U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

88–270 PDF 2014

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 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

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 
(III) 

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 
Page

IV 

Additional statements for the Record from—Continued 

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 
(1) 

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. 
2 

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. 
3 

1 Additional statements for the Record appear in the Appendix on page 74. 

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. 

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 
4 

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. 
5 

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 
6 

1The prepared statement for Ms. Cobert appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

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. 

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 
7 

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. 
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Tangherlini appears in the Appendix on page 52. 

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. 

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 costeffective, 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 sup-
9 

port 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 missionrelated 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 dif-
10 

ferent 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 dia-
11 

logue, 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 
12 

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? 
13 

1The OMB Memo referenced by Senator Coburn appears in the Appendix on page 201. 

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. 

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—— 
14 

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 
15 

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 
16 

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. 
17 

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? 
18 

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 actu-
19 

ally 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 
20 

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, 
21 

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. 
22 

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 oneon-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. 
23 

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 be- cause 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 
24 

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 
25 

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. 
26 

Mr. TANGHERLINI. I appreciate the opportunity that that question 

represents. As an agency that provides a variety of different travelrelated 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 
27 

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 al-
28 

ternatives 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, 
29 

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 
30 

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 
31 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz appears in the Appendix on page 57. 

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. 

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 
32 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the Appendix on page 62. 

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. 

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 con-
33 

1The prepared statement of Mr. George appears in the Appendix on page 65. 

ference 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. 

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 
34 

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 
35 

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 procure-
36 

ment 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 
37 

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 depend-
38 

ent 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? 
39 

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 
40 

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—— 
41 

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 
42 

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. 
43 

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 
44 

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.] 
(45) 

A P P E N D I X 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 

Æ