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

44–583 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 110–990 

NOMINATION OF JAMES A. WILLIAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON THE 

NOMINATION OF JAMES A. WILLIAMS TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

JULY 25, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 4 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 23 

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 25 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 26 

WITNESSES 

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2008 

Hon. Thomas J. Ridge, Former Secretary of Homeland Security ........................ 1 

James A. Williams to be Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Letter of support from Representative Tom Davis, submitted by Senator 

Collins ............................................................................................................ 31 

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 33 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 45 

Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics ............................................... 88 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 89 

Responses to additional post-hearing questions ............................................ 98 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF JAMES A. WILLIAMS 

FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:06 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good afternoon and welcome to this confirmation hearing on the President’s recommended appointment of 

James A. Williams to be Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). 

I want to apologize both to Mr. Williams and Governor Ridge 

who were here yesterday. I got held up in an Armed Services Committee classified briefing that I could not leave, and I really apologize that I could not be here. I really appreciate that you are back, 

and it shows, obviously, the commitment of both Governor Ridge 

and the Squire of Virginia, who has just entered the room wearing 

what we call in Connecticut a ‘‘Litchfield County suit.’’ [Laughter.] 

It is that white pin-stripe which he wears with great elegance. 

As an expression of our mea culpa, a kind of act of repentance, 

Senator Collins and I are going to hold our opening statements 

until we hear from Governor Ridge and Senator Warner, and we 

will go to that in just a minute. 

Senator Warner, with your permission, Governor Ridge has to 

head out. 

Senator WARNER. Yes, please. I would be delighted to accommodate my good friend. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. Governor Ridge, it is great to welcome back the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security with whom we worked very closely and who served so ably and 

with such a great effect for the people of our country. Thank you 

for taking the time to come here, and we welcome any statement 

you want to make now. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS J. RIDGE, FORMER SECRETARY 

OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. RIDGE. Chairman Lieberman, thank you, and Ranking Member Collins. It is good to join you and Senator Warner. 

2 

First of all, no mea culpa is necessary. We understand how this 

place operates, and when you have a special meeting like that, both 

Mr. Williams and I understand. That is where you need to be. So 

we are grateful that this has been rescheduled so promptly. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, if he understands how this 

place operates, I think we need him up here for other reasons. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. RIDGE. But the fact is I understand that there is no rhyme 

or reason to it. [Laughter.] 

It just does. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Now you get it. When I was in the Connecticut State Senate a long time ago, somebody once said to me, 

‘‘At a moment like this, if you are not confused, you do not understand the situation.’’ [Laughter.] 

Mr. RIDGE. I think that is it. 

Well, I thank you all today for the opportunity to join you and 

for the personal privilege of spending a little time talking about my 

friend, Jim Williams. 

When the Department of Homeland Security was formed, one of 

the first actions undertaken, I think at the direction of Congress 

in the enabling legislation, was a commitment to built the Nation’s 

first entry-exit system. The Department doors opened in March 

2003. I think in May I announced that we would complete this goal 

by the end of the same year, about 7 months. I wish you could have 

all seen the expression on my staff’s faces when I said that we 

would get it done by then. 

It was an immense challenge. The system had to be implemented 

at all U.S. airports and seaports, and it absolutely required the use 

of biometrics to be effective. It had to be implemented in a way 

that did not discourage or harm our travel and trade industry, but 

it also needed to protect the privacy of our visitors as well. 

In fact, we chose the name US–VISIT to reflect that the United 

States was, is, and will always be a welcoming Nation, and the system would uphold that philosophy. This new system would represent a major change in how we enforced our immigration laws. 

We knew this would require extensive collaboration within the government, with our stakeholders, many stakeholders outside the 

government in the private sector, as well as other countries. After 

all, such an aggressive effort had never been done before or even 

attempted, frankly, anywhere in the world. 

Asa Hutchinson, my very able Under Secretary for Border, 

Transportation, and Security, was put in charge, and one of his 

first actions was to take a look around and find the best person to 

implement the program, and he found Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams 

quickly assembled a very talented and dedicated team of people, 

many of whom I think are here with us, who over those 7 months— 

think about this, 7 months—successfully completed a job most people said could not be done. 

Mr. Williams made sure it was done superbly and on time, with 

the integrated biometrics as an integral piece of that. He and his 

team delivered what was needed and required to ensure that foreign travelers entering America were screened with biometrics in 

a matter of seconds, thus satisfying our security requirements, and 

3 

yet still allowing visitors to our country to see in essence the welcome mat that has long rested at the doorstep of our country. 

Those with questionable intentions were stopped from entering 

the country at the State Department consulates and at our borders. 

It was a successful beginning for the US–VISIT program and, I 

think, a historic achievement for the Department. 

Also because we engage with our stakeholders and leaders worldwide, the transition to this significantly new system was smoother 

than anyone predicted. His sustained leadership within his team, 

positive outreach and communication to all stakeholders—and I 

mean he motivated his team, but spent a great deal of time on the 

road talking to counterparts in the private sector and elsewhere 

around the world to explain the system. His positive outreach and 

communication to all stakeholders was critical to its success. 

Indeed, other countries have since adopted the identical entryexit system, and in some cases they have called on Mr. Williams 

and part of his team to get counsel in order to figure out how to 

do it well, to do it right, and to do it on time. 

Earlier this year, Secretary Chertoff and I celebrated, along with 

the President and current and former DHS employees, our 5-year 

anniversary. US–VISIT was one of the finest and most notable 

DHS successes. That brought great pride and spoke volumes about 

Mr. Williams, the man who did more than anyone to make the program such a success. 

And more good things are to come for the US–VISIT system, but 

I am here today to salute the leader, Mr. Williams, who gave the 

system its beginning, its foundation, and who did what others said 

was too difficult to do: make US–VISIT possible. 

Mr. Williams would agree it was hard work, but he has also 

given the credit to his team more than to himself. And while this 

was very much a team effort, I want to tell you that it was his 

leadership, the leadership of a dedicated patriot and public servant, 

that helped us ensure an important security achievement that increased the security for all of us. 

I will tell you that Mr. Williams is one of the most talented, results-driven, self-effacing, capable public servants with whom I 

have ever had the pleasure and privilege to work. Mr. Williams is 

a man of strong and unimpeachable character, great integrity, 

great personal grace, and a work ethic that is absolutely second to 

none. 

Teddy Roosevelt once said, ‘‘Far and away the best prize in life 

is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.’’ Mr. Williams 

views his public service career through that prism. It is a unique 

perspective that I share today because far and away the best prize 

for me at this moment is to once again very publicly thank Mr. Williams and his team for their great work, to thank him for his service and his friendship, and to recommend, with great pride and 

without hesitation, Mr. Williams as the best person to lead GSA 

through this transition period between Administrations and beyond. 

I thank my colleagues and former colleagues for the courtesy 

that you have extended to me, for giving me the opportunity to introduce him to you. 

4 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Governor Ridge. 

That was a very eloquent and, I must say, powerful statement. It 

says a lot about Mr. Williams, and frankly, the fact that you came 

here to say it says a lot about you. So I appreciate it very much. 

Senator Collins, would you like to say anything? 

Senator COLLINS. I was just going to echo exactly what the 

Chairman said, that those words are certainly words of high praise, 

but also, Secretary Ridge, for you to take the time out of your extremely busy schedule not only speaks well of Mr. Williams, but it 

is a real tribute to how much you care about the people who have 

worked with you and served our country. 

So I thank you for your continued commitment. You have a terrific record of public service, and I wanted to just second the comments of my Chairman in saying how much this Committee enjoyed working with you during your tenure. So thank you. 

Mr. RIDGE. It is mutual. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

Governor Ridge, I know you have a long trip ahead of you, so you 

can depart whenever you want or stay as long as you want. 

Mr. RIDGE. Why, thank you. I thought I would stay and listen 

to my colleague from Virginia sing the praises of my friend and 

then leave before he gives his introductory statement. 

Senator WARNER. That is very thoughtful. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very good. Senator Warner, thank you for 

being here. 

TESTIMONY OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Delighted. I will be very brief, but I must say 

I have been here 30 years now, and that was about as fine an endorsement that I have heard in these many years. And it just 

shows the enormous leadership of Governor Ridge, and he feels 

duty-bound to help make this government work so it can serve its 

people. And, Governor Ridge, it is a privilege to be with you again. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thanks, Senator. 

Senator WARNER. But I would like to say at this moment you are 

free to go. [Laughter.] 

Mr. RIDGE. I do not know if that is a suggestion or an order. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It does come from the former Secretary of 

the Navy. 

Senator WARNER. But I was sitting here throughout that, and I 

was figuring out, hmm, I wonder if I need an endorsement someday. [Laughter.] 

I will get him to endorse me. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, we have been trying to convince 

Senator Warner to run again. 

Senator WARNER. No, that is not an option. I have enjoyed my 

wonderful career here and enjoyed working with you when you 

were a member of the Cabinet. 

Mr. RIDGE. I have, too, Senator. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman and Senator Collins and all 

present, I have had the opportunity through many years and many 

positions to work with the GSA, and I just think it plays such a 

vital role in making our government function. And it does a lot of 

those things that other people would just as soon not have the reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:17 Feb 02, 2010 Jkt 044583 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44583.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5 

sponsibility to do. And as I have come to know James Anthony Williams, he is unquestionably, as Governor Ridge said, very able, 

very well qualified, and I take the perspective that we are fortunate as citizens to have him step up and take on this responsibility. 

I am partial, of course, to him because of his long association 

with the Commonwealth of Virginia, but when we have the opportunity to visit with our nominees before we come speak to the Senate, he shared with me the pride he had in his father, and that 

really endeared me to him. His father was a graduate of the University of Virginia, in the ROTC program, and then went on to 

make a career in the U.S. Navy and served with great distinction. 

That touched my heart. 

So I will simply summarize that he is able, he is ready, he is 

going to have my strongest support, and indeed I hope he gains the 

support of the Chairman and the Ranking Member and Members 

of this Committee. His background is eminently suited. He earned 

his bachelor’s degree from the Virginia Commonwealth University 

and then his MBA from George Washington University. He has 

dedicated most of his professional career to the Executive Branch 

of our government. And I will just put the balance of my statement 

in the record, wish him well, and, again, on behalf of the citizens 

of this country, we thank you for taking this service on, and your 

family sharing that responsibility. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Warner, again for 

your eloquent statement in support of Mr. Williams. 

You are off to a good start here this morning, Mr. Williams. 

[Laughter.] 

Thanks to both of you. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RIDGE. Thank you. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I wish you a good weekend. 

We will proceed. Let me just start by welcoming you, Mr. Williams. 

The General Services Administration (GSA) plays a very important role in helping the rest of the Federal Government run more 

efficiently and effectively. 

GSA is often called the Federal Government’s ‘‘landlord’’ because 

it provides the workspace and office services for almost every Federal office and agency across the Nation. 

But, of course, GSA, as you know very well, Mr. Williams, is a 

lot more than just the government’s landlord. Its 12,000 employees 

are spread across the country in 11 districts and help guide the 

spending of approximately one-half trillion dollars for purchases of 

everything from basic office equipment to alternative fuel vehicles. 

If GSA were a private entity, it would be in the Fortune 100. Its 

decisions have broad implications not only for the government, but 

for our economy. 

Given these stakes, it is important that GSA have not only topflight leadership but good, steady leadership as well. 

If confirmed, Mr. Williams would be the fifth GSA administrator 

in less than 8 years following the tenure—which was, unfortunately, troubled—of Lurita Doan. 

6 

Ms. Doan resigned after sparking Congressional and other investigations over allegations that she used her office to promote partisan politics, tried to reduce the crucial oversight role of the agency’s Inspector General, and improperly interfered in the contracting 

process. 

Mr. Williams, if you are confirmed, you know you would have 

only 5 months left in the Administration, but in that 5 months 

would, I think, have a very important opportunity to provide the 

leadership to GSA needed to restore public and Congressional confidence in it, keep the agency on an even course in carrying out its 

duty to spend American taxpayers’ money wisely, and help ease the 

transition to the next Administration. 

It is worth noting that, if confirmed, Mr. Williams would be the 

first career civil servant appointed to head GSA, and that is significant. Mr. Williams brings very unique qualifications to this job. 

Presently the Commissioner of GSA’s Federal Acquisition Service, 

Mr. Williams was previously part of the Clinton Administration’s 

original ‘‘Partnership for Reinventing Government’’ team and has 

been a leader on procurement and technology issues for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department of Homeland Security, 

as Governor Ridge indicated, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for Negotiations with the Government of Japan. 

Overall, Mr. Williams has been in public service for 28 years, 

with 17 years as a senior executive, and beyond anything else, I 

think we owe you a debt of gratitude for both choosing a career in 

service to your Nation and conducting yourself as admirably and 

efficiently as you have. 

The only controversy of which I am aware involving your nomination, Mr. Williams—and I want to discuss it with you in the 

question-and-answer period—is what role you may have played in 

contracts involving Sun Microsystems, which are also controversial. 

Specifically, as you know, GSA leadership is alleged to have improperly pressured a contracting officer to renew a contract with 

Sun Microsystems for computer products and services. 

That disputed contract negotiation occurred at a time when Sun 

Microsystems was under investigation by the agency’s IG and the 

Justice Department for potential fraud in connection with its previous contracting practices with GSA. And that case, of course, was 

one of the main reasons why Congress lost confidence in your predecessor. So it will be important for the Committee to understand 

your role in this and what lessons may have been learned as a result of it. 

I also want you to know that I would like to review the status 

of the Department of Homeland Security headquarters project, 

which appears to be delayed and is of real importance to this Committee. 

Mr. Williams, bottom line, you have a distinguished record of 

service to your country. GSA is in dire need of exactly the kind of 

strong and competent leadership that I believe you have the ability 

to provide. I certainly hope that you will be able to satisfy this 

Committee in its questions today and ultimately the Congress that, 

if confirmed, you will always, as you have, keep in mind first and 

foremost the interests of the citizens and taxpayers that we are 

privileged to serve. 

7 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Williams comes to this Committee with two decades of experience in Federal service. As we have learned, he has worked at the 

Department of Commerce, Homeland Security, IRS, and GSA. And 

I mention that because that breadth of experience is very important given the responsibilities of the GSA. 

That public service, which has included work on modernizing IRS 

business systems, helping to negotiate a supercomputer agreement 

with the Government of Japan, and leading a contracting effort for 

installing weather reconnaissance gear on Air Force transports, is 

very useful experience for the major challenges that GSA faces 

today and will encounter in the years ahead. 

The size and reach of GSA’s operations make meeting those challenges vital. GSA has more than 13,000 employees and an annual 

budget of approximately $16 billion. It is charged with managing 

nearly $500 billion in Federal assets—including more than 8,600 

government-owned or -leased buildings and a fleet of 208,000 vehicles. And the Chairman and I are particularly interested in that 

vehicle fleet. With the size of that vehicle fleet, the GSA should be 

leading the way in reducing the use of gasoline-fueled cars and instead pursuing hybrid cars and other ways to decrease our energy 

use as the Federal Government. GSA’s performance has a significant impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of government-wide 

operations. It affects almost $66 billion in financial transactions 

throughout the government. And as we know, GSA is also the Federal Government’s primary acquisition agency and landlord. 

This Committee has done a lot of work in the area of Federal 

contracting. We have done investigations in the failings of Federal 

contracting, and we have incorporated those lessons into legislation 

the Chairman and I have introduced, a bill that would reform Federal acquisition practices and that has passed the Senate but now 

is stalled in the House. 

An immediate demand on the attention of the new GSA Administrator will also be the presidential transition, and I think it is critical that we have a new leader in place as we look forward to the 

work that will need to be done to establish offices and provide technology and support services immediately after Election Day. 

The Chairman mentioned another challenge facing GSA, and 

that is the sorely needed consolidation of Department of Homeland 

Security offices at the St. Elizabeths Hospital complex. 

Of particular concern to Maine and other border States is the 

critical role that GSA plays in enhancing our Nation’s border security by managing the planning, design, and construction of ports of 

entry for Customs and Border Protection. It is now estimated that 

a port of entry takes more than 7 years between the beginning of 

the planning phase and the completion. That is simply too long. 

And I know that Mr. Williams has indicated his willingness to 

identify ways to shorten this time period. 

In my home State of Maine, there is a new port of entry in Calais 

that is under construction. It has been seriously delayed by GSA’s 

failure to award the construction contract on time and to adeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:17 Feb 02, 2010 Jkt 044583 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44583.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
8 

1The letter submitted for the record by Senator Collins appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

quately account for the presence of significant ledge at the construction site. Ledge is a very common occurrence in the State of 

Maine, so this should not have come as a surprise. 

These delays are having real effects. Although the new international bridge connecting Calais, Maine, with St. Stephen, New 

Brunswick, will be completed this year, the American side of the 

port of entry is now delayed so that the completion will not occur 

until the end of next year. 

So imagine, Mr. Chairman, here we have this new international 

bridge. The Canadians are all set with their new port of entry on 

their side of the border, and because of contract delays on our side 

of the border, we will not be ready to open up the American side 

of the new port of entry until the end of next year, almost a year 

delay. That, frankly, is an international embarrassment, and it has 

an impact on the economy of Washington County. So this is an 

issue I have already talked to Mr. Williams about, but it is going 

to take some reprogramming of funds and a real commitment to try 

to make this gap in the opening of the ports of entry on each side 

of the border as short a gap as possible. I look forward to talking 

with Mr. Williams about these and other border issues today. 

I want to second the Chairman’s concerns about the Sun Microsystems contract issue. I have had the opportunity to discuss that 

issue with Mr. Williams, and I am personally satisfied with the 

role he played in his responses, but I do think it is important that 

for the record we get those responses before the public. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have entered into the 

record a letter that Congressman Tom Davis, the Ranking Member 

of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has 

sent to both of us in support of Mr. Williams’ nomination. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. Without objection, Congressman Davis’ letter will be entered into the record.1

Let me proceed with the formal beginning. James A. Williams 

has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, 

answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and 

had his financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government 

Ethics. Without objection, this information will be made part of the 

hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which are 

on file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath. So, Mr. Williams, I 

would ask you now to please stand and raise your right hand, if 

you would. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give 

the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. Please be seated. 

Mr. Williams, I understand that various members of your family 

are here today. We welcome them, and I would ask you now to proceed with your opening statement, and, of course, we would be 

happy to also have you introduce the members of your family. 

9 

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. WILLIAMS TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Chairman Lieberman, Ranking Member Collins, it is my honor to appear before you today. I would like 

to thank you in advance for your support of GSA, and I would like 

to thank the people who have helped make this wonderful opportunity possible. 

Thank you to my good friend and former boss at the Department 

of Homeland Security, Governor Tom Ridge, and also to Senator 

Warner for their kind introductions of me to the Committee. And 

I would also like to thank Congressman Tom Davis. 

I would like to also recognize my family and friends, but especially my wife, Nancy; my daughter, Anne, and my son, Jimmy; 

and my other family members who are also here. My wife, my 

daughter, and my son are very dear to me, and I appreciate them 

being here today as well as my other family and friends. 

During a career in Federal service that has spanned nearly three 

decades at the IRS, Commerce, DHS, and now GSA, I have been 

afforded the chance to work closely with fine and dedicated people. 

I feel lucky. I am here because of this great fortune, and while I 

cannot possibly thank all of these individuals, some of the key leaders I have worked under and greatly admire include Charles 

Rossotti, Asa Hutchinson, Admiral Jim Loy, Gordon England, and 

Governor Ridge. I am also especially proud of the current team of 

leaders I work with at GSA. And, last, though they are not present, 

I would like to acknowledge my father, a career naval officer, and 

my mother, a former Navy nurse and mother of seven. My parents 

will be an inspiration to me always. 

Just as we are here today to ensure an orderly transition from 

one Administrator to the next, GSA plays a strategic role in ensuring the orderly transfer of power from one President to the next. 

GSA helps preserve our history in other ways as well, maintaining 

our legacy buildings that help define our Nation and our ideals. 

GSA also works to preserve our precious natural resources and 

make all of us better environmental stewards. 

Additionally, GSA will continue to be a leader in governmentwide policies to provide for better management and stewardship of 

key assets. We have assumed these responsibilities without wavering from GSA’s original commitment to provide goods, services, and 

work space at best value. GSA does provide critical support to the 

warfighter, the firefighter, and Federal, State, and local employees. 

GSA’s presence can be seen in nearly every major city in the 

United States at Federal courthouses and land ports of entry and 

also in over 100 countries around the world. 

At GSA, we also recently completed the largest reorganization in 

our history by establishing the Federal Acquisition Service with the 

help of Congress, and I am very proud to have been a part of that 

successful effort. 

Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, I want you 

to know that, if confirmed, I would work to maintain GSA’s status 

as one of the top places to work in the Federal Government, to 

maintain and improve the excellent financial record we have 

achieved, and continue to focus on attracting and retaining bright, 

10 

energetic, and committed public servants, particularly in the acquisition field. 

Before I conclude, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Collins, and your dedicated staff for all the work 

that has been done in preparation for this hearing. Also, I appreciate greatly our Regional Administrator, Emily Baker, and our 

head of Congressional Affairs, Kevin Messner, and members of my 

immediate staff—my assistant, Bobbi Conde and others—for getting me ready and leading me through this process. If confirmed, 

I pledge to work hard and collaborate with the current and incoming Administration, the Congress, our oversight entities, private 

sector partners, and all GSA employees to achieve these goals. 

I am proud to have served our great country throughout my career. I would also be proud to represent the diverse men and 

women of GSA who work so hard to meet the needs of our client 

agencies and the American people. I am honored to work among 

them today and would be honored to lead our team as the GSA Administrator. 

Again, thank you, and I would be glad to respond to your questions. And if you do not mind, I did not know if my other family 

members are here because I could not see them. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go right ahead, yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. My sister Martha, and her husband, John; my sister Susan; my twin brother, John, is also here. And I believe that 

is it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, and welcome to all of you. I 

am going to start my questioning with the standard questions we 

ask of all nominees. 

Mr. Williams, is there anything you are aware of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of 

the office to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, Mr. Chairman. I am currently a member of 

four boards of directors, and I have agreed to resign as a member 

of the board of directors of all of those. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Fine. Second, do you know of anything, 

personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from 

fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. And, third, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear 

and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if 

you are confirmed? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. Let me suggest 

that we do an 8-minute round since it is just the two of us, and 

I will begin. Let me get right to the Sun Microsystems question because I do want to try to clarify it. 

As you know, there is at least one colleague of ours—Senator 

Grassley—who has some very strong feelings about this. Just for 

the record as background, an audit performed by the GSA Office 

of Inspector General in 2004 found that under a 1999 contract between Sun Microsystems and GSA, Sun Microsystems had billed 

the government millions more for computer software and technical 

11 

support than it charged its regular commercial customers. The report also included allegations of fraud by Sun Microsystems which 

were subsequently referred to the Department of Justice in April 

2006. 

When you arrived at GSA in June 2006, negotiations on a new 

contract were ongoing. A critical report by Senator Grassley alleged 

that Ms. Doan and you—Ms. Doan, then GSA Administrator—pressured and even harassed the contract officer to sign the Sun Microsystems contract against his better judgment. I am repeating the 

allegations in the Grassley report. So let me go to the questions. 

I want you to take a moment to describe your involvement in the 

Sun Microsystems contract and respond to the specific allegation 

that you inappropriately pressured the aforementioned contract officer. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. First, I would 

like to say that the ultimate contract that was signed with Sun 

Microsystems by the GSA contracting officer, I believe, was a good 

deal for the taxpayers, and the contract proposal—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. This is the second one, as it were, the one 

we are talking about. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The second one. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. The contract proposal that was talked about in 

the impasse briefing that was rejected by the contracting officer 

was never signed, and only after Sun Microsystems made concessions after that impasse was reached, when they made concessions 

then the contract that was negotiated after that, that is the one 

that was signed. The contracting officer believes that was a good 

deal for the government and so do I. 

Let me talk about my role. When I came to GSA, I was focused 

on finalizing the Federal Acquisition Service, but I was told there 

was a meeting on my calendar to discuss Sun Microsystems. That 

was on August 14, 2006, and that is what is referred to as the ‘‘impasse briefing.’’ 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And at that meeting there were several contracting people who worked for me; the Inspector General folks, I 

believe, were on the phone; and people from our General Counsel’s 

office participated. And what was presented to me was that in the 

negotiations that had been going on—as you said, Senator, this was 

a renewal of a prior Sun Microsystems contract. There was a Sun 

Microsystems contract from 1999 to 2004. Now, from 2004 into 

2006, there had been ongoing negotiations with Sun Microsystems, 

and the negotiations, as I understood it, were in parallel tracks. 

One was to negotiate a new 5-year contract for products and services, and at the same time they were negotiating with Sun Microsystems to fix the problems that Sun Microsystems had in the prior 

contract where they had not adequately tracked their discounts 

and passed those discounts on to the Federal Government. 

Prior to my coming there, they had negotiated what I would say 

was about 90 percent of the contract. Again, people knew about the 

past overcharging, yet they continued to negotiate, and that was 

the contracting officer and the IG auditor participating, working 

12 

side by side, to do those negotiations. It was a year and a half to 

2 years before I got there. 

But then they reached a point where they became at a stalemate 

with Sun Microsystems. Sun Microsystems refused to include 

things like services, and we thought they should be included. And 

what came to me on August 14, 2006, was this impasse briefing 

where people said to me, ‘‘We cannot negotiate a good deal with 

Sun Microsystems.’’ 

I was also told about the problems with the prior contract, and 

it was made very clear to me that I should do nothing to interfere 

with what would happen with the IG and the Justice Department 

looking at that prior contract. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And you were told about that at that August 14, 2006, meeting? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. About the problems with the earlier contract? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So you took that, I presume, is it fair to 

say, as a warning to at least proceed cautiously? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. Go ahead. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And I understand that they had been negotiating 

this new contract for 11⁄2 to 2 years. They had also been negotiating 

this corrective action plan with Sun Microsystems to make sure 

they fix their systems problems so that if we entered into a new 

contract with them, we would not have the same problems we had 

in the prior contract. 

My understanding is that prior to my arrival, the contracting officer, working with the Office of the Inspector General auditor, had 

agreed that this was a good corrective action plan by Sun Microsystems. I absolutely agreed with the IG that, for whatever overcharging that had gone on in the past, they should, frankly, go get 

them, go after that money. That was money owed to the taxpayer. 

But my understanding was that there were people who had been 

working for a year, a year and a half, on negotiating this new contract, and they had just reached a sticking point in the negotiations. 

At the end of the impasse briefing, I said, ‘‘Fine, we are done. 

We are finished with Sun Microsystems. They are not going to be 

a contractor in this.’’ 

What changed then was Sun Microsystems had a change in leadership, and they contacted us and said they were willing to make 

concessions. They came back to us and said, ‘‘We want to come 

back to the table.’’ And the first contracting officer with that impasse deal did the right thing. He came to his supervisors, according to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and said, ‘‘I am 

at an impasse.’’ His supervisors reviewed that and said, ‘‘We agree. 

This is not going anywhere.’’ They tried with Sun Microsystems. 

They could not make any headway. We were at an impasse. 

Then when Sun Microsystems came back and said they were 

willing to make concessions, knowing that we had negotiated this 

corrective action plan, knowing that 90 percent of the contract had 

already been negotiated long before I got there, Sun Microsystems 

13 

was willing to come back and do things like include services, which 

they had not before. And to me it was like buying a car. If you 

want to buy a car, you want to buy the car and you want to negotiate the warranty provisions at the same time. And Sun Microsystems had not been willing to do that. With their new leadership 

they were willing to change. 

So we had a conference call. I was at a meeting in Baltimore. I 

had a conference call, and I said to people, ‘‘Sun Microsystems 

wants to come back. They want to make concessions.’’ I even told 

them about the conversation with Sun Microsystems, how they 

very much wanted not to lose their GSA contract. I did say I 

thought this was important to GSA that we go back to the table. 

But having been a contracting officer for many years, I made it 

clear to people who were on that conference call that if they could 

not get a good deal, we would walk away. And I would never tell 

any contracting officer and I would never want anybody to tell any 

contracting officer under me to go get a contract no matter what 

the cost is. We are just stewards of the taxpayer money. I frankly 

do not care what contractor gets a contract or not. I care about getting the best deal for the taxpayer. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me stop you there. I want to just get 

it all out because it will probably come out or it will be brought 

out by Senator Grassley or others at some later point. His report 

suggests that you pressured the contract officer, and I want to ask 

you whether you believe that any of your actions might have contributed to the perception that inappropriate pressure was placed 

on the contracting officer by you or others, but particularly, obviously, by you. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not believe I did, Mr. Chairman, and I tried 

to be clear in my communications. Looking back, I would have done 

things slightly differently. Ultimately, I believe we got a good deal 

for the government. 

The contracting officer and the contracting folks who first said 

that first proposal at the impasse briefing was not acceptable, I 

completely supported them. And then when it came time to go back 

to the table with Sun Microsystems, I had heard that the contracting officer did not want to continue working on this. I thought 

I was doing the right thing by asking him did he want to continue 

to work on this. He said no. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. Did you suggest it to him first or 

did he ask to be reassigned? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I was told that he did not want to continue working on this. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You were told that he had told somebody 

else that. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And then you confirmed that with him. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, honestly, sir, I did not confirm it with him. 

I relied on the people who told me he did not want to work on it. 

So when it came time to go back to the table, I asked him, ‘‘Do you 

want to continue to work on this?’’ I thought I was being fair to 

him. And he said no, and I accepted that. 

In fact, after the conference call was concluded, I said to people, 

‘‘Look, this sounds like a great guy. He has been doing his job. 

14 

Make sure that we treat him fairly. Just because he does not want 

to work on this, he should be OK.’’ 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So the new contract officer came in early 

September, if I get the dates right, and within a week and a half 

or so, he recommends that this contract be signed according to the 

narrative that you have described. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. It was actually a she, and she came in 

when Sun Microsystems made the concessions—and, again, 90 percent of the contract in my mind was already done. We had two 

large sticking points. Sun Microsystems made concessions on both. 

She then finished the negotiations. 

What she did was review—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is an important point; 90 percent of 

the contract negotiations were done when this new contract officer 

came in. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was already completed, and they were completed—— 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, it is important because there have 

been suggestions by some of the critics here that the new contract 

officer approved the contract in an unduly brief period of time, 

which was just 9 or 10 days. But your response to that is that most 

of the contract actually had already been negotiated by the time 

the new officer came in. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Again, they had been negotiating since 

2004. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And Sun Microsystems has a long line of products, and those products had been negotiated almost completely. 

One of the remaining sticking points that was out there was Sun 

Microsystems’s failure to include maintenance. And at the impasse 

briefing, the acquisition staff said, ‘‘We don’t want to go forward 

unless they include maintenance.’’ I supported that. 

The other thing that was not done, as I understand it, was we 

did not have agreement on what the discounts should be, and what 

was negotiated in the end by the contracting officer was a tiered 

discount so that as our volume of sales or volume of buys went up 

with Sun Microsystems, our discount became greater. And we 

thought that was a good deal for the government. 

And what she negotiated was reviewed again by our supervisors, 

and it was approved. I did not participate in the negotiations at all. 

I relied, first of all, on the contracting officer to tell me they were 

at an impasse, and the supervisors told me that. I relied the second 

time on the contracting officer and the supervisors who told me 

they had then negotiated a good deal for the government. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. But, again, on the important point of your 

involvement, you do not think you did anything that could have 

been seen as inappropriate pressure on the contract officer to do 

something the contract officer did not want to do? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not believe so, sir. But, again, looking back 

in hindsight, when I had the conference call in Baltimore and when 

I said to people, ‘‘I think this is important that we go back to the 

table,’’ we would like to have Sun Microsystems under contract. 

Our customers buy a lot of Sun Microsystems products and services 

from us. And looking at all the circumstances around it, I thought 

15 

it was important that since Sun Microsystems made the first move 

to say, ‘‘We are willing to make concessions,’’ I thought we should 

go back. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. But I believe that I made it perfectly clear— 

maybe not perfectly; I made it clear. Like I would say to any contracting officer, if you cannot get a good deal, we will walk away. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. Good enough. I am way over my 

time. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just pick up on a couple of points that the Chairman just 

discussed with you. First, it is your testimony that you told the 

contracting officials that if they could not get a good deal for the 

taxpayers, they should let the contract expire. Is that correct? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, Senator, and I believe the notes of one of the 

senior contracting people from the conference call support that I 

said that. 

Senator COLLINS. And you have also testified in response to Senator Lieberman that you did not place any pressure on Mr. 

Butterfield, the contracting officer, to accept Sun Microsystems’s 

position and complete the contract renewal. Is that correct? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is correct, and I supported him in rejecting the 

proposal that was part of the impasse briefing. 

Senator COLLINS. Now we get to the issue that has created some 

concern, and that is the fact that the contracting official, Mr. 

Butterfield, did not complete the final negotiations, even though 

most of the negotiations had been completed by the time he removed himself. 

Did you in any way pressure Mr. Butterfield to step aside from 

the negotiations and allow another contracting officer to complete 

the contract? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, ma’am. In fact, I thought I was helping Mr. 

Butterfield and agreeing to his wishes. 

Senator COLLINS. There is only one other issue related to this 

contract that we have not covered that I want to bring up, and that 

is the report by the Postal Service IG, which took a look at allegations that the GSA IG had been intimidating GSA employees in the 

course of the IG’s review of the Sun Microsystems contract. 

The Postal Service IG found that you did not take any steps to 

independently verify those allegations, but instead just reported 

them to the GSA Administrator. The reason that is of concern is 

there obviously was a very poor relationship between the IG and 

the Administrator. 

Could you tell us of your role in handling those complaints? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would be happy to. At the impasse briefing that 

we had, the initial meeting on August 14, 2006, after the meeting 

was concluded, one of our senior contracting people—I was standing off to the side in the meeting room—told me that Mr. 

Butterfield had felt intimidated and threatened by the IG and that 

he did not want to continue working on this. That is what was told 

to me in front of several other people. 

I did not then go directly to Mr. Butterfield to verify that statement. I wish I had, because I later heard, long after all of this, that 

16 

Mr. Butterfield said he did not say that to his supervisor. In fact, 

it was his second-level supervisor. 

I did pass this comment, along with the discussion of Sun Microsystems, on to Administrator Doan. But in terms of independently 

verifying, I did pass this informally on to Gene Waszily, who was 

the Deputy IG for Audits, and who was responsible for all these 

audit people. And I said, ‘‘Gene, I heard this. I heard that your people had said things to the contracting officer that made him feel 

intimidated.’’ Mr. Waszily said, ‘‘I will look into it.’’ And I had a 

good relationship with Mr. Waszily, and later on, he was asked, 

‘‘What did you find?’’ And he said, ‘‘I could not find any merit in 

those allegations.’’ And I accepted that. 

Senator COLLINS. As I indicated, the relationship between the 

previous Administrator and the Inspector General at GSA was one 

that was plagued by conflict. How do you see the relationship in 

general between the head of an agency and the IG? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, first, I would say, Senator, that I believe I 

have a good relationship with the IG and his staff and have always 

had that, and I hope to build on that. 

I do see the Administrator and the Inspector General as having 

common goals. We are stewards of the taxpayer money, and our 

goal is to make sure we meet the needs of our customers and do 

it in a compliant way and get best value for our customers. And 

I see the IG as an independent role that would help the Administrator accomplish those goals together. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

I want to turn to the issue that I mentioned in my opening statement of particular concern in the State of Maine. As you know from 

our previous conversations, I am very troubled by the fact that the 

port of entry in Calais, Maine, will not be completed until many 

months after the new international bridge and the Canadian side 

port of entry are ready for use. This is of tremendous disappointment to the people in Washington County and to the community 

of Calais in particular. And, unfortunately, the delays were caused 

by the GSA not promptly awarding the construction contract and 

then the subsequent discovery of ledge, which has made the construction more difficult and more expensive. 

I have had many conversations with the previous Administrator, 

who actually came to Calais for the ground-breaking to discuss this 

issue with local and Canadian officials. But it is clear now that additional funds are going to be required to complete the construction 

of the facility. 

What are GSA’s plans for finding the additional funds that are 

going to be necessary to prevent still further delays in the completion of this vital project? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Senator, as you know, I am fully aware of 

the economic impact of our land ports of entry, having visited many 

of them, and I understand their importance to our economy and 

their importance to just connecting with our closest neighbors in 

Canada, and also in Mexico. And I do not think anybody in GSA 

is happy about where we are right now on Calais. We did run into 

problems in awarding the contract and in unforeseen site conditions in terms of the significant amount of ledge that was there. 

17 

But I will commit to you, I understand the importance of this, 

the importance to you, and I will make this a high priority. And 

I will do whatever I can to make this a success, and we have committed to November 2009 to make our port open so that we can 

connect with St. Stephen, Canada, and I will make this a high priority and will do what I can. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, do you want me to yield back to you now? Are 

we going to do a second round? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Go right ahead, because I took a lot of 

extra time. 

Senator COLLINS. Mr. Williams, a second port of entry in Maine 

that I want to discuss with you is in the town of Van Buren. Last 

weekend, I had the opportunity to tour both what had been the 

permanent port of entry facility in Van Buren, which was severely 

damaged in a flooding in early May, as well as to tour the temporary port of entry that is now located there, which is essentially 

a double-wide trailer or manufactured house. 

First, let me say that GSA was very responsive in putting the 

temporary facility at this very busy port of entry. The problem with 

the temporary port of entry facility, however, is that it is not winterized. And according to the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

officers who were manning it, it is obviously fine on a sunny day 

in July, but winter comes very soon, and there is no insulation underneath this manufactured house. The pipes are going to freeze. 

There is no canopy over the agents who are checking people in the 

traffic lane. It desperately needs to be winterized in order for the 

officers to operate effectively, safely, and efficiently this winter. So 

that is the first problem that I would like you to address. 

Does GSA have plans to upgrade the temporary facility to make 

it safe and secure for the winter months? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, Senator, we do, and our responsiveness on 

Van Buren will continue. It will be winterized. And those CBP officers that are up there, we will make sure they are taken care of. 

They are a group that I have worked with very closely, and we understand the need for winterization of those trailers, and we will 

do that. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Second, and related to this same 

border crossing, every single one of the customs agents and border 

protection officials who are there told me that the temporary facility was better than the permanent facility. [Laughter.] 

And I am not kidding about that. I toured the permanent facility. 

There is asbestos. There are cracks in the wall. It is sliding into 

the river so it is uneven. And a lot of those problems, I regret to 

tell you, were there before the terrible flooding that made the facility unusable. 

So the plea that I heard from all of the dedicated officers who 

are working at that port of entry was, ‘‘Please don’t just repair this. 

We need a new, modern, safe, and secure port of entry.’’ And I 

would be more than happy to have you come to Aroostook County, 

Maine, and see that port of entry, and then we could go to Washington County and see the delays at the Calais port of entry. But 

this really needs the attention of CBP and GSA, and I am asking 

you today to do everything you can to work very closely with CBP 

18 

to plan, design, and construct a desperately needed new port of 

entry. It was really telling to me that even though these officers 

are housed in this very temporary facility, they preferred it to the 

permanent port of entry facility. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, Senator, I do not think we would like to see 

them slip into the St. John’s River. 

Senator COLLINS. Exactly. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So I understand, like you, that they are very 

happy with the current conditions, the trailers that we put there. 

I think in terms of looking to the future, we are working closely 

with CBP. I think they are even meeting today, and I would say 

all options are on the table. We would like to make sure we take 

care of our Customs and Border Protection officers. They do, as I 

have always said, a magnificent job for this country. In fact, one 

of my friends who is a 30-year CBP person is here today with me. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

I hope you can take up Senator Collins’ invitation to go to Maine. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would love to. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. And I would certainly urge you to do it 

this summer. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Actually, I do not mind going in the winter. In 

one of my prior jobs, Senator Stevens challenged me to go to Alaska. I did in February, and I did see 40 below. I do not mind going 

in the winter either. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Oh, this will be mild by comparison. 

Let me just ask you a final wrap-up question on the Sun Microsystems case. You testified here this morning that at that initial 

August 14, 2006—was it a meeting or a conference call? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was a meeting, but there were also people on 

the call. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. You heard about the past problems that 

Sun Microsystems had, and the Inspector General as well—I do not 

know whether they told you about the reference to the Justice Department, but there had been a problem. And I think you indicated 

why, nonetheless, you thought it was appropriate to proceed. 

As a general rule, as we go forward, what weight do you think 

the GSA Administrator should give to a vendor’s past behavior or 

record in deciding on future dealings with the vendor? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I think that is really a responsibility of the 

contracting officer, and that is a responsibility under the FAR to 

look at whether the proposed contractor has the business ethics, 

judgment, everything in order to award them a Federal contract, 

to put our trust in them. 

I do think that, as I understood this, people were concerned 

about the past allegations, but they felt like they had solved it before going forward with a new contract. And I absolutely supported 

them in going to the Justice Department. I think they said they 

were considering it. And, obviously, if they have done something to 

cheat the taxpayer, go after them. And I support that. 

In fact, we even talked about the possibility of asserting a claim 

against Sun Microsystems to support the idea, and they said, no, 

do not do that, we are going to pursue our own separate case. 

19 

And there was even talk that if we awarded a contract to them, 

it gave us more ammunition in going after Sun Microsystems if 

they owed this money because that way we could deduct money 

from the new contract as opposed to not having a contract at all. 

So I was trying to support them in what they were trying to do, 

but it was also my understanding that the problems of dealing with 

Sun Microsystems in the future had been dealt with. In fact, the 

Sun Microsystems Vice President told me, he said, ‘‘Mea culpa. My 

systems did not track discounts.’’ He said, ‘‘Someday I am going to 

write you a check,’’ and I know that. And he said, ‘‘But I have 

spent several million dollars to fix the system deficiencies and, according to your plan, to fix it so it tracked discounts.’’ 

So from what I knew, people had been working with Sun Microsystems to fix the problems going forward. But I also supported 

going after them for the money they owed us from the past. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good enough. Thank you. 

Let’s move on to the other matter I mentioned in the opening 

statement. As you know from your own personal experience, the 

Department of Homeland Security lacks a real headquarters. It is 

currently spread throughout 70 buildings and 40 sites across the 

National Capital region, which, of course, makes communication 

and coordination among the various components a real challenge. 

GSA has been working to establish a new comprehensive headquarters on the St. Elizabeths Hospital campus here in Washington, DC, for the past couple of years. I appreciate the obstacles 

that GSA has encountered on this project, including a lack of sufficient funding from Congress. But I want to mention one particular 

obstacle that still remains, the approval of the National Capital 

Planning Commission (NCPC). 

Apparently, despite receiving comments from the Commission on 

the draft master plan for St. Elizabeths in November 2007, GSA 

has not yet returned to the National Capital Planning Commission 

for final approval. 

I wanted to ask you to talk first about why this critical project 

has been repeatedly delayed. And, second, to the extent that you 

are able today, or you want to go back and talk to anybody at GSA, 

I wanted to ask you to commit to submitting the final master plan 

to the National Capital Planning Commission before the end of this 

calendar year. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, Senator, I would say I completely 

agree with the need—not that it takes my agreement—to be able 

to move the Department of Homeland Security into a consolidated 

headquarters. I loved working at the Department of Homeland Security. I did for 3 years under Governor Ridge and Secretary 

Chertoff, and we worked hard and I loved my time there. But I believe you all created the Department of Homeland Security to integrate those functions, and I think they need to be physically consolidated in order to truly achieve the integration that you all desired. 

So I completely support the St. Elizabeths consolidation. I would 

make that a high priority. And looking at the master plan, I think 

we are on track today, and that is to get the draft master plan by 

November 1, 2008, to the National Capital Planning Commission 

and to start the clock ticking to get the final master plan to them 

20 

December 1, and to make sure we can get to a vote by them hopefully by very early in January. I think we are on track. 

The ultimate goal is to make sure we meet the needs of getting 

the Coast Guard’s headquarters in there before their new lease expires at Buzzard’s Point, and that is something I will make sure 

I follow, not only this milestone but every one after that during my 

tenure. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. Very important. I appreciate that. 

If we in Congress provided supplemental funding in the fiscal 

year 2008 budget for this project, would that be helpful? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure that if you did, we could find ways to 

use it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. How would you use it? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, we would use it, frankly, to try and accelerate the project, if we could. We would look at when the money 

comes. Is it this year? Is it next year? And I think I would rather 

get back to you with exactly what we could do with it. 

I will say I think the progress we have made to date is because 

of the collaboration with this Committee, with the NCPC, and on 

the project as a whole. So whatever additional resources or things 

you can provide us, we would certainly look to use it productively. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good. And, finally, let me ask you to generally speak to your vision of the role of the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) and what, if any steps you would take to ensure 

that there is the most effective possible partnership between the 

Administrator and the IG. As you know, others have described the 

relationship between former Administrator Doan and the Agency’s 

OIG as ‘‘dysfunctional.’’ So what are your feelings about that relationship? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I would say, again, I feel like I have always 

had a positive relationship with the IG and their staff and, frankly, 

in other places where I have worked. I believe in working collaboratively with people as part of a team. As I said before, I believe 

the goals of the Administrator, the IG, and all of GSA are common 

goals, and I think that is what you need. You need a team that is 

focused on common goals and working together. And I think to 

work together as a team, you need to communicate and collaborate. 

And my own office is doing that today with the Inspector General. 

We have monthly meetings to look at what are the priorities for 

both our organizations. We work with them on their annual audit 

plan today, and I think we have a very good relationship. And I 

would like to continue and build upon that. I am not the prior Administrator. I am me. And I would want to work closely with Brian 

Miller and his staff. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very good. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Williams, since January 2003, the GSA management of Federal real property has been on GAO’s high-risk list. Several years 

ago, I did an investigation of the government’s management, or 

lack thereof, of real property, and we actually used St. Elizabeths 

as an example of what was a tremendous asset that was sitting 

there deteriorating day after day, year after year. And one of the 

reasons I am for the consolidation of DHS is not only to help DHS, 

21 

but to make use of a very valuable asset that has been allowed to 

just go to ruin. 

In general, what is your assessment of GSA’s management of its 

real property? There is still a problem with underutilized or even 

unused real property. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think there are really four challenges that probably continue to put it on the high-risk list, and one is that I do 

not believe there are good data about all of the real estate, real 

property that the government holds, GSA included. And I think 

under the real property profile that our Office of Government-wide 

Policy has been compiling, they are starting to attack that, looking 

at how do we get good data. And I think it leads to the rest of the 

problems, which is really looking at management of the entire portfolio, not only what GSA has, but the rest of the government. 

I think we also have a problem in underutilized space, and I 

think GSA has done a good job looking at lowering the vacancy 

rate as well as disposing of excess property. And I think they have 

put the focus on that of getting rid of those excess properties. 

I think the next two problems that put it on the high-risk series 

are the bigger challenges, and first of all, it is the costly leases and 

also the deteriorating buildings. GSA estimates we have about a 

$7.4 billion deficit in repairs and alterations that are needed to 

Federal buildings. And as you all said, we have about 8,600 buildings, and about half of those are leased space and about half of 

those are government owned. But more and more it is going towards leasing, and the leasing is becoming more costly, and it is 

because we have to comply with the scoring rules. And I will not 

say the scoring rules are wrong, but because when we have a capital lease—in order to enter into that, we have to score the entire 

amount of it up front. It causes us to enter into short-term leases. 

It causes us to get away from government-owned or construction of 

a government-owned building. And, frankly, GSA has gotten a lot 

of its revenue from its government-owned property, those 1,500 out 

of the 8,600 buildings where we get revenue from those things that 

help us to pay for repairs and alterations. So where we are entering into these costly leases, we also do not have the ability to earn 

as much revenue, which would then fund the repairs and alterations budget. 

So I think we have huge challenges there, and it is not just a 

GSA challenge. I think we need to work with you all on that and 

work with everybody, the Office of Management and Budget and 

everybody. How do we take care of that problem of being pushed 

into these costly leases that then exacerbate the problem of not 

having the revenue to deal with that severe shortage in funding for 

repair and alterations? I am not sure right now I have the answer, 

but certainly it is a problem for which I would like to contribute 

to the solution. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. I look forward to working further 

with you on that issue as well. 

The last issue that I want to bring up is another area that GAO 

has designated as high risk in addition to the management of real 

property, and that is management of interagency contracting. The 

concerns about interagency contracting are not limited to GSA’s 

Multiple Awards Schedule programs, but apply equally to governVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:17 Feb 02, 2010 Jkt 044583 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\44583.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
22 

ment-wide acquisition contracts and other interagency vehicles. 

Our contracting reform bill attempts to address the proliferation of 

these vehicles because many of them have become duplicative, 

wasteful, and costly. 

Do you believe that we need a better system to control the proliferation of multi-agency contracts? 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I do. I believe the proliferation today is contributing to inefficiencies in our Federal acquisition system. And 

while I am not saying the GSA needs to be a monopoly on procurement—I do not believe that. But, on the other hand, acquisition 

people are one of the most scarce resources we have right now, and 

it is one of our most important functions as government, is to be 

stewards of the Federal contracting dollar. And when you look at 

how it has increased from 5 years ago from $200 billion to well 

over $400 billion, we need to make sure that we are proper stewards of those acquisition dollars. 

I do not think interagency contracting is a bad thing. In fact, I 

think it can be a very good thing. When agencies are very much 

strapped and need help, they should rely upon common channels 

to the market. But they should not have to spend precious acquisition people to go create their own when one already exists. They 

should be utilizing those people, and we should utilize them across 

the Federal Government as effectively and efficiently as we can. 

And having interagency vehicles where there are way too many of 

them and people are spending all their time creating something 

that already exists, it is not good for the private sector, it is not 

good for small business, and it is not good for use of our scarce resources of acquisition people. 

My belief is let GSA create those channels to the marketplace. 

Let it be efficient. And then let the agency acquisition people spend 

more of their time on the up-front requirements and acquisition 

strategy and more time on post-award management, not on duplicating interagency vehicles that we do not need. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. 

Mr. Williams, thanks for your answers to our questions. You 

have been very responsive. We are going to bring this nomination 

before our Committee at our mark-up next week, next Wednesday. 

As a result, we are going to leave a short time frame for the record 

of this hearing to stay open. We are going to close the record at 

the end of business today. So if you have any additional statements 

you would like to make for the record, please get them to us by 

then, and that will mean that our colleagues will have to get you 

any additional questions that they would like answered very quickly. 

But, again, it has been a good hearing. We thank you for your 

years of distinguished public service and for your willingness to 

continue to serve in this capacity. 

If there are no further comments, with that the hearing is adjourned. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(23) 

A P P E N D I X 


44583.073
24 


44583.074
25 


44583.077
26 


44583.075
27 


44583.076
28 


44583.001
29 


44583.002
30 


44583.003
31 


44583.004
32 


44583.005
33 


44583.006
34 


44583.007
35 


44583.008
36 


44583.009
37 


44583.010
38 


44583.011
39 


44583.012
40 


44583.013
41 


44583.014
42 


44583.015
43 


44583.016
44 


44583.017
45 


44583.018
46 


44583.019
47 


44583.020
48 


44583.021
49 


44583.022
50 


44583.023
51 


44583.024
52 


44583.025
53 


44583.026
54 


44583.027
55 


44583.028
56 


44583.029
57 


44583.030
58 


44583.031
59 


44583.032
60 


44583.033
61 


44583.034
62 


44583.035
63 


44583.036
64 


44583.037
65 


44583.038
66 


44583.039
67 


44583.040
68 


44583.041
69 


44583.042
70 


44583.043
71 


44583.044
72 


44583.045
73 


44583.046
74 


44583.047
75 


44583.048
76 


44583.049
77 


44583.050
78 


44583.051
79 


44583.052
80 


44583.053
81 


44583.054
82 


44583.055
83 


44583.056
84 


44583.057
85 


44583.058
86 


44583.059
87 


44583.060
88 


44583.061
89 


44583.062
90 


44583.063
91 


44583.064
92 


44583.065
93 


44583.066
94 


44583.067
95 


44583.068
96 


44583.069
97 


44583.070
98 


44583.071
99 

Æ 


44583.072