    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      EXAMINING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT AT EPA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 18, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-137

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reform

                                  ________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     25-509 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    Columbia
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TED LIEU, California
    MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina        BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    ROD BLUM, Iowa                       BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia                PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    WILL HURD, Texas
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                       Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
                   Melissa Beaumont Professional Staff Member
                        Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on May 18, 2016.....................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Stanley Meiburg, Acting Deputy Administrator, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency
        Oral Statement...............................................     5
        Written Statement............................................     8
    Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Assistant Inspector General for
      Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Accompanied by Allan Williams, Deputy
      Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Office of
      Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Oral Statement...............................................    12
        Written Statement............................................    14

                                    APPENDIX

    2016-02-26 Shelby, Sessions, Palmer to EPA re CERCLA.............    54
    2016-03-29 EPA Response to Palmer re CERCLA......................    57
    RESPONSE Meiburg-EPA to Chaffetz QFRs 2016-07-13.................    59

                      EXAMINING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT AT EPA

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, May 18, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                   Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in Room
    2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Duncan, Jordan,
    Walberg, Amash, Gosar, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Mulvaney,
    Walker, Blum, Hice, Carter, Grothman, Palmer, Cummings,
    Maloney, Norton, Connolly, Kelly, Lawrence, Watson Coleman,
    Plaskett, DeSaulnier, Welch, and Lujan Grisham.
        Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
    Government Reform will come to order. Without objection, the
    chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
        Today's hearing is entitled ``Examining Employee Misconduct
    at the EPA.'' It is a topic we have addressed a few times, but
    it doesn't seem to be getting better. So 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. If you don't get rid of the toxicity of the employees
    there at the EPA, we are doing a great disservice to this
    country.
        Most of them are good, hardworking, patriotic people. They
    care. They work hard. But you have some bad apples at the EPA,
    and they are not being dealt with, and they are not being
    addressed.
        So I look forward to talking about this. The inspector
    general has done some good, quality work, he and his team.
        Again, we will continue to do this until we are convinced
    that the EPA has actually taken care of its problem.
        Today, the committee is exploring numerous cases of
    employee misconduct at the EPA. As the Committee on Oversight
    and Government Reform, in addition to the broad responsibility
    for conducting oversight of the executive branch, we are also
    the committee of jurisdiction for Federal employees, and it is
    our duty to explore the problems in the Federal work force.
        We have explored misconduct at the EPA before. Like I said,
    we will continue to do so until we are convinced there actually
    has been a change. Most notably, this committee examined the
    extraordinary case of John Beale. John Beale was a senior EPA
    employee--reporting to then EPA air office chief Gina
    McCarthy--who for years falsely claimed to be a CIA spy. Right
    under her nose, this went on for a long time. This person ended
    up going to jail, one of the few people who has actually been
    held accountable, having to go to jail, paying hundreds of
    thousands of dollars in restitution.
        But her supervisor got a promotion. She is now the EPA
    Administrator, and I have serious questions about her ability
    to actually administrate. When she had a small office, she
    couldn't do it. And now that she has a large one, these
    problems continue to persist.
        Unfortunately, Mr. Beale's fraud is not isolated. The head
    of EPA's Office of Homeland Security--this is the head of the
    EPA's Office of Homeland Security--had a lengthy record of
    sexual harassment that was not properly investigated.
        EPA's Region 5 was mired in allegations of sexual
    harassment and retaliation against those who tried to do
    something about it.
        Whistleblowers placed blame for Region 5's toxic culture
    squarely on former Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman, who
    resigned under duress in the wake of the Flint water crisis.
        Remarking on this situation, an EPA union representative
    testified, ``There is a serious lack of accountability or
    transparency at EPA when a manager is the problem.''
        These incidents represent a 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 contain disturbing details.
        I recognize this is C-SPAN, and it's an early hour, 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.
        In one case, a convicted child molester--convicted child
    molester--was on EPA's payroll for years, even after the EPA
    learned of this offense. What is so terrible about this
    situation, it just cannot explain or justify, is the EPA knows
    that this person 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 vehicle, on their personal car, lights and sirens,
    handcuffs, a counterfeit badge. It wasn't until a probation
    violation that it was actually 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 it to a pawnshop, putting it in her pocket, and
    she is not fired.
        Mr. Meiburg actually oversaw this person, not directly, but
    it was in his team.
        It is just unbelievable this person was not fired after her
    felony theft conviction. She is still employed at the EPA to
    this day.
        We have a lot of good, hardworking people who want and need
    jobs, who will serve this country honorably. Why in the world
    should somebody convicted of stealing from work, a felony
    conviction, still enjoy the employment and being paid by the
    United States taxpayers?
        We have pages and pages of similar cases. 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 the Flint drinking water crisis.
        The status quo cannot continue, and the committee will
    continue to investigate the EPA until cultural changes and
    managers and employees are 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, H.R. 4360, which
    actually passed this committee and passed the House, the
    Official Personnel File Enhancement Act, which requires a
    Federal agency to record any adverse findings from resolved
    investigations into a separated employee's official personnel
    file.
        I hope this helps, so that these employees cannot just
    toggle from one agency to another without having their
    information shared with others.
        The bill prevents an employee facing disciplinary action
    from simply jumping ship to another agency that would not be
    aware of their negative disciplinary record.
        We have another case here, where there were devices and air
    cards that were used excessively. In one case, a person in one
    trip--I don't know how you do this--but in one trip, spent
    $18,000--$18,000--on one air card traveling, and no
    restitution, no paying back the government.
        We have the devices. We have $4,500 in personal
    international calls while on leave. What was the punishment for
    that? $4,500, the taxpayers have to pay that. What was the
    punishment? Counseling. Counseling was the punishment.
        So we have a lot to talk about. The inspector general has
    done a good job on this, and I look forward to a good, fruitful
    hearing.
        With that, we will now recognize the ranking member, Mr.
    Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I do thank you for holding today's hearing
    examining employee misconduct at the Environmental Protection
    Agency. This is the third hearing our committee has held on
    this topic this Congress, and I am encouraged that the EPA's
    response to allegations of employee misconduct has vastly
    improved.
        I, like you, want to be effective and efficient. I do not
    want to constantly hold hearings and hear about these problems.
    At some point, we should be able to get them resolved.
        Serious employee misconduct is, indeed, rare. But as this
    committee has seen, too often agencies and the inspector
    general responses to misconduct cases have taken far too long.
        At the committee's hearing in April 2015, a little over a
    year ago, I asked the EPA and the IG to work together to
    improve their coordination in employee misconduct matters. I
    did that, again, so we could be effective and efficient, to get
    things done as opposed to going around in a circle.
        I also directed my staff to work directly with the EPA and
    the IG to help develop new protocols to improve their
    disciplinary processes.
        As a result, the EPA and the IG are coordinating their
    efforts as they never did before. But as I often say, we can
    always do better. They are holding biweekly meetings to share
    information about investigations. We can do even better. They
    are communicating more frequently about administrative actions.
    They are sharing reports of investigations with agency managers
    and senior officials at the EPA headquarters, but we can always
    do better.
        The EPA and IG have developed expedited procedures for
    certain cases. The outcomes 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 on
    reports of employee misconduct.
        In his testimony, Mr. Meiburg from the EPA credits the new
    information-sharing process with contributing to EPA's 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. He
    concluded--that is, Mr. Sullivan said--and I quote,
    ``Misconduct cases are now being addressed faster and more
    consistently by the EPA management.'' But ladies and gentlemen,
    we can always do better.
        As I said, serious misconduct is rare, but we have to take
    it seriously. EPA reports that it has only 14 open employee
    misconduct reports of investigations from the IG. For an EPA
    work force of some 15,000, that is less than one-tenth of 1
    percent, but we can to better.
        This committee also has expressed concern about excessive
    use of administrative leave. That has been a major concern of
    the committee. 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
    10 days without approval from the Assistant Administrator of
    the Office of Administration and Resources Management. This
    policy introduces a check that addresses our concern about
    overuse of administrative leave, and the need for stronger
    oversight of this type of leave.
        Chairman Chaffetz indicated that the hearing today will
    focus on approximately 20 old cases that have been closed by
    the IG some years ago. As Mr. Sullivan states in his testimony,
    and I quote, ``It is important to note that most of the
    misconduct occurred at least 2 years ago.''
        In some of these cases, the misconduct is, in fact,
    egregious, and such behavior requires a swift and appropriate
    agency response. But none of these cases are currently pending.
    They are all closed.
        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 effectively and efficiently move forward. We can learn
    from things that have happened, so I do not have a problem with
    that.
        According to the EPA and IG, all of these cases preceded
    the improved coordination process between the EPA and the IG.
        I hope that you, Mr. Sullivan, will address the difference
    you are seeing and the impact. Of course, I am sure you have
    your recommendations.
        Mr. Sullivan states that the new coordination process
    between the EPA and the IG should serve as, and I quote, ``a
    best-practices model for the Federal Government.'' So I am
    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 a real difference.
        It also shows this committee what we can do through nuts-
    and-bolts oversight.
        While I am encouraged by the progress that has been made, I
    believe that there are still challenges that we must and can
    and shall address.
        For instance, long investigations time in some cases may
    suggest a need for more resources for the IG. I just don't
    know.
        You will have to address that, Mr. Sullivan.
        There are certainly other cases that raise questions about
    when employees are required to report criminal 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 stakeholders, because it is 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. Again, we can be more effective and
    efficient.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
        We will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any
    member who would like to submit a written statement.
        Chairman Chaffetz. We will now recognize our witnesses. I'm
    pleased to welcome Mr. Stanley Meiburg, who is the Acting
    Deputy Administrator for the United States Environmental
    Protection Agency. We also have Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Assistant
    Inspector General for Investigations at the Office of Inspector
    General at the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    He is accompanied by Mr. Allan Williams, 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 are going to go
    ahead and swear in Mr. Williams as well. Pursuant to committee
    rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify, so we
    will also swear in Mr. Williams.
        If the three of you would please rise and raise your right
    hand?
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
    about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
    but the truth?
        Thank you.
        Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the
    affirmative.
        You have testified here before. I think you know the drill.
    We try to keep your verbal comments to 5 minutes, but we will
    give you great latitude today. After that, we will go to
    questions.
        So, Mr. Meiburg, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                      STATEMENT OF STANLEY MEIBURG

        Mr. Meiburg. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings,
    and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today before you about the Environmental Protection
    Agency's efforts to address employee misconduct.
        I am Stan Meiburg, and I have had the privilege of working
    at the 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 Four's Deputy
    Regional Administrator before retiring in early 2014.
        Since returning to the agency in October 2014, I have been
    honored to serve as Acting 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 at
    headquarters.
        I am proud to be part of the agency and its mission to
    protect human health and the environment.
        In all workplaces, there are employees who engage in
    misconduct. 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 at our disposal to ensure improper conduct is met with
    appropriate penalties, and that, conversely, excellence is
    recognized accordingly.
        But I must stress that the isolated misconduct of a few
    does not reflect and must not overshadow the dedication and
    hard work of over 15,000 EPA employees who commit themselves
    every day to the important work of the agency.
        Since my appearance before the committee last spring, we
    have made multiple positive changes to the EPA's management
    policies and procedures. EPA has taken measures to support our
    first-line supervisors who carry substantial responsibility in
    ensuring that misconduct is addressed promptly and
    appropriately.
        We have updated the first-line supervisor's toolkit and
    organized focus groups to ensure that we understand their needs
    in an overall effort to ensure that supervisors 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
    member's comments, the agency revised its policy on
    administrative leave, 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 10 days, with limited
    exceptions, such as when an employee poses a danger to the
    agency and its employees.
        Finally, earlier this year, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
    issued an agency-wide elevation memo encouraging staff to raise
    issues of concern to managers and instructing managers to be
    receptive to these concerns. It is our hope that this
    directive, in conjunction with providing training and tools to
    our employees, will help our first-line supervisors to address
    misconduct quickly and effectively when issues arise.
        In addition to our own work, the EPA's Office of Inspector
    General 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 Cummings, 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 biweekly to discuss 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 helps reduce the need for
    additional fact-finding by the agency in preparing
    administrative actions.
        In closing, EPA and its employees have spent nearly 5
    decades working to safeguard public health and the environment
    for the people of this country. I am proud of what we
    accomplish every day. On the rare occasions when misconduct
    occurs, we must address it appropriately.
        I look forward to discussing the progress that 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.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Meiburg follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Sullivan, you're now recognized.

                     STATEMENT OF PATRICK SULLIVAN

        Mr. Sullivan. Good morning, Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking
    Member Cummings, and members of the committee. I am Patrick
    Sullivan, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations for
    both the EPA and the CSB.
        I'm happy to report that since I last testified before this
    committee in April 2015, the agency's internal adjudication
    process has dramatically improved. At the suggestion of both
    Chairman Chaffetz and Ranking Member Cummings, the OIG and the
    agency now meet biweekly about pending misconduct cases and
    their adjudication. These cases are now being addressed faster
    and more consistently by EPA management.
        I believe that this process can serve as a best-practices
    model for the Federal Government.
        Many allegations lodged against EPA employees are
    investigated by the OIG, and some are ultimately determined to
    be unsupported. OIG investigations often clear an individual.
    Our job is to collect and present the facts in a fair and
    unbiased manner. We are just as proud of our work in the cases
    that clear an employee as we are when our work leads to a
    criminal conviction.
        Now I would like to briefly discuss a few significant
    cases.
        In 2014, the OIG Seattle field office special agents
    interviewed an EPA contractor who had previously worked for EPA
    for the past 20 years. Stating he was addicted to pornography,
    he admitted to viewing pornography on his government-issued
    computer for the last 18 years. In the past year, he watched
    pornography at least 1 to 2 hours per day.
        He avoided detection for many years because he used
    commercial software to scrub his computer. He also accessed
    pornographic sites using search engines hosted in a foreign
    nation.
        The contractor was fired by his company. The OIG was
    successful in recovering $22,000 in repayments, the amount of
    time that the contractor viewed pornography. And the OIG made
    EPA aware of network vulnerabilities that enabled the
    contractor to avoid detection for 18 years.
        In 2013, the OIG was notified by the U.S. Attorney's Office
    in Connecticut that a special agent assigned to the EPA's
    Criminal Investigation Division in New Haven may have been
    engaged in a Ponzi scheme. The special agent's name had
    surfaced on the prosecution of the ringleaders of a four-level
    pyramid scheme involving gifting tables. New participants in
    this scheme would pay a $5,000 gift to the person occupying the
    top level.
        The OIG investigation determined that the EPA CID special
    agent had made a false statement on a required financial
    disclosure form wherein she concealed the fact that she had
    received $2,500 in cash from her participation in the scheme.
        In 2015, the special agent retired from the EPA. She
    subsequently pleaded guilty to one felony count of making false
    statements, and she was sentenced to 1-year probation and
    ordered to pay $8,000 in fines and restitution.
        In 2013, an OIG Special Agent in the Atlanta field office
    proactively checked a list of EPA property reportedly lost or
    stolen through a law-enforcement database. This search resulted
    in a hit on an EPA digital camera pawned in Decatur, Georgia.
    The subsequent OIG investigation revealed that, on several
    occasions, an EPA employ pawned EPA cameras and camcorders at
    the pawnshop, resulting in a loss to the government of $3,117.
        The U.S. attorney declined Federal prosecution. However, we
    were successful in presenting the case to a local prosecutor,
    and the employee pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 3 years of
    probation and ordered to pay restitution. This was a felony
    conviction.
        The employee's supervisor proposed suspension of the
    employee for 120 days. Following an appeal by the employee, the
    Region Four Deputy Administrator downgraded the suspension to
    30 days.
        In 2006, the OIG Dallas field office was informed that a
    civilian employee was cited by the Dallas police for improper
    use of emergency lights on his 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 possessed an imitation badge, which accompanied
    his CPA administrative credentials, which were displayed by the
    employee to the police officer.
        In 2006, the U.S. attorney declined to prosecute the EPA
    employee for false impersonation of a Federal officer and for
    possession of the imitation badges. The EPA then imposed
    discipline in the form of a 60-day suspension.
        In 2013, the Dallas police sex offender unit requested
    assistance from the OIG in arresting the same EPA employee for
    violation of probation. He was arrested on a probation
    violation charge.
        The OIG also developed information that the employee may
    had viewed and possessed child pornography on his EPA computer.
    However, an examination of his computer revealed no evidence of
    this.
        The employee was terminated from his employment with the
    EPA. Subsequently, the Merit Systems Protection Board
    overturned the employee's termination and ordered that he be
    rehired by the EPA.
        In 2015, the employee entered into a settlement agreement
    in which he agreed to resign from the EPA in exchange for
    certain considerations.
        In closing, I would like to say that we in the OIG pledge
    that we will 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 the OIG.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I'll be
    happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much sir.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I will now recognize myself
    for 5 minutes.
        Let's go back to that most recent case with the child
    molester. Conclude that part about the Merit Systems Protection
    Board. I mean, based on the brief evidence that you shared with
    us, the scenario of the case, what were the other
    considerations that he got in order to resign from the EPA?
        Mr. Sullivan. He received a cash settlement of $55,000, I
    believe. I will have to check ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. The American people paid him $55,000 to
    walk away?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes. But the IG is not part of those
    negotiations.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I'm not blaming you. You are the ones
    who actually highlighted this.
        Mr. Meiburg, it is hard to hold you personally responsible
    for that, but we had to pay $55,000 to this person?
        Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, in this particular case, which I
    am generally aware of, the case, as Mr. Sullivan noted, was one
    where we had proposed removal and, in fact, took removal action
    and were reversed by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
        Chairman Chaffetz. How do you lose that case?
        Mr. Meiburg. It is a complicated case. I'm not going to try
    to go into all the details. But the Merit Systems Protection
    Board found that the basis for the removal was not sustained,
    so they reversed it.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I mean, it is just pretty stunning,
    isn't it? I mean, what needs to change?
        You both are close to this situation. What needs to change?
    How do we need to change the Merit Systems Protection Board?
        What is not happening is we are not protecting the American
    people and the taxpayers, and we are not protecting the
    employees that have to sit by this freak of a pervert. We are
    not protecting them.
        So how do we protect the employees of the EPA and the
    American taxpayers? What do we need to do at the Merit Systems
    Protection Board to get them to make the changes?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I would simply note a couple
    things. One is that we share your desire to protect our own
    employees from any adverse actions by other employees, so that
    is a clear area where there is agreement.
        Chairman Chaffetz. And how is it that this person can
    operate in this atmosphere for so long? In the case of Dallas,
    how is it--Mr. Sullivan, you have looked at this case closely.
    How is it that this goes undetected for so long and it wasn't
    in our system?
        Mr. Sullivan. It didn't go undetected. It was just that it
    was not reported to the IG.
        In 1999, our investigation revealed that the management in
    Region Six in Dallas, the EPA management, found out about his
    conviction. At that time, he was stopped again by the police
    for using lights and sirens. I don't know about the sirens. I
    know about the emergency lights. That was brought to the
    attention of EPA management. He was counseled and told not to
    do that again, but it was never brought to the attention of the
    IG in 1999.
        Chairman Chaffetz. What was his position back in 1999? What
    was he doing?
        Mr. Sullivan. He was an enforcement officer doing civil
    inspections for the EPA.
        Chairman Chaffetz. So his job would be to do what?
        Mr. Sullivan. To go out to a site to determine if there are
    any environmental violations.
        Chairman Chaffetz. So we are putting him out there,
    interacting with the public.
        Mr. Meiburg, how does this happen? If you know that this
    person has to register as a sex offender, why do you put them
    in a position to have to interact with the public?
        Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there is any
    particular rule that says that if an employee is convicted of a
    crime, in general, that they then have to report that to the
    agency.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Should that be the case? Should they
    have to report, ongoing?
        Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an important
    issue. We are happy to work with you and the Office of
    Personnel ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. I am just asking your personal opinion.
    Do you believe, if you are convicted of a felony ----
        Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, again, I am here in my official
    capacity.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay.
        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. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, we have asked that question, and
    we do not believe that we have the authority to institute a
    policy to that effect. We are not different from other agencies
    in that regard.
        But it is an important issue, and we agree with you on
    that.
        Chairman Chaffetz. All right, somebody here on this panel
    better sponsor a bill to get rid of perverts interacting with
    the public, because this is not acceptable. If somebody comes
    with the authority of the EPA badge, and then they have sirens
    or lights on their car, and they are a registered sex offender,
    I mean, 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 encounter this
    person? How do you stand for that?
        Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Chairman, again, certified badge law
    enforcement officials have special responsibilities, even more
    so than ordinary EPA employees ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. I cannot believe you lost that case.
    Part of me thinks we are going to have to work here--let's get
    the Merit Systems Protection Board up here to start explaining
    themselves, how in the world they think this is in the best
    interest of the United States of America.
        My time has expired. We will now recognize Ms. Watson
    Coleman for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you for being here.
        A lot of these cases, all the cases that we are discussing,
    were either resolved in 2014 or 2015, so these are kind of old
    cases, right? So since then, we have had changes in our
    policies and practices at the EPA that would at least address
    allegations of misconduct that come before them in terms of
    resolving them and as well as administrative leave policies. Is
    that not correct?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, Congresswoman, that is correct. We feel
    like, in the last year, we have made considerable progress
    moving forward.
        I would agree with the ranking member that we can always do
    better, but we feel like we have made considerable progress in
    having better communication with the Office of Inspector
    General and clearer policies on the use of administrative
    leave.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Could you explain sort of briefly what
    specifically has changed that you have informed the rank and
    file, and the supervisors, and what is the process for holding
    them accountable, aside from just interacting with the OIG?
        Mr. Meiburg. The interaction--it is in so many ways all of
    one piece. We discussed with all of our employees the
    importance of first-line supervisors and their responsibilities
    in conduct and discipline cases.
        We also again, as I mentioned, on the administrative leave,
    made sure that this cannot be used. And the use of
    administrative leave has been curtailed for more than 10 days,
    which was a concern of this committee.
        But the interaction involving the inspector general has
    been tremendously important because we refer cases to the
    inspector general when we have evidence of misconduct, and ask
    the inspector general to investigate them. It is very helpful
    in the course of that investigation to have the interaction we
    now do, so that we can be clear that when we get information,
    as quickly as possible, we can move on it.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
        Mr. Sullivan, are you feeling that this interaction is
    helping to create a better environment, a more protective
    environment, and a more accountable environment in the EPA?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Once you do an investigation, once
    something has been referred to you and 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?
        Mr. Sullivan. As the head of investigations for the EPA, we
    do not make recommendations in our investigative reports.
    However, our auditors and evaluators make recommendations as
    part of their job. But that is a different part of the IG.
        So in a typical misconduct investigation, we report the
    facts and just the facts, and we would not make a
    recommendation.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. So you would report the facts to the
    EPA, plus the auditing?
        Mr. Sullivan. It depends. If we saw a systematic problem or
    a problem that was crosscutting, for example, in the Beale
    investigation, we determined that, from the investigator's
    standpoint, that there were some safeguards that were not being
    followed. For example, they were batch approving Mr. Beale's
    T&A, time and attendance, every week, which was a
    vulnerability. So we reported that to our auditors, and they
    did an audit.
        But normally, in our investigations, ma'am, we just report
    the facts concerning the specific allegation before us.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Do you feel that we have sufficiently
    moved in the right direction with the EPA holding people
    accountable and developing the kind of information-sharing
    system and accountability system that will mitigate these kinds
    of cases in the future?
        I'm not talking about the one about whether or not the
    individual who was a convicted sex offender should be hired and
    if so, under what conditions, but otherwise.
        Mr. Sullivan. Otherwise, I could tell you that in the past
    year, as Mr. Meiburg alluded to in his testimony, and in mine,
    by meeting biweekly, we have streamlined the process and we
    have broken down some barriers, and we have touched each other
    as human beings and managers addressing a problem.
        Again, I want to make it crystal clear what our role is and
    the IG Office of Investigations. We just report the facts. We
    have nothing to do with the ultimate disciplinary process.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. I just have one quick question. Both of
    you can answer quickly, hopefully.
        Are there other things that should be happening either the
    EPA, on your side as a manager of the organization, or from
    your observation as the IG looking into the organization? Have
    you discussed those things? Are there things in the works now?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, I will cite one thing that we have in the
    works. We are trying to get additional employee labor relations
    support to our first-line supervisors and make sure they have
    good information on cases that may have come up in the past
    that are similar to ones they might face, because fortunately
    for most of our first-line supervisors, a conduct and
    discipline case is a very rare thing. So when one comes up, we
    want to make sure they have a context for whatever action they
    may take.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
        Mr. Sullivan, do you have anything to say to that in 2
    seconds?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am. We do not have enough agents to
    do the investigations. In the past 5 years, we have gone from
    360 FTE authorized to 289. I personally lost 15 to 20 agents
    that can no longer work cases. So I'm always trying to play
    catch-up.
        Ms. Watson Coleman. I hope you have less cases that you
    have to investigate. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gosar. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlewoman.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to hold this
    hearing and review some of the conduct of some of the employees
    of the EPA with important responsibility in that agency to
    carry out.
        I had the opportunity to chair civil service on this
    subcommittee on this panel some years ago. I am a supporter of
    the civil service system, and it was set up decades and decades
    ago to protect civil servants, public employees, from abuse,
    being politically abused, being relieved of their positions.
        Isn't that pretty much the case, Mr. Meiburg and Mr.
    Sullivan?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, Congressman, it is. That is very
    important that we make sure that the system is not subject to
    ----
        Mr. Mica. Not rigged to take hardworking people and cast
    them out on some political basis. I think that should be
    protected.
        However, the reports we have here, I have 12 pages of some
    of the most egregious 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Mica. Did you say, Mr. Sullivan, you have 280
    investigators?
        Mr. Sullivan. No, sir. We had a 360 5 years ago. Now we are
    down to 289.
        Mr. Mica. Two hundred eighty-nine staff. What do they do?
        Mr. Sullivan. We have investigators.
        Mr. Mica. So they investigate ----
        Mr. Sullivan. Some auditors and evaluators.
        Mr. Mica. They are looking at and reviewing the conduct of
    the 15,000 EPA employees?
        Mr. Sullivan. I have 50 agents right now with that ----
        Mr. Mica. Fifty, okay. Last year, 2015, how many people
    were fired from EPA?
        Mr. Sullivan. I would have to defer to Mr. Meiburg.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Meiburg, how many were fired?
        Mr. Meiburg. I don't know.
        Mr. Sullivan. Were any ever fired for misconduct?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. Can you supply--do you think it is more than just
    my fingers and my toes?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I want to be clear about my
    answer.
        Mr. Mica. I tell you, nobody here got fired. The only one
    actually dismissed was a contractor.
        What is troubling is some of the offenses. I just heard the
    deal cut to pay $55,000 in a settlement.
        Is that true, Mr. Sullivan? You said you were not involved
    in the settlement.
        Mr. Sullivan. That is correct. From my ----
        Mr. Mica. Was that the pedophile?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes. That was child molester.
        Mr. Mica. So we are paying child molesters $55,000. Nobody
    gets fired.
        Now here's one, an EPA official in Washington, GS-15. GS-15
    in D.C., he's getting a minimum of $125,000 a year.
        This guy sat around for years, the past several years, and
    watched porno, getting $125,000. Actually, I think he is still
    on the job. It must be a great job where you can just sit
    around and collect $125,000 a year.
        Here's a $90,000 GS-13, at least $90,000 a year in D.C., a
    search of the employee's EPA-issued computer found 507
    pornographic images as well as a graphic pornographic story
    written by the employee containing description of--I won't go
    into all that for public consumption here.
        The employee was issued a notice of proposed removal but
    retired.
        So nobody gets fired. The way out is most people retire.
        The civil service was not set up to protect these folks. It
    was to protect folks against political manipulation.
        This has to be demoralizing to thousands and thousands of
    hardworking EPA officials to see these people who either are
    involved in misconduct, misappropriate--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? They get their regular retirement. There is no
    penalty to their compensation when they retire, is there?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, under current law, there is no
    penalty. People can retire or resign ----
        Mr. Mica. That is the M.O. You steal. You sit around and
    watch porno. You get convictions outside. And you either
    voluntarily resign and go to retirement, but nobody gets fired.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
        I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me try to understand, Mr. Sullivan. There are 14 open
    cases. Is that right?
        Mr. Sullivan. That is not 100 percent accurate, Mr.
    Cummings. We have 14 cases pending at the agency in which we
    have already submitted the report of investigation. We have
    many, many more in the pipeline that we have not yet written a
    report of investigation, so we have approximately 90 pending
    misconduct cases right now.
        Mr. Cummings. Okay. The reason I asked that is because I
    said to myself, you talked about the agents that are available
    to investigate, and I was saying to myself, with 14 cases, I
    know it takes a lot of manpower--but you have about 90 cases
    that you are actually involved in?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Cummings. But we also have an excess
    of 150 additional cases, 97 fraud cases, contracting grant
    fraud, plus we have a number of threat investigations, a number
    of theft investigations, some assault investigations. So it
    runs the spectrum.
        But for the misconduct, we have currently 90 pending cases,
    14 of which have already been presented to the agency and are
    awaiting adjudication. The other 76 are in various processes of
    us investigating.
        Mr. Cummings. Now when we have a situation where somebody
    is hired and then commits a serious felony, do they have a duty
    to report? Now, they are already hired.
        What is the situation there? And where do we draw the line
    there?
        Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Cummings, it is my understanding that for
    most EPA employees, there is no requirement to report either an
    arrest or conviction. Obviously, if you are a law enforcement
    officer like myself, you must report. If you are an attorney,
    you must report. If you work for the IG, you must report. Or if
    you have a security clearance, you must report an arrest or
    conviction.
        But short of that short list, I do not believe there is any
    requirement for any EPA employee to report either an arrest or
    conviction.
        Mr. Cummings. Do you have an opinion on that? I am just
    wondering, because I know one of the cases had a situation
    where somebody was convicted after they were hired, with no
    duty to report.
        It is very interesting because when I practiced law, I saw
    a lot of cases, not government cases, but others, where people
    failed to report and they were immediately fired when they
    found out.
        Are there other agencies where the list is longer than that
    three?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Cummings. For myself, I have been a
    Federal enforcement officer my entire adult life, and I have
    worked for the FBI and Secret Service and the Federal Air
    Marshals. In those agencies, you absolutely have to immediately
    report an arrest and certainly a conviction. Whether you are
    carrying a gun or you are a civilian employee in those
    agencies, you have to report.
        So I was little bit surprised when I came to EPA and I
    learned that rank-and-file EPA employees did not have to do
    that. I've accepted that as the rule, but I was a little
    curious as to why, just for the sake of knowing--if you put
    trust and confidence in a particular employee, it may affect
    your judgment or your decision-making if you knew the person
    was just convicted of, say, theft or embezzlement in their
    private life.
        Mr. Cummings. Tell me this, we were just talking about a
    case where somebody received some kind of counseling. When you
    look at the counseling situation there at EPA, do you think it
    is helpful? Did you think it is strong enough?
        And maybe Mr. Meiburg can answer this. What triggers
    counseling? In other words, how do I determine whether somebody
    should have counseling and that be a part of keeping them on?
        I know you do not have a lot to do with the final say, Mr.
    Meiburg.
        Mr. Meiburg. Thank you, Ranking Member.
        The short answer is it depends on the case and what the
    nature of the offense is. If it was an offense that was created
    out of ignorance or simply the employee did not know what a
    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 applicable law and regulations.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Sullivan, 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. Sullivan. Mr. Cummings ----
        Mr. Cummings. I am not trying to get rid of you, but you
    understand what I'm saying.
        Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
        I am 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 of ``justice delayed is justice denied,'' I am very
    concerned that I do not have enough agents to adequately and
    immediately address some of these allegations.
        That is why I have so many cases in the pipeline. If you do
    the math, in my Office of Professional Responsibility, which is
    a special unit I have at headquarters doing essentially GS-15
    and SES and political appointees, they average 9.5 cases each.
    The agents in the field average approximately seven cases each.
    A lot of those 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.
        Mr. Cummings. Will you continue to work with us to try to
    come up with solutions to the problems? I got the money piece.
    I agree with you. But you and Mr. Meiburg have been wonderful
    with regards to sitting down and trying to work out things.
    Will you continue to do that, sir?
        Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely. It is beneficial to both my
    office and to the agency as a whole because we can move things
    down the field much quicker.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Several of the cases of employee misconduct that have been
    reported from the IG took place in the Region Four, where you,
    Mr. Meiburg, were the administrator.
        One of the cases in particular that is 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 3 years' probation
    but, astonishingly, only received only 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I will speak to that case since,
    as you note, I was the deciding official.
        I want to be clear that there is not a question that 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 ----
        Mr. Hice. It was criminal.
        Mr. Meiburg. The criminal conviction, the settlement in the
    court case, occurred after we took disciplinary action. There
    are two paths, as you probably know, whereby you can go on
    this. One is the path of administrative discipline, and the
    other is potential referral to either the U.S. attorney or to
    local authorities, which occurred in this case.
        At the time we took administrative discipline, the question
    before us was what was appropriate administrative discipline,
    given the information we had from the investigation report,
    which we did.
        Mr. Hice. So it is astonishing to me that a 30-day
    suspension is all that someone gets for even pleading guilty of
    felony theft.
        We have the taxpayers on the hook for this type of
    behavior.
        So you were the administrator. Were you involved in the
    determining the disciplinary action?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes. I was the deciding official in that case.
        Mr. Hice. So in deciding on that case, you are saying that
    you were not aware of the criminal charges when you made the
    final decision?
        Mr. Meiburg. I was generally aware that there was a
    possibility of a proceeding, but I did not know what the
    outcome of that was.
        Mr. Hice. But you were aware of thousands of dollars that
    had been stolen?
        Mr. Meiburg. I was aware of approximately $3,000 in camera
    equipment had been pawned and then lost to the agency through
    that transaction.
        Mr. Hice. And in your determining decision, that was only
    worth a 30-day suspension?
        Mr. Meiburg. There were many factors. In any individual
    case, there are many factors that the deciding official uses.
    They are generally referred to as the Douglas factors. But
    there are many factors that the deciding official uses in
    deciding what an appropriate penalty would be. I am obligated
    by law to consider all of those in reaching a decision on the
    penalty.
        Mr. Hice. It is 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 privileges on the shoulders of taxpayers to continue
    working for the agency. I just cannot wrap my right 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 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. Yet here we have the
    EPA in a double standard, having employees involved in criminal
    behavior, and they just get 30-day suspensions or less. It is
    an absolute hypocritical double standard.
        It is 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 the slight
    infraction may be. Yet you guys are putting up with this.
        The state of affairs at the EPA is totally unacceptable,
    Mr. Chairman. I just believe that if the EPA wants the trust of
    the American people and this committee, they have a long way to
    go to get their house in order.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
        The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Carter, is recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sullivan, in March 2014, an EPA employee was arrested,
    jailed, and indicted for marijuana possession. It is 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 7.5 months. Is that correct?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir, Mr. Carter.
        Mr. Carter. Tell me that is not correct.
        Mr. Sullivan. No, it is correct, sir.
        Mr. Carter. It is correct?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Carter. Okay. Again, he was charged with felony
    possession. He had a grow operation, and he was put on
    administrative leave and paid for 7.5 months.
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Carter. As I understand it, the EPA policy only allows
    for 10 days of administrative leave when employees committed a
    crime for which they could be imprisoned. Is that correct?
        Mr. Sullivan. That is correct, but that is the new policy,
    Mr. Carter. I will defer to Mr. Meiburg. The 10- day ----
        Mr. Carter. I will get Mr. Meiburg.
        Mr. Sullivan. It is a new policy.
        Mr. Carter. A new policy implemented after this?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Carter. Okay, so it didn't apply then?
        Mr. Sullivan. No. The 10-day limit did not apply then.
        Mr. Carter. So that is why we paid him for 7.5 months.
        Mr. Sullivan. Well, I cannot explain why. Again, we were --
    --
        Mr. Carter. I'm sure. Even if you could, I could not
    understand why.
        Mr. Meiburg, what would the EPA do this? Explain to me
    that. Why would you do this?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I cannot speak to the particulars
    on this case and what judgments were made on an individual ----
        Mr. Carter. Well, who can? We need them here.
        Mr. Meiburg. That would have to be the regional office
    where this event occurred. I will say ----
        Mr. Carter. Who makes these decisions? Do you know who we
    need here? We need somebody who we can fire. That is who we
    need here. Who makes this decision? Who made that decision?
        Mr. Meiburg. Decisions on conduct and discipline are taken
    by proposing officials who usually are the employee's
    supervisor or their division director in the region. Then a
    final decision is made usually by a deputy regional
    administrator, who is a career appointee.
        Mr. Carter. And who do they answer to?
        Mr. Meiburg. The answer to a regional administrator.
        Mr. Carter. I think you said the magic words, ``career
    appointee.'' 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, with all due respect, sir, it seems
    that you are just matter of fact, ``Yes, that's right. And
    that's the way it's supposed to be.''
        In the report, the November 2015 report, Mr. Sullivan, did
    you not indicate that EPA needed to change some of their
    policies and protocols?
        Mr. Sullivan. To be correct, that was an audit report, but
    yes, recommendations were made.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Meiburg, have you done that?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, indeed, we have.
        Mr. Carter. Are they ready?
        Mr. Meiburg. They are being implemented.
        Mr. Carter. They are being implemented. When will they be
    implemented?
        Mr. Meiburg. No, they are being implemented now.
        Mr. Carter. Now? So they are in place now?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes. On the policy, to be specific, the policy
    on administrative leave, to limit administrative leave in any
    case to 10 days, unless there is approval by the Assistant
    Administrator for the Office of Administration and Resources
    Management under very, very ----
        Mr. Carter. Okay, I am 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?
        Mr. Sullivan. No, there was massive abuse with
    administrative leave prior to the changing of the rules. Our
    audit report pointed that out.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Meiburg, have you ever worked in the
    private sector?
        Mr. Meiburg. Not for many years. I thought I was going to
    have that opportunity following May 2014, but it didn't work
    out that way.
        Mr. Carter. I suspect there is a story there.
        Seriously, do you think they would tolerate this in the
    private sector?
        Mr. Meiburg. I cannot speak to comparability in the private
    sector. I know in the ----
        Mr. Carter. I can because I am in the private sector, or I
    was. I guess I'm not now. But I was.
        But you know, I mean, my colleague just made the point. You
    go and fine people--we got the answer today as to why they are
    being fined, because we have to pay people on administrative
    leave who have been charged with felonies. That is why you are
    getting fined for that ladder being in the wrong place.
        I got the answers I needed today. Thank you, both. That is
    exactly what I needed to know.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
        I recognize Ms. Lawrence from Michigan for her 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lawrence. Thank you.
        We have 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 applaud the
    agency and the IG for your work to streamline the disciplinary
    process.
        Our hearings on the Federal work force often focus on,
    especially in this committee, on the negatives, so it is good
    to hear about the positive changes that are occurring. Many of
    the failures that we have 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, I am saying that right?
        Mr. Meiburg. ``Meiburg.''
        Ms. Lawrence. ``Meiburg.''
        I am pleased to hear that the new policy increases
    oversight over the placement of employees on administrative
    leave during misconduct investigations 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, that is correct, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Lawrence. So would you tell me today and enlighten us,
    what alternatives should managers consider before placing an
    employee on administrative leave?
        Mr. Meiburg. 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 like, to find work
    that they can do while the proceeding is occurring.
        Ms. Lawrence. Do you expect this new policy to reduce the
    amount of time that employees are placed on administrative
    leave? Is that the goal?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, indeed, it is. We have been very
    sensitive to the comments from members of this committee about
    concern about the abuse of administrative leave, and we want to
    curtail that practice.
        Ms. Lawrence. Okay, so now this policy has been in place
    since February. Am I correct?
        Mr. Meiburg. That is correct.
        Ms. Lawrence. So have you seen any difference? Has there
    been a reduction?
        Mr. Meiburg. We have seen a pretty dramatic difference.
    Since the policy was put in place, we have had only two
    requests that have come forward. The fact that requests are not
    coming forward by itself is a good sign that the policy is
    going into place.
        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.
        Ms. Lawrence. I often like to interject into these
    conversations that I served in a Federal agency and was in
    H.R., labor relations. And you really have the responsibility
    of looking at how you deal with separating inappropriate
    behavior, but respecting the rights of an employee. It is a
    delicate mix. You have to hold employees accountable.
        I can tell you, sitting here today, I want employees held
    accountable. It is our expectation of our public. But every
    employee is a citizen of these United States. They have rights.
    And the agencies should have, and I am glad to hear that you
    reviewed these processes to make sure they are consistent, that
    they are not up to the whim of the manager, and that we hold
    people accountable, basically, who are there to do the work
    that my tax dollars and every other American expects to happen
    in this agency.
        So I will continue--I hope we do not have to have six more
    hearings on this. But I will continue to stay focused in
    looking at what we are doing.
        Mr. Meiburg, I expect you to continue to monitor this and
    be proactive and make sure that EPA, with all the budget cuts
    that we are doing here, that EPA is doing the work that we need
    them to do to protect our environment.
        Thank you so much.
        Mr. Meiburg. Thank you.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady from Michigan.
        I recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Meiburg, I think we have pretty well covered some of
    the problems at the EPA regarding sexual misconduct, but there
    are other forms of employee misconduct that I want to address,
    specifically about an investigation that is going on in the
    Birmingham, Alabama, area involving the EPA, in which EPA
    employees I think have acted improperly in conducting the
    investigation, 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: Officials at the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, approached me to
    seek permission to test the property. The EPA officials
    presented me with a document to sign to allow them to sample
    the yard. The EPA representative was acting very intimidating
    and informed me that 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 a suburb of Birmingham, to shut down the ABC
    Coke plant.
        Does the EPA discipline employees who act in such an
    overzealous manner?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, anytime we have an allegation of
    misconduct, we investigate it. If the investigation shows that
    misconduct has occurred, then we will take action to hold the
    employee accountable.
        Mr. Palmer. So do you punish that or do you encourage it?
        Mr. Meiburg. Again, Congressman, when an allegation occurs
    of misconduct, we investigate it. As 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.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I would like to point out that this is
    not the only affidavit like this. There are several others.
    We're not going to release them. We're 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I am not familiar with the
    specifics that you are referring to. I would be happy to take
    that back.
        Mr. Palmer. 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 afterward told
    them 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, again, I'm not familiar with the
    specifics of the cases ----
        Mr. Palmer. I am asking you in general.
        Mr. Meiburg. In general, we ask employees to behave in
    accordance with good, solid standards of professional conduct.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, they don't always.
        Do you believe it is appropriate for EPA employees to seek
    to shut down a legitimate business that employs many people?
        Mr. Meiburg. Again, Congressman, our job is to go out and
    to enforce the law to make sure that people are protected and
    the laws are followed. That is what we do.
        Mr. Palmer. Let me tell you, I have a number of issues with
    the EPA, how they do business, how they handle their
    investigations.
        Senator Richard Shelby, Senator Jeff Sessions, and I sent a
    letter to Administrator McCarthy and Regional Administrator for
    Region Four Heather McTeer Toney back on February 26 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's enforcement approach and/or theories
    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 have the memorandum here.
        That seems to me to undermine our oversight ability.
        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.
        Mr. Gosar. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Palmer. I yield the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.
        The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Meiburg and Mr. Sullivan, thank you for being here.
        Misconduct from a few bad apples gives all the other
    hardworking Federal employees a bad name. As elected officials,
    we can relate to that, too.
        Our goal is 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 rights.
        Today, we have 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?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Ms. Kelly, that is correct.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. Meiburg, these improvements at EPA have occurred
    through changes in administrative policy and process, not
    through legislative change. Is that correct?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, Congresswoman. That is correct.
        Ms. Kelly. 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 heard about
    today?
        Mr. Meiburg. 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.
        Ms. Kelly. It is important to remember that due process
    protections in our Federal civil service laws are there for a
    reason. In May 2015, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued
    a report that stated, and I quote, ``More than a century ago,
    the government operated under a spoils 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 in 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congresswoman, we believe that we can address
    the serious misconduct through the application of our processes
    that do, in fact, protect due process.
        Ms. Kelly. 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?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Ms. Kelly, I agree with that.
        Ms. Kelly. Are the changes at EPA an example of such an
    improvement?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes. I can say, from my personal experience,
    the biweekly meetings have dramatically improved the process.
        Ms. Kelly. 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. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois.
        I will recognize myself for 5 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 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?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir, I do.
        Mr. Gosar. Mr. Meiburg, you are currently serving in one of
    the top leadership posts at the EPA, right?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, sir. That's right.
        Mr. Gosar. It seems from our discussion today, you are
    pretty astute about the law, right?
        Mr. Meiburg. I am not a lawyer and would not make that
    claim.
        Mr. Gosar. But you have been very articulate about banter
    from both sides in regards to this claim or that claim. You are
    pretty articulate about that, right?
        Mr. Meiburg. Thank you. That is not for me to judge.
        Mr. Gosar. Well, I mean, Mr. Hice actually engaged on you
    because you are the administrator that actually made the
    decision on that case, so you are pretty familiar with
    personnel management, right?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, over the course of my career, I had a
    number of conduct and discipline cases come before me, as the
    deciding official.
        Mr. Gosar. Could you please briefly describe and summarize
    your job description today?
        Mr. Meiburg. My job description is, I am the agency's chief
    operating officer, and I perform such duties as are assigned to
    me by the Administrator.
        Mr. Gosar. Now, let's go through that. You are serving as
    the Acting EPA Deputy Administrator, and you should understand
    the law, right?
        Mr. Meiburg. I, again, am serving ----
        Mr. Gosar. No, but you should understand the law. I mean,
    you are predicating this based on understanding the law, and
    all those underneath you should be following you.
        You have also been nominated by the President to serve as
    the EPA Deputy Administrator. Under the Federal Vacancies
    Reform Act and recent case law, do you realize you cannot serve
    in an acting capacity for an office that you have been
    nominated for?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I am aware of the legal case that
    you are referring to and have been assured by counsel that my
    service is lawful.
        Mr. Gosar. Whoa. Moreover, do you realize that, in such a
    situation, your actions have no force or effect under the law?
        What I am actually talking to you about is you are the CEO.
    You are applying these laws. So they basically go away.
        I would like to have the name of the counsel that gave you
    that information, because it is in total violation of Federal
    statute and law. Will you provide that to the committee?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, we will be happy to do that.
        Mr. Gosar. 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 have 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I have been in consultation with
    our counsel and have been assured that the ----
        Mr. Gosar. I would like to have all names of individuals
    that gave you that, because that is contradictory to Federal
    law.
        Do you believe that you should step down as the Acting EPA
    Deputy Administrator, given that the law says that your actions
    have no force or effect?
        Mr. Meiburg. Again, Congressman, I have been consulted with
    counsel that all of my ----
        Mr. Gosar. I want all individuals that gave you that
    consultations, names 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-
    defying 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 and being
    offered to that office by the President is an affront to that
    as well.
        That is why I have introduced articles of impeachment to
    remove Administrator McCarthy from office.
        But before you get too excited, Mr. Meiburg, thinking that
    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 are nominated to fill that post
    permanently. It is against the law. It is 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
    lawbreakers themselves. You create that culture, and that is
    why you were set up accordingly. That is why it is 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 is actually a mess, and it is sad that we have to bring
    this, particularly when you should know the rules better.
        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 am disgusted.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from the District of
    Columbia, Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Meiburg and Mr. Sullivan, for being here.
        To get back to one of the themes of this hearing, I have
    been interested to hear about the testimony given on improved
    coordination between EPA and the IG. The reason that interests
    me is that we obviously want to reduce the time that employees
    spend on administrative leave when obviously not doing anything
    for the agency.
        So I am 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 am interested in the funding available for
    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?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am. I can tell you, in general. The
    current authorized FTE for the Inspector General's Office as a
    whole is 289 employees. That has dropped in the last 5 years
    from 360. In my office, I had an authorized FTE strength of 76
    5 years ago. I am now down to 61. 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, 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. Those agents work
    exclusively misconduct investigations on GS-15s, SES, 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 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.
        Ms. Norton. When I hear staffing levels like this, it
    reminds me of what we are all seeing on television with TSA. I
    can't believe this is all because everybody has 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 have to be a certain
    number of people to do it. TSA is one thing. They have been
    under great criticism because they have not always been able to
    keep, according to the GAO, weapons from getting through. That
    is an interesting case.
        This, of course, is another level of complexity. I'm going
    to have to ask you, candidly, how can these investigators keep
    from cutting corners with these kinds of staffing levels you
    described that apparently have changed during your time at the
    agency?
        Mr. Sullivan. Ma'am, I see no evidence of any of my agents
    cutting corners, but what I have testified to previously
    earlier in the hearing is that I am concerned that cases take
    way too much time to come to conclusion, because, frankly, it
    is like the analogy of planes that are circling and when do the
    planes land? The planes land, using that analogy, when the
    investigation is complete.
        Ms. Norton. Investigating employee misconduct isn't the
    only responsibility of the IG.
        Mr. Sullivan. That is correct, ma'am. We have the fraud
    cases 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.
        Ms. Norton. What about the nonemployee misconduct-related
    investigations that the IG conducts?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Most of our cases are, in fact, not
    misconduct. Approximately ----
        Ms. Norton. Not employee.
        Mr. Sullivan. Approximately 60 percent 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, somebody getting into a Federal facility and
    stealing computers or stealing other equipment.
        Ms. Norton. There is a limit. I think we are beginning to
    see what the limits are.
        I wish you luck with the appropriations process.
        Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, ma'am.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg,
    or 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks to the panel.
        Mr. Meiburg, this isn't the first time this committee has
    looked to the EPA for its questionable FOIA practices. That is
    an issue I would like to address.
        EPA has been notorious for having extremely long delays in
    responding to FOIA requests. In fact, one of our recent
    witnesses in a previous hearing here, Mark Edwards, a water
    expert, a professor at Virginia Tech, testified that he waited
    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.
        So could you tell us why it takes EPA so long for these
    FOIA requests to be filled?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I will just speak very generally
    to this on a couple 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 that 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 we are fully responsive.
        Mr. Walberg. When was that team initiated?
        Mr. Meiburg. That team was initiated within the last year
    or so.
        Mr. Walberg. Are we seeing improvements on that that you
    can tell us about?
        Mr. Meiburg. We are working very hard. I don't have any
    statistics for you today, but we will be glad to get back to
    you with more information.
        Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that, because I know that you
    have to get a lot of requests, undoubtedly. When we are dealing
    with very emotional issues, substantive issues, Waters of the
    U.S., the Flint water crisis where government failed at all
    levels and people have been hurt, there certainly are emotional
    issues dealing with the 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 hope that
    would be addressed.
        Going on to purchase cards, that was introduced I believe
    in the chairman's opening comments, how can EPA keep better
    track of the purchase cards and usage of those cards by your
    employees?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, we have made a number of changes
    in response to interest from the Inspector General's Office and
    this committee and our own management concern about this to put
    in place better systems for keeping track of activities that
    occur on purchase cards and flagging anything that would be
    suspect. So we feel like we have made considerable progress on
    this over the last couple years.
        Mr. Walberg. Has there been an audit done relative to the
    employees to make sure we are not missing things?
        Mr. Meiburg. On the financial audit, we have had a clean
    audit opinion for the last several years, but we are always
    continuing to follow up to make sure we have appropriate
    systems in place to detect any misconduct.
        Mr. Walberg. 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, obviously, we share your concern
    about that. The cases that are before us today are cases that,
    as Director Sullivan specified, were over a couple years ago.
    We feel like we have made progress going forward to identify
    those cases and address them.
        Mr. Walberg. 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
    the employee be required to reimburse the agency?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I am glad you brought that
    particular case up, because we are going back and trying to
    make another effort to recover the costs.
        Mr. Walberg. What is the challenge?
        Mr. Meiburg. The challenge is going 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 and make a
    credible claim.
        Mr. Walberg. Mr. Sullivan, can you add any information to
    that, relative to that specific individual?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Mr. Walberg.
        The individual actually resigned before we presented our
    findings to the agency. Then as a follow-up, the agency
    preliminarily determined 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.
        Mr. Walberg. I hope a second look would be taken. I applaud
    that effort and want to see that completed. But in the end, if
    there is fraudulent or criminal involvement with this employee,
    I would hope that we could get after them. If not, we would
    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 the best rate 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.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
        I now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
    Mulvaney.
        Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the chairman.
        Mr. Meiburg, I want to go back and follow up on a couple
    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.
        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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I cannot cite a specific example.
    I'm going to interpret your question, and I need to know if I
    am hearing it correctly, been fired for ----
        Mr. Mulvaney. 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 is possible that a bureaucrat, a government employee, might
    overreach. They might not like the person they are dealing
    with. They might not like what they are doing. They might not
    approve of the business that person is in.
        I used to be a real estate developer, and I can assure you
    that there are a lot of folks who like to hug trees who don't
    like what I used to do for a living, so the temptation might be
    there for an ordinary human being to sort of 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, first of all, I appreciate your
    observation that the job of law enforcement is oftentimes not a
    popular job or designed to make everybody like you.
        I am not aware, in my own experience, of a case that is
    similar to what I am hearing you say is someone who overused or
    abused their authority and was subsequently terminated solely
    for that reason. But I will ask the staff to go back and look
    and see if there such a thing.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Mr. Sullivan, if there are allegations of
    that like in the example Mr. Palmer mentioned, that someone had
    been overzealous and perhaps exceeded their authority--let's
    use that term. Maybe that is a little bit more neutral. Would
    that rise to the level of something the OIG would look at?
        Mr. Sullivan. It could. But this is the first time I am
    hearing of it, when Mr. Palmer brought this issue up. It has
    not been, to my knowledge, referred to the Inspector General's
    Office as an allegation of misconduct.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Got it. Again, I am using his as an example.
    He knows much more about his example in Alabama than I ever
    will.
        So my question is more general. Have you ever investigated
    allegations of overreaching authority on the part of an EPA
    employee?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Do you recall anybody ever being terminated
    for that action?
        Mr. Sullivan. 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 is not readily available to an average
    citizen, those types of instances. We also had instances where
    people may have used government property for their personal
    gain, misused a government vehicle, let's say, misused
    government funds.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Okay, there actually was a fairly high
    profile--at least, it's high-profile to us, because it is in
    our briefing materials--about an employee in I guess the San
    Francisco area who lent out a trailer or piece of equipment to
    an environmentalist group or something like that.
        Are you gentlemen familiar with those facts and
    circumstances?
        Mr. Sullivan. I am familiar with that case.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Again, the person wasn't fired.
        Mr. Sullivan. He was not fired.
        Mr. Mulvaney. 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 you have to kill somebody,
    or is it a little short of that?
        Mr. Meiburg. It can be a little short of that.
        There are cases where we have done terminations. In my
    experience, I have done terminations. 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 kinds of things, on a case-
    by-case basis, considering employees' due process rights and
    making sure that, as the deciding official, you have all the
    facts, the allegation is proven, that you've followed the
    regulations in the process, that you do, in fact, terminate
    employees.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Help me understand, Mr. Meiburg, and I
    recognize the fact that we are speaking in generalities, but if
    you had to sort of estimate, when you're dealing with
    allegations of impropriety, and they are serious allegations,
    and you determine them to be valid allegations that actually
    have some substance to them, what percentage of people quit or
    retire versus get fired under those circumstances?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, I do not have an exact
    percentage, but it is not uncommon that people who find
    themselves faced with a proposed termination will make an
    election to retire or resign.
        Mr. Mulvaney. And if they retire or resign, they get to
    keep their benefits, right?
        Mr. Meiburg. We have no authority under law ----
        Mr. Mulvaney. I am not saying that you do. The answer is
    yes, they do get to keep their benefits.
        Mr. Meiburg. Except in some very limited cases that involve
    treason or espionage or aiding terrorist groups.
        Mr. Mulvaney. So let me close with this, as a manager,
    which is what you are--you manage people. I used to do it. You
    do it. You have done it for a long time with EPA. Would it
    actually make your job easier if we gave you that additional
    tool to, on a case-by-case basis, or perhaps expand the
    existing case-by-case 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. 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
    misconduct and to hold employees accountable. I want to make
    sure we are using those tools as effectively as we can.
        Mr. Mulvaney. But if we gave you this additional tool, it
    would help you, wouldn't it?
        Mr. Meiburg. That would be speculation, Congressman. I
    really couldn't say.
        Mr. Mulvaney. We do it all the time. Thank you very much,
    Mr. Meiburg. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands,
    Ms. Plaskett, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning.
        Mr. Meiburg. Good morning.
        Mr. Sullivan. Good morning.
        Ms. Plaskett. During last April's hearing on the EPA's
    management issues, Chairman Chaffetz highlighted what he
    called, and I quote, ``management failures at the EPA.'' I am
    not sure if that characterization is an appropriate one. It
    appears that we are still in discussion about this today.
        But I wanted to discuss what has occurred since last April.
    It is my understanding the EPA has taken significant steps to
    address weaknesses in the disciplinary process. I don't think
    necessarily firing a bunch of people means that you are 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 am 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?
        Mr. Meiburg. 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, and 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,
    and the misconduct cases are dealt with appropriately, while
    also making sure that we do that in a way that protects ----
        Ms. Plaskett. So how is that different than your
    relationship previously?
        Mr. Meiburg. I really couldn't say for the agency as a
    whole from before the time I got here, but I think there has
    been reaching out on both sides, and it is really commendable.
        Ms. Plaskett. 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?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Ms. Plaskett. I will explain the
    difference.
        Prior to us having this biweekly 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 is pending across the agency, Mr.
    Meiburg's staff, the attorneys at EPA headquarters, the labor
    and employee relations folks, meet biweekly. And that case
    heretofore 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.
        Ms. Plaskett. And you would say that the cases are moving
    at a much faster pace to closure than they were previously?
        Mr. Sullivan. Absolutely. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Plaskett. And you have evidence of that, quantitative
    evidence of that?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes. I could tell you that, within the past
    year, we have successfully closed or 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 our case until we hear back from the agency
    as to what they are going to do.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay, and have you been satisfied with the
    recommendations that the agency has made on those cases?
        Mr. Sullivan. Ma'am, that is something that--our job is to
    collect facts in a fair and unbiased manner. It is not
    relevant, in my opinion, whether I think discipline is
    appropriate or not. I defer completely to the agency in that
    regard.
        Ms. Plaskett. Got you. You said about the process that you
    are describing, Mr. Sullivan, and quote, ``I believe this
    process can serve as a best-practices model for the Federal
    Government.'' Is that correct?
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, ma'am. I spoke to Mr. Cummings' staff
    and Mr. Chaffetz' staff. They are 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 is a way to get
    these cases moved faster governmentwide.
        Ms. Plaskett. I think that would alleviate this committee
    maybe having to have as many hearings as they have for 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?
        Mr. Sullivan. We certainly do support that, and we have
    worked with the committee.
        But one caveat, the EPA, we are unique, somewhat unique in
    that we don't have any subcomponents. There's just one EPA, and
    there is one IG. If you take DHS or the Department of Justice,
    they have multiple subcomponents and the model that we have at
    EPA probably wouldn't work in a department that has multiple
    subcomponents, just to put that out.
        Ms. Plaskett. And have you thought about what would work in
    agencies like that?
        Mr. Sullivan. No, ma'am. I really haven't given that much
    ----
        Ms. Plaskett. We have to get you thinking on this, Mr.
    Sullivan.
        Mr. Sullivan. Thank you.
        Ms. Plaskett. So it seems to me that EPA and the OIG 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 have done
    since April, from our first hearing, to actually address many
    of these issues, move these cases along to closure.
        I don't believe, having managed many people, working at the
    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 have done a
    good job, in terms of dealing with misconduct. So I am grateful
    for the work that you all have done.
        I yield the balance of my time.
        Mr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman.
        A couple housekeeping matters.
        Mr. Meiburg, Mr. Mica would like to know for the record,
    and to have you answer back to the committee, how many
    employees of the EPA get bonuses.
        Mr. Meiburg. We will supply that.
        Mr. Gosar. We would appreciate it.
        I also want to make sure that we have a date certain for
    the names and titles of the people who gave you the permission.
    I would expect that in 2 weeks. It can't be very many. I would
    expect them in 2 weeks. I am a taskmaster, okay?
        One last thing, Mr. Sullivan, are you aware of the Federal
    Vacancies Reform Act?
        Mr. Sullivan. In general terms, not in specificity.
        Mr. Gosar. Are you aware of anybody that had a plausible
    conflict that has been made aware of today in this committee
    with Mr. Meiburg?
        Mr. Sullivan. No, I'm generally aware of the issue
    involving Mr. Meiburg, but we were told by the agency that it
    is not an issue, based on their counsel's opinion.
        But we have not investigated that issue, to my knowledge.
        Mr. Gosar. Could we also have the names from the people
    that you consulted at the EPA that gave you the talking points
    ----
        Mr. Sullivan. Our counsel office, I know I was briefed that
    there was an issue, but I will get back to the committee on
    that through our counsel's office, and I will let you know.
        Mr. Gosar. I guess we have a gentleman here.
        Mr. Duncan from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Duncan. That is all right, Mr. Chairman. Since I just
    got here, you can go ahead.
        Mr. Gosar. With that, I would like those names within 2
    weeks as well, the counsel that talked to you about that and
    any other cases in regards to ----
        Mr. Sullivan. I didn't speak directly to anyone from the
    EPA's counsel. I was just briefed in my office by my counsel's
    office, I believe, or at a meeting that this issue came up.
        According to the agency's general counsel, it is not an
    issue. That is what I was told.
        Mr. Gosar. Yes, I would like to know from your counsel, the
    counsel from the EPA that actually instructed that it wasn't a
    problem.
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Gosar. I mean, 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 is actually in place there.
        So the culture that we are building here is predicated on
    the culture that exists at the top levels, because you do lead
    by example. That is what the problem is in this application.
        Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. I understand the task, and we will
    get back to you.
        Mr. Gosar. I will acknowledge Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. 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 have
    read some of the material here about some of these employees
    who have been watching all of this pornography for hours at a
    time, and then employees who have admitted stealing thousands
    of dollars from the EPA.
        Have all these employees or have any of these employees
    been fired?
        Mr. Meiburg. Mr. Congressman, again, of the cases that we
    looked at here, many of the employees are no longer with
    agency. There were cases where people were proposed for
    termination and then resigned.
        Mr. Duncan. They resigned.
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes.
        Mr. Duncan. So you do not have any employees now at the EPA
    who have been found to have stolen money or spent hours
    watching pornography and so forth? They have either left or
    resigned?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, there are employees who have
    resigned or been terminated, and there are employees who have
    been disciplined in other means than resignation or
    termination. Some of them are still with agency.
        Mr. Duncan. Disciplined. In what ways do you discipline
    somebody like that?
        Mr. Meiburg. Congressman, there is a wide range of
    disciplinary actions that are available to a deciding official
    based on a consideration of all the factors, such as how long
    the employee has been with agency, the severity of the crime,
    or the severity of the misconduct.
        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.
        Mr. Duncan. And I am assuming you have changed some of
    these policies to make sure that this type of activity doesn't
    continue in the future?
        Mr. Meiburg. Yes, we've changed a number of policies. 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.
        Mr. Duncan. All right, thank you very much.
        Mr. Gosar. 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.
        [Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]