U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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 20402–0001

97–572PDF 2015

INVESTIGATING CONTRACT MISCONDUCT 

AT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 15, 2015 

Serial No. 114–32 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

July 15, 2015 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Mark Greenblatt, Deputy Assistant General for Compliance & Ethics, 

Office of Inspector General, Department of Commerce 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

Mr. Robert Byrd, Former Chief Financial Officer, National Weather Service 

MMr. Peter Jiron, Former Deputy Chief Financial Officer, National Weather 

Service 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 20 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Mark Greenblatt, Deputy Assistant General for Compliance & Ethics, 

Office of Inspector General, Department of Commerce .................................... 48 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Report submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 82 

(1) 

INVESTIGATING CONTRACT MISCONDUCT 

AT THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

Welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘Investigating Contract Misconduct at the National Weather Service.’’ I’ll recognize myself for 

an opening statement and then recognize the Ranking Member. 

Today, we will hear about the Department of Commerce Inspector General’s recent report on alleged contracting misconduct and 

improper influence at the National Weather Service. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has primary jurisdiction 

of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the 

National Weather Service. 

Accurate and timely forecasts help keep Americans safe from extreme weather events. But this vital work is undermined and taxpayer money is wasted when senior officials at the National Weather Service, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce are apparently complicit in granting improper contracts. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity to hear from Mr. Donald Jiron, 

the former Deputy Chief Financial Officer at the National Weather 

Service; and Mr. Robert Byrd, the former Chief Financial Officer at 

the National Weather Service. These two individuals have the opportunity today to truthfully tell us why taxpayers picked up the 

tab for an allegedly improper contract worth nearly half a million 

dollars. 

There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows a government employee to draft their own post-retirement 

contract, which increases their salary and pays for their housing, 

while being funded by American taxpayers. Furthermore, in this 

case the National Weather Service hired a replacement for Mr. 

Jiron who ended up duplicating the work Mr. Jiron was doing as 

a contractor. So after paying Mr. Jiron more money each month as 

a contractor and also paying a new Deputy CFO, American taxpayers essentially paid three times as much for the same work formerly done by one person. 

Somehow, the National Weather Service was not aware of this 

issue until Mr. Jiron allegedly bribed a government employee to get 

a family member a job, which led the Office of Inspector General 

to open an investigation. Although there is no legal issue in the 

vast majority of cases that involve federal employees who return to 

work as contractors, I am concerned that this type of inappropriate 

revolving door problem might be common at the National Weather 

Service. 

Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd were invited here today to explain what 

happened. Unfortunately, both former senior officials chose noncooperation over being forthright. Both refused to speak with committee staff voluntarily and only appeared here today after the 

Committee had no alternative but to issue a subpoena. I still hope 

that Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd will take the opportunity today to address the charges made in the IG’s report. 

One of the most important functions of Congress is to conduct 

oversight of the executive branch. This provides the fundamental 

checks and balances that our founders intended. When Americans’ 
6 

trust has been violated, Congress has an obligation to understand 

what went wrong so we can ensure that it does not happen again. 

I was disappointed to learn that, despite the OIG’s findings, the 

Obama Administration’s Justice Department refused to investigate 

this case. In fact, the DOJ rejected the IG’s recommendations to investigate. So I look forward to hearing from all three witnesses this 

morning to shed more light on these allegations. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Today we will hear about the Department of Commerce Inspector General’s (IG) 

recent report on alleged contracting misconduct and improper influence at the National Weather Service. 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has primary jurisdiction of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS). 

Accurate and timely forecasts help keep Americans safe from extreme weather 

events. But this vital work is undermined and taxpayer money is wasted when senior officials at the NWS, NOAA, and the Department of Commerce are apparently 

complicit in granting improper contracts. 

Today’s hearing is an opportunity to hear from Mr. Donald Jiron, the former Deputy Chief Financial Officer at the National Weather Service and Mr. Robert Byrd, 

the former Chief Financial Officer at the National Weather Service. 

These two individuals have the opportunity today to truthfully tell us why taxpayers picked up the tab for an allegedly improper contract worth nearly half a million dollars. 

There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows a government 

employee to draft their own post-retirement contract, which increases their salary 

and pays for their housing while being funded by the American taxpayers. 

As a further insult to taxpayers, the National Weather Service hired a replacement for Mr. Jiron who ended up duplicating the work Mr. Jiron was doing as a 

contractor. 

So after paying Mr. Jiron more money each month as a contractor and also paying 

a new Deputy CFO, American taxpayers essentially paid three times as much for 

the work formerly done by one person. 

Somehow, the National Weather Service was not aware of this issue until Mr. 

Jiron allegedly bribed a government employee to get a family member a job, which 

led the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to open an investigation. 

Although there is no legal issue in the vast majority of cases that involve federal 

employees who return to work as a contractors, I am concerned that this type of 

inappropriate revolving door problem might be common at NWS. 

Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd were invited here today to explain what happened. Unfortunately, both former senior officials chose non-cooperation over being forthright. 

Both refused to speak with Committee staff voluntarily and only appeared here 

today after the Committee had no alternative but to issue a subpoena. I still hope 

that Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd will take the opportunity today to address the charges 

made in the IG’s report. 

One of the most important functions of Congress is to conduct robust oversight 

of the Executive branch. This provides the fundamental checks and balances that 

our founders intended. It also ensures the American people’s trust in their government. 

When that trust has been violated, Congress has an obligation to understand 

what went wrong so we can ensure that it does not happen again. 

I was disappointed to learn that despite the OIG’s good work highlighting this 

case, the Obama Administration’s Justice Department (DOJ) refused to investigate 

this case. In fact, the DOJ rejected the IG’s recommendations to investigate. 

I look forward to hearing from all three witnesses this morning to shed light on 

these allegations and regain the Americans’ trust. 

Chairman SMITH. And that concludes my opening statement, and 

the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
7 

Today, we are holding a hearing entitled ‘‘Investigating Contract 

Misconduct at the National Weather Service.’’ I’m afraid that much 

of this hearing will be unfortunately theater rather than real oversight work and I regret this. 

Before I touch on that again, I do want to speak to the Inspector 

General’s report, which is the genesis for this hearing. Now, I certainly do not support misconduct by government officials. However, 

it looks like the problems uncovered in this report are less about 

the specific conduct of one individual than the failure of judgment 

and oversight up and down the management chain in the National 

Weather Service. 

It is widely known in the NWS that Mr. Jiron, the Deputy Chief 

Financial Officer, was going to come back as a contract—contractor 

after retiring. No one intervened to stop him from writing his own 

statement of work. They even suggested that he do it and others 

in the office actually helped him by reading and commenting on 

this statement of work. It was also common knowledge in the office 

that NWS was paying for his housing costs while he was a contractor and no one ever raised a question about this or attempted 

to revise the contract. 

That no one knew to stop Jiron from doing those things is more 

concerning to me than his personal actions. This kind of systemic 

failure is disappointing and something we should hold the NWS to 

account for. However, we do not have any current NWS officials 

here today to discuss how they plan to proceed in the future or 

what steps they already have taken. Instead, we have two retired 

NWS employees who were compelled to attend this hearing by Congressional subpoena despite the fact that they have they too—they 

have both indicated that they plan on exercising their constitutional right to not speak here today. 

I’m not sure an issue with a single post-employment contract is 

worthy of this spectacle, Mr. Chairman. I want to be clear that I’m 

not defending these gentlemen’s conduct to the degree that we understand it but I question the aggressive action of this Committee 

when the Chairman has been reluctant to act in other areas. The 

systemic failure of NWS is matched by a different systemic failure 

in the Commerce IG’s office. That office received allegations regarding Mr. Jiron’s action in January 2012. By August 2012 the IG was 

briefed on the findings and nearly 20 interviews had been completed. The report was essentially done at that point. Then it died. 

Nothing happened with this case for years. And then almost two 

years later the IG rushed to issue this report at about the same 

time the IG’s office was being investigated by this Committee. 

While this report may be 100 percent accurate and Mr. 

Greenblatt may have done a public service in shepherding the report to completion, I have to look at the timing of the report’s release and some—with some skepticism. Knowing that the report 

was revised at a moment that saw the leadership in the office looking for sensational products to convince this Committee to drop a 

bipartisan investigation of the former IG Todd Zinser and his office 

makes me question the product. 

I think it is worth reminding the Members of this Committee 

about that investigation of the IG’s office. The investigation began 

as a bipartisan effort. It included three bipartisan letters from the 
8 

Committee, including two document requests. It included a number 

of staff interviews of Commerce IG employees and it included the 

establishment of a network or whistleblowers providing information to the Committee. 

This investigation bore much fruit. It uncovered a pattern of 

whistleblowing intimidation and retaliation by the Inspector General Todd Zinser and his Deputy Morgan Kim. It uncovered evidence of gross mismanagement of the office, some of which likely 

violated federal law and regulations. It uncovered possible false 

statements to Congress during Mr. Zinser’s confirmation process. 

Perhaps more importantly, it uncovered extensive evidence of Todd 

Zinser and Morgan Kim’s personal efforts to obstruct the Committee’s investigation. 

This evidence led me to ask the President to remove Mr. Zinser 

from office. I’m attaching a letter and my March Floor statement 

outlining the results of this investigation, as well as our past letters to my statement today. 

This evidence led the Chairman down a different path. The 

Chairman pushed the investigation over to the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency, the CIGIE. However, we 

have it on good authority the FBI sought information to support 

the Chairman’s letter to the CIGIE on two separate occasions and 

the majority staff did not respond leaving the CIGIE investigation 

to die a quiet death. 

It is confusing to me that on the one hand the Chair quietly tolerates the most obvious and well-documented obstruction this Committee has—— 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman’s time is expired. However, 

she is recognized for an additional minute. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. I want to finish my statement. 

While on the other hand the Chair has issued more subpoenas 

in the past year than the previous six committee Chairs combined. 

And last week the majority accused the EPA of obstruction based 

on zero supporting evidence of those claims. I wish this Committee 

would focus a little less on political theater and a little more on 

real documented wrongdoing. I’m sending the acting Commerce Inspector General a letter instructing him to retain all records in anticipation of my sending a referral to the Department of Justice regarding criminal misconduct by the former Congress Inspector 

General and others in the coming days. I will send that referral to 

the Department of Justice and I would welcome any of my colleagues who wish to engage in the real oversight to join me in that 

letter. Thank you and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today we are holding a hearing entitled, ′′Investigating Contract Misconduct at the National Weather 

Service.′′ I’m afraid that much of this hearing will unfortunately be 

theater rather than real oversight work, and I regret this. 

Before I touch on that again, I do want to speak to the Inspector 

General’s report which is the genesis for this hearing. Now, I cer-
9 

tainly do not support misconduct by government officials. However, 

it looks like the problems uncovered in this report are less about 

the specific conduct of one individual than a failure of judgment 

and oversight up and down the management chain in the National 

Weather Service. 

It was widely known in NWS that Mr. Jiron, the Deputy Chief 

Financial Officer, was going to come back as a contractor after retiring. No one intervened to stop him from writing his own statement of work, they even suggested that he do it and others in the 

office actually helped him by reading and commenting on his statement of work. It was also common knowledge in the office that 

NWS was paying for his ‘‘housing costs’’ while he was a contractor 

and no one ever raised a question about this or attempted to revise 

his contract. 

That no one knew to stop Jiron from doing those things is more 

concerning to me than his personal actions. This kind of systemic 

failure is disappointing, and something we should hold NWS to account for. However, we do not have any current NWS officials here 

today to discuss how they plan to proceed in the future or what 

steps they have already taken. 

Instead we have two retired NWS employees who were compelled 

to attend this hearing by Congressional subpoena despite the fact 

that they have both indicated they plan on exercising their Constitutional right to not speak here today. I’m not sure an issue with 

a single post-employment contract is worthy of this spectacle, Mr. 

Chairman. I want to be clear that I am not defending these gentlemen’s conduct, to the degree we understand it, but I question the 

aggressive action of this Committee when the Chairman has been 

so reluctant to act in other areas. 

The systemic failure at NWS is matched by a different systemic 

failure in the Commerce IG’s office. That office received allegations 

regarding Mr. Jiron’s actions in January of 2012. By Augst 2012, 

the IG was briefed on the findings and nearly 20 interviews had 

been completed. The report was essentially done at that point. 

Then it died. Nothing happened with this case for years. Then, almost two years later, the IG rushed to issue this report, at about 

the same time the IG’s office was being investigated by this Committee. 

While this report may be 100% accurate, and Mr. Greenblatt 

may have done a public service in shepherding the report to completion, I have to look at the timing of the report’s release with 

some skepticism. Knowing that the report was revived at a moment 

that saw the leadership in the office looking for sensational products to convince this Committee to drop our bipartisan investigation of the former IG Todd Zinser and his office makes me question 

the end product. 

I think it is worth reminding the Members of this Committee 

about that investigation of the IG’s office. This investigation began 

as a bipartisan effort. It included three bipartisan letters from the 

Committee, including two document requests. It included a number 

of staff interviews of Commerce IG employees. And it included the 

establishment of a network of whistleblowers providing information 

to the Committee. 
10 

This investigation bore much fruit. It uncovered a pattern of 

whistleblower intimidation and retaliation by the Inspector General, Todd Zinser, and his deputy, Morgan Kim. It uncovered evidence of gross mismanagement of the office, some of which likely 

violated Federal law and regulations. It uncovered possible false 

statements to Congress during Mr. Zinser’s confirmation process. 

Perhaps most importantly, it uncovered extensive evidence of Todd 

Zinser and Morgan Kim’s personal efforts to obstruct the Committee’s investigation. This evidence led me to ask the President to remove Mr. Zinser from office. I am attaching that letter and my 

March floor statement outlining the results of the investigation, as 

well as our past letters, to my statement today. 

This evidence led the Chairman down a different path. The 

Chairman pushed the investigation over to the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency or CIGIE [pronounced 

SIG-EE]. However, we have it on good authority that the FBI 

sought information to support the Chairman’s letter to CIGIE on 

two separate occasions and the Majority staff did not respond, leaving the CIGIE investigation to die a quiet death. 

It is confusing to me that on the one hand the Chair quietly tolerated the most obvious and well-documented obstruction this 

Committee has seen in at least a quarter century, while on the 

other hand the Chair has issued more subpoenas in the past year 

than the previous six Committee chairs combined. And last week 

the Majority accused the EPA of obstruction based on zero supporting evidence of those claims.I wish this Committee would focus 

a little less on political theater and a little more on real, documented wrong-doing. 

I am sending the Acting Commerce Inspector General a letter instructing him to retain all records in anticipation of my sending a 

referral to the Department of Justice regarding criminal misconduct by the former Commerce Inspector General and others. In 

coming days, I will send that referral to the Department of Justice 

and I would welcome any of my colleagues who wish to engage in 

real oversight to join me in that letter. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. I’ll introduce our witnesses. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. For what purpose does the gentleman seeks to 

be recognized? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. And he will state his point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order is the witnesses have rights pursuant to the Constitution, Fifth Amendment, Rules of the House, 

and the Jefferson Manual, do they not? 

Chairman SMITH. They do. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. And your point of order is? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Pardon me? 

Chairman SMITH. Would you state your point of order? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order is these witnesses have—two 

witnesses, Mr. Byrd and Mr. Jiron, have advised this Committee 
11 

that they intend to take the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. 

Chairman SMITH. That may well be the case. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Is that true? Have they advised this committee—— 

Chairman SMITH. We will see what they decide to do momentarily and I think you will not be surprised if they do seek the Fifth 

Amendment. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Point of order? 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman will continue to state his point 

of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order is that they cannot be compelled 

to testify against themselves by this Committee or a court of law 

if they have taken the Fifth Amendment. 

Chairman SMITH. That’s my understanding as well. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. Point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. Please continue. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order is to advise the attorneys on this 

panel that if someone has taken the Fifth, that as an attorney we 

have additional responsibilities under our Rules of Professional 

Conduct at least in Colorado and as in the DC. bar to not embarrass, humiliate, or degrade a witness who has exercised their constitutional rights pursuant to the Fifth Amendment. Is that not 

true? 

Chairman SMITH. That is also the case. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. And we will continue. 

Our first witness, Mr. Greenblatt, is the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Compliance and Ethics for the Department of 

Commerce Office of Inspector General. Prior to his tenure at the 

Inspector General’s Office, Mr. Greenblatt held the title of Investigative Counsel, Deputy Chief Counsel, and later Minority Staff 

Director and Chief Counsel on the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Senate Investigations. Mr. Greenblatt earned his 

bachelor’s degree from Duke University and his J.D. from Columbia University School of Law. We welcome him. 

Our next witness, Mr. Robert Byrd, formerly served as the Chief 

Financial Officer for the National Weather Service. Mr. Byrd holds 

an MBA with honors from Loyola College of Maryland and has 

completed postgraduate MBA programs at Syracuse University and 

Harvard Business School. 

Our final witness, Mr. Jiron, is the former Deputy Chief Financial Officer for the National Weather Service, and he has not provided us with any further information. 

It is not the Science Committee’s practice to swear in witnesses 

at hearings. However, both Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd refused to sign 

the Committee’s False Statements Act Certification Form so I believe administering the oath to them is necessary at this time. 

And would Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd please rise—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, one more point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. —and raise your right hands. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman will state his point of order. 
12 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Another point of order. Pursuant to the Constitution, these gentlemen are entitled to have counsel to assist 

them at this hearing, are they not? 

Chairman SMITH. If they wish, they have that right and I believe 

they do. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. One more point of order, sir? 

Chairman SMITH. Yes, state your point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Must they—having given notice to this Committee that they intend to take the Fifth Amendment, must they 

remain here for purposes of taking—— 

Chairman SMITH. No. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —this oath? 

Chairman SMITH. If they take the Fifth Amendment, they will be 

excused. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd, will you please rise and raise your right 

hands? Thank you. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you’re about 

to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth? 

Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in 

the affirmative, and please be seated. 

Mr. Greenblatt, we look forward to your testimony, and please 

proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. MARK GREENBLATT, 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL 

FOR COMPLIANCE & ETHICS, 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, 

Members of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today. 

Last month, the Department of Commerce Office of Inspector 

General issued a report detailing our investigation into allegations 

of impropriety involving a senior National Weather Service official, 

who became a consultant to the agency immediately after his retirement. Our investigation identified a number of problems related 

to the retention of this senior official. 

With regard to the senior official himself, the evidence established that he was personally and substantially involved in the procurement of his own postretirement consulting services. Specifically, the evidence established that while he was still a federal employee, this senior official 1) drafted and edited the statement of 

work for his consulting position; 2) participated with National 

Weather Service officials in setting his future rate of pay; and 3) 

signed the task management plan that authorized the consulting 

work he would later perform. Notably, he signed this task management plan while he was still a federal employee as ‘‘contractor 

POC,’’ the contractor’s point of contact. This involvement implicated several federal laws and regulations, including the Criminal 

Conflict of Interest Statute founded 18 USC 208. 
13 

Additionally, evidence established that this senior official took inappropriate steps to arrange for the National Weather Service to 

pay for his housing expenses for his postretirement consulting position, which amounted to nearly $52,000. The evidence also established that after he became a contractor himself, this senior official 

contacted several National Weather Service officials in an attempt 

to secure another contracting position for an immediate family 

member. 

We concluded that the senior official’s actions in attempting to 

influence the NWS staff were improper and in one case may have 

implicated 18 USC 201, the criminal statute prohibiting bribery of 

public officials. 

As a result of our investigation and our initial briefings with senior NOAA leadership, NOAA took immediate action to stop work on 

the senior official’s task order in early 2012. In total, the senior official’s postretirement work as a consultant lasted 21 months and 

cost the government more than $471,000. 

While the OIG’s inquiry focused on this senior official because he 

was identified by name in multiple whistleblower complaints, we 

nonetheless concluded that several other government officials share 

responsibility for the problems we identified. In particular, evidence indicated that the subject acted at the direction and with the 

approval of his supervisor at all times. 2) The subject’s consulting 

arrangement was facilitated and approved by other officials with 

responsibility for ensuring integrity in government contracting. 

Further, statements from several witnesses indicate that it is not 

uncommon for National Weather Service employees to retire and 

then come back as contractors to perform similar duties. For example, a high-ranking official at NWS wondered aloud during her OIG 

interview ‘‘why we have all these people that retire and then we 

go and hire them to come back.’’ 

Similarly, a representative of NOAA’s Acquisition and Grant Office, which is responsible for approving NWS contractor positions, 

indicated that federal employees returning as contractors once they 

retire ‘‘happens all the time.’’ In fact, the NWS supervisor in this 

case told us that he did not see any problems with the arrangement because he ‘‘sort of got the sense that this is just the way 

business is done.’’ 

Comments such as these indicate that there may exist a revolving door practice at NWS that created an environment in which 

problems that we identified in our report could occur. With this in 

mind, the OIG is now taking steps to assess whether a revolving 

door practice truly exists at NWS. For example, on June 11 we initiated an audit of NWS’s award and administration of procurement 

actions that support its workforce. The overall objective of this 

audit is to evaluate whether NWS has adequate controls in place 

to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations for personnel support acquired through service contracts. As part of this 

audit, we will assess how many former NWS employees—how 

many former employees NWS may have retained as contractors 

within the last several years. Through our investigative and audit 

efforts, we will examine how often such hirings occur, whether they 

comply with relevant contracting and ethics regulations, and 
14 

whether there are any programs, offices, and areas that may warrant closer scrutiny. 

I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify 

today and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenblatt follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt, for your testimony. 

Mr. Byrd, you have not provided the Committee with a witness 

statement. Do you wish to make a statement at this time? 

Mr. BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Robert Byrd 

and I’ve been compelled to appear before this Committee by subpoena. On advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth 

Amendment right not to testify. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. I have some questions and then we’ll 

look forward to your response. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman will state his point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. Upon taking the Fifth, he may 

leave at this point in the hearing, may he not? 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman is incorrect. The witness needs 

to establish that he has taken the Fifth by his response to some 

questions that I intend to ask. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. —another point of order. The witness has already 

established that he’s taken the Fifth. By your questioning him, you 

are putting him in a position where you’re trying to set up that he 

will waive his right and I object to this. That’s not what we’re—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. To respond to the gentlewoman’s point 

of order, the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity 

from all Committee questions. 

And if the gentlewoman and gentleman will listen to my questions, I think they’ll understand since they’re both lawyers why I 

need to proceed to ask these questions. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I’ll do so with interest but don’t be surprised 

if I do a point of order or two between your questions. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman is always free to raise a point 

of order. 

Mr. Byrd, were you the Chief Financial Officer for the National 

Weather Service? 

Mr. BYRD. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully 

exercise my amendment right—my Fifth Amendment right—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. BYRD. —and decline to respond. 

Chairman SMITH. Let the record reflect that Mr. Byrd has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 

And Mr. Byrd, please let me be very clear. Are you declining to 

answer the Committee’s question solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. You may state your—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Under the Fifth Amendment, he does not have 

to answer that. 

Chairman SMITH. That I am told is not a valid point of order and 

I’m going to direct the witness to answer the question. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentlewoman will raise a point of order. 

Ms. BONAMICI. I request that if Mr. Byrd now would like to, he 

may consult with his attorney. 
22 

Chairman SMITH. He is always free to consult with his attorney 

and that’s not a legitimate point of order. 

Mr. Byrd, would you answer my question and let me repeat it. 

Are you declining to answer the Committee’s question solely on the 

ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? 

Mr. BYRD. Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise my 

Fifth Amendment right not to respond. 

Chairman SMITH. Um-hum. And was Mr. Jiron your Deputy 

Chief Financial Officer at the National Weather Service? 

Mr. BYRD. On advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise my Fifth 

Amendment right and decline to respond. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. And did you approve Mr. Jiron’s postretirement consulting contract? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Another point of order. The gentleman will 

state his point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. This is a point of order that I 

raised initially that under the Rules of Professional Conduct for the 

District of Columbia, as well as Colorado—I assume Texas—that 

under Opinion 31 of the District of Columbia—in Colorado it’s 

8.4(h)—that to continue to pursue a line of questioning where a 

witness has taken the Fifth Amendment can be considered to be offensive, abusive, and harassing conduct not calculated to lead to 

admissible evidence. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman has not taken the Fifth Amendment on every aspect of every question, and I have two more questions for him. At that point he will be allowed to be dismissed. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Byrd, two more questions—or three actually. Did you approve Mr. Jiron’s postretirement consulting contract? 

Mr. BYRD. Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise my 

Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. And did you approve $50,000 worth the housing benefits received by Mr. Jiron, paid for by the National Weather Service? 

Mr. BYRD. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully 

exercise—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. BYRD. —my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. And my last question is this: Is it your intention to decline to answer all questions put to you today by the Committee on the basis of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination? 

Mr. BYRD. Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise my 

Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Mr. Byrd your testimony is essential to 

this hearing and to the Committee’s Article I oversight and information-gathering functions with regard to contracting misconduct 

and exertion of improper influence at the National Weather Service. The Committee is entitled to probe the basis for your Fifth 

Amendment privilege assertion, especially as the Fifth Amendment 

does not provide blanket immunity from all questions by the Committee. 
23 

The Committee specifically directs you to answer the question, 

notwithstanding your objection. Did you approve—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman SMITH. —$50,000—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman is not recognized at this point. 

Did you approve $50,000 worth of housing benefits received by 

Mr. Jiron paid by the National Weather Service? 

The gentleman is now recognized for his point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman 

has taken the Fifth Amendment with respect to every question that 

the Chair has submitted to him. 

Chairman SMITH. And—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. That he is entitled at this point 

to his counsel, and I guess I am to say that this is now harassment 

given the fact that he has said he’s going to take the Fifth Amendment and that he should be—— 

Chairman SMITH. The—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —allowed to leave pursuant to the rules and 

the Constitution—— 

Chairman SMITH. The response—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —of the United States. 

Chairman SMITH. My response to the gentleman’s point of order 

is that what we are doing is under the advisement by the House 

General Counsel. And once again, the Fifth Amendment does not 

provide blanket immunity to all questions and many of the Committee’s questions fall outside of subjects over which you may legitimately claim a privilege. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. And the gentleman will state another point of 

order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Rule 9, Clause 2 of the Rules of the House of 

Representative and Jefferson’s Manual 341, 342, 343 allow a witness to not answer and does not have to respond to questions—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —pursuant to the Constitution—— 

Chairman SMITH. And that—— 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —and the ethical rules that attorneys are 

bound by have to respect those particular rights of a witness—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. —and to continue this line of questioning I 

would say to the Chairman is degrading and embarrassing and not 

calculated to lead to admissible evidence. And therefore, this witness should be allowed to leave at this point. 

Chairman SMITH. To respond to the gentleman’s point of view, 

the witness can answer my question any way he wants to. He can 

refuse to answer it; he can plead the Fifth Amendment. But in any 

case we are again proceeding in accordance with the recommendation and the advice of the House General Counsel. 

And if it makes the gentleman feel any better, this is probably 

the end of my questioning, but again, there is a reason for establishing this for the record. 
24 

And once again, and finally, I want to ask the witness, did you 

approve $50,000 worth of housing benefits received by Mr. Jiron 

paid for by the National Weather Service? 

Mr. BYRD. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully 

exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Mr. Byrd, please be advised that you 

have a choice here between complying with the Committee’s directive in answering the question or refusing to do so, which will place 

you at risk of a contempt citation, potentially a prosecution for contempt, and criminal liability. Do you understand this? 

Mr. BYRD. Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully exercise my 

Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. The Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity from all Committee questions. Indeed, many of the 

Committee’s questions fall outside of subjects over which you may 

legitimately claim privilege. 

Additionally, by refusing to answer the Committee’s questions, 

we cannot assess the legitimacy of your Fifth Amendment assertion. You are directed to answer the question and again are advised 

that the failure to do so may result in a contempt citation and 

criminal liability. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman will state his point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. The witness has rights, does he 

not? 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman will state a legitimate point of 

order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. The point of order is the witness has rights 

pursuant to the Fifth Amendment, to Section—Article 11, Clause 

2, sections 341, 342, 343 of Jefferson’s Manual, does he not? 

Chairman SMITH. Of course the gentleman and the witness has 

rights. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Okay. So the gentleman has asserted his 

rights and the Chair’s continued interrogation is probably beyond 

the pale of Opinion 31 and the Rules of Professional Conduct, as 

well as the rules of the House of Representatives. And at this point 

I would ask the Chair, can the witness leave? 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman has not stated a legitimate 

point of order but I’m still going to respond by saying I have one 

more question for the witness and frankly it is my responsibility 

to advise the witness of the consequences of his refusal to answer 

the questions. That is a legal responsibility on my part according 

to the General Counsel of the House. 

I have one final question for the witness. Knowing what I’ve just 

said, will you answer the Committee’s question as directed or do 

you refuse to answer the Committee’s question? 

Mr. BYRD. Upon advice of counsel, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully 

exercise my Fifth Amendment right and decline to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Mr. Byrd, you will be excused momentarily but I want to next address some very similar questions to 

Mr. Jiron and then I would expect you both to be excused. 

Mr. Jiron, you have not provided the Committee with a written 

statement. Do you wish to make a statement at this time? 
25 

Mr. JIRON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer on the basis of the Fifth Amendment, 

which, according to United States Supreme Court, protects everyone, even innocent people, from the need to answer questions if 

these answers might be used against them in a criminal prosecution. 

Chairman SMITH. I understand, and you’ve just heard me ask 

some questions of Mr. Byrd. I’m going to ask you very similar questions. They are on different subjects and it’s because the Fifth 

Amendment is not blanket immunity. 

Mr. Jiron, prior to your retirement from the National Weather 

Service, did you hold the position of Deputy Chief Financial Officer 

at the end of your 38-year duration as a public employee? 

Mr. JIRON. As I said before, on the advice of counsel I’m invoking 

my constitutional right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. All right. Let the record reflect that Mr. Jiron 

has asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 

Mr. Jiron, please let me be very clear. Are you declining to answer the Committee’s question solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman will state the point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. The point of order is—— 

Chairman SMITH. But he’s likely to get the same answer I gave 

him a while ago, but he can still state a point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. The witness, upon having already asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, does not have to proceed in this fashion to answer any other questions and that— 

Chairman SMITH. That’s a legitimate point of order and I will answer it as I did a while ago, and that is taking the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity from all Committee questions. And that’s why I will continue to ask about certain subjects 

and he is willing and able and welcome to plead the Fifth Amendment if he so desires. 

Again, Mr. Jiron, are you declining to answer the Committee’s 

question solely on the ground that you believe the answer will incriminate you? 

Mr. JIRON. On advice of counsel, I’m invoking my constitutional 

right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. My next question is did you return to the National Weather Service after your retirement as a consultant? 

Mr. JIRON. On advice of counsel, I’m invoking my constitutional 

right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Did you draft your postretirement consulting 

contract while an employee of the National Weather Service? 

Mr. JIRON. On advice of counsel, I’m invoking my constitutional 

right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Your attorney said that there are material inaccuracies in the Inspector General’s report. Do you concur with 

that? 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman will state his point of order. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of order as to what the attorney said, the 

examination should be of the attorney, not of Mr. Jiron. 
26 

Chairman SMITH. I am simply saying what his attorney said. He 

can disagree or agree and answer the question any way he wants 

to. 

And once again, your attorney said that there are material inaccuracies in the Inspector General’s report. Do you concur with that? 

Mr. JIRON. On the advice of counsel, I’m invoking my constitutional right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Jiron, is it your intention to decline to answer all questions put to you today by the Committee on the basis 

of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 

Mr. JIRON. On advice of counsel, I’m invoking my constitutional 

right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Jiron, your testimony is essential to this 

hearing and to the Committee’s Article I oversight and informationgathering functions with regard to contracting misconduct and exertion of improper influence at the National Weather Service. The 

Committee is entitled to probe the basis for your Fifth Amendment 

privilege assertion, especially as the Fifth Amendment does not 

provide blanket immunity from all questions by the Committee. 

The Committee specifically directs you to answer the question, 

notwithstanding your objection. Did you draft your postretirement 

consulting contract while an employee of the National Weather 

Service? 

Mr. JIRON. On advice of counsel, I’m invoking my constitutional 

right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Jiron, please be advised that you have a 

choice here between complying with the Committee’s directive in 

answering the question or refusing to do so, which will place you 

at risk of a contempt citation, potentially a prosecution for contempt, and criminal liability. Do you understand that? 

Mr. JIRON. On advice of counsel, I’m invoking my constitutional 

right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Jiron, the Fifth Amendment does not provide blanket immunity from all Committee questions. Indeed, 

many of the Committee’s questions fall outside of subjects over 

which you may legitimately claim a privilege. 

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Point of—— 

Chairman SMITH. Additionally, by refusing to answer the Committee’s questions, we cannot assess the legitimacy of your Fifth 

Amendment assertion. You’re directed to answer the question and 

again are you advised—and again are advised that the failure to 

do so may result in a contempt citation and criminal liability. 

Knowing this, will you answer the Committee’s question as directed or do you refuse to answer the Committee’s question? 

Mr. JIRON. On advice of counsel, I’m invoking my constitutional 

right not to answer. 

Chairman SMITH. I am disappointed that two of our witnesses 

refuse to answer questions or provide any information to help the 

Committee perform its oversight function. 

Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd, you are dismissed subject to recall. And 

we will now take a two minute recess in order for you all to leave 

the room. 

[Recess.] 
27 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee’s hearing will resume and I’ll 

recognize myself for five minutes to ask questions. 

Mr. Greenblatt, first of all, again I appreciate not only your testimony today but your investigation as well. You are doing a real 

public service and you are also helping us do our job as well. 

My first question is this: From what I read, it may well be common practice at NOAA and at the National Weather Service for 

employees to write their own contracts as a consultant, leave the 

employ of the federal government, and then almost immediately 

begin work as a consultant, oftentimes doing the same job for more 

money. Do you think this is common practice, and if so, how are 

we going to determine whether it is common practice? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I would say that the common practice that we 

found, what the witnesses told us, related to folks leaving the 

Weather Service and then coming back as contractors. That— 

whether or not they wrote their own contracts or had involvement 

in the procurement of their own future services—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —we did not get testimony on the extent of 

that. We did get a fair amount of testimony from folks saying that 

the retirement and then later contracting positions, that did happen. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. And are you going to continue your investigation to find out whether it was commonplace for someone to 

write their own contract and then retire and then become a consultant? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, the Office of Inspector General has initiated an audit to look at the scope of the problem, and over the 

course of—and when I talk about the—what I’m talking about is 

the revolving door practice—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —how often that happened over the last few 

years. Once we get our arms around the problem—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —then I think we’ll begin to dissect and move 

forward—— 

Chairman SMITH. Just give me a rough idea as to how long you 

think it will take you to complete the continuing investigation? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I believe the anticipated delivery date on that 

particular audit is December 2015. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. So, what, six months from now roughly 

we’ll be able to get another report on whether that practice is widespread or not? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. That’s my understanding, yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. That’s very helpful. 

It’s my understanding, too, that penalties associated with the 

types of violations that have been alleged can be up to five years 

in prison and up to $50,000 for each violation. Is that correct? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. That’s under section 208, 18 USC 208. 

Chairman SMITH. That’s correct. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes, that has that and that’s for willful engagement—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —in those—— 
28 

Chairman SMITH. The point I’m trying to make here is that these 

are very, very serious infractions. They may be criminal in nature 

and that’s why you see penalties up to five years in prison. These 

are not light, minor types of ethical or criminal violations. 

Have Mr. Jiron or Mr. Byrd faced any kind of sanctions as a result of the allegations? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, once the Office of Inspector General uncovered some of the activities particularly related to Mr. Jiron’s efforts to secure a position for his immediate family member, we 

briefed NOAA senior leadership and they took action to terminate 

the work order on that particular contract. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you for that answer. Also, it’s my understanding that you recommended that the Department of Justice 

investigate themselves and they declined to do so. Why did they decline to investigate and not quite frankly follow up on your own 

recommendations? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, we referred the matter pursuant to the 

Attorney General guidelines to the—— 

Chairman SMITH. Um-hum. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —Department of Justice for consideration for 

their own efforts. They elected to decline to prosecute. As far as the 

specific reasons why, I think that would be better—they would be 

better positioned—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —to provide the specific reasons as to why they 

declined. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Their decline to prosecute was contrary 

to your recommendation that they investigate, is that correct? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, we’re obligated to refer over cases in 

which we believe there’s a reasonable basis to conclude that there 

was—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —a criminal violation. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Who was the individual who was the decision-maker who, in your opinion, was the one who decided not to 

prosecute or not to continue the investigation? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, we referred the matter to the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Maryland because that 

is where—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —the—— 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is located. 

Chairman SMITH. Right. Did you talk to any individual in the 

Department of Justice and give verbal recommendation? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I did. 

Chairman SMITH. And who did you talk to? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. The individual there was an individual named 

James Crowley. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. He’s the Chief in the southern division of the 

U.S. Attorney’s office in Maryland. 
29 

Chairman SMITH. So presumably he would have been the one or 

one of the individuals making the decision not to prosecute, is that 

right? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I don’t know exactly again who made, you 

know, any sort of final decision but that was the individual that 

I spoke with. 

Chairman SMITH. Is he the individual who told you that DOJ 

was not going to prosecute? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt. That concludes my questions. 

And the gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to personally thank all of the whistleblowers from the 

Commerce IG’s office who cooperated with our investigation. They 

risked their careers by bringing information of misconduct by the 

leadership of that office to this Committee. I believe stepping forward to inform us of these issues took real courage and strong ethical principles. 

While I have faith in the new leadership in Commerce’s IG office 

to move in a much more positive direction, I also believe that this 

Committee has an obligation to those whistleblowers who risked 

their careers informing us of Mr. Zinser’s misdeeds and that we 

continue to follow through. 

Mr. Greenblatt, your office has had a fairly terrible reputation 

regarding whistleblowers because of the conduct by the former IG 

and his closest aides, and I hope that the acting IG Mr. Smith 

takes stronger steps to restore the reputation of this office as a safe 

haven for whistleblowers. 

Tell me what you see that’s happened to improve the situation 

and would you comment on the progress? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, I can speak to my experience. I have 

been with the IG for a little bit more than a year now and I believe 

my staff, we have a very healthy, productive environment. I think 

folks are happy; folks are given the opportunities to stretch their 

legs. We’re doing sophisticated work, challenging work. I think people are fulfilled. That’s something I actually take great pride in. I 

hope that’s a reflection of the office as a whole. But in my experience and my perspective we have a good thing going and I hope 

that it continues in the future. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. I’m not dismissing wrongdoing by anyone, but in reviewing this case it seems more as if we 

have an institutional failure rather than individual wrongdoing. If 

any of the half-dozen officials had known better, they could have 

stopped Mr. Jiron for making the mistakes that he took in regards 

to this postemployment agreement. Do you agree that this is more 

of an institutional failure rather than individual misconduct? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. What I would say is that it is certainly more 

than just an individual certainly. There were a number of people 

who were responsible for stopping any kind of problems of this sort 

and they just didn’t catch it. Gatekeepers didn’t act as gatekeepers, 

supervisors didn’t supervise properly. And so that’s the problem. 

Now institutionally, I don’t know about the entire institution; I 

don’t want to go to broad in the answer, but yes, it was certainly 
30 

more than one individual. There’s no doubt about that and I think 

our report is very clear about that. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. Last week, the Government 

Accountability Office, the GAO, released a report that I requested 

along with my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

It examined the effectiveness of the Commerce IG’s office. The most 

disturbing finding of that report was the fact that the Commerce 

IG’s office conducted no performance audits of the—of eight of the 

agency’s 13 bureaus and offices from 2011 to 2013 and that the 

OIG had not conducted a Federal Information Security Management Act audit for seven of the agency’s 13 bureaus in the same 

period of time. I hope that the new leadership in your office will 

be much more effective, efficient, and aggressive in the oversight 

work. Would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, I appreciate your concern. I know that 

we have concurred with the GAO report and are working actively 

to address the recommendations. I should say I’m on the investigations’ side of the House so I’m not well-positioned to talk about the 

audit side of the House but I’m sure we can get back to you with 

further information if you would like on that specific angle. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. I would like to 

say that I have faith that the new leadership in the Commerce’s 

IG office takes your oversight responsibilities seriously and will 

strive to correct the mismanagement issues that have crippled the 

effectiveness of this office in the past and I thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

want to compliment you for trying to do something that is important, and whenever you do things that are important, you’re going 

to get some people mad at you and/or jumping in. And let me just 

say that I think that you have handled yourself very well in this 

hearing and I am disappointed that people felt compelled to jump 

on your case considering how important what we’re examining is. 

We are talking about today the actual, well, I wouldn’t call it embezzlement but at the very least a waste of hundreds of thousands 

of dollars—of taxpayer dollars, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. The amount that the senior official was paid pursuant to the contract and his housing was over $471,000. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. $471,000. However, if he would have 

stayed in government service, he would have been paid a certain 

amount of money than less than that. I mean so the actual loss to 

the government isn’t the 471,000 but it’s hundreds of thousands of 

dollars anyway. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, and if you also add on to the fact that 

he was getting full retirement at that point as well on top of the 

wages— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Correct. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —from the—under the contract, yes, it was much more than $471,000 in that regard. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So if we allow things like this to go 

on—well, let me ask this. Is this a loophole in the law? Do you see 

this as a loophole that someone was able to do something legally 
31 

that provided them with hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal benefit even though the government was not receiving any 

added service or benefit from the expenditure of that money? Is 

that a loophole or is this a violation of law? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, there are certainly colorable reasons to 

have someone come back after they retire. Sometimes they do have 

specialized knowledge, institutional knowledge that may warrant 

bringing them back. So I don’t want to make any blanket statements that, you know, bringing someone back is inappropriate. 

That in and of itself is not a problem. It may set the stage for problems as in this case where the individual was involved in drafting 

his own statement of work for his future consulting services. That’s 

where the problem lies on that particular topic. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I actually would disagree with the last points 

that you made a. I think that we have a serious problem in the federal government, throughout the government—it’s not just this one 

case but—where we have people who are making decisions that 

would benefit themselves based on senior people who will be retiring soon are making decisions, whether the Department of Defense 

or elsewhere, that are—have dramatically bad impact on the taxpayers getting their money’s worth. And sometimes it’s disastrous 

for generals, for example, who makes decisions on certain types of 

weapons systems that we will use and then going to work as soon 

as they retire for the company that’s producing that weapon system. 

So we—I would hope that, number one, that what we’re doing 

today, and as Chairman Smith is trying to do is sending the message that we—if we have an institutional mindset that sort of 

doesn’t confront that problem, we’re going to confront it now. If we 

are going to bring down the budget deficit, I would say the most 

laudatory way of bringing down the deficit is getting rid of things 

like this. 

And so if there is a mindset among government that they—that 

this is an okay thing to do even though it’s costing the taxpayers 

an enormous amount more money, well, let’s go on the record now, 

all of us, to say that is not acceptable. And the best way we can 

do that is to take cases like this and unfortunately individuals will 

have to be confronted with this, and once they’re confronted, the 

message will go out to the rest of government employees. This 

could save—not could—this will save the American taxpayer perhaps billions of dollars if we do this and eliminate this mindset 

that I see as pervasive throughout the federal government. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your testimony 

today. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And Mr. Greenblatt, welcome. Mr. Greenblatt, our Committee 

first started investigating the conduct of the former Commerce IG 

Todd Zinser in September of 2012. This was soon after he testified 

before a Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight hearing we 

held on the Antideficiency Act, or the ADA, violation at the National Weather Service. I at that time was the Ranking Member of 
32 

the Oversight Subcommittee. At that hearing almost three years 

ago Mr. Zinser referenced the case you are testifying about. Mr. 

Zinser said ‘‘while our investigation is ongoing, we have determined 

that NOAA provided the contractor housing valued at more than 

$52,000 and spent more than $336,000 in wages for this consultant’s services over a period of 1–1/2 years. We promptly notified 

NOAA of our preliminary findings concerning the consultant’s efforts to secure a job for the family member. NOAA took swift action 

to terminate the consultant’s employment with the agency,’’ said 

Mr. Zinser. 

So Mr. Zinser mentioned the case you finally released in June of 

2015; all of the elements were there. Staff tell me that all the work 

was largely done. And I realize you just came to the Commerce IG’s 

office last year but can you explain to us why a case the IG’s office 

believed was potentially criminal in nature and was largely finished by August of 2012 sat unfinished for some 3 years? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I don’t have a good answer for you. The delay 

is not good, and when we make mistakes, I’ll own up to it. When 

I came on in May of 2014, we had an extensive backlog of cases. 

This was one of those cases. I was given a directive to clear out 

that backlog and we put considerable effort into doing just that. 

We’ve released a number of reports of significant value and—both 

internally and some that were issued publicly. And this was one of 

those reports. 

Part of the reason this was structured as it was in the priority 

list is that the behavior was not ongoing. It had stopped. The contract had stopped and so I think that was a factor in it. But at the 

end of the day it should have come out sooner and it was out effectively one year after I arrived at the office. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, the delay pattern, is this something that was 

a common pattern? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No, I don’t think it was intentional in any way. 

I think—— 

Mr. TONKO. Was it a common pattern? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I think we—as I said, we had a backlog of 

cases when I arrived. A number of them were older cases. We had 

major staffing issues and as part of our growth and as part of our 

revitalization in the Office of Investigations, we have knocked down 

that backlog. When I came on, there were cases from 2011 on the 

backlog and now we’re only—we have cases that are only as old as 

2014. So I think we’ve done a good job on that. I don’t think we’re 

all the way there yet but we have made fantastic progress in my 

view. 

Mr. TONKO. Okay. Well, frankly, we came away from our examination of the Antideficiency Act work with the impression that the 

office was badly managed. Hotline tips were lost or misassigned. 

We were aware of work that was started and then abruptly abandoned. GAO did a review of the office that found real problems in 

policies, in procedures, and in the scope of work undertaken by the 

IG. Ms. Johnson deserves credit for continuing to push for change 

in the office leadership. I want to reiterate her comments that we 

want to see the office moving out and doing a good, solid job going 

forward. Please take that message back from this hearing and good 

luck to you as you work through your backlog. 
33 

And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to kind of drill down a little bit on the gentleman’s 

pay when he was a contractor. Your report says it was $471,875, 

is that correct? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. That was not his—the wages that he took 

home. That includes housing—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —which was not paid to him. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. So if you take what he was actually 

paid and if you were to compare it to what he got paid as a government official but then you also added what he got paid as a government official if you added that to his health care benefits, his life 

insurance, his, you know, FICA, you know, payments, all those 

kind of things, how does it compare? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, he started out—this is according to his 

own information to us, what he told us, that he started out making 

effectively $72 an hour and he added in—he monetized all of the 

benefits that you mentioned, including retirement, payroll taxes, 

annual leave, holiday time. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So was it equivalent? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Then it became 102—$105 an hour, a difference of about $33 an hour. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Was his pay as a contractor equivalent, greater than, or less than his pay as a government employee? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. $33 higher. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Per hour? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Correct. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And that includes—— 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Yes, per hour. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And that includes the housing that he had, 

right? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No, that does not. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. So on top of that there was housing? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Correct, which did not go to him personally. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. So tell me about the housing. What 

were the housing arrangements like? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. So the housing arrangement went through the 

Fisheries Service the National Marine Fisheries Service. They had 

a contract called BOQ contract that went with a number of residential buildings in the neighborhood near their office where senior executives who were on temporary detail to their headquarters would 

stay. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So he did not own this housing? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Correct. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. And would the housing have been empty had 

he not been in there? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I assume so. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So it really didn’t cost the government anything for him to use—it was probably a good—I’m just asking out 
34 

of curiosity. Is that a good use of the government’s resources to put 

him in open housing? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I think they would not have had to pay for that 

particular housing. I don’t know but—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I don’t know whether they would have had to 

pay for that particular unit if he had not used it. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. That would be very useful for us to know. 

Out of curiosity the Deputy CFO’s supervisor, the CFO, was 

aware of these arrangements, correct? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, we believe so. We heard witness testimony and there is some evidence to suggest that he did approve 

it. He told us—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. You don’t have any paperwork that he approved it? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I am not aware of specific—a specific document 

that he signed approving it. I do not know of that. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. But his testimony indicated that he approved 

it? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. His testimony said that he did not approve it 

and that he would not have if—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So he didn’t—— 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —he’d known about it. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. He didn’t approve it but he must have known 

it was going on if this guy shows up the day after he retires as a 

consultant. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. He knew about the consulting arrangement. 

He says he did not know about the housing part. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. But other witnesses told us that he did know, 

including the senior official himself. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Well, the senior official—not—the senior official—the deputy CFO was working with the CFO to make sure 

that he could come back as an employee immediately following his 

retirement—as a contractor immediately following his retirement, 

is that correct? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Correct. It was at the request of his supervisor, 

yes. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Now, what about the supervisor’s supervisor? 

If we go up to say Chief of Resources and Operations Management 

at NOAA, Mary Wiley, was she aware of it? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I do not know. We—I do not think it went up 

higher than—we don’t have evidence it went up higher than the 

supervisor. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Did you ask that question? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I—I’ll have to get back to you on that. I believe 

we did. I will get back to you on that. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. So that—this is very relevant to us because, you know, the gentleman clearly, according to your case 

here, he wrote a contract that he then benefited from. I think we’re 

all in agreement that that’s problematic. But if the people above 

his chain of command, how high up did they all know about this, 

then we’re talking about systemic problems and, you know, that’s 

a whole other level of issue that we have to deal with as a govern-
35 

ment, not just within NOAA but as a government. This is an issue 

probably governmentwide. 

I’m about out of time. Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine. 

The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to start by making a statement that I certainly don’t condone misconduct or violation of rules or laws or misuse of government resources, and I doubt that anyone on this Committee would 

disagree with that. People should be held accountable, no question, 

but I have to say I’m disappointed in the way this hearing started 

this morning. The two attorneys or the—excuse me, the attorneys 

for the two gentlemen who were here earlier, Mr. Byrd and Mr. 

Jiron, had notified the Committee that they would be asserting 

their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment and that 

compelling their attendance would be to simply embarrass them. 

This all could have been put on record with this statement and 

the point made but instead unfortunately these people were subpoenaed here to make this hearing into unfortunately what turned 

into political theater and I—that’s unnecessary and unfortunate. 

Again, the point could have been made without what happened this 

morning. 

Mr. Greenblatt, I’m glad you’re here this morning. 

Chairman SMITH. Would the gentlewoman yield just for a second? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. In regard to her comments that she just finished, I hope she will check with the House General Counsel, and 

if she does, she will find out that we proceeded exactly as was recommended, and if she disagrees with the way we started our hearing today, then she disagrees with the House General Counsel and 

I hope she’ll take up her comments with him. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Greenblatt, the IG’s findings on this matter were referred to 

the Department of Justice; I believe you said the U.S. Attorney in 

Maryland. How was that referral made? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. By—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Is there a form letter or—— 

Mr. GREENBLATT. By phone. 

Ms. BONAMICI. By phone. So is there a record of that somewhere? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I documented it in an email to my—the rest of 

my team and my supervisor at the time. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Okay. And how was—what was the response of 

the U.S. Attorney in Maryland? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. They declined to prosecute the matter—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. And—— 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —to pursue it. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And did they send that in writing? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Is that typical that something like this is done 

over the phone? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes. 
36 

Ms. BONAMICI. And did they indicate a reason why they were declining to pursue this? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I think there were a number of reasons. I do 

not want to speak for them. I think if you want their answer, I 

would suggest you go to them. But what I understand is that part 

of it is the delay that we had talked about earlier on when the 

events occurred and when the referral was made, but also the involvement of the supervisor. I believe in their view it affected the— 

whether they would pursue it or not. That’s—again, that’s me talking. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Okay. And so was that—what was said to you in 

the email or the response—there was no email coming back from 

them did you say? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No, it was—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Just a phone conversation? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —a phone call. Yes. That’s—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Is that what they told you in the phone conversation or is that what you think—— 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I remember discussing those things and that 

was reflected in my email as well. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. Another—there may be some confusion about whether Mr. Jiron acted by himself to write his statement of work and receive temporary housing as part of his postretirement contract or whether he was assisted in these acts, which 

very well may be wholly inappropriate, by others at NWS. My understanding is that another NWS official told him to write his own 

statement of work and another helped edit it and there were multiple meetings with his supervisor Mr. Byrd and others while working out the details while he was a government employee. Is that 

your understanding? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes. And we reflected that in our report. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And is there any evidence that Mr. Jiron did not 

do the work he was paid to do? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No. 

Ms. BONAMICI. So he actually did? He worked as a consultant? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. We believe he was there when he said he was 

there. We have no reason to believe he wasn’t doing things while 

he was there. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And is it your understanding that Mr. Jiron told 

multiple NWS officials that he would only come back as a consultant if his temporary housing costs were paid because by the time 

he retired, he had moved to Williamsburg, Virginia, with his thenill wife? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Okay. So I also understand that Mr. Jiron’s initial 

short-term contracting agreement was revised at least six separate 

times over a 19-month period. So in correspondence with the IG’s 

office, Mr. Jiron apparently has stated that NWS could have modified or not renewed his contract at any time but—any of those 

times but chose not to. Is that your understanding as well? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. It was modified eight times. It was initially I 

think a 3-month contract and it was extended overall those modifications to 21 months until he was terminated. 
37 

Ms. BONAMICI. And is there any evidence to suggest that either 

Mr. Jiron or Mr. Byrd were covering up or trying to cover up the 

fact that Mr. Jiron was working as a contractor? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And were—was there any indication that they 

were trying to cover up the fact that Mr. Jiron’s housing allowance 

was being paid by NWS while he was a contractor? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, with regard to his supervisor, his supervisor at least told us that he viewed that to be inappropriate and 

would not have approved it, so he would have had concerns about 

it. Others also told us that they had concerns about it. For example, the Fisheries Service that ran the housing contract said that 

they would not have approved it. They thought he was a government employee at the time and so because that housing was reserved for government employees, they thought he was eligible for 

it in that regard and they would not have approved it. This is the 

one individual who was responsible for that contract would not 

have approved that had she known that he was a contractor, not 

an employee. 

Ms. BONAMICI. But did you see any evidence that Mr. Jiron or 

Mr. Byrd were trying to cover up the fact that he was a contractor? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I’m out of time. I yield back. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. I thank the gentlewoman for her questions and 

we will now go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for his. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

the opportunity to ask questions. And, Mr. Greenblatt, thanks for 

being with us today. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, I’ve heard questions and comments related to is this an institutional failure versus individual wrongdoing. You know, I—yes, I serve in Congress now but I served in 

the U.S. Department of Defense and the Air Force for 26–1/2 years 

and one of the things that—the core values of the United States 

Air Force was integrity first. That means you tell the truth. That 

means you don’t cheat. That means you don’t lie. And that means 

you don’t take things that don’t belong to you. 

You know, there’s a basic sense of right and wrong that I think 

the American people have a reasonable expectation that people 

within our federal government are going to adhere to. So I’m very 

concerned about what we’re talking about today. 

Can I have the first slide, please? 

[Slide.] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Mr. Greenblatt, this slide is an email 

from Donald Jiron to Robert Byrd. The subject is the SOW and proposed hourly rate dated March 26, 2010. In this email Mr. Jiron 

is informing his superior Mr. Byrd that he had edited the initial 

contract for his employment as a consultant. In the email Mr. Jiron 

suggested that he proposed an hourly rate of pay for himself. Were 

you surprised to see this email? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well,this is the problem that we found with 

the contracting process certainly was someone engaged in writing 

their own future contract that would involve their own wages. 
38 

Yeah, I mean that’s federal service 101. You don’t get involved in 

matters that will involve cash going to your bank account. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. That affect you financially, absolutely. 

Should Mr. Jiron in your opinion have known that it was inappropriate to draft a contract for his unemployment, establish his own 

hourly rate? Should he have known this? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, we believe so. I believe that was the conclusion of the report that that’s a basic tenet of federal service. 

Like I said, you don’t take part in matters that affect your own 

bank account. And he was a longtime federal employee, 38 years. 

I would be hard-pressed to believe that there was no training, no 

ethics guidance at any point along the way. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Well, do you know of the specific legal or 

ethical violations that are implicated by this email? Are you prepared to tell us that? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, it certainly implicates 18 USC 208, which 

is the Criminal Conflict of Interest statute—and we discussed that 

in the report—which says you can’t have—you can’t personally substantially participate in a matter that has a direct and predictable 

effect on your financial interests. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. And so this I think meets that standard. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. All right. According to the email, Mr. 

Jiron’s superior Mr. Byrd wrote—he said, ‘‘Don, looks good in general.’’ So based on this email, do you believe that Mr. Byrd facilitated in putting this contract together? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Absolutely. He certainly approved it. He requested that Mr. Jiron take these actions, so—and we say as much 

in the report. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. How concerning is it—and you’ve already 

answered it a little bit—but how concerning is it to you that this 

exchange occurred between the CFO and the Deputy CFO of the 

agency, the two that are responsible for the agency’s finances? How 

concerning is that to you? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, I think, as we said, these are folks that 

should have an awareness of the ethics issues at play. And this at 

a minimum reflects poor judgment with respect to that. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Could I have the next slide, please? 

[Slide.] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. According to Mr. Byrd’s transcribed interview with the IG, he had ethical concerns with bringing Mr. Jiron 

back so quickly as a contractor. So do you have any idea if Mr. 

Byrd had concerns about this, why he didn’t raise those concerns 

earlier? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, according to what the supervisor told us, 

he said that you clear it, you—he said to his subordinate, the senior official, you know, clear it with the contracting folks and I’ll 

sign off—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Um-hum. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —effectively is what he told us. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. As the CFO of the agency, does he have 

an obligation to notify management that he has concerns about a 

contract that he personally authorized? Are there any rules in the 

agency that require that? 
39 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I don’t know the answer to that question. I 

think what he told us is that he was reliant on his subordinate and 

what he believed the contracting officer was telling him that it was 

okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. So that was my understanding of what he 

would say but I don’t know the answer to that question. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF OHIO. Very concerning. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I respect your leadership and our friendship but I, too, am disappointed by today’s hearing. I’ve learned nothing new and nothing 

that was not already clear in the Inspector General’s report. And 

I look forward to when our Science, Space, and Technology Committee actually gets back to spending more time on science, space, 

and technology rather than trying to embarrass NOAA and its 

many excellent employees over a single instance already handled 

by the Inspector General. 

Mr. Greenblatt, we work very hard to encourage companies to 

hire our veterans, and since so many of these veterans have substantial experience in technology, weapons, war-planning, logistics, 

and more, are we inadvertently creating a revolving door, former 

federal employees acting as federal contractors? Do you have any 

idea how many retired military officers and enlisted now work for 

federal contractors doing DOD work? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I have no idea. I would imagine it’s a large 

number. 

Mr. BEYER. It’s a really large number. This is rhetorical but 

thank you for trying to answer it. 

Mr. Greenblatt, you graduated from Columbia Law and I understand you’re not the House General Counsel and your—focus on 

the House General Counsel. Wasn’t it a waste of time, taxpayer 

dollars, 37 minutes of this Committee’s time to insist that two 

former National Weather Service employees who had specifically 

declared their intent to invoke the Fifth Amendment show up? I 

was just sort of baffled by what purpose was served by this low 

theater. 

Understanding that the Department of Justice has already declined to pursue any criminal charges against Mr. Jiron, do you believe that this was—they were forced to appear in order to create 

a contempt of Congress charge against them? 

As a lawyer, does it make any sense to pursue a contempt citation for the legitimate exercise of one’s constitutional rights? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. The last thing I’m going to do is challenge the 

Chairman of a Committee that I’m testifying before at the time. 

Mr. BEYER. Well, I was hoping you’d challenge the House General Counsel, not our distinguished Chairman so—— 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I don’t know that I’m well-positioned to respond but I appreciate your concern. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Well, I still have a couple of minutes left. The 

National Weather Service Employees’ Organization filed a com-
40 

plaint two years ago about the pervasive illegal use of personal 

service contracts at the National Weather Service. Apparently, they 

have more than 1,000 contractors, the cost of which is over $130 

million. Is there pervasive, maybe even illegal use of personal service contracts? And according to the National Weather Service Employee Organization, these personal service contracts are being 

paid far more on average than the civil service employees, many 

of whom are doing the exact same work. 

Why are there so many personal service contracts being used 

rather than filling these jobs with actual federal employees? And 

the cost of the contracts to taxpayers is considerable so do you 

know of anything that NOAA or Commerce is doing to address this 

concern? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I don’t. I think that would be a question better 

presented to the agency that in terms of what if any steps they’re 

taking. I—sitting here right now I can’t tell you whether they have 

taken any action. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is up next for his 

questions. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Greenblatt, you are familiar with the letter Mr. Jiron’s attorney wrote to the Office of Inspector General refuting claims that 

your office made in its recent report detailing the contract misconduct. In that letter Mr. Jiron’s attorney states that Mr. Jiron 

‘‘followed his boss’ instructions. He had no experience with federal 

contracting and had to rely on the advice provided by officials who 

are experts.’’ 

Mr. Greenblatt, do you believe Mr. Jiron had no contracting experience given that he was the Deputy Chief Financial Officer and 

worked at the National Weather Service for 38 years? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. What I can speak to is what I know from the 

evidence and the email traffic seemed to show some level of facility 

with the contracts but this is really not about the contracting 

issues and knowledge of the far which that letter gets into. It’s 

more about the conflict of interest, the ethics of it. That is the issue 

here, not the procurement process but rather whether he was involved in a matter that affected his own bank account. And that’s 

the problem here and I think that is not—I think it is reasonable 

to believe that he should have known that. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. So following that on the conflict of interest, do 

you believe Mr. Jiron should have had the foresight to know the 

arrangement he was orchestrating was improper and he could have 

walked away from it at any point? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Right. I think at a minimum he could’ve just 

talked to an ethics official. I mean there are ethics folks that are 

available to talk to and ask. And that’s what I would have—that’s 

an easy step that he and every federal employee can do. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. All right. And his attorney states that he did 

not take steps to ensure housing was provided for him in his postretirement arrangement. Do you agree with that statement? 
41 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Oh, I think the evidence is quite clear that he 

was actively participating in securing housing for him after he returned as a consultant. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And his attorney also claims that Mr. Jiron 

would have obtained no contracting experience during his tenure at 

the National Weather Service and thus should not have been aware 

of applicable federal laws prohibiting his conduct related to his 

postretirement consulting position. Do you agree with this assertion? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Again, I don’t view it as a contracting issue; I 

view it as an ethics issue. And that’s pretty standard federal service ethics rules that you cannot get involved in a matter that involves money going to your own checking account and that’s exactly 

what we have here. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Obviously the contracting issues create ethics 

issues so he should have known that the contracting issues could 

create ethics problems? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, certainly when he’s talking about his 

own hourly rate and he’s negotiating with other federal employees, 

including his own subordinates, about how he’s going to get the 

housing, which would take away costs from—his own costs, yes, 

think that’s something that it’s reasonable for a senior, long-time 

federal employee to know that. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. 

No minority members are here to ask questions so the gentleman, Mr. Loudermilk, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I begin 

my questions I want to thank you for this hearing. And I find myself in a very interesting position because I find myself in a rare 

instance that I’m agreeing with the minority on something, which 

was the theatrics at the beginning of this Committee. But I must 

say you handled yourselves with dignity, with—the theater environment was created by members of the minority by continually interrupting what you had to do according to the House Counsel by 

creating an atmosphere of theater. The questions to Mr. Greenblatt 

have gone away from the issue at hand and it’s more about previous management of his office. 

And in fact one that actually did address this issue that was 

brought up by Mr. Beyer indicated that this was one incident 

where in fact the allegations involved multiple incidents over a 

two-year period. Is that true? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. This lasted for 21 months, yes. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Were there other incidents that were 

maybe uncovered in your investigation? I read that there were 

statements such as this is a normal operating practice. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes. W got testimony from a number of different witnesses saying that the so-called revolving door of folks 

leaving the National Weather Service and then coming back was 

quite common or happened all the time, things along those lines, 

yeah. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Do we know if it’s common practice for them 

to write their own contracts before they leave the employment? 
42 

Mr. GREENBLATT. That we do not know so that’s what—we’re 

comfortable saying that there’s testimony about the revolving door 

but I don’t know about beyond that. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. Let me ask you a few questions about 

this case in particular. When Mr. Jiron left as a federal employee 

and he came back, did he have the same office? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I—we don’t know the answer—we got some 

testimony that suggested he did but we don’t know definitively 

whether he did have the same office or same computer or phone 

or anything like that. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. He did have a NOAA email address. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. But he kept his same email that he had 

had before as an employee? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I assume so but I don’t know that for— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. But we don’t know if he had the same 

computer, the same phone. There’s some testimony that says he 

did. What benefit did the taxpayers gain from him retiring and 

then coming back? Did he essentially do the same job he was doing 

as a federal employee? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I would say that’s a question for the agency to 

respond, but I can give you what we found from the evidence. A 

number of witnesses told us that, including the folks who replaced 

him in that position, that they were doing different things, that 

there was no overlap in what they were doing. Some folks 

thought—at least one person, in fact one of his successors told us 

that they thought he was a personal services contract essentially 

for his supervisor doing tasks specifically for his supervisor. 

The whole purpose of bringing him back, according to the witnesses, was to transfer knowledge. He had this wealth of knowledge reportedly. And so when his retirement they wanted to get 

that knowledge before he left. We found that there was little of 

that. According to the witnesses, there was little evidence that 

there was an actual transfer of knowledge as they had— 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Was he being forced into retirement or did he 

voluntarily retire? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Voluntary. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. He voluntarily retired and that we have evidence that he participated or wrote the job description. The contract was being written before he left so therefore it would leave 

one to understand that this was designed. It was premeditated, 

that this was actually in place. He knew he was going to retire so 

therefore we’re going to write the contract for him to come back as 

a contractor. Is that true? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes. Just to add one fact is that he said he 

would retire and then his supervisor requested that he come back 

and then they engage in the process of establishing his arrangement. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. So—but it was arranged that this was 

going to happen. So effectively what he did was give himself, in coordination with his supervisor, a pay raise instead of just saying 

staying on an employment? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes, they monetized all of the benefits that 

would not otherwise be available to a contract. 
43 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So what benefit did the taxpayers have with 

this arrangement? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. That’s something I think you’ll have to ask the 

agency about what exactly he did on a day-to-day basis during that 

time. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Was he provided housing as an employee when 

he was actually an employee of a federal government? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Oh, no. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Is it standard practice for federal employees to 

be provided housing? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No, sir. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. So this was highly unusual for him to leave 

and then come back and be provided housing as a contractor. Is 

that to your knowledge done in any contracts? Or is it common 

practice? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I am not aware of it and a number of folks that 

we spoke with said that they found it to be inappropriate. I’m talking about the witnesses found it to be inappropriate. And like I 

said, the woman who was running that contract from the Fisheries 

Service said that she would not have approved it had she known 

he was a contractor. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Okay. I think we’ve established some of the 

things we need to. Final question, should—has Mr. Jiron or anyone 

faced any disciplinary action as a result of any of this? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, when the OIG identified a number of 

problems, we approached senior NOAA leadership and then they 

terminated the contract on that—I think the day after we briefed 

NOAA leadership. So they terminated his contract. But in terms of 

discipline, I’m not aware of anything. 

Mr. LOUDERMILK. Thank you. And I’m out of time. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Greenblatt, I have a half-dozen questions so I’d appreciate 

it if you could answer them as quickly as possible so I can get them 

all in. 

The testimony today here is almost bizarre. It’s almost incomprehensible. I know most people back home hopefully would find it 

hard to believe that things could be as corrupt as they appear to 

be. But just to set the record straight in my mind, what was the 

date that Mr. Jiron officially retired from the National Weather 

Service? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. May 2, 2010. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. What date did Mr. Jiron start as a consultant 

for the National Weather Service? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. May 3, 2010. 

Mr. POSEY. Under a contract that he essentially drew himself? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes, he revised and edited a statement of work 

that—for his own position, yes. 

Mr. POSEY. So while he was with the National Weather Service 

he made a contract to become a consultant and come back on the 

date you said? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Correct. 
44 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. What was Mr. Jiron’s compensation during the 

last month of his service as Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the 

National Weather Service? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. He was paid—this is rough—you know, $72 an 

hour roughly. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. What was Mr. Jiron’s compensation for the 

first month of his role as a consultant under the contract that he 

drew up himself for the National Weather Service? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. $105 an hour. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. So Mr. Jiron retired from the National Weather Service one day and walked back in the very next day as a consultant making $3,000 more per month with his housing being paid 

for, with essentially no change in his day-to-day responsibilities? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I think it’s generally a fair assessment, yes. I 

can go into more detail if you’d like. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. No, that’s good. And the taxpayers essentially 

took a $457,000 hit for that bad behavior, which you have clearly 

documented and you’ve cited the laws that were broken under the 

conflict-of-interest laws and you took this information to the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice refused to prosecute? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. It declined to pursue the matter, yes. 

Mr. POSEY. Did they have any reason why they declined to prosecute? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. You’ll have to ask them about this—about the 

exact final decision as to why but from my understanding I think 

the involvement of the supervisor was a factor in their decision and 

the fact that it—the issue had happened a couple of years earlier. 

Mr. POSEY. And how many employees at the National Weather 

Service what have their fingerprints on this? If I went back 

through all the gatekeepers they didn’t do their job, all the checks 

and balances that are supposed to be in place to stop this kind of 

corruption, how many people had fingerprints on this if I was to 

go back and have everyone looked at? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Sitting here right now I would say the number 

is probably in the five or six range. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. It was not extensive. It was not, you know, 20 

or 30 people involved. I think it was probably about five or six. 

Mr. POSEY. And the whistleblowers have indicated that this is 

customary behavior? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, the witnesses that we met with told us 

in our sworn interviews that folks retiring and then coming back 

to the Weather Service was commonplace or words of that variety. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. For too many years this kind of behavior 

has been swept underneath the rug. 

Mr. Greenblatt, I want to thank you for your honor and the way 

that you have represented the taxpayers back home, for your forthrightness, and I hope there are many more people like you out 

there. I’m a little bit chagrined that some people are more interested in making sure the two culprits are not embarrassed in this 

Committee. 
45 

Of course, we heard the same kind of comments about Lois 

Lerner, how unfair it was to embarrass Lois Lerner, who clearly 

was corrupt as the day is long, targeting political enemies. That’s 

just not the kind of administration the people in this country expect. And whatever it is that motivates you to do the job that 

you’re doing, I just hope and pray for the future of our country and 

for future generations that there’s more out there like you. God 

bless you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you for holding this hearing. Thank you for the way that you’ve 

held this hearing. Thank you for the way that you’ve responded 

during this hearing. I find it pretty ironic that the minority, who 

have decried the amount of money that this Committee wants to 

authorize as we go forward, takes issue with the fact that in a period when we have $18 trillion and we’re trying to make the agency 

as accountable as we can, that they are spending taxpayer dollars 

appropriately, that they’re decrying the fact that somehow we’re 

trying to make them be better money managers. 

We have a fiduciary trust from our constituents. I applaud you 

for wanting to do the right thing on behalf of the American people 

and I appreciate you holding this hearing. 

To the gentleman Loudermilk, my good friend, I’ll—when he 

asked the witness what benefit did the taxpayers get, I guess I 

would respond they got to say a very high and hearty thank you, 

good job to this guy by paying him not twice but 2–1/2 times what 

he was getting after he retired. I hope he feels like this sent him 

off with a good farewell and a job well done and a lot of money in 

his pocket. That’s my politically incorrect statement. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Now, Mr. Greenblatt, you had formal training. I didn’t read 

through your bio; I got here late. So you had formal training as a 

lawyer, right? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I did. 

Mr. WEBER. Right. And you have mentioned a couple of times 

here that I think it was public service 101 or something—federal 

service 101, you don’t get involved with the money that you’re 

going to be getting paid. You don’t get to make that decision. How 

long have you been on the job where you are? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. In my current position? 

Mr. WEBER. Um-hum. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I’ve been here for a little more than a year. I 

started May 2014. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay, good. So you got trained. How many violations 

of this magnitude have you seen yourself? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. It’s hard to quantify ‘‘magnitude.’’ I have seen 

other conflicts-of-interest cases. When I was at the Justice Department Inspector General, I worked on a number of conflict-of-interest cases— 
46 

Mr. WEBER. Well, let me make it easier for you. Have you ever 

seen somebody retire and get paid 2–1/2 times what they were getting? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. No. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. That pretty well speaks for itself. Do you get 

training on how to recognize these violations? Did you get training? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Mostly on-the-job training— 

Mr. WEBER. Mostly on-the-job training. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —but, yes, there is training on ethics guidance 

frequently. 

Mr. WEBER. Do people in the agencies, NOAA, IE, National 

Weather Service, should they receive some kind of the same training? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, I believe everyone—you know, all federal 

employees receive ethics training—periodic ethics training depending on the agencies— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —and whatever components they’re in, but 

that—so they get that. I don’t know about ethics training in terms 

of investigations— 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. No—but they know—I mean if you were a betting man, and I’m going to ask you a very subjective question, 

would you bet that this guy probably knew that, hey, this doesn’t 

pass the smell test? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, I think we found as much in our report 

that he should have known. I mean working in the federal government for nearly four decades I’d be hard-pressed to believe— 

Mr. WEBER. So he didn’t get training in contracting, his lawyer 

said, but I mean he should have had training in common sense and 

right and wrong. I mean even his parents should have taught him 

that, wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yes, but beyond that I would imagine there is, 

over the 38 years, extensive ethics training— 

Mr. WEBER. So—— 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —especially for a senior official. 

Mr. WEBER. —I don’t mean to pry but you get paid a salary. Does 

the government collect taxes from your salary? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. A wee bit, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Oh, do they? Okay. Are you appreciative of the fact 

that you’ve got a Committee here that actually looks after taxpayer 

dollars and doesn’t want to pay retirement employees 2–1/2 times 

what they were making at taxpayer expense? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Yeah, I do appreciate the concern. 

Mr. WEBER. Yeah, well, I wondered what your motivation for 

being here was, so you’re a fiscal watchdog like the Chairman here 

is. 

I noticed in your report you said that there were several government officials beyond the subject of our investigation shared responsibility you believe, several being three, four, five? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I would identify three, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. You identify three? And I didn’t get a chance to read 

your report. Did you identify them? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. We identified the supervisor. Well, we didn’t 

identify anyone. Let’s just—as a threshold issue, we didn’t identify 
47 

anyone for privacy reasons. And so we didn’t identify them in 

terms of by name or— 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. —but we did identify by identifying them as an 

individual. 

Mr. WEBER. But if you wanted to send a signal to the agency— 

because you also said that there’s—there’s a quote in here that 

says federal employees returning as contractors once they retire 

‘‘happens all the time.’’ If we want to send a signal that this is unacceptable, should we subpoena those three in here? I mean I’m 

sure two of them have already been here in some short fashion. 

Should we be looking at the others that were involved and subpoenaing their testimony as well as a deterrent if nothing else? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I wouldn’t want to, you know, guide the Committee on what it should do but— 

Mr. WEBER. No. But as a taxpayer, we’ve already established you 

get paid and we do—and the government takes taxes out and you 

appreciate this kind of oversight, right? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Of course. Of course. 

Mr. WEBER. So I’m going to take that as a yes. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weber. 

There being no more Members to ask questions, I want to thank 

the witness for his testimony and also members on both sides for 

their questions. 

Today’s hearing was an opportunity for Mr. Jiron and Mr. Byrd 

to explain to us why taxpayers picked up the tab for an allegedly 

improper contract worth nearly half-a-million dollars. Unfortunately, both former senior officials chose a path of noncooperation 

and refused to speak with Committee staff voluntarily and only appeared here today under subpoena. 

In order for the Committee to get the information it needs to conduct appropriate oversight of this issue, our investigation will continue. The Committee will persist in seeking answers from Mr. 

Jiron and Mr. Byrd and the Committee will conduct oversight to 

determine if these types of actions are common at the National 

Weather Service. The American taxpayers deserve answers and we 

intend to pursue this issue until we are certain that taxpayers’ interests are protected. 

I’m disappointed that that neither Mr. Jiron nor Mr. Byrd chose 

to testify today. The witnesses are subject to recall, and the Committee stands in recess. Thank you all for being here. 

[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(49) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
50 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Mark Greenblatt 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
(83) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
84 

REPORT SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH, CHAIRMAN
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 

Æ