[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED: REDUCING FEDERAL TRAVEL & CONFERENCE SPENDING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-14
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-898 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan VACANCY
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Chairman
TIM WALBERG, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Ranking Minority Member
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
RON DeSANTIS, Florida Columbia
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 27, 2013................................ 1
WITNESSES
The Honorable Rush Holt, a Member of Congress from the State of
New Jersey
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 6
Mr. Danny Werfel, Comptroller, U.S. Office of Management and
Budget
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 12
Ms. Cynthia Metzler, Chief Administrative Services Officer, U.S.
General Services Administration
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 18
APPENDIX
A letter from the U.S. Science, Engineering and Higher Education
Organizations Written to the Honorable Blake Farenthold, a
Member of Congress from the State of Texas..................... 30
A letter from Barry C. Melancon, CPA, CGMA President and CEO,
American Institute of CPAs..................................... 32
The Honorable Stephen F. Lynch, a Member of Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, Opening Statement...................... 33
Questions for the Honorable Daniel Werfel from the Honorable
Blake Farenthold............................................... 35
A letter from the Center for Association Leadership (ASAE)....... 43
A letter from the Government Managers Coalition to the Honorable
Blake Farenthold............................................... 45
A letter to the Honorable Blake Farenthold from the Society of
Toxicology..................................................... 48
THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED: REDUCING FEDERAL TRAVEL & CONFERENCE SPENDING
----------
Wednesday, February 27, 2013,
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal
Service and the Census,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:33 p.m. in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Blake
Farenthold [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding.
Present: Representatives Farenthold, Walberg, Lynch and
Clay.
Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Majority Communications Advisor;
Alexia Ardolina, Majority Assistant Clerk; Molly Boyl, Majority
Parliamentarian; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member
Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief
Clerk; Jeffrey Post, Majority Professional Staff Member; James
Robertson, Majority Professional Staff Member; Scott Schmidt,
Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Peter Warren, Majority
Legislative Policy Director; Lena Chang, Minority Counsel;
Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; Adam Koshkin,
Minority Research Assistant; and Mark Stephenson, Minority
Director of Legislation.
Mr. Farenthold. The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce,
U.S. Postal Service and Census is hereby called to order. We
are ready to get our hearing underway.
I would like to begin by reciting the mission statement of
the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.
We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First,
Americans have the right to know that the money Washington
takes from them is well spent. Second, Americans deserve an
efficient and effective government that works for them.
Our duty on the Government Oversight and Reform Committee
is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to
hold the government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers
have a right to know what they get from their government. We
will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to
deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine
reform to the federal bureaucracy.
This is the mission of the Government Oversight and Reform
Committee.
I will now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening
statement.
Nine months ago, the whole Committee on Government
Oversight and Reform held a hearing on the now infamous GSA Las
Vegas conference that cost the taxpayers more than $750,000
spent by the agency that is charged with keeping federal costs
low.
Shortly following that boondoggle and justifiable public
outcry accompanying it, the OMB issued a memo in May 2012
outlining new policies and procedures for federal travel and
conferences. The OMB guidance instructs the heads of federal
departments and agencies for the fiscal year 2013 to spend at
least 30 percent less on travel expenses than they did in
fiscal year 2010. This is similar to a recommendation of the
President's Simpson Bowles Commission. If that goal is met, the
Federal Government will have spent around $4.6 billion in non-
military federal employee travel this year.
In addition, the OMB memo offers new rules for conferences
such as requiring senior level review for planned events,
senior level approval and public reporting for those in excess
of $100,000 and a general prohibition on those costing more
than $500,000 unless a head of an agency provides a waiver.
For fiscal year 2012 alone, there were 750 conferences that
cost in excess of $100,000. The total cost to the taxpayers of
these events was more than a quarter of a billion dollars. With
the looming $85 billion across the board sequester spending
cuts and the Administration s unwillingness to offer specific
cost saving measures, today s hearing offers us an opportunity
to hear how OMB's directive, if fully and responsibly
implemented, can potentially help save the taxpayers billions
of dollars by reducing travel in conference costs that may not
be necessary for federal employees to discharge the duties of
their office.
We are hoping to determine today if these new policies will
curb wasteful and expenditures and what new statutory changes
may be required to reduce travel spending and appropriately
shred greater transparency upon travel and conference spending.
We want to ensure that a GSA, Las Vegas-type conference does
not happen again.
In the last Congress, this committee approved legislation
that eventually passed unanimously in the House of
Representatives that would largely implement the guidelines of
the OMB memo and create greater transparency in travel and
conference spending. Our former colleague, Jo Ann Emerson,
reintroduced this legislation, H.R. 313, the Government
Spending and Accountability Act, earlier this year.
This is not an indictment of conferences or travel. The
district I represent, Corpus Christi, Texas, is a tourist
destination and home to many conferences. What this is is an
investigation into how the public money is spent. It is
different from how the private sector's money is spent; it is
different from how your personal money is spent.
It always has to be kept in mind why those traveling on the
taxpayers dollars need to be frugal, to treat that money better
than they would treat their own money.
Mr. Farenthold. I look forward now to hearing from the
witnesses. I will yield now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lynch.
I am a Texan. Anybody north of Texas and Louisiana is
potentially a Yankee.
Mr. Lynch. There you go. As a Red Sox fan, I have to go
easy though.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At the outset, let me congratulate you on your appointment
as Chairman of our subcommittee from addressing comprehensive
reform of the United States Postal Service and challenges
facing our dedicated federal workforce to examining important
Census Bureau issues. Our subcommittee has a lot of work on its
plate and I look forward to working with you on all those
issues in this new Congress.
I appreciate the Chairman calling this hearing to monitor
the Federal Government's progress in reducing travel and
conference spending, strengthening internal controls and
enhancing cost transparency. It is important for the Congress
and the American taxpayer to be assured that the government
spends money only for what is absolutely necessary regarding
travel and conferences.
We all remember as the Chairman has noted, the excessive,
improper spending by the General Services Administration on a
2010 Las Vegas conference and by the Veterans Affairs
Department on two conferences held in Orlando, Florida. These
conferences were regrettably examples of wasteful spending
which justified heightened scrutiny by Congress and the
Administration.
In particular, the committee held a hearing last April
looking into the GSA conference and the Administration issued a
subsequent directive to all Executive Branch agencies mandating
that 30 percent of travel and conference spending be reduced,
imposing conference cost restructuring and restrictions and
public posting and reporting requirements.
We all regret the misspending that went forward there. We
agree that the government must be a good steward of American
taxpayer's money and that it is important to shine on
government travel and conference spending.
As part of our oversight responsibilities, this hearing
will help us examine agency progress in implementing the
Administration's directive. It is critical for us to know how
much the Federal Government, as a whole, is spending on travel
and conferences. We need to ensure that only necessary
conferences are held and only those who need to attend
participate and that there are no improper expenses.
In this regard, I look forward to Representative Holt's
testimony about the impact on the scientific community. In
addition, Mr. Chairman, I received two letters yesterday
expressing views about federal travel and conference policies,
one from the American Association for the Advancement of
Science and several other scientific organizations and another
from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. I
ask unanimous consent that the letters be included in the
hearing record.
Mr. Farenthold. Without objection.
Mr. Lynch. Lastly, I would note that we only have two
legislative days before sequestration takes effect and 14
legislative days before a possible government shutdown takes
effect. Accordingly, I would urge this committee to dedicate
its oversight efforts to examining the opportunities to prevent
that and also the potential impact of these budgetary events so
that we can best address the corresponding needs of our
agencies and federal employees.
Mr. Chairman, again, congratulations on your appointment.
Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. I look forward to working with
you throughout this congressional term. We have our work cut
out for us and I hope we can get all of it done.
We have the distinct privilege of having a distinguished
colleague here to testify before us. As is the tradition and
protocol associated with this committee, we will allow
Representative Holt, who represents the 12th Congressional
District of New Jersey to testify first. Then I will introduce
and swear in the rest of the panel.
Representative Holt, you are recognized.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Mr. Lynch and Mr.
Clay. I thank you for the opportunity.
As a professional scientist and now a member of Congress, I
testify today with firsthand knowledge of how scientific
innovation, especially what has developed from the sharing of
ideas at conferences, contributes to every American's quality
of life.
As we work to ensure oversight on travel expenditures, we
should work to preserve the many benefits of appropriate
travel. Many scientists, for example, receive federal grants
from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy,
the National Institutes of Health, and others. These scientists
rely on federal funding to travel to conferences in order to
share thoughts, to collaborate, to learn from their peers to
advance knowledge and to create innovation.
Both H.R. 313 and the OMB Guidance, I think regrettably,
put forward prohibitions and impediments that hinder scientific
collaboration and communication. I know firsthand how important
scientific conferences and meetings are. The informal
conversations as well as the formal presentations that go into
a conference lead to real collaboration. These are not fancy
junkets.
What is so special about science? Why does it work? It
works because one of its fundamental tenets is communication.
To be sure, there are many ways to communicate but scientific
conferences are critically important. A recent essay by the
Presidents of the American Chemical Society and the American
Physical Society discuss, for example, an anti-cancer drug that
was the result of collaboration between a team of scientists at
three laboratories that took place at conferences. I think the
obstacles this bill creates would hinder that kind of
collaboration.
The American Chemical Society, at its biennial meetings,
attracts typically 13,000 chemists and chemical engineers,
about 800 of them on federal contract. Under the new rules and
the pending legislation, as I understand it, 50 percent roughly
of those federal scientists would be cut off from participation
with the chemistry community in these meetings. The Division of
Plasma Physics and the American Physical Society that I know
well meets each year with hundreds of engineers and scientists
from around the Country, many hundreds of them on DOE
contracts.
The fact remains that many insights are possible only
because of close personal interactions among scientists who see
each other regularly. Those who do not work at the same
university or laboratory must rely on interacting at the
conferences. Proximity matters in science as in other fields.
Just to drive this point home, let me ask if you would
propose that the Legislative Branch, you and I, remain in 435
separate locations, never to see each other, communicating by
email and phoning in our votes. It could save hundreds of
expensive trips each week to do that. Do you think, as I do,
that the Country would be worse off?
I am hopeful that this oversight hearing and Administrative
Guidance would be modified to allow for scientific progress
instead of obstructing the sharing of ideas an information. A
weakening of collaboration is not a wise course. It is not the
way to build our economy; it is not the way to create jobs and
the innovation that leads to those jobs.
We should be investing more in research and development
generally at the federal level, as well as in the private
sector. That also means investing in scientists and investing
in scientist's ability to pursue the scientific procedure which
includes face-to-face communication as well as electronic and
print communication.
I would argue we should be spending more on conferences
like those which promote. I realize this is heresy in the day
before the sequestration takes place but I would argue we
should be spending more on conferences like those. We should be
investing more in research and research scientists in
microbiology, in physics and chemistry, in a myriad of other
scientific areas.
These are not instances of wasteful spending. Not every
collaboration leads to successful science, but many do. You do
not need too many successful examples of cancer drugs, energy
sources, transportation improvements or public health advances
to understand this is an important investment.
I thank the committee.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.003
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Representative Holt.
You are welcome to stick around. I know our schedule is busy
today. If you wish to take off and attend to other maters, you
are welcome to do that as well. We appreciate your testimony
and your input.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farenthold. As we got into this, I failed to mention
earlier on that members will have seven days to submit opening
statements for the record.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Chairman, I do have prepared testimony that I
would like to have included in full.
Mr. Farenthold. Absolutely. Without objection, so ordered.
At this point, we will introduce our other two witnesses.
The Honorable Danny Werfel is the Comptroller of the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget. Ms. Cynthia Metzler is the
Chief Administrative Services Officer of the U.S. General
Services Administration.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn
before they testify. Please stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.]
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. You may be seated.
Let the record reflect that both witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion and questions, we
would ask that you limit your testimony to five minutes.
You have testified before Congress before. We have these
fancy devices in front of you that count down the time and much
like a traffic signal, green means go, yellow means speed up
and red means stop.
We will start with Mr. Werfel.
STATEMENT OF DANNY WERFEL
Mr. Werfel. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member
Lynch and members of the subcommittee, for the invitation to
discuss our work to reduce federal travel and conference
spending, as well as our efforts to increase public
transparency on travel and conference activity.
As you know, this Administration has taken a number of
aggressive steps to cut waste and modernize government over the
past four years, working to create a government that is more
efficient, effective and accountable to the American people.
A key area of focus in this area has been working to reduce
spending on travel and conferences by focusing on making
smarter decisions, eliminating unnecessary trips and
conferences, and implementing innovative solutions that reduce
costs, save time and achieve better results overall.
More recently, in May of this past year, OMB released a
memorandum entitled Promoting Efficient Spending to Support
Agency Operations. This memorandum directed agencies to reduce
travel spending in fiscal year 2013 by at least 30 percent from
fiscal year 2010 spending levels and to maintain these reduced
spending levels through fiscal year 2016.
The memorandum also directed agencies to institute a series
of internal controls that require senior level approval of
certain conference planning related decisions. Agencies now
must seek senior management approval all the way to the Deputy
Secretary or Secretary for conference spending over a specific
threshold.
Finally, Federal agencies, for the first time, are required
to begin public reporting of their annual spending on
conferences in excess of $100,000, allowing the public full
visibility into how federal dollars are spent on conferences.
Agencies published the first of these public reports on January
31, 2013.
Our efforts are already delivering significant results. In
fact, agencies expect to lower spending by more than $3 billion
between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013 with nearly $2
billion achieved so far. The reductions have not only been the
result of reducing overall travel, but by also ensuring that
required travel is completed in a cost effective manner.
For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has reduced
travel costs by $125 million in fiscal year 2012 by traveling
less and traveling smarter and is on tract to reduce total
travel expenditures by an additional $90 million in fiscal year
2013 when compared to 2010 levels.
The Department of Interior has reduced travel spending by
$30 million through higher utilization of low cost alternatives
to traditional travel such as webinars, teleconferencing and by
conducting training in-house or in locations closer to employee
home offices. These are just a few examples demonstrating
agencies work to reduce travel expenditures during this time of
tight budgets. These innovative practices expand beyond travel.
Agencies are also applying similar cost effective practices
in the planning and execution of conferences. This includes
increasing the use of low cost government-owned meeting and
conference space, it also means thinking creatively about how
to save money wherever possible such as ending conferences a
few hours earlier to avoid extra costs associated with an
additional night of lodging.
Agencies are also working diligently to establish new
internal control procedures to ensure that this increased level
of oversight and accountability continue as part of agency
overall operations.
As we continue to build on the progress made to date in
reducing travel and conference costs, we are also aware of the
important role travel and conferences can play in carrying out
an agency s mission. It is important to remember that the
definition of conferences can involve much more than federal
employee traveling away from their official duty stations to
receive training or network with distant colleagues.
For example, an off-site training event where FBI agents
learn how to prepare for a potential terrorist attack is
considered a conference under federal regulations. I think we
can all agree that such an activity is neither wasteful nor
unnecessary. Therefore, while we must continue to be vigilant
about reducing unnecessary travel or conference spending, we
also must be vigilant in protecting our activities that are
necessary and vital to our shared priorities as a nation.
While we believe it is important to highlight agencies
early efforts in reducing travel and conference spending, our
work in this area is just beginning. OMB will continue to work
with agencies to find ways to cut costs, eliminate waste and
make our spending in all areas more efficient, transparent and
accountable.
We also believe that cost cutting activities agencies have
enacted to date should become part of standard government
operations going forward. We are working diligently to ensure
that these new standards remain in place for years to come.
We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the
Inspector General community, other oversight institutions and
the American public to ensure agencies remain dedicated to
rooting out waste and driving efficient spending in all
government operations now and into the future.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Werfel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.007
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Werfel. We
appreciate your testimony and we will get to questions in a
moment.
Next, we have Ms. Cynthia Metzler. She is the Chief
Administrative Services Officer for the GSA. Ms. Metzler, you
are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA METZLER
Ms. Metzler. Good afternoon, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking
Member Lynch and members of the subcommittee.
My name is Cynthia Metzler and I am the Chief
Administrative Services Officer at the General Services
Administration.
In that capacity, I coordinate internal management and
support services to promote efficiency within the agency,
covering a wide variety of issues, including conferences and
travel. I appreciate this opportunity to come before you today
to discuss the reforms at GSA. I have submitted my full written
testimony and would like at this time to highlight a few of the
key reforms.
Under the leadership of our Acting Administrator, Dan
Tangherlini, GSA has refocused its mission of delivering the
best value in real estate acquisition and technology services
to government and the American people. In April 2012, the
Acting Administrator issued new guidelines on travel and
conferences. All spending for travel, including training,
conference and award ceremonies was suspended.
Oversight of conference and travel expenses was
consolidated into my office which was directed to review each
and every planned conference to make sure that these events and
any related travel is justified. As part of these reforms,
travel and conferences can only be approved when all other
alternatives, including videoconferencing and webinars have
been considered. Additionally, travel must be for work related
to GSA's essential mission such as building inspections,
contract negotiations and meeting with customers.
To ensure that all travel requests receive appropriate
review, GSA has instituted policies that limit the use of
blanket travel authorizations and require that travel is
authorized in advance on a trip by trip basis. In addition, any
international travel must be approved by the Deputy
Administrator to make certain that the considerable expense is
used only for legitimate purposes.
With regard to conferences, they can no longer be held
without submission of a detailed justification, including the
mission related purpose of the conference and whether any other
alternatives were considered. A proposed budget, review and
approval occur from multiple divisions. At a minimum, this
means that any conference, no matter what its proposed cost, is
reviewed both by the head of the division and by myself.
In line with Administration guidance, when the proposed
cost of a conference exceeds $100,000, the Deputy Administrator
must approve the conference. If a conference is to cost more
that $500,000, the Acting Administrator must approve it and
document justification for why the conference must be held.
To ensure that we scrutinize any internal meetings that
require travel, the Deputy Administrator must approve.
Additionally, any attendance at a conference requires multiple
levels of approval, including my office. Employees must justify
their potential attendance and outline the expenses.
To increase transparency and improve recordkeeping, GSA
requires employees to use the Government Travel Charge Card for
payment of all travel expenses. We have also mandated the use
of the ETS travel system for airline, rail and car rental, as
well as Fed Rooms for lodging.
GSA now requires mandatory annual training regarding
conference attendance for all employees. This training
highlights the importance of considering cost effective
alternatives and ensures that each and every employee
understands the difference between an appropriate and
inappropriate expense.
We have also provided greater transparency into our
conference expenses. We have posted on our website all
conferences held last year with a cost of over $100,000. That
includes the budget and justification for why the conference
was held.
All told, these changes under Acting Administrator
Tangherlini have dramatically reduced costs, improved oversight
and ensured that travel and conference expenses are fully
justified and mission related. In 2012, our travel costs were
less than half of what GSAs expenditures in 2011. We have saved
$28 million through the end of fiscal year 2012 alone.
Finally, as part of our agency's mission to serve our
federal partners and deliver savings, we are providing tools to
allow agencies better to manage their travel and conference
spending. We are working with OMB on changes to government-wide
travel policies that will increase efficiency and
effectiveness, reduce cost and incorporate industry best
practices.
These efforts are in line with the Administration's aim to
reduce cost across a wide range of administrative expenses
including travel and conferences. We are firmly committed at
GSA to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the
government including reducing travel costs. Our work is not
done and we continue to refine our policies, work with OMB and
other federal agencies and members of this committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss our
changes and welcome any questions you may have.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Metzler follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.011
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Ms. Metzler.
I will now recognize myself for five minutes of
questioning.
I do think one of the important things that will come out
of this hearing and the proposed regulations is a change in the
culture on the part of government employees, to take to the
mind set that this is the taxpayers hard earned money that we
are spending and you actually need to spend it more carefully
than even you would spend your own money.
Having gone to numerous conferences in my previous career
as a lawyer, even working in the private sector, there were
certain expenses I would not put on the blue slip. I would put
the McDonald's lunch on there but if I decided to treat myself
to a steak dinner, I would eat that cost myself.
Obviously, we cannot ask the federal workforce to buy their
own meals, but when they are asking the taxpayers to pay for
them, I think it is appropriate they think maybe I could do
with a sandwich instead of a steak. It is that sort of
incentive.
I think the GSA is taking the lead in that. Obviously it is
unfortunate that it had to come as the result of a very public
scandal. One of the impediments I see to taking advantage of
that is actually educating the workforce and simplifying some
of the tools like ETS and Fed Rooms and even though outside of
the travel area, GSA purchasing websites, that are very often
difficult to use for the end user compared to private sector
equivalents.
I know in my travel, I am able to book online. I do not use
ETS. If I am on United, I can get government rates on their
website. I think they are one of the few airlines that offer
that. I would encourage you to work with your vending partners
to make the process much simpler.
I am concerned the culture is not catching on. There were
recent reports that the Post Office spent a ton of money and
had a $15 billion loss and cutting Saturday delivery, but they
have a conference they set up in San Francisco that was going
to cost $2.2 million. That seems like that's not in the spirit.
Are we seeing the government actually following this? I
will ask Mr. Werfel, have all the agencies complied and are
they reporting their expenses over $100,000? Are you getting
that information?
Mr. Werfel. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question.
I think there were one or two agencies that missed our
January 31 deadline but for the most part, I believe all
reports are now in. I think the key is that the reports do
demonstrate what we believe to be happening post last year when
GSA had the issue we have been describing and OMB issued its
memorandum. There has been significant attention to this matter
and a lot of aggressive action to cut back on this type of
spending.
Mr. Farenthold. Do you have any numbers on how many
conferences have gone over the $500,000 threshold?
Mr. Werfel. Yes, I do have some of those summary
statistics. I believe it is roughly between 130 and 140
conferences that were over the $500,000 threshold. I can get
you more precise numbers.
Mr. Farenthold. I would like to see those for the record.
Are we seeing them actually posted on the website in a manner
that the public can find?
Mr. Werfel. Yes. That is how we got the information I just
shared with you.
Mr. Farenthold. It is my understanding that the VA finally
came in today with their report.
Mr. Werfel. Yes. I think that was the last agency. I think
we now have full compliance.
Mr. Farenthold. Ms. Metzler, the GSA's job is to negotiate
deals and save us money. Having grown up in and representing an
area that the travel industry is important too, I understand
the revenue streams of hotels are derived not just from the
overnight stay of the rooms. In conference situations, often
they will give you the rooms free but you end up paying a lot
for the catering and cannot bring in food. There are reports of
very expensive breakfasts and lunches at hotels.
Is there anything that GSA can do to leverage the
government's buying power to bring some of those in line and
bring the catering costs to where if you were going to do a
conference at a hotel within the allowable per diem rate for
government employees while traveling?
Ms. Metzler. Thank you for the question.
Since April 2012, in terms of the conferences that GSA
itself has hosted, we have been able to negotiate with the
conference sites and the hotel to bring the food costs under
the per diem rate. We can begin working with OMB and other
agencies to share our experience. It is possible to do it.
Mr. Farenthold. I think it is an opportunity for the GSA to
take leadership in making that available. I really do think it
is consistent with the GSA's mission. I look forward to having
you back here next year to hearing what a huge success it is.
I see I am running out of time. We need to let the other
members get to questions. If we have time afterwards, I do have
another round of questions if you will indulge me. At this
point, I will yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today and
helping us with our work.
This is for both of you. If OMB tracks costs for travel and
conferences separately, what are the government-wide totals for
these categories? Is that how we are reporting this? I am
concerned sometimes we begin to pay attention when we have a
scandal like we did with GSA last year but then things sort of
get forgotten until the next scandal and it pops up on our
radar screen again.
What are the ongoing procedures in monitoring methods that
we are using to keep track of this?
Mr. Werfel. Let me first start by saying that on the one
hand, it is fortunate that our budget structure does enable us
to isolate travel. Travel is a big category. There are a lot of
diverse actions that take place under that category. We do
collect information. One of the things in my testimony is that
when you look at the overall cost of travel across government,
they are steadily declining. In 2010, it was $11.7 billion. We
expect them to be closer to $9.5 billion by 2013.
The challenge that arose was with respect to the issue when
we learned there was this significant financial risk associated
with conference spending that we do not and have not
historically disaggregated conference spending within our
budget accounts. We needed to take action because part of the
challenge here is not only taking the specific steps to be
smarter about meals and lodging, but also to understand the
macro numbers going on across government and agency specific.
We have now initiated this collection of information from
agencies. We now have a baseline. I earlier mentioned a number
to Chairman Farenthold in terms of the number of conferences
over $500,000. Next year, we will know the updated number and
see where we are trending, the updated cost number of
conferences because we are collecting this information.
The information we are collecting is imperfect. There might
be a level of detail that you would like to know and we have to
balance the burden that is imposed on agencies in collecting
all this information. What we have done is to try to collect
the right amount of information we think enables us to see
trends and identify risk points.
As I mentioned earlier, I think as a general matter, what
we have seen occur since the situation with GSA and the Las
Vegas conference is an enormous amount of attention that is
generating very important and positive results in terms of
improving our overall approach, not just to travel and
conferences, but administrative expenses across the board like
information technology and other things.
Mr. Lynch. Ms. Metzler?
Ms. Metzler. Since April 2012, GSA now tracks its
conference spending separately from its travel spending. Partly
that is because in order to hold a conference or attend a
conference, the requestor must submit a detailed budget. That
budget includes the expenses of the conference including
booths, meals and travel. We can now begin to disaggregate the
travel costs associated with conferences, the travel we have
that is mission-related travel and has nothing to do with
conferences and the cost of having a conference. We did not do
that before April. We are continuing to evolve those.
Mr. Lynch. Do either of you have any examples where we
might incentivize agency departments or groups to spend less?
Do we use the carrot and a stick or do we just say we want a 30
percent and by God, we have to have it?
Mr. Werfel. I think one of the things I have learned
through this process is that in response to a situation where
many across government were angered and upset and continue to
want to demonstrate to the taxpayer that we are way more often
than not effective stewards of the taxpayer dollar.
This event has really incentivized a different set of
behaviors across government. From secretaries down to the GS-9
or GS-7 employee that is involved in planning for these, there
is an enormous amount of due diligence. Let me give you one
anecdote.
My job is not to do specific conferences but every once in
a while, I get invited to a conference where it is about
financial management internal control. I was invited to
participate in planning for a conference. The type of planning
that went in, we were dedicated to doing it in a government
facility, it had to be in Washington, D.C. because that is
where most of the people were to do one day and try to pack in
the most substantive agenda we could.
On meals, since Chairman Farenthold asked about it, we held
the facility near a food court and decided to do no catering.
Everyone bought their own lunch at the food court. That is the
type of culture we are transitioning to.
Mr. Lynch. Did anyone come?
Mr. Werfel. Yes, we had 800 people.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you.
I will recognize Mr. Walberg for five minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the
witnesses for being here.
Let me ask Mr. Werfel and Ms. Metzler a simple question.
How frequently does conference spending on meals and
incidentals exceed the GSA set maximum, allowable per diem of
reimbursement? How frequently does that happen?
Mr. Werfel. I am not sure I know the answer to that
question. I apologize. I can try to work on data and get back
to you.
I do not know if this will be responsive to your question,
what we are concerned about are situations in which if a
conference participant is given a meal that creates no out of
pocket costs for them, then they have to adjust down their per
diem appropriately to make sure they are not getting any extra
funding or bonus as a result of this event. That is in a list
we perceived as we were working through the conference
activity.
In terms of your question, I do not have the specific data.
Mr. Walberg. Ms. Metzler, do you?
Ms. Metzler. In our request to attend or host a conference,
one of our line items is the food item and they have to justify
that it is at per diem rate. That is part of the approval
process.
In early April 2012, under the Acting Administrator, GSA
limited the per diem cost for conferences, limited the cost for
meals to the actual per diem.
Mr. Walberg. They are not pushing it?
Ms. Metzler. We are pushing it, yes. We will not approve a
conference or an activity that has not been limited to the per
diem rate. That is part of our oversight. As Mr. Werfel said,
when we are looking at a conference, we are looking at every
alternative to make sure that people are not getting
inappropriate food. If it is a local conference, they are not
entitled to per diem, there cannot be any food provided.
Mr. Walberg. But again I guess what we are saying is we do
not know the frequency of them pushing this GSA rule?
Ms. Metzler. We know internally within GSA we are pushing
it.
Mr. Walberg. I guess my question was, the departments are
coming to you with clean, clear requests for conferences. I
guess what I am looking at is, are they getting it, are we
getting it across?
Mr. Werfel. I think I understand your question and the root
of your concern. Let me back up a second and say, first, OMB,
as an institution, does not approve conference by conference.
We establish and work with GSA to establish government-wide
regulations. Our regulations are getting stronger.
They were already strong. A lot of things that happened in
Las Vegas were violations of existing regulation. Nevertheless,
it was still important to tighten those regulations even
further. It is really up to the agency to abide by those
regulations.
My bottom line point is I do believe, based on everything
and all my involvement in this issue, this issue is being taken
as seriously as any in government right now.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Werfel, what was the total spent for
administrative costs for all fiscal year 2012 conferences that
cost in excess of $100,000, administrative costs?
Mr. Werfel. I think the total costs, There is a slide up
there we are still working through the numbers. For example,
VA's report has just come in, but I think that is in the right
range. It is somewhere between $250 and $300 million in
conference costs in 2012 for conferences above $100,000 in
total costs.
Mr. Walberg. Let me ask, Mr. Werfel, it appears that
military travel is not on pace to meet the 30 percent reduction
goal. We are facing sequester issues now and great concern
about the defense budget and capabilities. If this is the case,
could you discuss what specific steps OMB has taken to ensure
that the Department of Defense meets this target by the end of
this fiscal year?
Mr. Werfel. I think this echoes some of what Congressman
Holt was saying. In taking the 30 percent cut, we wanted to
make sure that we were protecting mission critical activities
where there was a real sense that a reduction or steep
reduction would compromise the agency mission. The goal in
eliminating the 30 percent is making sure we are eliminating
excess or somewhat discretionary travel activities.
All of it is important but there is a difference between,
for example, military travel or civilian travel to support
particular military operations, scientists getting together to
study molecular biology and study different diseases and FBI
agents getting together versus accountants getting together to
train, and procurement officials getting together to train.
That is important but what we perceive there is an ability to
drive some greater efficiencies.
In the area of military travel, we have essentially
excluded that from our 30 percent reduction category because we
believe when the military travels, it is extremely important to
give them some flexibility in terms of how they take those
reductions due to some of the really acute operational issues
that emerge.
Let me close with this point which is really important. One
of the challenges we have here is one in which we invite your
feedback, that the definition of conferences is extraordinarily
broad. When this whole issue came up, we had to make a
decision, do we try to narrow the definition of conference and
then try to attack the problem on a narrow definition.
If employees are co-locating to work, it is technically a
conference. That can even come up with respect to FBI agents
co-locating to do an investigation. If scientists are co-
locating in Africa to study a particular outbreak of a virus,
that is technically a conference. When you pile that into all
the other conferences and attempt to take a 30 percent cut, it
creates some mission complications.
We have decided for the time being to take this approach.
We have not changed the definition of conferences; we have
established a 30 percent cut and then we have asked each agency
to meet that 30 percent cut but protect certain activities. We
have had numerous discussions with agencies to make sure they
are not over protecting or under protecting.
Military travel falls in the area of protection. If there
are concerns about that, we should definitely have more
discussions with you about how we can resize that. That is our
approach right now.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate those details. Those are very
helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Farenthold. I see with just three of us present, we do
have time, if you will indulge us, for a quick second round of
questioning. Then I think we all need to be off to our other
responsibilities.
Where are we, Mr. Werfel, in reaching the 30 percent goal
of reduction? Do you have a number? Are we at 10 percent, 20
percent, or 30 percent? Are we close? How is it coming?
Mr. Werfel. We are close. We are right in range. I
mentioned earlier that the total travel costs in 2010 were
roughly $11.7 billion. We are on track for there to be a
slightly more than $3 billion lower spend rate in 2013 versus
2010. I mentioned in my oral testimony that we are $2 billion
of the way there. We are zeroing in on a rough 30 percent goal
in terms of seeing the overall travel spending reduction.
Mr. Farenthold. Since you monitor this, are you hearing
anything through the grapevine or around the coffee machine
that these effects are having an adverse effect or are we
getting the cost savings we are after?
Mr. Werfel. I am hearing a mixture. This is something I
think government agencies should be proud of. As you mentioned,
it is unfortunate that we had this event occur that drove some
of this but the reality today is that the culture has changed
dramatically in terms of travel and conference spending. The
public transparency we are providing I think feeds into more
accountability and better results.
The biggest area that I face criticism and concern is
coming from the scientific community as Representative Holt
mentioned. I think it is legitimate. These are very tough
questions of public policy.
I have learned through this process and have a growing
appreciation for is how critical to the advancement of science
collaboration is. When there is a scientific advancement or a
setback, the whole engine of science runs by co-locating and
collaborating around it.
Mr. Farenthold. Some of the best inventions and
breakthroughs have been the result of accidents. You learn that
in elementary school science.
Let me ask you a question. A lot of government employees
who travel are issued a GSA travel card much like the one I use
for official travel expenses. I had a speaking engagement in
Austin, Texas last week and bought my meals with this card.
Under the supremacy clause to the United States Constitution,
the States cannot tax us but at every restaurant they tried to
tag me with sales tax. Had I used this card for a hotel, they
would have tried to charge me hotel and motel tax. There is a
complicated procedure and form I have to fill out to save that
money. In Texas, sales tax is 8 percent plus depending on where
you are.
Is there a way GSA can work with the credit card vendors or
come up with a way where the taxpayers are not paying taxes to
the State when we do not have to?
Ms. Metzler. Mr. Chairman, yes. GSA is looking at that.
There are only 11 States that do not charge the travel card
because they are, as you know, individually issued to the
federal employee.
With our Fleet Card, which is another part of the Smart Pay
Program, that card and the purchase card are government cards
and there are no taxes charged to those. There is a recovery
effort with the Fleet Card programs but we are working with
those other 11 States on the issue that you are raising.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
This is a huge savings with absolutely no cuts for anybody
if we do not pay stuff we do not owe. To me that seems like a
no brainer.
Mr. Werfel, you mentioned redefining what a conference is.
I know the FAA struggles every year in Oshkosh with a big air
show of private airplanes. They take the best of the best of
their controllers to Oshkosh to be the air traffic control for
what becomes for one week's time the busiest airport in the
world. They are concerned that under conference definitions,
sending those people there to do their job is a conference. I
understand your concern.
That leads me to the next question which I will pose to you
both. What are we missing here aside from defining conference?
Is there anything else that is too much or not enough in the
proposals that we need to look at if we decide to pursue
something on a legislative front?
Mr. Werfel. That is a good question. I think the definition
of conference is one we need to sort through, as I mentioned. I
think the keys here are public policy tension, which I
mentioned before. We want to be very protective of taxpayer
resources and make good decisions, but at the same time, an
across the board cut of 30 percent or whatever it is needs to
have a very well thought out exception clause.
We need a good structure in place to ensure that we are
filtering through the exception clause things that should move
forward as they were intended. Maybe the air show example is a
good one of that versus things that we might make a mistake on
and it would filter through. That is a collaborative effort
amongst professionals, both science, financial management and
maybe GAO could be helpful and involved in that as well.
I think the other key thing to look out for that we
struggle with is how much data to put on the Web and to make
clear. Clearly we have a great start. We have total conference
expenses, location, date, explanation of how the conference
advances mission, number of individuals that are going that are
paid by the agency, etc. There is a good footprint of
information.
However, I cannot answer all the questions that are being
posed because I would add 20 or 30 more line items. With each
additional line item of data, you are asking agencies to
collect that information and that has an underlying
administrative cost. I think one of those areas to help us is
what is the optimal point in terms of data collection. I think
there is more to be looked at to make sure we are at the right
spot.
Mr. Farenthold. I am out of time. I want to give Ms.
Metzler an opportunity before we go back to Mr. Lynch.
Ms. Metzler. I would just concur with what Mr. Werfel said.
I don't think I can add anything to that.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do notice that if you look at the text of the OMB
memorandum and then look at H.R. 313, it actually limits the
number of people who can go to a conference to 50. I have heard
grumblings from some of the folks in our scientific community.
Mr. Holt raised some of these concerns.
I know the International AIDS Conference is attended by
hundreds and hundreds, probably thousands of scientists and
other experts. Also, I think the Human Services Department and
the National Institutes of Health have, in the past, sent
hundreds of scientists. Are we hurting the efficacy and the
value of those conferences by severely limiting it to 50
people?
Mr. Werfel. Yes, I think so potentially in two ways. One,
if we don't enable the head of the agency or the leader of that
particular program area to make a best judgment in terms of are
we effectively serving our mission by getting more people there
and we have kind of a strict rule of construction? That is one
thing.
I will tell you where I come from, my expertise is more
around financial management and cost savings. Often we are
sending more people in order to drive more efficiency because
if we have to train these people, if we decentralize training
and send 30 people and 30 people and 30 people to three
different trips versus 90 people to one trip, that can have
cost implications. Let me give you one example to drive that
home.
Law enforcement, FLETC, we have developed these training
centers around geographic locations to bring a bunch of people
together to co-locate for that training. If we set a limit of
50 people, you are devolving back into not co-locating for
training but a lot of disparate training, and that cost issue.
Mr. Lynch. Ms. Metzler, anything on that?
Ms. Metzler. GSA does not send a lot of people to
international conferences.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch.
I have enjoyed our first hearing. I look forward to
continuing to work with you, your staff and the rest of the
committee.
I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the time
from their very busy schedules to appear before us. I charge
you to go back and save the taxpayers some money.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80898.031