[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                             MADE IN CHINA: 
                         IS GSA COMPLYING WITH                          
                        PURCHASING RESTRICTIONS?

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


                                HEARING

                               before the

               SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY, INFORMATION 
                 TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT INNOVATION 

                                 of the

                         COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 
                           AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________ 
                               
                           FEBRUARY 29, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-91 

                               __________ 

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 
  
  
  
  
  


  
  
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov 
                             
                                ------ 
                                
                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

55-020 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024 

















               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Ro Khanna, California
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Katie Porter, California
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Cori Bush, Missouri
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Shontel Brown, Ohio
Byron Donalds, Florida               Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Robert Garcia, California
William Timmons, South Carolina      Maxwell Frost, Florida
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Greg Casar, Texas
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Dan Goldman, New York
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Eric Burlison, Missouri
Mike Waltz, Florida

                                 ------                                  
                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                      Peter Warren, Senior Advisor
                 Lauren Lombardo, Senior Policy Analyst
             Raj Bharwani, Senior Professional Staff Member
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                

 Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government 
                               Innovation

                 Nancy Mace, South Carolina, Chairwoman
William Timmons, South Carolina      Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 
Tim Burchett, Tennessee                  Ranking Minority Member
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Ro Khanna, California
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Nick Langworthy, New York            Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Eric Burlison, Missouri              Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Vacancy                              Vacancy
Vacancy                              Vacancy 

















                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on February 29, 2024................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Mr. David Shive, Chief Information Officer, U.S. General Services 
  Administration
Oral Statement...................................................     5
Mr. Robert C. Erickson, Jr., Deputy Inspector General, Office of 
  Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration
Oral Statement...................................................     7

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

  * Questions for the Record: to Mr. Shive; submitted by Rep. 
  Raskin.

Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
 
                             MADE IN CHINA:                              
                         IS GSA COMPLYING WITH                          
                        PURCHASING RESTRICTIONS? 

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, February 29, 2024

                     U.S. House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

 Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government 
                               Innovation

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:31 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nancy Mace 
[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Mace and Connolly.
    Ms. Mace. Good afternoon, everyone.
    The Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, 
and Government Innovation will now come to order.
    We welcome everyone this afternoon.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I will now recognize myself for the purpose of making an 
opening statement.
    Good afternoon, and welcome to this hearing of the 
Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and 
Government Innovation.
    The American people and those of us who serve on their 
behalf here in Congress are angry that foreign adversaries, 
such as China, are using cyber warfare to attack and weaken our 
Nation.
    Earlier this month, for instance, a Federal cybersecurity 
advisory confirmed that PRC state-sponsored actors are pre-
positioning for possible disruptive cyber-attacks against the 
U.S. critical infrastructure. These actors are hacking into 
computer systems, then lying low and undetected for, in some 
cases, years--a tactic termed ``living off the land''--so that 
they can be activated to wreak havoc should a major conflict 
with the U.S. arise.
    The threat is real, but there are laws on the books 
designed to create safeguards and guardrails. This includes 
restrictions on what the Federal Government buys. Each year, 
Uncle Sam purchases about $100 billion in IT products and 
services alone. Numerous bans and prohibitions exist to both 
further U.S. trade policy objectives and to ensure our national 
security.
    No agency has a more crucial role in ensuring these bans 
and prohibitions are enforced than the General Services 
Administration, or GSA. The GSA serves as the primary 
government-wide purchasing agent. It manages tens of billions 
of dollars in annual contract spending.
    That brings us to the GSA Office of Inspector General 
report that is the subject of today's hearing. Last month, the 
OIG issued a report entitled ``GSA Purchased Chinese-
Manufactured Videoconference Cameras and Justified It Using 
Misleading Market Research.'' The report raises issues that we 
will explore today.
    The IG found that GSA, via two separate purchases occurring 
in March and October 2022, bought 150 videoconference cameras 
made in the PRC, in violation of the Trade Agreements Act, or 
the TAA. With limited exceptions, the TAA prohibits agencies 
from buying products made in China or other non-TAA-compliant 
nations, such as Russia and Iran.
    Security vulnerabilities with these specific cameras were 
documented by a private security company and the subject of a 
CISA public alert.
    The IG found that the cameras were bought by a GSA 
contracting officer who relied on egregiously flawed 
information provided by her own GSA colleagues. This was, 
quote, ``inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading market 
research'' indicating no other cameras were available for 
purchase that could meet the agency's need.
    According to the IG report, the GSA CIO, who is testifying 
today, signed off on both camera purchases, though he later 
acknowledged he did so without having reviewed the market 
research performed by his staff.
    Mr. Shive also signed off on the GSA management response to 
the IG report. That response did not contest the factual 
narrative laid out in the report or the IG's assertion that the 
purchase of the cameras was a violation of TAA.
    GSA, in fact, concurred with nearly all the IG's 
recommendations, including that the GSA Administrator should 
take appropriate action against GSA IT and GSA IDT personnel to 
address the misleading information provided to the contracting 
officer.
    However, GSA has since provided arguments and documents to 
our Committee staff that challenge key elements of the IG 
report, including that the camera purchases violated the law.
    So, we will hear their side of the story today, and I hope 
we can learn why it was omitted from GSA's management response 
to the IG report.
    More broadly, I hope GSA can give us some assurance today 
that it is going to fix the problems the IG identified and 
ensure, going forward, that it is complying with laws that 
promote safe purchasing.
    With that, I will now yield to Ranking Member Connolly for 
his opening statement.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    The General Services Administration has become a bit of a 
frequent flier with this Committee, in the worst kind of way. 
GSA has hardly covered itself in glory.
    On issues ranging from the highly flawed decision on a new 
FBI headquarters, to the Old Post Office lease agreement, to 
ascertainment of the winner of the 2020 Presidential election, 
to login.gov, to the FBI headquarters again, GSA has repeatedly 
made misrepresentations to this Congress, sidestepped agency 
policy and the Constitution itself, and disregarded both the 
letter and spirit of the law.
    In 2018, I requested that GSA's own Office of Inspector 
General review GSA's revised plan for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's headquarters consolidation. The GSA OIG's 
review found that then-Administrator of GSA, Emily Murphy, 
misled Congress while under oath when she attempted to conceal 
her meetings with then-President Trump regarding the FBI 
headquarters and the decision to move it to the suburbs rather 
than stay in downtown Washington, DC.
    Donald Trump is a self-interested businessman when it comes 
to the location of the FBI--or was at that time. And a 
President to the American people ought not to be involved in 
contract negotiations or in deciding to pull the award of a 
contract for a new headquarters for a major agency of the 
Federal Government. He wanted to prevent the construction of a 
rival hotel, potentially, on a now commercially developed FBI 
site downtown.
    GSA had already faced congressional inquiries as to how 
Donald Trump won the rights to convert the Old Post Office into 
the Trump International Hotel. The Trump Organization signed a 
lease with GSA that said, quote, ``no elected official of the 
government shall be admitted to any share or part of this lease 
or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.''
    In the words of GSA's OIG again, former President Trump's 
continued interest in the hotel was a ``possible violation'' of 
the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. And in 
putting on the question, GSA ignored the Constitution.
    The Committee tried to perform further oversight, but GSA 
rebuffed all requests.
    As the Oversight Democrats found in their recent 
investigation, Donald Trump then collected millions of dollars 
from foreign governments at the Trump International Hotel under 
a GSA lease while he was the President, in violation of the 
Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
    In 2020, after President Biden won the Presidential 
election, then-Administrator Murphy ignored the law and refused 
to issue a letter of ascertainment for 16 full days.
    When Administrator Murphy finally issued the letter, she 
broke with precedent by refusing to call the clear victor 
President-elect Biden. While the letter fulfilled her duty 
technically, its content exposed her egregiously false belief 
that President Biden did not win the election, further fueling 
Donald Trump's harmful election lies and helping lay the 
groundwork for the violent January 6th insurrection.
    No less than a year ago, the GSA OIG found that GSA 
officials misrepresented login.gov's compliance with Federal 
digital identity standards. GSA then billed agencies more than 
$10 million for services that failed to meet required security 
and privacy standards.
    While login.gov has since worked to remediate these issues, 
GSA's noncompliance and its officials' misleading actions 
eroded the trust between the agency, the Federal Government, 
and the people we all serve.
    This past fall, GSA announced its decision to select 
Greenbelt, Maryland, as the site for the new FBI headquarters 
amid an overwhelming amount of evidence indicating that GSA's 
own site-selection process was fouled by political 
interference.
    GSA first changed the weighting of the original site-
selection criteria over FBI Director Wray's objections. And he 
is the client here. Then, they changed the individual tasked 
with confirming the final site selection from a career official 
to a political appointee. Finally, that same political 
appointee overturned the unanimous decision from a panel of 
career officials and then promptly left the agency after the 
damage she inflicted.
    You do not have to just take my word for it. The FBI 
Director, Christopher Wray, in an email to his colleagues, 
wrote, quote, ``We have concerns about the fairness and 
transparency in the process and GSA's failure to adhere to its 
own site-selection plan,'' and stated that the FBI identified 
concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving the 
site-selection authority and whether changes that individual 
made in the final stage of the process adhered to the site-
selection criteria.
    And, of course, we know she did not, because she went in 
and changed the weight, the final weight, unanimously provided 
by that site-selection committee of professionals--two from 
GSA, one from the FBI--in every category. And it just so 
happened every category she changed was changed in the 
direction of Maryland, at the expense of Virginia, despite the 
professional findings of the site-selection panel.
    Despite these controversies, I want to acknowledge the 
leaders at GSA's Office of the Chief Information Officer for 
their tireless work on IT modernization and procurement 
efforts. The Office of the CIO has been engaged as a partner in 
improving the digital experience of the Federal Government, and 
we applaud that.
    They deserve credit for managing the effectiveness of more 
than $800 million in 51 different transformative IT investments 
across 29 Federal agencies through the administration of the 
Technology Modernization Fund.
    GSA also spearheaded implementation of the FedRAMP 
Authorization Act. The legislation, which I championed into 
enactment last Congress, enforces a standardized approach to 
security assessments and authorizations for cloud-computing 
products and services to better safeguard sensitive data and 
systems.
    Unfortunately, the GSA's OIG's report that is the focus of 
today's hearing provides yet another instance in which GSA did 
not follow proper processes and policies. The GSA OIG report 
made two concerning claims.
    First, the report claims that GSA Office of Digital 
Infrastructure Technologies employees misled a contracting 
officer with quote, ``egregiously flawed information,'' 
unquote, that led to the purchase of 150 Chinese-made 
videoconference cameras. GSA has the responsibility to explain 
how this error happened and what changes have been implemented 
to prevent that mistake from happening again.
    Second, the report claims that GSA failed--I am almost 
done--to address the camera's known security vulnerabilities. 
Security concerns about Chinese-made products are not new. As 
stewards of Federal IT procurement government-wide, GSA, 
especially, must show preeminent expertise and diligence in 
buying the right IT to ensure government works and is secured.
    While GSA has made the case, they have not violated any 
laws, the American people deserve to know why they piloted 
products that would not have complied with the Trade Agreements 
Act, if they were bought at the amount necessary to serve the 
full organization; why GSA believed dividing the acquisition 
into multiple purchases would fall below the TAA threshold; and 
why IDT said there were no TAA-compliant options when the GSA 
OIG found compliant options in abundance.
    Today, GSA must once again begin the work to regain the 
trust of the American people and of this Committee. I look 
forward to hearing from GSA today about how it will address the 
problems enumerated in the Inspector General report.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you, Mr. Connolly.
    I am pleased to introduce our witnesses for today's 
hearing. Our first witness is Mr. David Shive, Chief 
Information Officer at U.S. General Services Administration, or 
GSA. Our second witness is Mr. Robert Erickson, Acting 
Inspector General at GSA's Office of Inspector General.
    Welcome, and we are pleased to have both of you this 
afternoon.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the witnesses will please 
stand and raise your right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the 
affirmative.
    We appreciate both of you being here today and look forward 
to your testimony.
    Let me remind the witnesses that we have read your written 
statements, and they will appear in full in the hearing record. 
Please limit your oral arguments to 5 minutes.
    As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in 
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you.
    When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will 
turn green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When 
the red light comes on, your 5 minutes has expired, and we 
would ask that you please wrap it up.
    So, I recognize Mr. Shive to please begin his opening 
statement.

                        STATEMENT OF DAVID SHIVE

                       CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

                  U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. Shive. Great. Thanks for the opportunity to testify 
today.
    Good afternoon, Chair Mace, Ranking Member Connolly, and 
the Members of the Subcommittee. My name is David Shive, and I 
am the Chief Information Officer at the U.S. General Services 
Administration. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 
you today.
    GSA relies on a connected workforce operating across the 
country to meet our mission. Videoconferencing equipment allows 
for seamless interaction, productive collaboration, and 
enhanced user experiences.
    In February 2022, in light of increasing office presence, 
employees provided feedback that indicated new requirements for 
videoconferencing, and, thus, new equipment was needed. The 
existing solution was obsolete, and employees suggested that a 
portable camera with a 360-degree view capability would address 
the shortcoming of the legacy solutions.
    A joint pilot program between the Office of GSA IT and 
other offices sought to evaluate products that would improve 
collaboration and the user experience with modern 
telecommunications and videoconferencing infrastructure. The 
team engaged in discussions with technology vendors to better 
understand their offerings, and GSA IT conducted market 
research to identify portable and cost-effective solutions.
    GSA's decision to pilot equipment from Owl Labs was based 
in part on its unique capability of a 360-degree view and 
portability. It also required no installation, was compact and 
easy to relocate and store, and was one of the least expensive 
among the options.
    GSA accepts that we could have done a better job 
documenting our requirements, including the need for a camera 
with a 360-degree view of field that allows participants to 
easily track who is speaking. However, I am unaware of any 
evidence suggesting that GSA IT personnel sought to 
intentionally mislead acquisition officials.
    As a result of this audit, GSA has put in place new 
processes and improved documentation requirements. The team has 
strengthened our alternatives of analysis documentation that 
allows for possible solutions to be adequately analyzed and 
locked down once the analysis is completed.
    GSA IT has also partnered with acquisition experts that 
focus primarily on market research to bolster any future 
efforts. Procurement training courses with respect to Buy 
America Act and Trade Agreement Act are now required for IT 
personnel regularly involved in procurement actions. GSA fully 
supports the purchase and use of American-made products 
wherever possible and is committed to complying with all 
acquisition statutes, including the BAA and the TAA.
    GSA was in full compliance with the BAA for both the first 
and second procurement of Owl cameras. The TAA did not apply to 
either of these acquisitions because neither equaled or 
exceeded the threshold of $183,000. The value of an acquisition 
is a determining factor in the applicability of any of our 
trade agreements. The applicability of BAA versus TAA is 
mutually exclusive, and the determination by the contracting 
officer of which statute to apply in any acquisition is 
dictated by the dollar value. It is not aggregated across 
multiple acquisitions. GSA's requirements did not reach the 
threshold to invoke TAA.
    Foreign acquisition rules are complicated. In 2018, GSA 
raised BAA approval levels to the head of the contracting 
activity and is updating TAA policy to match. This will help 
ensure that GSA continues to correctly apply both laws.
    Most importantly, GSA's deployment of Owl cameras in its 
work environment was done in a manner that was secure, and that 
remains true today. In line with our security protocols, GSA 
voluntarily removed older Owls from use that the vendor 
indicated would no longer be supported. For the remaining Owl 
devices, our security assessment determined that the 
cybersecurity risks were low. GSA chose to intentionally 
configure them for use in a more limited manner in order to 
further reduce any potential vulnerabilities.
    While these choices made the devices inherently more 
secure, it did create other challenges. GSA has since 
strengthened how we manage the devices and software-updating 
protocols so that, going forward, we can effectively locate and 
ensure timely updates of the devices that might be needed.
    Specifically, we have developed an Owl device user 
agreement that improves the responsibility and accountability 
related to timely patching of software. In addition, we have 
formalized the standard operating procedures for the management 
of the devices with processes and actions in place if policies 
are not adhered to.
    The current inventory of Owls are all fully patched with 
respect to security updates.
    GSA is committed to delivering the best value in government 
services while ensuring the security of our technology 
environment, as well as prudently utilizing taxpayer money. GSA 
appreciates the IG's recommendations to improve our internal 
processes, which helped to improve our security posture and IT 
purchases.
    We are confident that we have complied with all procurement 
rules, have maintained robust mitigations to reduce security 
risks, and at no time intentionally misled acquisition 
officials.
    We believe that the actions taken so far as a result of our 
internal reviews, along with implementing the recommendations 
made by our IG partners, will strengthen our processes.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    I will now recognize Mr. Erickson to please begin your 
opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. ERICKSON, JR.

                        DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL

                  U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Mr. Erickson. Thank you. Chairwoman Mace, Ranking Member 
Connolly, and Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon.
    I am here today to answer your questions regarding our 
January 2024 audit report that found that GSA purchased 
Chinese-made videoconference cameras and justified it with 
misleading information.
    As you have already noted, the Trade Agreements Act 
requires Federal agencies to buy only goods that are made in 
America or a TAA-designated country with limited exceptions. 
China is not on that list. Agencies are allowed to buy TAA 
noncompliant products if no TAA-compliant product on the market 
meets the needs of the government.
    In 2022, our office was contacted by a senior GSA employee 
who was concerned that GSA's purchase and use of Chinese-made 
videoconference cameras violated the TAA. In response, we 
initiated an audit and found that employees in GSA IT misled a 
GSA contracting officer to justify purchasing 150 Chinese-made 
cameras.
    Before completing the purchases, the contracting officer 
requested information from GSA IT to justify the request for 
the TAA-noncompliant cameras. As part of the request, the 
contracting officer asked whether there were any TAA-compliant 
alternatives and why GSA IT needed a specific Chinese-made 
camera. In response, GSA IT provided misleading market research 
in support of the TAA-noncompliant cameras. They failed to 
disclose that comparable TAA-compliant alternatives were 
available.
    Additionally, we found that these cameras had known 
security risks that need to be addressed with a software 
update. As of mid-September 2023, there were dozens of these 
cameras that had not been undated to address the security 
problems.
    In our report, we made several recommendations to the GSA 
Administrator for corrective actions. Agency leadership agreed 
in writing to all of our recommendations, except our 
recommendation that GSA return or otherwise dispose of the 
Chinese-made cameras.
    Despite the fact that GSA employees we interviewed during 
our audit agreed that TAA applied, and GSA concurred with all 
but one of our recommendations, GSA now asserts that TAA does 
not apply. Legally, this assertion fails for three reasons.
    First, the Federal Acquisition Regulation states, in 
determining whether the TAA threshold has been met, the 
contracting officer should use the total estimated value of the 
projected recurring awards for the same type of product and not 
divide an acquisition with the intent of reducing the estimated 
value below the TAA threshold.
    Second, GSA's own policy for a similar acquisition vehicle 
states that, for the purpose of determining the applicability 
of the TAA, the total value of the acquisition is the estimated 
dollar amount of the entire contract.
    Third, a D.C. Federal court noted that the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, quote, ``suggests the value of the 
acquisition refers to the overall annual value of the contract 
and not the value of each transaction under that contract,'' 
end quote.
    In addition, GSA's argument does not pass the common-sense 
test. These purchases were made as part of a pilot to purchase 
additional cameras for the entire agency. If you accept GSA's 
assertion, they could purchase 170 of these Chinese-made 
cameras per day for a year, spending $44 million, and still not 
cross the TAA threshold.
    Today's hearing can be boiled down to two simple facts. 
First, the GSA contracting officer stated that she would not 
have purchased these cameras if she had been provided with 
complete and accurate information. Second, as noted previously, 
you cannot split the purchases to avoid the limits of the TAA.
    This concludes my brief summary of our audit regarding the 
GSA's purchase of Chinese-made cameras, and I am happy to 
answer any questions you may have.
    Ms. Mace. All right. Thank you so much.
    I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    My first few questions will go to you, Mr. Shive. You are 
the subject of an IG audit report. You are also one of the GSA 
officials who signed the Agency's written response to that 
report.
    Your testimony states that the cameras purchased did not 
violate the TAA. So, why does the GSA formal written response 
to the IG report not reflect that?
    Mr. Shive. Yes, thank you for the question. I appreciate 
it, and I appreciate the opportunity to add some clarity there.
    When we signed the written response, we were agreeing to 
the recommendations. We were signing and saying that we agreed 
to the recommendations that the IG put forward. We were not 
saying that we agreed with everything that the IG said.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    You signed concurrence memos for the videoconference camera 
purchases. You told the IG you do not usually get so involved 
in purchases but here you did, and you signed off without 
reviewing the market research your staff prepared.
    Why did you treat these purchases differently?
    Mr. Shive. Because the document showed up on my desk, I was 
obligated to take a look at it and read it and understand it.
    Ms. Mace. Do documents not normally show up on your desk 
or----
    Mr. Shive. They do all the time.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Mr. Shive. They do all the time.
    And this one, it was something that I had not seen before, 
so I asked questions of why was----
    Ms. Mace. You mean the cameras, or the documents, or the 
type of contract purchase?
    Mr. Shive. The document asking for me to sign off.
    Ms. Mace. OK. You had not seen a document like that before? 
What does----
    Mr. Shive. No.
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. That mean? What do you mean by that?
    Mr. Shive. Correct. That is the first time I had seen a 
document like that. And so, it was a determination of--I forget 
what the right word is--nonavailability and not a waiver.
    And so, when I looked at that, I said, what are we--what is 
not available? And they said, there is no TAA-compliant 
infrastructure out there that are suitable for purchase that 
meet the requirements of the agency. And I said, OK, I 
understand that, and I signed.
    Ms. Mace. So, what about the requirements that there was 
nothing out--no other alternatives? Is it the 360 thing?
    Mr. Shive. So that is part of it, the 360-degree view. And 
the other is the ultra-portability of the device.
    Ms. Mace. Do you see 360-degree view as a requirement?
    Mr. Shive. Absolutely, yes.
    Ms. Mace. Why would that be?
    Mr. Shive. So, we were coming out of the pandemic and 
starting to work in a hybrid work environment----
    Ms. Mace. But you did not buy these until February 2022. 
So, we were coming out of the pandemic. More people should be 
at work than at home. Was that not the case at your agency?
    Mr. Shive. We were coming out of the pandemic then at the 
Agency.
    Ms. Mace. So, at the end of the pandemic, when people were 
coming back to work, you decided you needed 360-degree cameras?
    Mr. Shive. No, we decided that that would be a good thing 
beforehand, and then we did the work to develop a pilot, 
because----
    Ms. Mace. So is this----
    Mr. Shive [continuing]. We perform our purchases based on 
actual information.
    Ms. Mace. So, this was a pilot for a potentially bigger 
purchase?
    Mr. Shive. Potentially, yes.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    So, why would you put your own signature on a memo 
supported by materials you did not review, not even enough to 
spot egregious errors relied upon to justify buying cameras 
made in China? If you were not familiar with the documents, why 
would you sign them?
    Mr. Shive. Well, I was familiar with it.
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    You agreed with the IG that appropriate disciplinary action 
should be taken in response to the findings of the IG report. 
Who will action be taken against, and what kind of disciplinary 
action will be taken?
    Mr. Shive. Yes, it has already been taken.
    So, what we did is, we did a fulsome analysis of both the 
market research and interviewed the people involved----
    Ms. Mace. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Shive [continuing]. And determined that nobody 
intentionally misled the contracting officer; and said, OK, 
this is a training opportunity. So, we have trained not only 
this person but corresponding staff in two ways.
    One, we have given them training on BAA and TAA compliance. 
And the other is, we have trained them on what proper market 
research would look like, specifically documentation, so that 
the documentation could be----
    Ms. Mace. Was the 360-degree requirement, as you call it, 
in the documentation----
    Mr. Shive. That----
    Ms. Mace [continuing]. Requirements or contract? It was 
not?
    Mr. Shive. That was one of the places where we agreed with 
the IG; it did not show up. It showed up in any number of 
places, including email exchanges with people----
    Ms. Mace. Why were these cameras bought? Was it because 
they were cool? Like, why--I mean, why do you need a 360-degree 
camera? Are you the only agency in the Federal Government that 
bought these cameras from China?
    Mr. Shive. I do not know what other----
    Ms. Mace. But why did you need a 360-degree--OK. It is the 
end of the pandemic; people are coming back to work. I would 
think you would need fewer cameras than more. But why the 360?
    Mr. Shive. So, the way that most conference rooms are laid 
out, there is a table with a ring of people sitting----
    Ms. Mace. I am familiar.
    Mr. Shive [continuing]. Around it. People who are offsite, 
if there is a camera that only----
    Ms. Mace. How many people are offsite at your agency?
    Mr. Shive. I do not have that number, but I am happy to get 
that for you.
    Ms. Mace. You do not know how many people work from home?
    Mr. Shive. I know percentages, and----
    Ms. Mace. OK.
    Mr. Shive. [continuing] It is different----
    Ms. Mace. What is the percentage of people that work from 
home at your agency?
    Mr. Shive. It is different every day. I do not have the 
exact number.
    Ms. Mace. On average?
    Mr. Shive. On average, 30, 40 percent of people are onsite 
every day.
    Ms. Mace. OK. OK. So, based on data that we have seen, your 
agency seems to be an outlier, even for Federal agencies, in 
terms of employees that are working from home.
    Mr. Shive. Right.
    Ms. Mace. GAO found that the GSA's D.C. headquarters 
building was only about 10-percent occupied on a typical 
workday a year ago.
    So, has that number changed?
    Mr. Shive. Well, so headquarters is not representative of 
the entire GSA enterprise. Think of field offices and remote 
sites.
    Ms. Mace. Uh-huh.
    Mr. Shive. Property managers are----
    Ms. Mace. So, there are more people elsewhere; thus, the 
D.C. is an outlier.
    Mr. Shive. I am sorry, I did not hear----
    Ms. Mace. The D.C. headquarters is an outlier compared to 
the rest of the agency offices.
    Mr. Shive. It could be, but I am not that aware of those 
numbers.
    Ms. Mace. OK. What percent--OK, so you have got that. All 
right.
    So, my next questions will be for Mr. Erickson.
    And then I will give you extra time if you would like it.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes, no problem. Uh-huh.
    Ms. Mace. Your office issued an audit saying GSA broke the 
law when it bought these cameras made in China.
    If GSA feels that an IG report falsely accuses them of 
breaking the law, shouldn't GSA say so in their formal response 
in the report--to the report?
    Mr. Erickson. Thank you for the question.
    That is exactly right. They had many opportunities to read 
the report. They have a discussion draft which they get, and 
they--we discuss it with them and have meetings with them. They 
have the draft report and then the final report.
    And they simply did not say anything in their written 
response to our audit report.
    Ms. Mace. Why would that be, you think?
    Mr. Erickson. I do not know the answer to that, ma'am. You 
would just have to ask the GSA.
    Ms. Mace. According to your report, GSA staff provided 
misleading data to their own colleague, information that was 
used to justify buying the PRC China-made cameras.
    Was this done intentionally or gross incompetence, in your 
opinion?
    Mr. Erickson. We did not find any evidence of intent.
    Ms. Mace. OK. Just complete incompetence. All right.
    Could staff who Mr. Shive relied upon so much that he 
signed off on their work without checking it out--I guess they 
would be grossly incompetent here, from your response.
    Can agencies get around the TAA ban of products made in 
China simply by breaking big purchases up into a series of 
smaller purchases throughout the year?
    Mr. Erickson. No, ma'am. That would completely eviscerate 
the rule, and they cannot do it that way.
    Our position is--and this was going to be a bigger 
purchase. It was going to be scaled up to purchase a lot of 
Chinese video cameras.
    Ms. Mace. Do you see a need to have 360-degree cameras? Is 
that like a--I have never seen that need before at a Federal 
agency. Do you think that there is a need for that, a 
requirement for that?
    Mr. Erickson. I will say, it was not a requirement of the 
procurement. There were 13 requirements for the procurement, 
and that--the 360-degree camera angle was not one of the 
requirements.
    Ms. Mace. Have you found flaws in GSA's procedure for 
enforcing procurement bans with respect to the Multiple Awards 
Schedule?
    Mr. Erickson. We have. We have written a report about that, 
and it is currently--they are working on the corrective action 
plan for that.
    Ms. Mace. All right.
    I will now yield to Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    By the way, Mr. Shive, in answer to the Chairwoman's 
question about what percentage of the workforce is at 
headquarters every day, does that include Administrator 
Carnahan? Is she at the headquarters every day?
    Mr. Shive. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Connolly. In fact, does she not spend a fair amount of 
time back in Missouri?
    Mr. Shive. I do not really track her movements, personally. 
We can give you what----
    Mr. Connolly. Well, yes, I think the Committee would be 
very interested in her location attendance. Because one would 
assume that the Administrator would want to be hands-on, 
especially given all of the controversial issues GSA deals with 
and its record.
    Mr. Erickson, I read your report. You used the word in your 
testimony ``misleading'' or ``misled'' multiple times.
    You just heard Mr. Shive testify, ``we did not mislead at 
all.'' Comment.
    And if you could bring that mic closer to you, so we can 
hear you. Thank you.
    Mr. Erickson. Mr. Connolly, we got that evidence from the 
contracting officer. She said that she--and two of our auditors 
were present when she said it--were egregiously misled. We 
followed up----
    Mr. Connolly. ``Egregiously misled.''
    Mr. Erickson. Yes. And we followed up and asked her after 
the report came out, and she confirmed that that was the intent 
of her words.
    Mr. Connolly. Right.
    So, Mr. Shive, your own employees are testifying before the 
IG that--the word ``egregious,'' not just misled, egregiously 
misled. Do you wish to modify your testimony that there was no 
misleading?
    Mr. Shive. No, but I would like to clarify. The comments 
were ``egregiously flawed'' and ``intentionally misled.'' Those 
are two separate things that are being conflated here. So----
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Erickson has just testified that what she 
said to his auditors was ``egregiously misled,'' not 
``egregiously flawed.''
    Is that correct, Mr. Erickson?
    While you are looking that up, Mr. Erickson said that he 
was told by GSA employees that Meeting Owl, the Chinese camera, 
was the, quote, ``only product that would fit their needs,'' 
unquote.
    In retrospect, that was not a true statement, was it, Mr. 
Shive?
    Mr. Shive. Well, according to the requirements that were 
commonly discussed by the entire procurement and technology 
teams, we still have not been able to find another camera that 
is highly portable, has a 360-degree view, and also contains 
the other 13 requirements that were detailed.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Erickson, did your auditors find there 
were alternatives available to the Chinese Meeting Owl camera?
    Mr. Erickson. Yes, they did. They did market research----
    Mr. Connolly. So, again, we have got contradiction here, 
Mr. Shive, from the auditor, from the IG, saying, that is not 
true, that is just not true.
    And when we say that it is more a matter of incompetence 
than, say, deliberate intent, I guess I would gently suggest 
that it was easier to just deal with a product that was cheaper 
and available and decide there were no competing alternatives 
and not have to look into it and do the work to actually 
examine the merits of the competing products.
    I think that is a more likely explanation of what happened 
than just sheer incompetence. And all the re-training about how 
to do it is great, but it does not get at the fact that I just 
made a unilateral decision and explained it that way because it 
is a lot easier.
    And now I want to get into Chinese.
    So, Mr. Erickson, you know, here is the United States 
saying, ``Do not use Huawei.'' We not only have tried to ban it 
here, we have gone to Europe and told our partners, ``Get off 
Huawei. Get out of it.''
    We have developed an alternative to the Chinese 5G because 
we are worried about security. And we have done that with our 
allies and here at home.
    There are states that have even tried to ban TikTok because 
of its Chinese connections and compromise of privacy and 
security.
    So, what could go wrong with having the lead agency of the 
Federal Government that sets standards for everyone else 
deciding to buy a Chinese product--a camera, no less--and, by 
the way, misleading what alternatives were available, and 
deliberately--deliberately--parceling this out so that they 
would technically, from their point of view, not be subject to 
the legal requirements otherwise, in terms of the dollar 
threshold, that would have prevented this?
    What could go wrong with a Chinese product like Meeting 
Owl? What should I worry about? What is wrong with a Chinese 
product?
    Mr. Erickson. We were worried----
    Mr. Connolly. Apparently, GSA did not think there was 
anything wrong with it.
    Mr. Erickson. We were worried about Chinese surveillance 
and it--you know, the firewall being breached and information 
that is not supposed to leave the government, you know, leaving 
the government, getting out.
    Mr. Connolly. And did you find any similar concern 
expressed at GSA when you brought to their attention this 
procurement and the concerns about it?
    Mr. Erickson. We did not really address that, but they--we 
did address the security concerns and the software updates that 
needed to happen, and they took that suggestion rather 
positively.
    Mr. Connolly. I know it is maybe a little bit beyond your 
field, but isn't there a concern here that the standards-
setting agency of the Federal Government, GSA, which tells us 
all kinds of products we can buy and cannot buy and, you know, 
sets standards for all Federal agencies except DOD, is 
essentially saying here, ``Nothing wrong with this Chinese 
product; have at it. Everyone else should buy them too''? Isn't 
that the risk of the message, whether it is witting or 
unwitting, with this procurement?
    Mr. Erickson. That is the risk, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. And doesn't that fly in the face of not only 
congressional intent but the policies of the Administration and 
this government?
    Mr. Erickson. It does. And we believe it violates the Trade 
Agreements Act as well.
    Mr. Connolly. So, it is actually a violation of law.
    Mr. Erickson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Shive, you have heard people were 
deliberately misled; it is a violation of law; there are 
security concerns. You--GSA circumvented the threshold 
requirements by parceling this out so that--which, according to 
Mr. Erickson, even that does not work, because it is a 
cumulative number. So, that was wrong to begin with, but you 
tried it--not you personally.
    This sounds like a major, major problem in terms of, not 
only a procurement, but the whole tainted process that went on 
at GSA, which seems to be to circumvent the law and to mislead 
others for convenience.
    Your comment?
    Mr. Shive. So, GSA--we maintain that we did not break the 
law, that we did not procure these devices with the intent to 
break up procurements. If you take a look at the total purchase 
price of the procurements now, they do not even--they still do 
not meet the TAA compliance threshold.
    Regarding the cybersecurity----
    Mr. Connolly. But that is only because it was a pilot 
program. As Mr. Erickson has testified, your intent was to buy 
a lot more of these after you piloted it.
    Mr. Shive. Absolutely not. And we told the IG that we had 
no intention to buy additional Owl cameras. We told them in 
writing that we had no additional intent.
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Erickson, real quickly?
    Mr. Erickson. I believe the evidence showed that we were 
told that this was part of a pilot project, and they were going 
to scale up and----
    Mr. Connolly. Exactly.
    Mr. Erickson [continuing]. Buy more video cameras for the 
agency.
    Mr. Connolly. Yep.
    Mr. Shive. And that is exactly right, that it is part of a 
pilot designed to inform larger purchases. When you move to the 
larger purchase phase, there is no indication, there is no 
predisposition that you are going to buy the same 
infrastructure. You buy pilot infrastructure----
    Mr. Connolly. Mr. Shive, I am sorry, that does not even 
pass the [inaudible] test. You have already got GSA employees 
saying there was no other product. So, that would argue, no, 
once we have the pilot, we are going to scale up with this 
product.
    There seemed to be no sensitivity or care that it was 
Chinese and that there was security concerns inherent in a 
Chinese camera because we have experience with other Chinese 
technologies that ought to--red lights ought to go on.
    And it was in violation, frankly, of U.S. Government 
policy. And that is strange given the fact, you know, you are 
the General Services Administration, charged with this very 
mission on behalf of the Federal Government.
    It is a very troubling episode.
    And I just want to say, Madam Chairwoman, I once again 
appreciate the independent work and independent judgment 
brought to this subject by the IG.
    Because we rely on you for that analysis and that 
objectivity. We look forward to other studies undertaken by 
your office, but we really appreciate what you have uncovered 
here. And I know that we are going to continue to pursue this.
    I thank the Chair.
    Ms. Mace. Thank you.
    And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
    In closing, I want to thank our panelists for their 
testimony. I want to thank the IG for being here today.
    And it is just--it is just so confusing, Mr. Shive, in your 
testimony, to say, this was the only camera that met our 
requirements, this was a pilot program that met our 
requirements, and yet you are not going to buy more of these 
cameras, but if you do, it will be a different camera, even 
though there is no other camera on the market that fits your 
requirements. Like, the math does not work for me.
    And that level of, sort of, incompetence is why people in 
this country do not have a lot of faith in our agencies, when 
they come here and say things that do not--that just do not 
make sense and they do not add up.
    And I do want to leave you with this, Mr. Shive. China is 
not our friend. There have been many instances, dozens and 
dozens of instances, where Communist-China-aligned bad actors 
have tried to hack our software, our systems, our agencies, 
over and over and over again. We have had--we know that there 
have been spy balloons over our country and other countries 
around the world. We know they have tried to hack our systems.
    I mean, I just--to think that buying Chinese equipment that 
could be used to spy on us and our government is a good idea is 
a terrible idea. And I hope that you never do it again. And I 
hope you get rid of what you have and give it to somebody else, 
maybe give it to Russia, because I do not want that stuff in 
our Federal Government or in our agencies.
    So, the last thing I want to say to you, Mr. Shive, is, in 
closing, I am going to request that you get back to the 
Committee on an actual answer with a real percentage and 
numbers of GSA employees who work remotely and your teleworking 
rates. Because my understanding is, it is far and significantly 
higher than just about any other agency. And even still with 
that number, it does not warrant Chinese cameras that could spy 
on the U.S. Government.
    I would like to yield to you if you have any final remarks, 
Mr. Connolly.
    Mr. Connolly. No, thank you.
    Ms. Mace. With that, without objection, all Members will 
have 5 legislative days within which to submit materials and to 
submit additional written questions for the witnesses, which 
will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    Ms. Mace. And if there is no further business, without 
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]