[Senate Hearing 113-431]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-431
EXAMINING CONFERENCE AND TRAVEL SPENDING
ACROSS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 14, 2014
__________
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-270 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
John P. Kilvington, Deputy Staff Director
Jonathan M. Kraden, Senior Counsel
Keith B. Ashdown, Minority Staff Director
Christopher J. Barkley, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Patrick J. Bailey, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Lauren M. Corcoran, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Carper............................................... 1
Senator Coburn............................................... 3
Senator Johnson.............................................. 16
Senator Heitkamp............................................. 19
Senator Tester............................................... 22
Senator Ayotte............................................... 26
Prepared statements:
Senator Carper............................................... 45
WITNESSES
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Hon. Beth F. Cobert, Deputy Director for Management, Office of
Management and Budget.......................................... 6
Hon. Daniel M. Tangherlini, Administrator, U.S. General Services
Administration................................................. 8
Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Justice........................................................ 31
Hon. Brian D. Miller, Inspector General, U.S. General Services
Administration................................................. 32
Hon. J. Russell George, Inspector General for Tax Administration,
U.S. Department of the Treasury................................ 33
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Cobert, Hon. Beth F.
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 48
George, Hon. J. Russell:
Testimony.................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 65
Horowitz, Hon. Michael E.:
Testimony.................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Miller, Hon. Brian D.:
Testimony.................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Tangherlini, Hon. Daniel M.
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 52
APPENDIX
Additional statements for the Record from:
Senator Reid................................................. 72
3RNet........................................................ 74
The American Association for the Advancement of Science...... 75
American Association for Dental Research..................... 78
The American Association of Immunologists.................... 80
American College of Healthcare Executives.................... 84
American Composites Manufactures Association................. 86
American College of Rheumatoloty............................. 87
American Chemical Society.................................... 89
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
America, and Soil Science Society of America............... 91
The Associated General Contractors of America................ 93
American Hotel and Lodging Association....................... 98
Affordable Housing Management Association of Iowa and
Nebraska................................................... 102
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics........... 103
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants........... 108
The American Physiological Society........................... 113
The American Horticulture Industry Association............... 115
Association for Molecular Pathology.......................... 117
American Physical Society.................................... 119
The American Society of Association Executives............... 121
American Society of Human Genetics........................... 128
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air
Conditioning Engineers..................................... 129
The American Society of Microbiology......................... 131
American Society for Nutrition............................... 134
Association of the United States Army........................ 135
American Veterinary Medical Association...................... 140
Consumer Healthcare Products Association..................... 142
Consulting Management Innovators............................. 145
Case Management Society of America........................... 147
Entomological Society of America............................. 149
Ecological Society of America................................ 151
Federation Of American Societies for Experimental Biology.... 153
Genetics Society of America.................................. 155
The Geological Society of America............................ 158
Government Managers Coalition................................ 160
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society......................... 163
Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society........ 165
International Association of Fire Chiefs..................... 167
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers............ 171
International Franchise Association.......................... 174
Irrigation Association....................................... 176
Midstates Development Inc.................................... 179
Materials Research Society................................... 181
The National Association of Government Defined Contribution
Administrators............................................. 183
National Affordable Housing Management Association........... 185
The National Automatic Merchandising Association............. 187
National Association of State Credit Union Supervisors and
National Association of Insurance Commissioners............ 189
Navy League of the United States............................. 191
National Groundwater Association............................. 193
National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association.................. 194
National Laboratory Directors Council Executive Committee.... 196
Office of Management and Budget.............................. 199
Orthopaedic Research Society................................. 205
Research!America............................................. 206
Society for the Advancement of Material and Process
Engineering................................................ 208
Sample of Conferences chart submitted by Senator Coburn...... 209
Security Industry Association................................ 210
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology......... 211
SPIE The International Society for Optics and Photonics...... 213
U.S. Public Policy Council of the Association for Computing
Machinery.................................................. 215
WorldatWork.................................................. 216
University of Delaware Research Office....................... 218
EXAMINING CONFERENCE AND TRAVEL
SPENDING ACROSS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2014
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:35
a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon.
Thomas R. Carper, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Pryor, Tester, Heitkamp, Coburn,
Johnson, and Ayotte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CARPER
Chairman Carper. All right. We are going to start the
hearing at this time. Thank you. I want to say thanks to our
guests. Beth Cobert, you look none the worse for wear, nor do
you, Dan. We are grateful that you are here and happy to hear
really a little bit of an update on how you are doing in your
responsibilities. Dan has been at it a little bit longer than
you, Beth, but we are grateful for your presence today and your
testimony.
I want to especially thank Dr. Coburn and his staff for all
the work they have done in helping to put this hearing together
and, frankly, a lot of work they have done on these issues.
Today's hearing is part of our Committee's continuous
efforts to look into, as Senator Landrieu has just said, every
nook and cranny of Federal spending and seek ways to improve
results and save some money.
I was at a State Chamber of Commerce dinner last night, and
after the dinner was over, back in Wilmington, one of the
attendees said essentially these words. He said, ``I do not
mind you making me pay some extra taxes. I just do not want you
to waste our money.'' And I agree with that, and I am sure that
we all agree with that sentiment about not wanting to waste
their money or our money either.
But, in particular, we are here today to discuss the
progress agencies have made in cutting spending on conferences
and travel, while better ensuring that the dollars being spent
today and in the future make possible a more effective and
efficient government and hopefully a better country.
In this time of deep Federal deficits and challenging
economic times, the people we work for, the taxpayers, expect
us to be good stewards of their hard-earned money.
Unfortunately, in the last several years, several
Inspectors General (IGs) have documented wasteful and excessive
spending at government conferences. The Department of Justice
(DOJ), the General Services Administration (GSA), and the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have all made the news, and not
in a positive way, for excessive conference and travel
spending.
The goal of our hearing today, though, is not just to
reexamine the well-documented excesses of the past. That has
already been done in the media and in other committees,
including this Committee. But, rather, the reason we are
holding today's hearing, the principal reason, is to get a
better picture of the current state of agency spending on
conferences, training, and on travel and to understand if the
culture that contributed to the problems we saw at Justice, at
GSA, and the IRS has changed.
There is good news to report. In May 2012, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance that required
agencies to reduce Federal spending on agency travel and to
improve accountability on conference spending.
In addition, the challenging budget climate of the last few
years has forced agencies to operate with less Federal funding,
which has, in turn, curtailed spending on travel, on training,
and conferences, while focusing the dollars that are spent on
activities and events whose value to agencies, whose value to
organizations, and to citizens is clear.
As a result of these events, it is my understanding that in
fiscal year (FY) 2013 agency conference and travel spending has
decreased by more than $3 billion as compared to fiscal year
2010. I think we will all agree that is a significant
reduction.
At today's hearing, I want to hear from our witnesses about
where things currently stand in this important area.
Specifically, I would like to hear answers to some of the
following questions, and I will just run through these.
One question is: How much are agencies currently spending
on conferences and travel?
A second question would be: How has the OMB guidance been
adopted and implemented across our government?
A third question would be: What changes have the Department
of Justice, GSA, and IRS made to their internal policies to
address the problems found in those agencies?
And, finally, what lessons have been learned and what steps
have been taken to make Federal agencies better stewards of
taxpayer dollars with respect to conferences and travel?
To help us answer these questions, we have two excellent
panels for our hearing today.
On our first panel, we have Beth Cobert, the Deputy
Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget,
and Dan Tangherlini, the Administrator at GSA.
On our second panel, we are pleased to welcome three
Inspectors General from the Department of Justice, GSA, and
from the Treasury Department, each of whom issued a report
uncovering wasteful spending at those government agencies.
We are fortunate to have two distinguished panels and
witnesses for our hearing today. We very much look forward to
your testimony.
Before wrapping up, I want to briefly touch on one issue
and that is the importance of conferences and the value derived
from these types of meetings. I want to be clear about one
thing, though. There is no reasonable justification for the
spending that took place at some government conferences in
recent years. It was wasteful, it was expensive, and just, I
really think, inexcusable.
I do like to say, though, as some of you know, that in
adversity lies opportunity. And it certainly appears to me that
in light of both these, if you will, scandals and budget cuts,
some good has come about in the sense that agencies have found
ways to cut conference and meeting costs through technology,
through conference calls, webinars, and other means.
However, we must not forget the value of face-to-face
meetings amongst agencies and, more importantly, with those who
work outside of our Federal Government, really for whom in many
cases we work.
When properly planned and managed, conferences can serve a
legitimate and often times necessary purpose of fostering
collaboration and partnerships between government employees,
State regulators, academia, and industry. And while it is
important that agencies make efforts to eliminate any wasteful
spending on conferences and travel, we must be careful that we
do not unduly restrict the ability of our agencies to interact
with outside groups and our citizens.
This Committee has heard from numerous groups--including
State regulatory agencies, nonprofits, military associations,
and scientists--that are very concerned that conference and
travel limitations could cut off their primary means of
communication with Federal agencies and affect their ability to
interact with the government.
These are important concerns that the Executive Branch and
Congress must consider when shaping policy, and I look forward
to discussing them with our witnesses today.
Finally, I would also note that the Committee has received
a number of written statements from a wide range of interested
groups and individuals, including the Majority Leader, that
address the matters that are being discussed here today, and I
would ask that all of these statements be included as part of
the hearing record.\1\ Without objection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional statements for the Record appear in the Appendix on
page 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Coburn, thanks very much, and thanks for all the work
that you have done on this.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN
Senator Coburn. Thank you.
Deputy Director Cobert and Administrator Tangherlini,
welcome. I believe this is both of your first testimony back
before the whole Committee. I appreciate you being here. I
think it is an important opportunity to followup oversight that
we have done outside of the context of the media scandal on
government conferences.
Today we are going to get some real hard facts from the
witnesses about the realities at their agencies and across
government. There has been a significant amount of
embarrassment, not only for the Congress but for the Executive
Branch, over the last 3 years in terms of the excesses that
have occurred.
Just for a little history, the Department of Justice
conferences jumped from under $50 million in 2008 to over $90
million in 2010. GSA spent $822,000 to hold a conference in Las
Vegas that included mind readers, clowns, and videos by GSA
joking about how much money they waste. IRS spent a staggering
$4.1 million on their conference in Anaheim that, once again,
included parody videos and was an unnecessary waste of taxpayer
dollars.
But there are many more wasteful conferences that did not
capture very much attention. The Army was spending more than
$10 million every single year on a conference in D.C.
Thankfully, this last year that was put to a halt and cut back
to $1 million.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $6.1 million
on just two conferences, and their employees improperly
accepted gifts and upgrades from vendors.
The Department of Education (ED) had a conference just this
last month that cost almost $1 million. Supposedly, the
Department cannot fund Head Start because of sequestration, but
can throw a $1 million party in Las Vegas. I had requested them
to cancel this. They did not, and we have seen the results of
that conference.
Effective oversight by the Inspector General community and
Congress brought these embarrassments to light, and to the
Inspectors General, I say thank you. The Executive Branch has
taken some positive steps to address some of these problems.
The new guidance from OMB and reviews of internal controls of
the agencies have reduced the number of conferences. But these
embarrassing memories will fade away over time as new
leadership and new employees enter Federal service.
Whether it is 5 years or 10 years from now, eventually
government will slip back into old habits, the old way of doing
things, and history, my fear is, will repeat itself. That is
why I believe it is so important for Congress to take action
and enact legislation that will permanently prevent excessive
conference spending.
Legislation that I have introduced with Senators Ayotte,
McCain, and Enzi in July would have prevented every single one
of the wasteful conferences that I mentioned earlier from
taking place. Under the Conference Accountability Act of 2013,
no agency can spend more than $500,000 on any single conference
or send more than 50 employees to an international conference.
The bill also requires significant improvements to
transparency to the taxpayers by requiring agencies to put all
their conferences, including costs, sponsors, videos, and
presentations, on their websites.
I really do not think the IRS employees would have made
their Star Trek video had they known it would have gone up on
IRS.gov. I do not think it would have ever happened.
Hopefully this Committee will take up this bill sometime
this year. I thank you, Deputy Director Cobert and
Administrator Tangherlini, for the excellent work you have done
in this area, but it is time for Congress to do its part as
well. Thank you.
Chairman Carper. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Coburn.
I will say this: I have said it in this Committee before to
my colleagues--sometimes you can get a lot done by asking the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to do a study. Sometimes
you can get a lot done by introducing a bill. Sometimes you get
a lot done by doing a hearing. And a lot of good has been done
in this area. Is there more that can be done? Sure, there is.
But I just would remind us not to overlook that some progress
is being made, and there is more that can be made, and
hopefully we will find out today more about the progress that
has been made and what more that we might need to do.
Let me just introduce briefly our witnesses. Our first
witness--and I think this is your first time back since you
were confirmed, Ms. Cobert, and we are delighted to see you. I
am told by others that you have settled into your new--you
actually did not settle into it nicely. You hit the deck
running, and we have heard great reports, as we have on Mr.
Tangherlini. But you were confirmed on October 6 last fall. As
Deputy Director for Management, Ms. Cobert is responsible for
oversight and coordination of the Administration's procurement,
financial management, e-government, performance and personnel
management, and information and regulatory policies. The Deputy
Director for Management also serves as the Nation's Federal
Chief Performance Officer (CPO), and prior to her service in
government, Ms. Cobert served nearly 30 years at McKinsey &
Company as director and senior partner.
We thank you so much for your service and for joining us
today. We really look forward to your testimony and the chance
to ask you some questions.
The next witness is Dan Tangherlini. Dan, nice to see you.
Mr. Tangherlini is the Administrator for the General Services
Administration and was sworn in as Administrator on July 5,
2013, following his 15 months of service as the Acting
Administrator at GSA. Throughout his career, Mr. Tangherlini
has been recognized for fiscal and management leadership.
Before joining GSA, he was confirmed by the Senate in 2009 to
serve as the Treasury Department's Assistant Secretary for
Management, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and Chief
Performance Officer. And in these roles, Mr. Tangherlini has
served as the principal policy adviser on the development and
execution of the budget and performance plans for Treasury and
the internal management of the Treasury and its bureaus.
Mr. Tangherlini, we would like to thank you for joining us
today, as well.
Before I turn it over to Ms. Cobert, I would say that among
the things we talk about here on this Committee are how we
can--to the extent putting on our Governmental Affairs hat on
this Committee as opposed to just the Homeland Security hat, we
can be a lot more effective in creating leverage for what we
are trying to accomplish, and that is to get better results for
less money. If we can partner with similar responsibilities and
interests, and that includes OMB, GAO, GSA, includes all the
IGs, a lot of private groups from around the country who are
interested in getting better results for less money. So I am
pleased that we have this new partnership that seems to be
taking hold, and I think the folks who sent us here for these
jobs are going to be, I think, encouraged by what they are
going to hear today, always knowing that we can do better.
All right. Ms. Cobert, you are on. My clock says 7 minutes.
If you want to go a little bit beyond that, that is OK, but not
by much, please. Ms. Cobert, thank you. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. BETH F. COBERT,\1\ DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Cobert. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
Coburn, and Members of the Committee, for the invitation to
discuss travel and conference spending activity in the Federal
Government. Today I will mainly focus on the efforts to reshape
how conferences are conducted in the Federal Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement for Ms. Cobert appears in the Appendix
on page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stewards of taxpayers' dollars, the Federal Government
must spend money wisely as well as find improvements and
efficiencies in fiscal oversight. Over the last several years,
the Administration has reduced conference spending in the
Federal Government by rethinking how, why, and where
conferences are conducted as well as increasing our use of
technology in order to reduce travel costs.
While the Administration has taken important steps to
reduce conference spending, it is critical to recognize the
important role that conferences play in the Federal Government.
Conferences enable the sharing of knowledge among large groups
and also bring together dispersed communities. They facilitate
collaboration and often spark innovation. As an example, the US
Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) Sovereign Challenge
Conference provided an opportunity for international
participants to engage in discussions of threats to national
security, explore possible solutions and best practices,
encourage individual and cooperative actions, and build
relationships with and among international attendees. The face-
to-face interactions afforded by the conference proceedings
spurred further collaboration that assisted USSOCOM in
achieving its mission.
Beyond facilitating collaboration, there are other times
when physical collocation is both helpful and necessary. This
is often the case with the scientific community. The primary
goal for a scientific conference is to bring a community of
scientists and engineers together and provide opportunities for
interaction, to exchange emerging ideas and thinking. In
reviewing research at conferences, the U.S. science and
engineering community employees and program managers not only
stay abreast of their Federal research and development (R&D)
investment portfolios but also see significant cost savings in
lieu of performing multiple site visits to other researchers'
laboratories. In these cases, convening Federal employees and
external stakeholders at a single location sometimes can be the
most efficient and cost-effective means for carrying out
government activities.
It is important to reiterate that while conferences can
perform useful functions, conference-related spending, as well
as all administrative spending, must be managed in a
responsible way. This Administration has taken several steps to
ensure we are managing our spending effectively. The
Administration has taken five specific actions which I have
outlined in my written testimony to reduce costs and strengthen
controls on conferences and travel spending.
The Administration's efforts are paying off. In fiscal year
2013, agencies reduced travel costs by $3 billion compared to
fiscal year 2010 levels. While we are happy to see costs
reduced, we will continue our efforts to maintain efficient
spending. To maintain this lower level of spending, agencies
are evaluating and rethinking how they conduct conferences that
support their mission while keeping spending in control.
For example, in 2013, the Department of the Treasury
achieved $181 million in travel savings. They did this by
implementing more restrictive guidance, increasing the use of
information technology (IT)-enhanced tools, reducing the number
of employees attending conferences, reducing the number of
participants attending training events, and canceling multiple
annual conferences.
Additionally, the Department of Interior achieved $99
million in fiscal year 2013 travel savings by implementing a
comprehensive program to manage conference activities and
spending. This included close scrutiny of all conferences as
well as Deputy Secretary review of all conferences over
$100,000. Interior also continues to increase the use of
technology in lieu of travel.
The Department of Defense (DOD) reduced spending on hosting
conferences with a total cost of more than $100,000 each by a
total of $69 million in fiscal year 2013. Consistent with OMB
direction, DOD instituted robust conference oversight
procedures, combined previously separate conferences, canceled
many conferences, and increased visibility through the
implementation of a new, centralized conference reporting tool
that was integrated with the Defense Travel System.
The Administration remains committed to responsibly
managing conference activities and ensuring that conference
spending across the government supports mission-critical
activities. It is imperative that the Federal Government
continue to improve how we conduct business and provide
services to the American people while increasing public
transparency. It is also important that our efforts not
undercut or prevent agencies from achieving their mission.
While recognizing the importance of conference review and
reporting requirements, it is also critical that these
processes do not create burdensome additional costs.
Moving forward, we are continuing to sharpen our
understanding of both the value of conferences to mission-
critical departmental activities and the opportunities to
reduce expenditures. Both are central to good stewardship of
the taxpayer dollar.
In my private sector experience, we faced similar issues in
terms of how to spend dollars in the best way possible on
conferences and travel. I see the same need within the Federal
Government. I look forward to using what I have learned in my
prior position to continue to help expand the progress agencies
are already making in smartly managing travel and conference
costs.
Thank you again for the invitation to testify today. I look
forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Carper. Good. Thanks so much.
Mr. Tangherlini, you are recognized, please.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. DANIEL M. TANGHERLINI,\1\ ADMINISTRATOR,
U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Tangherlini. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Dr. Coburn,
Members of the Committee, and staff. My name is Dan
Tangherlini, and I am the Administrator of the General Services
Administration. I am happy to be here this morning to join
Deputy Director for Management Cobert, Inspector General Brian
Miller, and the other IGs present to provide testimony on this
important subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Tangherlini appears in the
Appendix on page 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mission of GSA is to deliver the best value in real
estate, acquisition, and technology services to government and
the American people. GSA's travel policies reflect this
mission. GSA has instituted internal travel and conference
policies that reduce costs, provide strong oversight, and
ensure that travel only occurs when necessary.
We have put rigorous controls and oversight mechanisms in
place to ensure that all proposed travel and conference
expenses are cost-effective, serve legitimate needs, and have
appropriate levels of review.
Now travel can only be approved when it is essential to our
mission and when all other alternatives, including
videoconferencing, teleconferencing, and webinars, have been
considered.
Conferences require submission of a detailed justification,
a proposed budget, and review and approval from multiple
divisions. Additionally, GSA requires online training regarding
conference attendance for GSA employees through our conference
attendance training module.
In line with the Administration's policies, GSA has also
provided greater transparency into conference expenses. All
approved, agency-sponsored conferences with a cost of over
$100,000 are posted on a publicly available website that
includes the budget and a justification for why the conference
was held. In fiscal year 2013, GSA held no conferences above
that amount.
All told, these policies have dramatically reduced costs,
improved oversight, and made certain that travel and conference
expenses are fully justified and mission-related. In fiscal
years 2012 and 2013, GSA saved more than $68 million in avoided
travel and transportation costs.
To support these responsible and cost-effective travel
policies governmentwide, GSA has looked for ways we can assist
agencies by providing tools to help them better manage their
travel and conference costs. For example, to help agencies
prioritize use of federally owned space, GSA has created an
online tool known as ``Federal Meeting Facilities,'' which
identifies Federal agencies that have conference and meeting
space for agency use. The tool allows agencies to search and
sort through a variety of different spaces controlled by the
Federal Government, with contact information for the agency
point of contact to work with to secure the space.
Another tool is GSA's E-Gov Travel Services 2, which will
further consolidate online travel booking services, driving
additional cost savings and efficiencies, while delivering
improved accountability and reducing waste. This tool will
adhere to regulations and support policy for conference travel
spending reporting and other travel-related activities, in
order to both meet the requirements of OMB and to provide
greater transparency for customer agencies.
GSA is also providing data to our partners that will allow
them to make more informed decisions about where to host
conferences, when they are determined to be necessary. GSA's
Conference Planning Tool compares potential destinations by
major cost drivers, such as contract airfare and per diem
rates, enabling agencies to make data-backed decisions on where
conferences should be held. GSA is training administrative
officers in over 20 Federal agencies on how to identify low-
cost destinations and venues for conferences and meetings.
Additionally, GSA eliminated what was known as the
``conference lodging allowance.'' This allowance allowed
authorized travelers attending a conference to exceed the
maximum lodging per diem rate by up to 25 percent, if staying
at the site of the conference.
Finally, in 2012, GSA formed the Governmentwide Travel
Advisory Committee to work with all those involved in Federal
travel to investigate how we can reduce the government's travel
costs long term. The purpose of this committee is to bring
together stakeholders from throughout multiple levels of
government and the travel industry to review existing travel
policies, processes, and procedures to determine ways agencies
can achieve their mission-related travel needs in an effective
and efficient manner at the lowest possible cost. To ensure
transparency on how recommendations have been formulated,
committee business is posted publicly, in line with the rules
for Federal Advisory Committees.
GSA understands the importance of ensuring that government
travel is both prudent and cost-effective, and we are committed
to supporting this priority. We have rigorous internal travel
policies, provide tools to other agencies to help them make
more informed travel and conference spending decisions, and we
are working on broader reforms and programs that would result
in greater savings long term. We are confident that these
efforts will result in significant savings for both the Federal
Government and the American people.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I
welcome any questions you have.
Chairman Carper. Thank you both very much.
Let me just start off by asking the same question of both
of you. What do you think went wrong? How did we go off the
tracks in past years?
Ms. Cobert. Let me start, and I will let Dan continue. I
think the procedures that the Administration has put in place
in terms of both oversight and public transparency are one of
the critical elements in terms of the processes that you need
to have in place and the culture of responsibility that is
important, having made those changes, and what I think is a
critical step to ensure that we have an ongoing and permanent
change to the actions that may have transpired earlier.
Chairman Carper. Mr. Tangherlini, where did we go wrong?
Mr. Tangherlini. Well, I can only speak for the General
Services Administration, and I think actually the Inspector
General did a fantastic job putting together a report that
outlined the many different areas where we went wrong in the
case of the GSA Western Regions Conference.
I think what we have really been focusing on is
understanding how we can make sure that our mission of our
agency is reflected in every action we take, and the
fundamental mission of this agency is to save money and reduce
costs. I think focusing on administration-wide efforts around
transparency, agency-specific efforts around creating a clearer
culture and organizational accountability and responsibility, a
stronger sense of reporting, following on a variety of
Executive Orders and requirements from OMB, and then just a
smarter engagement of our own people and understanding how we
can better design our systems to provide transparency and
checks and balances within the organization. So if there is
something that seems to be going off track, we catch it long
before it turns into events like what we saw in 2010.
Chairman Carper. Ms. Cobert, you had a lot of years at
McKinsey & Company, and I would be interested in knowing how
your experience there in the private sector working for three
decades would inform your perspectives and your ideas of how we
actually build on the work that has been done in the last year
or so.
Ms. Cobert. In my time at McKinsey, one of the areas where
I did focus was actually taking a hard look at our own spending
on conferences and travel, particularly as they related to
internal training.
Chairman Carper. How could that inform what we----
Ms. Cobert. So I think we learned a couple things from that
effort. One was it was really critical to start with the
question of what was the purpose for which people were being
pulled together, and if you looked at that, particularly as
technology has expanded, were there other ways to either convey
information and get the benefits that in the past would have
required people to fly, in our case usually very long distances
at very high cost, taking, frankly, a considerable amount of
time.
We learned that there were a number of activities that you
could really use, in some ways even more effectively, by taking
advantage of technology. It provided a chance for people, for
example, to get together over videoconferencing multiple times
instead of just a single interaction.
So I think the question is: How can you take a tool like
that and use videoconferencing even more in the Federal
Government? It is a skill also that people get better at. The
more you interact that way, the more comfortable you become,
the more you can have those interactions.
So I think there is an important lesson to be learned about
how to apply technology, to be able to not just replace what
you are doing but to have to do it differently in a way that
captures even more benefits, at lower cost.
But we also learned that there were important times to
bring people together, and one of the elements, I think, that
was particularly important was focusing on if you were going to
bring people together, how were you going to use that time
well? If someone was going to stand up and deliver a PowerPoint
presentation, you could probably execute that equally
effectively and cost less money with something like a webinar.
But if you wanted to have a real dialogue, a real problem-
solving session, that was harder to do when people were not in
the same place.
So what we have changed was not just how frequently we
brought people together, and we did it much less frequently,
but to really make sure we were using that time most
productively when we had people together in the same room.
Chairman Carper. All right. Those are very helpful
comments.
Mr. Tangherlini, do you want to add anything or take
anything away?
Mr. Tangherlini. I would just extend those remarks and say
for us at GSA we really used the attention that was brought to
this matter and the mistakes that were made to really focus and
ask big questions about how we were spending money,
particularly around travel, and ask the question: Are there
other ways to get that work done? And as a result, we have seen
a substantial decrease, a more than 80-percent decrease in our
travel expenditures over the last couple years.
Chairman Carper. All right. I think you mentioned--and I
did as well--that if you look at spending for travel,
conferences, et al., we saw that amount reduced by about $3
billion last year compared to 2010. I do not know if 2010 was a
high watermark or not. Do you have any idea what the numbers
looked like in 2009, 2008, and so forth?
Ms. Cobert. I do not have the 2009 numbers, but we can get
those for you.
Chairman Carper. Any idea, Mr. Tangherlini?
Mr. Tangherlini. In GSA, 2010 was at the higher end of our
historical trend, but it was pretty much where things had been
for quite some time. We went back and looked back 10 or even 15
years and saw that we had been building toward 2010. The simple
fact is, I think we really needed to take a good, hard look as
we did through our top-to-bottom review of the agency, how we
are aligning ourselves, what were our expectations, how did we
provide those services, and what should be our assumptions
going forward.
Chairman Carper. All right. We can all think of conferences
that we have attended, whether you have done it as a physician,
a business person, an auditor, a farmer, or a rancher. I
remember going to some conferences when I was State treasurer
and learning a whole lot as a young pup. When I was elected, I
was about 29. I learned a whole lot about cash management,
learned a whole lot about investments, learned a lot about
pensions, deferred compensation. They were enormously helpful.
I can also remember some conferences I went to back then
that were not so helpful or so informative, and one of the
things I most loved about being Governor was being with my
colleagues from around the country and learning from them and
having the kind of informal discussions on the record and
formal sessions, but really off the record and over dinner,
breakfast, or lunch and at the end of the day.
I just want to ask--and this is my last question, and then
I will turn it to Dr. Coburn, but obviously we need to rein in
excessive and wasteful spending. We have talked about that. But
how do we make sure that these current restrictions do not
negatively affect an agency's ability to interact with those
outside of government, the people we work for and work with?
Mr. Tangherlini, do you want to take the first shot at
that? And then we will go to Ms. Cobert and then to Dr. Coburn.
Mr. Tangherlini. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very
reasonable concern, and that is one where we are absolutely
concerned about and we are working very closely with our agency
partners and our partners in the private sector to try to
strike that right balance.
I think that that makes this a work in progress, and we
need to continually pay close attention to the training and the
skills gaps of our employees. We pay close attention to the
employee viewpoint survey to see if our employees feel that
they are being supported sufficiently in their training and
their opportunities to engage in collaboration. That is a very
real concern.
I think for us the first step, though, is to really get a
handle on this spending, really understand why we were making
the spending, really introduce what Deputy Director Cobert
talked about; this idea of creating some sense of understanding
of why we needed to take one approach versus another, and
create some cost/benefit analysis within the organization.
Chairman Carper. OK. Ms. Cobert.
Ms. Cobert. I would echo those comments. I also think as we
continue to apply a high level, the appropriate level of
scrutiny to conferences, being as disciplined in measuring the
benefits of conferences as we do the costs can also help us.
How can we think about, as you described, the conferences where
you really, by being there and interacting with individuals,
get tangible benefits that enable individuals to build their
skills, to deliver against their mission, to get new ideas for
government? And how can you then go back and assess which
conferences did not perhaps deliver that same level of
benefits? How can you think about when people who do go to the
conference come back and share what they have learned with
their colleagues?
So I think doing those things can also help give us a
clearer sense of the benefits and, therefore, help us make the
important tradeoffs about how to wisely spend tax dollars.
Chairman Carper. Great. Thanks very much. Dr. Coburn.
Senator Coburn. It is well known the guidance that OMB has
issued. My question for you, Deputy Director Cobert, is: What
are the consequences if an agency does not follow your
guidance?
Ms. Cobert. For agencies, the requirements and the guidance
are quite clear in terms of what are agencies required to
report. I think all the individuals that I have spoken with in
agencies take that responsibility extremely seriously. They
understand the importance of these issues. They feel the
personal responsibility to address them and feel personally
responsible in giving their own individual approvals to what is
set out in the guidance.
Senator Coburn. So you see over here ones that are over
your limit, and in your guidance is a waiver, if I understand
it correctly, that they can still have conferences over
$500,000 at the discretion of the head of the agency. Here is a
list of conferences that occurred this last year. So basically
if they decide the guidance does not apply, they can still do
it. Correct?
Ms. Cobert. The Secretary needs to approve that guidance.
The Secretary also needs to post the waiver and the approval
for that waiver for public scrutiny.
Senator Coburn. Yes. And where is that posted now?
Ms. Cobert. Those are posted on the agency websites.
Senator Coburn. OK. So if we went to the agency's websites,
we would see the justification for the Secretary's waiver in
each of these.
Ms. Cobert. The 2013 ones will be posted at the end of this
month.
Senator Coburn. Well, these were 2013, so what I am asking
is: Are they posted now, or they will be posted?
Ms. Cobert. The reporting guidelines, as I understand it,
are for the travel spending at the end of this month to report
the whole fiscal year.
Senator Coburn. For 2013.
Ms. Cobert. I believe that is correct.
Senator Coburn. All right. You gave some reports on
reductions in conference spending, but you did not mention the
Department of Agriculture. Do you have any data on that?
Ms. Cobert. We do have information on the Department of
Agriculture (USDA). I do not have it here in front of me but
can get it for you.
Senator Coburn. Well, I would appreciate that.
I would just note for the record that they had 31
conferences that cost over $10,000 per person. They had 125
conferences that cost over $3,000 per person. I have been to a
lot of conferences as a physician, and I would say half the
time is good and half the time is not. As a matter of fact, the
lure of the conference to get you there is that there is
entertainment and there is fun besides working at a conference.
And I am not critical of that. If you go to a conference as a
Federal employee, we want you to benefit for your job there,
but also benefit from where you travel. So this is not a
criticism of destinations or anything else, but the fact is
what we did have--and we are going to hear from the IGs, but,
for example, Mr. Tangherlini actually is in his position today
because of conference spending. So it is not all one-sided.
I would like to put OMB Memo M-12-12 into the record,\1\ if
I might.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The OMB Memo referenced by Senator Coburn appears in the
Appendix on page 201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Carper. Without objection.
Senator Coburn. Do you know many conferences in excess of
$500,000 that have occurred since that memo was issued?
Ms. Cobert. There have been a number, but I do not have the
specifics.
Senator Coburn. If you can get that for us, if you would.
Ms. Cobert. Absolutely.
Senator Coburn. Thank you.
It is not required under the guidance--and you correct me
if I am wrong, Deputy Director Cobert--that the agencies do not
have to contact OMB to make this decision, right?
Ms. Cobert. In terms of----
Senator Coburn. If they exceed the level, they do not have
to contact you.
Ms. Cobert. The approval guidelines in Memorandum 12-12
require approval by the Deputy Secretary if your conference is
greater than $100,000 and by the Secretary if your conference
is greater than $500,000.
Senator Coburn. Yes, but they do not have to notify OMB
they are doing that?
Ms. Cobert. They do not.
Senator Coburn. So for us to find that out in the future,
for you to find that out as the Deputy Director for Management,
what is the mechanism that you will use? Scour the websites?
Ms. Cobert. The mechanism that we use is when that
reporting is available on the websites, that is how we go
through it. We are expecting them--and we have had
conversations in our dialogue with them about what we expect,
the guidelines they have put in place, in particular for how
they think about managing spending. So the discussions we have
with them are what are the processes and procedures they have
put in place in order to come to those provisions.
Senator Coburn. Do you think there is any need for
legislation to make what you have put into guidelines law?
Ms. Cobert. We are very pleased at the progress we have had
with the guidelines we have put in place. We have seen
reductions in 2012. We see continued further reductions in
2013.
What encourages me also is that we have seen real changes
in practices at different agencies, across agencies, in terms
of the level of scrutiny that they are using, in terms of the
decision criteria, in terms of the availabilities like those
that Administrator Tangherlini has provided to help them manage
their spending well.
So we continue to see progress, and we are very heartened
by that. We think that the administrative rulings we have put
in place will drive those changes in behavior over the long
term and also provide enough flexibility to, in fact, make sure
that guidelines that are put in place are both neither too
stringent, but also not too lenient. As the opportunities
arrive to continue, for example, to use technology in places
where they are a good substitute for people being a person;
that is not always the case, but if you can do that more often.
We also want to have guidelines that continue to evolve and put
appropriate pressure on people to think carefully about their
spend. That is why we have approached it this way.
Senator Coburn. So what happens when we quit concentrating
on this? Right now we have our thumb on the button. It is in
the news. It has been. I have been looking at it for 5 years.
What happens when we quit looking at it?
Ms. Cobert. I believe the processes that we have put in
place in terms of transparency around posting conferences
publicly on the website, the requirements that were in the
continuing resolution (CR) around ongoing oversight and
information provided to the IGs will help us maintain the kind
of focus that has been put on this issue, that is important to
continue to put on this issue. We support a focus on continuing
to manage this spending closely.
Senator Coburn. All right. In 10 years, Mr. Tangherlini,
with a new Administration, a new GSA Administrator, provided
you are not still there, is there currently any provision of
law that would prevent GSA from having another big blowout
conference costing millions of dollars?
Mr. Tangherlini. The provisions of law would be related to
appropriations laws, restrictions you heard in the CR, whether
they continue, I do not know what will happen 10 years from
now. But we have had some Executive Order (EO), changes to the
Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) or the clarification of
Federal Travel Regulations, all things that would need to
actively be rescinded, repealed, or changed in order for us to
go back to the environment in which we were operating in when
we had the unfortunate events that we had.
Senator Coburn. In his prepared testimony for the second
panel in this hearing, Inspector General George states that the
IRS does not have a system to track and report the actual cost
of conferences. I understand that when things were changing in
GSA, one of the things that came to light was you did not have
a system in place, but you do now.
Mr. Tangherlini. We did not before simply because the way
the financial systems were designed, we were tracking travel,
we were tracking contract expenditures. You put those together,
and you begin to start funding a conference. We now have a
system to do that.
Senator Coburn. So that tool that you have now, is that
transferable?
Mr. Tangherlini. Absolutely.
Senator Coburn. So that is something they could get without
cost from you all?
Mr. Tangherlini. There may be some costs associated with
setup, purchasing licenses. It is a commercially off-the-shelf
technology that we use.
Senator Coburn. But it is not a hard ask?
Mr. Tangherlini. No.
Senator Coburn. OK. One final question, then I will yield
back. The Department of Justice Inspector General report this
year highlighted the travel system method of the Department
that DOJ pays more than $30 per flight booked to a contractor
when they use a live travel agent. But they still pay $7 to
book a flight when they do not use a live travel agent. When I
book a flight, I do not pay anything. And neither does the rest
of America when they book it directly. What is up with that?
Why does a Federal employee because they book a flight have to
pay 7 bucks if they book it themselves or 30 bucks if they book
it through a travel agent? And why are we using travel agents
instead of booking a flight?
Mr. Tangherlini. Well, there may be specific instances
where the travel is very complicated. There may be certain
requirements. I will not get into the specifics of why someone
might use a travel agent. I can tell you that GSA and in our
most recent travel system negotiation have been trying to push
down the cost of travel in general as well as dramatically
increase the use of technology so it feels more like that
experience you have when you are traveling on your own, when
you have your personal travel experience. That way we can
maximize competition, we can give agencies exposure to
currently available fares, but still also preserve something
that we benefit tremendously through our negotiated fares, and
that is, the ability to, at no cost to the traveler, cancel or
rearrange flights, which is actually a major source of revenue
to the airlines right now. So that flexibility saves us a lot
of money.
Senator Coburn. But, for example, there is not a Kayak for
Federal travel?
Mr. Tangherlini. We are moving toward, in our Enhanced
Travel System 2 (ETS2), the contracts that we just signed, we
have just made it through the protest phase with that, and we
have resolved the issues. We are actually going to be
dramatically upgrading the technology that Federal agencies
will use in being able to get online and book travel.
Senator Coburn. So there will still be a charge, though? If
I as a Federal employee go and use that, I am still going to
pay 7 bucks for----
Mr. Tangherlini. I do not know what the cost is, but
overall our travel expenses are much less than what is
available to the general public because we do aggregate this
spend and that is one of those areas where we really do have a
very aggressive strategicly sourced relationship with the
people who provide the services to us.
Senator Coburn. Thank you.
Chairman Carper. All right. Thanks so much.
Next in questioning, I think, in terms of order of arrival
is Senator Johnson, Senator Tester, Senator Heitkamp. So,
Senator Johnson, you are on.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would kind of like to pick up where Senator Coburn left
off here. I think it is obvious the reason that we are making
any progress is because of the sunshine, the fact that these
were some pretty egregious examples and the public found out
about it. Also, Deputy Director Cobert, coming from the private
sector, you understand the value of information, so start going
down the table--Mr. Tangherlini, you talked about the tools
that GSA has been developing. Any other agencies using those
tools?
Mr. Tangherlini. I am not sure whether other agencies are
using precisely what we are. I do know agencies have
dramatically increased the amount of tracking they are doing
around conferencing, in part to respond to the requirements for
reporting associated with the various OMB memoranda as well as
the changes in the Federal Travel Regulations.
Senator Johnson. So, Ms. Cobert, how can we--if we have
some good tools in one agency, how can we pretty well force
other agencies to use those tools that work?
Ms. Cobert. One of the roles that we play at OMB is to try
and share these practices and best practices. For example,
through discussions at the Chief Financial Officers Council
(CFOC), for example, we have talked about the savings in some
of these tools. We encourage dialogue between individual
agencies, that they develop tracking mechanisms and the like.
Some of the tools that Administrator Tangherlini mentioned
about, for example, the availability of Federal conference
space are shared across agencies.
So for us, one of the key purposes is to sustain this
dialogue and help work with individual agencies and help
encourage the bilateral conversations to make that happen.
Senator Johnson. ``Talk,'' ``encourage.'' What about
management actually directing people to use something that
works so we save taxpayer money? Is there any action on, this
thing works, this is best practice we are seeing in this
agency, let us use it in the other agencies? Is there action to
do that?
Ms. Cobert. In travel and in other commodities, for
example, that is what we are doing through the Strategic
Sourcing Council in putting those mechanisms in place, getting
not just the forcing but also the transparency so people
understand the benefits they get from moving to these
mechanisms, and that is the work of that council going forward.
Senator Johnson. So we are publishing these conferences
that exceed half a million dollars on individual agency
websites, correct?
Ms. Cobert. Yes, greater than $100,000.
Senator Johnson. Excuse me, $100,000. Is there a better way
to highlight that? Should we accumulate all that and put that
out there on an annual report and maybe through the Committee?
Would that be more effective to--rather than have it kind of--I
would not say ``hidden,'' but certainly diffuse. How about
accumulate all that information, publish one report, have the
Administration highlight it, have Congress highlight it so that
all the agencies understand that if they are going to spend
more than $100,000, Americans are going to understand that?
Ms. Cobert. Sure. When we put in place the Executive Order,
we concurred that transparency was important. That was a key
element of the order, and we would welcome the opportunity to
work with you and others to think about the best way to ensure
that there is real visibility of that information. And so we
would be happy to have a dialogue on approaches to do that.
Senator Johnson. OK. I would suggest that. Certainly in the
private sector, if I needed to make sure there was greater
efficiency in a particular department, we did it with their
budget. I mean, we forced efficiency. Are we doing that within
the agencies? In other words, a really good way to make sure
they tighten up their travel and their conference spending is
not give them as much money.
Ms. Cobert. The guidance in the Executive Order was a 30-
percent reduction in administrative spend. We have seen
agencies take that and achieve against that level. We have seen
spending come down in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013,
and so we think they all feel that pressure and are working
within their budgets to manage that appropriately.
The needs for travel are different from one agency to the
next, but we have seen a consistent reduction across agencies
in their spend on these topics.
Senator Johnson. It was one of the questions I had because
I saw the goals of reducing administrative costs by 20 percent,
then conference spending by 30 percent. And I got some numbers,
but I did not get details about the starting point and the
ending point, and the actual percent, the dollar amount--do you
have that information?
Ms. Cobert. I can give you the numbers for travel spending,
and we would be happy to provide you post this hearing more of
the detail that is available.
Senator Johnson. Are you, coming from the private sector,
as frustrated as I am in terms of the lack of good, solid,
basic financial information to be able to make these decisions
in order to drive these types of performance improvements?
Ms. Cobert. Getting the kind of data both on actual cost,
cost per unit, is something we are continuing to work toward.
Travel spending, of the things I have looked at, actually is a
place where it is tracked reasonably clearly, so we can track,
for example, that the spending on travel in 2010 was at $17
billion, and the drop that has occurred. So this is a place
where there actually is relatively better transparency.
Senator Johnson. How much more information do you need,
though? I mean, on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of information
available to you as a manager trying to tighten up budgets,
trying to tighten up these policies, how good is the
information you have within these agencies?
Ms. Cobert. It varies by agency. I do not have that detail
yet.
Senator Johnson. So which are the bad agencies? Which are
the ones that really need the most improvement that just do not
have the information--that are not following best practices?
Ms. Cobert. Senator, I have not been able to go through
this agency by agency in the time that I have been here yet,
but we are continuing to work on that. I know the shared
services--strategic sourcing arranged our places where we are
trying to get that information out there and increase that
visibility.
Senator Johnson. OK. What else can force action? Mr.
Tangherlini, just what else can really drive this process? As
Senator Coburn said, when we are not looking at this, if the
public turns attention off it, if we do not have another Star
Wars video or Star Trek video, what is going to continue to
force action?
Mr. Tangherlini. I think you have really put your finger
right on it. It really is transparency, and it is clear
financial management. I think at some level you cannot
legislate common sense; you cannot require common sense. You
just have to apply common sense in managing these
organizations. And I think, we had to have a real solid dose of
it. We have now. We set a budget last year that was less than a
third what we had spent in fiscal year 2015, and we made it our
goal to come under that budget. We did. We are taking the
savings, and we are putting it back into our critical mission,
which is providing the facilities, the acquisition, and the
technology that allow agencies to save money and deliver their
mission.
So I think we have to make sure we do create, while we have
the opportunity, the systems and structures that allow people
to apply good managerial judgment and common sense and make
sure we get the outcomes we need.
Senator Johnson. Then just one quick final question,
because I agree, there can be some real value in these
conferences. The social interaction, the person-to-person
contact can be highly valuable. So my last question for you,
Director Cobert. Are you hearing complaints from agencies where
our drive to create efficiencies is actually doing damage,
where we may be tightening down too much? Has there been a
downside?
Ms. Cobert. I think the restrictions we have put into place
have forced some very tough conversations about whether they
are able to have the kind of in-person interactions they need,
whether, for example, restrictions on the number of people
going, in an appropriate effort to manage the budget, is
perhaps creating challenges for perhaps the more junior
individuals who do not get that chance to interact. But I think
those are the right conversations for agencies to be having. It
is the right conversation to be thinking about who should
attend, how do we share knowledge better, how can we substitute
in other ways.
For example, when faced with restrictions on travel, the
National Institute of Health (NIH) started holding some of
their peer reviews via videoconference. That saved them money,
but it also in some cases enabled them to get access to
individuals that otherwise would have been tough to reach.
So I think we are having the right conversations. I think
the issue you raise is an important risk that we have to watch
carefully. But I think today the right conversations are taking
place and good decisions are being made.
Senator Johnson. OK. Well, again, thank you for your
testimony and your efforts. We really are making some solid
progress here. It is really good to see it. We want to make
sure it continues. So thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carper. Thanks so much.
I understand that Senator Tester has yielded to Senator
Heitkamp, so Senator Heitkamp, Senator Tester, and we welcome
also Senator Pryor.
Senator Heitkamp. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what that is
going to cost me eventually, but----
Senator Tester. A bunch. [Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. I think it might be dearly.
Just a couple quick points, because I only have a limited
amount of time. I think way too often on conference evaluation,
you look at the travel and you look at the hotel and you look
at all of that, you do not count the opportunity cost to that
employee. And I am very curious about whether the
Administration, or whether you as efficiency experts, have
looked at these conferences from the standpoint of the
opportunity cost to the employee. If the employee is traveling,
obviously sitting in the chair now for 2 days at a conference,
comes back, he or she obviously is not doing what they
typically would be doing, but yet we never talk about that. And
I am curious about whether in either agency you have begun a
discussion about that as part of the evaluation of the
necessity of the conference.
Ms. Cobert. The issue you raise about opportunity costs is
an important one, and I think the discussion starts with asking
whether the conference itself will advance that individual's
work and mission. So how can the conference directly impact the
work that they are trying to do? It might be different work
that they are doing at their desk, but how can they do that?
I think the other piece that folks have looked at in doing
this is thinking about not just the time that they are at the
conference, but the travel to the conference. As someone who
spent a great deal of her former life on an airplane, I think
we can all attest to the fact that it is hard to be as
productive sitting on a plane than it is sitting at your desk.
And so what we have seen agencies do is think more carefully
about planning of conferences. Can they have things back to
back so you lose less time in travel? Can you do things in a
way so you cut out an additional trip? Can you think about the
timing of the start and end so you get people so they do not
have to stay that extra night, they get back that night and get
back to their desk in the morning? So those things I think help
as well.
Senator Heitkamp. I think what I am really asking, is there
a systematic way, the same way you would evaluate other costs,
that you include the cost of the employee's time in your
evaluation as a matter of routine? Is that something you do
right now?
Ms. Cobert. I am not sure how agencies specifically do it.
To me, the challenge in doing that is I want to start with the
assumption that when the employee is at the conference, they
are doing their work, just a different aspect of their work.
Otherwise, they should not be at the conference, right? So I
think how do you think about that tradeoff.
Senator Heitkamp. But in terms of evaluating the cost of
the training, I mean, I am not saying--I guess I put you off on
the wrong track when I talked about opportunity costs. But I am
talking about the fact that these conferences cost more than
travel and hotels and meals. They cost time. And time is
probably the most expensive piece of this.
And so understand that that is an investment taxpayers make
in that conference, and so we have to evaluate the total cost
in order to completely understand the value that we are
getting. And I just raise that question and would be curious
about followup because I do not have a whole lot of time here.
I share Dr. Coburn's concern about backsliding. If you do not
have a true cultural change, if you do not have a true visceral
kind of, ``No, we are not going to do that unless it is
absolutely essential,'' then you need a bigger hammer than an
Executive Order, or a bigger hammer than an IG report that may
get finalized 2 years after you have left your executive
position.
And so, I mean, I am curious about a response to whether
you would support legislation that would reinforce the work
that you have done already in your administrative positions.
And that is for either one of you.
Ms. Cobert. We believe that we are succeeding in making the
cultural change that you require. When you see the reductions
in costs, in some cases of over 50, 60, the 80 percent that
Administrator Tangherlini talked about, that comes--and we have
seen the way that there are new guidelines to think about
costs, including, I think, your idea about how you think about
opportunity costs is an important element. We think those
elements are driving the cultural change we need, and we think
we continue to make progress, and we believe that the actions
we have taken will be sustained. These orders would need to be
rescinded. We think we have put in place something that can
last beyond the current times.
Mr. Tangherlini. I think efforts such as our Government
Travel Advisory Council in which we have brought agencies and
many layers of government, State, local, Federal, as well as
private sector providers of these services, allow us then to
feed back into things like the Federal Travel Regulations,
which have for agencies the force and effect of law, to have
more flexible kind of ability to respond to maybe the evolving
nature of what conferences and travel look like.
I think, as we have certainly during my tenure--and I know
through my conversations with Deputy Director Cobert--we are
very interested and committed to working with this Committee so
that we leave a better institution than either of us found when
we came here, because that is our commitment.
Senator Heitkamp. My final question is there is always an
assumption in what we say that it is better to be in the room
with people. But yet, there does not seem to be a lot of
science behind that; it is just our kind of, what we believe as
human beings, that you and I can accomplish more face-to-face
than we could teleconferencing. But I am not sure that that is
true, and I think your point that some people can be in the
room that otherwise could not be in the room so the experience
may be more valuable. I would be curious about any followup
that you would have in terms of studies that have been done
about the relative merits of both ways of interacting. Because
if we took all this money that I think was wasted on
conferences and invested it in technology, think about how much
further we would be ahead. I mean, we might even be able to put
this kind of technology in very small places and be able to
manage it.
And so I am curious and would appreciate any followup that
you have or any studies that you know of that do, in fact,
analyze the two experiences.
Ms. Cobert. I think the issue you are raising is a very
important one, and I think that is one where we will continue
to monitor the research. I do believe from my personal
experience that this has continued to evolve.
Videoconferencing, for example, is so much more effective today
and easy to accomplish at small cost. It used to be highly
expensive to install a special videoconference room, and so the
cost effectiveness versus travel did not work. But today, when
you can use your phone, your tablet, your laptop to do
videoconferencing, it is actually quite inexpensive and
increasingly reliable.
So I think those studies are still emerging. One of our
roles is to continue to look at that. It is the issue I raised
at the beginning about measuring effectiveness. It can be more
effective for some things than others because you get more
people there, you are not spending time traveling to and fro.
So the issues about how we take advantage of the changes in
technology is something that is at the forefront of our
attention, and we will be happy to work with you as we learn
more about effectiveness and try and see what studies are being
done to apply those in the Federal Government.
Senator Heitkamp. And I just want to thank Senator Tester.
Chairman Carper. We want to thank you for some good
questions. Senator Tester, thank you so much.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
thank both the panelists for being here today.
Look, I think we all can agree that with conferences there
are some benefits both to the person who attends and to the
business that puts them on. I think that the examples that the
Ranking Member gave are examples of abuses in the system. He
also handed out a sheet--I believe it was from Dr. Coburn--that
talked about the DOJ conference in Moscow and an Education
conference and a VA conference in sunny Detroit. And whether
you are talking about that, Anaheim, Las Vegas, or Big Sky in
Montana, those are all places--well, maybe with one exception--
that people want to go to.
The question becomes, though, in your testimony--first of
all, let us take the International Drug Enforcement Conference,
and I am sitting here at this dais. I have no clue if it could
be done by teleconference. But it seems to me it could be. You
are talking about international; you probably cannot send
everybody you want to send there. Does OMB have any
recommendations on teleconferencing? Have they been able to put
out any rock solid recommendations? And if you have not, that
is fine. Just let me know.
Ms. Cobert. We have talked about how people can use
different kinds of technologies, both teleconferencing and
videoconferencing, but we do not have any formal guidance or
recommendations.
Senator Tester. OK. Do you anticipate there will be
guidance on teleconferencing coming forward? I mean, take a
look at education. We are talking about using tele-education
all over the place. And I see there is merit. I believe there
is merit of people looking one-on-one. But maybe not every
year, or certainly not every quarter. So do you anticipate that
coming out with a format of when they should probably use it
and when they should not? Or what kind of metrics are you going
to use?
Ms. Cobert. The overall approach has been to encourage the
use of those things and support the use of those things. We
have not given specific guidance partly because it continues to
evolve so rapidly.
Senator Tester. All right. I got you. Yes, OK. We are
talking about conferences, and then we are talking about
travel. I want to go to your written testimony, Beth, and I
will brief it up, but the Department of Treasury achieved $181
million in travel savings; EPA, travel spending reduced by $35
million; Interior achieved $99 million in travel savings;
Department of Labor, $29 million in travel savings; Department
of Defense reduced spending on hosting conferences. There are
five examples. Four of them are different than the fifth. The
fifth one talks about conferences. The top four talk about
conferences and travel. Are you able to split the conferences
out from the travel in these different agencies?
Ms. Cobert. This is the issue that Administrator
Tangherlini talked about earlier.
Senator Tester. That is fine.
Ms. Cobert. The travel codes, Code 21, and that is an
explicit code----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Ms. Cobert. Much of the conference spending is coded into
either contracting or other fields, so it is difficult still to
track completely to the extent everyone would like conference
expenditures----
Senator Tester. Do you think----
Ms. Cobert [continuing]. Track it for individual
conferences because we have to accumulate them to get to the
$100,000.
Senator Tester. I think there is a huge difference, though,
between conferences and travel. A huge difference. Do you think
it is--I mean, I can tell you right now, you save 99--I should
not say ``you.'' The Department of Interior saved $99 million
in travel savings, and in a day where we do not have earmarks,
I depend on those agencies to get out to see those projects so
that they can make recommendations through the Administration
on how to spend money, because we do not do it as a Legislative
Branch anymore, which is a mistake.
So the question is: When they reduce travel, they cannot
get out to States like Montana that cost a bunch of money to
get there? And so that becomes a problem.
Now, we want to save money on travel, but the fact is that
sometimes we are saving money, and it is costing us government
efficiency in that savings. Is there any way to break that out,
or is there going to be any recommendations on breaking that
out?
Ms. Cobert. We are continuing to work with agencies to
improve the procedures they have to track conference spending
specifically, including, for example, the tools that
Administrator Tangherlini talked about earlier.
Senator Tester. OK. When do you anticipate those
recommendations coming out? Because I think they are pretty
important. I will give you an example. Here is another one. Are
you about to--because the Ranking Member brought up USDA. Are
conferences that are held to inform farmers on farm program
benefits considered conferences?
Ms. Cobert. They do meet the definition of a conference.
Senator Tester. OK. So we are talking--we are sitting
here--and I appreciate you bringing it up because it clicked in
my mind. We are sitting here, it costs $3,000 to send one
employee to a conference where there are 150 farmers sitting
there. That is considered a conference, and it looks to us like
its spending is out of control, but on the other hand, it is
the agency doing their job, telling folks what we have passed
here in Congress. Is that a fair assessment?
Ms. Cobert. We do think that the reason why we believe we
have issued guidance with flexibilities for agencies is to take
account of the factors like you are describing, that these
things serve different purposes. Some conferences involve just
Federal employees. Some involve members of the public and the
community that those Federal employees are trying to interact
with.
Senator Tester. But they are not split out. They are not
split out right now. The conference I think about is the folks
going to Las Vegas and what you talked about, where all these
agency folks are there. The other conference I am talking about
is a conference where one or two Federal employees go, and they
are giving information out. It is a conference setting. Are
they split out?
Ms. Cobert. In the disclosure about the conferences, the
purpose of the conference is disclosed. So why it is being held
and the kind of people that are attending.
Senator Tester. OK. Hopefully we were able to drill down on
that.
I want to talk about conference spending overall. You
talked about it, Dan, a little bit, that we were kind of
building to 2010. I got to tell you, I do not remember this
being an issue in the 1960s, 1970s, maybe even in the 1980s.
Are you guys able to go back--maybe it is not the GSA; maybe it
is somebody else--and determine what has gone on here over the
years and how it was handled in the past? If it was not an
issue, say, in the 1970s, how did they inform their folks?
Because that information transfer is important. Go ahead.
Mr. Tangherlini. Well, when I started in Federal service in
the 1990s, I do not remember it being as prevalent an issue
either, so that was one of my issues of curiosity when I got to
GSA. When did this become such an important part of the way we
approached our work? And I would have to say that the data, the
quality of the data begins to degrade as you get into the early
2000s. And as Deputy Director Cobert pointed out, we do not
classify conference versus travel, and so we are looking at
travel as a proxy.
Senator Tester. Got you.
Mr. Tangherlini. Because in order to go to a conference,
you had to travel generally.
So what we saw was that travel was building across the
organization, but that was for the entire period of the 2000s.
2010 was for GSA one of the higher years, but it was not the
spike. We had just seen an increase over time. And so what we
realized is that we had to start asking ourselves some
fundamental questions about the way we deliver our mission and
whether we should ask some questions about--assuming whether
you should go to this trip or not or whether you needed to take
that training by going somewhere or whether you could do it
online.
Senator Tester. OK. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
the opportunity to have this conversation. I think that we have
to be careful. I think we look at top-line numbers here, and I
think it is important we look at top-line numbers. But I think
we also need to look at some government efficiency, because
there are some out there that want to reduce government to the
point where it does not work and then complain that government
does not work.
There are others out there that want to make sure that
their agencies are lean and mean, and we do not have
conferences where you have magicians and clowns and everything
else.
I do not see how we do this without splitting travel out
from conferences. I just do not. I think it is too easy to sit
there and pound one agency because they had an exorbitant
conference at the expense of all the other agencies that are
doing their travel right. And so I just think we take a look at
it. There is no excuse for spending the kind of money we are
spending on extravagant conferences, but on the other side of
the coin, travel is pretty damn important for these agencies.
And it is very important for me as a Senator from Montana
representing folks out there to make sure the Executive Branch
is able to do the job that they are telling people that they
can do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carper. Those are great points.
I just want to share some commonsense things that I am
aware of in the last couple of days, that we have in my own
family found ways to reduce travel costs. Our youngest son,
Ben, was going to join me at an event, and he could have flown
out of Philadelphia International or he could have flown out of
Baltimore Washington International (BWI). And he did some
checking and found out he could cut his price in half. He paid
for it himself, but he could save 50 percent.
Last night I could have gone back to speak to the Delaware
State Chamber of Commerce on a train, caught it at 6 o'clock as
opposed to 6:05. At 6 o'clock the Acela costs twice as much. I
took the 6:05.
We find that if we want to book an airline flight,
particularly if it is a conference or it is a meeting that is
scheduled weeks or months in advance, the sooner you book it,
as you know, the lower the price. And the same is true for
trains. There are all kinds of common-sense things we can do.
To Dr. Coburn's question, and, frankly, raised by others,
of when the cameras are turned off, when the spotlight is off,
how do we make sure that agencies do not backslide, and a big
part of it is transparency. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
And we have a 24/7 media. They are looking for stuff to report
on, and they like to do ``gotcha'' when it serves--and it is
good that they do, especially when it serves a positive effect
for the taxpayers and makes sure we get some better results for
less money.
One of the questions I have is: What further can we do on
the legislative side that would actually bolster the efforts of
the Administration, the very positive effects that we have
seen? And when you are thinking about this, if you can give us
some ideas now, that would be good. And I am also going to ask
you to think about this beyond this hearing. If we are to
consider some legislation, what could we do that would actually
further ensure that progress has been made, continues, and
maybe some progress that has not been begins? Please, Ms.
Cobert.
Ms. Cobert. Well, thank you for those comments, and I think
one of the things that we can continue to benefit from is
discussions like this one. Your continuing us to hold us
responsible for the decisions that the Administration is making
is important, and having a dialogue on this is something that
we welcome.
We believe we have made progress with the Executive Orders.
We believe we are continuing to make progress and refine those
and have those work better. And so I would like to take
advantage of your comment and opportunity to come back, because
I think we are learning. We have learned a lot of lessons from
the experiences and success we have had, but we know we can and
need to do more, and we want to continue down that path in
partnership with you.
Chairman Carper. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Tangherlini, same question.
Mr. Tangherlini. I appreciate the opportunity that that
question represents. As an agency that provides a variety of
different travel-related services to other agencies, such as
the ETS system which agencies, most agencies use to book
travel, a FedRooms program in which we have tried to aggregate
the spend demand of agencies so that we can go and negotiate
better prices with hotels, it is a great opportunity for us to
work very closely with OMB so that the Administration can have
a common response to your question.
Chairman Carper. All right. And my last question--we
welcome Senator Ayotte, and I have one last question, and then
I am going to yield to you, Senator. I mentioned earlier that
we had received a number of letters. I asked unanimous consent
that those letters be made a part of the record, and they have
been. One of the concerns raised in one of the letters was from
our Majority Leader, and his letter to the Committee was about
the informal blacklisting of specific locations because of the
perception as resort locations. And to quote Senator Reid, I
think he said--I think this is a quote. It says: ``Any
decisions about government conferences or meetings should focus
on providing the best value to the American taxpayers.'' I
think that is--hard to argue with.
I agree with him. In my opinion, if it makes sense
financially to hold a meeting or a conference in a particular
location, an agency should hold the meeting there. The fact
that the location is someplace that people want to travel to
should not prevent that location from being selected.
And I would just say, Ms. Cobert, are you aware of any
agency directive, either formal or informal, that would
prohibit government conferences in resort or vacation
destinations?
Ms. Cobert. There is no guidance or regulations prohibiting
conferences in resort-type locations. As you have indicated, we
think the decision criteria, if you need to hold a conference,
for where to hold that conference should be based on a number
of factors. It should be based on cost, both the cost of the
conference and the travel, the total cost of the conference. It
should also be based upon effectiveness. Who are you trying to
reach and what is the appropriate location?
And so those are the guidelines that we want agencies to
use in making these decisions, and we believe in doing so they
should consider the range of places that could meet those needs
at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer and providing the
most effective venue.
Chairman Carper. OK, thanks. Thanks so much.
Senator Ayotte, welcome. Glad to see you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE
Senator Ayotte. Thank you. I want to thank the Chairman and
Ranking Member for this important hearing.
I wanted to followup, Ms. Cobert, just to ask you--I very
much appreciate the guidelines that OMB has put in place and
the progress we have seen in really coming down on wasteful
spending with regard to government conferences and how our
taxpayers dollars are being spent. One thing that, as I look at
this, I am a cosponsor of Senator Coburn's legislation. How do
we ensure that we have a permanent change in this culture of
responsibility? Because as I look at it, it took us awhile to
get here, and we have not--in looking back at 2012, that is
relatively recent, and then we can have a change of
Administration where the emphasis would not be there or a
change in your agency, and that happens quite frequently. And
so I guess the question would be: How do we ensure permanent
change in the culture?
Ms. Cobert. I think the question you are raising about a
permanent change in culture is a very important one, and we
believe we are making strides, important strides, in that
direction.
I am particularly encouraged by the reduction in spending
in 2013 that has continued to exceed the savings that we
achieved in 2012 and the decisionmaking and discipline that are
being put into place in different agencies to sustain that kind
of progress.
I think the other elements that are helping us are the
requirements that have been put in place around transparency so
that spending, particularly on large conferences, is visible
and needs to be justified and visible to the American public. I
think as agencies have tried to implement the guidance, they
have also been putting in place new tools and processes for
approvals and decisionmaking and scrutiny that I think will be
sustained, just as the Executive Order will remain in place
unless someone makes an explicit action to rescind it.
Senator Ayotte. One of the things that I think--obviously
what brought us to this position where the guidelines were
issued, there were a number of Treasury IG reports that were
appalling. We have all seen the attention brought to some of
the really outrageous events--foremost, of course, we saw with
some of the events in the hot tub and all those issues.
So one thing I worry about is that if this is just in
guidelines and we do not do something permanent in terms of
legislation, that this goes on the back burner again. And the
things that you are trying to accomplish just become, OK, we
have done it because everyone is paying attention to it right
this moment, but there is no permanent shift there.
So I understand what you are saying, but how do we make
sure that this does not go on the back burner again on behalf
of ensuring that when travel is done, it is done obviously that
people are enhancing their productivity on behalf of the
American taxpayer?
Ms. Cobert. From the Administration's perspective, we are
completely committed to continuing the discipline that we have
put in place and that we need to continue to reinforce and, in
fact, extend. We think transparency helps us there. In the
continuing resolution, for example, there is also ongoing
reporting to the IGs, and we are anxious to continue
cooperating and working with the IG community and their
important oversight role in this area, to continue to apply the
scrutiny that we need for these kinds of events.
So I think the changes in processes, the transparency,
collaboration with the IG community are all parts of ensuring
that the progress we have made is sustained.
Senator Ayotte. I certainly appreciate the OMB guidelines.
Do you think they are sufficient?
Ms. Cobert. We have seen significant reductions in spend.
We are pleased to see that. We also want to be mindful that
things change. As we have talked about today, the opportunities
to use alternatives like videoconference have expanded
dramatically, even in the last couple of years. As those
capabilities continue to expand, we think it is important to
revisit the guidance and make sure that it is, in fact, putting
sufficient pressure on agency behavior, but also not so much
pressure that it prevents them from doing mission-critical
things that do involve physical movement, physical collocation.
So we will continue to evaluate and assess how do we put
the appropriate level of scrutiny and guidance to make sure
that taxpayers dollars are being spent wisely.
Senator Ayotte. So this is something that obviously
requires constant re-evaluation, and then I think the
discussion for us here is: Is there any legislative backdrop
that we need to ensure that there is a permanent culture change
that this Committee would take up?
And then I think another important question is: How do we
measure the value of conferences; in other words, the value
that an employee is receiving and also the value that, of
course, within their role within the government makes them more
productive on behalf of the taxpayer?
Ms. Cobert. The issue about measuring the benefits of
conferences is an important one, and one where we can continue
to have greater discipline. If we send individuals to a
scientific conference, what new ideas do they bring back? If we
send individuals to in-person training, how do we judge the
effectiveness of that training versus doing it online?
So I think there are ways we can and need to continue to
enhance measurement. If we send individuals to a conference to
have outreach to the public, how do we make sure those messages
are getting through? And I think we can continue to work on
being more disciplined about having the right kind of metrics
for the different kinds of conferences and reasons that we are
bringing together. And we are anxious to work with this
Committee and others on finding good ways to measure that.
Senator Ayotte. Can you give me a sense of how much that is
happening now? In other words, when there is a decision to have
a conference, is there, ``Here are our goals up front, what we
hope people will accomplish'' ? How much followup afterwards is
happening in terms of what did you receive of value, how has
that translated toward making your agency in a better,
stronger, more productive position? I do not have a sense of
how much that actually happens.
Ms. Cobert. Because of the restrictions that have been put
on dollars, we see agencies starting to put those procedures
into place in terms of starting at the beginning to justify the
conference. Why are they having it? Who should attend? How do
they think about sharing the information that comes back?
And so the decisionmaking, the tough decisionmaking that
the guidelines have imposed have actually improved that process
in agencies. We are happy to share some of the ways people
think about that, but that is an explicit part of the decision
process. I do not know if you have some specifics you can talk
to, Dan.
Mr. Tangherlini. It really depends on the conference. But
in many cases, particularly conferences that we in the past
have led, we do actually have participant surveys in which we
ask participants whether they felt that this provided value,
rate the quality of, say, the training experience. And we have
used that in the past to--we have used that as we have
discussed the possibility of continuing that activity or
restarting that activity. In most cases it is the latter
because GSA has really stopped offering much in the way of
conferences, and we are asking ourselves the questions: Have we
lost some opportunity for good training, good interaction? And
so we are going back to those participant surveys and seeing if
there is some value there that we have lost.
Senator Ayotte. I know that my time has expired. It seems
to me that I see the value in a participant survey, but I think
that we need to go beyond that in terms of measuring what the
participants are receiving in terms of how it translates to
what they do in the agency. And that requires an objective
view, I think with not only taking feedback from the
participants, but also looking at it from the leadership within
the management, of looking at it objectively toward how do we
translate this into the job roles and making our workers more
prepared and better able to serve.
So I hope that we can go beyond that, and I look forward
to--I think this is a very important issue for the Committee to
address, and I certainly appreciate the hearing today, and I
want to thank Senator Coburn for his legislation on this.
Chairman Carper. All right. We are going to excuse you here
in just a moment. I want to just go back to something that
Senator Ayotte just mentioned, and that is culture. I have been
on this Committee now for 13 years. Dr. Coburn has been on here
almost that long. And one of the things we have sought to do is
to help by working with OMB, working with GAO and Inspectors
General, GSA and others, private groups, is to affect as best
we can, whether it is the Legislative Branch, the Executive
Branch, nonprofits, to start--it is like--I describe it as
changing the course of an aircraft carrier. In the Navy, doing
something hard, we always likened it to changing the course of
an aircraft carrier. Or changing an aircraft engine when you
are in flight, that is really hard. And this is hard to change
the culture of something as big as the Federal Government. It
does not mean you do not try.
And part of our responsibility here in this Committee for a
long time has been to really try and try again. I think we are
blessed right now with good partners in the Executive Branch,
and I am very much encouraged by what is being reported here
today. Obviously we can do better, and we want to do better.
And one of the questions that you are going to be thinking
about and coming back to us on is a point that you have made
and Dr. Coburn and others have made: Is there something more
that we could be doing legislatively that would be really
constructive, positive, and productive? My hope is that there
will be, and if there is, we can work on something on a
bipartisan basis.
Thank you very much. It is just a pleasure considering that
your nominations came before us not that long ago, not that
many months ago, and you had a chance, Mr. Tangherlini, for a
number of--actually, a year and a half or so now to serve on an
acting basis, now on a confirmed basis, to see the work that
you are doing, the leadership that you are providing. I am
reminded again how important it is to have confirmed
leadership, Senate-confirmed leadership in place in these
important jobs, and you are a strong reminder of that to us
today.
When you get any of our questions, please respond to them.
Thank you very much for your leadership, your stewardship, and
your presence here today. Thank you. [Pause.]
I am going to ask the Committee to come back into order,
please. We are pleased to welcome our second panel of witnesses
made up of three Inspectors General, and some of you have been
before us before, and we welcome you back. I am just going to
give a real brief introduction, and we will turn to you to make
your statements.
Our first witness on this panel is Inspector General
Michael E. Horowitz, who was sworn in as the fourth confirmed
Inspector General for the Department of Justice, a little less
than 2 years ago, I think, April 16, 2012. As Inspector
General, Mr. Horowitz oversees a nationwide workforce of
approximately 450 special agents, auditors, inspectors,
attorneys, and support staff whose mission is to detect and to
deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in the Department of
Justice programs and to promote economy and efficiency in
Department operations. Prior to being confirmed as Inspector
General, Mr. Horowitz was a partner in Cadwalader, Wickersham &
Taft and also served for many years as an attorney at the
Department of Justice. We thank you very much for joining us
and for your service today.
Next, we have Inspector General of the U.S. General
Services Administration, Brian D. Miller. Mr. Miller was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 22, 2005, so it has been 8
years. As Inspector General, Mr. Miller leads special agents,
lawyers, and support staff in conducting nationwide audits and
investigations. His office's work on GSA's 2010 Western Regions
Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, has had a ripple effect on
travel and conference spending across our Federal Government
and is one of the main reasons we are here today, and we thank
you for that. Prior to becoming Inspector General at GSA, Mr.
Miller worked for the U.S. Department of Justice for 15 years.
Thanks again for your work and your presence today.
Our third witness is J. Russell George, who has served as
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration since
November 2004, almost a decade. Prior to assuming this role,
Mr. George served as the Inspector General of the Corporation
for National and Community Services for several years. In
addition to his duties as the Inspector General for Tax
Administration, Mr. George serves as a member of the Recovery
Accountability and Transparency Board and a member of the
Integrity Committee of the Council of Inspectors General for
Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). I think that makes you twice
a citizen. But Mr. George began his career as a prosecutor in
Queens and later served as staff director and chief counsel for
the Government Management Information and Technology
Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. George,
great to see you, and thank you for joining us today.
We all look forward to your testimonies, and your entire
statements will be made part of the record. Feel free to
summarize as you wish, and try to keep within about 7 minutes,
and then we have our caucus luncheons before too long, so we
would like to get to them before they are over. So thank you
again for your good work and for your testimonies today.
Mr. Horowitz, do you want to lead us off?
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ,\1\ INSPECTOR
GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Chairman Carper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz appears in the Appendix
on page 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Carper, Dr. Coburn, Members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify at today's important
hearing.
Since 2007, my office has conducted two audits of
conference spending by the Department of Justice. In both of
those reports, we identified significant concerns regarding
conference expenditures and reporting.
In September 2007, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
issued an audit report examining 10 conferences sponsored by
DOJ components between October 2004 and September 2006. We
found that Department sponsors did not ensure that conference
event planners offered the best value for the fees charged. We
further found that expenditures for meals and receptions
appeared to be excessive, and that significant service charges
were applied to such costs. Further, we identified inconsistent
reporting of conference expenditures by components to the
Department's leadership, and that the Department did not
maintain a single financial reporting system capable of
providing the costs of Department conferences.
We made 14 recommendations to the Department. For example,
we recommended that the Department implement specific guidance
regarding cost comparisons for conference locations and venues;
that they develop conference food and beverage policies; and
that they evaluate methods for the use of external conference
event planners. In response to our recommendations, the
Department issued new guidelines on conference planning and
reporting.
In a followup audit that we did in September 2011, we
reviewed again 10 conferences from the Department that occurred
this time between October 2007 and September 2009. We found
continued concerns with regard to certain spending on
conference event planners. We further found that some
Department components did not minimize conference food and
beverage costs as required by Federal and Department
guidelines. We made 10 recommendations in that report to the
Department, including that the Department only use training and
technical assistance providers when it was the most cost-
effective method available; the components be required to
conduct a cost/benefit analysis when considering whether to
order food and beverages in order to obtain free meeting space;
and that the Department establish food and beverage guidelines
for conferences supported by cooperative agreement funds.
Shortly after this audit, OMB issued memoranda addressing
conference spending, and in June 2012, the Department released
revised policies on conference spending.
Yesterday the Department provided us with a report on
conferences it held in fiscal year 2013, and the report showed
that the Department spent approximately $23 million last fiscal
year on conferences, significantly less than it did in fiscal
year 2012.
Now that we have this information, the OIG intends to
initiate shortly an audit of selected conferences identified in
yesterday's report which will enable us to not only evaluate
whether the Department expended funds in an appropriate manner
but also to, most importantly, I think, assess the additional
controls it implemented in June 2012.
The OIG plays a critical role in ensuring that taxpayer
money is spent effectively and efficiently. We will continue to
do all we can to oversee conference expenditures by the
Department.
I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee
may have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carper. Thank you so much.
Inspector General Miller, thank you.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. BRIAN D. MILLER,\1\ INSPECTOR GENERAL,
U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Miller. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify at today's hearing. I appreciate the Committee's
longstanding interest in oversight as well as its continued
support of my office's oversight efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on
page 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our reviews of GSA conferences found: contracts signed by
individuals without a contracting warrant; contracting officers
being brought in after the fact to ratify decisions already
taken by event planners rather than in the initial acquisition
planning process; the use of outside event planners without a
contract with the agency; improperly providing source
information to contractors; and other examples of non-
compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and
the General Services Administration's manual.
After our report on the Western Regions Conference,
congressional oversight and transparency increased, which led
to more accountability and internal controls. For example, GSA
has recognized and consolidated its Office of the CFO and the
Office of Administrative Services, which implemented tight
controls over conference and travel spending. Additionally, GSA
introduced an online training session on conference attendance
that is mandatory for every employee.
In 2013, the Congress required agencies to report
conferences costing over $20,000 to their Offices of Inspectors
General within 15 days. Additionally, OMB directed agencies to:
one, significantly reduce travel expenses; two, initiate
senior-level review and approval of all planned and future
conference expenses in excess of $100,000; three, prohibit
expenses in excess of $500,000 unless an agency head provides a
waiver in writing; and, four, publicly report on all conference
expenses in excess of $100,000. The memorandum also directed
the Department of Defense, GSA, and OMB to review the Joint
Federal Travel Regulations and the Federal Travel Regulation to
ensure that policies promote cost savings.
Theoretically, these requirements should discourage further
conference abuses. I think a continued focus on transparency in
conference spending will help ensure that internal controls and
accountability remain. While I am encouraged by the steps GSA
has taken, we have not had occasion to review a more recent
conference, and accordingly, our assessment, while positive, is
only theoretical.
In closing, I would like to thank the Committee for their
continued support of my office, and I welcome any questions
that the Committee may have.
Chairman Carper. Thanks so much, Mr. Miller. Mr. George.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. J. RUSSELL GEORGE,\1\ INSPECTOR GENERAL
FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Mr. George. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Dr. Coburn, Senator
Johnson. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss IRS
conference spending. Today's testimony highlights the results
of our audit of IRS conference spending for fiscal years 2010
through 2012 and updates the IRS' progress implementing our
nine recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. George appears in the Appendix on
page 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the IRS spent an estimated $49 million for 225
conferences during the 3-year period. Our primary focus was on
an August 2010 management conference held in Anaheim,
California. This conference was selected because the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) received an
allegation of excessive spending and it was the most expensive
conference that they held.
The conference was held at the Marriott, Hilton, and
Sheraton hotels in Anaheim in August 2010 at a reported cost of
$4.1 million and for an estimated 2,600 executives and
managers.
Some of our key findings for the Anaheim conference
include:
The IRS did not have effective controls to track and report
the costs of conference;
The IRS used two event planners that were not under
contract with the IRS and had no incentive to negotiate a
favorable room rate. They were paid an estimated total of
$133,000 in commissions by the hotels, and rather than
negotiate for a lower room rate, the planners specifically
requested 25 or more very important person (VIP) suite
upgrades, complementary drinks, and other refreshments.
Other examples of questionable spending include: planning
trips costing $35,000; two video productions shown at the
conference; $44,000 in travel costs for employees to staff
information booths in an exhibition hall; gifts and trinkets
given to IRS employees costing $64,000; and $135,000 expended
for outside speakers.
To its credit, annual conference spending at the IRS
dropped from $38 million in fiscal year 2010 to $5 million in
fiscal year 2012. The IRS attributes the reduction of spending
in part to enhanced policies and controls which include
Department of the Treasury and Office of Management and Budget
guidelines.
I also want to point out that conferences can serve an
important function at the IRS. For example, the IRS nationwide
Tax Forums offer 3 days of seminars presented by IRS personnel
in the fields of tax law, compliance, and ethics. These forums
provide training and outreach to taxpayers and practitioners.
I believe the policies and guidelines issued since the
Anaheim conference by the Department of the Treasury will help
to ensure that some of the questionable expenses we identified
do not recur. However, notwithstanding these actions, we
identified additional improvements needed and, again, made nine
recommendations to enhance controls. The IRS agreed with these
recommendations and in response has issued interim guidance.
According to the IRS, this guidance will be formalized in a
future update to the Internal Revenue Manual. Specifically, the
IRS has issued guidance to: enhance controls over the
monitoring and tracking of conference spending; clarify when
conference sessions qualify for continuing professional
education credits; ensure applicable IRS personnel are
contacted to coordinate future conference spending; outline the
appropriate use of nongovernmental event planners; clarify when
planning trips should be performed for conferences; institute a
video review board to approve requests for video development
across the IRS; outline the appropriate use of hotel room suite
upgrades by IRS employees; and clearly outline the need for and
value provided by any information corridors and exhibitor
halls. Once the IRS finalizes its interim guidance, we at TIGTA
plan to issue a final report on whether the IRS has fully
implemented all of our recommendations.
Chairman Carper, Dr. Coburn, Senator Johnson, thank you for
the invitation to appear. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Carper. All right. Thanks to each of you for what
you have reported and shared with us today. It is actually
quite encouraging, the work that you are doing and the folks
that you lead are doing. We are grateful for that.
Dr. Coburn said to me at the end of the first panel, he
said, ``We are talking about culture change.'' And he said the
kind of culture change we need, and I will paraphrase him, is
to better ensure that Federal employees are spending Federal
dollars as if it were their own money. And I think there is a
lot of wisdom in those words.
I am not entirely sure how we do that, but I think in my
life, and my guess is probably yours as well, when I have been
involved in the expenditure of State monies as Governor and
treasurer, I tried to think of it, if this were my money, how
would I want to be spending it, and I would like to think I
would bring the same kind of discipline today.
One of the things that was actually very effective for me
in looking at the way that we managed State monies in Delaware
in my earlier roles is that we had a reporter for our only
statewide newspaper whose name was Ralph Moyed, and he is now
deceased, but the last thing you wanted--a guy in my business,
the last thing you wanted--and my guess is Dr. Coburn and
Senator Johnson probably have reporters back in their States.
The last thing I wanted to see was an article that he had
written about one of the programs that I was responsible for
running or expenditures that we had made that was kind of a
``gotcha'' piece that would be on the front page of the paper
above the fold in Pearl Harbor size type.
What we would actually use is we were trying to think about
doing something, an outlay or an expenditure or some policy, we
would always say to ourselves, ``Now, how would we like to see
this reported on by Ralph Moyed and see that front-page article
above the fold in Pearl Harbor headline?'' It was actually
helpful discipline.
The first question I want to ask of you is this: You heard
the first panel of witnesses that were here. You have given us
your own testimony. Just react, if you will, to some of the
discussion that you heard between them and with us,
particularly how do we make sure that we do not backslide, the
agencies do not backslide? What further can we do here from the
Legislative Branch that would be constructive toward making
sure that we do not backslide, that we actually build on the
good work that is being done? Mr. George.
Mr. George. Senator Carper, and I refer to this in my
statement--yes, you do not want a culture of people sitting in
hot tubs taking pictures of themselves drinking flutes of
champagne.
Chairman Carper. At least not on Federal dollars.
Mr. George. Well, exactly. But there is no question that it
is imperative that we do not go too far in the other direction,
too; that people need to have interaction. Especially when you
have an organization the size of the Internal Revenue Service
and the great role that it plays, it has to ensure--the
American people have to be assured of the fact that the people
who are working for this organization are top-notch, are
getting that oversight, and, again, there have been some recent
scandals within the IRS where there has been a lack of
communications between headquarters and some field offices. And
I believe that, constant communication--and I am not saying you
have to take 50 people with you, but the head of the agency, in
this instance John Koskinen, the new Commissioner, is going out
and is visiting his largest field offices. And that is
extraordinarily important to ensure that the people out in the
field who are the ones that the majority of Americans interact
with do not feel a disconnect, the employees, the IRS
employees----
Chairman Carper. If I can interrupt just for a second,
Secretary Jeh Johnson shared with us, Dr. Coburn and me, that
is exactly what he is doing in his early days at Secretary,
which is smart. Good thanks. Mr. Miller. Mr. Horowitz.
Mr. Miller. Well, one of the things you raised earlier was
what I will call the ``human factor.'' Unfortunately, there is
a human factor. You always have people who will try and
circumvent the rules. And we saw that with the Western Regions
Conference. We had individuals who knew what the rules were.
They knew the rules so well that they knew how to circumvent
them and minimize the rules. And, unfortunately, you will
always have the human factor.
So as you said, Mr. Chairman, changing the culture is very
important, a vital part of what we are doing, and having
Federal officials treat the money as if it were their own and
to be careful with the money----
Chairman Carper. And I might add to that, it is all well
and good that we want the rank-and-file to use good judgment,
subscribe to these standards that are set. It is really
important that the leaders of these agencies lead by their
example, not do what I say but actually do what I do. Go ahead.
Mr. Miller. Right, ``tone at the top.'' And, we have
identified a number of problems, and I can list a number of
problems with the procurement process. But you could have a
perfectly done procurement for a clown, and it is still
wasteful. So you need to have that leadership, the tone at the
top.
Chairman Carper. I wonder what a perfectly done procurement
for a clown would look like. [Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. Well, they would not be sharing source
selection information, for one thing.
Chairman Carper. I suspect not.
Mr. Miller. But you do have this human factor. But you do
have a number of other problems that it seems that the
Administrator at GSA is trying to address and procedural
problems, so, we do see some progress in theory. We have not
had a chance to test it. As IGs, we look at facts, and we look
at empirical evidence. And so at GSA we have not had a
conference--well, Administrator Tangherlini has testified that
there was not a conference over $100,000, so we have not had
occasion to do a strict audit to test the controls, to review
the controls to see how effective they are.
So, it is one thing to patch a hole in a boat and say,
well, the patch looks pretty good; but until you take it out on
the sea, you will not really see if it is seaworthy.
Chairman Carper. OK.
Mr. Horowitz, just very briefly, please.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, just a couple things. I think what
struck me as I listened to the first discussion and heard my
fellow IGs is how similar the problems were across our
agencies. You had not only the culture issues that have been
discussed; you had a lack of controls such that senior
management, no matter how much they wanted to oversee it, did
not have the controls in place to actually do it. And you had a
lack of good reporting data going upstream. And that has been
talked about, and that is still an issue, as we have all found
in our various audits.
So you need the culture. You need management to oversee it.
But you also need to give them the tools and the ability to
actually do the work we are talking about. And the other part
of this, which Congress has legislated on, is the transparency
issue, making sure the information gets out there because of
the importance of the transparency on these conferences.
I will add just one other thing that we have talked about
in our reports that I think is critical, and that is the cost/
benefit analysis, it was touched on briefly but really has not
seeped in across the board. It covers a variety of issues. We
found it on event planners. Many of the components were doing
it on their own. They did not need event planners. It was not
hard work internally, what you would expect in an organization,
private sector or public sector, to think about what is the
benefit of what we are getting versus what we are spending. And
that goes to what Senator Ayotte mentioned and some of the
things we have talked about internally in my office, which is
are folks being required to document before the conference what
the value is, what the justification is, and afterwards, what
is the after-action on it? Is someone doing followup?
There are not perfect systems in place. That is a very
difficult thing to do. But the discipline of doing it in and of
itself I think has great value.
Chairman Carper. All right. Great. And before I turn it
over to Dr. Coburn, I will just say this: We will be providing
our colleagues some time to submit questions for the record,
and we would appreciate your prompt response to those
questions.
One of the questions I will be submitting, again--and I
mentioned this to the first panel--is that if there were to be
some kind of legislative action relating to these issues to try
to make sure that we do not backslide; by the same token,
whether there is value in travel and in conferences that
actually takes place. But if there were to be legislation, what
would you suggest that we consider? And if you could
collaborate and actually reach out to some other IGs, that
would be all the better. Thank you. Dr. Coburn.
Senator Coburn. Thank you. Just to comment on Inspector
General George's comment, there are conferences and then there
is a conference. A Commissioner of the IRS going out to see his
troops is not a conference. It is leadership. It is management.
And if we cannot ascertain the difference between good
management where you are going out to, one, be informed of the
troops, but also communicate leadership, and a conference, then
we have bigger problems than we have even begun to think about.
And it kind of goes back to what Senator Tester mentioned in
the earlier panel. It is not about that. We are not talking
about that. We are talking about the excesses of meetings
mainly for Federal employees and their benefit, and many times
those are proper conferences that could be done much more
economically with much lower costs and much more efficiently.
So I take your comments to heart, Inspector General George.
There is no question we want them to continue to do that. We
are not trying to squelch any of that. We want good leadership.
And he is displaying that as he travels. So is Jeh Johnson as
he travels. So it is not about that.
General Horowitz, if DOJ tomorrow for this year wanted to
spend $150 million on conferences, is there anything to keep
them from doing it?
Mr. Horowitz. Subject to as long as the Attorney General
(AG) approved the expense and----
Senator Coburn. Yes, so if they want to----
Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. Determined it was consistent
with their guidelines, they could go forward and do it.
Senator Coburn. So even though 12-12 is on the books, there
are no consequences for not following it.
Mr. Horowitz. Other than our after-the-fact review that we
would do.
Senator Coburn. Yes, but that is after the fact, and the
money is out the door. So the point is one of the things is
transparency, which is part of that. But to really have
transparency to where each agency submits their conference
costs.
You mentioned private sector. There is not a business in
the world that does not look at what it spends on conferences
to see if they are getting value out of the conference. Do they
sometimes use conferences as ``atta-boy's'' to motivate? Yes,
and there is not anything wrong with the Federal Government
doing that as well. But the question is: Did we get some value
out of it as we spent those dollars?
And so there is a big cultural difference between Federal
management and private management, and one is their job is
dependent on them doing it efficiently and effectively and they
are growing the bottom line every year. The other is I am
penalized if we do not spend all the money we have. That is the
difference in the cultures.
And so I think, first of all, let me say to each of you I
am so thankful you are where you are. I appreciate personally
as a taxpayer, as a Senator, and as a grandfather that you have
an open eye. I do not know what we would do without our
Inspectors General in terms of catching things and bringing our
attention. But I think the most important thing that I worry
about is there is a spotlight right now. Everybody is focusing
on it. It has been in the press. And that is not going to be
the case 5 years from now.
So I am not fearful of having some legislation as long as
it is commonsense, it does not restrict the ability of
management to make good decisions, but the most important thing
is transparency on what you are doing and why you are doing it
and what the cost/benefit analysis is.
Do you all have any disagreement with that?
Mr. George. I do not have a disagreement with that, but if
I may beg your indulgence, Senator, because you have raised
some very cogent points and you touched on something that
Senator Tester mentioned. When the IRS holds their nationwide
Tax Forums, which, again, are extraordinarily beneficial for
all involved, the most well attended one happens to be in Las
Vegas because a lot of people like to go to Las Vegas. That
does not mean that--and we have not had allegations that IRS
employees have been out gambling instead of training. But it
does bring together the tax preparer community, which is
extraordinarily important when we have this ever changing tax
policy that is occurring.
Senator Coburn. Well, there is no problem with that. The
fact is they are out to educate the people who are key to
compliance with the Tax Code. It does not matter where they
have it because the vast majority of that money is not spent by
the Federal Government. It is spent by the tax compliers. And
they are free to spend their money any way they want. And so
that may be a popular destination for the whole country. That
is not the question. The question is not whether we are doing
it to train people outside of the government. The question is:
Are we doing this as a fluff or an ``atta-boy'' for Federal
employees? And I think most of them would rather have a bump in
their general schedule (GS) level or a bonus than travel. So we
have hit that with a dead horse.
Mr. George. I can assure you, sir, I have never gone to
Vegas, just for the record.
Senator Coburn. OK. [Laughter.]
One of the things I think would be interesting, General
Miller, is what are the things that other agencies can learn
from what you all have done in terms of looking at this? In
other words, they do not have to reinvent the wheel. They can
actually come and look at your work product and say we are
going to go and apply this. Has that happened to your knowledge
in other agencies? Have they contacted you and said, ``Hey, we
are looking at this. How did you go about it?''
Mr. Miller. Not from other agencies. Other IGs have
contacted me and said, ``We are looking at conferences. What
did you learn? How can we look at this effectively?'' In fact,
Russell contacted me and other IGs have contacted me about
that.
But as far as other agencies, no, they have not. There are
some general things to look at. Obviously, are employees
familiar with the policies and procedures and regulations? Is
there this lack of visibility that you talked about with the
first panel? This problem of finding out how much did the
conference cost. That was a huge problem with the Western
Regions conference because they funded it out of about four or
five different pots. And when you asked them how much did it
cost, it was, a fraction of what the real cost was. And that is
also our problem in looking at previous conferences at GSA over
the years, because the stated cost is often not the true cost.
And so tracking that funding is a huge----
Senator Coburn. That kind of goes to the Anaheim
conference. You do not really know what the true cost of that
conference is, correct?
Mr. George. That is correct.
Senator Coburn. Supposedly $4.1 million, but you really do
not know. It is in excess of that. We can all assume that.
Mr. George. Yes, we do not have an exact amount.
Senator Coburn. So one final point. Anything that we would
do--one of the things, transparency is really helpful. So if,
in fact, we had a report to Congress every year by each agency
or to the OMB with a copy to Congress, here is what we spent on
conferences, here is how many people attended, here is our
cost/benefit analysis, this is on our website--like we said,
they are supposed to be on the website, but they are not there,
I can assure you. So that is not transparency.
So if, in fact, you say there is a report to Congress that
is due every year, here is what we spent on conferences, here
is how many people went, here is what our goals were, here is
our cost/benefit analysis, just the fact that you have to
report that--now, as you said, they are not always going to
follow the law, but the fact is that now is a requirement of
statute: justify your spending of money.
Then, in fact, we might see some change. There is no
question we have. The Justice Department went from $90 million
to $57 million now to $23 million. So, we are at a fourth of
what we were 3 years ago in just the Department of Justice. And
one of the reasons, one is probably sequester, but the other is
sunshine. Sunshine got put out there. And so all I want is--I
am not always going to be here, Senator Carper is not going to
be here, Senator Johnson is not going to be here. You are not
always going to be here. It is not going to always be a
priority. How do we make sure our thumb stays on this? And it
has to be through transparency, and it has to be through forced
transparency.
So my hope is that you all will teach us more about what we
do. I would love to have your feedback on what you think we
ought to put in that so it is not onerous.
The final point I would make is if that is onerous on an
agency to do that, then they do not have the controls they need
right now to make decisions about conferences. So it cannot be
onerous, and if it is onerous, they do not know how they are
operating their agency, because they should have that
information as it is. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. If I could----
Chairman Carper. Just very briefly.
Mr. Miller. Dr. Coburn, obviously we are not policymakers,
but we are law enforcement, and as law enforcement we like
clear standards, we like bright lines. So that would be
important in legislation.
Agencies also need flexibility to meet unforeseen
circumstances and emergencies, so those are at least two very
broad perspectives from an IG perspective, and we would be
happy to work with your staff on the bill.
Senator Coburn. Thank you very much.
Chairman Carper. All right. Thank you, Tom. Senator
Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one thing
we can do in terms of keeping that spotlight on this would be
something the Committee--I am sorry that Senator Coburn is
leaving. Senator Coburn----
Chairman Carper. I am still here.
Senator Johnson. But I want to give him a shout-out. He has
done a phenomenal job at issuing reports, whether it is his
waste book or various ways of highlighting these issues on an
annual basis. I think a really good bipartisan effort, Mr.
Chairman, is if we as this Committee published once a year that
accumulation from all the different agencies, here is what they
spent on conferences. I would also suggest here is what we
spent on travel and entertainment--well, there should not be
entertainment, I guess, in the government. Certainly there is
in private industry. So, again, we have to shine that
spotlight, and this might be something this Committee could do,
accumulating that information, and getting it out there so that
agency heads realize that this information is going to be
public every year and we are going to make a big deal about it,
and that does not go away. That is a control that I think would
actually work.
Mr. Horowitz, you talked about a lack of good reporting
data. I just want to go through each Inspector General.
Certainly a frustration of mine continues to be a lack of good
information. I mean, the fact that we do not have a common
accounting system, that we do not have a common way of
accounting for these things is ridiculous. This government has
been in existence a lot of years. The fact that we do not have
that commonality through the agencies for reporting is
ridiculous.
So I just want to go down the list here or down the table.
What information do you need? I mean, how would you want to
accumulate it?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think in today's day and age, better
coding. The Deputy Director of OMB mentioned that in the first
panel, how we code well on travel but not in the other areas.
For example, when the Department makes a grant, the
Department--let us assume the Department is not involved in the
conference the grant recipient receives. There is no clear
coding of that. For us to be able to go into the grant and see
there was a conference held with grant money that the
Department was not part of, we have to go rummage through the
report back----
Senator Johnson. Is that a piece of legislation that is
required? I mean, I would think the OMB could basically force
agencies to do so and I was talking about how can we force
action. I would think OMB could do this on their own. But do we
need to pass a piece of legislation to get that commonality of
coding?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I certainly agree with you. I think
stepping back and looking at what is available from the
accounting standpoint, I am certainly happy to talk to my
auditors from what they have seen in looking at cost accounting
and where it could be helpful to them and report back to you on
that.
Senator Johnson. OK. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Well, one thing that would help us in analyzing
conferences is for auditors to have read-only access to all
electronic databases and to have that immediately so there is
not a long delay in filling out forms and getting that access.
We have been successful in getting that access, but that
would be an aspect that would help us to review the
conferences. So that is one thing that would help.
Senator Johnson. If you had proper coding, though, would
you really need the read-only access? Because wouldn't this
information be readily available to any auditor?
Mr. Miller. Well, we always want to verify.
Senator Johnson. OK.
Mr. Miller. So, it may be coded incorrectly.
Senator Johnson. OK, got you.
Mr. Miller. It would help, certainly.
Senator Johnson. Mr. George.
Mr. George. Senator, I would request that the
Appropriations Committee in their appropriations to an agency
indicate on an annual basis or semiannual basis: we want a
report on exactly how much money was expended toward this type
of activity. And, I do not think that would be a rule against
legislating on an appropriations bill; it is simply requesting
a report on how the money was expended.
Senator Johnson. Well, that sets me up perfectly for my
next question. So the first solution is about information,
sunshine, shine the spotlight on the problem, the issue, so
that agency heads, people in these agencies understand that the
public will scrutinize what they are doing.
The second and probably the most effective control--and I
just want to throw this question out to all of you. Do you know
of a more effective control for squeezing efficiencies than
restricting a budget? Is there anything better at generating
efficiencies than decreasing what people have to spend? I will
start with you, Mr. George.
Mr. George. Well, obviously, hearings such as this and
reports from IGs have that impact. But then ultimately tying
performance to how they conduct themselves in an area of this
great import as it is as of now, so whether it is the Deputy
Secretary or whether it is the Assistant Secretary for
Management or the Chief Financial Officer, having, he or she--
--
Senator Johnson. That is not exactly what I was talking
about. That is almost merit pay. What I am talking about, for
example, Mr. George, you talked about the IRS. In fiscal year
2010, they spent $38 million on this, and then in fiscal year
2011 $6 million, and then in fiscal year 2012 $5 million. There
I would think the IRS is going to have to squeeze some
efficiencies out of their conference and travel spending,
correct?
Mr. George. That is correct.
Senator Johnson. Is anybody squealing about that? Have we
gone too far? Are we being penny-wise and pound-foolish
spending $5 million?
Mr. George. It is too early for me to make a definitive
statement in response to that, sir, but we will definitely look
at the impact that this has had on training and on other
communications with taxpayers.
Senator Johnson. But as a manager in the private sector,
that would be my first--if I have abuse in a Department, I
would go, OK, you are getting less money, and let us see how
you operate with less money. And, again, then you have the
pushback, as Senator Ayotte and Senator Tester were talking
about, in terms of that cost/benefit analysis, going, well,
maybe it went too far.
Wouldn't that be a pretty effective control? I mean, we
talk about all these controls in theory, but the most effective
control is how much money do you have to spend?
Mr. George. I concur with everything that you have said,
sir, but with the caveat again that when you are talking about
the Internal Revenue Service, the income-generating arm of the
U.S. Government, you really, if anything, want to ensure that
they have the resources necessary. Yes, restrict how they can
expend those resources, but I----
Senator Johnson. Oh, sure. No, I am talking about budgets
within the agencies, how you allocate those funds.
Mr. Miller, do you have any disagreement with what I am
saying there?
Mr. Miller. No, none. Purse strings have always been an
effective tool for the legislature.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Horowitz.
Mr. Horowitz. None.
Senator Johnson. Well, so there we go. We have a unanimous
opinion there that--from my standpoint, the first place to
start is in their budgets. Let us pare them back, let us force
efficiency. Then we will go back to the agencies and go, ``Did
we go too far? ''
Mr. Horowitz. And can I add on that, one of the important
things about that is to understand then for the oversight body,
the IGs, the leadership. How did each agency get there? What
were the best practices? Sharing the information across
departments so that others can benefit. Much as you have asked
what we have done, I think that is the other part of it. How do
you get efficiencies? Who is using the video teleconferencing?
How are they using it? Who is using it most effectively?
Just to give you an example, one of the things on training
that we have been struggling with at the Department, I have a
law license. I need continuing legal education. I have my
auditors, I have my agents. Webinars, private sector, being
used widely. We are almost allowed to do it. For security
reasons it has been a struggle to get there for the Department
as a whole.
Senator Johnson. That is really what OMB should be driving.
Ms. Cobert--I think she is in a perfect position. I think she
has the exact skill set to be that accumulator of best
practices, to disseminate that out to the agencies.
So, again, I want to also second what Dr. Coburn said as
well, that it is the IG community, places like the GAO, that
give us that kind of accountability. So I appreciate your
service and really look forward to working with you in the
future to make sure that we put these effective controls in
place.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carper. Thank you.
I want to followup, just before we close out here, return
to what one of the points I think Senator Johnson was making at
the beginning of this round of questioning. I think what he is
getting at is what are some of the challenges that your offices
face in conducting audits and what do you need to enable you to
improve the auditing of travel and conference spending. And I
would just followup and add to that, do some of these
accounting and reporting challenges affect other areas of your
auditing and investigative work? I am going to ask you to
answer that on the record, and we will provide that question on
the record, but I want us to drill down on that point.
In closing, a couple of themes that I would like to close
with. First of all, thanks again so much for your work and for
being here with us today to be part of this. I think it is a
very valuable conversation. A lot of times we beat ourselves up
because we do not do a very good job, and with respect to our
responsibilities and stewardship in government, I am actually
encouraged that some very good work is being done, and we have
seen the amount of money being spent in travel and conferences
reduced by $3 billion from 2010 to 2013. And my hope is that we
have still gotten our money's worth, the taxpayers' money's
worth for the dollars that are being expended. And my belief is
that to the extent that we use that sunshine, use that
transparency, we will continue to wring some savings out of
this.
I would also say that I am, as Senator Johnson and others,
interested in spending money in a smarter way, in some cases
spending no money in a particular area or less money. But there
are some areas where we find that we actually spend money and
we get a multiple return of $2, $3, $5, $10 for the money that
we outlay. So we have to be smart in keeping that in mind.
I like to--and Senator Johnson has heard me say this, talk
about the two C's, communicate and compromise. These are two
keys for a long marriage. They are also the keys for a vibrant
democracy, communicate and compromise.
The third I sometimes mention is collaboration, and we have
a good collaboration going on in this regard with respect to
the spending in this area of our government. And you are a big
part of it. I think we are. So is OMB, GAO, GSA, and some folks
from the nonprofit groups. So we have to keep building on those
three C's, I believe, going forward.
And the last thing I want to say, I think a fair amount
about employee morale within the Federal workforce. We received
just weeks ago an annual evaluation that is done by a
nonprofit. They evaluate in 300 Federal agencies the morale of
the workforce. It is important. Why is that important? Well, it
is important for us to attract good people, and it is important
to retain them and for them to feel satisfaction in their work
and maybe, hopefully from that, want to work even harder and be
more effective.
I like to reflect on a study done about--reported about a
year ago, it was an international study, and people around the
world were asked the same question: What do you like about your
work? That was the question. What do you like about your work?
And people had different answers. Some people liked getting
paid; they liked their paychecks. Some people liked getting a
vacation. Some people liked having health care. Some people
liked having a pension.
But the answer that was shared by more answers than any
other was they appreciated most of all knowing that the work
that they were doing was important and the feeling, the belief
that they were making progress--that the work they were doing
was important, and they felt that they were making progress.
And I am sure there are some people who enjoy their job because
of the trips they get to take, the conferences that they get to
go to, the travel that they get to take.
But at the end of the day, I think Federal employees are
like a lot of other people around the world. They know that the
work that we are doing is important, and they want to go home
at night and feel that we are making progress, that they are
making progress and we are making progress, in part because
they have better leadership, including Senate-confirmed
leadership, and that they know that we are interested in trying
to make sure they have the resources that they need. But, you
cannot always get what you want, but if you try sometime, we
can get what we need. And part of what we need here is good
oversight and good direction and continued adherence to the
three C's, especially that last one--collaboration.
All right. With that, I think it is a wrap. I think we have
about 2 weeks for those who are Members of the Committee who
would like to submit questions, and we just ask that, as you
receive those, please respond to them promptly. We look forward
to continuing to work with you on these venues and a lot of
others.
With that having been said, we thank you again. It is good
to see you all.
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. George. Thank you.
Chairman Carper. Keep up the good work, and please convey
our thanks to the folks who work with you. All right? Thank
you.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]