John Mica

I remember we had--I had Rudy Giuliani here years ago when he became mayor of New York.

Well, again, we can pass a law, but the law has to be enforced, and there has to be consequences.

So you lost money there. Okay.

Well, there may be a very legitimate purchase requirement. But for the rest of DHS, it's $31,000 that we have been able to identify.

We were absolutely startled, Ms. Richards, when we saw at one Starbucks in California, $12,000 worth of purchases.

I want to thank, again, Mr. Connolly for his steadfast commitment to, again, going after abuses where we see it.

Okay. And Mr. Lewis, in your testimony, you just testified that you found about 35 percent of the purchases with a credit card were abusive or noncompliant.

Again, we want the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I thank my ranking member Mr. Connolly for being here and for our negotiating and working together to make this hearing a reality.

I think it's an important responsibility not only of this committee but the Congress, to see how taxpayer dollars are expended.

I find it astounding because...

But we have not lodged anything or initiated...

I think that--yeah. I think that you should be aware, particularly where there is the slaughter of innocent civilians...

I think everyone looks to the United States for leadership, particularly on moral issues.

So, again, Mr. Chairman, I would also--I want the entire content of the email entered into the record and the reference further down to Serco.

I would like to put this email in the record, where the witness asks that we delete this particular email.

Did you know that Serco had been awarded the contract, a $1.2-billion contract, while they were being investigated?

It is astounding. Again, 'This is a [blanking] Disaster.'

Then I see, basically, a coverup of the failure that took place.

Are you aware that you violate Federal law when you ask to delete information like this?

I have one email here, and you had asked that it, in fact, be deleted.

So even to date we have risks. Is that correct?

I also see that you say that the GAO report strongly asserts that testing of the Website still remains insecure.

You don't appoint them. You try to get rid of them, and then you don't cooperate with them and obstruct them.

It appears that it is sort of a blatant coverup of sexual abuse cases that some might embarrass the agency.