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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–027 PDF 2006

S. Hrg. 109–634

FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CONFERENCE SPENDING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL 

SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 7, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

KATY FRENCH, Staff Director 

SHEILA MURPHY, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LIZ SCRANTON, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Coburn ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 4

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 26

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006

Scott H. Evertz, Former Director, White House Office of National AIDS 

Policy ..................................................................................................................... 6

Charles Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Budget, Technology and Finance, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ............................................. 13

Sid Kaplan, Acting Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of State .............. 14

James M. Martin, Acting Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development ...................................................................................... 16

Michael W.S. Ryan, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................................................... 18

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Evertz, Scott H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32

Johnson, Charles: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 37

Kaplan, Sid: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48

Martin, James M.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 53

Ryan, Michael W.S.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement with an attachment ....................................................... 60

APPENDIX 

Charts submitted by Senator Coburn: 

‘‘What Federal Employees Spend While Attending A Domestic Conference’’ .......................................................................................................... 29

‘‘What Federal Employees Spend While Attending A Foreign Conference’’ 30

‘‘Federal Agencies and Conference Spending 2000–2005 .............................. 31

Questions and Responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Johnson ...................................................................................................... 65

Mr. Kaplan ........................................................................................................ 75

Mr. Martin with attachments .......................................................................... 84

Mr. Ryan with attachments ............................................................................. 93

(1)

FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CONFERENCE 

SPENDING 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Coburn, Carper, and Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN 

Senator COBURN. The Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security Subcommittee of the 

Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee will come to 

order. 

I want to thank all our guests for being here. I’ve asked Mr. 

Evertz to go first because I thought it appropriate insight for somebody who’s worked within an agency for the agencies to hear what 

somebody on the ground feels about this. And we’ve asked him to 

testify first, and I would appreciate your indulgence as we do that. 

I know your time is valuable, and it’s not meant to take your time 

from your obligations. 

One of our key goals is to reestablish accountability and transparency within the Federal Government. And that’s what drives 

the oversight work of this Subcommittee. Unaccountable spending 

of tax dollars is an abuse of power. It also is an abuse of the heritage of this country, where we’ve had a heritage of sacrifice for the 

next generation so their economic opportunities will be appropriate. 

When Congress exercises its constitutionally-derived power by 

levying taxes, but then fails to insist upon accountability, we deprive Americans of the checks and balances to which they are entitled. 

Last summer, I sent a letter to every Federal agency requesting 

a full accounting of conference spending and participation from 

2000 to 2005. Some responses were very thorough. Some were indecipherable. And some didn’t show up at all. And that is unacceptable. And it belies a greater problem within the Federal Government, that of a lack of availability of numbers to those who are in 

charge of making decisions based on those numbers. 

2

The reports are astounding. Since the year 2000, we’ve spent 

$1.4 billion on conferences, including both underwriting conferences 

as well as sending Federal employees to conferences. Between 2000 

and 2005, the total Federal conference spending increased 70 percent. 

What amazes me even more is this increase occurred during a 

challenging time for our country, a time when our priorities should 

have been dramatically realigned. We are at war. We face tremendous natural disasters. We face unfettered growth in unfunded liabilities for our entitlement programs that are nearly $60 trillion. 

Historically, presidents have shifted priorities under these conditions. During a time of great challenge and war, President Roosevelt cut non-defense spending by 20 percent. Several years later, 

President Truman cut non-military spending by 28 percent. 

Things are different, however, today. For example, HUD increased conference spending a mind-blowing 340 percent over a 4-

year period. Every other agency increased their conference spending significantly. I find that the hearing’s purpose today is to find 

out the accountability and the reasons behind that. 

We’re going to hear testimony today arguing that because agency 

budgets are increasing, spending on meetings and travel must naturally increase proportionately. I would argue just the opposite. As 

discretionary and mandatory spending increase at a rate that is 

going to undermine our children and our grandchildren, it’s all the 

more important to rein in spending on anything less than truly essential meetings. Increased budgets make these expenditures less 

defensible, not moreso. 

There’s a disconnect when conference attendance and spending 

are increasing at the exact time technology is dramatically reducing the need for travel and conferencing. In the modern telecommunications era, it is unnecessary to spend time and resources 

to finance so many conferences. Teleconferences and video conferencing, for example, can save money while allowing the same type 

of interaction and information sharing at a mere fraction of the 

cost. I’m not here to get into the weeds or details of specific conferences, but here are some examples that caught my eye. 

In 2004, at least 59 conferences around the world were attended 

by HHS delegations of greater than 100 Federal employees, including over 1,000 attendees to sunny Orlando. In 2002, HHS sent 236 

employees to a conference in Barcelona, Spain, spending $3.6 million on one single conference. Department of Education sent 158 

employees to a conference in New Orleans. 

Many conferences are set in beach, resort, casino, or European 

tourist destinations, such as Miami, Paris, Palm Springs, Berlin, 

Atlantic City, Rio, or Las Vegas where hotel rates are likely to be 

high and extracurricular temptation to skip the so-called vital conference sessions are even higher. 

HUD participated in the Sacramento Home Ownership Fair, not 

in Sacramento or even in California, but in Honolulu, Hawaii. 

HUD also sent three people to Los Cabos, Mexico for the conference 

about U.S. real estate and urban economics. EPA was the primary 

sponsor of a national conference in that low-cost destination, Honolulu. 

3

One witness today will share his conference experiences as a recent Federal official who worked both at the White House and at 

HHS. He will demonstrate great courage. He reports that there are 

few internal controls on conference attendance or spending, and 

questions the cost-effectiveness of the array of conferences which 

many deride as ‘‘spring break.’’

Ultimately, some of the problems could be avoided simply by increasing transparency. My hope is that this hearing is the beginning of that process. And I’m announcing today we’ll have a followup hearing 4 months from today to see what process has been done 

in terms of accountability, transparency, and follow-up from the results of this hearing. 

There should be a formal vetting and justification process for 

conference requests. I noted in the testimony that some agencies 

have put that in. And this is especially true when technology allows for teleconferencing and the use of internet to exchange information. Every department should document conference spending 

and attendance online in the interest of transparency. 

One outcome of our investigation was the near-unanimous complaint from all the agencies about how hard it was to answer the 

very simple questions that we asked. Most responses came back 

with substantive gaps and missing data. Even these patchy and incomplete responses arrived months after the requested delivery 

date, which meant you had to do hard work to find the information 

rather than having the information at your fingertips. 

The Commerce Department tells my staff that the response is in 

the mail. We’ve not received it yet. The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of the Interior submitted incomplete reports. Some of you just provided 1 year’s worth of conference details, when you were asked for 5 years. 

This difficulty responding to fairly simple questions highlights 

how poorly we track expenditures down to the dollar. Yet that is 

exactly the appropriate and reasonable expectation of taxpayers. 

I do want to commend an exception to the rule. The Department 

of Energy submitted a highly detailed conference report, and actually tallied individual conference costs from 2001 to 2005. They provided a copy of their regulations regarding conference approval and 

travel. 

Every year in their report to Congress, they detail conference 

participation and support for the previous year and the coming 

year’s estimates. They require personnel to explore off-season travel costs, discourage resort and recreational destinations, and they 

consider ‘‘the potential for any adverse appearance associated with 

DOE participation.’’ Although DOE, like other agencies, has increased their conference spending in recent years, at least they 

have internal controls regarding this spending. 

As we go forward, I would encourage agencies to be sure that 

every conference attended by Federal employees passes the following tests: 

Does the conference help further the Department’s mission? 

Could the information be shared through a teleconference or the 

internet? 

Is the location appropriate and justified? 

Is the number of employees attending justified? 

4

Does participation in the conference validate or endorse ideas or 

values harmful to American interests? 

Does the conference give a platform to ideas and panelists who 

undermine American interests? 

Is the conference a wise use of tax dollars when we have an $8.1 

trillion debt? 

Every conference should be readily defensible, on its face, to regular Americans in terms of topic, location, and participants. It also 

should be available to them online on how we spend that money. 

It’s time to scale back. It’s time to make tough decisions. It’s time 

to set priorities. I look forward to our dialogue. 

I would also say that Senator Carper and I are dedicated to 

doing the oversight that’s necessary to help you accomplish what 

you want to accomplish. This isn’t a beating up session. It’s not intended to be—we know that you have great intentions. We also 

know you’re overwhelmed. Our goal is to help you build the process 

whereby you can make great decisions for the American taxpayer. 

It gives me great privilege, after hearing his statement on the 

floor on the asbestos bill, to recognize my contributor in arms in 

tackling the financial problems of our country, Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m honored to be 

here with you, and look forward to this hearing. I thought we had 

a pretty good one—was it yesterday? 

Senator COBURN. In Chicago. 

Senator CARPER. A field hearing in Chicago. And I would just 

add to what the Chairman has said, if I could. When you have a 

budget deficit as large as the one we have and one that it appears 

is going to be with us for some time if we continue to do what we’ve 

been doing, we need to look at every part of our budget. 

We need to look at the taxes that were not collected that are 

owed. We need to look at the improper payments that are being 

made, especially overpayments. We need to look at entitlement programs to make sure that they’re actually going to the people who 

need the help the most. And we need to look at all parts of our discretionary budgets, defense and non-defense. 

And yesterday we were looking, in Chicago, at the management 

of Federal property. One of the questions that we asked of our witnesses was: What do we need to be doing in the Congress, Executive Branch, Legislative Branch? What do we need to be doing on 

real property management that would enable you to do a better job 

of managing your property—have fewer vacant buildings, less unused space, less under-utilized space, less land that frankly is serving no useful purpose. And they actually shared with us some ideas 

of things that we can do to help them. 

And so we weren’t there just to put them on the spot or put a 

spotlight on them in saying, what you’re doing is bad or unlawful 

or anything like that. What we were looking for was to commend 

those who were doing a good job—several were—and to say to 

those that weren’t, what can we learn from the people who are 

doing an especially good job? And so I thought it was most constructive. And my hope is that this will be as well. 

5

I would like to say in addition to that, the Chairman is right. I 

think there’s value, frankly, in pulling people together to meet face 

to face; not all the time, but there’s value in doing that. And 10 

or 15 years ago, we couldn’t do that electronically, but today we 

can. 

And I was in a briefing in the White House not too long ago—

I think it was last month, Mr. Chairman—and we were meeting 

with the President and Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And we 

had about 12 of our colleagues around the table. 

And joining us live in color from Baghdad were Dr. Khalilzad, 

our Ambassador, and General George Casey, our military leader in 

Iraq. And the idea of having us all go over to meet or for them to 

come over here and to meet just makes no sense. But we were able 

to do it using live video, and that’s the sort of thing that we need 

to be doing more of. 

The other thing I would say, in addition to finding out what 

meetings, what conferences, can just as easily be held by video, or 

some of the stuff we do—I’m sure you do it, too—we do it by 

speakerphone, something as rudimentary as just doing it on the 

phone with a bunch of people gathered around these different 

microphones, and doing it that way. 

The other thing is we find that we can save a lot of money. And 

we do some travel that’s government-related. We also do travel 

that’s personal, back and forth, maybe to our States. And we do 

travel that is political, and as we go around the country for different events. 

And what we’ve learned to do is to try to figure out how to handle all that travel, to do all that travel, more cost-effectively. I’ll 

just give you a recent example. By booking flights a couple weeks 

early before the flight as opposed to a couple of days before the 

flight, you can save more than 50 or 75 percent of the cost of a ticket. 

People in my neck of the woods, in Delaware, historically went 

up to Philadelphia to catch flights to go to places. And they found 

that if they were to either drive to BWI, Baltimore-Washington 

International, or take the train to BWI, get off at BWI, and take 

a flight out of BWI, they could save a ton of money, and catch 

flights to take them where they needed to go by airplane for a lot 

less dollars. 

In fact, we found that people could actually pay for their train 

ticket from Wilmington to BWI, get the airline, fly the airline out 

of BWI, fly back into BWI, take the train and go home, and save 

a lot of money, hundreds of dollars, in the meantime. 

So what I hope that we talk about today is not just is it important to bring people together for a conference, but on those occasions when it is, are there other things that we can be doing when 

we say that meeting has to take place—maybe not in Mexico, 

maybe not in Hawaii, maybe not even in Orlando; maybe in Delaware, maybe in Tulsa, where I’ve been before—that we find a really 

cost-effective, efficient way to get there and come home. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you. 

6

1The prepared statement of Mr. Evertz appears in the Appendix on page 32. 

Just to summarize why we are diligent, this last year we added 

a half a trillion dollars to the national debt. And I know how numbers are manipulated in Congress, and I know how they’re manipulated by the Administration. And the deficit doesn’t reflect the true 

cost of what we’re doing to our kids. I also would note that in the year 2000, $88 million was spent on travel and conferences, and in the year 2005, $225 million was 

spent on travel and conferences. No American in this country has 

had that kind of increase in their travel budgets or conferencing 

budgets. You can’t find a firm that’s done it. You can’t find an individual organization. But the government has somehow seen fit 

that’s applicable to us. 

And the whole purpose of this hearing today is to look at it, to 

cause you all to look at it, to be better stewards, and for us to make 

sure you know we’re going to continue to look at it. And it’s not 

just travel budgets. As many of you know, this Subcommittee is 

looking at everything. 

We’re going to have 42 hearings this year on oversighting expenditures within the Federal Government with the hope of sharpening our ability to control the expenses. Every dollar that we 

spend on a conference that could be spent saving somebody’s life 

with HIV or treating malaria or treating TB or drilling a water 

well for somebody in Africa is real dollars making a real difference 

in peoples’ lives. So the purpose for us doing this is noble, and it’s 

not to cast aspersions or to say you care. We know you care. What 

we want to do is help sharpen the focus. 

Let me introduce to you Scott Evertz. He’s the Vice President for 

International Affairs for OraSure Technologies. Mr. Evertz I know 

well. I’ve worked with him in the past when I was out of government. He works with lawmakers and implementing partners of the 

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and with the Global 

Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in Geneva. 

He previously served as the Special Assistant to the Secretary of 

Global AIDS Initiatives, where he developed and implemented 

HHS strategy to combat HIV/AIDS. He also is the former Director 

of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. Your full testimony, Mr. Evertz, will be made a part of the record. You are recognized, and if you would, please let us hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT H. EVERTZ,1 FORMER DIRECTOR, 

WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF NATIONAL AIDS POLICY, VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS FOR ORASURE 

TECHNOLOGIES 

Mr. EVERTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, and 

good afternoon, Senator Carper. 

Senator Ranking Member, you stole my line. I was going to start 

by suggesting that conferences be held in Dover and Tulsa henceforth and hereafter, to gain favor with the Subcommittee. 

The perspective I bring here is, as Chairman Coburn suggests, 

as a former government employee, political appointee in the Bush 

Administration. Senator Coburn, you mentioned our time together, 

when you served as co-chair of PACHA, the President’s Advisory 

7

Council on HIV and AIDS. I enjoyed our work together and want 

to thank you again for your service in that capacity. 

As you suggest, from July 2002 to April 2005, I served as Special 

Assistant to Secretary Thompson on global HIV/AIDS issues. And 

it was in this context that I observed the issues that your Subcommittee is seeking to address. What I discovered and witnessed 

was an attitude of entitlement among certain officials in terms of 

attendance at conferences. And I would suggest a downright arrogance when attendance at those conferences was challenged by 

higher-ups in the agency. 

It appeared to me personally that there was a limitless travel 

budget, and that one could pick and choose which of these conferences to attend. And as you suggest subtly, and I would suggest 

less subtly, there’s a perverse incentive to pick Los Cabos over a 

conference that may be held in Tulsa, with all due respect. 

During my tenure in the Administration, I discovered that these 

conferences and meetings were often a waste of time and money, 

and that there were other technologies that could enable us to access the good information that was being shared at these conferences. 

During my tenure at the White House and at HHS, I never attended the International AIDS Conference held in Barcelona and 

then subsequently in Bangkok, Thailand while I was with the Administration. During that period, though, I would note that I and 

others in the Administration developed the architecture for the 

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Global Fund 

to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria without the benefit of 

having attended those conferences. 

We did so, however, in close consultation with multinational organizations and using many of the technologies to which you refer. 

So clearly, it is possible to address the pandemics that you reference—AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria—without attending costly 

conferences. 

The individual who became my boss, Secretary Thompson, attended the Barcelona conference in 2002, and as many of you will 

remember, was not able to engage in the so-called exchange of 

ideas that occurs at these conferences because he was shouted 

down. He was shouted down, in fact, sir, by many individuals 

whose attendance was paid for by the U.S. Government. 

So when you reference figures around conferences, not only are 

you talking about Federal Government employees that are attending those conferences, but others who are on scholarships from one 

of the many agencies, or whose NGO is supported by the United 

States. I can highlight examples during the question-and-answer 

session. 

But it was always truly amazing to me that we were funding 

nongovernmental organizations and literally enabling them to yell 

at Federal officials at conferences. I was one of those officials in 

one of my first appearances in Atlanta at a CDC prevention conference, and it was all grantees in the audience. And we were simply there to talk and to exchange ideas. 

Even with the United States sending more than 200 attendees to 

the Bangkok conference which followed the Barcelona conference, 

critics of our Administration bemoaned the severe restrictions 

8

being placed on attendance. And quite frankly, sir, there were 

many of us, and still are, in the Administration who did not consider 200 individuals severe restrictions. 

A noted journalist and now Senior Fellow for Global Health at 

the Council of Foreign Relations first criticized the Administration 

for limiting attendance at the Bangkok conference, but having attended the conference herself, summarized what she thought to be 

a less than useful venture by saying, ‘‘To be blunt, top HIV laboratory researchers simply don’t come to the international gathering 

any more, finding it irrelevant.’’ The cost of that conference was nearly $17 million, according to 

organizers. But I would argue there are ancillary costs and expenditures that, beyond the scope of what we’re talking about today, are 

outrageous if you care about fighting HIV/AIDS. 

The pharmaceutical companies and others who have a vested interest in the HIV/AIDS industry sponsor lavish cocktail parties and 

events that cost into the millions. So if you truly were to look at 

the cost of a conference such as that, it’s well above the $17 million 

that’s in my testimony and that you’ve referenced. 

Now, I see on the poster here, life-saving drugs for 5,000 individuals living with HIV for an entire year is what HHS could have 

paid for with conference costs. Let me suggest something else. Optimal AIDS combination therapy, which has definitely lowered in 

price, but optimal therapy costs up to $12,000 per year per patient. 

That’s a very high number, depending upon the regimen and the 

payor. However, even at the optimal cost, if you take the cost of 

the Bangkok conference, we could have put 1,500 additional individuals living with HIV/AIDS on ARVs. 

Perhaps more alarming is the fact that we could administer 

about 3.4 million doses of Nevirapine for the cost of this conference, 

which as you know, sir, prevents the transmission of HIV from 

mother to child. 

Now, these conferences have a value, so lest anyone conclude 

that I’m suggesting they be discontinued, I’m not. But we certainly 

need to consider, as you suggest, sir, in an era of budget deficits, 

and in an era when there are waiting lists in this country for the 

AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which is part of the Ryan White 

Care Act, and increasingly there are countries, even in the 

PEPFAR initiative, that are having trouble getting as many individuals on ARVs as the President would like because of budget constraints, that we look at ways to do this differently and we look at 

what some—and you mentioned in your opening statement, sir, 

conferencing that’s spring break, in essence. 

Now, I’m happy in the question and answers to provide examples. But let me give you one example of a trip that I went on that 

would not be captured—so this is illustrative because this would 

not be captured through any of the numbers that we’re talking 

about today, and that is travel at the invitation of a nongovernmental organization. 

I would suggest to you that in any given month, I could have 

chosen one or two opportunities to be the guest of a nongovernmental organization in my capacity at the White House and at 

HHS. But as you know, it was that Federal agency, the Executive 

Office of the President or HHS, that had to foot the bill. 

9

I attended one of those trips, and if I may digress for just a second, we were in a remote area in the bush in South Africa where 

they were testing individuals for HIV. These incredible volunteers—at this point they were using the finger prick device, not the 

oral HIV tests that my company markets and sells—but they were 

using that device and they were testing individuals for HIV. 

And so we said, well, walk us through this process. Test one of 

us and then tell us what you do. And they started by explaining 

how difficult it was for individuals to get to this testing site because it was—no one lives close to anyone in this part of South Africa. But individuals would take the time. They would go to this 

testing site which—I loosely refer to as a clinic—be tested, and this 

was before the era of the rapid test or as many rapid tests, and 

these individuals had to come back to get their results. 

Many of them did. And of course, then we said, well, then what 

do you do? And the young woman who does the counseling and 

testing said, ‘‘Well, we tell them their results, and if they’re positive, we talk about nutrition and ways to protect their partners and 

their family.’’ And she kind of lowered her head. And she said, ‘‘But 

we can’t give them treatment because we have no treatment.’’

And it was at that point that the irony of a whole group of us 

standing there from the United States, most all of us from the U.S. 

Government, some of your colleagues from the House, and had literally no way to help these individuals. 

Many of us went back and we worked diligently on the PEPFAR 

initiative. But my point is that’s inexcusable. And it literally 

reached—it sunk home with me because on this trip, one of our leisure activities was a safari, and that I had been given the opportunity to attend—to participate in a safari and then had to stand 

here and listen to a woman say, ‘‘We don’t have treatment.’’ Obviously, there’s a whole bunch of logistical issues that would disable 

her from getting treatment. But it’s inexcusable that there’s no 

treatment because of lack of money. 

I’d like to applaud my former boss, Secretary Thompson, for directing his Special Assistant for International Affairs to try to get 

a handle on this. 

Senator COBURN. Let me get you to summarize, if you will. 

Mr. EVERTZ. Yes, sir. It looks like we didn’t, quite frankly. But 

they tried. Dr. Bill Steiger, who is that Special Assistant, put an 

end, basically, to business class travel, which was something that 

Secretary Thompson didn’t appreciate when he started traveling so 

much, but nonetheless sat in the back of the plane while, again, 

individuals from NGOs that we’re funding sat in the front of the 

plane. 

Finally, and I will conclude now with a little anecdote, something 

that’s also not captured, I don’t think, in any of the numbers that 

we’re talking about today is attendance at meetings of the Global 

Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and other such 

multinational organizations. The United States, as are all delegations, allowed to send 10 individuals to these meetings, which are 

held quarterly. 

I witnessed the difficulty in paring down the list to 10. And as 

a good friend of mine, and someone who’s still with the government 

so I’m not going to single her out for fear of reprisal, but suggested, 

10

‘‘So we spend all this money to send government officials to Global 

Fund board meetings to make sure the Global Fund doesn’t waste 

our money.’’ And the answer is yes, because some of those meetings 

are in very nice places. 

Thank you, sir. I welcome your questions. 

Senator COBURN. Just a few questions for you. In terms of abstracts of scientific papers, one of the things that we’re going to 

hear is that NIH needs to travel and needs to be there. And there 

certainly is some validity to that. 

On most of these conferences, aren’t the abstracts of the papers 

that are going to be presented available prior to the conference? 

Mr. EVERTZ. Yes, sir. As I suggest in my written testimony, when 

I mentioned that I never attended the International AIDS Conference, my staff and I, however, did access transcripts, manuscripts, and materials that you reference so that we could do our 

job. 

And quite frankly, it’s a lot easier to do that sometimes in the 

office setting than it is when there are, as you referred in your 

statement to, temptations to skip. We all were tempted to skip, and 

I will tell you right now that I did—not often, but did. It’s quite 

easy. 

Senator COBURN. You indicated there were numerous conferences 

on the same topic throughout the year attended by the same people, in your written testimony. From your experience, are multiple 

conferences useful to fostering new ideas and solutions, or a misuse 

of funds and employee time that could be better spent? 

Mr. EVERTZ. Well, I’m going to answer cautiously. I’m not going 

to answer just flat-out yes because I think that there are some conferences where there are opportunities that could not be gained 

otherwise. 

But there is a conference circuit, sir. And I refer to this in my 

written testimony as a set, if you will, of individuals that you do 

see in Geneva or Doha or Siemreab, Cambodia. And there’s an expectation—and I will attest to it—an expectation that certain people be there. 

Guess what happens when President Bush’s AIDS czar doesn’t 

show up at something? Well, that’s outrageous. Well, criticize me 

for what I did or didn’t do in that position, but don’t criticize me 

for not being at conferences because in my estimation, there would 

have been no added value, or value added, if I attended everything 

on the circuit. I wouldn’t have done anything in Washington. We 

would not have passed the PEPFAR initiative. 

Senator COBURN. One final question. If you were to look at your 

time in HHS and the White House and look at the number of conferences, what percentage of those could have been done through 

teleconferencing or, in your opinion, were absolutely necessary? 

Mr. EVERTZ. I would say—given again the technology that you 

mentioned, I would say at least 75 percent of those conferences, at 

the very least, could have their attendance pared way down. I 

mean, there is a value in face-to-face, and I’m sure that the airline 

industry would quarrel with some of the technologies that we’re 

talking about because there is a value in being face-to-face and 

there is valuable hallway discussions, as it’s referred to. 

11

But let me kind of qualify my answer again. I would say of all 

those conferences that—and I’ve got a calendar here for 2006. 

There’s one every month somewhere, Orlando or Montreal. Oh, 

here’s three: Jacksonville, Quebec, and Arlington. I’m not going to 

the Arlington one. It’s right across the river. Dallas, Miami, Amsterdam, or Hollywood, Florida. That’s cool. Versailles. 

I don’t think—and I don’t see how anyone ever unpacks if they 

attend all of these things. And the answer is, maybe they don’t. 

Pardon the cynicism. But there would be ways. I mean, for instance, the conference in Versailles is the 22nd Conference on Sexually Transmitted Infections. I would be willing to bet that you in 

your practice, sir, could access all of the information that would be 

discussed at this conference without traveling to Versailles, and 

better serving your patients in Oklahoma. 

Senator COBURN. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you so much for being with us today and 

for your presentation and responding to our questions. 

I just want to return to something you said. There is value in 

some cases to being there, not just to be a participant in the formal 

program of a conference, but to have the opportunity to meet some 

people, to talk to them, maybe outside of the conference, maybe 

over breakfast or dinner, and to create—actually to form some relationships that can later on pay real dividends for the people that 

we’re trying to serve. So there’s value that sometimes is a bit hard 

to measure. But I agree with what you said there. 

I just have one question, and it’s a question I ask from time to 

time of folks that appear before us. Knowing what you know, having seen what you’ve seen in this regard, what advice would you 

have to us as to how to reduce the incidence of travel that’s not 

well thought out, and frankly, not especially fruitful? 

Mr. EVERTZ. That’s a good question, Senator. And it sounds like 

DOE, the Department of Energy, has been doing some of that. I 

suggested to you some of that which was implemented at HHS. 

And I would argue those numbers would look worse, perhaps, if 

what Secretary Thompson initiated was not—did not happen, for 

instance, the banning of business class travel. 

The other thing or aspect that was changed is tacking on a personal vacation to official government travel. And this was disallowed. And actually, it’s my understanding that this was disallowed even electronically at HHS by looking at someone’s travel 

orders and determining if in fact a conference ends on such-andsuch a date and their return date is 5 days later, guess what? The 

conference was in Cabo and they’re not returning for 5 days? 

Again, I say cynically, but guess what they’re doing? And you and 

I have paid for their flight there and tacked on a vacation. 

So practically speaking, get rid of that kind of stuff. Practically 

speaking, you get rid of business class travel and you’re talking 

thousands of dollars per ticket. You referenced cost savings in the 

airline industry. 

The other thing that I would suggest is a more robust, rationed 

process of identifying the rationale for attending. I suggested to you 

that 10 individuals from the U.S. Government attend the Global 

Fund board meeting every time the board meeting is held, and that 

it’s usually difficult to limit it to 10. 

12

Now, I work closely with those individuals, and so, Senator, I 

thank you for suggesting that I’m courageous in speaking before 

you because I wouldn’t want to tell you who of the 10 I wouldn’t 

want attending. But guess what? Ten people do not need to attend 

the Global Fund board meeting. 

But there’s no process by which the rationale for travel is determined, at least in my experience at HHS. Now, at the White 

House, which has no money, I didn’t travel much at all. 

Senator CARPER. Again, my question is: What advice would you 

have for us? 

Mr. EVERTZ. The advice—yes. 

Senator CARPER. Concrete things that we can do to reduce the 

amount of travel that’s just poorly thought through. 

Mr. EVERTZ. Well, I think one thing is to have the agencies do 

what HHS has tried, which is to limit number of attendees. I think 

that’s a little simplistic because that doesn’t entirely get at the 

issue of cost. But really, the agencies need to be held accountable 

for these numbers, and those responsible for signing off on travel 

need to be held accountable if the numbers are increasing at a time 

of budget deficits. 

Senator CARPER. OK. The other thing I would add to that, and 

I thank you for that response, Mr. Evertz, I would say to my staff, 

when you’re thinking of doing something and the question of cost 

is a consideration, you’re not sure that it’s the right expenditure 

that actually helps us do our job better and to serve better, just 

imagine a newspaper article—and we only have one statewide 

newspaper in Delaware—just imagine a story on the front page of 

the newspaper above the fold that talks about the particular event 

we’re going to travel to or the meeting or convention we’re going 

to participate in. 

And if it meets that test and you feel like you’d be happy to see 

that story, then let’s go ahead and do it. If not, let’s find another 

way to skin that cat. Thank you. 

Chairman COBURN. Mr. Evertz, thank you very much. 

We’ll start with our second panel now, and I will introduce them. 

Michael Ryan is the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the EPA, 

Environmental Protection Agency. He’s served as the EPA’s Deputy 

CFO since 2000. He is responsible for managing strategic planning, 

budgeting, financial management, performance measurement, analysis, and accountability functions. He previously served as the 

agency’s controller, and has held positions in the State Department 

and Department of Defense. 

James Martin, Assistant Chief Financial Officer for Financial 

Management, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. 

Martin joined the HUD CFO office in 2000. He works on eliminating the Department’s high risk and material weakness issues, 

improving the content of the annual performance and accountability report, the PART report, and he coordinates HUD’s efforts 

to implement President Bush’s management agenda. Mr. Martin 

has served in a variety of capacities at HUD since joining the Department in 1983. 

Sid Kaplan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Performance and Planning, Bureau of Resource Management, at the Department of State. Mr. Kaplan serves as the Acting Assistant SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:48 Oct 27, 2006 Jkt 027027 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27027.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
13

1The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson with an attachment appears in the Appendix on 

page 37. 

retary for Resource Management and Chief Financial Officer. He’s 

a member of the Senior Foreign Service and has held numerous positions within the State Department. He’s the former Managing Director of the International Financial Services Directorate. 

Charles Johnson, Assistant Secretary of the Budget in the Department of Health and Human Services. He is the Assistant Secretary for Budget, Technology, and Finance at HHS. He previously 

served as the Chief Financial Officer of the EPA. He’s the former 

President of the Huntsman Cancer Foundation, and he has held a 

number of positions in Utah State government. He also has considerable experience in the private sector. 

Thank you all for being here today. You each will be recognized. 

We won’t stay tight within the 5-minute rule, and your entire 

statement will be made a part of the record. 

And Mr. Johnson, I’ll recognize you first. 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES JOHNSON,1 ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR BUDGET, TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Coburn, Senator Carper. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today on the topic of Federal agencies and conference spending. 

HHS is the principal Federal agency responsible for protecting 

the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. We 

have more than 300 grant programs. We are the Nation’s largest 

health insurer and the largest government grant-making agency. 

I’m not here to defend any specific conferences, but I can tell you 

that good communication to disseminate and share information is 

a key to our success. Appropriate conferences play a major role in 

facilitating this communication both with grantees and between 

grantees on policies, goals, best practices, and new discoveries. 

HHS’s participation in conferences can be a cost-efficient way for 

the Department to communicate with as many stakeholders as it 

deals with. 

Last year, in response to your request, Mr. Chairman, HHS compiled information on the total amount spent on conference activities 

in fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and provided you an estimate of 

the expenditures for 2005. We have now updated our 2005 information. 

This updated information on conference spending shows that we 

are up about a third from fiscal 2000, but we have been relatively 

constant since 2003 and actually decreased our conference spending 

from fiscal 2004 to 2005. Conference spending increases are in two 

major agencies, National Institutes of Health and Administration 

for Children and Families. 

Sharing scientific information, as has been pointed out, is an important form of leveraging research activities and hopefully results 

in a decrease in those research expenditures. ACF, the Administration for Children and Families, has had a lot of new programs over 

the last 5 years. But despite the fact that they’ve had these proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:48 Oct 27, 2006 Jkt 027027 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27027.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
14

1The prepared statement of Mr. Kaplan appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

grams, in the year 2004, they had a higher expenditure than in 

2005. 

I think this brings out an important management principle. That 

is as follows. With launching a new program, we may incur startup 

costs. However, when information has been shared with the relevant parties, a reduction in conference spending will be expected. 

That’s an important stewardship matter, and I think the ACF has 

followed that. 

Having said that, I agree that additional oversight can improve 

our stewardship. As I reviewed the current policies, I felt that we 

must tighten our conference policies in two areas: First, in the selection of the conferences, and the programs and policies being presented at those conferences; and second, in the financial areas surrounding conferences. 

To that end, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, we have issued a memorandum to 

all HHS operating division heads that strengthen the Department’s 

current policy on conferences. This memorandum places additional 

responsibility on operating division heads in determining content 

and sponsorship of conferences and in controlling costs. 

It emphasizes the need to more actively engage with grantees to 

assure that they are aware of our policies and procedures. It adds 

additional approvals on travel. In summary, we have strengthened 

our oversight on conferences, which in turn will help us contain 

costs. 

As evidenced by our most recent clean audit, the seventh in a 

row, HHS has a commitment to strong and transparent financial 

management. We are continuously monitoring our internal controls 

and strengthening our Departmental policies. I personally have a 

strong belief in accountability and transparency, and pledge to you 

that we will do better. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, this concludes my testimony. But 

I stand ready to answer any questions that you or any other Members of the Committee may have on this topic. 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kaplan. 

TESTIMONY OF SID KAPLAN,1 ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL 

OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. KAPLAN. Chairman Coburn and Senator Carper, thank you 

for the invitation to testify today. 

As you well know, the conduct of diplomacy frequently requires 

face-to-face interactions, venues for the exchange of ideas, and 

meetings that foster personal relationships which are critical to the 

success of our mission. 

Conferences are an integral means by which the Department of 

State conducts our Nation’s international affairs. The Department 

conducts diplomatic relations with 188 countries through over 260 

posts around the world, and participation in conferences is an effective means to promote advancement of issues across a wide array 

of operational and policy areas. 

For some international organizations, conferences are the primary means by which business is conducted. The United States 

15

also advances and protects hemispheric interests through participation in the meetings of the Organization of American States and related organizations. The United States realizes similar goals reflecting key regional relationships through participation in meetings of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, or APEC, the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, the United Nations 

regional commissions, and other signatories to major treaties. 

Active State Department participation in international conferences ensures that the United States maintains our influence, 

and promotes and protects key U.S. interests in the formulation of 

policy, the management of the Department’s operations, and the 

deliberations of multilateral international organizations in which 

the United States has membership. 

The Department’s participation in conferences is often essential 

to achieving a desired outcome, and cost of attendance is justified 

by what was or was not accomplished due to U.S. engagement. For 

example, failure to attend a conference that results in action not 

supported by our policies could require a greater expenditure of resources to address the action in retrospect than it would have cost 

to participate in the conference. 

The Department has taken steps to institute controls over conference participation and to stem the increase in conference costs. 

The Department is also continuously exploring and making use of 

ways to leverage technology and resources so that the Department’s participation in meaningful conferences is facilitated in the 

most cost-effective way possible. 

The funding used to support conferences is managed within each 

of the Department’s bureaus. Therefore, bureaus and, consequently, U.S. missions overseas must prioritize funding for conferences against other competing requirements. 

In 2004, the State Department instituted a policy requiring advance approval from the office of the Under Secretary for Management in order to attend or host conferences. Under the policy, requests to host or hold conferences, workshops, or other meetings to 

which travel is required and where 25 or more Department personnel will participate must be submitted 120 days in advance. The 

request must be justified by demonstrating the benefit to the Department, the outcome or results expected, security risks, cost, and 

how the conference advances the Department’s strategic priorities. 

The Department is also using technology to increase efficiency 

and cut conference costs. The use of digital video conferencing, or 

DVC, is on the rise. As an example, rather than attending regional 

management or budget conferences, I and in most cases a small 

panel of management colleagues have frequently opted to deliver 

our presentations using DVC. 

Also, while not conferences per se, the Bureau of Resource Management regularly uses DVC to conduct our mission performance 

plan reviews with embassy teams, substantially reducing international travel and costs. In short, as DVC technology has improved, this practice is becoming more prevalent, and I expect it to 

only grow in the future, which will contribute to greater cost-effectiveness. 

The conference spending data reported covers a 5-year period. 

The report includes information on conferences with a variety of 

16

1The prepared statement of Mr. Martin with an attachment appears in the Appendix on page 

53. 

purposes, including policy issues related to Afghanistan, Iraq, the 

Global War on Terror, and the fight against AIDS, as well as management and professional development conferences. Most recently, 

conference spending has decreased from $30.9 million in fiscal year 

2004 to $26.5 million in fiscal year 2005, primarily due to non-recurring conferences such as the hosting of the OAS General Assembly and the increased use of technology. 

As the Acting Chief Financial Officer, I can assure you that the 

Department will continue to avoid unnecessary conference expenditures and, where appropriate, to vigorously pursue more cost-effective methods of participating. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak before the Subcommittee, and I look forward to answering any questions that you 

might have. 

Chairman COBURN. Mr. Kaplan, thank you. Mr. Martin. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. MARTIN,1 ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL 

OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. MARTIN. Chairman Coburn, Ranking Member Carper, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the topic of 

Federal agencies and conference spending. My testimony focuses on 

the nature, extent, and benefits of conference spending at the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Given the current Federal budget climate, I agree with you both 

that it is more important than ever that every Federal dollar be 

properly spent with a clear mission-related purpose and benefit. 

HUD sponsors, cosponsors, or approves staff to participate in conferences for a variety of mission-related purposes. 

HUD’s significant and diverse program activities serve millions 

of American households and most communities. These programs 

are delivered through thousands of third party program administrators, including units of State and local government, public housing agencies, private mortgage lenders, nonprofit and for-profit 

housing sponsors, developers, and managers, and various faithbased and community-based service organizations. 

Effective communication of program goals and requirements to 

program beneficiaries and our third party program administrators 

is a critical component of HUD’s program control environment. 

Such communications are in keeping with the Government Accountability Office’s standards for effective internal control in the 

Federal Government. 

Most of HUD’s third party program administrators and program 

beneficiaries are represented by national and/or local associations 

or interest groups. HUD’s participation in conferences sponsored by 

or for these associations or interest groups is often a cost-efficient 

and effective way for the Department to communicate with its 

many program stakeholders. 

Another factor in an effective system of internal control is management’s commitment to competence in its own workforce. Some 

conference participation is to enhance the knowledge, skills, and 

17

abilities of HUD staff to better enable them to perform their jobs 

and to support HUD’s mission. 

Mr. Chairman, in response to your request, HUD compiled information on the total amount of conference spending in fiscal years 

2001 through 2005. Our queries for that period indicate that 

HUD’s conference spending ranged from a low of $3.2 million in 

2001 to a high of $13.9 million in fiscal year 2005. 

In analyzing that spending trend over the 5-year period, 2001 

was found to be an uncharacteristically low period for conference 

spending due to the change in Administrations and leadership during that period. The increased conference spending between fiscal 

years 2002 and 2005 was largely due to a greater focus on promoting the Department’s revised strategic coals and program 

changes designed to increase performance results. 

HUD’s mission is to increase home ownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing free 

from discrimination. The list of 989 conferences supported by HUD 

in fiscal year 2005 conforms to HUD’s mission and goals. Although 

there is no specific limit on how much HUD can spend on conference support or participation, spending is limited by HUD’s normal budget constraints. 

Nearly 31 percent of HUD’s total fiscal year 2005 conference 

spending was from the public housing technical assistance program 

funds that were appropriated for such purposes. In the case of program technical assistance funds, HUD is required to submit an annual spending plan for Congressional approval before these funds 

can be used for conferences or other planned purposes. 

Conference activities not funded by program technical assistance 

funds must be funded out of HUD’s limited salaries and expense 

fund. The S&E fund has little discretionary funding available for 

conference participation after covering the cost of HUD’s salaries 

and other normal operating expenses. The total $13.9 million spent 

on conferences in fiscal year 2005 represented a very small percentage of HUD’s total enacted budget of $33.7 billion that year. 

Supervisory approval of conference participation is required in all 

cases, along with separate processing and approval of any associated funding required for travel expense, conference facility or 

equipment rental, or materials development, or printing costs associated with conference participation. 

My written testimony provides several examples where HUD’s 

conference participation is believed to be a contributing factor to increasing program performance results. Those examples include 

HUD’s efforts to increase home ownership, record home ownership 

levels today. And we particularly focus on minority home ownership. Minority home ownership is also at record levels. 

Our efforts to promote program participation or increase program 

participation by faith-based and community service organizations 

and to reduce improper rental housing assistance payments are all 

areas where we believe performance has improved as a result of 

our participation in conferences to communicate program requirements and goals with our program stakeholders. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that I’ve been able to shed some light on 

the controlled nature of HUD’s participation in conference activities 

and the benefits derived from those activities. That concludes my 

18

1The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan appears with an attachment in the Appendix on page 

60. 

testimony, and I stand ready to answer any questions either of you 

may have. Thank you. 

Chairman COBURN. Thank you very much. Mr. Ryan. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W.S. RYAN,1 DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. RYAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Coburn, Senator Carper. 

On behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, I’d like to 

thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today on the subject Federal agencies and conference spending. 

EPA appreciates your interest in this topic. We share your concern for efficient, effective, and appropriate use of taxpayers’ dollars, whether for conferences or for any other purpose. 

Conference must promote EPA’s mission to promote human 

health and the environment. We carry out this mission through the 

work of some 17,500 employees located in Washington, DC, 10 

major regional offices, and other facilities across the country. 

Our work is organized in terms of five long-term strategic goals. 

These goals shape the way we plan, budget, and account for our 

work. We organize our budget in terms of results and annual goals 

that relate to these strategic goals. 

We also account for spending by these goals with reference to 

specific programs and projects that may or may not involve conferences. In this way, we aim to account for spending in terms of 

the results of our work. 

Our cost accounting system follows the structure of our strategic 

and annual goals. And for this reason, we had to do further analysis to produce the kind of information you requested and to identify trends in spending on conferences. Based on analysis of the detailed data submitted to the Subcommittee, I would estimate that 

EPA’s spending on formal conferences is in the range of $16 to $19 

million annually. 

EPA has broad authority under civil statutes to conduct formal 

conferences to deliver useful environmental information to the public and to other Federal agencies. These statutes include the Clean 

Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act, the Superfund and Brownfields statutes, 

and the Government Employees Training Act. 

A number of EPA programs rely on close coordination with community groups, intergovernmental organizations, and members of 

the regulated community. EPA generally supports conferences that 

bring together different constituencies to promote collaboration and 

partnerships for the Nation’s environmental programs. 

Many EPA conferences are designed to inform a non-Federal audience about important developments in environmental policy. 

Other conferences promote technology transfer, research, cooperation between stakeholders with different perspectives, voluntary actions, and other non-regulatory approaches to protecting the environment and public health. 

19

Decisions on conference attendance and support are not made 

centrally for the agency. Generally, these decisions are made at the 

appropriate management level within individual program and regional offices. For example, Assistant Administrators or Regional 

Administrators may make decisions on whether to hold conferences 

on mission-related topics. Individuals’ attendance must be approved by their supervisors. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, in the current 

budget climate, it is incumbent on all of us to take a hard look at 

spending to identify greater efficiencies, reduce costs, and produce 

meaningful results. We get better results when our work brings together the perspectives of many groups that make up the American 

community. 

Congress has recognized this by creating laws that provide for 

conferences to support coordination and information sharing. At 

the same time, we also need to be careful stewards to ensure that 

costs for a conference are appropriate and contained. 

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to examine how 

we manage conference spending, and to make sure that we are 

using these resources for the greatest benefit. And if I can depart 

from my text for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to thank you 

also for your statement in which you declared the intention to help 

us work on this issue. And I hope in that spirit we can enter into 

this conversation. 

And that concludes my oral testimony, and I would be pleased 

to answer any of your questions. 

Chairman COBURN. Well, thank each of you. I have a few questions just to kind of get down to some detail First, Mr. Martin, in 2001 you all had a $3.2 million expenditure 

for conferences. And I think your statement was that’s because of 

a change in administration. It leads me to ask: Did HUD carry out 

its responsibilities that year? 

Mr. MARTIN. Absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. But they did it with $3.2 million worth of conference spending, and yet they carried out their responsibilities? So 

it begs the further question, is if in 2001 they could carry out their 

responsibilities with $3.2 million, why are we at $13.9 million now? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think my statement was that during that change 

in administration and leadership, the following year there was a 

focus on revised strategic goals, increased emphasis on home ownership, increasing faith-based and community organization participation in our programs, and just a new direction. 

It just was a lull period in 2001 compared to prior periods. 

Senator COBURN. It’s true you all are having trouble with improper payments because so much of what you do goes through to 

other agencies. One of the things we’ve been working on is the Improper Payments Act, and I know you all are having trouble getting your hands around that. And I’m going to give you all deference to try to do that this year. 

But the fact is, as an agency, you don’t know what you’re improperly paying for. How do you know that the expenditures for travel 

and conferencing accurately reflects the needs of the agency? 

Mr. MARTIN. And that’s all budgeted for and planned within the 

Department, and our execution of our salaries and expense fund. 

20

And clearly, one of the goals that was focused on in 2002 was the 

reduction of improper payments. 

And that required us to issue updated and approved program 

guidance and disseminate that guidance to our program administrators, public housing authorities, and private owners, to provide 

training to their staff and our staff on that new guidance. Those 

were all contributing factors to reducing those improper payment 

levels over that period of time. 

Senator COBURN. But you all are out of compliance right now 

with improper payments, right, under the law? 

Mr. MARTIN. No. We believe we’re in full compliance with IPIA. 

Senator COBURN. We believe you’re not. And we’ll have that discussion at a later time. 

Mr. MARTIN. Right. We owe you a response on February 14. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. OK. I also would note that the Senate is on 

record for limiting your conference numbers, an amendment that I 

offered when I saw it. And it was stripped in conference. But nevertheless, the Senate is on record to try to limit that. The whole 

goal was to raise the awareness—it wasn’t to tell you how to run 

your organization. It was to raise the awareness that this is going 

to a faster level. 

And I’m going to ask each of you this: What percentage of the 

conferences that you’re doing now are teleconferences or digital 

video conferencing? And what percentage that are planned for the 

future could be done that way? And then the third part of the question: Do you have a line item budgeted in your total budget for conferences and travel related to those conferences? 

Mr. Martin, you can answer first, and then the others can answer. 

Mr. MARTIN. OK. Our use of satellite broadcasts and webcasts is 

on the rise. The preponderance of our internal staff training and 

information dissemination is all done through satellite broadcasts 

and webcasts. And we’re using it more frequently to communicate 

with our program stakeholders externally. That’s definitely on the 

rise. 

HUD has a satellite broadcast center in its headquarters. We 

have downlink capability to all 86 HUD offices. We recently expanded what we call HUD TV to our public housing authorities, 

which administer the preponderance of our program dollars. So 

that’s been a great benefit to provide training and information to 

them through those means. 

So it’s definitely on the rise. We do not have a separate line item 

budget for it. I think it’s probably a good idea for us to try to provide that kind of focus and oversight on it, as you suggest, going 

forward. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Do you actually have a budget that says, 

here’s how much we’re going to spend? 

Mr. MARTIN. It’s somewhat limited by—the services are largely 

contracted. The satellite broadcast center has——

Senator COBURN. No, I’m talking about for overall the conferences. In other words, how do lower level managers make a decision about which conference is most effective for us, if we’ve got all 

these conferences and we don’t have a fixed budget? How do they 

make a decision to prioritize those? 

21

In other words, if they’re just saying, this can come out of our 

fund and we think this is fine, we’ll use it for budget rather than 

having a fixed amount for conferences and travel? There is not a 

fixed amount for conference and travel in HUD. Is that what you’re 

telling me? 

Mr. MARTIN. Not specifically, no. Just a general budget constraint limit. 

Senator COBURN. OK. As a financial manager, do you not see a 

problem with that, that you won’t force good decisionmaking unless 

you have a budget line item which you’re addressing up against? 

Mr. MARTIN. There’s a ‘‘general other services’’ line item which 

forces them to make decisions within that limited funding for that 

category of expenses. And that’s competing with staff training and 

contract services as well that are in that object class. But it’s not 

specifically for conferences. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. With respect to technology, I can tell you that 

we’re using technology a great deal within the organization. But 

the extent of our use with conferences and with grantees, I don’t 

have a feel for that. 

I can tell you that with the way we do it internally, there is a—

you put people in two categories. The need to go to a conference, 

or the need to know. And if you have a need to go, then your responsibility is then to disseminate the information among those 

who have a need to know. 

But I think we probably can use technology to a greater extent. 

But you do have a rather diverse group of grantees, and their ability to connect and to deal with us on that basis will also have some 

limitations. But I think it’s an area that we have to do more on. 

With respect to a line item on travel and conferences, we don’t 

have that. I think, from what I can gather, for the first time we 

have really focused in on the amount of spending on travel and 

conferences as a result of your request. I think we now have a 

base, and I think we have everyone’s attention with that base, and 

I think we’ll see some improvements just by the mere fact that we 

have that. 

We’re installing a new accounting system. As we install that and 

get that throughout the system, throughout our entire Department, 

we definitely will have a line item and an ability to capture conferences and travel. 

Senator COBURN. Let me just follow up with you before I go to 

our other two witnesses. Congress recently spent $62.5 million for 

a high-tech communications center at the CDC, $62.5 million. Has 

the availability of this communications center had any impact on 

the number of CDC employees that travel to or the amount spent 

on conferences at CDC? What’s the response to that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I can tell you, again, from an internal standpoint, we have a lot of meetings with CDC, and they’re all through 

teleconference and video. I don’t know the extent beyond that, the 

extent that it would be used with respect to conferences, other conferences outside. But certainly within, virtually every meeting that 

I go to that involves all the operating division heads, there is a 

video connection to CDC in Atlanta. 

Senator COBURN. Yes. All right. Mr. Kaplan. 

22

Mr. KAPLAN. Yes, sir. Regarding technology, the State Department has a global reach, of course. And to the extent possible, we 

are focusing more on trying to use technology more and more. 

In some locations, however, technology is just not possible. It’s 

very difficult. I was at a conference last year in Africa where we 

were trying to use video conferencing to pull people together, and 

it just didn’t work. On the other hand, just a couple of weeks ago, 

rather than make a trip out to our Asia region to address a gathering there on budget issues, I was able to use video conferencing 

from back here in Washington, resulting in considerable savings 

not only in my time but in cost as well. 

So we are trying to use this technology more and more. Our bureaus and our embassies who make these decisions on funding for 

this equipment realize the value of it, and it is increasing. 

Regarding the line item, in our budget we do not have a separate 

line item. But within the limited discretionary funding within our 

embassies and our bureaus, there’s a great deal of sensitivity on 

conferences and travel, and we’re trying to limit it as much as possible and ensure that the right prioritization is taking place. 

Senator COBURN. I would note, it’s ironic to me that HHS spends 

two and a half times what the State Department does on conferences and travel. Two and a half times at HHS—we’ve got to address that imbalance, think about that for a minute. 

Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Chairman Coburn, as far as the technology, I’m afraid 

I’m going to sound a lot like the others. We’ve had video conferencing capability at EPA, if my memory serves me, just for the last 

couple of years. We use it more and more for internal meetings so 

that people don’t have to come in from San Francisco, and it’s very 

useful. 

There are a number of conferences, if you look at our detail. 

Some of the conferences that we do I think you’d probably want us 

to continue to do because the citizens want to get a piece of us, 

frankly. 

Senator COBURN. Sure. 

Mr. RYAN. They want to see us in person and ask us some hard 

questions. 

I think in other areas—and I was talking to our guys in the research area, where you’d expect people to be high tech—I think 

that would be a great idea, to use that technology for that. And I 

would probably be looking into that more. I know we have some 

problems with bandwidth in some of the labs. 

Senator COBURN. We’re going to try to fix that by 2009. 

Mr. RYAN. I’ll be with you. 

Line item budget, no, we don’t have it. To echo what I think Mr. 

Johnson said, I learned a lot more about what we do on conferences 

when you asked the question, frankly. We gather the information 

because it’s decentralized. I looked at it and concluded, I think, 

some of the things you concluded. And I think we’re going to be 

looking at that much harder. 

I think that having a line item per se possibly could produce 

counter-intuitive results. However, having to report the first bullet 

on your accountability chart of transparency, I think that goes a 

long way. 

23

1The charts referred to appears in the Appendix on page 29 and 30. 

If you simply flush out all these costs by putting a code in the 

accounting code, making people use it, and then report so that people at a level in the agency can actually see what’s going on, I 

think that goes a long way to help control this. And would probably 

be more important than an item. 

Senator COBURN. Let me ask each of you, do you all have the authority within your organizations to essentially demand e-conferencing or to hold accountable—in other words, to try to force this 

down the line? Is there any ability that you all have to say, this 

is how we’re going to—other than to say, you’re going to have to 

account. Here’s a new number. You’re going to have to put it in. 

But is there anything that you can do in your positions of authority as the financial managers of these organizations to force this 

down the line that would cause that, other than a budgeted line 

item or greater sunshine on it? Anybody want to answer? 

Mr. RYAN. Well, I’d start out by saying that to answer your question directly, I don’t have the authority—the CFO doesn’t have the 

authority to force it. That’s not to mean that we can’t—in order to, 

say, direct it. What we’d have to do is rely on persuasion and a 

bully pulpit kind of thing, and other tools that you have because 

you have the leverage of the budget. But I can’t direct it at the current time, to answer your question. 

Senator COBURN. Any other comments on that? 

Mr. KAPLAN. Sure. Personally, the CFO does not have the authority in the State Department, either. But that decision is made 

at the Under Secretary level. Of course we have a close working 

relationship, and the Under Secretary is always looking to make 

the most efficient, budget-wise decisions. So I think there’s an influencing and a relationship there that we can work further in this 

direction. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can tell you as we discussed this issue with our 

operating division heads, and the Secretary was there, he indicated 

a very large interest in this area, and basically said that he would 

like to see transparency and he would like to see controls, and gave 

us basically the authority and the charce to work together to accomplish that. So I think having the Secretary in that camp is 

pretty good authority. 

Senator COBURN. I also would note in one of your comments, 

we’ve spent a ton of money wiring universities, colleges, libraries, 

and schools. And so you have stakeholders out there that we often 

assume don’t have availability for some of this, but they really do. 

They have it at community centers and other areas throughout the 

country where we could utilize that. 

I want you to look at these two charts because one of the things 

that is growing is we pay per diems.1 And as I’ve talked to Federal 

employees, the best thing about a trip is you can make cash off of 

it. And I’m wondering if you have any comments to maybe change 

this policy to a cost-plus max and have them turn it in. 

I know you don’t want to deal with the paperwork associated 

with travel vouchers and all that other. But when you pay somebody $390 a day per diem and they spend $200 or $250, and most 

24

of the conferences they go to have the food there, they’re taking 

home $100 a day. 

And the same is true with Members of Congress when they travel. The American public needs to know that. What it ought to be 

is reasonable and customary expenses ought to be paid for rather 

than somebody gaming the system. Any comments on that? Think 

we ought to change that? 

It may not apply as much to the State Department because of 

where they travel, but certainly for the rest of it—and I’ve traveled 

once as a Congressman, and I was amazed that I turned in $1,600 

back to the Treasury, whereas most people keep it. 

Mr. RYAN. Actually, I think that would be a great idea. And I 

think as the Federal Government goes to electronic travel vouchers, 

the paperwork burden will be reduced. If what I understand you’re 

saying is simply allow for a cost, and basically everybody goes back 

to their computer, as they do now, and puts in what they spent, 

and has the vouchers and beyond that they don’t get anything beyond that for reimbursement, I have no problem with that. That 

sounds like you’re paying for the cost of the travel. 

Senator COBURN. Right. Any other comments on that? 

Mr. KAPLAN. Sir, as you mentioned, the State Department is a 

little bit different. In many overseas locations where we are, it’s 

often cost-effective to hold a conference rather than fund the air 

travel to bring people back. So we have a slightly different formula. 

Senator COBURN. Right. Yes. I agree with that. 

Mr. KAPLAN. But I think the more scrutiny and the more light 

that is shed on this issue, working closely with GSA who does set 

the per diem rates, there might be some improvements that could 

be made in the system. 

Senator COBURN. All right. Mr. Ryan, I have one other question 

for you, and then I have one final question for all of you. 

From 2000 to 2004, your conference spending jumped 107 percent, doubled. Last year, though, your agency spent less, actually 

brought it down several million dollars. The actual amount was—

you brought it down $7 million, $6.5 million dollars. 

Mr. RYAN. Right. 

Senator COBURN. Did it compromise your mission? 

Mr. RYAN. No. Not at all. In fact, I have to confess to you, I think 

some of the difference in the 2 years is probably somewhat artificial by the simple fact that our most expensive conference, which 

is the Brownfields conference, which is about $3 million a year——

Senator COBURN. Yes. 

Mr. RYAN. It’s a fall issue. And it just happened to fall within 

two fiscal years. It was October, one year and September, the 

other. And that inflated it. And that’s why in my oral statement 

I said, $16 and $19 million. 

But to answer your question without answering it exactly the 

way you asked it, if we were to reduce our conference spending, do 

I think we would not achieve our goals? No. I think I would echo 

what the administrator said when he talked about our budget, that 

we’re stewards of the environment as well as stewards of the taxpayer dollar. And we could spend a lot less on conferences and still 

accomplish what we’re doing. 

25

Senator COBURN. OK. One final question for all of you, and then 

I’ll—actually, two final questions. I’ll be more straightforward than 

that. 

If you’re out on the street, not in the job you’re in today, and 

somebody came up to you and said, the Federal Government over 

the last 5 years increased their conference spending 70 percent, 

what would you think about that? That’s 13 percent per year. What 

would you think about that? Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think I talk with more people outside government than I talk within government, and I can tell you that they 

would be horrified. Any business, any large corporation, would say, 

that’s not the way we’ve had to operate over the last 5 years. And 

so they would not take kindly to it. 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Kaplan? You all, by the way, have not increased it that much, but——

Mr. KAPLAN. I think people would be upset to hear that high percentage of increase, and would logically ask the question, could 

business be done differently? Could we look at the technology and 

newer tools and controls, as we ought to be continually looking at 

how to improve our business practices? 

Senator COBURN. Mr. Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think I’d want to know why did it go up and 

what did you get for it. But I know in HUD’s case, looking back 

at 2001 when we were in that lull period between administrations, 

shortly after the new administration came in, there were a lot of 

change proposals that needed to be processed. And it was communicating those changes and to do things like reducing improper 

payments and things that had a benefit. 

Senator COBURN. Well, I said 70 percent. HUD went up 340 percent. 

Mr. MARTIN. Right. 

Senator COBURN. So let’s use 340 percent in your case. You don’t 

think they’d question that? 

Mr. MARTIN. Absolutely question it. But again, it’s relative. And 

again, going back to the question of why did it go up and what did 

you get for it, and——

Senator COBURN. OK. Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Chairman Coburn, I think to answer your question, 

I had to think of what I would say to my mother-in-law about this. 

[Laughter.] 

And I would think that I wouldn’t want to talk to her very long 

about because she pretty much would tell me, ‘‘I think you boys 

better get this stuff under control.’’ So I think, again, to echo Mr. 

Johnson’s comment of horrified at the jump, that would be probably where I’d be and where most people would be. 

Senator COBURN. One final question, and then I’ll introduce Senator Akaka. Welcome. 

Senator AKAKA. Good to be here with you. 

Senator COBURN. You all have indicated a willingness, or at least 

a desire, to try to get a handle on this. And I’m extremely thankful 

to you. 

Would you each be willing to work with my office this year to 

write some parameters? Not specific rules; I don’t want the Congress micro-managing you. I want us doing our proper job of overVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:48 Oct 27, 2006 Jkt 027027 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\27027.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
26

sight. But there are things that we can do to limit some of the excesses. And all I would ask is: Would you be willing to work with 

us to help give you more tools to help control some of these costs 

better? 

[Panelists nod affirmatively.] 

Senator COBURN. We’re just about to finish up. Senator Akaka, 

I’m glad you came. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to 

know I look forward to working with you. I enjoy working with you. 

And I must tell you that as Chairman of this Subcommittee, you 

have been—maybe this is too strong—that you have focused in 

dealing——

Senator COBURN. I don’t need any help in getting a bad reputation. [Laughter.] 

Senator AKAKA [continuing]. With the problems that are in management. And I really commend the Chairman for that. 

I regret I was unable to be here earlier, but I was serving as a 

ranking member of the Armed Services readiness hearing on contracting in Iraq and the problems that we have there. However, I 

consider this hearing very important, and I appreciate the Chairman’s interest in making sure that Federal agencies are spending 

funds wisely when it comes to sending Federal employees to conferences. 

I’m proud to represent the beautiful State of Hawaii, which is 

one of the Nation’s premier conference and convention destinations. 

We in Hawaii are sometimes frustrated by the assumption that a 

Federal employee who attends a conference in Honolulu, for example, is wasting taxpayers’ dollars. 

No Federal employee should be discouraged from participating in 

a conference as long as there is a legitimate reason to do it. I know 

our Chairman’s focus on government efficiency is sincere, and I 

want to assure him that my constituents share that value, too. 

We cannot forget, however, that Hawaii, our 50th State, is home 

to nearly 25,000 Federal employees, 16,500 of whom are DOD civilian workers and about 45,000 active duty members of the Armed 

Services. Hawaii is headquarters for the U.S. Pacific Command, 

and serves as the operational heart of the world’s largest naval 

command, the Pacific Fleet, whose reach extends all the way to Africa. 

PACCOM’s operational responsibility covers 105 million square 

miles, more than 60 percent of the world’s population, and $548 billion in U.S. trade. We don’t want to unfairly refuse participation 

in a conference in Hawaii to any Federal employee. 

My constituents should not be denied access to the exchange of 

ideas and expertise of agencies such as HUD or HHS or EPA or 

State Department. There are unique issues that face the people of 

Hawaii, but by working with the Federal Government, we can fund 

solutions. Conferences, conventions, and forums all offer important 

venues for such critical personnel interactions. 

We in Hawaii have long understood the importance of visitors to 

our State and the State’s economic vitality. Given the crucial 

standing that Hawaii and its capital, Honolulu, hold in this Nation, 

27

once again I strongly urge that the Federal employees neither be 

denied nor discouraged from attending conventions or conferences 

in the 50th State. 

And that’s my statement that I’d like to put in the Record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Thank you, Chairman Coburn. I consider this hearing very important, and I appreciate your interest in making sure that Federal agencies are spending funds 

wisely when it comes to sending Federal employees to conferences. 

I am proud to represent the beautiful State of Hawaii, which is one of the Nation’s premier conference and convention destinations. We in Hawaii are sometimes 

frustrated by the assumption that a Federal employee who attends a conference in 

Honolulu—for example—is wasting taxpayer dollars. No Federal employee should be 

discouraged from participating in a conference as long as there is a legitimate reason to do so. I know our Chairman’s focus on government efficiency is sincere, and 

I want to assure him that my constituents share that value too. 

We should never forget that Hawaii, our 50th State, is home to nearly 25,000 Federal employees—16,500 of whom are DOD civilian workers—as well as 45,000 active 

duty members of the Armed Services. Hawaii is headquarters to the U.S. Pacific 

Command (PACOM) and serves as the operational heart of the world’s largest naval 

command—the Pacific Fleet—whose reach extends to Africa. PACOM’s operational 

responsibility covers 105 million square miles—more than 60 percent of the world’s 

population and $548 billion in U.S. trade. 

We don’t want to unfairly refuse participation in a conference in Hawaii to any 

Federal employee. My constituents should not be denied access to the exchange of 

ideas and expertise of agencies such as the Departments of Health and Human 

Services, Housing and Urban Development, and State, as well the Environmental 

Protection Agency. There are unique issues that face the people of Hawaii, but by 

working with the Federal Government, we can find solutions. Conferences, conventions, and forums all offer important venues for such critical personal interactions. 

We in Hawaii have long understood the importance of visitors to our State’s economic vitality. Given the crucial standing that Hawaii and its capitol—Honolulu—

hold in this Nation, once again I strongly urge that Federal employees neither be 

denied nor discouraged from attending conventions or conferences in the 50th State.

Senator COBURN. You’ve been heard, the junior Senator from Hawaii. We have heard you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. I would note for the record, however, the Defense Department’s expenditures on travel and conferences has 

only risen 8 percent since 2002. They’ve been pretty good stewards 

in terms of the increases. And most of the conference that goes on 

in Hawaii are related to the Department of Defense. So they’ve 

been good. 

Your statement, however, does not reflect the fact that the HUD 

had a conference on Sacramento home ownership in Honolulu. The 

American people are going to ask a question about why do we do 

that. We’re for Honolulu and Hawaii. I want to go there for a conference, too. I’ve just not been invited yet. And I may not be after 

one of these hearings. [Laughter.] 

Did you have a question for our guests? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. I have one question. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Ryan, you mentioned the use of shared costs 

for conferences. You also note that if EPA had greater authority to 

retain and use fees, that more costs could be offset. What authority 

does EPA need to do this? 

28

Mr. RYAN. This was an idea that if we had authority in law, 

which we don’t have, to charge a fee and retain it to pay for a conference, the marketplace—for certain types of conferences. I’m not 

talking about a conference that we have with citizens about a 

Superfund site. No. I’m talking about a conference where we’re giving information primarily to people who want to do business with 

the EPA or get grants. 

And we might soon find out—the marketplace might determine 

whether or not that was valuable information or not because if it 

wasn’t, they wouldn’t pay for it. And if they do pay for it, then the 

American taxpayer is not. And so that was a suggestion. We don’t 

have the authority to do that now. 

Senator COBURN. That’s a good idea. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator COBURN. Once again, let me thank each of you for coming. I know you’ve got tough jobs. And I appreciate your spending 

the time. Our grandchildren are worth us doing the right thing 

every time, and working hard to make sure not one penny is spent 

in an improper way. 

We will ask you for information in May. I hope that from October 

1st to May, that you will have that available for us. We’ll go back 

and look at—we’re going to look at individual conferencing and the 

decisions that you’re making. We’re going to highlight ones that we 

think the American people might not agree with. 

And so I would just ask you to be discerning, and follow up—

what I find is if we have a good discussion, we’re going to learn 

about what you are doing more, which means we’re going to be better stewards to get you what you need. And the American people 

can see it. 

And transparency and accountability are the things they’re going 

to have to count on. And we’ve got about 6 years to turn things 

around before the real crunch hits us. And you all know what I’m 

talking about. And we need to be serious about doing it. 

We thank you for your attendance and your time. The hearing 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(29)

A P P E N D I X 


27027.001
30


27027.002
31


27027.003
32


27027.004
33


27027.005
34


27027.006
35


27027.007
36


27027.008
37


27027.009
38


27027.010
39


27027.011
40


27027.012
41


27027.013
42


27027.014
43


27027.015
44


27027.016
45


27027.017
46


27027.018
47


27027.019
48


27027.020
49


27027.021
50


27027.022
51


27027.023
52


27027.024
53


27027.025
54


27027.026
55


27027.027
56


27027.028
57


27027.029
58


27027.030
59


27027.031
60


27027.032
61


27027.033
62


27027.034
63


27027.035
64


27027.036
65


27027.037
66


27027.038
67


27027.039
68


27027.040
69


27027.041
70


27027.042
71


27027.043
72


27027.044
73


27027.045
74


27027.046
75


27027.047
76


27027.048
77


27027.049
78


27027.050
79


27027.051
80


27027.052
81


27027.053
82


27027.054
83


27027.055
84


27027.056
85


27027.057
86


27027.058
87


27027.059
88


27027.060
89


27027.061
90


27027.062
91


27027.063
92


27027.064
93


27027.065
94


27027.066
95


27027.067
96


27027.068
97


27027.069
98


27027.070
99


27027.071
100


27027.072
101


27027.073
102


27027.074
103


27027.075
104


27027.076
105


27027.077
106


27027.078
107


27027.079
108


27027.080
109


27027.081
110


27027.082
111


27027.083
112


27027.084
113


27027.085
114


27027.086
115


27027.087
116


27027.088
117


27027.089
118


27027.090
119


27027.091
120


27027.092
121


27027.093
122


27027.094
123


27027.095
124


27027.096
125


27027.097
126


27027.098
127


27027.099
128

Æ


27027.100