spend thousands of dollars of epa taxpayer money on personal expenses can get away with not having to reimburse the agency? >> congressman, we've been -- obviously, we share your concern about that. the cases that are before us today are cases that were over -- for the most part, as director sullivan specified -- were over a couple years ago. we feel like we've made progress going forward to identify those cases and address them. >> well, the particular individual that expended over $22,000 in international roaming charges while vacationing -- and i think we make that clear -- while vacationing abroad, will that employee be required to reimburse the agency? >> congressman, i'm glad you brought that particular case up, because we are going back and trying to make another effort to recover the costs from that. >> what's the challenge? >> the challenge is going to be to determine which calls even an employee on vacation may have made work-related contact back to the agency, even while they were on vacation. we need to make sure we can separate those out to make a credible claim. >> mr. sullivan, can you add any information to that, relative to that specific individual? >> yes, mr. walberg. the individual actually resigned before we presented our findings to the agency. and then as a follow-up, the agency preliminarily determined that it was too difficult to decide of that $22,000 how many may have been work-related. recently, though, as mr. meiburg said, the agency came back to us, i believe in april, last month, and said they are taking a second look at it and trying to present a bill to that former employee. >> well, i hope a second look would be taken at it, and i applaud that effort and want to see that completed. but in the end, if there is fraudulence or criminal involvement with this employee, i would hope that we could get after them. if not, we'd appreciate you telling us how we can assist you in making law in place where we can take employees who are ruining the credibility of other good government employees attempting to do the job in the best way possible, and yet, a cloud is put on them because of people who are willing to misuse their purposes and the cards and tools that they have. so, help us out with that. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. >> thank the chairman. mr. meiburg, i want to follow up on a couple of questions that were raised during your discussion with mr. palmer. he was talking specifically about a circumstance in alabama where, to use his language, there was an allegedly overzealous epa employee. we hear this all the time. it ranges from the terms overzealous to shakedown, depending on who you're talking to. and i guess the question that didn't get asked, because we sort of ran out of time, is this -- has anybody ever been fired for doing that? >> congressman, i can't cite a specific example of somebody -- and i'm going to interpret your question and i need to know if i'm hearing it correctly -- that have been fired for -- >> overreaching, using their position to intimidate somebody, using their position -- enforcing the law is what we hire you folks to do, right? but occasionally, i guess it's possible that a bureaucrat, that a government employee might overreach. they might not like the person they're dealing with. they might not like what they're doing. they might not approve of the business they're doing. i used to be a real estate developer, and i can assure you there are a lot of folks who hug trees who don't like what i used to do for a living, so the temptation may be there for an ordinary human being to use that power that the government gives to them as an employee of the state to say, you know what, i'm going to push a little harder here, i'm going to stick it to this person. do you remember a single circumstance of anybody at the epa ever being fired for that in your 40 years there? >> congressman, i appreciate -- first of all, i appreciate your observation about the job of law enforcement's oftentimes not a popular job or designed to make everybody like you. i am not aware in my own experience of a case similar to what i'm hearing you say as someone who overused or abused their authority and was subsequently terminated solely for that reason, but i'll ask the staff to go back and look and see if there is such a thing. >> mr. sullivan, if there are allegations of that, like in the example that mr. palmer mentioned, that someone had been overzealous, perhaps exceeded their authority -- let's use that term. maybe that's a little bit more neutral. would that rise to the level of something the oig would look at? >> it could, but this is the first i'm hearing. mr. palmer brought this issue up. it's not to my knowledge been brought to the inspector general's office as an allegation of misconduct. >> again, i'm using his example, he knows much more about the example in alabama than i ever will. so, my question's more general -- have you ever investigated allegations of overreaching authority on behalf of, on the part of an epa employee? >> yes. yes. >> do you recall anybody ever being terminated for that action? >> off the top of my head, i can't recall specifically how the cases were adjudicated. but for example, we had allegations of people using their position to get a favor, something that's not readily available to an average citizen. >> okay. >> those type of instances. we've also had instances where people may have used government property to their personal gain, misused a government vehicle, let's say, misused government funds. >> okay. and there is actually -- there was a fairly high-profile -- at least it's high profile to us because it's in our briefing materials -- about the employee in i guess the san francisco area who lent out a trailer or a piece of equipment to an environmentalist group or something like that? are you gentlemen familiar with those facts and circumstances? >> i am familiar with that case. >> again, that person was not fired. >> was not fired. >> maybe my question is this, in my last minute -- give me a couple examples. what does it take to get fired from the epa? what do you have to do? do i have to kill somebody or is it a little short of that? >> it can be a little short of that, yes. >> okay. >> there are cases where we've done terminations. in my experience, i've done terminations. and the kinds of behaviors that are involved are pretty unpleasant and not the kind of things that you would certainly want to ever have an employee engage in. but when they engage in those kind of things on a case-by-case basis, considering the employee's due process rights and making sure that as a deciding official you follow -- you've got all the facts, you can prove the allegations, you've followed the regulations process, that you do, in fact, terminate employees. >> help me understand, mr. meiburg, and again, i recognize that we're speaking in generalities. but if you had to sort of estimate between -- when you're dealing with allegations of impropriety, and there are serious allegations and you determine them to be valid allegations, that have substance to them, what percentage of people quit or retire versus get fired under those circumstances? >> congressman, i don't have an exact percentage, but it is not uncommon that people found themselves faced with proposed termination, will make the election to retire or resign. >> and they can keep their benefits, right? >> b >> we have no authority under law -- >> but the answer is yes, they do keep their benefits. >> except for cases of treason or espionage or aiding terrorist groups. >> let me close with this. as a manager, which is was you are, you manage people, right? i used to do it, you do it, you've done it for a long time at epa. would it actually make your job easier if we gave you that tool to on a case-by-case basis, or expand the current basis, to deny people who have been found to have acted improperly to deny them some or all of their benefits, even if they choose retirement or resignation over termination? >> congressman, i think i would answer that simply by saying that i think we have the abilities under our existing administrative tools to appropriately address conduct and misconduct and to hold employees accountable. and i'd want to make sure we're using those tools as effectively as we can. >> but this additional tool would help you, wouldn't it? >> that would be speculation, congressman. i really couldn't say. >> we do it all the time, but thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman and now recognize the gentle woman from the virgin islands for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> during last april's hearing at the epa manage issues, chairman chaffetz highlighted what he called "management failures" at the epa. i'm not sure if that characterization is an appropriate one, and it appears that we are still in discussion about this today. but i wanted to discuss what has occurred since last april, and it's my understanding that the epa has taken significant steps to address weaknesses in the disciplinary process. i don't think that necessarily firing a bunch of people means that you're a good manager. that may be the sign of a poor manager that constantly has to fire people, rather than bring them up to speed and make them an appropriate worker. but mr. meiburg, your testimony described the progress epa has made, and you state -- and i'm quoting here -- "as a result of the work of this committee and especially ranking member cummings, we have improved our working relationship with oig, which has enabled us to take more efficient administrative actions." would you care to elaborate on that, sir, on that statement? >> only to say, again, that this has been a two-way street, and we feel that we have reached out to the inspector general's office. the inspector general's office has reached out to us in pursuit of a common objective, which is we want to make sure that employees are held accountable in the conduct and the misconduct cases are dealt with appropriately, while also making sure that we do that in a way that protects -- >> so how is that different than your relationship previously? >> i really couldn't say for the agency as a whole from before the time i got here, but i think there's been reach-out on both sides, and it's really commendable. >> mr. sullivan, would you agree with that? and your statement -- i'm going to quote from you -- that the "agency's internal adjudication process has dramatically improved." is that correct? >> yes. i'll explain the process prior to us having this bi-weekly meeting. for example, if we had a misconduct investigation in denver or san francisco, the folks at headquarters had very little visibility on that, and it may languish for months or years, whereas now every misconduct investigation that's pending across the agency, mr. meiburg's staff, the attorneys at epa headquarters and the labor and employee relations folks, we meet bi-weekly. and that case here before that may have been languishing in san francisco or seattle or wherever is no longer allowed to languish. the folks at epa headquarters have visibility on it and they are pushing it along to make sure that those cases are addressed appropriately and expeditiously. >> and you would say that the cases are moving at a much faster pace to closure than they were previously? >> absolutely, yes, ma'am. that's correct. >> and you have evidence of that? quantitative evidence of that? >> yes, yes. i could tell you that within the past year we've successfully closed -- well, the agency has determined what disciplinary action to take, if any, and we have successfully closed our cases out at a much higher rate. we can't close the case until we hear back from the agency as to what they're going to do. >> okay. and have you been satisfied with the recommendations that the agency has made on those cases? >> well, ma'am, that's something that -- our job is to collect the facts in a fair, unbiased manner. it's not relevant my opinion whether i think discipline's appropriate or not. i defer completely to the agency in that regard. >> got you. and you said that the process that you're describing, mr. sullivan, and you quote, "i believe this process can serve as a best practices model for the federal government." is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. i've spoke to mr. cummings' staff and mr. chaffetz's staff and they're taking an effort to reach out to the entire ig community using the epa as a model to educate the rest of the ig community that maybe there's a way to get these cases moved faster governmentwide. >> i think that that would alleviate this committee maybe having to have as many hearings as they have to these other agencies, and we can get on with the actual work of congress if we were to do that. but would you support efforts to encourage, then, governmentwide adoption of this? and your office would be willing to work with this committee to do that? >> we certainly do support that and we have worked with the committee. but one caveat. the epa, we're somewhat unique in that we don't have any subcomponents. there's just one epa and there's one ig. if you take dhs or the department of justice, they have multiple subcomponents, and the model that we have in epa probably wouldn't work in a department that has multiple subcomponents, just to put that out. >> and have you thought about what would work in agencies like that? >> no, ma'am, i really haven't given that much thought. >> we've got to get you thinking on this, mr. sullivan. >> thank you. >> okay. so, it seems to me that epa and ig have shown that better coordination and communication can help agencies take administrative action more quickly in misconduct cases, and i'm really grateful for the work that you've done since april, from our first hearing, to actually address many of these issues, move these cases along to closure. i don't believe that having managed many people working at department of justice with the deputy attorney general's office, managing 9,000 attorneys, that necessarily firing people is the measure by which one determines that you've done a good job in terms of dealing with misconduct. so i'm grateful for the work that you all have done and yield the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentle woman. a couple housekeeping measures. mr. meiburg, mr. mica would like to know for the record and have you answer back to committee how many of the employees at the epa get bonuses. >> we will supply that. >> we will appreciate that. i also want to make sure we have dates certain so the names and titles of the people that gave you the permission, i would expect that in two weeks. can't be very many. i would expect them in two weeks. >> we'll supply that. >> i'm a taskmaster, okay? one last thing. mr. sullivan, are you aware of the federal vacancies reform act? >> in general terms, sir, not in specificity. >> are you aware of anybody that had the same plausible conflict that's been made aware of today in this committee with mr. meiburg? >> no. i'm generally aware of the issue involving mr. meiburg, but we were told by the agency that it's not an issue based on their counsel's opinion. but we have not investigated that issue. to my knowledge. >> did we also have the names from the people that you consulted at the epa that gave you the talking points that -- >> right. our counsel's office -- i know i was briefed that it was an issue, but i will get back to the committee on that through our counsel's office and i'll let you know. >> yeah. i guess we have a gentleman right here, mr. duncan from tennessee, who is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair -- [ inaudible ] >> okay. so, with that, i would love those names within two weeks as well, the counsel that talked to you about that and any other cases in regards to -- >> well, i didn't speak directly to anyone from the epa counsel. i was just briefed in my office by my counsel's office, i believe, or at a meeting, that this issue came up and it's not -- according to the agency's general counsel, it's not an issue. that's what i was told. >> yeah. i'd like to know from your counsel, the counsel from the epa that they actually instructed this wasn't a problem. >> yes, sir. >> you do see the conflict, because according to the federal vacancies reform act, anything that mr. meiburg may be implementing may be null and void based upon the premise that it's actually placed there. and so, you know, the culture that we're building here is predicated on the culture that exists at the top levels. and because you do lead by example, and that's what the problem is in this application. so, okay. >> yes, sir. i understand the task and we'll get back to you. >> well, i will acknowledge mr. duncan for -- >> well, mr. chairman, i'm sorry. i was over on the floor and didn't get to hear some of this. but i am curious. i've read some of the material here about some of these employees who have been watching all this pornography for hours at a time and then employees that have admitted stealing thousands of dollars from the epa. have all these employees -- or have any of these employees been fired? >> mr. duncan, mr. congressman, again, there's a large number -- of the cases that we looked at here, many of the employees are no longer with the agency. there were cases where people were proposed for termination and then resigned. >> and they resigned? >> yes. >> so you don't have any employees now at the epa who have been found to have stolen money or have spent hours watching pornography and so forth? they've either left or resigned? >> congressman, there are employees who have resigned or been terminated, and there are employees who have been disciplined in other means in resignation or termination. some of them are still with the agency. >> disciplined. in what ways do you discipline somebody like that? >> congressman, there's a wide range of disciplinary actions that are available to a deciding official based on consideration of all the factors, such as how long the employee's been in the agency, the severity of the crime or the severity of the misconduct, and they include all the way from -- they can go all the way from reprimands to suspensions for a period of time to a reduction in grade. >> and i'm assuming that you've changed some of these policies to make sure that this type of activity doesn't continue in the future? >> yes, we've changed a number of policies. and i think the staff came up and briefed the committee staff on policies and changes we made specifically with respect to the viewing of pornography. so, yes. >> all right. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman. if there is no further business, i thank the witnesses for their appearance here today. without any further business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned. >> thank you. by the way, very quickly if you missed any of the house oversight hearing on misconduct by some epa employees it's available to view online. democrats on the senate committee will be holding a hearing on marric garland. we'll have live coverage of that forum starting at 11:30 eastern right here. right now a white house ceremony from earlier this week, president obama awarded the medal of valor to several law enforcement officers. this is about 30 minutes. ladies and gentlemen the recipients of the 2013, 2014 medal of valor. [ applause ] the recipients of the 2014, 2015 medal of valor. [ applause ] merri ma ♪ ladies and gentlemen the president of the united states accompanied by attorney general loret loretta lynch. ♪ good morning, everyone. and welcome to the white house. all right. thank you all so much, i love to have a musical accompment, i don't get that all the time. i need to hang out with you more often. please be seated. to everyone here today, it is such a pleasure to be with you all today. and it's such a privilege, really treely an honor for me to join outstanding public servants and distinguished guests and our courageous law enforcement officers as we gather to honor the latest recipients of the medal of honor. of course, we have a special thanks for the friends, the colleagues and the family members who have travelled here to join us for this very special ceremony. it's really one of the best ones we do here in the white house. we're so grateful for your support. we are inspired by all that you have done to support our honorees. we know that so often it's because of your sacrifices that they're really able to serve. today, we pause to salute a truly remarkable group of public safety officer whose have gone above and beyond the call of duty to protect their fellow americans. in the face of terrible violence they have displayed extraordinary courage. confronted with imminent danger, they responded with uncommon valor. and encountering wrong doers with no regard for law or life they sought to defend the vulnerable and do justice. these medal of valor recipients hastens towards the cries of help, towards the sounds of gun fire that were in the air. they responded to school shootings, armed robberies, hostage takings, kidnapping, and incidents of domestic violence. some of these heroes met danger in the course of their patrols. others were off duty when they were called into action. we know it's not the hour on the clock or the color of a shirt that determines the hero. but the heart of the guardian. like the guardians they all are, all of our medal recipients act without hesitation placing others before self time and again. one of them of course made the ultimate sacrifice giving his life in an effort to save others. i know that no words or medals can begin to repay the debt we owe to these exceptional officers and to all of the policemen, firefighters, federal agents, sheriffs and emt's who go to incredible lengths to fulfill their oaths to protect and to serve the american people. it is often been said the price of freedom is constant vigila e vigilance. know this they pay that price on our behalf. their vigilance keeps our community safe. their devotion keeps our nation secure and their patriotism makes our country strong. and on behalf of my colleagues at every level at the department of justice i want to thank each and every one of you for all that you've done and will continue to do. i'm so proud to count you as partners in the law and guardians of justice. i congratulate you on this well-deserved honor. now, i have the other single honor of the morning. it's my distinct privilege to introduce to you someone who truly needs no introduction. but who is deeply devoted to our nation's law enforcement and public safety officers. someone who works tirelessly for their well being all day and well into the night. and whom i know is profoundly grateful for your service. ladies and gentlemen without further ado, please welcome, the president of the united states. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you and good morning welcome to the white house. thank you attorney general lynch for your words and leadership. we've got a couple of members of congress here, fredrica wilson and chris collins we want to acknowledge. and also i want to recognize direct director comey and all the law enforcement officials who are here from around the country. i'm proud to stand with you as we celebrate police week. and most of all, i'm proud to be with the heroes on the front row. and with the families who have supported them. and the family of one who made the ultimate sacrifice. it's been said that perfect valor is doing without witnesses what you would do if the whole world were watching. the public safety officers we recognize today with the medal of valor found courage not in search of recognition they did it instinctively. this is an award none of them sought. if they could go back in time i suspect they would prefer none of this had happened. as one of the honorees said about his actions i could have gone my whole career and not dealt with the situation and been very happy with

Related Keywords

Georgia , United States , Alabama , North Carolina , Washington , Atlanta , Capitol Hill , Utah , Florida , Illinois , Virginia , Michigan , San Francisco , California , Decatur , Tennessee , Virgin Islands , Maryland , Dallas , Texas , King Mine , Americans , America , American , Gina Mccarthy , John Beal , Patrick Sullivan , Allen Williams , Loretta Lynch , Chris Collins , Sullivan States , Watson Coleman ,