you've got start from a list of principles. we do believe that at the moment -- there's been some very positive steps taken ertainly with the recent things. you've got crepo and johnson talking about it. there may be some tempering of positions on the house side

talking about it that publicly i don't think has surfaced yet and there may be and we're encouraged by it. certainly last week at our meeting in town, the secretary called on congress to begin a bipartisan effort to begin the reform of our mortgage finance we were encouraged by hat. but we certainly are encouraged but again i think you have to start with the basis of some principles. e we are strong about is a

catastrophic backing for the housing finance system. we think that's critical and importantly. the other is to ensure that the end result will be a men knew of products that will serve a as well as f buyers single-market families. and as we all know secondary and tesh area markets are left out and underserved at some point, one of the principles we see as being critically underserve asked those markets and the people that reside there. >> david, i have been following with great interest the last six or seven weeks when mba has

suggested a number of initiatives. we don't have to wait until a final plan is agreed to. can we read that you are skeptical there will be a final plan? let's go forward because we may not get to the final plan anyway? or is that unfair? >> we already heard a lot of people talk about the likelihood of a final plan, the timing of a final plan. there is the corker-warner initiative being talked about more seriously than it was a couple of months ago or even a month ago. it will still be on the senate side. there is still a question of what pathway when it is introduced in committee. a question on the house side as to -- while i share your hope for more modernization, i happen to believe the burst bill introduce will probably be extreme and then they will moderate at some point.

at the end of the day, you think about the timing of elections, the upcoming midterms or if it pushes too far past that, into presidential politics. we could be literally, depending on timing and motivation, we could be staring ourselves back post presidential elections on the ext round -- we both served in administrations and you recognize that the first year or first two years is when everything gets done and then things get a little bit crazy. jack lew has said this was not going to be his priority at the present time, or not in his top priority. i view this as a priority, and our industry does because we've got to get certainty on what housing finance will look like, both in single family residential side and multifamily side. i also am concerned that in the debate, that policymakers who have less expertise in mortgage finance broadly will be

drafting and writing rules we will be responding to. the way we are approaching this today is let's be proactive, let's provide benchmark and rules that they can actually adopt theoretically written by industry experts that can, in the end, help design, back to the whiteboard scenario, help avoid sort of a lack of knowledge and basis we ultimately have to offend against and fight off in legislative proposals. to that end, we are laying out a series of steps. we have laid them out. we are going to package them all together in the next couple of weeks into one overall document. but there are steps that are very common for most of our proposals. i will take, for example, homogenizing the security. the question that was asked earlier about the platform. a single common currency is ultimately the end state in most of the proposals, that is

something we can work on today and the director can do today. barry made the comment, the director could expand credit today. i think the director underconservatorship is tasked with conserving the assets of gse's and repayments to treasury. i do not see in his mission the need to expand credit. i am sure there is a mission driven role for ed given the context of what he is taking on, heading these two gse's who avatar with their own failed institutions. until we can get our arms around the full steps to transition that do not require legislation we are going to be continuing to debate this ultimate of the ultimate end state and how they get there over and over again, and they do worry fundamentally that the political timing of things could force our hand at not ultimately getting rid of the conservatorship status perhaps

into the new residency. >> do you have a same sense of the calendar on these issues? that if we don't strike while the iron is hot today or tomorrow afternoon, we will wait four more years? >> as a very good friend of both of ours counseled us both, never bet against inertia and washington. i never lost money taking that. i don't know what the timetable is. congress is uniquely unsuited, to be frank, to this kind of conversation. big, complex, lots of conflicting interest in issues and it is exacerbated by the fact there is no obvious -- burning platform unless you have objection of the government taking a large share of the credit risk in the current system. but i don't think you'd can let the perfect be the enemy to be good. there are some things that can be done, and whether you like it or not, they are beginning to move forward on. it is important to distinguish which of the, that formfhfa proposed and looking forward to execute, a jointly owned

utility of the two companies. it will simply be the means through which two different securities or in the future multiple kinds of securities get issue. it is very different to moving to a common security that might be something on their agenda but i am not sure it is as high. let's just get the infrastructure fixed because spending money for two new infrastructures -- because both of thegse's platforms are pretty all -- is more economical. the danger i think of a continuation is these kinds of advances along the path of some future state are being conducted by an agency that has one specific mission, is not as subject to public comment, control, and influence as a fully developed a legislative solution would be, and overtime time is going to foreclose the options -- both congress and the administration. it will create an infrastructure that i think will have too much momentum to not become the default.

that may or may not end up being a good thing. the concern i continue to have -- and as i said today -- it is not that ed can't do these things physically, that the gse's camera on the box. i do not think it is the mission fhfa and they have. and still it is resolved we will have the continuing problem in the market and the use of a full government guarantee for purchases that i do not think there really consistent with how these companies were originally chartered. i will congress would like to see them do. the timeframe, i think -- i am more optimistic than i was last year but five years ago i was asked about this and i said -- some of you will remember, i said, for sure, by 2014 this will be over. and i was the most pessimistic at the time. so, i am not going to make any more bets on the timeframe. >> a follow-up -- you represent one of the leading consumer

agencies in the country. how do consumers find a way to participate in this so it is more than just the technical industry kind of restructuring? not that dave and kevin are not caring about consumers and all of that, but you have a special perch to look at that. how do consumers participate in this debate and discussion? >> that is a great question. we have been trying to refocus the attention on the larger principles. what is the purpose of the system? we joined with dave and others about the qrm. there are regulatory actions we think are leading to the constraining of credit and we would like to see them removed or a meliorate it aired more broadly, what we are trying to say to anyone thinking about architecting a new system is the system has to meet certain qualifications and outcomes. it has to provide access to consumers across a wide range of credit profiles. it can't allow secondary market institutions to cream the market, which i think was kind of the case before the 1992 legislation forcubg gse's to

broaden the aperture. and it has to be aggressive in helping spread responsible innovation in the system, which is currently not happening at the gse's. they are being constrained in what they do. a lot of innovative work that was quite safe and sustainable has been shut down by fhfa because they do not think it is consistent with the current mission. we are taking the approach regardless of what device you use to get to the end state, the end state has to guarantee these outcomes to consumers or it will not be successful. >> let me. it back. we spent this morning talking about the danger, challenges, unsustainability of the status quo. we talked a little bit about the implications overall. and we all agreed to acquire -- we all agreed, the choir agreed, we need mortgage finance reform and address the larger principal barry and david talk about. if that is what we should do, why don't we address those issues?

what are the barriers? >> um -- > is it pure politics? >> it is politics. just the very nature of congress, the beast itself, if you would. >> the only congress we have -- >> it is the only congress we have. [laughter] i mean, as we all have said, this is an enormously complex issue. the ability for people to get their arms around it. and quite frankly, it seems to me that in certain instances, now that fannie mae and freddie mac are making fools of money -- oodles of money, the question is does it take the pressure off of those members of congress and people in the administration?

m a what do you think? >> i think it has, to a degree. and i think it is unfortunate. i think it behooves us in this current environment to ensure that we don't take our eye off the ball. and number two, i think it also prevents a unique opportunity to move forward on this at this point in time. it has taken the conversation away from the drain they have been to the treasury and the cost to the taxpayer to now they are making money. now is the time to reform them. so, i think you got some crosscurrents here. but i think timing wise, particularly with the conversations occurring in the senate, that that ought to serve as a springboard for us to continue to push for comprehensive reform.

>> david, do you share -- it is not overarching enthusiasm or optimism, but do you share that optimism that we are heading toward reform? >> i think all of us who work around the subject no caps for the first time the senate has come alive and is focused on housing policy, which is a good thing. so, i think we are moving toward reform, but i figure will be way too slow. unless there is a groundswell of demand to take steps that can be done in the interim -- i think in interim steps are key. whether it is our list or a few items a broader group can gel around, we are not going to get there for a long time. i go back to the common securitization program -- platform that ed is getting a lot of credit putting together and i think he is doing a great job in his role as well. they talked about a timeline for the platform several years out.

we can't wait for a common platform to derail the need to get real transition going, because in the interim, there is too much tinkering that can take place. at the guarantee fees today. one could argue -- the question is when they produced the kind of profits they are producing oday, to firms and conservatorship, is that a good thing or does that mean we are overpricing for credit isk? if we are pricing to this level to theoretical crowd and private capital, what steps are we doing to crowd in private capital?

is there real risk sharing being deployed where we can get private capital up front to ake the risk and really reduce the guarantee fees to offset that? t just seems to me that this in many ways are haphazard steps. the acronym in record profits literally, is to work with -- they are creating record profit literally, historically record profit yet credit remains tight and builders are complaining bout access to credit on the purchase side as well as the federal reserve chairman and others. i do not fit the coordination. i see no reason to pop the champagne bottles as we move forward. the role we have done up to this point refinancing america has been great. that was only done after they realize they have to deal with representation and warranties and streamline documentation. if we put that much effort in the purchase side, it would be a real different story.

but today the representation and warranty structure on the purchase side remains overly onerous, making lenders are a mistake. we are doing with the fundamental aspects agreed transition. and although we can feel signs of optimism -- it is probably going to be overall a pretty decent bill with good parts. we will pick apart on the margins. i really worry that the timeline for that, that one piece of legislation, created enough momentum to make it through two sides of congress is too long. i think we really need to be pushing on things right now to force transition. again, steps that can be done without dependency on legislation. it can be done with enough groundswell from a broad set of stakeholders in washington. >> i want to ask very one last question and then open it up. you heard david's approach to these transitional steps and the skepticism on the ability to come to consensus. is there a danger and that approach? if we take transitional that's, will it narrower options going forward? what is your take on that as a strategy? >> i wouldn't characterize it necessarily as a danger. i would characterize it as almost a near certainty. whether you think it is a danger or not i guess depends on which direction they take and whether you think it is a good thing or bad thing for the market and consumers. this is one of the concerns about the current situation, that fhfa because of its charter operates understood financially less public input,

transparency, public influence, than hud or even treasury would if they were carrying it out under different circumstances. it just raises big questions about the ultimate public purpose of the agencies and the conservatorship. i do have to say we should all be realistic and acknowledge that when congress is pressed to do things quickly, it can often make all kinds of decisions that lead to unintended consequences that have one benefit, which is keeps people like me and dave in business because we get to argue over what they really meant and what the legislation should read like. but it also means you could wind up with an outcome that is worse than what you start with. i think part of what we have to get to here his peel away some of the ideologue -- ideology, some of the politics, some of the preconceptions about the system driving a lot of people attitudes toward it and get back to first principles. i think it is ironic that the companies today, without shareholders, who are supposed to be the drivers of their

rapacious profit-making behavior are now making way more profits than they ever did when they had shareholders to be responsible to. i guess it turns out that profits don't really require shareholders. they just require lock on the market and high fees, and to dave's point, a less generate credit box and less public service that would have probably been the case in their old state. >> and quantitative easing and a harp for them that made it a lot easier. >> a lot of support. the government's role in housing is not constrained to the gse's, and the only federal guarantees of debt are not just gse, but they include the federal home loan banks. i think it is important to focus on what fhfa is doing today and try to influence that by bringing attention back to what will the result be in terms of credit for consumers, what will the result be to efficiency, what will the result be to the availability of long-term fixed-rate finance and the price of long-term fixed-rate finance?

secondarily, i think we have to bring congress back -- remember what the point of his exercise is, to make credit available to american consumers so they can buy homes at a reasonable price, so apartment homes and rental homes can be developed at a price that is affordable nd serves the great middle part of the market. that is the whole purpose. if it does not serve the purposes, we don't need it. >> let's open it up to questions and comments. yes, sir. and identify yourself. >> ethan from the national housing conference. i'd like all the members to speak to how affordable housing providers to enter and look at this debate. it is really complex. these are for-profit, nonprofit, state and local agencies, housing counselors, tenant advocates, those who try to create affordable housing on the ground and have had a mixed relationship with fannie and freddie over the years. where should they focus?

they are not going to dive into the details of the plumbing of the system, but the outcome of these decisions is critical to the work they do. where is their point of entry? >> david? >> ethan, one thing of the guess if you look at any of the constructs of proposals or behavior -- take corker-warner, there is a fee collected that goes somewhere. if you are focused solely on affordable housing that is where the best advice can come from, from people working on the bill, because he if you think about what the focus is, these big projects around gse reform -- they first try to fix the structure of the single-family entity. then they say multifamily, let's make sure that works. and then i will what about affordable housing? i really believed it is a pecking order. my own experience, even when i was in the administration was,

how do you make certain affordable housing just doesn't become, yes, we've got that covered, line item in the bill. that we will collect 10, 15, 25 basis points and put it in an affordable housing trust fund or give it to hud. that is where i think creating a mind trust of expertise to analyze the best way to meet affordable housing needs without saving the world -- word goals because you will lose the audience of capitol hill, too, with a way to make sure there is funding for affordable housing. the only thing i would just add is it is even listening -- interesting looking at being fha family -- multifamily program. a lot of restraint -- constraints came from the high cost multifamily business that clog up the processes at fha. there has been de minimis focus on multifamily affordable apartment creation in this country, and with household formation reaching one million-plus annually, the question is, where will people live affordably on a go forward basis?

i do not see a groundswell of work on that. i think there is an opportunity to create a groundswell of work on the subject. >> i think it is a great question and what we have been rappling with. it is hard to bring together a coalition of consumer organizations and get them all lit up over at the 30-year amortization of a g fee against -- right there, i lost 90% of my crowd. we made a specific effort to call out what i believe the key areas of consumer organizations and affordable housing advocates should focus on. looking at housing access and affordability. unless there is a voice outside of the mortgage industry -- no offense to dave -- but outside the mortgage industry, that could easily be lost. we see a lot of those proposals who do take attacked they've aid. we will have been off affordable housing, the way we

define it, and let's not try to define it, and that is the job of "fill-in the blank." affordable housing needs to be the job of the entire system. it needs to provide the plumbing through which housing can be made available -- mortgage finance be made available across wide responsible sustainable spectrum. i worked on a task or at the center for american progress and the council la rasa to bring together the thinking in a more comprehensive fashion and we just released every more last week and i commend that two people attention. i believe it is a sound laying out of that idea, that there is not just a money obligation on the part of the system but a functional obligation on the part of the system. if we lose that in the process, if we make a decision that the mortgage finance system by and large is for "fill in the blank" but not for "those people," we will lose the greatest benefit the system can provide, which is a large-scale ongoing not discriminatory system of mortgage finance.

so, i would say that is where i would really focus the energy of people who are not -- because you have a lot of us who will be in the weeds, so far in the weeds we cannot see the turf anymore. that will be our lot for the next however many years. but i do think without a strong voice continuing to remind congress of these obligations, we could end up with a system that fails to serve large, large portions of the population. >> as you know, currently fannie mae and freddie mac are very involved in that space at he moment. and i develop and own and operate affordable housing and certainly utilize the program. just in terms of participating in the discussion, quite frankly i am not sure what the national council of state

housing agencies have done at this point in time did i know we have all issued white papers. i am not sure where they are, to be honest with you, whether hey have done something. but it seems to me that they or the national housing conference could certainly act as convener of organizations that truly focus on some -- on affordable housing, to become involved in the dialogue and set forth principles that address the need to provide whatever revisions of the system are made -- whatever revisions of the system are made have to provide for decent affordable housing for all americans. you go back to the housing act of 1949. and, quite frankly, my experience has been -- if you look at the track records of the fha's quite frankly under single-family and multifamily, they have had terrific track records over the last number of years, even with this horrendous downturn.

so, in terms of looking for people to partner, i would say that will be a place i would start. they have standing in that space right now. they have -- they have obviously tremendous contacts through the governors associations and things. i think they need to be -- fha's could add significant weight to the debate and iscussion. >> i want to second dave's caution. in every one of these legislative debates i have been involved in since s&l of the debate of get a fee and go home rather than getting the system to support the largest part of the population they can has

been the tension. i thought one of the big victories of the 1992 legislation, of the same community of people, was to focus on the fact that are talking about a trillion dollar mortgage market, and getting $500 million through a fee? that is not enough of an answer. we need to be part of a larger system. it needs to have an obligation to serve those housing needs. i think that is the same opportunity we have here. i am all for the money. but it is not enough. it is necessary, but not sufficient. >> yes, kevin? >> i am struck by barry's, earlier -- i am kevin chambers at blackrock. struck by barry's comment about attempting to refocus the dialogue -- mission and purpose. mission and purpose of being driven by the objectives of the ultimate stakeholders. whether one and, investors, or the other and, borrowers -- one end investors, on the other,

borrowers. those of us in some shape or fashion as intermediaries in the weeds. i am curious, how do you do that? how do you elevate the conversation in a way that the broader interests drive the outcomes as opposed to the plumbing driving the endgame? >> a great question, kevin. i think a lot will hinge on a bit of the commission tried to take a setting up in a separate box which we thought were the important access and affordability issues. what the task force has done is an important contribution. and i think the organizations that care about the prospects for low and moderate income home ownership, sustainable, they need to be making the voice heard on the hill and not allow themselves to get distracted so much by the details. i am worried that the starting point for some of the legislative drafts i have seen

floating around book is exactly on those constituencies you describe and never mentioned the importance of the consumer, the importance of serving the broad market, the importance of serving throughout different economic cycles. it is really all about protecting taxpayer, detecting the investor. necessary -- protecting the investor. necessary but not sufficient. it is important for organizations across the spectrum to join that, but they will have other interests, too. consumer organizations, affordable housing developers have to get on this game simply to make his point over and over again. we did it in 1992. i think we can do it again. >> the investors don't feel terribly protective. [laughter] >> david, kevin, any last comments before we wrap up? anyone have comments? please join me in thanking our

panel. [applause] >> in this week's radio address, president obama called n members of dongs pass the bipartisan bill. in minnesota it was talked about the g.o.p. bill to keep student loan interest operates from the doubling on july 1. >> hi, everybody. right now the united states is looking on fixing a bill that would don't strengthen our -- it's a knowingly bill that would modernize the legalization process so as we train workers we are attracting the highly-skilled engineers

and entrepreneurs who grow our economy. and the 11 million individuals that are in this country illegally, they would have to pass a background check, paying taxes and penalty then going back to the back of the line behind everyone trying to come here legally. and that common sense bill would help the middle class grow our economy and shh trink deficit to make sure everybody in america plays by the same set of rules and pays taxes like everybody else. it would reduce our deficits by almost a trillion over the next two decades and boost our economy by more than 57 in part because of businesses created and technologies made by immigrants. this comes on the heelts of another report which says this

immigration bill would actually strength at any long-term health and solvens cri of social security for future generations. because of this bill millions of additional people will start paying more in taxes for things like social security and education which will make things fair for middle class families. stronger enforcement, a smarter legal immigration and a more vibrant growing economy that's fairer on the middle class and more stable, fiscal future for our kids. now, the bill isn't perfect. it's a compromise. not everyone is going to get eh they want. not democrats, not republicans, not me. but it's that's why republicans and democrats, c.e.o.'s and labor leaders are saying now is the time to pass this bill. if you agree with us, reach out to your senators and representatives, tell them that the time for excuses is over.

it's time to fix our broken immigration system once and for all. we can do this, because we are a nations a nation of love and immigrants and are for and enriched by people all over the world. that's been america from the start and let's keep it going. >> hello, i'm chairman of the house and education of the workforce committee, as you may know many of student loan borrowers could soon see their interest rates double. this rate hike which will take effect on july 1 if nothing is done but supply to knew subsidized stafford loans this house of representatives is the only chamber of congress that is acting to stholve problem. our students deserve better. we're in this predicament because politicians put emselves in control of

student loan interest rates. we need washington out of the business of setting rates all together. fortunately, president obama greece and in his budget he offered a plan to tie interest rates to the market. part of that, the smarter solutions for students act and the house passed it last month weeks before the deadline. the senate democrats blocked the plan and refused to consider ours in fact they have yet to pass a solution i would say they are don't let rates double still republicans have pressed ahead in good faith and what we need to move forward now is more leadership from president obama. this week john boehner sent a letter to the president. i myself have sent out letters to the colleagues and because of our efforts, there are

finally signs of congress towards a bipartisan plan to a solution but this 11th-hour scrambling is why we need to take the politics out of student loans once and for all. we should now seize the process before us. i urge president obama to get involved right away and thank you for listening. >> in a lot of ways this is a challenging time for people who are conservatives. we got a not only democratic president but a quite liberal democratic bhoth has not only been elected but re-elected after putting into place some ideas and programs that i think are very wrong leaded. the public had a chance to think about it and they did re-elect him. is it's a challenging time but also an exciting time if what

you're trying to do as i say i am trying to do is modernize conservativetism and bring it into line with the challenges the countries face and help conservatives and those of the country how co-confront challenges. there's a lot of opportunity for thinking about what america in the 21st century needs to change about the way it governs itself to get back to economic growth and prosperity and back to a type of cultural rerival we need. so it's challenging but exciting. >> tonight at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." this week on prime minister's questions. david cameron discusses the geathers summit, the european trade deal and the progress made in the humanitarian aid to syria. prime minister's questions

tonight on c-span at 9:00 p.m. eastern. a pat t lady has northern american women and mom ticks famous or not that serve two things. one is that they are women, real people who actually do things. but then there's this also secondary factor of being a charismatic figure. and i think many a first lady has sort of come to be a first lady and that's something dolly figured out. so she makes a white house into a symbol and all this is happening in 1808. she doesn't know this but in 1814 the british are going to burn the capital city and all this work she nut working to identify this house she called the white house is going to

give a surge of nationalism around the war. >> our focus on first ladies continues monday night and more on why we study first ladies. monday night at 9:00 on espn. >> on tuesday, the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee healed confirmation hearing on resident obama's choice daniel tangherlini's nomination. his is an hour and 20 minutes. >> welcome to you and your family. and our other guests, happy

that you're willing to assume these responsibilities if confirmed. for decades it's been said that couple chinese words. one for danger, one for opportunity. i'm told the symbol for those is front stretch same. some experts on the chinese -- say this is an overly sim pliths indication of the word but the axiom crisis brings opportunity persists because there's a large dose of truth and i oftentimes say the quote in adversity lies opportunity. >> when a report of the details are wreckless in and in some

details illegal spending of some -- at a lavish conference. they rewarded themselves with catered party and team-building exercises including conference sufeneers but this was not an isolated bad judgment. it was learned of other extravagant travel and charge cards and questionable employee rewards programs and other taxpayers where they were paid to beat on drums and these are just a few examples. these -- the trust of congress and the primary purpose so make our government more frugal in spending taxpayer dollars. taking over in the g.s.a. dan tangherlini thnds afforded an opportunity to make g.s.a. a

better agency. he didn't teammate sweep the scandal under the rug he undertook a top to bottom review of the whole agency. he has nut stronger holdings over g.s.a. and consolidated energies in human resources ando administrative fungses. this should make g.s.a. a leaner agency helping other agencies make smeart choices. long-standing challenges with both of these areas, property management and procurement combined with the current physical -- making sure the g.s.a. is the go-to place for agencies to be able to go through more with less. they should be at the center of government solve our major

management challenges. the management of real property has been on the g.a.o.'s high-risk list of troubled problems for a decade. our government has tens of thousands of properties that e no longer needed or used but we also lack comprehensible data at how agencies use their property. over the long run it would be to tone property. additionally the federal government has a backlog of millions and billions of needed repairs and maintenance which if unaddressed will increase the cost of maintaining the area in the long run. roughly $50 billion of total federal spending for g.s.a.'s contract and other services but there's much room for improvement. for example, the studies showing enormous potential for

the government save billions each year through strategically sourcing commonly used goods and services through government and wide contracts that threverage buying power much like large companies do for themselves. g.s.a. deserves a leader who can work well with the heads of other agencies to help them meet their needs and i think they will have such a leader in dan tangherlini if he is confirmed. he is a logical choice and brings a wealth of other experience from other public sector administration. he served as you may know for six years at o.m.b. as a strong understanding of the budget process and then served a year in the office of transportation and went on to a string of

impressive jobs at the local level. the interim general manager transit authority, director of the district of columbia's and finally city of administrators and deputy mayor of the district of columbia and in in senate confirmed him the treasury department until erving as active member of the g.s.a., and mr. tangherlini ll bring much-needed stabilization to -- the asset determines whether or not an organization of any size or scaleical effectively accomplish its mission. it's particularly committed to turning things around and one of g.s.a.'s main problems has been a lack of stable

leadership which unfortunately is a problem throughout executive branch. g.s.a. has had eight different leaders over the last eight years. all but two of them in an acting capacity. the last two confirmed leaders of g.s.a., each resigned following scandals. mr. tangherlini is a representative of how the get the job done and how the get job done better. i look forward to your testimony and hearing today a the opportunity to discuss with you and all of us your priorities for g.s.a. thank you for your willingness to do this and your family, especially your wife and children. thank you for your willingness to share your husband and father and for dad, weren't you just told, he tran rock & roll marathon at age of 89, whatever you're eating and drinking, we want some of that.

great to see you. doctor? >> i'm going to put my statement in the record. and i enjoyed our visit in our office eight years ago next month. tom harper and i had a hearing on g.s.a. and i will tell you nothing has essentially happened in eight years. we had a frank demugs my office about the problems. i believe you have the capeibility to actually turn this around and i will have a lot of questions for the record. i am not going to be able to stay through the full hearing but one out recent report which has to be the most demoralizing thing for contracting officers where we have contracting officers doing the right thing and their management through complaints of the well-connected override good decisions and the result of that is undermining the

capability of the very people we depend on to make your agency viable and effective. so i know you weren't pleased with that report. and i guess the thing that i would ask for senator carpenter and myself is for you to have good communications on your progress as you try to turn this around. i don't want you to have to come up here all the time and give us a report but we can make that happen if in fact we don't get great communication. so i hope you would view us as a partner in enabling us to carry out what you need to do. the federal government is the largest buyer of everything in the world, of everything. and there shouldn't be one instance where we don't get the best price whether it's building or pencils and erasers, i don't care what it is. there shouldn't be one thing, and that ought to be t.s.a.'s

-- when we look at sequester, the gentleman sitting before us today could save us 1/3 of that every year if t.s.a. was effective. highly effective. and so some of the pains that's been experienced today wouldn't necessarily have to be there if we had really made progress from eight years ago when we senate this committee, and unfortunately they are still there and what that means is senator carpenter alluded to the fact that less than 10 years for a confirmed managers of t.s.a.'s leadership really makes a difference. i think you have the quality, background and experience to do that. my hope is that you will take the charge and not just run the t.s.a. but be responsible for us, with us in terps of eliminating the excesses, the

waste and the poor pricing that we get on so many things, so i thank you for being here. i welcome your family. these are family commitments. this job is going to own dan for a long time, hopefully. and so what that means is you all will make a sacrifice as he does the very important work that he is called on to do. so i welcome you. i am going to vote for your confirmation. hopefully we don't have to have a vote. hopefully we can see it and get you in there with the full power of being not the acting director but the director. thank you for being here. >> thank you, dr. coleman. just a brief introduction of dan and we'll ask him some questions and swear him in to give him the oath and let him go at it. dan tangherlini has -- bye

graphical and financial questionnaire and answered prehearing questions given by a committee and had them reviewed and without objection this will be made part of the record which are on file and available for public inspection in the committee office, and committee rules require all witnesses and confirmation hearings give their testimony under oath. mr. tangherlini, i would ask you to stand and raise your right hand. do you stwear testimony you are about to give to committee will be the truth, the whole truth anding to but the truth so hope help you god? >> you may be seated. feel free to introduce your family and others in the audience you would like to and again, we are delighted you are raul here. thank you.

>> microphone and talk button. >> thank you very much. good morning members and staff of the committee. i want to thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. i'm honored to have been asked by the forth serve at the g.s.a., and pleased to be joined by my wife teresa. pediatric nurse practitioner, my oldest daughter, can a san drarks a hard-work student. my parents in law, and my father, frank. my inspiration for public service, a veteran of the second world war and served at the battle of the bulge. all of the challenges we face as a nation and i hope should i be confirmed, nael comparison to what my father and his generation faced when they defended the world against hey tourette tread and tierney. he challenged me and my brothers to volunteer and serve in a better and serve to leave

the world in a better place than we are today. my younger daughter francesca is unable to be here today because she is with a friend at disneyworld. my mother could also not attend today. ne year ago president obama -- from my first day at the office i've worked with the women and men of g.s.a. to restore the trust of the american people the sure the it provides best in services. i'm proud of what we have been able to accomplish. since april of 2012 we worked closely with brian middle tore ensure our entire agency is living up to the highest standards of public service. since then a top-to-bottom review gathering input at every

level of the organization as well as our partners of the federal government and private sector. this process has helped cultivate continued improvement in g.s. anlt led to concrete results transforming g.s.a. into an improved organization, one that offers common sense solutions to our partners. during the past year we -- nded our travel -- fiscal year 2012 baseline for those temperatures in, travel alone we saved $28 million by revising our conferences and we reduced bonuses throughout g.s.a. by 64% including all within the administrators' office this change was accompanied by a targeted higher freeze to make sure any new hires were aligned with our

outgoing view and more than $5 million in savings offered by g.s.a. employees during our great ideas. and we've also begun the process of unnecessary redunden cris and better line and internal operations and expect this effort to help us not only become a more effective agency. i'm proud of the work we have done together since april of 2012 and excited about helping re-shape g.s.a.'s future. everyone is working to provide more savings to our agencies. one of the most credit klt is the expansion of market share in federal spending. al we will not only increase savings but enable better more consistent management of our resources. simultaneously, we are developing common sense solutions to help agencies

across the government shrink the federal foot print and find ways to dispose of unneeded federal properties which can in turn contribute to local economies. we are working through public and private partnerships to exchange federal outdated properties to new facilities that meet the needs of these agencies today and developing more efficient ways to use office space. we're transforming traditional office space into a flexible work environment designed to improve productivity. those changes will make it possible for us to eliminate more than $24 million in annual lease payments and we're hoping to take the lessons of our workplace and make them available to the entire federal government. at the same time president obama's fiscal year 2013 --

2014 budget will enable us to restore g.s.a.'s authority to make a significant $1.3 billion re-investment in the repair and maintenance inventory. we understand every taxpayer dollar counts and its stewardship is our responsibility. we know by providing services that offer savings and results, we help agencies focus on their own mission which is why we are evaluating and re-evaluating and ensuring measurable outcomes. i'm honored to have served with this agency over the last 18 months and with your approval i hope to keep work with the women and men of g.s.a. to accomplish more. >> he has another engagement.

do you want to take a snibt >> i actually have a very well thought out list of questions that i'm going to give dan a time to think about and answer and then i'll visit with him by phone afterwards. >> thank you. >> one of the first things i remember doing with a newly-elected senator, tom cobern was actually going out to chicago and visiting an old postal building, and which had been vacant for years and talking about that building and other buildings like that around the country. in that case they were owned by the postal service but as you know we have a lot of buildings, i alluded to them in my statement, that are underutilized and in some cases not utilized. but he and i worked on this for over a half dozen years and i think the administration has tried in recent years to do something about it. with some success.

you we still have, as know, too many properties that we're not utilizeing a lot. we provide utilities. we provide security. it's just fool hearty. and one of my great frustrations in my 12 years that i've been here is the inability to delaver comprehensive approach to dealing with this issue. the administration suggested -like create a brac process where they would send us a list and those voted on and some auctioned off and sold. we have worked to change the current process and now as you know. ederal properties that are unutilized or underutilized. they need to be made available to homeless groups. and if you look at the number

of properties that over the last 20 years that ended up being turned over to homeless groups, it's a meager list and grows more meager over the last year. some of was put together of a split with the legislation with an approach that said, rather than turning over these properties, why don't we allow them to be sold and some percentage of the sales be turned over to homeless groups? the homeless groups were afraid that if that happens, there appropriations would be cut back dollar for dollar. we are not getting where we need to go. the other problem may be a bigger problem. we have the