U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–907 PDF 2013

SECRET AGENT MAN? OVERSIGHT OF EPA’S IG 

INVESTIGATION OF JOHN BEALE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 1, 2013 

Serial No. 113–65 

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

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 1, 2013 ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Mr. Patrick Sullivan, Deputy Inspector General for Investigations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Mr. Robert Brenner, Former Director of Policy Analysis and Review, Office 

of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

The Hon. Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36 

APPENDIX 

Letter from the Hon. Kerry Benvolio ..................................................................... 94 

Unite States of America v John C. Beale .............................................................. 95 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Staff Report ........................ 114 

(1) 

SECRET AGENT MAN? OVERSIGHT OF EPA’S 

IG INVESTIGATION OF JOHN BEALE 

Tuesday, October 1, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:37 a.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Duncan, McHenry, Jordan, 

Chaffetz, Walberg, Lankford, Gowdy, Farenthold, Woodall, Meadows, Bentivolio, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Tierney, Lynch, 

Connolly, Speier, Pocan, Duckworth, Kelly, and Horsford. 

Staff Present: Molly Boyl, Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; Joseph A. 

Brazauskas, Counsel; Ashley H. Callen, Deputy Chief Counsel for 

Investigations; Sharon Casey, Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor, 

General Counsel; Drew Colliatie, Professional Staff Member; John 

Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Director of 

Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief 

Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Senior Professional Staff Member; Christopher Hixon, Chief Counsel for Oversight; Mark D. Marin, Deputy 

Staff Director for Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, Chief Counsel, Investigations; James Robertson, Senior Professional Staff Member; 

Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Jonathan J. Skladany, Deputy 

General Counsel; Peter Warren, Legislative Policy Director; Rebecca Watkins, Communications Director; Lena Chang, Minority 

Counsel; Courtney Cochran, Minority Press Secretary; Susanne 

Sachsman Grooms, Minority Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel; 

Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Communications Director; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of Operations; Una Lee, Minority Counsel; 

and Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director. 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order. 

The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to know that the money 

Washington takes from them is well-spent. And, second, Americans 

deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our 

duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to 

protect these rights. 

Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to 

taxpayers because taxpayers have a right to know what they get 

from their government. Our obligation is to work tirelessly, in partnership with citizen watchdogs, including the IG’s office, to deliver 

2 

the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the 

Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission statement. 

And today we are here because a high-ranking EPA official swindled taxpayers. In fact, effectively, he embezzled $800,000 or more 

over most of his career from the taxpayers. 

He’s here with us today, not as our most important witness, because, in fact, what we want to find out in this committee and the 

reason that this hearing has great merit is we want to find out how 

top officials at the EPA under multiple administrations for more 

than a decade never verified that a man who said he’s a secret 

agent of the CIA—never verified that he was. 

We also want to find out—that big lie was compounded with a 

big lie while an individual, who was supposedly working for the 

CIA, also got his pay raised to a level that appears to be above the 

statutory limit. And I repeat: It appears as though Mr. Beale was 

paid an amount greater than Congress allows. 

Just as this committee investigated some months ago CMS allowing for payments greater than the statutory limit to the State of 

New York and we do not hold New York accountable alone, we do 

not hold Mr. Beale accountable alone. No individual and no individual’s boss should be able to write anything that allows for somebody to be paid more than the law allows. 

The lack of internal controls at the EPA and, in fact, the lack of 

external controls in government as a whole will be the subject not 

just today but in the days to come. 

We hear complaints from the private sector that top EPA officials 

turn a deaf ear to their concerns about how regulations kill jobs 

and add enormous cost with little or no benefit. That is an issue 

that we will deal with many times as we address the EPA. 

But today it appears as though there was a deaf ear taken to 

somebody not working. In fact, evidence shows—and we will hear 

from the Inspector General—evidence shows that beyond even the 

craziness of somebody saying they had to be gone for weeks or 

months at a time because they: ‘‘worked for another agency,’’ not 

doing that job but still being paid, and, in fact, not being billed 

back to the CIA, over and above that we understand there was actually a retirement ceremony in which the individual retired and 

then convinced the now-director and others that he should continue 

being paid because he wasn’t really retired; his retirement from the 

CIA was awaiting a replacement. 

To my understanding, your first replacement was killed by the 

Taliban. And we’re really sorry for the loss of that nonexistent secret agent to replace a nonexistent secret agent. 

It is not our desire, ordinarily, to call anyone before Congress 

simply to ridicule them, but I believe that today there is a degree 

of ridicule of top individuals at the EPA and, I fear, top individuals 

and lower individuals throughout government if, in fact, we cannot 

make a government-wide search to see if this has happened before. 

One thing that I’ve found in the many years in which I manufactured consumer electronics: There is no such thing as one defect. 

There is no such thing as everything is perfect except the one you 

got, ma’am. There is no such thing as, well, this is the first time 

we’ve had a report of this defect or this problem. Here I believe the 

3 

lack of controls at the EPA almost guarantee that others did not 

do their job and fell through the cracks. 

We have an agenda on this side of dais, which is we’d like to 

have union officials keep time cards to show how much time they 

spend doing union work versus the work of agencies. That has not 

passed the Congress, and it may not, but finding out if people do 

work should. 

We have learned that Deputy Director Perciasepe—I’ll get it better in time—and now-Administrator McCarthy worked extremely 

close with Mr. Beale for years. In fact, in 2009 through 2012, Ms. 

McCarthy was John Beale’s direct supervisor at the Office of Air 

and Radiation, where he was senior official. This office is responsible for the most sweeping regulations affecting business. 

As we look at a history of working closely with names we all 

know, including direct report to people who continue to be in the 

office today, what we find interesting is, if Mr. Beale could perpetrate outright lies with impunity, what did he do in his daily 

work life on those rare days in which he actually performed work 

for the EPA? 

We need to get to the bottom of this because we owe it to the 

American people. We need to discover, in fact, whether individuals 

like Mr. Beale and others not performing work are now sitting in 

retirement collecting paychecks in retirement for work they did not 

do and, thus, a retirement they did not earn. 

Finally, I want to thank the Inspector General for the work done. 

It is our report that, in fact, your investigation began delayed because, at a time when you should have been informed, the general 

counsel and others were being consulted around you. And for that, 

we want to make sure it is clearly understood that going to a lawyer when you discover something is not a substitute for also going 

to the IG. 

This committee supports the Inspector General’s offices and their 

work. The 12,000 men and women who independently—independent of Congress and, quite frankly, whenever possible, independent of their employers in the executive branch—seek to rout 

out waste, fraud, and abuse is essential to this committee. 

There is no partisan divide on the work of the IGs, and we will 

work on a bipartisan basis to ensure that administrations, Republican and Democratic, understand IGs are never to be kept in the 

dark when there is an allegation of even a portion as onerous as 

this one. IGs have to be brought in at the beginning, not when it’s 

about to become public. 

It also is disturbing to me that, Mr. Brenner, back in the 1970s 

when you and Mr. Beale went to Princeton, you began a friendship. 

A friendship should, in fact, require that when you’re the superior 

of somebody who you helped bring into the Agency, that you look 

with a little more scrutiny, that, in fact, you are more likely to 

know that what somebody is saying isn’t true. And I find it astonishing of that. 

Additionally, during our investigation and with the help of the 

Inspector General, we became aware of what appears to be an inappropriate acceptance of an $8,000 gift, a discount on a MercedesBenz, from an outside lobbyist. My understanding is this was not 

done with the preapproval or cooperation directly of MercedesVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:39 Dec 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\85907.PDF APRIL
4 

Benz, but it is our intention to use our power to do an investigation 

beyond that which the IG has authority. 

If it were up to me, the IG would have had authority to interview 

all of you, or both of you, even as you sought retirement to escape 

his jurisdiction. One of the reasons you’re here today is, in fact, 

that the IG Act has certain limitations. It cannot compel former 

members of government to speak to them. It cannot go between 

agencies and, in fact, is very stovepiped. It is our intention to move 

legislation that expands the ability of IGs to gain subpoena authority and that that authority should extend to investigations that 

begin within their agencies but which have tentacles in other agencies and with former employees, particularly when those employees’ very paychecks are what is in question. 

So I want to thank my ranking member for being patient as I 

went through a little longer opening statement. And I look forward 

to this hearing and to the work we must do afterwards. 

And I yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important hearing, but before I discuss today’s hearing, I want to address our current budget situation. 

Today is the first time the Federal Government has shut down 

in 17 years. This has happened because a small group of Tea Party 

Republicans has taken our country hostage as a part of their ideological crusade to overturn the law of the land and put insurance 

companies back in charge of healthcare decisions of millions of 

Americans. 

The Republican House leadership could have averted this shutdown immediately by simply allowing the House of Representatives 

to vote on a clean continuing resolution. Let me say that again. If 

they put a clean resolution on the floor, it would pass and there 

would be no government shutdown. 

But they refuse because they are placing internal Republican politics ahead of the best interests our Nation and our economy. So, 

this morning, 800,000 hardworking, middle-class Federal workers 

who would have been at their duty stations providing vital services 

to the American people are furloughed. Many of them are my constituents. And things will only deteriorate from here. 

I agree that our committee has a constitutional duty to provide 

oversight, and hearings like this one are a key part of that oversight. But it seems odd for our committee to be here today acting 

like nothing is different and pretending that we are just going 

about our business as usual. I want to make clear that a government shutdown is not business as usual, and we should not treat 

it that way. 

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ask your 

leadership to put a clean CR on the floor and end this shutdown 

today. 

With that said, let me turn to today’s hearing. I want to begin 

by thanking Inspector General Elkins and his deputy, Patrick Sullivan, for investigating this gross abuse of taxpayer funds. 

I also want to acknowledge the Department of Justice for successfully prosecuting Mr. Beale, who pleaded guilty last Friday and 

5 

will be forced to pay back the almost $900,000 in funds he stole— 

in funds he stole—from the American people. 

In addition, I want to acknowledge the role of Administrator 

McCarthy in finally revealing this fraud, which lasted incredibly 

for decades. I know we will discuss the Inspector General’s concerns about how quickly his office received a referral, but I believe 

that the IG will agree that had it not been for Administrator 

McCarthy, this fraud may never have been uncovered. 

Mr. Beale’s betrayal of the public trust for his own personal enrichment is truly shocking in its scope, duration, and sheer audacity. It is amazing. 

Mr. Beale defrauded the Environmental Protection Agency for 

decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, 

by claiming he was a covert operative of the CIA. One senior EPA 

official during the Bush administration actually approved Mr. 

Beale’s request to work offsite 1 day a week so he could participate 

in an interagency special advisory group working on a project with 

the Directorate of Operations at the CIA. Give me a break. 

This was no ordinary ruse. In addition to lying, he stole and lied, 

lying to senior EPA officials across multiple administrations, Mr. 

Beale also duped his own family members, his friends, and even 

his own lawyer. That’s a lot of duping. Mr. Beale did not come 

clean to his own criminal defense attorney until investigators arranged for a meeting at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in 

order to finally confront him about his lies. 

But that’s not all Mr. Beale did. That’s not all that he lied about. 

According to the Inspector General, Mr. Beale also lied about contracting malaria and serving in Vietnam, all to obtain a handicapped parking spot. Oh, my God. Mr. Beale also lied on travel 

vouchers, about where he was going and why he needed to go 

there, so he could visit his family in California. 

Simply put, Mr. Beale was a con artist, and the American taxpayers were his mark. As public servants, we must always remember that we serve the people. Mr. Beale flouted one of the most 

basic tenets of government service: It’s not your money; it’s the taxpayers’ money. It’s people that go out there, the ones that I saw 

this morning when I left home at 5 o’clock getting the early bus. 

It’s their money. And you stole it. 

Mr. Beale’s actions are an insult to the thousands of hardworking and dedicated public servants across the country and an 

insult to our CIA agents around the world. While Mr. Beale was 

claiming to work at Langley and pretending to go on secret missions overseas, real intelligence agents were hunting down Osama 

bin Laden and battling al Qaeda in the most dangerous places in 

the world. 

Mr. Beale’s impersonation of a CIA agent forced our Nation’s law 

enforcement and intelligence officials to spend their scarce time 

and resources uncovering his fraud instead of combatting real 

threats around the globe. This is truly reprehensible. 

I’m gratified that justice has been served and that Mr. Beale will 

pay for his fraud, for his lies, for his theft. However, our inquiry 

cannot end there. We need to understand how EPA’s system failed 

to catch him earlier and examine additional reforms. 

6 

Although the Inspector General’s audit work is still ongoing, I 

look forward to hearing about his initial recommendations and to 

hearing from the Deputy Administrator of EPA about steps the 

Agency has already taken and plans to take to safeguard taxpayer 

dollars from this type of fraud in the future. 

As I close, let me say I urge my colleagues to refrain from using 

Mr. Beale to make generalizations about government workers. Mr. 

Beale is an aberration, not a rule. The vast majority of Federal employees dedicate their lives to serving the public. They come to 

work every day. They give it everything they’ve got because they 

realize it’s bigger than them. It’s not about them; it’s bigger. They 

are honest, they are hardworking, and they would never even contemplate breaching the public trust in this manner. 

So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I look forward to the testimony, 

and I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Chairman ISSA. And I join with him in saying, on a day in which 

hundreds of thousands of Federal workers are on furlough without 

pay, we don’t take this as an ordinary day, but perhaps an appropriate day to have somebody who furloughed himself with pay time 

and time again. 

Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the 

record. 

Chairman ISSA. And we’ll now recognize our first panel of witnesses. 

The Honorable Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., is the Inspector General for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Welcome. 

Mr. Patrick Sullivan is Deputy Inspector General of Investigations at the EPA and oversaw and had primary responsibility for 

this investigation. 

Mr. Mark Kaminsky, who is sitting behind the two IGs, is a special agent with the Office of the Inspector General at EPA. He may 

be called to answer questions because of his direct contact in this 

investigation and will also be sworn in when the others are sworn 

in. 

The Honorable Robert Perciasepe is the Deputy Administrator of 

the U.S.—United States—United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. We get so used to just saying ‘‘EPA’’ around here. 

And Mr. Robert Brenner is the former Director of Policy Analysis 

and Review at the Air and Radiation Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

And our primary witness, Mr. John C. Beale, is the former senior 

policy advisor at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and, 

allegedly, the CIA. 

With that and pursuant to the committee rules, would all of you, 

including Mr. Kaminsky, please rise to be sworn and raise your 

right hands? 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

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

the truth? 

Thank you. Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

7 

This is a large panel, and even with some not making opening 

statements we’re going to consume a lot of time. So I’d ask you to 

keep your opening statements as close to 5 minutes or less as possible. Your entire written statements will be placed in the record, 

in addition to any comments that you may want to give us afterwards. We’ll hold the record open—I’ll announce that at the end— 

for a couple of days. 

Mr. Elkins? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ARTHUR A. ELKINS, JR. 

Mr. ELKINS. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking 

Member Cummings, and members of the committee. I am Arthur 

Elkins, Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss some of the 

recent important work of the Office of Inspector General. In particular, I will highlight the audit work that ensued as a direct result of the OIG’s criminal investigation of former EPA employee 

John C. Beale. 

The EPA’s Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, Patrick Sullivan, whose testimony will follow mine, will provide more 

specific details of the investigation that led to Beale’s guilty plea 

on September 27th of 2013. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share with you the 

OIG’s various efforts to safeguard the EPA and the U.S. Chemical 

Safety and Hazard Investigation Board from fraud, waste, and 

abuse through independent oversight of their programs and operations. 

Before I begin, I would like to commend the expertise, diligence, 

and professionalism of the OIG staff, whose exceptional work 

serves as the foundation of my testimony this morning. 

Once my office learned about the serious allegations made 

against Beale, the OIG’s Office of Investigations immediately 

launched and quickly completed a successful investigation of what 

you will certainly agree to be an egregious and almost unbelievable 

case. As a result of this investigation, the OIG’s Office of Audit has 

mobilized to aggressively assess the various internal control issues 

at the EPA that allowed this highly troubling scenario to occur. 

My testimony will primarily detail the subsequent work that will 

be conducted by the OIG’s Office of Audit as a result of the investigation. I also received a congressional request that the OIG immediately launch an investigation into the Agency’s policies and 

processes that facilitated Beale’s fraud. 

The Office of Investigations requested audit assistance to address 

the following potential EPA systemic weaknesses: EPA’s retention 

bonuses, the statutory annual pay limit, EPA’s first-class travel, 

EPA’s process for approval of foreign travel, EPA’s vetting process 

for new employees, time and attendance issues, timely referrals of 

potential criminal allegations to the OIG, and authority of EPA’s 

Office of Homeland Security. 

In September 2013, the OIG’s Office of Audit sent a notification 

letter to the Agency stating our plan to begin preliminary research 

on various administrative areas as a result of recent actions taken 

against a former EPA employee. We are also currently performing 

8 

work to address the first part of congressional requests. We have 

reviewed the OIG’s Office of Investigations case files to determine 

how the fraud took place, what internal controls existed, what controls may need strengthening, and what controls were compromised, circumvented, or overridden. 

On completion of this part of the request, we will provide a letter 

to the requester which will address the facts concerning how the 

fraud occurred. The estimated date for the issuance of this letter 

will be October 31, 2013, barring any delays due to the possible 

shutdown of the government and the EPA’s cooperation. 

We just started our preliminary research for the second part of 

the congressional request. We will keep the committee updated on 

the audit’s estimated completion. 

Further, this audit may uncover other issues that I have not detailed this morning. Accordingly, we may issue early warning reports on time and attendance and travel as it relates to Beale. 

This investigation has also resulted in several investigations related to administrative matters. As these are ongoing investigations, I am unable at this juncture to discuss them but will do so 

when I can. 

My testimony today highlights the OIG’s commitment to continue 

to shine a light on the EPA and the CSB to guarantee that our tax 

dollars are being well-spent so that a scenario such as the Beale 

case should not happen again. 

Funding to the OIG clearly represents a great value to the American taxpayers. I ask the committee to please keep in mind that additional budget cuts may force us to focus on statutory work and 

reduce discretionary work, such as requests from Congress to investigate agency programs or operations. 

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm the OIG’s commitment to 

add value and assist the agency in accomplishing its mission of 

safeguarding the health of the American people and protecting the 

environment. We take very seriously our mandate to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and prevent and detect fraud, 

waste, and abuse through independent oversight of the EPA’s programs and operations. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be 

pleased to answer any questions you or the Members may have. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Elkins follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 1 here 85907.001
10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 85907.002
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 85907.003
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 85907.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 85907.005
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 85907.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 85907.007
16 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Sullivan? 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK SULLIVAN 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, 

members of the committee, I am Patrick Sullivan, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at EPA. 

The EPA’s OIG investigation of this case has included more than 

40 interviews, the review of thousands of documents, and coordination with many Federal law enforcement agencies. On September 

27th, Mr. Beale entered a plea of guilty to one count of theft of government funds. 

The activities relevant to this case began in 1988 when Mr. Beale 

was hired as a consultant to the EPA by his close friend Robert 

Brenner, then-director of EPA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Review, and continued until Mr. Beale’s retirement in April of 2013. 

Our investigation revealed that Mr. Beale engaged in the following misconduct: false official statements, timecard fraud, incentive retention bonus fraud, travel voucher fraud, false impersonation of a Federal official, and misuse of an official government 

passport. 

Mr. Beale’s official personnel file contains numerous misleading 

and false statements, including a claim that he worked for a U.S. 

Senator. 

Over a period of 22 years, Mr. Beale received a retention incentive bonus amounting to 25 percent of his salary. Evidence suggests 

Mr. Beale was only authorized to receive this bonus for 6 years, 

costing the government approximately $500,000. 

Mr. Beale’s work on the Clean Air Act in the early 1990s gained 

him significant prestige. Starting in 1994, he began the false impersonation of a CIA employee, lying to even his wife and closest 

friends in addition to his EPA colleagues. He told OIG investigators 

that he perpetrated this lie to, quote, ‘‘puff up the image of myself.’’ 

The investigation revealed Mr. Beale was absent from the EPA 

for long periods of time between 2000 and 2013 under his alleged 

CIA cover. During this time, Mr. Beale lied to several high-ranking 

EPA officials about his work for the CIA, including former Assistant Administrators Jeff Holmstead and Gina McCarthy. 

Subsequent investigative interviews revealed Mr. Holmstead 

shared Mr. Beale’s claimed CIA status with other EPA executives 

and it became, ‘‘an open secret’’ in EPA that Mr. Beale worked undercover for the CIA. When Gina McCarthy became Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation in 2009, she was 

told during her orientation process and subsequently by Mr. Beale 

himself that he worked for the CIA. 

Additionally, an executive assistant that worked for Mr. Beale 

recalled that he had told her he needed to stay on with the CIA 

until his replacement, who had been captured and was being tortured in Pakistan, had recovered. She responded: ‘‘John, that’s 

what movies are made of.’’ 

When interviewed by OIG investigators, Mr. Beale admitted to 

taking off a total of 2–1/2 years for nonexistent CIA work at a cost 

to the taxpayers of approximately $350,000. Mr. Beale also stated 

that during these periods he actually was working around the 

house, riding his bicycle, and reading books. 

17 

Concurrent with his frequent absences from the EPA, Mr. Beale 

received a substantial cash award, including a Presidential Rank 

Award of $28,000, all on top of his salary and the 25 percent retention incentive bonus. 

Mr. Beale perpetuated the lie that he had contracted malaria in 

Vietnam during his service in the U.S. Army, using it both as another reason for his frequent absences and used it to obtain a 

handicapped parking permit at EPA. Mr. Beale never had malaria, 

and he never served in Vietnam. Over time, the parking space cost 

the taxpayers and the government approximately $18,000. 

Mr. Beale also committed travel card fraud—excuse me, travelrelated fraud. For example, we were able to confirm that he 

charged more than $80,000 in trips between 2005 and 2007 to California. All these trips to California were fraudulent. He traveled 

there to visit his elderly parents, who lived in Bakersfield. 

Another example: Mr. Beale usually stayed at hotels that far exceeded—I mean far exceeded—the allowable government lodging 

rate. In one instance, he charged the government $1,066 per night 

for 4 nights in London even though he had the opportunity to stay 

at a different hotel at $375 per night. When confronted with this 

outrage by our investigators, Mr. Beale stated, ‘‘Even I am outraged at this.’’ 

From approximately 1998 until his retirement in 2013, Mr. Beale 

claimed he had a back injury requiring first-class airplane accommodations. He provided medical documentation from a chiropractor 

supporting this claim. Due to Mr. Beale’s undertaking extensive 

physical activities and his many other deceptions regarding his 

health, his claim is dubious at best. And one example, when he 

traveled from Washington to London, his first-class ticket was 14 

times higher than the coach fare. The government was charged 

$14,000 for this one ticket as opposed to $1,000 had he taken a 

coach flight. 

Mr. Beale was never held accountable for his spending on these 

trips. When interviewed, those responsible for approving his travel 

vouchers acknowledged that the charges he submitted often seemed 

excessive, but they were never questioned because he was a highly 

respected EPA senior official and based on his work for the CIA. 

That concludes my remarks, Chairman. I’ll be happy to answer 

questions at the appropriate time. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 8 here 85907.008
19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 85907.009
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 85907.010
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 85907.011
22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 85907.012
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 85907.013
24 


Insert offset folio 14 here 85907.014
25 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Brenner? 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRENNER 

Mr. BRENNER. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and distinguished committee members. I am Rob Brenner, and I served as Director of EPA’s Office of Policy Analysis—— 

Chairman ISSA. Could you pull the mic a little closer, please, for 

everyone? Thank you. 

Mr. BRENNER. —from 1988 until my retirement 2 years ago. 

Today I am voluntarily appearing before the committee solely in 

my individual capacity. 

I am very proud of my career in public service, my accomplishments, and the accomplishments of the team that I was a part of. 

My career at EPA was defined by the opportunity to play a key role 

in the development, congressional passage, and the implementation 

of the bipartisan Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, legislation 

that has prevented millions of premature deaths and illnesses. 

During the implementation phase, I designed and led programs 

to provide business opportunities and economic incentives for U.S. 

companies, support technological innovation, reduce toxic exposures 

for communities, and monitor the Clean Air Act’s costs and benefits 

for the U.S. taxpayers. 

I am also fortunate to have been well-recognized for those efforts. 

I received a gold medal from EPA, meritorious and distinguished 

public service awards from three different Presidents, and a distinguished career service award from then-Assistant Administrator 

Gina McCarthy and Administrator Lisa Jackson. 

Of course, those accomplishments are far from mine alone. Just 

as meaningful to me are the many notes of thanks I continue to 

receive from exceptional individuals I recruited, managed, and 

mentored during my 30-plus years at EPA. 

In 1987, one of the people I recruited to assist with those efforts 

was John Beale. John and I met in graduate school, where he was 

working on both a master’s degree in public affairs and law degree 

as part of a scholarship program. We became good friends, and we 

worked together on a foundation program to identify and recognize 

leaders in the area of energy and environmental policy. 

After graduate school, we stayed in touch. And from the early 

1980s until about 1989, we saw each other about once a year at a 

vacation home we co-owned in Massachusetts. 

I want to take this opportunity to described why John’s recent 

conviction for post-2000 thefts from EPA is so inexplicable for his 

friends and colleagues, including me. 

The answer is: That period was preceded by more than a decade 

of effective and highly regarded work. During that time period, 

John co-directed the Agency’s Clean Air Working Group during the 

challenging 1989 to 1990 clean air legislative process. He developed 

many strong relationships at EPA, on the Hill, and with stakeholders. And he became a frequent and well-respected participant 

in clean air strategy meetings at the White House. 

After that, he provided strategic advise on several key 

rulemakings to implement the Clean Air Act; created and managed 

the process that brought together the auto industry, States, and 

the environmental community to create the national low-emitting 

26 

vehicle program. He played a central role in the development of the 

landmark national health standards for ozone and particulates. 

And he became a highly regarded member and a frequent leader 

of U.S. teams negotiating international environmental and energy 

agreements and protocols. 

Yet, after 2000, this exceptional record turned into one that resulted in John’s pleading guilty to years of deception and hundreds 

of thousands of dollars of theft based, in part, on his claim that he 

worked for the CIA. 

The question then becomes, how could anyone at EPA believe 

that John was involved in national security work? And the answer 

is that, if it had been anyone else, it almost certainly would not 

have been credible, but John had established a track record that 

made him one of the most highly regarded members of the EPA. 

Moreover, he had served in the military, he had been an undercover policeman, and he had worked at the U.S. Attorney’s office 

in New York—the type of background I would have expected of 

someone doing national security work. 

While I am in no way trying to defend the conduct which is the 

basis for this guilty plea, I am saddened and disappointed that 

John’s good works and contributions at EPA will be overshadowed 

by these unfortunate events. 

And at this time, I’m prepared to answer any questions. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Brenner follows:] 

27 


Insert offset folio 15 here 85907.015
28 


Insert offset folio 16 here 85907.016
29 


Insert offset folio 17 here 85907.017
30 


Insert offset folio 18 here 85907.018
31 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Beale, do you have an opening statement? 

Mr. BEALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I do not have an 

opening statement. 

Chairman ISSA. Before I go to Mr. Perciasepe, Mr. Beale, it’s my 

understanding that you may intend to assert your constitutional 

privilege to remain silent. Is that correct? 

Mr. BEALE. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. In the letters from September 23rd and 24th, I think my attorney advised the committee 

of that fact. And I will be asserting my Fifth Amendment privilege 

this morning. 

Chairman ISSA. And is it my understanding that you have already, as earlier stated, you’ve already pled guilty to the charges 

before you? 

Mr. BEALE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully have to make the same 

statement, that I’m asserting my Fifth Amendment privileges this 

morning. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Beale, today’s hearing will cover the topics 

including the U.S. EPA, the Inspector General’s investigation of 

your employment at the EPA as a senior policy advisor in EPA’s 

Office of Air and Radiation. You were uniquely qualified to provide 

us testimony that would help the committee better understand 

your conduct while at the EPA as an employee. 

To that end, I must ask that you consult with your attorney, recognizing that although you have already pled guilty and, by definition, are not subject to prosecution for these very areas we’re investigating, we do have a need to find out whether not you but other 

individuals participated or in some way aided in your ability to do 

this. Those areas of our investigations are clearly not subject to 

protection for you against self-incrimination but, in fact, are the legitimate requirements of government to ensure that this does not 

happen again. 

So I would ask you to consult with your attorneys as to whether 

or not you’re prepared to help in this investigation or whether, having already pled guilty, you continue to assert that you would be 

incriminated from something you’ve already pled guilty to. Would 

you please seek counsel and then give me your answer? 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask the chair a question? 

Chairman ISSA. Of course. 

Mr. GOWDY. Was there a written plea agreement between the 

government and Mr. Beale? 

Chairman ISSA. Under Federal rules, the sentencing guidelines 

are not mandatory at a plea agreement, but he did enter one. 

Mr. GOWDY. Is there a requirement that he cooperate in that 

plea agreement? Is he looking for a 5K1.1 or a Rule 35 at some 

point? 

Chairman ISSA. It is my understanding that cooperation is part 

of the consideration for the sentencing not yet to happen. 

Mr. GOWDY. Is there a transcript of the plea colloquy between he 

and the judge when he entered his change of plea? 

Chairman ISSA. If the counsel can make us aware of that, behind 

Mr. Beale? 

Mr. BEALE. It is my understanding that there is a transcript, but 

we don’t have a copy of it right now. 

32 

Chairman ISSA. Counsel, you’re not sworn, but if you could answer the gentleman’s question as a member of the bar, it would be 

helpful for us dispense with this. 

Mr. KERN. Mr. Chairman, there is no 5K1 component to the plea 

agreement. It’s a straight-up plea agreement that doesn’t require 

any additional testimony or information from Mr. Beale. 

Mr. GOWDY. Did he receive a reduction in his guideline points for 

acceptance of responsibility? 

Mr. KERN. He did. 

Mr. GOWDY. Was it the super-acceptance or the two-point acceptance? 

Mr. KERN. It was three points, two plus one. 

Mr. GOWDY. And is any part of that, receiving a reduction in his 

sentence for cooperation, that doesn’t include answering questions 

when he’s not in jeopardy in a congressional committee hearing? 

Mr. KERN. No. It only requires acceptance of responsibility as 

contemplated by the guidelines. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Chairman, I’d love to have a copy of that plea 

agreement if we could get one. And I’m sure that other attorneys 

on this panel and non-attorneys would like to see it, as well. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. Mr. Gowdy, I’m going to direct staff 

to get that. And, obviously, it’s of our interest that the U.S. Attorneys’ Office not enter an agreement that would in some way allow 

what is occurring here to occur. 

Mr. Cummings, do you have any questions before we move forward? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to enter into the 

record the—going to Mr. Gowdy—and I think Mr. Gowdy makes an 

excellent inquiry, because I was wondering the same things. 

We’ve got the letter of September 23rd, 2013, from Mr. Kern— 

I guess that’s his counsel—September 24th, 2013, from Mr. Kern 

to the committee. And then this is a statement of the offense. I 

think we ought to have that as part of the report. 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, it will all be placed in the 

record. 

Do you have any other questions? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. No, I just—no. No, I don’t. 

I do have one question, Mr. Chairman, to the counsel. 

Counsel, would you identify yourself, please? 

Mr. KERN. Yes. John Kern on behalf of Mr. Beale. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so you—okay, fine. 

Is there any—you know, part of our problem here is that we’re 

trying to prevent this from happening again. So there is no requirement anywhere for him to cooperate with anybody with regard to 

how he accomplished what he allegedly accomplished so that we 

can try to make sure it doesn’t happen again? There’s no requirement anywhere? 

Mr. KERN. No, there’s not. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Very well. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. We’ll move forward and dispense with 

this. 

Mr. Beale, did you serve in Vietnam? 

33 

Mr. BEALE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully decline to answer that 

question on the basis of the advice of my attorney to assert my 

Fifth Amendment privilege. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Beale, did you ever or do you now—do you 

now or did you ever serve with the Central Intelligence Agency as 

an agent or an operative or in any capacity in which you aided the 

CIA? 

Mr. BEALE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully decline to answer that 

question on the basis of my Fifth Amendment privilege. 

Chairman ISSA. With that, I have no choice but to relieve you of 

your position at the dais. We will escort you. You’re subject to a 

deposition—or, sorry, subject to a subpoena. So we’re going to ask 

that you remain and monitor the entire hearings from an anteroom 

that we’re making available to you, along with your attorney. 

It is the intention of this committee to seek your return for purposes of full disclosure. We will do so in concert with the U.S. attorney and, obviously, the trial judge. 

And, with that, we’ll take just a 2-minute recess so they can reassess how the seating order—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. Yes? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one thing. 

First of all, I’m hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that after sentencing we 

bring him back. Because then he is no longer in jeopardy and we 

can get the kind of information that we need to assist in the things 

that you talked about a little bit earlier, making sure this stuff 

does not happen again, so that we can get as much detail as possible. Then he’s not in jeopardy. 

So I’m hoping while he’s watching that he’s aware that he will 

likely—and I’m assuming the chairman would have no objection to 

bringing him once sentencing is over. 

Chairman ISSA. And I agree with the gentleman. And the reason 

for him watching it is so he knows what is said here. 

The intent is to work with the U.S. Attorneys’ Office. I believe 

that the appropriate arrangement should be prior to his sentencing 

as part of his plea bargain. That is not my decision; it’s not your 

decision. But we will seek to work with the court. 

As you know, we delayed this hearing until after the plea bargain in order to make the closure of this portion of the investigation for the IG’s office in place. 

But we will take this 2-minute recess and we’ll be right back. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order. 

We now recognize Mr. Perciasepe for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BOB PERCIASEPE 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Chairman Issa and Ranking Member 

Cummings and all the members of the committee who are here 

today, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to appear 

before you today and to discuss the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s progress in addressing recent issues brought to light by 

the EPA Inspector General’s ongoing investigation involving former 

EPA employee John C. Beale. 

34 

As evidenced by EPA’s referral of this matter to our Inspector 

General and our steadfast cooperation with the Inspector General’s 

investigation to this matter, we approach this with great seriousness. And we’re approaching corrective actions aggressively to deal 

with the issues that were raised by Mr. Beale’s fraudulent activity. 

As stewards of the taxpayers’ resources, EPA takes seriously our 

responsibility to ensure that Federal funds are used for the purposes that are appropriate, cost-effective, and important to the 

Agency’s mission. 

The recent Inspector General’s investigation, as we know, identified a number of administrative processes and controls, which were 

listed in testimony just a few moments ago, that were either insufficient or they were not being effectively used in preventing what 

appears to be a calculated, long-term criminal fraud. 

While I have not been provided the full details yet of the Inspector General’s investigative findings, I am aware the most significant fraud involved employee pay, including exceeding statutory 

pay limits, unauthorized extension on retention incentives, time 

and attendance, government-funded travel. And in nearly all instances, there are policies and procedures in place. However, a 

number of them may have been ignored, circumvented, or undermined by Mr. Beale’s criminal misconduct. 

At this time, the EPA is fully cooperating with the Inspector 

General and is looking forward to assessing all findings with a 

complete commitment to implement appropriate further process improvements and administrative changes necessary to ensure more 

effective internal controls. 

While we are waiting for the Inspector General’s report and continue to cooperate with them, we don’t want to wait to deal with 

some of the issues that we already know about. So in regard to 

steps already taken as part of our regular ongoing process of improvements and based on some of the preliminary findings shared, 

I want to outline a number of actions that we’ve already begun to 

take. 

Back last year and more recently this year, back in October of 

last year, I directed the Office of Administration and Resource 

Management in our Office of Chief Financial Officer to conduct additional reviews of policies and controls for time and attendance, 

employee pay, and travel. 

These reviews have resulted in strengthening of existing policies. 

We’ve strengthened supervisory control on time and attendance. 

We’ve increased oversight of time entry and approval practices, including generation of acceptance reports to assist managers. To 

show every employee whether the employee or their timekeeper entered the employee’s time; each employee who fails to enter his or 

her own time for three pay periods in a single quarter; any instance where a supervisor or a time approver failed to approve an 

employee’s time—all of these are now available in exception reports 

and are an additional series of controls on top of our existing system. These reports will then enable the Office of Chief Financial 

Officer, working with the employees and supervisors and time 

approvers, to correct or discover what the issues may be. 

We have improved review of employee travel, including a requirement now that 100 percent of all travel vouchers will be auVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:39 Dec 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\85907.PDF APRIL
35 

dited and all receipts will be submitted by the Chief Financial Officer before payment is authorized. 

We have tightened retention incentive processes, requiring future 

retention incentives to be entered into the human resource system 

with a not-to-exceed date, stop date, on the system, generating an 

exceptions report which will require a human resource specialist to 

either confirm the recertification has been received or end the incentive payment. So I might add as an aside, there is nobody at 

EPA right now receiving incentive payments. 

We’ve also ensured a review of gross payment amounts of employees by generating new controls for employee pay to ensure compliance with the statutory pay limits. 

These documented changes in policies and procedures will also be 

supported by an array of new training, resources for employees and 

supervisors, and defined roles and responsibilities associated with 

our administrative processes. 

As I indicated previously, our agency is fully committed to 

strengthening accountability for stewardship of resources entrusted 

to us by the taxpayers. And we expect fully to be working with the 

Inspector General as they do their administrative review of this 

current investigation and that they will be providing us with additional recommendations beyond the ones I’ve already mentioned 

that we’ve already implemented. 

So I want to thank you again for allowing me to represent the 

Agency here today, and I’m looking forward to answering your 

questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:] 

36 


Insert offset folio 19 here 85907.019
37 


Insert offset folio 20 here 85907.020
38 


Insert offset folio 21 here 85907.021
39 


Insert offset folio 22 here 85907.022
40 


Insert offset folio 23 here 85907.023
41 

Chairman ISSA. I will now recognize myself for a series of questions. 

Mr. Sullivan, you and your deputies in your investigation uncovered not just the big lie, the ‘‘I’m a secret agent man,’’ but you also 

uncovered these excess payments. 

Were you able to discover whether any other—whether this was 

a common overrun, allowing people to fly first-class, you know, the 

nature of how—you know, each of the violations that are unrelated 

to his not showing up to work? Did the scope of your investigation 

include any other employees other than Mr. Beale? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Our investigation was targeting Mr. Beale for his 

alleged criminal conduct, which we’ve now proven by his guilty 

plea. The question you’re referring to now, I believe, the bigger picture, our Office of Audit is engaged now in a thorough audit of the 

seven areas that Mr. Elkins already testified to. 

Chairman ISSA. And the EPA is audited by an outside accounting 

firm. Is that correct? Who is it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t know, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, so you don’t know if EPA got a clean audit 

on its spending. 

Mr. ELKINS. Chairman Issa, my staff conducts the EPA’s financial statement audit, so it’s done in-house. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So, previously, these were simply areas 

that were not audited thoroughly, obviously. 

Mr. ELKINS. The specific areas that we’re discussing here, no, 

not. 

Chairman ISSA. And audit of pay never includes verifying whether you exceed the SES pay cap? 

Mr. ELKINS. No, we have not conducted an audit on that issue. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

Mr. Perciasepe, does your accounting change now catch someone 

who has paid more than the statutory maximum? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, sir, it would. We’ve designed these improvements we’ve been making and the ones that we are now implementing to deal with the most important findings that we know 

of so far. 

Chairman ISSA. Uh-huh. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. And so we are—again, I want to keep pointing 

out that we will expect to learn more, but yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

Mr. Brenner, you said some glowing things about Mr. Beale, including, you know, if it had been anybody but Mr. Beale, you 

would’ve not considered his story credible. 

But isn’t it true you were aware that he basically took trips to 

domestic locations and turned expense accounts in? Were you also 

aware of his excess spending, in excess of the EPA guidelines and/ 

or Federal regulations? 

Mr. BRENNER. No, sir, I was not aware of that. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Elkins or Mr. Sullivan, in your investigation, 

who did review and would approve a first class ticket for 10 times 

the cost? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We interviewed the individual that signed the 

vouchers. She told us that because Mr. Beale’s status as an execuVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:39 Dec 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\85907.PDF APRIL
42 

tive and because of his CIA connection, she never actually looked 

at the vouchers, she just signed them and processed them. 

Chairman ISSA. So, in other words, at EPA, his undercover, 

super-secret status was known by a great many people? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is a fair statement, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. So when our Founding Fathers said the only way 

to keep a secret between two people is for one to be dead, they 

didn’t understand how the EPA can keep secrets among many people, including people who have no security clearances? In other 

words, weren’t there people at the CIA who have no high ranking 

security clearance who were ‘‘well aware’’ that he was with the 

CIA? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, if I understand your question, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Beale does not have a security clearance. To our knowledge, he has never had a security clearance; that is correct. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, we kind of understand that part on him. 

But in other words, the people in HR and so on that were approving these excess payments without looking at them, they were told 

he was in the CIA. So it was an open secret that he was super 

clandestine secret. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, the folks in HR might not have known that, 

but the people at his level, the executives in the agency—— 

Chairman ISSA. But the person approving the vouchers without 

looking at them was high ranking? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, a deputy assistant administrator. 

Chairman ISSA. So a deputy assistant administrator can, without 

credible requirements, can approve expenses greater than they are 

supposed to be approved and nobody behind them needs a justification? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is what happened, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. So there is no control over the American taxpayers for excess at the EPA. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I know that is part of the issue of the audit 

that Mr. Elkins described is taking place now. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Brenner, you yourself received, as I under- stand a $9,000 discount—or $8,000 discount on a Mercedes Benz. 

I understand you drove here in a Mercedes Benz today. Is it true 

that you received a discount through a lobbyist on behalf of Mercedes Benz on your automobile? 

Mr. BRENNER. [inaudible.] 

Chairman ISSA. Please turn the mic on for all of us. 

Mr. BRENNER. I am sorry. It is on. 

Chairman ISSA. I asked if you received a discount. That is pretty 

much a yes or no. Did you receive a discount on a Mercedes, arranged by a lobbyist, on an automobile you were purchasing? 

Mr. BRENNER. As I said, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that was 

reviewed and investigated a couple years ago, and my understanding is that the decision was that no further action on it was 

warranted. And I disclosed it in my 2011 financial disclosure form. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So, today, in the investigation in which we 

are conducting on EPA—there was an investigation. You have disclosed it in financial documents after the fact. So let’s go through 

this. Did you receive—did you accept an $8,000 discount for a Mercedes Benz? 

43 

Mr. BRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I came here voluntarily today to 

discuss the issues associated with Mr. Beale. I did not come prepared to discuss this set of issues that, as I said, have already been 

investigated and a decision has been made on it, and I am not prepared to discuss those issues today. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Brenner, we served you with a subpoena, 

and then you said you would come voluntarily. 

Mr. BRENNER. No. 

Chairman ISSA. I am sorry. We threatened a subpoena, I guess. 

Mr. BRENNER. I am not aware of that either. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, let me go through the script. 

During the course of the committee’s investigation, it was 

brought to our attention that you allegedly engaged in unethical 

conduct. According to the report from the EPA Inspector General, 

you accepted an $8,000 discount from Mercedes Benz. The discount 

was not offered to the general public and was arranged specifically 

for you by a lobbyist employed by, well, Hogan & Lovells, a local 

law firm. 

The committee is charged with preventing and investigating 

waste, fraud and abuse. The information that we have uncovered 

during the investigation as a result of the inspector general’s work 

includes this allegation of improper discount and demonstrates at 

least one possibility that the culture in which you operated as a supervisor promoted or allowed unethical behavior at the EPA, which 

Mr. Beale has pled guilty to. 

At this point, the committee would ask once again, voluntary or 

otherwise, because we will request you back involuntarily, would 

you please answer the question, did you receive the discount? Not 

was it passed by, not was it prosecuted; did you receive the discount? 

Mr. BRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as I said, that was not an issue I 

came here today prepared to discuss. I came voluntarily to discuss 

the matters directly related to Mr. Beale. If the committee wants 

to pursue this set of issues, I would ask that that be done through 

my counsel—— 

Chairman ISSA. Are you represented by counsel here today? 

Mr. BRENNER. I am represented by counsel here today. 

Chairman ISSA. Would you please confer with counsel as to 

whether or not this question, a question which takes no preparation—you know whether or not you received a discount. You said 

there was an investigation that cleared you. We are inquiring into 

that because, quite frankly, it was part of the IG’s investigation. It 

is part of the information that was given to us. And it is germane 

to this hearing. 

You are not here simply because you were duped by Mr. Beale. 

You are here as part of the broader investigation about what might 

be a negligent culture at the EPA as to whether or not the American people’s moneys are being protected and well spent. 

Please seek your counsel. We will wait. 

[discussion off the record.] 

Mr. BRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as I noted on my 2011 financial 

disclosure form, I did receive a discount on a vehicle, and it is described in that form. 

44 

Chairman ISSA. And the attorney/lobbyist who arranged for that, 

is that somebody that does business with the EPA? 

Mr. BRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this is a set of issues 

that I did not come prepared to discuss in detail with you and the 

committee. 

Chairman ISSA. And we will stay at a 10,000 foot level. You 

know the individual. Was it an individual or a firm that did business with the EPA and sought to influence legislation? 

Mr. BRENNER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it was an individual who did 

business with EPA. 

Chairman ISSA. Is it your understanding that you are allowed to 

accept discounts of monetary value from lobbyists or anyone else 

who does business with your agency that you oversee and/or accept 

them, something not available to the general public? I am just asking you what you understand the ethics to be. 

Mr. BRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this is an issue that was 

reviewed and investigated by the IG and the Department of Justice, and they came to the conclusion that no further—at least my 

understanding is they came to the conclusion that no further action 

is warranted. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I am going to go to the ranking member, 

and I am not sure that we believe that this is a closed matter. 

But, Mr. Cummings, thank you for your patience through this. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just to piggyback on just one question, Mr. Elkins, Mr. Brenner said the IG had—it is his opinion he has been 

cleared of this. Is that right? And did you do the investigation that 

he is talking about? 

Mr. ELKINS. Representative Cummings, I would like to refer this 

to Mr. Sullivan. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Sullivan. I didn’t know who to ask. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Mr. Cummings, my office did do the investigation. And Mr. Brenner is not accurate in his recitation of the 

facts. 

The fact is that the U.S. Department of Justice Public Integrity 

Section did decline prosecution of Mr. Brenner for accepting the 

discount. However, we were never able to interview him because he 

retired prior to us being able to interview him. And once he retired, 

we no longer had the ability to compel an interview. 

Our process is that once we get a declination, an employee within 

the agency is compelled to speak to us because there is no longer— 

they are no longer in jeopardy of prosecution. And that was indeed 

our plan, to compel Mr. Brenner’s interview with us, but it never 

happened. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, that is very helpful. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ISSA. I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman have his full 5 minutes. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Elkins and Mr. Sullivan, I want to thank you for joining us 

today. I want to commend you and your team of investigators for 

your very fine work in uncovering this massive fraud on the taxpayers and helping bring Mr. Beale to justice. 

I am struck by the audacity of Mr. Beale’s lies. According to the 

criminal plea agreement, ‘‘For more than 10 years, Beale engaged 

45 

in a pattern and scheme of deception, during which he lied to the 

United States Government, his supervisors, friends and family 

about a position he claimed he had with the Central Intelligence 

Agency.’’ 

It goes on to say that Mr. Beale used his fake CIA job as an excuse to just not show up for work, but he did it for what ended up 

to be two and a half years. Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. At a minimum, two and a half years, at 

a minimum. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What does that mean? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That means that the two and a half year figure 

was agreed to during negotiations between the United States Attorney and Mr. Beale’s defense counsel. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So it is quite possible it could have been more. 

Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It could have been a little bit more or maybe a 

year or two more, but we agreed on a two and a half year figure. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The idea that Mr. Beale was a secret agent for 

the CIA seems preposterous to all of us now, but it was a lie, and 

he kept it going for decades. He fooled pretty much everybody, his 

employers, his family and even his criminal defense lawyer, and it 

sounds like Mr. Beale was good at lying. And the more people he— 

you know, the more he lied, the more it seems that people believed 

him. And they went on and on and on, and I guess it became easier 

to believe. 

Mr. Sullivan, you interviewed more than 40 current and former 

EPA employees in connection with your investigation. Is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And did senior EPA officials across multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican, believe that Mr. 

Beale was working for the CIA? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you heard Mr. Brenner talk about what a 

great guy he was, all this wonderful stuff he had done. Did you get 

the impression that everybody kind of felt that way when he talked 

about all of his secret agent stuff and playing James Bond? I mean, 

is that, because he was such a good guy, they thought—do you 

think that is why everybody just said, oh, he is off on another mission? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, sir, I think the best way I can describe it 

is this. Mr. Beale did very high quality work for the agency. He got 

a lot of accolades. And based on our interview with him, he said 

that wasn’t enough; he needed to puff up his image. That is when 

he assumed the persona as being a CIA undercover agent. It was 

universally accepted, absolutely universally accepted throughout 

the agency that he worked for the CIA among the senior executives. 

The first executive that ever questioned him working for the CIA 

was in fact Gina McCarthy. Beyond her suspicions, everyone else 

we interviewed flat out believed he worked for the CIA. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you mean to tell me that somebody could 

walk in, I could be working for the EPA or in some other agency, 

46 

and say, you know what, guys, I am with the CIA, and is it nothing 

is required—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, Mr. Cummings, I think—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. To show that? Do you follow me? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. He began in 1994 with assuming this persona, 

and he did it a little bit a time. And finally, when he spoke to Mr. 

Homestead, who was then assistant administrator, in 2001, he 

crafted a somewhat believable story that the CIA had recruited 

him to be on this oversight panel, and in fact, he was reviewing 

undercover operations around the globe as part of his oversight 

panel he was recruited to join, allegedly. Of course, it was all a lie. 

But Mr. Homestead believed that. And he used that to a springboard more and more time away from the agency. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. In fact, the plea agreement described that, in 

2001, a senior Bush administration official at the EPA granted 

Beale permission to be out of the office 1 day a week in order to 

work on, and I quote, ‘‘an interagency special advisory group working on a project with the Directorate of Operations at the CIA.’’ 

Pursuant to this authorization, Mr. Beale began taking 1 day a 

week off on days he claimed he was working for the CIA, and he 

did that for many years. 

Mr. Sullivan, is that right? Do you recall how many years that 

happened? I know you have talked about two and a half years a 

little earlier. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, the total, it was a minimum of two and a half 

years that was agreed to by his defense counsel and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the plea agreement. He began taking 1 day off a 

week, and then he gradually—it morphed into more and more time. 

There was a period of time, for approximately 2 years, he never 

came into the office. That was toward the end of his career. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But that Bush administration official was not 

alone. The plea agreement said that Mr. Beale was also lying to his 

family. 

Mr. Sullivan, was that true? Was Mr. Beale also lying to his family? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. It is absolutely correct that based 

on—and we could see that based on email traffic. We never interviewed Mr. Beale’s wife. We also had another—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Are they still married? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir, to my understanding. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Are you sure? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I do not know. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay, go ahead. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We also had one other employee, who was an administrative person, executive assistant, that did suspect Beale, 

but she was fairly midlevel rank. And she believed that Beale’s 

travel vouchers were far too excessive. And she brought that to the 

attention of her immediate supervisor, who was a deputy assistant 

administrator, the person in fact who was signing the vouchers, 

and her fears were dismissed. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What about his criminal defense attorney? 

Mr. Sullivan, do you have any understanding of whether after he 

had already been caught, Mr. Beale initially lied to him as well, is 

that right? 

47 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. Mr. Beale maintained the persona of being 

a CIA agent and his defense counsel told the U.S. Attorney assigned to the case that, please, tell the OIG agents to back off because you are interfering with the CIA work. And the U.S. attorney 

came to us, and we have a great relationship with the CIA Inspector General’s Office. We discussed the case with them. They had already told us he did not work for the CIA, and they had no record 

of him whatsoever. So we arranged for him to come to Langley in 

a secure room, and that was the point where Mr. Beale, I think, 

finally came forward and told his attorney that he really did not 

work for the CIA. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have one other thing. How did the government 

force Mr. Beale to face the facts and admit that he was never employed by the CIA? You brought him to the CIA? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, we said we would. We arranged that. We arranged it to make him feel comfortable, and we arranged him for 

a particular day to meet us at the main gate in McLean on 123, 

and he would be escorted by one of our agents and a CIA employee, 

and we would go to the secure room with Mr. Beale and his attorney. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Can you describe that? I just got to know. I 

mean, what was that like? You got a guy who has been lying that 

he is a part of the CIA. You bring him to the CIA. And now there 

is this wonderful meeting where—I mean, tell us what happened. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, he never showed up, because he finally then 

told his defense counsel that he really didn’t work for the CIA. But 

it came to that point in order for us to get past that bridge because 

he had maintained with his own counsel that he worked for the 

CIA. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Clearly, EPA needed more checks and balances, 

is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see you have just been sent a bulletin. What 

does that say? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is cell phone records and locations overseas. 

During the time he allegedly worked for the CIA, he was in communications with executives at the EPA, and he claimed he was 

overseas, either in Pakistan or other locations. When we pulled his 

government cell phone records, we found he was actually at his vacation home in Massachusetts making the phone calls claiming 

that he was overseas. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The chairman said something that I think is so 

probably quite accurate. He said that a lot of times when he saw 

a defect, it was probably more than one defect. And I am just wondering, I mean, when you all look at this, are you seeing this as 

an aberration, or are you seeing, you know what, there is probably 

more of this stuff going on? 

I mean, did you—Mr. Elkins or Mr. Sullivan, do you have an impression? 

In other words, we are trying to make sure it doesn’t happen 

again. I mean, do you believe that this is just one of these things 

that happened, this guy was just a phenomenal liar and he got 

away with it, or do you think that it is quite possible that there 

are other situations like this? 

48 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, Representative Cummings, in our business, we 

don’t really like to deal with speculation. We like to deal with the 

facts. That is why we are starting our audit. Hopefully, at the end 

of that audit, we will be able to shine a light on your question and 

give you an answer to that question. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you expect that if the audit, if there are some 

things like this happening, that that audit might provide you with 

the information you need to be able to answer that. Is that what 

you are saying? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is our goal, yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

And if you will yield me long enough to pile on a little bit, I think 

what Mr. Cummings and I are both getting to is the internal controls to prevent each and every one of these abuses from happening 

appear not to be in place. 

And obviously, when it is done, Mr. Perciasepe, you have made 

it clear you are trying to create those internal controls. 

Obviously, we would like to find out who else fell between the 

cracks. And then the challenge for us is, Mr. Elkins, you are one 

of 74 IGs. We figure there are 73 other agencies that need to do 

some soul searching about internal controls, and that is a big part 

of the reason why Mr. Cummings and I have you all here today. 

Chairman ISSA. With that, I would like to go to the gentleman 

from North Carolina. 

Mr. MCHENRY. I would like to yield the balance of my time to 

the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. CUMMINGS That is the whole time. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Brenner, do you know Patrick Raher? 

Mr. BRENNER. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. JORDAN. And isn’t it true that Patrick Raher is a member 

of the EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee? 

Mr. BRENNER. He was at one time. He is not a member now. 

Mr. JORDAN. But he was at one time. Do you know how long he 

served? 

Mr. BRENNER. I do not know how long. 

Mr. JORDAN. Isn’t it true that he was a member back in 1992, 

do you know? Our records indicate he was a member in 1992. 

Mr. BRENNER. I think that is correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. You testified you and Mr. Beale did important work on the Clean Air Act. Did you work with Mr. Raher back 

in the early 1990s, when he was a member of the Clean Air Act 

Advisory Committee? 

Mr. BRENNER. That was a forum that met publicly—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Have you worked alongside Mr. Raher? You said 

you knew him. Did you work alongside of him in his capacity at 

the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee? In your capacity with the 

EPA, did you work with him? 

Mr. BRENNER. I discussed Clean Air Act issues in that public 

forum with Mr. Raher and with many other people who were a 

member of this Public Advisory Committee. 

49 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. And let me go back to where the chairman 

was a little while ago. Have you ever purchased an Mercedes Benz 

automobile? 

Mr. BRENNER. I did. 

Mr. JORDAN. And Mr. Sullivan, did Mr. Brennen—Brenner, excuse me, receive a discount for the purchase of this automobile? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, our investigation revealed he did receive a $8,000—it was entitled a VIP discount. 

Mr. JORDAN. An $8,000 VIP discount. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And the individual who helped, ‘‘broker the deal,’’ 

I am look at your report, can you tell me who that individual was? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It was Mr. Raher. 

Mr. JORDAN. The same Mr. Raher who served on the EPA Advisory Committee? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. The same Mr. Raher that Mr. Brenner has known 

since 1992? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I don’t know how long he has known him, 

but it is the same Mr. Raher. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, he was working at the EPA and Mr. Raher 

has been at the Advisory Committee, was working at the Advisory 

Committee since 1992. 

Mr. Brenner, is that accurate, what Mr. Sullivan had to say there? Is everything exactly that way? You got an $8,000 discount 

from Mercedes Benz when you purchased this automobile? 

Mr. BRENNER. Sir, Mr. Raher is somebody who I have known, as 

you mentioned, since 1992 and in fact before that. He has been a 

friend of mine throughout that period. And it is true that he was 

involved in—— 

Mr. JORDAN. So he is a friend. 

Mr. BRENNER. He is a long-time friend. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, you didn’t tell me that a little while ago. A 

long-time friend? 

Mr. BRENNER. That is the case, that he has been a friend. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay, now I want to come more to the present time when you got the $8,000 discount on the purchase of the Mercedes 

Benz that Mr. Raher was the broker for that deal and at the time 

worked as a lobbyist for the Daimler Auto Group. At that time, 

were you also then working on the CAFE standards? 

Mr. BRENNER. No, sir, I was not. And I am going to say again 

that this is an issue that was looked at—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, it is our understanding, at that time, you got 

the—at the time you got the $8,000 discount, were you working in 

the Office of Air and Radiation? 

Mr. BRENNER. I was working in the Office of Air and Radiation 

at the time. 

Mr. JORDAN. And that office had jurisdiction over the CAFE 

standards? 

Mr. BRENNER. That office shared jurisdiction with another agency. 

Mr. JORDAN. But that office was involved in forming the CAFE 

standards, correct? 

Mr. BRENNER. But I was not. 

50 

Mr. JORDAN. But was your boss, Ms. McCarthy, your direct supervisor, was she involved? 

Mr. BRENNER. Yes, I believe she was involved in it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Sullivan, do you know if Ms. McCarthy knew 

about the discount that one of her employees got from someone in 

the auto industry at the time they were working on implementing 

the CAFE standards for the auto industry? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. She did not know about it at the time. We interviewed Ms. McCarthy, and indeed, we interviewed every GS–14 

employee and above. 

Mr. JORDAN. When did Ms. McCarthy find out about the special 

sweetheart deal that Mr. Brenner got from Mercedes Benz? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is when we interviewed her. 

Mr. JORDAN. And when was that? Give me that date. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That was—well, I don’t have the report in front 

of me, sir, but I believe it was in late 2010. 

Mr. JORDAN. When did Mr. Brenner again get the special deal? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. In 2010. 

Mr. JORDAN. The same year. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. The same time they are working on CAFE standards. We had a hearing in this committee. In fact, Mr. Chairman, 

I would ask to enter into the record some of the findings from the 

hearing we had in our subcommittee last Congress on implementation of the CAFE Standards. 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. JORDAN. At the same time the CAFE Standards were being 

formed? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sir, I don’t have any direct knowledge of the 

CAFE standards. I didn’t have any visibility on that. We were just 

investigating the allegation that Mr. Brenner took—an ethical violation—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Ms. McCarthy knew about it in 2010. Mr. Brenner 

got the loan, the sweetheart deal, in 2010. CAFE standards were 

being worked on in 2010 out of Ms. McCarthy’s office. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I will accept that assertion, sir, but we weren’t 

looking at the CAFE standards. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Well, I understand that. I am just saying the 

dates; it all happened at the same time. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand I am out of time, but here is the 

point: Mr. Raher, who is on the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, 

has known Mr. Brenner for 20-some years, not just known him, 

close friends, then works as a lobbyist for a major auto group at 

the time the CAFE standards are being implemented. Mr. Brenner 

who works in the office of Ms. McCarthy where they are putting 

together these CAFE standards gets a sweetheart deal. That is 

what is going on at the EPA, and that is our concern. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Mr. Elkins and Mr. Sullivan especially for your 

participation in the hearing this morning. 

51 

I want to talk a little bit about these retention bonuses and the 

conditions under which they are granted. There seem to be two 

conditions based on the regulations and statutes and EPA policy. 

One of the conditions is that for an employee to receive a retention 

bonus, that there is the danger that they would be attracted away 

to private practice and we would lose the benefit of their services. 

Is that correct, Mr. Elkins? 

Mr. Sullivan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, that is the general concept behind the 

recentive retention bonus. 

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Perciasepe, the other condition is that we actually retain the employee, we actually retain them. So in this case, 

at least you can enlighten me, we did not really dig down and 

verify whether Mr. Beale’s job offers, private sector opportunities, 

were real, number one, and then we didn’t verify whether we retained him. It is apparent that he was gone for a year and a half 

at one stretch. He was not employed. He just left for a year and 

a half. There is a total of two and a half years here that he was 

absent from the workplace. So, on the retention bonus, we didn’t 

verify that he deserved it, and then we didn’t verify that we retained him. Now, there is a complete collapse, and I am wondering 

if you can help me with this? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I think you mentioned the reasons for a 

retention bonus correctly. They are likely to leave. They have offers 

or some other reason that they are likely to leave. They are performing work that is necessary for the agency. And when there was 

an approved retention bonus for Mr. Beale, it was in the time 

frames that you heard several people talking about, including Mr. 

Sullivan, that he had a high prestige. He was a high-performing individual, and it was not unreasonable to expect that he might be 

getting retention bonuses. 

Mr. LYNCH. But for a year and a half, he was puttering around 

the house reading books. That is not a high performance. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The problem is not in the original rationale for 

that back in the 1990s. The problem is that it kept getting recertified without any recertification process. So it went on through the 

time period that I think the inspector general is talking about. So 

the issues of when he was at work and not at work are not during 

the initial granting of the retention bonus. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay, let me stop you because you are not being 

helpful. 

Mr. Sullivan, how did this guy basically absent himself from the 

workplace for a year and a half, and we didn’t pick up on it? He 

was gone for 2 and a half years out of 13 years. How did this happen? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. He, again, claimed he was living his alternate lifestyle as the CIA undercover agent, and he claimed he was traveling 

overseas and doing undercover work and no one questioned him, 

and he had free rein. No one questioned Mr. Beale ever. No one 

questioned his vouchers. No one questioned his time away from the 

office. No one questioned his lack of work product. 

Mr. LYNCH. What are we doing now to make sure this doesn’t 

happen again, Mr. Perciasepe? 

52 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. As I mentioned in my opening statement, and 

I want to be clear about this because we are working with the IG 

as they do their review, so we are going to probably learn more, 

but in advance of that, we have moved ahead and established a 

number of improvements to our controls. We have controls. They 

were not followed. So we have added additional levels of control. 

And on retention bonus, we have put a hard stop. They need to be 

renewed every year, and they only have a 3-year duration. 

Mr. LYNCH. That was always in there. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Right. That’s always in there. What didn’t happen in the early part of the last decade is that nobody ever reviewed those. So what we now have in the system is a hard stop. 

If they don’t get reviewed, the payment stops. 

Mr. LYNCH. We need to do a lot more. 

I only have 20 seconds left. What kills me is there actually are 

employees, whether they are doctors at the VA or finance people 

at SEC, that we actually do need to pay retention bonuses to, to 

retain them, because of the value they bring to the government and 

to the taxpayer. This is just disgraceful that we have undermined 

it in this fashion. So you have got to clean up your act. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sullivan, I am going to come back to you. At the time that 

this—and also—well, we have entered the report, but I will come 

back to that maybe, Mr. Chairman. 

But Mr. Sullivan, did you recommend prosecution for the sweetheart deal that Mr. Brenner got with Mercedes Benz and that Mr. 

Raher facilitated with the Daimler Auto Group? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That was a joint investigation that we had with 

the FBI. It was opened up; a file was opened up in the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice. We believed we had 

enough evidence to prove a crime. The U.S. Attorney’s Office—excuse me, the Public Integrity Section declined prosecution, and the 

FBI dropped out of the case, and it left us—— 

Mr. JORDAN. But in your professional opinion, you felt it should 

have proceeded with a prosecution? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we presented the facts, and that decision is 

always up to the Justice Department. 

Mr. JORDAN. I understand that. But are you are a good lawyer. 

I can tell. You are testifying here today, and you know what you 

are talking about. In your professional judgment, you felt it should 

have moved forward? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think that there was merit to move forward, yes, 

sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. And just to refresh my memory again. What 

date did you recommend that, that you sent this on and, the decision was made. What was the date 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The declination, again, I don’t have my file in 

front of me, the declination happened sometime in 2011. 

Mr. JORDAN. In 2011. Okay. Mr. Brenner, when did you step 

down? 

Mr. BRENNER. I retired from EPA in August of 2011. 

53 

Mr. JORDAN. So this declination that Mr. Sullivan talked about 

was before you retired? 

Mr. BRENNER. I am not sure exactly when the declination took 

place. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Sullivan, can you answer that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, the declination happened before Mr. Brenner 

retired. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, let me go to Mr. Sullivan. Was there talk— 

when you talked with Ms. McCarthy about this incident, was there 

talk of disciplining Mr. Brenner, any type of disciplinary action? I 

mean, here you have got the inspector general, who thinks it 

should be prosecuted. Was there any disciplinary action taken? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, let me explain how it works. When we work 

a criminal investigation, we concentrate on that first. And when we 

interviewed Ms. McCarthy the first time, it was based on a fact 

trying to develop evidence for a potential crime. 

The second time we spoke to Ms. McCarthy about this it was 

after the declination had been issued, and it was after Mr. Brenner 

had retired. At that point, we were looking at a potential administrative violation. We also endeavored to determine it if any other 

employee in the Office of Air and Radiation had accepted a VIP discount. Therefore, we interviewed every GS–14 and above, any supervisor, and that was in excess of 50 people, and there was no evidence anyone else accepted a discount. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Brenner, were you disciplined in any way for 

the loan deal with Mercedes Benz, with the discount that you got 

when you purchased the automobile? Was there any type of disciplinary action taken? 

Mr. BRENNER. No, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. And no talk of getting fired or any type of disciplinary action at all? 

Mr. BRENNER. No, sir. As I said, it was investigated, and the Department of Justice declined to take further action on it. 

Mr. JORDAN. And did you get any type of bonus when you—in 

2011, when your retirement comes due or in that calendar year? 

Mr. BRENNER. I don’t remember what bonuses I might have received in that year. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Sullivan, how many people directly report— 

when you were doing this investigation, how many directly report 

to Ms. McCarthy when she was running the Office of Air and Radiation. How many people directly reported to her? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. To my understanding, it is in excess of 1,000. 

Mr. JORDAN. Direct reports. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Direct reports? She had three deputy assistant administrators. 

Mr. JORDAN. And who were those three deputy assistant administrators? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, at one time, there was Mr. Brenner, Mr. 

Beale, and a Ms.—and another lady. 

Mr. JORDAN. So two of the three had significant problems, two 

of the three that directly reported to her, Mr. Beale and Mr. Brenner. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Subsequent investigations uncovered that, that is 

correct. 

54 

Mr. JORDAN. I want to do one last thing if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

Let’s put on the screen. This is what amazes me. Not only does Ms. 

McCarthy know that this takes place, if we could put that up, the 

invitation, this is the invitation for the retirement party. At the 

bottom, you can see where it mentions Gina McCarthy as the head 

of the thing. 

So Ms. McCarthy only has three people who report directly to 

her. Two of them were here today; one left already, Mr. Beale. The 

other is Mr. Brenner. Mr. Brenner gets a sweetheart deal from 

Mercedes Benz, facilitated by Mr. Raher, who has been an adviser 

to the EPA since 1992 and a close friend of Mr. Brenner. All this 

goes on. The IG recommends prosecution. No discipline—no disciplinary action taken at all for Mr. Brenner. In fact, they throw 

him a party. They throw him a party when he retires. That is what 

is going on at our Environmental Protection Agency. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. JORDAN. I would yield to the chairman. 

I yield back to the chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. My understanding is he didn’t retire. This was 

the nonretirement retirement of Mr. Beale, who everyone knew 

stayed on the payroll. 

Mr. JORDAN. For Mr. Beale, but not for Mr. Brenner. 

Chairman ISSA. That is correct. 

We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perciasepe, part of me feels we are a little bit fiddling while 

Rome is burning because of course, we are now on the first day of 

a complete government shutdown. And while the sordid details of 

this case are fascinating and should be dealt with and are a worthy 

topic of congressional attention and oversight, Mr. Perciasepe, does 

the shutdown cost EPA money on a daily basis? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The shutdown costs the American people on a 

daily basis. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is there a dollar estimate for just the EPA? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I don’t have a dollar estimate. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Elkins, any idea of what it 

costs EPA every day we are shutting down? 

Mr. ELKINS. I don’t have that number available. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would it be fair to suggest that it far exceeds 

what we are looking at here today in terms of the estimated cost 

of Mr. Beale’s fraud? 

Mr. ELKINS. I would say that the cost would be substantial. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Isn’t it true the CBO scores a savings for every 

day that 800,000 employees are not being paid? 

I agree with the gentleman, by the way, that we should not be 

in shutdown, that the important work of the EPA and other agencies, we would like to have them back to work as soon as possible, 

but I am not sure we have the right panel to analyze the cost-benefit analysis. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I know the chairman will appreciate, I wanted to 

reclaim my time right after you said that. 

But okay, I am glad we in agreement. 

55 

But I think it is fair to say that there is also a cost associated, 

both tangible and intangible, with the shutdown, and I think it is 

really important we put this hearing in that context. 

I think it is also important to really guard against taking an 

egregious particular case and then generalizing. There are former 

Members of Congress, even from the chairman’s home State, who 

were incarcerated for being criminals who were engaged in criminal activities. And to take that particular case and then say, well, 

then all of Congress must be complicit, let’s start making sure that 

we include in our accusations and insinuations that all of them are 

corrupt, would be a false premise. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield further for one moment? 

Of course, I will stop the clock. 

I would bring to the gentleman’s attention, I believe it may have 

been before you arrived here, that the Congress took up what we 

often call the Duke Cunningham law so that any Member of Congress who disgraces and embezzles and/or receives gifts in return 

for their favors as voters would in fact forfeit their pension, so 

never again will we have that. And that is a big part, and I have 

offered some legislation for the ranking member to consider we are 

trying to do is to recognize that never again should somebody retire 

on a 22-year retirement, as Mr. Beale, did when in fact he didn’t 

work for 22 years. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I really appreciate the point of the chairman 

because I would be glad to join with the chairman and the ranking 

member on such legislation. I think that is exactly the corrective 

kind of action we ought to be looking at. What we shouldn’t be 

doing is trying to paint with a guilty brush by insinuation the guilt 

of Mr. Beale and perhaps others. We have to be very careful about 

that. And that is the point I was making. 

And I know the chairman would agree with me that those who 

might conclude we are all to be painted with the same brush, that 

would be a false assertion, no matter the temptation of the public 

to look cynically at a Congress when individual examples of corruption occur. That is the point I am trying to make. 

Mr. Perciasepe, is EPA rampant with corruption? Was this a circle of conspiracy that Mr. Beale was only the sort of the tip of the 

iceberg? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. You know, at the core of this matter is an individual who deliberately and with calculation defrauded the EPA 

and the American taxpayer. I am not able to say how much further 

that went because that is still under review, but we have policies 

and controls in place. They were—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So stipulated. 

Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Elkins, any evidence of a conspiracy, that 

this is wider than just Mr. Beale? 

Mr. ELKINS. Sir, that is why we are conducting our audit. Hopefully, within the very near future, we will be able to give you an 

answer to that question. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So, right now, you don’t have an answer to that 

question? 

Mr. ELKINS. No, I don’t, because we haven’t completed the audit. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. A final question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

56 

Mr. Brenner, you indicated—did I understand your testimony 

correctly that you vacationed together with Mr. Beale? 

Mr. BRENNER. I said that—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could you turn on your microphone, Mr. Brenner? 

Mr. BRENNER. Sorry. I said that occasionally John Beale and I 

had vacationed together at a house that we co-owned in Massachusetts. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Over what period of time? 

Mr. BRENNER. The time I was referring to was in the 1980s. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. 1980s. For the whole decade? Was this a regular 

thing, or it just happened once? We are trying to get at how well 

you knew Mr. Beale. 

Mr. BRENNER. I think it was about once a year from that period, 

from about 1983 until about 1989. But I have said that I knew Mr. 

Beale very well. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And if the chair would just indulge one final 

question, you indicated in your testimony that starting in 1988 

through roughly the year 2000, you felt that Mr. Beale was a solid 

professional and did good work, is that correct? 

Mr. BRENNER. That is correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But starting in 2000, you saw a change. Something changed, is that correct? 

Mr. BRENNER. I don’t know that I personally saw anything after 

2000. What I was describing is that I was Mr. Beale’s supervisor 

through the 1990s, and after that, I was no longer his supervisor. 

So what I am saying is during the time that I was his supervisor 

in the 1990s, there were a lot of noteworthy accomplishments that 

Mr. Beale deserves credit for in many different areas. He was highly regarded. After 2000, though, I was no longer his supervisor, and 

I have said in my testimony, given his plea, that of course something went dramatically wrong in terms of his performance at EPA. 

He pled guilty to fraud. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes, I understand that. But did you observe that 

at the time, this change in your friend, or is this something you 

just were made aware of retrospectively? 

Mr. BRENNER. No, I did not observe that myself. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is what I wanted to get at. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. 

Chairman ISSA. Please note that I majored in indulgence here. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You have been most indulgent. 

Chairman ISSA. With that, we recognize the gentleman from 

Utah, and I ask indulgence to borrow 15 seconds. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Brenner, I just want to understand, in 1994, 

when Mr. Beale began perpetrating this criminal activity of claiming to be CIA and taking time off, you had prior to that time coowned this home that you call a vacation home in Massachusetts, 

having bought it from his parents. That is the way I understand 

it. Is that true? 

Mr. BRENNER. That is true. That house was purchased by the 

two of us somewhere around 1983. 

57 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So, at the time that you helped Mr. Beale 

get into this job and through the period of part of your supervising 

him, you were friends; you co-owned a building, a home, a vacation 

spot together. That is correct, right? 

Mr. BRENNER. It is correct that we co-owned. I don’t describe 

that as helping Mr. Beale get into EPA. We have a personnel process, had a personnel process at the agency, where his application—— 

Chairman ISSA. I don’t want to take more of his time. It is just 

that when somebody says I sort of know this guy, he is a friend, 

but you could own a building together, you are friends, you vacation together, and you are his supervisor. 

With that, I will let the gentleman from Utah follow up. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, if I can ask unanimous consent to 

have my clock reset to 5. I believe Mr. Connolly was given an 

extra—— 

Chairman ISSA. The indulgence is so noted. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I thank the gentleman from Virginia as well 

for his understanding. 

And I thank the chairman. 

Listen, this is important. If we are going to get to the truth, we 

have to understand. As a Nation, we are self-critical. We are going 

to look deep into these things to make sure they never happen 

again. 

So I have seen the movie ‘‘Catch Me If You Can.’’ It smells a lot 

like that. It is unbelievable that somebody could get away with 

this. 

I want to go back to that invitation and this party. There is a 

retirement party. Mr. Beale is stepping down. My understanding, 

Mr. Sullivan, is that Ms. McCarthy was at that retirement party, 

and she was keenly aware that he was retiring. Correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But he didn’t actually retire. He continued on for 

how much longer on the payroll of the United States Government? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. A year and a half longer. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And at that time, he was the direct—who was his 

direct report? He reported directly to Ms. McCarthy during that 

time, correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Did he show up to work during that time? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let’s put up slide No. 2—slide No. 7, pardon me. 

Slide No. 7. 

This is a letter from Gina McCarthy, who is now the EPA administrator, but prior to that, she had this responsibility for Mr. Beale. 

The retirement party happened in September of 2011. This is an 

email that is dated January of 2013: ‘‘As you are aware, we have 

been seeking confirmation for your employment status with the 

other Federal agency you maintained you have worked for or are 

currently working for while employed at the EPA.’’ 

And later it goes on and says, ‘‘We have been unable to confirm 

the existence of an interagency detail or any other type of arrangement.’’ 

You are familiar with this email, Mr. Sullivan? 

58 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let’s go to slide No. 8. About a month later, this 

is an email, and the highlight I wanted: ‘‘It has come to my attention that you are currently receiving a retention bonus in addition 

to your base salary. As a result, I have notified OARM to cancel 

payment of the retention bonus.’’ 

So what happened there? In between—Gina McCarthy, she becomes aware that maybe this is a lie. It is fraud. It is deception. 

And she sends this. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chaffetz, can you tell me the date of that 

email? I can’t read it. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It is February 5th. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. February 5th. And that was almost a week before 

we were informed about the situation. We were informed on February 11th of 2012—I am sorry, 2013. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So what did she do about it? Did she tell you 

about it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. She told us about it on February 11th of 2013. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. She didn’t tell you about it first, right? She told 

the General Counsel’s Office. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So she didn’t tell you directory first. She told 

somebody else about it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And then it went to another office, correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And then it finally landed on your desk. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Did she fire him? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Fire who? Mr. Beale? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So Gina McCarthy knows that it is fraud. He is 

admitting that he doesn’t have any excuse to this. He has basically 

been outed at this point. And the only thing that she does is get 

rid of his retention bonus? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, sir, with all due respect, I think you 

mischaracterized that. 

Ms. McCarthy forwarded her concerns about fraud, and it was 

our job as criminal investigators to investigate it. During this time 

period, from February 11th on, we were conducting our criminal investigation. So Ms. McCarthy had her suspicions. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But she had enough to go and say, let’s get rid 

of your retention bonus, because obviously, this other agency isn’t 

true. 

What happened to Mr. Beale? Did he get fired? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir. He retired. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And as a consequence, does he get his full retirement benefits? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir, he does. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So here he is prosecuted, convicted, pled guilty, 

owing hundreds—almost $1 million. He defrauds the Federal Government. Gina McCarthy knows about this. She only had three reports at the time: Mr. Brenner, who has his own ethical problems 

59 

and challenges. The number two person is defrauding the Federal 

Government by nearly $1 million, faking his way, saying he is a 

CIA employee, and she doesn’t fire him? And the guy still, month 

after month, the United States taxpayers are going to pay him for 

his extraordinary services, and it is based, right, on the highest 3 

years of his income, which was fraudulent. 

It is another example, Mr. Chairman, of this administration, the 

Obama administration, failing to actually fire somebody. What does 

it take to actually get fired in this Federal Government? If this person could be fired and she didn’t do it, I think we have no choice 

but to hear from Administrator McCarthy. She was involved in 

this. She went to his retirement party. He didn’t show up to work 

for years, and she paid him above what she is allowed to do by the 

statutory limit; didn’t fire him; he still gets his bonus. She needs 

to come before this committee. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

As I go to Ms. Duckworth, I just want to make sure our timeline 

is accurate. According to what the gentleman just went through, 

the administrator was aware and was working with the general 

counsel on the fact that he didn’t work for that other agency, in her 

estimation, before the investigation was given to you, is that correct? In other words, general counsel—her awareness, general 

counsel, and then, later, you, is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. We can follow up on that later. Thank 

you. 

The gentlelady from Illinois. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are here to talk about government accountability today, and 

this an incredibly important topic, but I would be remiss not to 

mention that our government is in shutdown for the first time in 

nearly 20 years. American veterans, small business owners and 

families all across the country are waking up today to news that 

their government has failed to meet its most basic function. 

I have been willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of 

the aisle to make changes to the Affordable Care Act. I even voted 

against my own party to repeal the Medical Device Act. But the 

time to have these discussions is not when government is being 

held hostage. 

This government shutdown is a disgrace. It is a waste of the 

American people’s time. They are right to be extremely disappointed in us. 

Our neighbors sent us to Washington to find solutions and not 

to play politics, and I hope that my colleagues remember that as 

we continue this discussion. 

That is why I am so pleased to be working in a bipartisan way 

at this hearing today. Like so many of my colleagues, I am outraged at this clear case of abuse in the public trust. At a time when 

programs critical to the livelihoods of Americans are being slashed, 

Mr. Beale managed to pocket hundreds of thousands of hard-working taxpayer dollars by making up fantasies and lies. And while 

this is just one particularly bad apple in an otherwise hard-working, honorable civil service workforce, it seems totally inexcusable 

to me that the management of this agency failed to catch and stop 

60 

his fraudulent activity. For an entire decade after he was legitimately authorized to do so, Mr. Beale was able to receive thousands of dollars on autopilot. 

Mr. Elkins and Mr. Sullivan, I understand that your office is still 

working on recommendations on how to address these massive 

management failures at the EPA. Could you share with us your 

thoughts on the controls that EPA has already started to put into 

place, and perhaps reflecting what my colleague from Utah was 

talking about in terms of once a manager finds out or suspects that 

there is something going on, are they allowed to fire that person 

right away or must the investigation process continue, and how has 

that changed? 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, first of all, I applaud the actions that EPA is 

taking to address some of the issues that we have discussed here 

at this hearing. We will continue to look, as a result of our audit, 

at what other internal control weaknesses are out there and make 

recommendations to resolve those internal control weaknesses as 

they make themselves apparent. 

In terms of the personnel issues or the regulations that you 

spoke of, I am not prepared to address specifically what is allowed 

and what is not allowed for those, and I don’t want to speculate. 

Without having the actual regulations in front of me, I don’t want 

to speculate on that issue. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. Sullivan, do you think the controls that EPA has already 

started to put in place are sufficient? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Ma’am, I really don’t want to offer an opinion on 

that. I haven’t had a chance to see them being implemented. But 

I do want to say that we have received complete cooperation during 

this investigation. So I am very hopeful and optimistic. But I don’t 

think we have had enough time to see if they are going to work. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. Brenner, this vacation home that you coown in Massachusetts, when did you pay that off? 

Could you turn your microphone on, please? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. We purchased the home in 1983 or somewhere around then, and then, in later years, in the late 1990s, Mr. 

Beale bought the remainder, my share of the house, from me because this was his family home that they had built together back 

when he was a teenager, and his plan was to redevelop the house. 

He bought out my share. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay, I am running out of time so I am going 

to cut you off a little bit. So he bought out the time years after you 

authorized him to get additional pay that he wasn’t authorized to 

get. 

Mr. BRENNER. First of all—— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Twenty-five percent of his salary more than he 

should have gotten. 

Mr. BRENNER. Well, I don’t think that is accurate that he was 

not authorized to get it. We went through a complete process for 

justifying that increase in pay. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Right, based on him orally saying, oh yeah, I 

have an oral offer of a job offer. So, basically, you—— 

Mr. BRENNER. No, I think there was more than that. 

61 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. That is not what I am reading in the investigation here. It says that there is no documentation that he ever had 

a job offer from another firm. 

Now, my question is, you helped him get additional money for 

years, and then he turned around and, with that additional income, 

was able to pay you and buy you out of this home that you shared. 

Don’t you think that is an ethical problem that you are facing right 

now? 

Mr. BRENNER. Actually, what happened at the time was he sold 

a residence that he had here in the area, and he used the proceeds 

from that in order to be able to—— 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. And how did he buy that residence, with additional dollars, with the pay that he received, a job that you helped 

him get and a job that you helped him get more money than he 

should have been getting for, for all this time. 

You know, Mr. Perciasepe, just with my last question, I just 

want to ask, you know, even if an EPA employee has a buddy like 

Mr. Brenner to help him out, who himself is willing to engage in 

questionable ethics by accepting handouts from lobbyists, can this 

continue to happen with the EPA today? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Today there is no one at EPA getting these retention bonuses. Only 28 people have gotten it in the last 20 years. 

We have put new processes in place. And I agree with the inspector 

general that I need to see more of their work to know if I need to 

do more. But we have not waited, and we have put some new controls in place. It is basically layers of controls that would kick out 

these things when they are not being—the problem with the Beale 

activity through the first decade of this century was that it was 

never kicked out that his retention bonus had expired. And it 

should have been. And it can’t go that way anymore because we 

now have a hard stop in the system that would pop it out, and it 

would either have to be recertified with the evidence that you suggested, Congresswoman, and/or the payments would stop. So that 

is what would happen today if somebody else got a retention bonus. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlelady. 

The chair would now recognize the gentleman from Florida Mr. 

Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Mr. Elkins, I heard that you have said to the committee that you think measures have been put in place so this 

could not happen again. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELKINS. Mr. Mica, actually, Mr. Perciasepe made that statement. 

Mr. MICA. Well, do you agree with what he said? Based on your 

investigation what took place. 

Mr. ELKINS. Well, at this stage of the game, since we have not 

completed our audit, I couldn’t really speculate. 

Mr. MICA. You cant speculate. But this is an incredible tale of 

ripping off the government for two decades. It is also astounding— 

and I wasn’t here, I had to run to the floor—but to find out that 

this individual is going to get his retirement. 

Is that the case again, Mr. Perciasepe. 

62 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I can only say at this time, Congressman, we 

are looking into that. I mean, obviously, we had to wait for the investigation to be completed. Obviously, it was plead—it was put before the judge on Friday, so we are going to look into all avenues 

to collect money that might be due to the Federal Government. 

Mr. MICA. Well, let me ask you a further question, how would 

you describe the relationship between Mr. Beale and Ms. McCarthy? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I think Ms.—Administrator McCarthy was suspicious of all of these activities, and I recognize that we can parse 

through how many months here or how many months there. But 

the bottom line is she was the first person since 2001 that actually 

questioned these activities, which led ultimately to the inspector 

general’s report. 

Trying to check out somebody’s personnel status, it doesn’t necessarily require the IG as a first step. But I recognize that we need 

to make sure that we are following up with the IG on these matters. So we did do that, and the investigation has been completed, 

and we now see what we see here. 

Mr. MICA. Okay, let me ask—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I want to point out that she is the one that precipitated that—whether how many months one way or the 

other—— 

Mr. MICA. Let me ask Mr. Sullivan a question. Can we put the 

slide up? I think it is slide eight. It is an email from McCarthy in 

February of 2013, a month after her last email questioning Mr. 

Beale’s work status. This email is about the fact she is now cutting 

off his retention bonus. 

Mr. Sullivan, for how long had Mr. Beale been receiving these 

bonuses. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. He had been receiving them continuously since 

1991. 

Mr. MICA. It seems strange and ironic that someone who had 

stated they retired is receiving a bonus, which was in fact—the bonuses I thought were designed to keep people from leaving the 

agency. Even if the facts of Mr. Beale’s situation were true, would 

his covert activities warrant a retention bonus? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t want to offer an opinion on that, sir. I 

don’t know. All I can tell you is he continued receiving them up 

until 2013. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, it is incredible all these—this time that 

passes, gaming the system, then, at the very end, continuing to 

game it to receive a bonus designed to keep people from the agency 

and he was set to leave, it is just beyond the pale. 

Mr. Elkins, would you like to comment? 

Mr. ELKINS. Sir, clearly, there were some internal controls that 

were not functioning properly, and to that extent, that would be 

the extent of my comment. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, when we are facing—well, today’s the government shutdown, but we are facing financial bankruptcy of the 

Nation in a couple of weeks with our debt exploded from the beginning of this administration from $9 trillion to $17 trillion and soon 

asking for nearly another trillion dollars to keep us afloat. And people see this kind of money going out to someone who scammed the 

63 

system. It is greatly disappointing, disheartening and very sad for 

the American taxpayer. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank the gentleman from Florida. 

The chair would now recognize the gentlelady from New York, 

Ms. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

And I thank the chairman and ranking member for calling this 

hearing. It is unbelievable. It is outrageous. It reminds me of the 

movie, the famous movie on fraud, ‘‘Catch Me If You Can,’’ who defrauded so many people. In this case, you are defrauding United 

States taxpayers, eroding their faith in government. It is outrageous beyond belief. 

And Mr. Perciasepe, I want to know, how much does he get in 

retirement? And what are you going to do to make sure he doesn’t 

get the retirement money? That is the first step that we can take 

in retrieving what, by his own admission, Mr. Beale said that he 

received over $800,000 in pay, bonuses, travel, benefits, and a total 

scam that defrauded the government for well over a decade. So do 

you know how much he makes in retirement? And what are you 

doing to make sure that the scam doesn’t continue, that a complete 

fraud, who said he was a member of the distinguished CIA, and no 

one even bothered to check? It is almost—the incompetence is beyond belief. So do you know what his retirement is each year? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Congresswoman, I do not know—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Can you get it back to the committee? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We can definitely get it back. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And can you get us the steps you are taking to 

make sure he does not get his retirement. And if you say, you cannot get it, we can’t stop it because of bureaucratic regulations, then 

I believe, in a bipartisan effort, we would join in a single bill to 

stop it and to stop anyone else who defrauds the taxpayer of getting a retirement benefit. It is beyond belief. He scams the taxpayer, scams the agency, scams the government and erodes the 

confidence we have in government and then gets a retirement? I, 

for one, hope that we can stop that at the very least. 

Now these retention benefits that my colleague was talking 

about, who recommended him to get these retention benefits? Do 

you know, Mr. Sullivan, who recommended them? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, ma’am. 

In 1991, Mr. Brenner prepared the paperwork for the first set of 

retention bonuses, and it was approved by a gentleman by the 

name of William Rosenberg, who was the then assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation. The second round of retention bonuses were prepared in 2000, and again, Mr. Brenner 

recommended them, and it was signed by Mr. Perciasepe, who at 

the time was the then assistant administrator for the Office of Air 

and Radiation. 

Mrs. MALONEY. So, Mr. Brenner, the gentleman with whom he 

sells his house to the guy he is recommending to get an illegal 

bonus and then has other business relationships, he is recommending that he gets this bonus treatment. 

Now Mr. Brenner, did you think that he had another job offer. 

Mr. BRENNER. Yes, this was in 1991, when the original—— 

64 

Mrs. MALONEY. Did you get it in writing, a copy in writing? Was 

in the file any information about the job offer that entitled him to 

this additional pay and scam? 

Mr. BRENNER. I don’t remember whether we had it in writing or 

whether we had obtained the information through a phone call, but 

he did have an offer, and I would note that—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. There is no offer, unless it is put into the file. 

And Mr. Sullivan, will you research this and get back to us? Was 

there anything in the file in writing about this alleged job offer 

that Mr. Brenner’s pal got, who then he sold his house to or did 

other business deals with, was there anything in writing in the 

file? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I can answer that question now, Congresswoman. 

Mr. Beale told us that he never had a written offer, either in 1991 

or 2000, so there was never a written offer for any of the retention 

incentive bonuses. 

Mrs. MALONEY. So we have policies in place, but they are not implemented. We need an audit of what is happening. Who would be 

the proper person to audit this so that the Mr. Brenners of the future can’t get away with it? 

Mr. Brenner, did you recommend other people to get this special 

treatment? 

Mr. BRENNER. I don’t remember having—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay, Mr. Sullivan, would you investigate who 

else he recommended should get this and whether or not he had 

business deals with them? I mean, this is just unbelievable. And 

who would be the proper person, Mr. Perciasepe, to audit this to 

make sure that people within the agency are honest? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, first of all, we put some new controls in 

already on the retention bonus system. No one at EPA right now 

is getting a retention bonus. Even the Inspector General themselves have used this technique to keep valuable employees. And 

so we don’t want to—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. I am not questioning the policy. I am just saying 

the policy—we need professionals, and we need highly qualified 

people get many offers. But I believe that Mr. Beale never had another offer. I believe that he lied, like he lied to everyone else. So 

how do we catch the liars? Who would you say would be the appropriate agency to audit the EPA to see if anyone else is involved in 

some type of scam and whether this is following? 

Now, I would just like to say, how many other people do you 

think are scamming the EPA right now with your lax policies that 

in place? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, first of all, I believe we have adequate 

policies in place at EPA. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, they are obviously not working, to the tune 

of $800,000, and it would have continued without the excellent 

work of Gina McCarthy and I would say the investigators and the 

prosecutors who stopped this. I congratulate their public work. 

But that this was allowed to happen for well over a decade is an 

outrageous abuse. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. There are two things here: There is a policy, 

and then whether the policies followed and if there are controls to 

make sure the policies are followed. 

65 

Mrs. MALONEY. Obviously, there weren’t controls. What do you 

recommend would be the controls? The policies were in place. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Correct. 

Mrs. MALONEY. You required written information. The written 

information was not there. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. These things only last for 3 years. They should 

be recertified. 

Mrs. MALONEY. You know, they have to be killed with a date for 

3 years. So the policies were abused. My question is, how do you 

enforce the policies that are in place? There should be an audit of 

this. Where should the audit come from? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I am going to say, first, I have done—— 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Excuse me, the gentlelady’s time has expired, but you may answer her question. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

We have made some changes already, based on what we know, 

in terms of controls to make sure the policies are implemented. I 

am confident that the inspector general, who we have a very good 

working relationship with, is also looking at this to see if there 

would be more to do. I am not going to presuppose that what we’ve 

already done is enough, but I want you to be comfortable that we 

have already made changes that have more controls on there. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I still haven’t had the answer to 

my question, what are—he says, ‘‘we put more’’—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The IG, the IG. 

Mrs. MALONEY. The IG is investigating. 

What I was asking about, who audits before it even gets to the 

IG? Who audits to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to do? That was my question. Is there an audit there? The 

IG is going after corruption. 

I am talking about a level where you make sure that the policies 

that are put in place actually happen, an audit level, where would 

that be? 

Mr.—anybody, can anybody answer that where they think it 

should be? 

Mr. ELKINS. Yes, I will try to answer that. I believe what you are 

referring to are the internal controls. And I think, at the program 

and operational level, once those internal controls are in place that 

the folks who are in charge of implementing those policies and programs should be the ones to audit those to make sure that they are 

being implemented correctly. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Can we ask, in this case, would it have been Mr. 

Brenner who would have audited it? And since he is the one who 

approved it, who would have audited in the case of Mr. Beale? If 

you had a proper audit, who would be the person in EPA who 

should have audited whether or not all his claims were true and 

all the stuff that he was doing, ripping off everybody, who would 

have been the proper person to audit it? 

Mr. GOWDY. You may answer it briefly. 

Mr. ELKINS. Typically speaking, it would probably be a supervisor. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And the supervisor was Mr. Brenner, right? 

66 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If the gentlewoman would yield, I believe it was 

Gina McCarthy. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Supervisor was Gina McCarthy, but she—so 

should be auditing it for the whole area. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Gentlewoman, I appreciate that. She only had 

three direct reports: Mr. Brenner, Mr. Beale and another person. 

Mr. BRENNER. Could I have an opportunity to clarify this? 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, the gentlelady, her time has expired. I have 

been very generous, but you and I will have a chance to talk briefly. And you may have an opportunity to answer it in response to 

one of my questions. 

But for now, we will go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

panel that’s here that has helped to get to the bottom of some of 

these issues that we are questioning. 

Mr. Sullivan, were you ever aware that Mr. Beale was in Pakistan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. He had significant foreign travel, and we knew he 

took a trip to India. And I am not sure if we ever confirmed a trip 

to Pakistan. But many times when he claimed to be in Pakistan, 

through phone records, we proved he was in the United States. 

Mr. WALBERG. Could we get the slide up, 4B, on that? 

I wanted to ask that question and see if had you any direct information—4B. 

Okay, you notice it says there this was an email from John Beale 

to Gina McCarthy, ‘‘Due to recent events that you have probably 

read about, I am in Pakistan.’’ 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we could definitely say, Congressman, that 

he was not in Pakistan then because we checked his cell phone 

usage and the cell towers he was pinging off of were either in Massachusetts or in Arlington, Virginia. 

Mr. WALBERG. So, when he said, ‘‘I am reachable by cell, text or 

email with a 9-hour time difference, ho, ho, ho.’’ 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That was obviously a lie. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Perciasepe, when was the first time that Ms. McCarthy expressed to you that she had concerns about Mr. Beale. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We had conversations, probably in 2012, during 

our regular meetings, where she was expressing these concerns. 

And everybody in the agency at the management level said that 

they should be pursued and which is what she did. 

Mr. WALBERG. Did you ever discuss with Ms. McCarthy her decision to refer the matter to the general counsel, rather than the IG? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. No, I never did. But I don’t think—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Did you ever discuss with Ms. McCarthy the general counsel’s decision to have the Office of Homeland Security look 

into the matter, rather than refer it to the IG. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Will you let me answer? 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I think you did. I asked if you ever had, and 

you said, no. So what about this? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The idea that you pursue what may be a personnel—an HR matter through the general counsel or there may 

be something related to the other agency that has mentioned sevVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:39 Dec 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\85907.PDF APRIL
67 

eral times here, the lead unit in our agency that deals with the intelligence community at a general level is the Office of Homeland 

Security, but once that was discovered that that was not—there 

was nothing to verify there, then we immediately turned it over to 

the IG. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So we are talking about a couple months here 

when this has obviously something that Ms. McCarthy—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Then, to your knowledge, was the decision to direct the matter to the Office of Homeland Security, which is located 

in the Office of the Administrator, done to contain the issue within 

the agency and keep the story from becoming news that could affect the agency? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Absolutely not. It was to determine facts, and 

once we had the facts, we turned it over to the IG. 

Mr. WALBERG. To your knowledge, was the decision to direct the 

matter to the Office of Homeland Security, which is located in the 

Office of Administrator, done so that EPA could understand the 

facts of the story prior to becoming news? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Once we understood the facts, we turned them 

over to the IG to let it go where it went. And I can guarantee you 

that the IG will attest that we cooperated completely; we wanted 

them to get to the bottom of it. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Elkins. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Perciasepe is correct that it was referred to Homeland Security first via the Office of General Counsel. The only problem that 

we had with that is the Office of Homeland Security, who are not 

criminal investigators, not—without law enforcement authority, 

they interviewed Mr. Beale, very prematurely in our estimation, 

and it caused us great harm to the investigation. 

Mr. WALBERG. The head start caused you harm. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Perciasepe, you worked with Mr. Beale both 

in the 1990s and from 2009 on; is that correct? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I was the assistant administrator for Air and 

Radiation for two and a half years in the late 1990s, correct. 

Mr. WALBERG. When was the first time Mr. Beale represented to 

you that he was doing work for the CIA? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. He never represented that to me. 

Mr. WALBERG. Never at all? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Never. 

Mr. WALBERG. Did you ever have any doubts about this claim 

when it came evident? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I had lots of doubts about it when it became evident to me when I came back to the agency. 

Mr. WALBERG. What did you do to seek to verify the claim? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. It was already on—Administrator McCarthy— 

well, Assistant Administrator McCarthy at the time was in the 

process of running it through what we just talked about. 

Mr. WALBERG. You oversaw the office in with Mr. Beale worked 

and later became the deputy administrator, don’t you think it was 

your responsibility to verify one of your employees was missing 

work under the guise of being a covert operative for the CIA? 

68 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. He was not doing that when he worked for me. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, it’s amazing. 

As we are talking today of a government shutdown, I think we 

have evidences here of government shutdown in the EPA over 

issues that cost the taxpayer almost a million dollars. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair would now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I thank the ranking 

member, and I thank the inspector generals for being here. This is 

an absolute disgrace. This is stealing money from the American 

People. It reminds me of a perfect burglary and is ripe for a madefor-TV movie. 

Now, having said that, I am deeply concerned about a number 

of things: One, prospectively trying to take someone’s retirement 

away, as the bill that’s being suggested by the chairman and being 

discussed with the ranking member, is something that I would endorse. But I would recommend that what we need to do here is introduce a private bill to take away the pension of Mr. Beale, because this bill that we are contemplating is only going to be prospective in nature. And I think this man has got to be brought to 

real justice. 

I am concerned about, one, he is in debt to the American people, having ripped them off about $800,000. Do we even know if he has 

assets that equal $800,000? Do we know that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, ma’am, he does. He had significant assets. In 

fact, he’s already paid back to the Clerk of the Court here in the 

District of Columbia $886,000, and he has 90 days to pay the 

$507,000 asset forfeiture judgment against him. 

Ms. SPEIER. How much money have you spent in this investigation? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We can get back to you on that, ma’am. I don’t 

have that in front of me. 

Ms. SPEIER. Because I think the other thing that we should look 

at is the cost recovery that should be attributed to the individual 

who has conducted themselves in such an illegal manner. The taxpayer shouldn’t have to pick up the tab for that. We should be able 

to cover that cost as well, and that should be contemplated in any 

legislation we do as well. 

Mr. Brenner, do you think you have done anything wrong? 

Mr. BRENNER. No, I do not think I have done anything wrong 

with respect to the way Mr. Beale’s personnel issues were handled 

during the time I was his supervisor. 

Ms. SPEIER. Well, let’s start by the fact that you recommended 

him for a retention bonus, which you did, correct? 

Mr. BRENNER. That’s correct. 

Ms. SPEIER. And it’s required that you have a written offer to 

base that retention bonus on, correct? 

Mr. BRENNER. I don’t know whether a written offer is required. 

It requires that there either a written offer or a determination that 

an offer was made. In other words, I believe at times it is done 

through a phone call to discuss it with whoever was making the 

offer. 

69 

Ms. SPEIER. Is that true, Mr. Sullivan, is it required that there 

be a written offer? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It’s my understanding that a written offer is not 

required, although most packages do have a written offer attached. 

What is required the supervisor recommending the incentive bonus 

has to assert that he or she did due diligence to confirm there was 

an offer. 

Ms. SPEIER. So what was your due diligence, Mr. Brenner? 

Mr. BRENNER. We are talking about something that happened 20 

some years ago and I—— 

Ms. SPEIER. You can’t recall, it sounds like. 

Mr. BRENNER. I don’t recall whether there was a letter or whether there was a phone call, but I know that it was reviewed by the 

personnel office, all of these retention allowances—— 

Ms. SPEIER. No. 

Mr. BRENNER. Need to be reviewed. 

Ms. SPEIER. But you had an obligation to do due diligence. Did 

you talk to this prospective employer? You have to be able to recall 

that. 

Mr. BRENNER. It’s 20-some years ago, so I don’t remember whether I either talked to the employer or had received a letter, but I 

know that without one of those two things being in place, there 

was no way it could have been approved. 

Ms. SPEIER. Well, let me ask you about the $8,000 discount you 

received. Did you disclose that on your financial disclosure statement? 

Mr. BRENNER. I did. 

Ms. SPEIER. You did? Is that an amount that is legal to actually 

receive? 

Mr. BRENNER. It’s on my—2011 disclosure statement, and as I 

said—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Was that after the fact, was that after it was reported? 

Mr. BRENNER. That’s when it was reviewed. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay, so—— 

Mr. BRENNER. And as I said, it was reviewed and investigated 

by the Department of Justice and the decision was to decline taking additional action on it. 

Ms. SPEIER. Well, whether they declined to take legal action or not does not mean that it wasn’t illegal. If you received an $8,000 

discount, that is a gift that exceeds the limits under the financial 

disclosure laws. And I think you are guilty, and I do think that you 

should be held accountable for the fact that you received a gift that 

exceeded the amount that you are allowed to receive under those 

laws. 

Mr. Sullivan, the fact that Mr. Beale took three trips to London at $25,000 a piece, one to London and India for $36,000, and made 

it his goal in life to only fly first class, and was able to get a chiropractor to basically say that he had a back problem and, therefore, 

should be able to fly first class is deeply troubling to me. I think 

I could go to a chiropractor and get a letter saying that I have a 

back problem. Lots of people up here could probably do that. That’s 

not a basis on which you fly first class internationally or anywhere. 

So what do we do to fix that? 

70 

Mr. SULLIVAN. As Mr. Elkins had previously testified, there are 

an ongoing series of seven audits within EPA, and one of them, 

specifically, the audits that I am going—not in my shop, that’s the 

Office of Audit, was looking at the first class travel in EPA, and 

I know they will be part of the comprehensive report that will be 

produced. 

Ms. SPEIER. You know, Mr. Sullivan— and I know I exceeded my 

time, Mr. Chairman, let me make one more comment—what you 

have uncovered troubles all of us greatly. I worry that there could 

be incidents like this in other agencies within the Federal Government. And I hope that what you have uncovered is shared with 

other IGs throughout the system and that we clean up this act everywhere, because I wouldn’t be surprised if we have first class 

travel going on at other agencies under the ruse that everyone has 

a back problem, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The chair thanks the gentlelady. 

And the chair would now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I completely associate myself with the comments that the 

gentlelady just made, Ms. Speier. This is something we do need to 

establish a process. There are employees that have been furloughed 

through sequestration. At the same time, we have got an employee 

that’s getting a quarter million dollar salary, well in excess of what 

is legally accessible, and doing zero work at the EPA, zero, not 

even showing up. That is frustrating for the people that are working there and that are doing their job. That’s frustrating for other 

people in the Federal family, and it’s incredibly frustrating to the 

Federal taxpayer, who works very hard, and who counts pennies, 

and who is very attentive to their own family and what they turn 

in on the IRS forms that goes into working for the Federal Government they want to know it actually works. And someone’s watching 

how this is being spent. So I do appreciate the work, we have a lot 

of work still to go to be able to evaluate some of these processes. 

But I would like to talk about a couple of these processes, pick 

up on what Ms. Speier was mentioning before. What is the paperwork that is required to turn in and say, I have a back problem, 

I have to get first class tickets everywhere that I fly? What’s required for that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. In this case, our investigation revealed that Mr. 

Beale presented a chiropractor note, and it was submitted to the 

travel office at EPA, and he was flagged and is being authorized 

for first class travel. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay, was that because he was an executive or 

he was just traveling period? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Because he traveling. It is my understanding, 

whether you are an executive or not, if you submit a legitimate doctor’s note and your supervisor approves it, you will be eligible for 

first class travel. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay. So same thing dealing with getting a closer parking spot, he can walk in and say, I am a Vietnam vet and 

had malaria, and so I need a closer parking spot. Was there documentation that was required for that? 

71 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There is documentation that is required, but it’s 

our understanding it was just his assertion. There was—no one 

from EPA asked him for a doctor’s note to confirm his malaria. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay, he walks in one day and says, I work for 

the CIA, I need a day off a week. What documentation is required 

for that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Normally, there has to be an interagency agreement, and EPA would go to the other agency and sign a memorandum of understanding for the repayment. Currently, though, 

since 2008, there’s a requirement now that if the CIA does recruit 

an employee from another agency, the director of the CIA is required to inform that of that agency as well as the general counsel, 

but that’s in effect only from 2008 on. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So no—everyone was grandfathered in that was 

already in, so it was just additional new hires at that point, so it 

wouldn’t have been evaluated by EPA looking for this documentation, or that’s everybody? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, it is my understanding from henceforth from 

2008 on, but I don’t know if anyone went back to look at Mr. 

Beale’s case. If I could tell you no one did to our knowledge, no one 

went back and confirmed—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. So when the rule was changed in 2008, no one 

went back and confirmed it and said, hey, we need to get all of this 

paperwork cleaned up; we have a gap in the file—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That’s correct. 

Mr. LANKFORD. To be able to get all that done. 

Mr. Perciasepe, how many staff does EPA have that worked full 

time for the EPA and also get paid by another agency? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I don’t know the answer to that. We do have 

interagency agreements. We even have EPA employees working 

here in Congress, but we can certainly get that for the record. 

Mr. LANKFORD. No, no, I am not talking about they also do that, 

but they are getting paid. I am assuming that Mr. Beale was claiming that he was not just being paid by the EPA, but he was also 

employed by the CIA, being paid over there. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I do not know that, what he claimed. I don’t 

know what he claimed because I haven’t seen the full investigative 

report yet. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So the question is, is there any one that is paid 

by the EPA that is assigned to a location that is also paid by them, 

that is paid by two different agencies at the same time? So I understand you are saying some EPA folks are assigned to Congress. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, and then we pay those salaries. And it’s 

usually one or the other is paying. I mean, somebody could go on 

an agreement, like Mr. Sullivan saying, or an interagency agreement of some kind and how the pay is distributed is often part of 

that discussion. But we certainly can get you information about 

how many are doing that, but it is—there are several kinds of 

agreements and how that goes, and it could go either way on how 

the pay is done. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Sullivan, do we know of any employees that 

are with EPA that are also being paid by another agency at the 

same time; they are actually working for two agencies simultaneously? 

72 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, for example, we have an agent detailed to 

the Federal Enforcement Training Center. We have agreement. 

They reimburse us for that person’s salary, but the employee would 

not receive both salaries at the same time; that would be illegal. 

Mr. LANKFORD. That’s what I’m getting at. I think it might be 

a little odd that the CIA was actually covertly having the EPA pay 

the salary of one of their secret agents to send them out there. I 

don’t know whether we have a lot of EPA folks that are currently 

on the CIA task force, but again, the whole thing smells weird from 

the very beginning, trying to figure out where that works. 

The other problem that I see in this is this constant statement 

over and over again that he was an executive, and so when he 

turned in travel vouchers, they weren’t challenged. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is absolutely correct. That is, the person who 

signed his travel vouchers told us point blank, she never reviewed 

the vouchers, never looked at the receipts; she accepted as fact 

whatever Mr. Beale put in because he was an executive and because he worked for the CIA. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay, so it begs the issue of, who is supervising 

the supervisors at this point? And obviously, that’s the task of the 

IG that we ask you to be able to do to be able to step in. In this 

case, the agency went around you to try to investigate it and have 

you last in line to be able to look at it rather than first in line, but 

we have a real break down of process here when supervisors just 

turn in stuff; all the people that work under them don’t feel like 

they can actually respond back to it and challenge what’s happening, and they just sign off, and expenses continue to fly. So this 

is not the end of this conversation because we do want to follow 

back up on the many issues of fraud that’s here and how systemic 

this really is. And we hope we find nothing. But my fear is, there 

will be several more that we find in the process, probably with not 

stories as well written as this story but other issues that are out 

there. 

With that, I yield back 

Mr. GOWDY. The chair thanks the gentleman from Oklahoma and 

now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perciasepe, I am intrigued by your testimony because you 

said earlier that Mr. Beale never represented to you that he 

worked for the CIA. So is that, to follow up, that you never heard 

of him working for the CIA, because there’s a difference? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. When this unfolded. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Before it unfolded, had you ever heard of that? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. No. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So no one ever shared what he was doing? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I didn’t see Mr. Beale for 13 years. I don’t know 

went on from 2001 to—or 2000 until I came back to the agency. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But from 2009 on, he worked with you. Well, 

maybe not, because he wasn’t really there; he was covertly in Pakistan? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I don’t know. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You don’t know. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That’s what we’re—that’s what we turned this 

over to the IG for. 

73 

Mr. MEADOWS. So tell me how the retention bonuses are supposed to work. How do they work? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The basic premise is you have a person who is 

likely to leave because they have either a job offer or some other 

important financial reason and that they are critical to some of the 

work that they are doing. And then there is a process we go 

through where that is laid out; there are recommendations made. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you have been involved in those processes, and 

you are the one—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Only once. I don’t know if you were here when 

I mentioned earlier, there is currently no one at EPA that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how long are they supposed to last? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. They are supposed to last 3 years. That’s the 

policy, and they are supposed to be recertified every year. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, Mr. Sullivan, so, to your knowledge, how long 

did Mr. Beale actually receive his retention bonus? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The first series of retention bonuses went from 

1991 to 1999. They should have stopped after 3 years. They did 

not. Then he was put in for a second round of incentive bonuses 

in 2000, and that was the same year he got promoted to the senior 

leader position. And so, during the course of his career, he received 

bonuses for 22 years and should not have received them for more 

than 6. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So Mr. Perciasepe, after year 2000, he 

shouldn’t have been receiving a retention bonus? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. He shouldn’t—he should have had it recertified 

in 2001, 2002 and 2003. 

Mr. MEADOWS. He just said 1999. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. No, no, he said it was redone in 2000, which I 

think we would be 3 more years, if I am not correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So 2000 was the start of 3 years. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And you signed off on that; is that correct? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, I did. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what did you go through to sign off on it? Did 

you check with the CIA? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. No, as I have already mentioned—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am sorry. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. —he did not use that line with me. In the 

1990s, and this is hard to believe—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thirteen years ago, I know. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. It is painful for me to go through this, but this 

was a person who had a reputation, a positive reputation in the 

Federal Government, both inside EPA and outside EPA, in that 

time period. It would not be—it’s not outside the realm of possibility to me as the assistant administrator that this person could 

be getting offers from other entities. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But I thought we had a guideline that said it 

stops at 3 years. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Right. Well, I—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you just have to have a good reputation to be 

able to exceed the guideline? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I had no knowledge of any previous one at this 

particular moment I am talking about in the year—— 

74 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how did you approve one without having previous knowledge, that just says when it comes to your desk, if they 

have a good reputation, you sign off on it? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it’s not just a good reputation. There has 

to be a case laid out by the career leaders in the agency, which was 

done in this case and then. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Wouldn’t that case have previous retention bonuses that would have been paid? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. They were not included, I don’t recall them 

being included. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Really? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So when Mr. Sullivan says there were 6 years 

out of the number of years, one was based on the original one, and 

one was based on the one that I did. Those were legitimate years 

that he could have gotten a retention bonus under the rules of the 

agency. The problem we have is there was nothing that stopped it; 

it just kept going. And that’s what I have changed. I changed the 

system so there is a hard stop. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So there is a hard stop. All right. Let me go over, 

I guess, to Mr. Brenner because didn’t you sign off on it as well? 

And you were his friend so you knew he was in the CIA, and you 

were signing off on a retention bonus I guess to keep him working 

at the CIA? Because you were very close—you have an intimate relationship with him; is that not true? 

Mr. BRENNER. I am a close friend of Mr. Beale’s, but I had never 

heard from Mr. Beale that he worked for the CIA. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you knew he was not showing up for work. 

You knew he was somewhere other than being at work. 

Mr. BRENNER. No, the period we are talking about is 1991 and 

the 2000—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That is not the—no, I am talking in general. I’m 

not just saying that one period. You knew that there was something that he wasn’t showing up, but he was still getting retention 

bonuses because you had to sign off on them. In 2000, I have got 

your signature right here. 

Mr. BRENNER. And in 2000, I believe he was showing up. I certainly was not aware of any problem with Mr. Beale’s attendance 

in the year 2000 or in the decade prior to that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I appreciate the chair’s indulgence let me finish 

with this question. Both of you Mr. Perciasepe and Mr. Brenner, 

both of you knew that he retired. You knew that, and yet we still 

continued to give him retention bonuses to retain him to make sure 

that he wouldn’t retire a second time? How—can either one of you 

explain that and justify that? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, first of all, he did have a retirement party, 

but based on what I am now—what I now know, he never, to my 

knowledge, never submitted the retirement papers. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I understand, but in your mind, you went to the 

retirement party, I think, didn’t you? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how could you justify going to his retirement 

party and then making—him getting a retention bonus to make 

sure that he stayed retired? I mean, what is it? 

75 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. This is—this is the change I have made in the 

system. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am not asking about the change. I mean, how 

could you have not seen that? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I don’t see his paycheck. I don’t see his time 

sheet. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you had to sign off on it, on the retention 

bonus. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thirteen years before. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I understand 13, but—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. It would have been my assumption that it had 

expired 10 years earlier. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you manage by assumption? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, there’s 17,000 employees. I am not looking 

at their paychecks. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right, I yield back. 

Thank you for the indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. [presiding.] I thank the gentleman. 

Have we completed the first round? 

Okay, we will now go to the gentleman from South Carolina. I 

think he’s the last—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, a point of inquiry for a moment. 

I just wanted to indicate to the chair that I was hopeful that we 

would have a second round. I would like an opportunity—— 

Chairman ISSA. We will have a short second round. It’s the 

chair’s intention to get out of here at close to 12:30 as possible. 

Mr. Perciasepe, you had originally wanted to leave at 12:30, but 

we had said it might take a little longer. We will get you out close 

to it. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Mr. Chairman, I am at your disposal. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, then, moving along, the last questions on 

the first round, the gentleman from South Carolina. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just initially, I wanted 

to make the observation, Mr. Chairman, according to the percentage report, Mr. Beale is looking at between 30 and 37 months in 

Federal prison for about a $900,000 loss. 

You get more time in prison for that for—than that for stealing 

a six pack of beer if you threaten you have a weapon, which you 

really don’t have. You get more time in prison for that for a very 

small amount of certain controlled substances. 

Even though he refused to answer our questions, Mr. Sullivan, 

did you interview Mr. Beale? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. My staff did, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. Did you advise him of his Fifth Amendment right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. At the time of the interview with him, it was with 

counsel. It was in the U.S. Attorney’s Office proffering, and it was 

not necessary—it was per written agreement that he would cooperate with us. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. You had an agreement with him that he 

would cooperate. Did that agreement also include that he would cooperate with other entities that were investigating wrongdoing? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. At the time the agreement was—the proffer 

meaning, and it was up to the U.S. attorney whether he would accept it or not. It was a limited agreement. 

76 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, he is getting a three level reduction in his 

guideline range for cooperation. That’s super acceptance of responsibility. And yet this morning, he wouldn’t answer is single one of 

Chairman Issa’s questions. So I guess my question is, is anyone 

going to go before the district court judge and make sure he or she 

knows that Mr. Beale wouldn’t even answer this branch of government’s questions? He answered—you can’t plead guilty without 

waiving your Fifth Amendment privilege. So he waived it for the 

judge, and he waived it for the executive branch when you wanted 

to talk to him or when the U.S. attorney wanted to talk to him, 

but he wouldn’t waive it for Darryl Issa when he wanted to talk 

to him. Can I rest assured that the sentencing judge will be made 

aware of that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. What we will do, Mr. Gowdy, is we will brief the 

attorney AUSA on the case, and we will bring your concerns forward to the U.S. attorney assigned to the case. 

Mr. GOWDY. I just find it stunning that you would want to avail 

yourself of the maximum departure from the guidelines that you 

could get for acceptance of responsibility and still sit here and not 

answer a single solitary question from a coequal branch of government. 

Ms. Maloney asked a question that I thought it was an extremely 

good question. Actually, she asked a bunch of really good questions, 

but I never heard an answer to this one. Is there a policy or procedure in place to investigate conflicts of interest between those who 

approve bonuses and those who receive bonuses? Not all at once. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The only requirement I know of, Congressman, 

is a financial disclosure requirement of all the senior officials. 

Mr. GOWDY. So, in theory, Mr. Brenner could be approving financial bonuses or other financial incentives for someone that he has 

a financial stake in whether or not they get more money, is that 

within the realm of the possible, because it certainly sounds like 

that’s what went on. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I am not going to speculate on what’s possible, 

but—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Why not? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Because I am going to wait to read what the IG 

investigative report—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, if you are not going to speculate on what’s possible my next question is this, if Mr. Chaffetz or Jimmy Jordan told 

Chairman Issa that they weren’t going to be here for a couple of 

weeks because they were CIA operatives, how would Mr. Issa go 

about verifying whether or not—I want to be very clear, to date, 

neither Mr. Chaffetz nor Mr. Jordan have alleged that they are 

CIA operatives—but if that were to happen, how would Mr. Issa go 

about investigating whether or not that was true? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I can’t answer that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, the next person who claims it in your agency 

how will you go about investigating whether it’s true? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Under the current rules, as Mr. Sullivan pointed out, if there is an interagency relationship with that agency, the 

general counsel and the head of the agency would know. 

Mr. GOWDY. So, what, a phone call? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I don’t know what the process is. 

77 

Mr. GOWDY. Is that what we are talking about, Mr. Sullivan, a 

phone call to verify whether or not someone really is a secret agent 

with the CIA? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I testified earlier, sir, that in 2008, a new 

directive came out; I think it was Intelligence Directive 304, which 

requires the Director of National Intelligence to inform the head of 

an agency and the agency’s general counsel if one of their employees is working undercover for the CIA. 

Mr. GOWDY. Mr. Sullivan, I appreciate that. And it really doesn’t 

matter whether you are a new Earth guy or an old Earth guy, but 

2008 just seems a little late to be figuring out that with one phone 

call, you can decide whether or not someone claiming to be a spy 

and traveling first class and racking up $900,000 in unwarranted 

compensation really does work for another agency. I mean, look, I 

understand technology has progressed a lot; 2008 just seems a little late for to us figure that out. There was nothing in place prior 

to that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, sir, clearly the officials at the time, going 

back to the 1990s through the 2000s, could have checked his story; 

no one did. It took us in the IG about a week, using our contacts 

at the CIA to positively confirm he had absolutely no relationship 

with the CIA. We were able to determine early on he has never had 

a security clearance. So, right now, when he was an employee, he 

was not allowed to see classified material, because there was no security clearance on file with the EPA office of security. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. I just want to hear one 

more time, since 2008, the head of each agency is given a list of 

anyone who is a clandestine agent working under their cover. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That’s my understanding, Mr. Chairman, from an 

Intelligence Directive 304. It’s on the Internet, and it pretty much 

explains the requirement of the Director of National Intelligence 

and the CIA to inform executive branch agencies. 

Chairman ISSA. So Secretary Clinton would know every one at 

the State Department and her deputy would know everyone who 

was CIA implant. The EPA directors, each of them—or administrators, each would have been given this information. So if the administrator had even one person who was embedded, they would know 

that. We don’t need to know if they had one, but if any agency had 

an embedded CIA person, they would have, in fact, had a list, and 

he would not have been on it, since 2008. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That’s right. That’s my understanding, Mr. Chairman, 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I share with the gentleman from South 

Carolina his outrage, but 2008 was a long time ago, too. I seem to 

remember George W. Bush was President then. 

Mr. GOWDY. I defer to the chairman’s recollection. 

Chairman ISSA. With that, we go to the gentleman from Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand that Mr. Beale’s fraud was initially 

uncovered by the EPA current Administrator Gina McCarthy back 

when she was assistant administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation. Is that right? Is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

78 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand that the Administrator McCarthy 

started asking questions about Mr. Beale’s employment status after 

she discovered that Mr. Beale was still being paid many months 

after she had attended his retirement party. Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Sullivan, I understand that your investigators interviewed the administrator. Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. At the time that the Administrator McCarthy 

started asking questions about Mr. Beale’s status, can you tell us 

whether she believed that Mr. Beale was a CIA agent, and why did 

she think that was the case, if she thought that was the case? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, she most definitely thought Mr. Beale 

worked for the CIA. When she was confirmed by the Senate and 

was—had her in-briefing in 2009, she was told she had a member 

of her staff who was on the CIA, and that was Mr. Beale, and indeed, when she met Mr. Beale, he told her he worked for the CIA. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So who would have told her that? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It was during her in-briefing process. She couldn’t 

recall exactly who told her, but she remembered distinctly being 

told that during the in-briefing process. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So it would not be unusual for somebody coming 

in to be confirmed in a position comparable to hers to be told that 

you have got somebody here that’s with the CIA or any other agency? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. She assumed that was part of the regular 

process, that’s what she was briefed on. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now the inspector general has criticized the EPA 

for not referring Mr. Beale to him earlier. Mr. Perciasepe, can you 

tell us why there was a delay in the referral to inspector general, 

what was EPA doing during that period, and why did it take so 

long? It’s kind of crucial because I am seeing where some of the 

questioning is going, and I think they are fair questions, and if you 

have an answer, I want to know the answer. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I can give you an explanation. When Assistant Administrator McCarthy, who I want to point out, once 

again, no one ever questioned this for over a decade, questioned 

this, the first thing she wanted to do and the first thing she wanted to see was whether or not this person had any of these relationships that are being discussed. So she asked the general counsel 

and the Office of Resource Management, where our personnel folks 

are; they asked the Office of Homeland Security, who has relationships with the intelligence community. And when nothing could be 

found there, I think it was quickly confirmed and then quickly, as 

Mr. Sullivan just mentioned, it was quickly referred to the inspector general. That is what happened. Those are facts, that is what 

happened. There was no—there was absolutely no attempt to go 

around the IG at all. It wasn’t only an attempt to verify the story. 

And once it was not verifiable, then it became a matter that needed 

to be investigated. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Mr. Sullivan, I know that the Inspector 

General’s Office has criticized the EPA for referring Mr. Beale’s 

case to the IG’s Office no sooner. We fully support the IG’s efforts, 

79 

so I want to give you a chance to explain in more detail why this 

was a problem. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Cummings, it was a problem because Mr. 

Beale, based on the evidence that—based on the suspicions given 

to us on February 11th, it was clear to us there was a lot of evidence pointing to massive fraud against the agency. And a lot of 

this evidence was available, should have been referred to us much, 

much earlier. Specifically, the problem we had with Department of 

Homeland Security, the gentlemen or representatives of that office 

interviewed Mr. Beale twice and had three other contacts with him. 

And that’s basic 101 in law enforcement investigations; you never 

interview the target of the investigation until you have all your 

facts in a row. And our investigation was severely hampered because Mr. Beale was alerted—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. He had a heads up. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Exactly. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And finally, just to give credit where credit is 

due, this fraud had been going on for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But it was Administrator McCarthy who finally 

exposed it. Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. To my knowledge, Ms. McCarthy was the first 

person, executive at EPA that ever questioned Mr. Beale’s relationship to the CIA. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so you credit her for exposing it. Is that 

right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. In your opinion, is it possible that this fraud 

could have gone undiscovered if it were not for Administrator 

McCarthy’s actions? That’s my last question. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think it’s highly likely had it not been Ms. 

McCarthy raising the alarm, this never would have been discovered. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So Beale would even still be getting money, big 

time. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. If I could follow up on the gentleman very briefly, because it is the same exact question, slightly differently. If Mr. 

Beale had simply retired and not tried to get greedy and keep taking a full paycheck, he also would never have been discovered because he would have been gone for over a year before the administrator would have even thought to ask. Is that right? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is 100 percent correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. So is that the old ‘‘pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.’’ I guess we should be happy he was that greedy. 

We now go to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Perciasepe, I hope I am pronouncing your name properly. 

When did—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Just pretend an ‘‘h’’ after the ‘‘c.’’ 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

80 

When did you—you said that the first time you had heard about 

it, there was some scuttle or some discussion with senior administrators about Mr. Beale, when did that happen? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Some time in 2012, the idea of trying to find out 

what the real arrangements were here. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So can you give me—2012, is it the beginning 

year, spring, beginning of the year, fall? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. It wasn’t at either end, so it must have been 

somewhere in the middle. Probably—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So—probably when? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I was going to say probably say that it was 

probably more than the middle of the year, but I don’t really know. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Okay so June, July-ish, is that fair? Okay, middle 

of the year. And Ms. McCarthy was aware of that as well? Gina 

McCarthy was aware of that as well? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That—the conversation was about—the conversation was about whether or not we should proceed with trying 

to figure out—not whether or not, but that she was going to proceed and I encouraged her to proceed to find out what was going 

on. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, at the middle of 2012, you encouraged her to 

proceed to figure out whether or not this is accurate. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I was agreeing with her. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You were agreeing with her. 

Now, go back. If you could put back up slide 4D. 

The date on this is March 2011, pull out here. This is from Mr. 

Beale to Gina McCarthy, you mentioned—and so he is sending his 

notes back to her via email: ‘‘You mentioned the meeting you have 

with Intel, et cetera, tomorrow. Do you want to see if I can break 

away from Langley to attend that meeting with you? I am not sure, 

but I will try if you want.’’ 

So it’s out there. He is perpetuating the myth that he is at the 

CIA. By mid-2012, Gina McCarthy knows about it. He directly reports to Gina McCarthy. You are encouraging Gina McCarthy to 

pursue this. But it’s not until spring or until late winter—it’s in the 

January or February, March, time frame of 2013 that she actually 

inquires about this, and the IG is telling us they figured it out in 

a week. 

I don’t understand it, again, Mr. Chairman—this why I think 

why I think we need Gina McCarthy here—why it took her 8 

months, at least, if not more; it looks like she had known about 

this for a couple years. It’s her direct report. And remember, Mr. 

Chairman, during this time, he is never even showing up to work. 

The guy didn’t show up for years, not a single day, and he’s being 

paid at a pay level above and beyond what is allowed by statute. 

I think she has at least some responsibility and some questions to 

answer. 

Now—my time is short, I’m sorry. Mr. Brenner, what was the 

purchase—when you bought the home with Mr. Beale back in the 

early 1980s, what was the purchase price? 

Mr. BRENNER. I am sorry, I don’t remember what. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Can you please put the microphone on? You’d 

think you would have that by now. 

81 

Mr. BRENNER. I am sorry, I don’t remember the purchase price 

of the home. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Come on. You don’t have any clue what the purchase price of that home was. What was the selling price? 

Mr. BRENNER. And I don’t remember the selling price. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When did you sell that home? 

Mr. BRENNER. All I remember is it was done at market value. 

Mr. Beale purchased my share of the house. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How much did he pay you for that house? 

Mr. BRENNER. He paid me somewhere on the order of $30,000 or $40,000. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So your original purchase price, you have no idea, 

and you don’t know what the sale price is, but he wrote you a 

check for $30,000 or $40,000. When did you get that $30,000 or 

$40,000? 

Mr. BRENNER. I am sorry. I misunderstood your question. You 

asked about the price of the house. The portion that I put into the 

purchase of the house was somewhere around $10,000 in 1983 or 

1984, somewhere in there. And then, when Mr. Beale decided to 

purchase my share of the house, it was for a number like $30,000 

or $40,000 about 14 years later. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you get $30,000 or $40,000 from this person. 

Are you still friends? 

Mr. BRENNER. We are. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When’s the last time you saw him, besides today? 

Mr. BRENNER. I have seen Mr. Beale periodically over the last— 

well, actually, I have seen him a lot over the last 2 weeks because 

when he left the hospital after his throat problems, because he had 

rented out his house in Arlington, he’s staying in my guest room 

now. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, this is just an unbelievable story. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What did you say? Beale is staying—wait a 

minute. I just—I know I didn’t hear that. Beale is staying in your 

guesthouse? 

Mr. BRENNER. Mr. Cummings, Mr. Beale needed a place to live 

in the area as he goes through these court proceedings, and his 

house that he had is rented out. And so—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You mean this is the guy that just paid the Federal Government $850,000-some. He didn’t have no place to go? 

And he’s about to pay another $500,000-some. He didn’t have anyplace to go, so he came to you? 

Mr. BRENNER. That’s correct, that he is—I agreed that he could 

stay in our guest room when he has either court proceedings, hearings, medical issues in the area. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Are you married? 

Mr. BRENNER. I am. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Your wife agreed to that? 

Mr. BRENNER. Yes, she did. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. 

Chairman ISSA. You have a very understanding wife. 

Mr. BRENNER. I do. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentlelady from New York. 

82 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Elkins and Mr. Sullivan, would you look into the house since 

Mr. Brenner can’t remember what he paid for it, when he sold it, 

the money involved? Could you get us a report on the house arrangement? 

And I want to look to the timing on the house. There appears to 

be a discrepancy in the testimony that I was reading from you. The 

IG has testified that you owned the house together until 1999, and 

I believe that you said you owned the house together until 1989. 

I want to give both of you a chance to explain the discrepancy in 

your testimonies. 

How long did you own the house together? Did you own it until 

1999 or 1989? 

Mr. BRENNER. I think I just said that it was about 14 years later. 

So my recollection is the late ’90s. If I said late ’80s, that’s not consistent with the 14 years. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. Then you have cleared that up. 

Well, Mr. Brenner, do you think that you had a conflict of interest in your recommending Mr. Beale to be hired to work in your 

department in 1989, as he owned the house together with you? 

Mr. BRENNER. I do not think I had—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Why not? 

Mr. BRENNER. —a conflict of interest. Because the way the process works is I could go through the process of recommending that 

Mr. Beale be rehired—be hired, but there are several reviews that 

needed to occur throughout the—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. But you recommended him as he was living in 

the house with you. And you say you didn’t know that he was lying 

about the CIA, about everything else he was doing. 

Mr. BRENNER. We were not living in the house at the—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, you said—you recommended him, I believe, 

in 1989. And I think you testified you bought the house in 1983 

and that he paid you $30,000 for it. So you were involved in the 

house together. We’ll get Mr. Sullivan to get the information, and 

Mr. Elkins on this, exactly how it happened. But you saw no conflict of interest. 

Well, did you see a conflict of interest when you were recommending him for a retention bonus, the bonus for which he didn’t 

show up for work for 2–1/2 years? Did you see any conflict of interest when you were recommending for the retention bonus? 

Mr. BRENNER. When I recommended Mr. Beale for the retention 

bonus, as I think both Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Perciasepe have mentioned, he had an outstanding record during the 1990s as a civil 

servant at EPA. And those recommendations were based on a 

record that was then reviewed by others—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. What was his title? What was his title at EPA? 

Mr. BRENNER. I believe it was a senior policy analyst. And then 

in the year 2000 he—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. If he was a senior policy analyst, I’d like to see 

what reports he gave the EPA. What did he analyze? I’d like to see 

it. 

Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Elkins, could you get us a report on what was 

his outstanding work and why did he receive a gold medal? I want 

to know, did he do anything—what did he do? I want to see his reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:39 Dec 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\85907.PDF APRIL
83 

ports. We have policy analysts that work for us. They do a great 

job; they deserve their pay. 

I want to see what this scam artist, who got away with a parking 

lot for $18,000 that he didn’t deserve because he wasn’t handicapped—and no one checked on him. And then he got a retention 

bonus that you recommended, which is documented that he didn’t 

even work for 2–1/2 years. Then we know that he lied and said he 

was running around Pakistan doing CIA work, when he’s down at 

your home resting and having fun. Maybe you were with him. I 

think that his times that he said he was working when he was at 

his joint home with you, we should get a report on it. 

And I fail to understand why you think he deserved a retention 

bonus. Were you aware he didn’t work for 2–1/2 years? Was he out 

at your house when he wasn’t showing up for work? 

Mr. BRENNER. At the time—I think you’re talking about the period after he received the 2000 retention bonus. We no longer 

owned the house together. He was not with me at the house during 

that period. 

And, as I said, the retention bonus is based on a solid record of 

achievement that is—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. But we know from your—— 

Mr. BRENNER. —laid out in my testimony—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. —prior testimony his retention bonus was based 

on fraud. You never checked to see if he had another job offer. You 

never called him. You never put in writing who it is. I’ll ask for 

you now to place before the chairman who it was that he had this 

wonderful job offer. 

But I’m concerned about—I think handicapped people are entitled to special treatment, but he abused the system, and I want to 

make sure other people aren’t abusing it. He got an $18,000 handicapped parking lot based on fraud. 

And what are you doing to make sure that this abuse doesn’t 

continue, Mr. Perciasepe? What are you doing to make sure that 

other people aren’t ripping off the public and undermining respect 

for government? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, on all the issues that the IG has already 

identified in their initial—in this part of the investigation, but not 

everything that they are going to recommend in their administrative recommendation, but on everything—on all the points they’ve 

made, we’ve already instituted initial additional controls. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. Can you present to this committee the additional controls that you’ve put in place in writing? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. And, Mr. Sullivan, you also in your report said 

that Mr. Beale claimed that he worked for the late Senator Tunney 

of California. Now, did anyone verify his employment history at— 

did anyone do a background check? He didn’t work for Senator 

Tunney. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That’s correct. 

Mrs. MALONEY. So did anyone do a background check on him to 

make sure that what he was saying was true? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, that is part of the audit review. We had a 

very difficult time going back to 1988 and ’89 when he was origiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:39 Dec 18, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\85907.PDF APRIL
84 

nally hired. Frankly, we don’t know if EPA did any background 

check on Mr. Beale when he was hired. 

Mrs. MALONEY. So, Mr. Brenner, did you ever check any of the 

information on his resume to see if it was true? Did you check any 

of the information, the Tunney claim and other stuff? 

Mr. BRENNER. I would have, as part of the process, checked. Either I or people in the personnel office would have checked things 

that—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. Was that part of the requirements when you 

hired people, to check their resumes and make sure they are accurate? Was that part of the protocol? 

Mr. BRENNER. Part of the protocol is either the hiring office or 

the personnel office would do checks. I don’t remember—— 

Mrs. MALONEY. But, obviously, you didn’t do them because Mr. 

Sullivan’s report says you didn’t do it. 

And so, Mr. Sullivan, what changes do you suggest that the EPA 

implement to prevent a repeat of this type of problem, that a complete fraud comes in, rips off the government for $800,000? 

Another question I have: He has paid back the government $800,000 and an additional $500,000. Where is all this money coming from? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. During the plea agreements between Mr. Beale’s 

attorney and the U.S. Attorneys’ Office, it was clear that he had 

those type of assets, that he could indeed repay the government the 

amount of money he signed in the plea agreement. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, how did he have the income on a government salary to buy those kinds of assets? Who else was he working 

for? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I don’t know that, ma’am, but I do know that he 

is married and his spouse is employed. So that is all I can say, 

ma’am. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Okay. 

I understand, Mr. Perciasepe, that the EPA has pledged to do everything possible to prevent these abuses. You have a tremendously important agency that is supposed to be protecting our clean 

air, our clean water, and it apparently was protecting a complete 

fraud, a complete fraud claiming he worked for the CIA, and no one 

even bothered to check whether he worked for the CIA. He is flying 

all around in first class, and he is getting all kinds of benefits and 

not showing up for 2–1/2 years. 

So what are you doing to make sure this kind of fraud doesn’t 

happen again? 

Chairman ISSA. The gentlelady’s time has expired. You may answer. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Excuse me? 

Chairman ISSA. You may answer. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have—on travel, on use of parking spaces, on retention bonuses, on time and attendance, all of these things we have put additional controls in place. In part, some of the things we are learning, working with the IG on this case. But there are other reasons 

that the Agency needed to be updating these systems regardless. 

So, whether it is enough, I think it is a good start. I think it is 

really—it will make a difference. It will make it very difficult for 

85 

anybody to do what happened here. But I do want to keep saying, 

because I believe this completely, that I know that the IG’s office 

will be looking at what we have already done and what we are 

working on and what more might need to be done. 

I think the combination of us doing commonsense, important 

things now to make sure we are in good shape and building on 

what their recommendations will be—and I hope to see their investigative report soon, which I have not—personally I have not yet 

seen, which might give me more insight. But I can assure the committee that I am aggressively going to pursue additional controls 

where necessary. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Maryland. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just for 

a question or two. 

Mr. Brenner, I have to tell you, I was sitting here feeling kind 

of sorry for you earlier when you talked about basically how you 

had been betrayed by your friend. I have to tell you, though, my 

sorrow has turned into something else now because I am just wondering how much information you might have. 

You know, the chairman and I had a colloquy about 2 hours ago 

now where we were talking about bringing Mr. Beale back after he 

is sentenced so we can get additional information so we could get 

to the bottom of some of this. But now I am wondering how much 

information you might have since you all are such good buddies 

and since he is laying in your house and since this is somebody 

who, apparently, based on your testimony, has betrayed at least 

your trust, but still you guys seem to be doing pretty good. 

So I am wondering if there is any additional information that 

you might be able to help this committee with or help the IG with 

with regard to how some of this stuff may have happened so that 

we can make sure it doesn’t happen again. Would you have information that might be helpful to us? 

Mr. BRENNER. No, sir, I don’t think I do because Mr. Beale and 

I have not been talking about this investigation, and—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How long has he been staying at your house? I 

mean, this most recent situation. 

Mr. BRENNER. Since he came out of the hospital a couple weeks 

ago. 

And as I said in my testimony, I am very disappointed and saddened about what has happened. And, yes, I am angry at Mr. Beale 

for that kind of behavior. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So, but all this time you all—you have never— 

you haven’t discussed this case? You didn’t say, ‘‘Man, you know, 

how did you do that? How did you pull that one off?’’ You never 

had that kind of discussion? 

Mr. BRENNER. No, because once the investigation started off, it 

was clear from our attorneys, they told us we should not be talking 

to each other about the investigation. And, in fact, we avoided seeing each other for a long time. Only now when he—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But he was in your house. 

Mr. BRENNER. And only now when he—no, I said the time at my 

house was just over the last couple weeks, not during the investigation. 

86 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see. Okay. 

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Perciasepe, I came out of the electronics business, and it 

hasn’t changed a lot. When you go through ISO 9000, any of the 

other standards for quality control, they won’t accept that if something doesn’t get caught by one person, you put a second person on 

the line; they won’t accept that you put a third person on the line. 

How does this committee know that the steps that are being 

taken now—and this is also a question for the IGs—are automated? 

In other words, that they don’t depend on somebody who, as in the 

past, simply had a rule and they didn’t check or didn’t enforce? 

Thank you. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I think my initial work here, working 

with our personnel offices and some of the other offices that are 

covered by some of these policies, is to create automated output. 

We are still at a step, though, Mr. Chair, that a human will have 

to look at that output to verify. So there is an additional output 

of a printout, and then there is an additional eyes-on step. 

I think we may need to do more in several cases—we may need 

to do more in several cases, but this was one that I could do now 

and get it done. And then I don’t want to go too far down the road 

without—— 

Chairman ISSA. Sure. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. —further work with the IG. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I think for people in, sort of, the public audience, they can probably understand that if you took all of the 

year-to-date pay in your HR department and said, ‘‘Give me the 

grand total year-to-date on the last day of the year for every employee last year, and tell me anyone in the Excel spreadsheet that 

is above this number’’—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. —which is the absolute number, Mr. Beale would 

have shown up. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, he would have. 

Chairman ISSA. So is there an automated check—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. —even for that today? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. I have that now. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Our committee had a document request, 

which is now overdue. Are you familiar with that document request, and will we receive it today? 

It is one of those challenges where we do the hearing and then 

we get documents we would like to have had for the hearing. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yeah, I don’t know the status of the document 

request. I do know there is one, though, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Well, we would appreciate it if you would 

follow up. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I will follow up to make sure it is expedited. 

Chairman ISSA. Before I go to the IGs, Mr. Brenner, have you 

ever received gifts of any type from Mr. Beale? 

Mr. BRENNER. I cannot remember any gifts that I have received 

from Mr. Beale, unless it was some small gift at the time of a 

birthday or—— 

87 

Chairman ISSA. We will exempt everything $50 and below. Do you remember a gift above $50 in value ever? 

Mr. BRENNER. I don’t remember anything like that. 

Chairman ISSA. Did you pay him for your joint vacations, all of 

your share of the cost? Many of those occurred after you no longer 

owned the home, so that is why I am asking. 

Mr. BRENNER. I don’t remember how many might have occurred 

after I no longer shared ownership of the home. 

And the agreement with the home was that, even after he had 

bought it back from me, bought back my share, that I would be 

able to visit from time to time. I think there have been very few 

visits, maybe two or three, since the time the home was repurchased from me by Mr. Beale. 

Chairman ISSA. So your testimony today is you bought the home for approximately $10,000, sold it a little over a decade later for 

about $30,000, and had the right to use it for periodic vacations? 

Mr. BRENNER. Those are my recollections of the numbers. I can’t 

say for sure how accurate those numbers are, but that is what I 

remember. 

Chairman ISSA. And I presume you didn’t disclose that equity interest, that capability of taking a vacation without pay at his 

home? 

Mr. BRENNER. I disclosed the mortgage during the years that it 

was required to show the mortgage on my disclosure form. 

Chairman ISSA. So there was a mortgage on the home during the 

time the two of you owned the home that you bought it? 

Mr. BRENNER. That is correct. 

Chairman ISSA. So your going from $10,000 to $30,000 was an 

equity share? The home was not owned outright? 

Mr. BRENNER. That is right. 

Chairman ISSA. You received this $8,000 VIP loan, or VIP discount, from somebody representing Mercedes-Benz or Daimler. 

Have you received any similar discounts during your career from 

any entity? 

Mr. BRENNER. Nothing that I can remember, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Elkins, this is going to conclude this portion of the hearing. There have been a lot of claims 

made. I want to set a tone, and then I would like you to really represent the close, because it is your investigation and your work. 

But I believe that what we have heard today is that we had an 

agency that didn’t think anything of somebody saying they were a 

secret agent for the CIA but in unclassified emails—they would 

refer to their CIA activities in emails that were obviously not being 

sent in a protected way, so that when they say they are at Langley, 

if you are a covert agent, your email is now out in the open, and 

other things of that sort. 

Somebody could ride their bicycle to work but have a handicapped parking space, and it didn’t seem to bother anyone. Somebody could fly first class at 14 times the amount of coach, and it 

got overridden because somebody did a good job and/or they were 

at the CIA. And, by the way, I was on the Select Intelligence Committee. The CIA does not get to fly first class as the CIA. 

All of these were in a culture at the EPA that preceded President 

Obama and continued, presumably, until January of this year. Is 

88 

that a fair characterization of some of the problems that can exist, 

not just with this individual, but with the nature of the Senior Executive Service sometimes being exempted from the rules because 

somebody thinks they have done a good job or there is some other 

reason to exempt them? 

Mr. ELKINS. The facts in this case speak for themselves, and I 

think your characterization is clearly one assumption that could be 

drawn. 

Chairman ISSA. And I am doing this really for Mr. Perciasepe, 

who talks about 14,000 people at the EPA. Thirteen thousand five 

hundred of them have no idea how you get any of these perks— 

maybe 13,550, 600, 700. There has to be a very few people at the 

EPA that have ever seen any set of perks similar to what Mr. 

Beale got in the way of a lack of accountability. But it did exist, 

and it appeared to exist at this top strata, just as at the GSA when 

somebody was taking trips to Las Vegas and cobbling together or 

at some of these other agencies, where it is not the person at bottom. It is not even the person at the middle. It is these people that 

we trust most to be fiduciaries of our money. 

And that is part of the reason that we called out Mr. Beale and 

had him here. He is in that top three people reporting directly to 

the Administrator for years. Isn’t that a fair statement? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is what the facts show, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

Mr. Sullivan, I am going to ask you just one thing, and your lieutenants. You took an investigation on after a series of events had 

occurred. Mr. Beale was made aware that he was obviously a target and that the jig was up. A general counsel outside of EPA had 

been contacted and had begun doing activities that rightfully would 

normally have been yours. 

Did this—even though you were successful, is this the kind of 

thing that compromises the work of the IG? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, in this case, our work was clearly harmed, 

at least initially harmed. We were able to recover. We get very concerned whenever allegations of criminal activity are not referred to 

us immediately. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

I am going to close with just one statement, and I hope that I 

will—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I have one. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, and then Mr. Cummings will make a last 

statement, too. But I hope I am speaking for Mr. Cummings and 

myself both. 

This kind of event, where abuse of discretion, abuse of the taxpayers’ money, very likely criminal—and, of course, this one turned 

out to be criminal—when these first occur and there is any possibility that what you see in your lane—and although your lane is 

broad, it is still about 1/74th of the government—I have sent letters, Mr. Cummings has been involved in this, saying, ‘‘We need a 

heads-up,’’ the chairman and the ranking member, and over in the 

Senate our counterparts, so that we can begin evaluating whether 

or not, in these months that intervene in your investigation, we 

need to take action. 

89 

And I would only ask you today to remember that, had this committee had input into some of these details and the lack of control 

systems, our committee could have begun working on either legislation or oversight many months ago. And that is what we ask you 

for, is to give us a heads-up. 

And I will pledge to you today, and let Mr. Cummings speak for 

himself, but for both of us, that when that information needs to remain only with the chairman and ranking member, it will remain 

only with the chairman and ranking member. 

But IGs were created by Congress to be eyes both to the executive branch and to this branch. And, in this case, we could have 

done more sooner, which we will now do, had we been given a 

heads-up sooner. And this has been a pattern that Mr. Cummings 

and I have tried to change. 

Tell us at the beginning of an investigation that lasts 10 months 

so we can start looking—something you can’t necessarily easily 

do—at 73 other IGs and see if we can get them looking at the same 

problem. 

And, you know, we are working on IG modernization and reform, 

and we want to formalize some of this. But for right now, a headsup to us and our Senate counterparts can really go a long way. And 

I am just saying this for you and all of your brothers and sisters 

in the IG community. 

Mr. Cummings? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one thing. 

What is the deadline—I mean, you may have said this earlier, 

but when do you expect to be finished your work, Mr. Elkins? Because I am just wondering how long this is going to go on. 

I am not trying to rush you, but I want to have some kind of 

idea, because my next question is for Mr. Perciasepe. 

Mr. ELKINS. Sure. I want to answer that question in maybe two 

parts. 

A typical audit could take us anywhere from 6 months to a year. 

It depends on what we find once we pull back the sheets. 

However, though, we have a vehicle which is called an early 

warning report or quick action report. And to the extent that we 

find instances that suggest an extreme risk to the agency, we will 

issue a report quickly to the agency. And we have done that in the 

past with EPA so that they can react to it quickly. So—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that the kind of information that the chairman and I would get quickly, like you—— 

Mr. ELKINS. Oh, yes, absolutely. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. ELKINS. We can make that happen. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You said there are two parts. 

Mr. ELKINS. That—the first part is the regular audit, which is 

about—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see. 

Mr. ELKINS. —6 months to a year, and the second part is the 

quick action report. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Perciasepe, I have to tell you, as I have listened to the testimony, I am not sure that we have—I know you 

are waiting for the work to be completed, but I am not sure that 

we have in place right now and we have done all that we could do 

90 

in EPA to prevent this type of thing from happening. I know you 

need more information; I got that. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I am happy to give the committee more information. I believe, based on what I currently know, that we have 

put in enough checks and balances and additional controls, with 

the provisos I gave to the chairman earlier that there still will be 

a requirement for another set of eyes on a couple of these, that 

something like we are talking about today couldn’t happen in the 

way that we are talking. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do we know whether we have anybody else in 

your agency who is allegedly doing this dual kind of agency—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, we have people in the Agency that are 

working at other agencies or that were sharing their salary, no 

overlap, but sharing—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am praying that this is just an aberration. But, 

you know, a lot of times people will say, well, you know, Beale is 

doing it, and then they say, well, how did he do it, and then you 

have some copycats. Again, I assuming that is not the case. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. But a lot of times people will look and they will say, well, you know—and $900,000 is not a little bit of money. 

And then I think people—and I think the chairman was alluding 

to this—people begin to find holes in a system. And when I practiced law, I found that you could have any kind of law but people 

find a way to get around it. And if they find out that there is somebody that is doing it and has a way of getting around it, a lot of 

times, you know, people who are inclined to do that—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. —then they begin to follow. 

So I am just—so we are waiting for the audit. And we want a 

thorough job, and so—I got that. But I want to make sure in the 

meantime we are covering our bases. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I want to make sure both of you know, and the 

whole committee through you two, that I am not waiting, but I am 

not going to go too far—I am going far enough to make sure that 

I can catch this, but I don’t want to go too far until I see more of 

their work. And I may see that sooner than later. Because, as I 

pointed out, we talk not infrequently, and I feel like I have a pretty 

good working relationship here. 

So, you know, I am as appalled as anybody that this could have 

happened. And we have already put in place some quick checks to 

make sure we are there. We will probably need to do more. I would 

be remiss if I didn’t say that. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that other 

IGs that are watching this, that they might take a look at some 

things that may be going on in their various agencies. I think that 

we have gotten some clues of red-flag types of things that may happen, and I am sure that you all will be open to letting those other 

IGs know what kind of red flags, you know, they might be looking 

for. 

Is that a reasonable request, Mr. Elkins? 

Mr. ELKINS. That is a fair request, yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. 

Again, I want to thank all of you for your testimony. 

91 

Mr. Chairman, I agree with you, we do need to have as early notice as we possibly can. I think it would be very helpful, and I am 

in total agreement. 

We are just trying to be effective and efficient in what we do. 

And I think the hearing has been very revealing. And hopefully, 

you know, we won’t be in this same position a year from now, not 

having made all of the changes that need to be made to safeguard 

the people’s money. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank you. 

And in closing, I will be speaking to my leadership about the 

DATA Act, something that would create structured data so that the 

entire government could be viewed from a standpoint of some of 

these statutory requirements that we keep seemingly discover 

somehow could just be bypassed without an audit picking it up. 

So, with that, I thank you again, and we stand adjourned. 

[The information follows:] 

[Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(93) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

94 


Insert offset folio 24 here 85907.024
95 


Insert offset folio 25 here 85907.025
96 


Insert offset folio 26 here 85907.026
97 


Insert offset folio 27 here 85907.027
98 


Insert offset folio 28 here 85907.028
99 


Insert offset folio 29 here 85907.029
100 


Insert offset folio 30 here 85907.030
101 


Insert offset folio 31 here 85907.031
102 


Insert offset folio 32 here 85907.032
103 


Insert offset folio 33 here 85907.033
104 


Insert offset folio 34 here 85907.034
105 


Insert offset folio 35 here 85907.035
106 


Insert offset folio 36 here 85907.036
107 


Insert offset folio 37 here 85907.037
108 


Insert offset folio 38 here 85907.038
109 


Insert offset folio 39 here 85907.039
110 


Insert offset folio 40 here 85907.040
111 


Insert offset folio 41 here 85907.041
112 


Insert offset folio 42 here 85907.042
113 


Insert offset folio 43 here 85907.043
114 


Insert offset folio 44 here 85907.044
115 


Insert offset folio 45 here 85907.045
116 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 46 here 85907.046