help us. you -- you've written this wonderful report, mr. miller. and ms. johnson, am i reading you right, that you -- you -- you seem like you -- i watch your expression. it's like -- and this is what it seems like you're saying. you don't have to tell me. but it seems like this really miss pisses me off. not that you have to be here, but you've got these people who did these stupid things, did these greedy things, and i'm just pissed. but i was not in a position to control it. and i'm not trying to excuse you. i'm just trying to get to the bottom of this. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate that, congressman. and i think that i alluded to what i do think is one of the issues that i would certainly welcome attention to, and that is to be sure there is leadership in place in these organizations and they aren't left in interim status too long. it's a very large, complicated organization, takes time for a person coming in to learn the

organization. i was lucky, i already knew a fair amount about it. but i can the leadership aspect is a pretty important part of this story. secondly, i think that with any large organization, you do need good management oversight. i had acted as an executive would, and i tasked to various people with oversight. and there was a clear breakdown in the organization around that. where i trusted, i needed to confront the fact that i had trusted, and yielded this. and i resigned as a result. >> mr. mill e did you have a comment on this? >> well, yeah, i've discussed some of these issues with administrator tangherlini, and i know he's going to address you in a few minutes. i think i applaud him in taking stronger action to strengthen central office control over budgets of the regions. one reason they could spend this money was that their budgets

weren't being -- they didn't have accountability for their budgets. and so they could move money from the operations fund into a conference, and use purchase cards and that sort of thing. and i believe mr. tangherlini will tell you the cfo now will be able to see those transactions. there was a -- i guess the regions had a lot of power and autonomy, and i know that mr. tangherlini is taking steps to have the deputy administrator take more active control and management of the regions. but i don't want to steal his thunder. >> you don't have to steal his thunder. but let me just say this. i agree with the chairman that -- i know this may be all kinds of reasons for not giving us some kind of heads up. but you know, sometimes -- what was the fellow in charge of making sure he oversaw the money? you mentioned his name. devaney. he said something i'll never

forget. he said he tried to operate in a way where the rules didn't get violated. in other words, he tried to be in front of the train, instead of, you know, waiting for things to happen. and so i just kind of -- it's just helpful for us. i mean, we would love to have had a little information on this one so we could have possibly done some things, bought -- i mean, brought some people and actually sat around the table and said, look, how do we make sure this doesn't happen instead of letting it happen, and then going -- and we probably could have saved some people -- first of all, could have saved some money. but we also may been able to save some embarrassment. the last thing i want to say -- this will only take a second. you know, a lot of times groups -- and i'm saying this to our gsa employees and other employees that may be watching this. a lot of times, groups are judged by their weakest link.

and it's so sad. because then people look at what a few people do. in that group. and they judge the whole group. and i just want to say that, you know, we've got a lot of great federal employees. and you know it. they're doing a hell of a job. and i just don't want them to be tarnished by this. i want the public to understand -- like i said in my opening, they collect money at the -- for the coffee. so that nobody -- they're there spending their own coffee money, you know. and they do all the little things, coming out of their own pocket. some of them, many of them, as you know, have taken -- they can't get a pay raise for two years and whatever. and have gone on furloughs, all kinds of stuff. and so anyway, i just don't want the public to judge our federal employees by these weak links.

and i want to thank you very much. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. as we close this panel, i would like to let mr. robertson and mr. miller know we'll likely be back in this setting more times as we get through the reform part of this. ms. johnson, we're unlikely to ask you back in the same setting. your experience, computer science corporation, your experience here, we may ask if you would voluntarily help us as we sort out the frustrations you saw between political appointees who, in fact, might -- you might have a hard time recruiting the kinds of people that need to oversee ses and other very senior individuals in the bureaucracy. and, of course, some of yours from tragss that may exist as to what it takes to eliminate a member of civil service, even after egregious behavior. >> i would be happy to be of any support i can be. >> and we'll make sure it's not at a cost of needing a council

here again. >> thank you. >> and with that, we'll take a short recess before the second panel. >> thank you.

just taking a break here, re-setting the room, letting some of the witnesses go during this oversight and government reform committee hearing. we're going to be hearing next from dan tangherlini, acting gsa administrator. and, of course, earlier we heard

from the official at the center of this gsa scandal. he invoked his fifth amendment right to remain silent today. that was jeff neely. he heads the gsa's pacific rim office. and he has been put on paid administrative leave. he organized in october 2012 las vegas gsa conference, and the expenses for those conference were more than $800,000. we also heard earlier from the former head of the agency. she just left the room, martha johnson. she resigned after the gsa inspector general released a report on that conference. and we also heard from the inspector general himself, who also testified today, brian miller. he referred the las vegas matter to the justice department for possible criminal charges. again, just waiting for dan tangherlini to come into the room. the acting gsa administrator.

mr. tangerly, before we start -- were you able to hear the entire early presentation? [ inaudible ] thank you. the committee will now come to order. our second panel is the acting director -- acting administrator of the general service

administration, mr. daniel m. tangherlini. mr. tangherlini was kind enough to call me almost immediately after his appointment, and we look forward to your opening statement and in light of the first panel, and your listening to that, your comments on changes you anticipate. with that, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> good afternoon, chairman issa. >> i apologize. got to stick with the script. pursuant to the rules, all members will be sworn. would you please rise? do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> let the record reflect, the witness answered in the affirmative. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. and good afternoon, chairman issa, ranking member cummings and members of the committee. my name is dan tangherlini, and i'm the acting administrator of the u.s. general services administration. i appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee today. first and foremost, i want to

state that the waste and abuse outlined in the inspector general's report is an outrage and completely antithetical to the goals of the administration. the report details violations of travel rules, acquisition rules, and good conduct. just as importantly, those responsible violated rules of common sense, the spirit of public service and the trust that the american taxpayers have placed in us. i speak for the overwhelming majority of gsa staff when i say that we are shocked, appalled and deeply disappointed by these indefensible actions as you are. we've taken strong action against those officials who are responsible, and will continue to do so where appropriate. i intend to uphold the highest ethical standards at this agency, including referring any criminal activity to appropriate law enforcement officials and taking any action that is necessary and appropriate. if we find irregularities, i will immediately engage gsa's

inspector general. as indicated in the joint letter that inspector general brian miller and i sent to all gsa staff, we expect an employee who sees waste, fraud or abuse to report it. we want to build a partnership with the ig, while respecting their independence, that will ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. there will be no tolerance for employees who violate or in any way disregard these rules. i believe this is critical, not only because we owe it to the american taxpayers, but also because we owe it to the many gsa employees who work hard, follow the rules and deserve to be proud of the agency for which they work. we have also taken steps to improve internal controls and oversight. already, i have cancelled all future western regions conferences, have also cancelled 35 previously planned conferences, saving $1 million in taxpayer expenses. i have suspended the hats-off stores and have already demanded

reimbursement from mr. peck, mr. shepard and mr. neely for private in-room parties. i've cancelled most travel through the end of the fiscal year able agency wide and i'm centralizing budget authority and procurement oversight for regional offices to make them more directly accountable. i look forward to working in partnership with this committee to ensure that there is full accountability for these activities so that we can begin to restore the trust of the american people. i hope that in so doing, gsa can refocus on its core mission, saving taxpayers money, by efficiently procuring supplies, services and real estate. and effectively disposing of unneeded government property. we believe that there is rarely been a time of greater need for these services, and the savings they bring to the government and the taxpayer. there is a powerful value proposition to a single agency dedicated to this work, especially in these austere fiscal times. we need to ensure we get back to basics and conduct this work better than ever. at gsa, our commitment is to our

public service, our duty and our nation, and not to conferences, awards or parties. the unacceptable, inappropriate and possibly illegal activities at the western regions conference stand in direct contradiction to the express goals of this agency and the administration, and i'm committed to ensuring we take whatever steps are necessary to hold responsible parties accountable, and to make sure this never happens again. we need to focus this agency on the basics, streamlining the administrative work of the federal government to save taxpayers money. i look forward to working with the committee moving forward, and i welcome the community to answer any questions at this time. >> thank you. i recognize myself. i start with one question. do you know if the administration plans on putting you up promptly to the senate for confirmation? >> i have not talked to anyone about plans beyond my time coming over as acting administrator. >> >> i appreciate that. i want to make sure the record is clear that the earlier panel

made it very clear that a sequence -- series of acting administrators was part of the lack of continuity of control that in no small part led to, if you will, ms. johnson receiving an agency that was already and to a certain extent in trouble. hopefully that at omb and opm at the white house is all being heard as we speak. i appreciate the fact that for the record you embraced a number of recommendations. but would you have exception to any of the recommendations from the inspector general, realizing ms. johnson had already embraced all of the recommendations for change? >> no. in fact, the inspector general and i met on the first day to talk about the report, and to talk about building a strong rapport going forward so we wouldn't have any such situations develop like this again. >> the inspector general made us aware that there were, in his answers to our questions, there were ongoing investigations,

including ones that fall much more in the nature of corruption, meaning kickbacks, perhaps bribes and the like. would you commit to us today to ensure that both the chairman and ranking member be informed in sufficient specificity to understand the gravity of events, if not necessarily all the details of possible criminal indictments? >> to the extent that i can do that and in working with the inspector general, i would be happy to work with the committee on those issues. >> we appreciate that. no small matter. my ego can take not knowing about something. what i can't do is deny the ranking member and myself the possibility of looking for fundamental changes in yours and other agencies in a prompt period of time. we think in two-year increments or less. and would like to make sure that we don't have two years go by without that. you were previously sent and confirmed so the expectation of this committee is that if you're promptly put up, you would be promptly confirmed again. so hopefully that message is

delivered. you've listened to the testimony of the previous panel, including the frustrations of your predecessor, for more than two hours. do you feel that you would be able to resolve the issues that your predecessor was unable to resolve? and i would particularly question, do you have confidence in the team you now have in place, obviously sans the two that were dismissed? >> well, i intend to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the organization as a new person coming in, particularly in these circumstances. i have to have confidence in the people i have, but i also have to have that confidence demonstrated. i have to have a sense of how we have structured the organization, how we have put our resources into play, and make sure that that's, in fact, the way we think we should go forward. clearly, there were serious gaps, as evidenced by what took place here. >> now, as you know, you have a fairly large amount of schedule c political appointees that work

for you, just as you were a political appointee. when you were appointed acting, were you given the full ability to clean house to determine political appointees you would keep and those you would ask to be replaced? >> i believe when i was appointed acting, i was given full latitude to make managerial decisions over the general services administration. >> i appreciate that. but my question was a little more nuanced. the president has placed a number of political appointees from your chief of staff on down. were you given the ability or do you believe you have the ability to retain or to dismiss any or all of those individuals you find not to meet the standards necessary going forward for what you envision to be a predictable gsa that's cleaned up and that this sort of thing never happens again? >> at the time i never had a discussion specifically about that. but i did ask if it it's going to have full authority to make recommendations on how we should structure the agency going forward. and that i was given aassurance i would.

>> your predecessor showed a considerable frustration about the chairman of ranking member, seeming in two areas. the sess that were paid a lot of money and may not have performed well, in the case of mr. neely, still being paid by the taxpayers, and the political appointees who made significantly less than those individuals. do you share that frustration? >> i, again, need to understand the reason why we have the gsa structure that we do. and in a sense that i heard, the description from my predecessor, i understand the nature of her frustration, but i would like to know why we have the structure we have, and see if there are ways that we can make it better. >> the gsa has been successful in -- has the gsa been successful in recovering any money so far from individuals who received benefits that were not warrantied, either the

individuals who made decisions of spending money or those who accepted them? >> we began that process late last week. so i don't think we have received any money back at this time. >> how much are you hoping to receive back for the taxpayers? >> right now, we have the case of the three individuals we've sought reimbursement for the private in-room parties. we also have the contractor that charged us for hotel rooms when they were actually getting hotel rooms from gsa. i want to work very closely with brian miller and go through the entire bill of particulars and see how much of that we can get back. >> our indication is that approximately $100,000 was spent -- you know, this is an egregious amount, but when you break it down, one of the most egregious portion were the ten "fast money" trips that included other luxury hotels that were visited by both individuals and their families. will you seek to get any part of

that money back from the individuals who had their vacations with their family paid for by the taxpayers? >> i'll work closely with inspector general miller to make sure that the extent that any funds are recoverable, we will recover them. >> would you commit to us if you find that you cannot recover, because statute doesn't allow for it, to inform us? because ultimately, one of the reforms that i believe the chairman in my role and the ranking member and all of us on the committee want to do is make sure you're empowered when people receive something they're not entitled to, to make sure the statute allows it to be clawed back. >> i will commit to working with the committee and sharing with you where i've succeed and where i've had less success. >> lastly, you're inheriting a organization that had other problems. some of the members that were here earlier have worked on it. i know the ranking member in his rollover at transportation and infrastructure, ms. norton in her rollover there, have been frustrated for a very long time, there is a huge amount of waste

within the management and disposal of federal property. that's not the subject of this hearing. but it will continue to be the subject of both individual and joint hearings by tni and this committee. so i would hope you would be prepared as quickly as possible to address those issues, because they're going to be of billion-dollar concerns to us. lastly, so far, we've been able to get from the inspector general a pretty good production of documents. he's been very cooperative. would you also commit to make sure that we get documents, preferably in electronic format and organized, pursuant to our request? >> i think to date we've provided nearly 50,000 documents to the committee. we had a -- the initial request came in just about this time last week, so we have been working day and night and through the weekend to try to provide the committee with all

the documents we can. >> as i turn over the ranking member, i would like this to be an example of how it doesn't take months or a year to get document production. so far, the work from the gsa has been excellent. and that was the reason for the question. but also for a comment that it has been good so far. with that, i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i'm hopeful, mr. chairman, that we can bring mr. tan ga lienee back, with regard to where they are and what they're doing. i just don't -- i want us to make sure we stay on top of this. >> i have no doubt we'll have several hearings of this sort going forward on a joint basis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. you shared a hats-off program that word awarded

electronic cameras and ipods. the hats off program has been suspended pending your review. i understand you also closed all other award programs, is that correct? >> all other similar award programs in which points were given to employees that they could then turn in for prizes or awards. >> and where did that -- how did that start, do you know? >> i really don't know. and that's part of what i'm trying to understand. what i would like to do is look at things like these award programs, and ask ourselves, where did they come from? what purpose do they serve? is there some good underlying them? what contractual agreements do we have with our employees related to them? so we have suspended them. it's part of the top-to-bottom review to get to the bottom of where it came from. >> and what will be done with the inventory remaining in those awards programs? >> well, for the time being, i've asked them to hold and suspend the inventory, pending a decision on whether we move forward on the program. if we move forward on the

program, it could be reused. if we don't, we have -- we're in charge of disposal of federal property, so we would find a way of to dispose of it properly. >> and what type of awards programs if any do you feel are appropriate? if any? >> well, i think that that's one of the things we have to look at, is ask ourselves, is our bonus an award program tied to the appropriate outcomes and the appropriate types of performance? gsa is about saving. so we should really find ways that we can reemphasize savings within the gsa vision. >> now you heard the testimony of the former administrator, and the fact that i think just about all the members up on this -- on the did heis are very concerned about, and i think it was probably one of the weak parts of her testimony. this whole issue of the $9,000 bonus. and she explained the process by

which one thing was separate from another thing. i mean, i -- i mean, what -- how do you deal with that? because i think if there is anything, i remember when we had aig and all these companies giving bonuses for bad behavior, i was very loud and sometimes loud by myself. but very upset about it. i think when you have got bad actors, the last thing you want to do is be -- is to give them bonuses. even if there is a two-track process and that's the impression i got -- two tracks here. some kind of way we don't want -- you know, as you go about the business of trying to re-establish this trust, you don't want the public to be confused about folks going out there and partying with their money. and at the same time, getting a bonus. i mean, it's like slapping them in the face. so i'm