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

58–151 PDF 2010

FURTHERING THE MISSION OR HAVING FUN: 

LAX TRAVEL POLICIES COST DHS MILLIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, 

INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 4, 2010 

Serial No. 111–52 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, U.S. Virgin Islands 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 

DANA TITUS, Nevada 

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

AL GREEN, Texas 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (Ex Officio) 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

PETER T. KING, NEW YORK (Ex Officio) 

TAMLA T. SCOTT, Director & Counsel 

NIKKI HADDER, Clerk 

MICHAEL RUSSELL, Senior Counsel 

KERRY KINIRONS, Minority Subcommittee Lead 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Management, 

Investigations, and Oversight ............................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Management, 

Investigations, and Oversight: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security .. 2 

WITNESSES

Mr. Carlton I. Mann, Assistant Inspector General for Inspections, Office 

of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

Ms. Elaine C. Duke, Under Secretary for Management, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

FOR THE RECORD

The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Management, 

Investigations, and Oversight: 

Statement of The National Business Travel Association (NBTA) ................... 15 

(1) 

FURTHERING THE MISSION OR HAVING FUN: 

LAX TRAVEL POLICIES COST DHS MILLIONS 

Thursday, February 4, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND

OVERSIGHT, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher P. Carney 

[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Carney, Thompson, Pascrell, Green, 

and Bilirakis. 

Mr. CARNEY [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight will come to order. The subcommittee 

is meeting today to receive testimony on ‘‘Furthering the Mission 

or Having Fun: Lax Travel Policies Cost DHS Millions.’’ 

I would like to thank everyone for joining us today, certainly Ms. 

Duke and Mr. Mann. 

Today, we will examine the DHS Office of Inspector General’s 

audit of the amount of taxpayers’ dollars the Department of Homeland Security spent on conferences, retreats, and other off-site activities. 

In addition, we will examine the lack of internal controls, governing policies, oversight, and reporting of conference planning and 

spending practices which prevent the Department from being 

transparent and accountable to both Congress and, more importantly, the general public. 

During fiscal years 2005 to 2007, the Department reportedly spent $110 million on conference-related activities, approximately 

$60 million of which was in direct costs, an additional $50 million 

identified as salary expenses for employees attending the conference. 

I will be extremely interested in hearing today whether conference spending and attendance at these events were a prudent 

use of taxpayers’ dollars, but I would also like to stress that I, as 

well as all Members of this subcommittee, understand the importance of Government travel, including the jobs that are supported 

by this travel. 

As a representative from Pennsylvania myself, I know how important travel and tourism are to our economy, but we need to ensure that the Department can accurately account for its travel 

spending. 
2 

According to the inspector general report entitled ‘‘DHS Conference Spending Practices and Oversight,’’ DHS officials were unable to produce precise, consistent numbers on conference spending. Information relating to conference spending was not documented in a way that allows for easy examination. 

As a result, most responses received from the DHS components 

contained missing data and had discrepancies. Most alarmingly, 

the IG reports that DHS official said, ‘‘There is no reason to track 

conference expenditures because there are no spending restrictions.’’ 

The IG also found that, ‘‘Components are planning and sponsoring conferences without any consistent approval or tracking 

process. When combined with inconsistent conference cost and attendance numbers, DHS needs to develop better management controls to ensure that conferences are funded and attended for only 

mission-critical purposes and that costs are minimized to the greatest extent possible.’’ 

The Department needs clear and consistent conference planning 

and guidance. The Department must define terms such as conference, retreats, training, and outside activities in a uniform matter so that all of its organizational elements are on the same page. 

Limited Department-wide procedures do exist for determining or 

minimizing the number of employees attending conferences or for 

standards justifying attendance, but the only test that appears to 

be in place for determining the necessity of travel is whether funding is available. This must be fixed. 

According to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Department has one mission: To secure the Nation from the many threats 

we face. Fulfilling this mission requires the Department to participate in many off-site activities throughout the country and, indeed, 

the world. 

Notwithstanding this fact, the Department must exercise oversight, accountability, and transparency regarding the amount of 

taxpayer money it spends on conference-related activities. 

I do want to thank the witnesses for their participation. I certainly look forward to their testimony. 

The Ranking Member is not here at the current time. He gave 

us the go-ahead to start. The Chair now recognizes the Chairman 

of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an opening statement. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is nice 

to see the witnesses, Ms. Duke, Mr. Mann. 

As both of you know, we requested the inspector general to look 

at the practices of the Department of Homeland Security as it relates to conferences, retreats, and similar off-site activities. 

When the request was made, I was concerned about spending 

patterns that had been revealed at other Government agencies and 

wanted to see how the Department compared. 

Last month, the Office of Inspector General released the results 

of its audit in the form of a report entitled ‘‘DHS Conference 

Spending Practices and Oversight.’’ The report revealed an extremely troubling picture of not only the amount of money spent, 

but also a lack of internal controls, minimal oversight, and insufficient reporting throughout the entire Department. 
3 

According to the report, from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2007, the Department spent approximately $100 million on conference-related activities. This money was spent on sending employees across the Nation and around the world in 43,989 instances. 

For example, the Department spent almost $30,000 to send 150 

CBP employees to a conference in St. Simons, Georgia. CBP also 

spent over $470,000 on a 3-day event in Dallas, Texas, attended by 

over 300 CBP employees. Further, 320 TSA employees attended a 

conference in Texas at the cost of $643,000. 

These are just a sampling of the 8,359 conferences attended by 

Department employees during the relevant time frame. 

Let me be clear: By no means am I purporting that Department 

personnel should not attend conferences or outside training that 

are reasonable and support the homeland security mission. 

However, during the IG investigation, it was determined that, in 

the vast majority of these instances, the Department had not performed cost comparisons to ensure that it was getting the best 

price available, properly tracked its spending to make certain that 

it was on par with other budgetary needs, or required justification 

for expenditures so that it could be shown that legitimate purposes 

were fulfilled. 

None of these things happened, leaving both Congress and the 

public with the question: What did we get for our money? 

Moreover, the depth of mismanagement of taxpayers’ dollars that 

was discovered by the IG was really troubling. According to the report, the data received from the Department was ‘‘unreliable, unverifiable, and contained little assurance that components properly 

tracked or accounted for all conferences and related costs.’’ 

When I made the request, I informed the IG that ‘‘neither waste 

nor extravagance by the Department in performance of its critical 

role should be accepted or condoned.’’ I meant that when I said it, 

and I continue to stand by the statement now. 

At the conclusion of its investigation, the IG made 12 separate 

recommendations, including increased Department-wide oversight 

and the development of internal controls to increase accountability 

and transparency of Department conference activities. 

I fully intend to monitor the Department’s progress on these important recommendations. I look forward to receiving the witnesses’ 

testimony on this important matter. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under 

committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the 

record. 

I welcome both of our witnesses. Our first witness is Under Secretary for Management Elaine Duke. Ms. Duke currently serves as 

the Department of Homeland Security’s under secretary for management, and in this role, she is responsible for the management 

and administration of the Department of Homeland Security, which 

includes management of the Department’s $47 billion budget, appropriations expenditures of funds, accounting, and finance. Ms. Duke also administers control over the Department’s $17 billion acquisitions and procurement process. She is also responsible 
4 

for directing human capital resources and personnel programs for 

the Department’s 223,000 employees. 

She administers control of the Department’s enterprise architecture through strategic use of information technology and communication systems and is responsible for oversight of the Department’s facilities, property, equipment, and other material resources. 

Prior to her appointment as the under secretary for management, Ms. Duke served as the deputy under secretary for management. She was the Department’s chief procurement officer from 

January 2006 until her appointment as deputy under secretary for 

management in October 2007. 

Ms. Duke was the Department’s deputy chief procurement officer 

from October 2004 to December 2005 when she championed the 

creation of the Acquisition Professional Career Program to rebuild 

the Federal acquisition workforce for the 21st century, something 

I personally applaud, by the way. 

Ms. Duke spent a great deal of her career with the U.S. Navy, 

where she held various acquisition positions of progressive responsibility. She began her career as a contracting officer for the U.S. 

Air Force. Ms. Duke holds a bachelor’s of science degree in business 

management from New Hampshire College and a master’s degree 

in business administration from Chaminade University in Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Our second witness is Mr. Carl Mann. Mr. Mann currently 

serves as the assistant inspector general for inspections in the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General. Mr. 

Mann has served in a variety of managerial and staff positions in 

the Federal Government, private industry, and the United States 

military. 

Appointed assistant inspector general for the Office of Inspections in November 2006, Mr. Mann is a charter member of the Department of Homeland Security. He served as the chief inspector 

in the Office of Inspections from the Department’s inception in 

2003 to his present appointment. 

Prior to coming to DHS, Mr. Mann was a senior program analyst 

with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Office of Inspector General. He has also held staff and managerial positions 

with the Social Security Administration’s Office of Strategic Management and Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Personnel Administration, and has served as a technology consultant for General Services Administration, the Federal 

Aviation Administration, and the Department of Labor. 

Mr. Mann is a graduate of Virginia State University, where he 

earned a bachelor’s of science degree in business administration. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted 

into the record, and I now ask each witness to summarize your 

statement for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Mann. 
5 

STATEMENT OF CARLTON I. MANN, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR 

GENERAL FOR INSPECTIONS, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. MANN. Chairman Carney, Chairman Thompson, Members of 

the subcommittee, we thank you for this opportunity to be here 

this morning to discuss recommendations for improving the Department’s conference spending practices and oversight. 

I would like to focus my remarks on five areas where improvements are needed: Clear and consistent conference planning guidance, reliable and verifiable data, sufficient supporting documentation, compliance with applicable travel regulations, and Departmental coordination of sponsored conferences. 

DHS conducts conferences for a variety of purposes, including 

employee and stakeholder training, information sharing, and mission support. We reviewed the Department’s conference spending 

practices and evaluated its policies, oversight and reporting of conference-related expenditures. Specifically, we assessed the total 

spent by the Department on producing and facilitating conferences, 

retreats, and other off-site activities for 2005, 2006, and 2007. 

For each DHS component, we further analyzed the budgets, 

funds spent, number, location, and employee attendance at conferences. From that analysis, we selected five components: FEMA, 

Science and Technology, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Coast Guard, and Departmental Operations in the Directorate of 

Management. 

We analyzed the conference spending practice for 11 conferences 

associated with those five components to obtain a prospective on individual components’ conference-related activities. The 11 conferences include the most expensive within and outside the United 

States. In addition, we examined a fiscal year 2009 conference in 

Hawaii attended by 19 S&T personnel. 

As you mentioned, from 2005 to 2007, the Department reportedly 

spent $110 million on conference-related activities. When compared 

to the annual enacted budgets of DHS, the amount spent on conferences was less than 1 percent of available funds each year. However, conference spending represents millions of dollars where management vulnerabilities can exist and areas where benefits and 

outcomes are generally neither evaluated nor measured. 

Prior to October 2008, there was no formal DHS-wide conference 

planning policies, and it was unclear who was responsible for developing and communicating those policies. Although the Department’s current conference planning document is intended to represent a Department-wide policy, it still defers to components to 

continue following their existing guidance. 

It is unclear to what extent policies and guidance have been distributed or announced to DHS headquarters component or contractor personnel. As a result, significant challenges confront adherence to and monitoring of Departmental guidelines and Federal 

regulations. 

DHS does not have a Department-wide definition of what constitutes a conference. The distinction between conference, training, 

and a routine meeting can affect justification requirements for an 

event, how it is funded, as well as who can attend. Given the importance of conferences to help achieve and further the DHS mis-
6 

sion, DHS should adopt and use one Department-wide definition. 

The same should apply to training and meetings. 

Having consistent terminology and guidance would reduce confusion, improve record-keeping, reporting, and oversight of Department-wide conference-related expenditures. 

DHS and its components maintain information related to conferences they sponsor in many different offices within each component. Conference planning data might reside in program offices. 

Documentation supporting procurement of facilities and other services might be maintained and contracted. Financial transaction 

data might be handled by accounting. Staff expenses could be 

tracked in human resources. Travel costs and related documents 

might be handled within travel systems. 

There is no central point within DHS or the five components responsible for maintaining all documents or reporting on all cost elements related to conference spending. Therefore, a central coordination point for policies, tracking and reporting of the conference 

expenditures should be established to minimize these differences. 

This will provide consistency of policy and guidance, standardize 

the definition of conference-related activities, consolidate costs and 

report reconciliation, and enable the sharing of common data 

among components. 

DHS officials were unable to produce precise and consistent 

amounts on conference spending. Therefore, direct reporting from 

the program offices and manual review of documentation was necessary in each component. 

During 2005 to 2007, the chief financial officer issued data calls 

to components requesting information on all the conferences sponsored or attended. However, amounts reported by the components 

to the CFO for the 11 conferences we reviewed were different from 

the amounts we obtained directly from the components for the 

same conferences. 

Discrepancies also existed in attendance counts. We reviewed the 

CFO’s data and the information we received directly from components with respect to the number of employees who attended the 

11 conferences. Again, discrepancies existed in attendance totals, 

and we were unable to validate the accuracy of the information. 

Without using consistent methodology in maintaining attendance 

records and a final reconciliation of conference details, DHS cannot 

effectively provide oversight and monitor policy compliance. 

We observed that the DHS components were planning and sponsoring conferences without any consistent approval or tracking 

processes. When combined with inconsistent conference costs and 

attendance numbers, DHS needs to develop better management 

controls to ensure that conferences are funded and attended only 

for mission-critical purposes and that costs are minimized to the 

greatest extent possible. 

In assessing tracking and monitoring of conferences, DHS must 

use tools, methods, and systems to ensure accountability and minimize costs across the Department. DHS had no efficient means of 

locating documents or information systems that could easily be 

queried to obtain detailed financial or supporting information about 

conferences. 

[The statement of Mr. Mann follows:] 
7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARLTON I. MANN

FEBRUARY 4, 2010 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss recommendations for 

improving the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) conference spending practices and oversight. I would like to focus my remarks on five areas where improvements are needed: 

1. Clear and consistent conference planning guidance; 

2. Reliable and verifiable conference data; 

3. Sufficient supporting documentation for conference costs; 

4. Compliance with applicable federal travel regulations; and, 

5. Departmental coordination of sponsored conferences. 

At your request, Chairman Thompson, we reviewed the Department’s conference 

spending practices and evaluated its policies, oversight, and reporting of conference 

planning and related expenditures. Specifically, we assessed the total amount spent 

by the Department on producing or facilitating conferences, retreats, and other offsite activities for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007. For each DHS component, we 

further analyzed budgets, funds spent on conferences, the number and locations of 

conferences, full-time equivalent staff allotments, and employee attendance at conferences. From this analysis and comparison, we selected five components and examined 11 conferences in more detail. In addition, we obtained a full listing of each 

conference that received funding or staffing support from the Department during fiscal year 2007. 

During fiscal years 2005–2007, the Department reportedly spent approximately 

$110 million on conference-related activities—spending approximately $60 million in 

direct costs and an additional $50 million identified as salary expenses for employees attending the conferences. When compared to the annual enacted budgets of 

DHS, the amount spent on conferences represents less than 1 percent of available 

funds each year. However, these small ratios represent millions of dollars where 

management vulnerabilities can exist and an area where benefits and outcomes are 

generally neither evaluated nor measured. They also demonstrate a financial and 

programmatic area where DHS must exercise due diligence to ensure that funding 

conference-related activities is an appropriate means for accomplishing Departmentwide objectives. 

DHS conducts conferences for a variety of purposes, including employee and 

stakeholder training, information sharing, and mission support. The Department 

has made progress in developing Department-wide conference planning policies. 

However, work is still needed to provide clear, consistent, and adequate guidance 

and instructions. For example, conference cost data did not contain sufficient supporting documentation, and were unreliable, unverifiable, and provided little assurance that all conferences and related costs were tracked and accounted for properly. 

In addition, the Department needs coordination across its components to ensure 

that duplication of efforts related to sponsoring conferences is minimized. 

When reviewing previous DHS Congressional submissions and data, we determined there were discrepancies in conference costs and attendance counts. Although 

unintentional, this provides an inaccurate account of actual total costs incurred, the 

size of the event, and expenses per attendee, and does not provide for transparency 

or accountability in conference activities throughout the Department. 

DHS COMPONENTS AND CONFERENCES REVIEWED

Although we did not review all DHS components, we identified areas in which the 

Department can leverage best practices that will allow it to generate new efficiencies, institute a coordinated program to improve efficiency and streamline decision-making, and ensure that conferences and travel are appropriately coordinated 

and conducted solely for mission-critical purposes. 

We analyzed conference spending practices in five DHS components to obtain a 

perspective on individual components’ conference-related activities. The five components included: 

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); 

• The Directorate for Science and Technology (S&T); 

• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); 

• The United States Coast Guard (USCG); and, 
8 

1Departmental Operations consists of the Office of the Secretary & Executive Management, 

Office of the Under Secretary for Management, OCFO, and Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

• Departmental Operations in the Directorate for Management (DEP OPS).1

From these five components, we examined 11 conferences, which included the 

most expensive within the continental United States (in-CONUS) and the most expensive non-CONUS conference for each of the five components held during fiscal 

years 2005–2007. In addition, we examined one fiscal year 2009 conference in Hawaii, attended by 19 S&T personnel. 

DHS CONFERENCES EXAMINED IN FURTHER DETAIL 

Component Fiscal 

Year Conference Name Conference Location In/Non-CONUS 

FEMA 2006 National Disaster Medical 

System (NDMS) Conference.

Reno, NV ........ In-CONUS 

2007 Regional Interagency Steering 

Committee (RISC) Meeting.

Honolulu, HI .. Non-CONUS 

ICE 2006 Detention Management Control Program Training.Batavia, NY ... In-CONUS 

2007 Regional (Asia) Attache ́ Conference.Orchard District, Singapore.Non-CONUS 

USCG 2006 West Coast Aids to Navigation (AToN) Conference.Everett, WA ... In-CONUS 

2006 District 17 Commanding Officers’ Conference.Juneau, AK .... Non-CONUS 

S&T 2005 2005 National BioWatch Conference.Washington, 

DC.

In-CONUS 

2007 International Underwater 

Tunnel Protection.

London, England.Non-CONUS 

2009 2008 Asia Pacific Homeland 

Security Summit and Exposition.

Honolulu, HI .. Non-CONUS 

DEP 

OPS 

2007 FY2007 Chief Administrative 

Officer’s (CAO) Forum.

Washington, 

DC.

In-CONUS 

2007 29th International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioner’s Conference.Montreal, Canada.Non-CONUS 

DEPARTMENT NEEDS CLEAR AND CONSISTENT CONFERENCE PLANNING GUIDANCE

Prior to October 2008, DHS had no formal Department-wide conference planning 

policies, and it was unclear who was responsible for developing and communicating 

DHS-wide policies. Although DHS’ conference planning document is intended to represent Department-wide policy and reflects a progressive effort, it still defers to 

components with stricter directives to continue following their existing guidance. 

Within various Departmental documents, multiple entities were cited as having responsibilities associated with conference planning. This conflicting information often 

caused staff to rely on inappropriate policies and irrelevant points of contact. 

It is unclear to what extent these policies and guidance have been distributed or 

announced to DHS headquarters, component, and contractor personnel. Little 

knowledge or alignment of practices with policies establishing guidelines for conference planning or spending at the Department level or identification of responsible 

policy-makers exists. As a result, significant challenges confront adherence to and 

monitoring of Departmental guidelines and Federal regulations. 

DHS does not have a Department-wide definition of what constitutes a conference. 

The distinction between a conference, training, and a routine meeting can affect the 

justification requirements of an event, how it is funded, as well as who can attend. 

Given the importance of conferences to help achieve and further the DHS mission, 

DHS should adopt and use one Department-wide definition. The same should apply 

to differentiating training and meetings. Having consistent terminology and guidance would reduce confusion; provide better use of staff resources; improve record 

keeping, reporting, and monitoring; and facilitate the oversight of Department-wide, 

conference-related expenditures. 
9 

CONFERENCE DATA WERE UNRELIABLE AND UNVERIFIABLE

DHS operates in a decentralized financial management environment, which creates difficulties in accurately tracking Departmental funds spent on conferences and 

related travel. Information related to conferences sponsored by DHS and its components is maintained in many different offices within each component. In addition, 

conference planning and attendance often include planning, procurement, and travel 

of employees. Therefore, while conference planning data may reside in program or 

budget offices; documentation supporting procuring facilities and other services may 

be maintained in contracting offices; financial transaction data may be handled by 

accounting; staff expenses may be tracked in human resources; and travel costs and 

related documents are handled within component travel systems. 

DHS officials were unable to produce precise and consistent numbers on conference spending. For example, related conference expenses in the financial management systems throughout the Department are not differentiated from other costs incurred. Therefore, direct reporting from the program offices and manual review of 

documentation were necessary in each component. Often, information was not maintained in a manner to facilitate proper examination, tracking of actual conference 

costs, or identification of a sponsoring entity. 

As a result, most responses we received from DHS components contained missing 

data and had discrepancies. For fiscal year 2007 conferences, sponsorship information was often incomplete or inaccurate. In essence, the data received for fiscal years 

2005–2007 were unreliable, unverifiable, and contained little assurance that components properly tracked or accounted for all conferences and related costs. 

In addition, conference planners frequently did not take into consideration all of 

the information required to estimate potential costs or account for actual costs. In 

particular, the costs incurred during the planning and preparation stages and other 

staff-related costs such as salaries, travel, and incidentals were overestimated in 

some cases and underestimated in others. 

Similar differences existed when reviewing the 11 conferences in detail. During 

fiscal years 2005–2007, DHS’ Office of Chief Financial Officer issued data calls to 

components requesting information on all conferences sponsored or attended. However, the amounts reported by components to the Chief Financial Officer for the 11 

conferences were different from the amounts we obtained directly from the components for the same conferences. 

Discrepancies also exist in attendance counts. We reviewed data from DHS’ Office 

of Chief Financial Officer and information directly from components with respect to 

the number of employees who attended the 11 conferences. Again, discrepancies existed in attendance totals and we were unable to validate the accuracy of the information. Because of an inconsistent Departmental definition, numbers could include 

only the sponsoring program office’s employees, component employees, or all DHS 

employees who attended. Without using consistent methodology in maintaining attendance records and a final reconciliation of conference details, DHS cannot effectively provide oversight and monitor policy compliance. 

Currently, DHS components are planning and sponsoring conferences without any 

consistent approval or tracking processes. When combined with inconsistent conference costs and attendance numbers, DHS needs to develop better management 

controls to ensure that conferences are funded and attended only for mission-critical 

purposes and that costs are minimized to the greatest extent possible. In assessing, 

tracking, and monitoring conferences, DHS must use innovative tools, methods, and 

systems to ensure accountability and cost minimization across the Department. By 

promoting cooperation among its components and analysis of lessons learned internally and by other Federal entities, the Department has the opportunity to develop 

a systematic, disciplined approach to managing conference-related costs. 

Comprehensive cost and planning information should be collected to allow managers to make informed decisions regarding the reasonableness or necessity of proposed DHS conference expenditures. A singular, defined practice of capturing and 

reporting all conferences costs incurred is needed to ensure that data are reliable 

and verifiable. In addition, quality control procedures should be created to prevent 

discrepancies and variances in reported conference totals. 

CONFERENCE COSTS DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Most documentation developed to support conference planning activities is financial. Whether it is procurement for such items as securing a facility, arranging for 

exhibition materials, ordering food and beverage service, printing programs; or incurring expenses such as travel arrangements, lodging, shipping of materials to the 

site, and mailing of invitations or flyers; there is a fiscal effect on program, office, 

component, and Department budgets. There can also be an effect on the Depart-
10 

2 41 CFR § 301–74.3: What must we do to determine which conference expenditures result in 

the greatest advantage to the Government? 3 41 CFR § 301–74.19: What records must we maintain to document the selection of a conference site? 4 41 CFR § 301–74.4: What should cost comparisons include? 5 RISC meetings rotate from State to State in Region IX, and this meeting was held in Hawaii 

as its normal place in the rotation. 

ment’s ability to demonstrate that particular performance measures have been met, 

through conference activities, when no records of the achievement exist. 

DHS had no efficient means of locating applicable documents or information systems that could be easily queried to obtain detailed financial or other supporting 

information about conferences. As a result, components were slow to respond and 

did not uniformly document or categorize expenditures. We also reviewed reported 

costs, cost comparisons for locations, and the use of external event planners for the 

11 conferences. This information revealed that site comparisons were frequently not 

performed or documented, and cost-benefit factors often were not considered when 

choosing external event planners over internal staff to carry out conference planning 

and organizing. 

We requested basic information on each of the 11 conferences such as the date, 

location, number of attendees, sponsorship, and whether the conference was held 

annually. Although DHS components were able to provide this information, and the 

descriptions of each conference appeared related to programmatic goals, responses 

were not timely and descriptions varied. 

In addition, there was no central point within DHS or the five components we reviewed responsible for maintaining all documents or reporting on all cost elements 

of conference spending. As a result, components were slow to respond to our information requests, provided incomplete information, and had trouble identifying the 

appropriate individuals or offices within the component that would have knowledge 

of the requested information. 

Costs were reported inconsistently as estimates, projections, awarded, budgeted, 

or actual expenses. Supporting documents and invoices frequently did not equate 

with the total reported costs spent on the conference. For instance, S&T reported 

that for the BioWatch conference, they spent approximately $190,000 on conference 

costs, excluding travel and salary expenses. However, a task order was issued for 

$426,637. We requested the related invoices from S&T, and they provided a set of 

cumulative invoices from one contractor, which included one invoice related to the 

conference indicating that it was the final invoice for the conference totaling 

$288,888 cumulative to date. We have no information to confirm whether the remaining funds were spent and what they were spent on. 

Further, it appears that components have underestimated and underreported conference costs. For example, invoices retrieved from the National Disaster Medical 

System (NDMS) contractor and subcontractor were significantly more than what 

FEMA reported to us, a difference of approximately $580,000. Another underestimate of costs appears in the S&T Asia Pacific Homeland Security Summit and Exposition, where the component estimated $62,500 in conference expenses, excluding 

travel and salary, and we received copies of invoices for approximately $85,000. 

As I previously mentioned, cost comparisons were often not conducted. Conference 

planners are required to conduct site comparisons and are to consider both lower 

cost conference locations and venues at various locations.2 For conferences with 

greater than 30 attendees, Federal agencies must consider at least three conference 

sites and must maintain a cost record of each alternative conference site.3 With respect to comparing costs for specific venues, a planner considers such items as the 

availability of lodging rooms at per diem rates, transportation fees, the convenience 

of location, availability of meeting space, and equipment and supplies.4

We determined that two components did not provide adequate supporting documentation related to conducting cost comparisons. For example, FEMA sponsored a 

conference for its Region IX Regional Interagency Steering Committee (RISC) meeting, which was held at the Waikiki Beach Marriott Hotel.5 FEMA reported agency 

attendance at 32 and the total conference attendance, including local attendees, was 

195. Federal agencies are required to consider at least three conference sites and 

keep records of these cost comparisons when planning a conference for over 30 

attendees. 

Even though information provided for the other conferences demonstrated that 

cost comparisons were done for the locations, efforts can be made to minimize expenditures for the rental of private facilities when Government facilities are available. Of the conferences we reviewed, five incurred facility costs, totaling $227,039. 
11 

6The fiscal year 2006 Commanding Officers’ Conference cost $113,401. 

In addition, consideration must be given to other cost categories to ensure a wellrounded evaluation of all costs when choosing a location. For example, to eliminate 

unnecessary expense, ICE used its own facilities, incurring no costs, when sponsoring the conference on Detention Management Control Training. In another case, 

the USCG used a naval station for the West Coast AToN conference at a cost of 

$200 with staff lodged on USCG ships, minimizing hotel costs. 

Adequate and proper documentation provides evidence of DHS activities and ensures a decision-making trail. In addition, a comprehensive record-keeping system 

supports the functions required to track financial and administrative transactions, 

and provides detailed information significant to the management of operations. 

These efforts will reduce inconsistencies in reported costs, minimize costs related to 

the rental of non-Government facilities, and identify cost savings related to conference planners. 

DHS TRAVEL EXPENDITURES WERE NOT SUPPORTED CONSISTENTLY OR IN COMPLIANCE

WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

Based on the number of attendees reported to us by five DHS components, we requested 25 percent of the travel vouchers for examination in detail. Of the 72 vouchers we requested, DHS components were able to provide only 47, or 65 percent. As 

such, we were unable to determine or verify the costs of conference-related travel 

and travel reimbursements accurately because of deficiencies in supporting documentation. 

Although meals had been provided to the attendees during several of the conferences, we determined that some DHS employees had not deducted the corresponding meal per diem amounts from their official travel vouchers, as required 

by Federal travel regulations. For example, six employees neglected to deduct the 

lunch portion of their meals and incidental expenses for the FEMA NDMS conference totaling $78. In another instance, one S&T employee who attended the Asia 

Pacific Homeland Security Summit and Expo, did not reduce the per diem to reflect 

any of the meals provided, amounting to an overpayment of $102. 

We also reviewed a number of other travel records that were completed incorrectly and omitted relevant information. Some did not provide adequate explanation 

or justifications on the travel documentation to readily determine the appropriateness of the costs. For example, it appeared that FEMA reimbursed one employee 

$176 for a canceled airline ticket, a second employee $466 for duplicate lodging 

costs, and a third for $145 for an extra day of lodging and per diem. In another 

example, DEP OPS provided reimbursement of a $454 conference fee to attend an 

evening gala for an employee at the Privacy Conference. The cost was separate from 

the cost of the conference itself and typically would not be reimbursable. Again, 

without proper justifications noted on the supporting documentation, we cannot determine whether these reimbursed costs were appropriate. 

DEPARTMENTAL COORDINATION OF SPONSORED CONFERENCES WOULD FACILITATE

EFFICIENCIES

One of the fundamental management goals for DHS leadership is to unify the diverse aspects of each component. This includes the standardization of managerial 

practices and systems to allow interconnectivity and cross-communication. This 

standardization is essential to join interrelated functions and eliminate duplicate activities and costs. However, there is a need to coordinate across DHS components 

to minimize duplication in facilitating conferences. 

The Department should undertake a review of annual conferences to determine 

whether other cost-saving means for communicating information would be more appropriate. For example, the USCG District 17 Commanding Officers’ Conference is 

held annually after USCG staff is rotated throughout the district offices. For the fiscal year 2009 conference, the Commanding Officer conducted a needs assessment, 

determined that there had been no change in leadership since the last annual Commanding Officers’ Conference, and canceled the one scheduled. Rather than holding 

the annual conference solely because it is sponsored every year, USCG leadership 

exercised fiscal prudence and decided to use other means to communicate with the 

staff, potentially saving more than $113,000.6

A coordinated approach to planning conferences is critical to align Departmental 

efforts and resources adequately. In some cases, components are disconnected from 

each other, with little or no interaction, which creates different resource 

prioritization and potential duplication of efforts across the Department. Without 

knowledge of on-going component conference activities, headquarters elements do 
12 

not have the information they need to ensure that DHS’ overall strategic goals are 

being achieved in the most efficient manner possible. 

In summary, Department-wide conference planning policies can result in significant benefits such as establishing joint strategies; reducing the effect of conflicting 

strategies; addressing needs through leveraging combined resources; defining component roles and responsibilities to reduce duplication; and defining and implementing compatible regulations, policies, and procedures. 

The Department’s conference planning policies need to provide clear, consistent, 

and adequate guidance and instructions. Conference planning should be defined and 

monitored at the Departmental level to ensure consistency across components and 

the incorporation of due diligence and standards into conference planning and administration. DHS needs to be able to demonstrate its results in sponsoring and 

hosting conferences. 

Current Departmental guidance provides for widely varying policies and procedures among the components, which perpetuates confusion and inconsistency in policy interpretations. A central coordination point for policies, monitoring, and reporting of conference expenditures should be established to minimize these differences. 

This will provide consistency of policy and guidance application, term definition, cost 

consolidation and report reconciliation; sharing of common data among components; 

and program performance and contribution alignment to Departmental strategic 

goals and objectives. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or the Members may have. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Mann. 

Ms. Duke. 

STATEMENT OF ELAINE C. DUKE, UNDER SECRETARY FOR 

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. DUKE. Chairman Carney, Chairman Thompson, Members of 

the committee, thank you for having me here this morning. The 

Department encourages and supports employee participation in 

Federal and non-Federal meetings and conferences. Such events 

are an excellent means to exchange and communicate ideas and 

knowledge. 

However, there is also a need to ensure that attendance at meetings and conferences is mission-critical, as prescribed in management directives and DHS policies. 

We appreciate the inspector general’s recommendations in the 

‘‘DHS Conference Spending Practices and Oversight’’ report and 

concur with the majority of the findings. 

However, when reviewing the data, it must be noted that the report is based on the Department facilitating conferences and offsite activities for fiscal years 2005 through 2007. These findings 

validate the pathway we are on to ensure that DHS conferences 

and travel policies reflect the best practices and are uniformly instituted throughout the Department. 

In October 2008, we issued a Department-wide conference-planning policy as part of a travel handbook within the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer. This handbook delineates DHS-wide policy 

regarding employee travel expenses and conference planning. The 

handbook also provides official travel policies and guidance to DHS 

employees throughout the Department. 

The conference-planning policy was based on current regulations 

and is consistent with the Federal Travel Regulation. 

In March 2009, DHS launched the Department-wide efficiency 

review to trim costs, streamline operations, and manage resources 

across the Department more effectively. Two of these initial initiatives under the efficiency review deal with the subject of this hear-
13 

ing: Travel expenses and conference planning, including the use of 

Government facilities for conferences. The intent is to ensure that 

DHS operates in the most economical and efficient manner. 

Specifically, every effort should be made to conduct meetings, 

conferences, and trainings using the least costly method to the 

Government. DHS will ensure all travel is essential in carrying out 

its mission and will make every effort to use means such as conference calls, local area events, web-based communications to reduce costs. 

Some of the key elements of our new policy include requiring 

each component to have a senior accountable official, to ensure that 

components adhere to DHS travel policies, including making sure 

all travel is mission-critical, and having the appropriate documentation. 

It also includes requiring conferences or training events to be 

held within the local commuting area of the majority of conference 

attendees. It requires that conference sites outside the local commuting area may not be selected until it is critical for meeting mission needs and that the appropriate cost-benefit analysis has been 

done. 

For Nation-wide conferences, components must also perform a 

cost-benefit analysis and get at minimum three proposals. Further, 

in selecting conferences’ sites, officials must first consider Government facilities and must document if the use of Government facilities is not appropriate. 

In December 2009—excuse me, November 2009, DHS established 

a conference and event planning services working group that has 

membership from throughout the Department. This group is tasked 

with making sure we leverage our DHS resources both in terms of 

ensuring we have adequate knowledge and use of Government facilities and leverage—excuse me, spending through strategic 

sourcing. 

We have had success stories from this, both in reducing the cost 

of travel, using web-based conferencing, and we look forward to 

both refining our policy further and making sure that the policies 

are carried out throughout the Department. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Duke follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELAINE C. DUKE

DECEMBER 17, 2009 

Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis and Members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss conference spending, practices, and oversight within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

The Department encourages and supports employee participation in Federal and 

non-Federal meetings and conferences. Such events are excellent means to exchange 

and communicate ideas and knowledge. However, there is also a need to ensure that 

attendance at meetings and conferences is mission-critical, as prescribed in management directives and other policies. 

Generally, an employee may attend a meeting or conference when the employee 

is selected to deliver a paper or to serve as a participant; when attendance will benefit the employee’s subsequent job performance; or when substantial professional advantage beneficial to DHS is expected. 

We appreciate the Inspector General’s recommendations in the ‘‘DHS Conference 

Spending Practices and Oversight’’ report and concur with the majority of the findings. However, when reviewing the data, it must be noted that the report is based 
14 

on the Department facilitating conferences and off-site activities for fiscal years 

2005 through 2007. 

In October 2008, we issued a Department-wide conference planning policy as part 

of a Travel Handbook within the Financial Management Policy Manual. The handbook delineates DHS-wide policy regarding employee travel expenses and conference 

planning. The handbook also provides official travel policies and general travel guidance to employees of DHS and our components. The conference planning policy was 

based on current regulations and guidelines outlined in the Federal Travel Regulation. 

In March 2009, the Secretary launched a Department-wide Efficiency Review Initiative to trim costs, streamline operations, eliminate duplication, and better manage resources across the Department. Elements of the efficiency program, specifically the travel and use of Government facilities initiatives, have already generated 

Department-wide policies covering the conference planning process. The Secretary’s 

intent is to ensure DHS operates in the most economical and efficient manner possible. Specifically, every effort should be made to conduct meetings, conferences, and 

training using the least costly method to the Government. DHS will ensure all travel is essential in carrying out its mission and will make every effort, using means 

such as conference calls, local area events, and web-based communications, to reduce costs to the Government. 

Building upon the two Efficiency Review initiatives—regarding the use of Government facilities and regarding travel—DHS is currently working to establish a comprehensive ‘‘One DHS’’ policy on conferences. In November 2009, DHS established 

a Conference and Event Planning Services working group, which has surveyed components to gather requirements for events across the Department and is conducting 

market and industry research with internal Government event planners. The working group is also developing a resource package with low- or no-cost alternatives— 

such as information on the usage of Government facilities—for employees to use 

while planning conferences and events. 

The Efficiency Review Action Directive on travel requires each component to designate a senior accountable official to ensure that the component adheres to travel 

policies and that mission-critical travel is conducted as efficiently and effectively as 

possible. Conferences or training events are required to be held within the local 

commuting area of the majority of the conference attendees; a conference site outside the local commuting area may not be selected unless it is critical for meeting 

mission needs or an internal cost-comparison analysis has demonstrated that the 

savings attributable to use of the particular site in question will offset the transportation and per diem costs of the conference attendees. For Nation-wide conferences, 

components must perform a cost comparison of location and facility alternatives to 

ensure requirements are met at the lowest possible cost. Further, both the Action 

Directive on travel and the Action Directive on facilities require that, when selecting 

facilities for conferences and meetings, conference planners, and approving officials 

must first survey internal Departmental and other Government resources. All analysis must be provided in writing and maintained on file by the conference approving 

official and the component Chief Financial Officer. 

We have had some great success stories in our travel and conference planning this 

year—large and small—across the Department. Examples include: 

• A recent Industry Day conference to introduce the EAGLE II procurement used 

Microsoft Live Web-conferencing, reaching more than 600 participants across 

the country, generating $10,000 in cost avoidance. 

• U.S. Customs and Border Protection restructured its mission support training 

forum by posting training material on its website and by conducting local and 

web-based training instead of gathering mission support personnel in a single 

commercial location; these actions avoided approximately $640,000 in travel and 

administrative costs. 

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel utilized U.S. Army lodging 

facilities in lieu of hotels when attending an advanced firearms training, realizing more than $188,000 in cost avoidances in fiscal year 2009. 

• United States Citizenship and Immigration Services realized a cost avoidance 

of $130,000 in fiscal year 2009 by replacing a management training that previously required the rental of private facilities with a telephonic training. 

• The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center saved more than $104,000 in 

travel and per diem costs by holding its biennial Leadership Conference for senior managers at its office instead of a private facility. 

• The Transportation Security Administration’s Field Leadership Council, an advisory committee comprised of airport Federal Security Directors and Special 

Agents in Charge, has begun utilizing video teleconferencing in lieu of meeting 

in person, avoiding $28,560 in fiscal year 2009 in travel and per diem costs. 
15 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee for your interest in 

and continued support of DHS programs. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before the subcommittee about the DHS travel and conference program. I will be 

happy to answer any questions you or the Members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Ms. Duke. 

As you have heard, we have been called to votes. We have about 

4 minutes left. We will suspend the hearing until after the votes, 

and we will reconvene 10 minutes after the last vote is held. 

I want to be respectful of your time, both of you. I understand 

you have a lot of pressures. But, Ms. Duke, especially, we would 

like—we understand you have to leave to be someplace later on. If 

you could stay for at least one round of questions before you depart, we would appreciate that. 

Ms. DUKE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thanks so much. 

Okay, with that, we stand suspended. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CARNEY. The subcommittee will reconvene. I wanted to 

thank the witnesses for their testimony. If there is no objection, I 

would like to submit for the record the written testimony that was 

received from the National Business Travel Association. Hearing 

no objection, their written statement will be entered into the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL BUSINESS TRAVEL ASSOCIATION (NBTA) 

The National Business Travel Association (NBTA) submits the following comments in response to the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee’s 

Management, Investigations, and Oversight Subcommittee hearing on February 4, 

2010 entitled ‘‘Furthering the Mission or Having Fun: Lax Travel Policies Costs 

DHS Millions.’’ 

BACKGROUND

The National Business Travel Association (NBTA) is the world’s premier business 

travel and corporate meetings organization. NBTA and its regional affiliates—NBTA 

Asia Pacific, the Brazilian Business Travel Association (ABGEV), NBTA Canada, 

NBTA Mexico and NBTA USA—serve a network of more than 15,000 business travel professionals around the globe with industry-leading events, networking, education & professional development, research, news & information, and advocacy. For 

nearly 40 years, the association has been dedicated to the professional development 

of its members and the advancement of the business travel management community 

through advocacy, education and training, and networking opportunities. 

Today’s hearing on a report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) on the use of taxpayer dollars for conferences, retreats, and 

other off-site activities highlights two issues. The first is the effective management 

of travel policies to achieve Government objectives. The second is a larger issue— 

the overall value of business meetings and conferences. 

After assessing the IG report, NBTA believes that DHS should immediately implement a new Government travel management program to: 

(1) Develop internal controls related to the implementation of travel policies; 

(2) Provide oversight of how Government employees spend their travel dollars; 

and 

(3) Implement a more effective reporting structure for conference planning and 

spending practices. 

This program should be led by a certified Government travel buyer and supported 

by training resources that will help keep DHS travel management practices up to 

date in order to effectively serve the public interest. 
16 

Issue 1—Effective Management of Government Travel 

In addition to a wide array of private sector training and education, NBTA also 

offers educational events and programs focused on the needs of Government travel 

managers. 

The Government Travel Group (GTG) is committed to ensuring that members 

have the tools and information to successfully manage travel programs. This is accomplished by: 

• Facilitating an environment that allows for sharing of information affecting 

Government travel programs; 

• Promoting the education of Government travel professionals; and 

• Providing support to those managing travel programs in Government agencies 

by providing information via the GTG News Brief, and on-line databases designed specifically for Government travel professionals. 

NBTA believes that Federal agencies, like private sector entities, have a responsibility to wisely manage travel and meetings costs, while providing transparency and 

accountability. Additionally, a well-managed travel program should include the following practices: 

• Expense reporting; 

• Cost containment; and 

• Policy compliance. 

In our view, all of these practices are consistent with President Obama’s Good 

Governance initiative, which calls for responsible spending of taxpayer funds. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF A TRAVEL MANAGER

The complexities of the industry have evolved the role of a Government travel 

manager into a multi-faceted function that ranges from service to quality control to 

analysis and expense management. The travel manager counsels and advises employees on matters relating to business travel to include booking methods and costeffective travel considerations. He or she will also regularly facilitate surveys of 

travelers to assure that services are at required levels and will publish traveler satisfaction results to demonstrate on-going customer satisfaction. The travel manager 

will work to establish Quality Assurance (Service Level Agreements/SLA’s) agreements with suppliers to ensure the highest standards are measured and achieved. 

Recommendations should be made for integrated, comprehensive travel programs by 

working with key stakeholders. A travel manager will utilize travel management reporting tools and use these assessments to ensure policy compliance, make recommendations and implement changes to the travel program. Expense management 

is realized in the development and management of the Departmental budget, providing a consultative role within the agency with regard to future travel cost budgeting and providing recommendations for improving expense management strategies 

within the agency. 

In addition, the travel manager serves to develop and distribute information regarding traveler safety and security. In doing so, he/she is responsible for overseeing 

the implementation of traveler tracking and alert systems available through multiple sources, including the preferred travel management companies, on-line booking 

technology, Government agencies and outside security suppliers when appropriate. 

The manager is also responsible for the development of a Travel Management Services Crisis Plan in conjunction internal company departments including human resources and risk management and also with preferred travel management companies or key suppliers. 

To help educate the Government travel manager on the roles and responsibilities 

that come with this position NBTA, working with several Government agencies, developed the Certified Government Travel Executive Program (CGTE). The CGTE 

program is aimed at helping Government travel professionals meet the demands 

that come with managing multi-faceted travel programs. The knowledge and skill 

sets gained from completing the CGTE program help to build a strong leader and 

a successful Government travel manager. 

CGTE is a comprehensive program that enables participants to: 

• Define the scope and responsibility of the Government travel manager; 

• Discover new ways to communicate ideas to employees and superiors; 

• Network with peers that represent all branches of Government and various sectors of industry; and 

• Attain professional growth and development as a leader within your agency or 

company. 

The CGTE is modeled on NBTA’s education program for private sector travel 

managers, the Certified Corporate Travel Executive (CCTE) program. The CCTE is 
17 

designed to help corporate travel managers adapt to the changing global business 

environment by using corporate travel as a strategic tool. 

Issue 2: Value of Business Meetings 

Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Reid noted the importance of travel and 

meetings to the economy. In a letter to the Treasury Department, he notes: 

‘‘ . . . conventions and meetings are a routine and accepted part of running a successful enterprise in this country. Sales of products and services, networking opportunities, and negotiating and consummating transactions all come from these types 

of meetings, leading to productivity and growth for companies that ultimately create 

jobs. In turn, these functions create another 2.4 million jobs annually for those businesses that host and provide services to them.’’ 

While there are many well-known examples of mismanagement of travel in the 

private sector, today’s hearing brings these same challenges to light in the Government context. It is easy to forget, as a result, that travel is not a ‘‘perk’’ for many 

individuals. Indeed, for these people, it is a job requirement that takes them away 

from family for long periods of time, sometimes to remote areas around the globe. 

As a result, it is incumbent upon the employer—public or private—to provide safe, 

economic, and efficient guidelines to the traveling employee. 

NBTA and the travel industry are quite aware of the negative portrayal of business travel and events permeating the media in the wake of several high-profile 

meetings over the last year. In truth, the vast majority of meetings, conventions, 

and conferences are cost-efficient, well-planned tools used by companies to drive 

business. Additionally, business meetings are an economic benefit to the host city 

and local businesses. 

All told, the travel industry is a major component of our Nation’s economy, di- rectly supporting 2.4 million jobs and accounting for $240 billion in spending and 

$39 billion in tax revenue at the Federal, State, and local levels, with the average 

meeting or event traveler spending about $1,000 per trip. However, recent statistics 

from the Department of Labor report that nearly 200,000 travel-related jobs were 

lost in 2008 and another 247,000 are expected to be lost in 2009. While NBTA supports the Government crackdown on excessive travel and entertainment spending 

by Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients companies, we encourage the 

Government and media to promote responsible travel in order to help our Nation’s 

economy recover. 

As an example of the importance of business travel and attending meetings, 

NBTA recently released a survey indicating that corporate travel buyers attending 

the NBTA Convention in 2007 and 2008 reported that their attendance has helped 

them save their companies, on average, 11 percent of their annual Travel and Entertainment (T&E) budget. These savings are based on negotiating travel deals with 

suppliers and learning about cost-saving ideas in formal education sessions and informal discussions with their colleagues. 

In the case of NBTA’s annual convention, there is significant economic data indicating a strong return on investment for this meeting. With an average T&E spend 

of $125.5 million, the average savings resulting from NBTA Convention attendance 

is about $13.9 million. Assuming an investment of $1,950 (round-trip airfare, 3 

night’s lodging, registration fee, meals not provided, and incidentals), the average 

attendee’s ROI is well over 7,100 percent. 

While NBTA is obviously most familiar with the economics of its own convention, 

we are confident that other industries derive similar benefits from their own meetings and conventions. 

CONCLUSION

The National Business Travel Association believes a well-managed travel program 

ensures agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security are following guidelines that specifically include expense reporting, cost containment, and policy compliance. This outcome is exactly the type of transparency and accountability the 

Obama Administration has sought. Thus, NBTA encourages not only the Department of Homeland Security, but all relevant Government agencies to train its travel 

department and institute an agency-wide managed travel program. 

Mr. CARNEY. I will remind each Member that he or she will have 

5 minutes to question the panel. I will now recognize myself for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. Duke, starting out with you, when Department operations 

held its annual conference for administrative officers in the District 

of Columbia, instead of holding it at a Government venue, DHS 
18 

hosted 650 employees at the Mandarin Oriental, a four-star luxury 

hotel and spa, at the cost of $100,000 a day for 3 days. 

Was a cost comparison done to justify such a cost? How was that 

chosen as the venue? What happened there? 

Ms. DUKE. In that particular case, there was a cost comparison 

done, and there were quotes from several vendors. One of the challenges is finding a venue for that many people. It is a high cost. 

It is the annual training conference for that group of individuals. 

But since that conference, we have looked at not only the actual 

costs, but the appearance of costs and making sure that DHS isn’t 

representing itself in a way that we are having events at those 

type of establishments. 

Mr. CARNEY. Because in your opening comment, you mentioned 

that you need to use the least costly. You couldn’t have come down 

a couple of stars on that, in terms of—— 

Ms. DUKE. Yes. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. Now, the number of folks that attended, also, 

650 seems like a very healthy number. Was there any kind of criteria to screen the number that decided how many people should 

actually attend? 

Ms. DUKE. I think there are two types of conferences. There are 

conferences in which we are looking at minimizing the number of 

attendees. That particular conference is really a training event. It 

is an annual event for DHS employees in the administrative fields 

to get training on the latest policy, both Federal and DHS. So it 

is important in that particular case for the employees that need the 

training to attend. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. We will return to this. 

I want to ask Mr. Mann a question. Mr. Mann, who in DHS is 

in charge of management and oversight of the conference spending? 

Mr. MANN. It appears as if it is so decentralized that individual 

agencies run their own conference management shops. We did not 

identify anyone in DHS who had central responsibility for managing conferences. 

Mr. CARNEY. Who should have this responsibility, given the organization chart of the Department? 

Mr. MANN. Well, the recommendations in our report were sent 

to Ms. Duke’s office. It is our feeling that that is where the management oversight should be. 

Mr. CARNEY. Ms. Duke, do you agree? Is that correct? 

Ms. DUKE. I agree that management should have the oversight. 

I do believe with our functional integration model, though, that 

some type of—not as decentralized as it was, but decentralized decision-making is appropriate. 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Mann, do you think the conferences in the end 

helped further the mission of the agency? Or did it—was there a 

value added? Did we get the kind of bang for the buck that we 

were after here? 

Mr. MANN. Well, I think that we did. It is actually hard to determine in some cases simply because we didn’t have a good system 

to measure or the Department doesn’t have a good system to measure the success or the value that the individuals have gotten for 

their conference attendance. 
19 

But given the variety of missions that are within DHS, the need 

to exchange information, we don’t question necessarily the number 

of conferences or the purposes of the conferences. We do believe 

that they do add value to the Department. 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Mann, when one of the DHS officials told the 

Office of Inspector General that there is no reason to track conference expenditures because there is no spending restrictions, is 

that true? I mean, are there no spending restrictions in place? 

Have there been no guidelines? If they don’t track the spending, 

how do we know it is even $110 million that was spent? Could it 

have been more? 

Mr. MANN. It could have been—you raise a very interesting 

point, and that is one of the premises of the report that we provided. We are not certain. We certainly believe from inspector general’s perspective—and just from a reasonable method of managing 

anything—we believe that there should be some accountability, 

there should be tracking systems, there needs to be at least the 

ability to compare costs to determine whether or not the Department is, in fact, getting what it is paying for, and that the information on—I am sorry, but that the money is being allocated to events 

that further the Department—that further the mission of DHS. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. Well, thank you. 

I now yield 5 minutes to Mr. Pascrell. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Ms. Duke, Under Secretary, and Mr. Mann, for your 

work at the request of the Chairman of this committee. I would 

imagine that when you were examining what happened during this 

2005 to 2007 period of time, you must have had some real eyeopeners, and you must have said to yourselves, ‘‘This can’t be.’’ 

Because the same transparency and accountability that we have 

asked of every agency in homeland security, as well as the Department itself, doesn’t exist in most of the agencies of homeland security. This is a systemic problem within the Department for there 

not to be any checks and balances. 

So what we have here is, Mr. Chairman, I would think we could 

conclude that there is bureaucracy upon bureaucracy. When there 

is bureaucracy, there is no accountability. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about December 25 or we are talking about budget stuff or we are talking about what happened here. 

The figures that Homeland Security gave you about the expenditures of traveling during this time and the figures from Mr. Mann 

are quite different, aren’t they, Mr. Mann? 

Mr. MANN. That is correct. 

Mr. PASCRELL. How can you have such discrepancy—we are not 

talking about a few thousand dollars here. We are talking about a 

huge gap between what has been recorded and then what you 

found. Specifically and briefly, why? 

Mr. MANN. Well, it is our impression that the decentralization of 

what might occur in planning a conference, acquisition of facilities 

could occur or could be managed by one portion of an entity. The 

accounting—I mean, it could be—it is so separated that it doesn’t 

necessarily mean that the costs are not justified, but they are not 

consolidated to a point where the final cost of a conference could 
20 

be assumed with relative surety, because information is scattered. 

It is not within one place within any component. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Whose responsibility is it for putting these numbers all together, to having at least the facade of an integrated system? 

Mr. MANN. That is a good question, sir. I am not certain. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I think you are being very frank, because when 

you go through the maze of the charts—who would you say, Ms. 

Duke, is responsible? 

Ms. DUKE. Recently, within the last year, we have identified 

what is called a component accountable official, so there is one official in each component, and then it is in the—over the oversight 

of my office, through the chief financial officer. 

Mr. PASCRELL. These officials do know what receipts and vouchers are necessary to prove work product, correct or incorrect? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Apparently they didn’t know that before or there 

was no one person assigned to each of these entities, is that correct? 

Ms. DUKE. That is correct. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Let me ask you this question. Who is in charge 

of booking travel for the Department? 

Ms. DUKE. That is decentralized. There is not one central place 

where travel is booked. 

Mr. PASCRELL. So, in other words, any one of those agencies previously could have reached out to whomever through the procurement office officer in order to try to get quotes on how much it 

costs? Did they have one travel agency? 

Ms. DUKE. For conference planning, there is not one travel agency. For individual Federal travel or the employee traveling, there 

is a mandatory source. 

Mr. PASCRELL. This reminds me of another scam that we came 

across 4 years ago, 5 years ago. Remember Shirley Limousine? Remember that paper? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I remember it very, very well. The person who 

controlled that organization was a felon. I mean, that doesn’t make 

him a bad guy, I guess, but he was a felon. We can’t figure out how 

we got the contract. 

If there is—there being such a huge discrepancy in the numbers 

here, Mr. Mann, am I using hyperbole to suggest that there might 

be something crooked going on here in certain instances, something 

perhaps indictable, something criminal? I mean, am I too far off on 

the limb? Tell me. I will come back—— 

Mr. MANN. Well, I would be hard pressed to say that there is 

criminal. I think that what the Department needs is better documentation. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the activities were 

criminal or—but—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. But it is harder to find because the documentation is not there. 

Mr. MANN. That is correct. 

Mr. PASCRELL. If I was a criminal trying to cover up the actions, 

no one accountable, it would be a lot easier, wouldn’t it, Mr. Mann? 

Mr. MANN. It would be, yes. 
21 

Mr. PASCRELL. It would be. So I would hope—and thank you for 

all of the work that you have done, Ms. Duke, to clean up other 

people’s messes in the past 3 years. I am sorry to hear that you 

are leaving. If they had any brains, they would make you a big 

offer. I am going too far, but what can I tell you? 

I hope that people will listen—I know you are gaveling me because I am telling some things here—but I hope—— 

Mr. CARNEY. No, because your time is up. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I know. My time is always up. I thank you for all 

your service. 

Thank you, Mr. Mann, as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell, certainly. 

Mr. Green, I know that you were here first, but I am going to 

recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Appreciate 

it. Can I insert my statement in the record? I would like to do that. 

Mr. CARNEY. So ordered. 

[The statement of Mr. Bilirakis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER GUS M. BILIRAKIS

FEBRUARY 4, 2010 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At many of our hearings this Congress, I have expressed my view that we must 

ensure that vital homeland security funding is spent as efficiently and effectively 

as possible, and conference spending is no exception. 

Of course, attendance at conferences is important in helping the Department to 

fulfill its mission, be it through training, exercises, or even networking. After all, 

the time to exchange business cards is not during the response to a disaster. 

However, the Department must be a good steward of taxpayer dollars when planning conferences or other travel and deciding which staff will attend. 

To that end, I am looking forward to hearing from Ms. Duke about efforts underway at the Department to implement the Inspector General’s recommendations and 

ensure that a Department-wide conference policy is in place. 

It is also important that the Department be able to adequately track and report 

its spending on conferences. It is my hope that the Department will leverage the 

technology from its financial management consolidation efforts to achieve this goal. 

I am also looking forward to Mr. Mann’s testimony and am particularly interested 

in lessons learned and best practices from both within DHS and within other Federal agencies and departments that the Department could implement to ensure it 

has sound conference planning and tracking capabilities. 

We should also practice what we preach. From January 1 through September 30 

of last year, the Committee on Homeland Security spent nearly $73,000 on travelrelated expenditures. This amount of spending exceeds the travel expenditures of 

all other House committees, with the exception of the Appropriations Committee. 

This past August, 14 committee staffers—11 Democrats and 3 Republicans—traveled to Australia and Thailand. While I’m sure there were many benefits to this 

staff travel, we must ask ourselves the same questions that we are asking the Department: Was this necessary and reasonable? 

I also find it ironic that, at the same time this subcommittee was originally scheduled to hold this hearing entitled, ‘‘Furthering the Mission or Having Fun: Lax 

Travel Policies Cost DHS Millions,’’ staff from the Department was traveling with 

staff from this committee, to among other places, Las Vegas, at a likely cost of tens 

of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. 

I don’t doubt the value of the information this trip provided to our committee 

staff, but I wonder whether there would have been more appropriate venues to visit 

where the same things could have been learned more cost effectively for taxpayers. 

Mr. Chairman, we must all work together to ensure that money spent by the Federal Government is put to the best use. I look forward to working with you and the 

Department to ensure this is done. 
22 

Before I yield back Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize 

Under Secretary Duke for her service. This may be the last time she testifies before 

this subcommittee and I want to thank her for her willingness to work with our 

committee and for all of her efforts to enhance the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary Duke, you will be missed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. 

Secretary Duke, the inspector general’s report noted the difficulty they had in obtaining conference data because it was—the 

manual was—it was a manual process. Much of the requested data 

is several years old. Is the Department better able to track and 

produce data from more recent fiscal years? If not, what plans do 

you have to enhance your tracking process? Will you leverage the 

capabilities of TAS to achieve better visibility into conference 

spending? 

Ms. DUKE. The accountability is better now because we have one 

central person, but it is still a manual system, and we are looking 

at TAS to be part of the solution for automated financial controls. 

Additionally, we are moving to a standard classification system for 

financial, so what Mr. Mann said doesn’t happen where things are 

accounted for in different ways, in different components. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you. Next question, again, for you, Madam 

Secretary. Portions of the Secretary’s efficiency review initiative focused on spending related to travel and conferences. You touched 

on some of the outcomes in your testimony. Could you elaborate on 

the findings or outcomes of the initiative? Does the conference data 

provided to the inspector general’s office include spending for Congressionally-requested trips and side visits? 

Ms. DUKE. No, the IG report was just on conferences, so it would 

not include the Congressionally-requested trips. What we are doing 

is—in addition to the accounting that Mr. Mann talked about— 

really looking at the mission essential, the number of people we 

send, what type of facilities we use, as the Chairman said. So it 

is really a comprehensive look. 

Also, travel, how many people we send on travel and the cost of 

that travel is a huge part of conference spending. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. In your testimony, you noted the importance of 

conferences for staff as a learning tool and a forum for the exchange of ideas. As a Member from a State that heavily relies on 

tourism, I know those conferences can also be valuable to the local 

economy. How does the Department and its components determine 

where to hold the conferences? 

Ms. DUKE. Under the new rule, we look at where most of the 

attendees will be from and look for local sites. We require competition among the sites, preferably, again, where most of the 

attendees are located so we don’t have those travel costs. We require at least three proposals to look at, to get a low-cost alternative. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thanks for that information. Is there a mechanism to determine the return on investment for travel to meetings 

and conferences in terms of increased productivity or improved performance? 

Ms. DUKE. Currently, we have satisfaction surveys, but we don’t 

have a systemic way to look at increased productivity, no. 
23 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Mr. Mann, what lessons learned or best 

practices from other Federal agencies or departments could the Department implement to strengthening its conference oversight? 

Mr. MANN. Well, one of the things that DHS did, for example, 

the Coast Guard has an annual commanders conference, and it is 

based on when Coast Guard individuals rotate. Now, for 2009, the 

commanding officer for this particular district of the Coast Guard 

who sponsors this conference recognized that there was no rotation 

among the Coast Guard officers and decided not to hold the annual 

conference, simply because it was scheduled, which potentially 

saved $113,000 for the Department. 

So I think that broader scrutiny with regard to whether an annual—whether a conference is needed, whether there are alternative methods to providing conference information certainly 

should be looked at. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay, I understand your report was completed 

last November. Have you been monitoring the Department’s implementation of your recommendations since that time? If so, please 

tell us the progress. 

Mr. MANN. There were 12 recommendations in the report. In the 

Department—we were able to close one of the recommendations almost immediately. The Department is due to provide us with its 

corrective action plan within the next couple of weeks. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Based on your review of the Department of 

Homeland Security, would you recommend any changes to the Federal travel regulations that would promote greater efficiency 

throughout the Executive branch? 

Mr. MANN. No, I think the Federal travel regulations are adequate for their purposes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Thank you very much. No further questions. I yield back. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Green, from Texas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. I thank you and the Ranking Member. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing, as well. 

I am always sensitive when it comes to issues of this kind. I am 

sensitive for two reasons. One, they are hard-working employees 

who don’t merit having a broad brush touch them. What I would 

want to understand is that this is not something that is so pervasive that all of the employees should somehow be viewed in a negative light. 

Ms. Duke, would you kindly comment please, so that the record 

will reflect an opinion about this? 

Ms. DUKE. Yes. I mean, I think when you look at the conferences 

even listed in the appendix of the IG report, the predominance 

even in just that summary are clear of why they were needed. It 

was going to sites to meet with small businesses, to do employment 

fairs, those type of things. 

What we have to do is be better about documenting and make 

sure we do those necessary events, that they are done in the most 

cost-effective way, including the travel costs, the hotel costs, or use 

of Government facilities. 

So I think that, in looking through the list of conferences, the 

employees that attended gave value. They were mission-critical. We 
24 

just have to handle the fiduciary side of it a little more completely 

and effectively. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Mann, would you care to comment, please? 

Mr. MANN. Certainly. I think that a part of the issue here is a 

lot of employees are just not familiar with travel regulations. For 

example, in cases where meals might be provided as a part of the 

conference, we determined that there were some instances where 

employees were still getting per diem. 

It is our impression that there is certainly nothing criminal— 

there is no criminal intent in that, but just a basic unfamiliarity 

with the rules and regulations as it pertains to what can be 

vouchered on their travel expense documents versus what cannot. 

We in the IG certainly see the value in having conferences of this 

nature. I mean, we have our own conference within the IG, where 

it is an opportunity to share information, and then we are all hearing the same thing at the same time. 

So we certainly support conferences. But as Ms. Duke said, the 

real issue here is documentation that really doesn’t make everything add up to indicate that the amount spent for conferences 

was, in fact, appropriate. 

Mr. GREEN. We do have a list of conferences—selective conference activity for review. As I look at this, I would just like for 

you to just give some indication as to whether or not these are legitimate conferences. There was a case where 150 employees attended a leadership conference that cost $28,995. Was that a legitimate conference? 

Mr. MANN. Are you asking me, sir? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. Do you have the same information that I 

have, where we have—— 

Mr. MANN. I am not exactly sure. 

Mr. GREEN [continuing]. A conference—this is a conference in St. 

Simons Island. Don’t have that? Okay, let me do this, if I may. 

Having been a trial lawyer, may I approach the witness, Mr. 

Chair? 

Mr. CARNEY. You may ask your questions, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Well, then may I have this given to the witness? 

Mr. CARNEY. Yes, that would be fine. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay, thank you. Here. Okay, would you pass that 

to the witness, please? 

Mr. MANN. You know, while that is on its way to me—— 

Mr. GREEN. I may have to interrupt, because I only have a 

minute and 2 seconds left. So let me just hurriedly go through 

these, and perhaps the Chair will give you the additional time. The 

first listed, the first bullet, 150 employees, leadership conference, 

$28,995. Was that a legitimate conference? 

Mr. MANN. To be perfectly honest with you, sir, our scope did not 

involve determining the legitimacy of the conference. It was, we 

took what we were able to get from the Department at face value. 

I know it is a terrible thing to assume that it wasn’t legitimate, but 

it would be assumption that it was a legitimate conference. Perhaps Ms. Duke can elaborate. 

Mr. GREEN. Ms. Duke, can you tell me, please? 
25 

Ms. DUKE. I can get back for the record, but I think when we 

looked through all these conferences, they were legitimate. I know 

that that particular CBP conference, in later years, they did it by 

technology, rather than holding an in-person conference on that 

particular CBP one. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me ask—Mr. Chairman, may I ask one additional question? My time is up, and I don’t want to abuse the privilege. 

Mr. CARNEY. I appreciate you asking. Because of that, you will 

be granted additional time. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just quickly, we have this list that I have accorded you. Is there 

any conference on this list that is not a legitimate conference? 

Ms. DUKE. I don’t see any on the list that are not legitimate conferences. Again, we have to be efficient in the number of people we 

send, where we have them, but in terms of the topics that are on 

this list, I believe they are all mission-essential conferences, as we 

have described it. 

Mr. GREEN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

Ms. Duke, the DHS reimbursed employees for gala tickets, for $8,000 plane tickets. Where was that to and from? Do you have any 

idea what would make a ticket cost $8,000? 

Ms. DUKE. There are cases of business-class or first-class travel, 

and that would be—an international business-class travel ticket 

would be in that range. We have tightened up quite a bit our policies and our actual activity on business- and first-class travel. 

Mr. CARNEY. Does that include the luggage fees and box lunch 

fees and things like that, too? Now, something that was sort of 

troubling to me is that people were reimbursed for free meals. At 

what rate were they reimbursed for free meals? How did they submit a claim for a free meal? They knew the meal was free. 

You know, not to put too fine a point on what Mr. Pascrell was 

saying, but was there some mischief here, somebody trying to game 

the system in this respect? This is for both of you, by the way. 

Ms. DUKE. The issue is that an employee gets per diem, so much 

a day, and when they have a free meal—say, the conference has 

lunch because there is a speaker—they are supposed to deduct that 

lunch piece of per diem. It is a manual calculation, and it looks 

like—and those were the cases in the IG report that it was not 

done. 

So we have reinforced training, both of the travelers, but also 

each one of those is approved by an approving official to look for 

those type of things and make sure they are done properly. 

Mr. CARNEY. Oh, so these approving officials were not consistent 

throughout the Department? Is that a problem? 

Ms. DUKE. The supervisor or someone in the chain of command 

is usually the approving official for both the travel and the travel 

voucher. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. But within the various agencies within the 

Department, there is not consistency or there hasn’t been? 

Ms. DUKE. Correct, in terms of how much—how, I guess, closely 

they look at those and didn’t—obviously, there were some approv-
26 

ing officials that didn’t notice that, so they weren’t looking at them 

closely enough. 

Mr. CARNEY. Please tell me this is getting fixed. 

Ms. DUKE. It is. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Mann. 

Mr. MANN. I am not certain at all employees are aware of the 

travel regulations and what they actually need to deduct. That in 

our mind is a training issue. 

Of course, there could be employees who are very knowledgeable 

about the system and figure out a way to get a few extra dollars. 

I mean, we can’t discount that. But I seriously—I think it is a 

training issue more than an issue of individuals trying to capitalize 

on free meals. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay, thanks. 

Ms. Duke, the news reports indicate that, in 2008, DHS spending 

on travel was second only to the Department of Defense. Obviously, 

we all agree that we have a need for legitimate travel and the conferences are valuable and that sort of thing. 

When you get that big of a number, I mean, when we close in 

on DOD numbers, how can we be sure that we are getting the kind 

of value that we need, that there are not folks gaming the system, 

that we are not being—sending folks to four-star hotels when 

three-star or two-star would do? You know, how do we make sure 

that happens? 

Ms. DUKE. Well, I think two of the steps we have taken—one is 

centralizing that under an accountable official in each component 

and, secondly, just the cultural change of really scrutinizing it. 

I think it was—under the efficiency reviews, there has been a 

real cultural change to really look at travel, the necessity, and also 

the cost of it. We just have to continue that cultural change. 

Mr. CARNEY. So the time of DHS before the study was done, the 

2005 to 2007 time frame, anything—and actually including those 

times—there was not the guidance, there was nothing in place that 

was built into the system of DHS for travel and conferences? 

Ms. DUKE. There were a few policies out, but they were disjointed. The first time it was aggregated into one policy was in 

2008 in the financial manual, and that was Department-wide. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. Mr. Mann, from your perspective and that of 

the IG’s, do you think DHS now is tracking properly and has recalibrated the way they need to do this? 

Mr. MANN. Well, first of all, I would like to commend Ms. Duke 

and her staff and actually all those individuals who we interacted 

with during the study for cooperation. We recognized that that 

time period, 2005 to 2007, was—well, DHS is still just 7 years old, 

was even younger then. 

With the number of entities that were pulled together, the mission being what it was, maybe not excusable, but certainly understandable how the travel situation got to be the way that it is. 

With the initiative of the October 2008 guidance, we believe that 

DHS is on the right track to recovering and preventing future occurrences of the same sorts of things that we have identified in our 

report. 
27 

Mr. CARNEY. We will be interested in a couple of years to see 

how it has worked out. 

Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes, if you have questions. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. 

I understand from January 1 through September 30 of last year, the Committee on Homeland Security spent $73,000 on travel-related expenditures. This amount, as you stated, Mr. Chairman, the 

spending exceeds the travel expenditures of all the other House 

committees, with the exception of the Appropriations Committee. 

This past August 14, the committee staffers traveled to Australia 

and Thailand. While I am sure there were many benefits to this 

staff travel, we must ask ourselves the same questions that we are 

asking the Department: Was this necessary and reasonable? 

I also find it ironic that at the same time the subcommittee was 

originally scheduled to hold this hearing, of course, travel and— 

‘‘Furthering the Mission or Having Fun,’’—staff from the Department was traveling with staff from this committee to, among 

places, Las Vegas, at a likely cost of tens of thousands of taxpayers’ 

dollars. 

I don’t doubt the value of the information of this trip provided 

to our committee and staff, but I wonder whether we could find 

maybe a more appropriate venue, maybe something closer to Washington, DC. 

I have a question for Secretary Duke. How will elements of the 

administration’s recently released fiscal year 2011 budget request 

for the Department of Homeland Security assist you in better regulating conference and traveling expenses? 

Ms. DUKE. Probably the biggest is the budget request has—does 

have funding for TAS, which is our financial system, to collect the 

data that would give the right amount of visibility that is virtually 

impossible with the current systems. Again, even with the centralization, it is manual, so that is the probably the element of the 

budget that would help us. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. What mechanism does the Department have to recoup in properly provided funding? 

Ms. DUKE. Well, in terms of, if we improperly pay invoices, we 

do have an auditing system for that and can recoup that way. For 

employees, if we—when we audit travel vouchers, we do have the 

ability to have them repay or we can garnish their wages if it is 

found that they were overpaid for a travel claim. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay, thank you very much. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Green for another 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Back to the list, I was starting at the top, and I would like to 

now move to the bottom of the list. There is an indication that 

some employees received black belt three training, and there is an 

amount listed, but was the training legitimate training? Is that related to the jobs that they perform? 

Ms. DUKE. That one I am not familiar with, Mr. Green. I would 

have to get back for the record. I don’t know what that training is. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. I will tell you that my feelings are somewhat 

ambivalent, as I go through the material, and ambivalent because 

if they are legitimate conferences where legitimate training is tak-
28 

ing place, I do understand that we have to account for the dollars 

and cents that are spent. 

But on the other hand, I understand that legitimate conferences 

don’t always take place in my State or at a place that is convenient 

for me. So we sometimes find ourselves in places that ordinarily we 

might not travel to, but if it is for a legitimate reason, a legitimate 

conference with legitimate training, then—and it is something that 

is needed and related to the job, I am a little bit concerned that 

I don’t create an atmosphere where persons won’t be permitted to 

go to legitimate conferences for legitimate training that would be 

job-related. 

I have a concern. So that is my concern, as I listen to what is 

being said. There are some places that, because of the glamour and 

the lights and the—and the things that happen at night after 

training, that probably some people might think are just bad places 

to be. 

But on the other hand, if it is a legitimate conference for legitimate training and you legitimately are saving money by going 

there as opposed to some place else or you got a good deal for the 

taxpayer—and I am talking about a good deal—then I am reluctant 

to be critical if it is all legitimate and it is for the benefit of the 

taxpayers, ultimately, because someone has received some training. 

When we do this, I just want to be careful. I will speak for myself. I want to be careful not to overreact. I think that there is a 

genuine reason to react here, no question about it, legitimate reasons for reaction because of the disparity because the numbers that 

were submitted to Congress and the actual numbers that were dollars that were spent. I think those are legitimate reasons. 

On the other hand, I don’t want us to get to a point where we 

don’t get people to places where they can receive training that will 

benefit the taxpayers and they not go for fear that there will be 

some sort of reprisal, some sort of—it would become a part of some 

list and, as a result, it will in some way damage or tarnish your 

image by going. 

I am not standing up for anything that was wrong, anything 

wrong that was done. I am a person, however, who has seen 

enough in life to know that people sometimes will do things that 

are beneficial that other people don’t always understand. 

So the reason I was giving you an opportunity to respond to 

these, because these kind of stand out, and I thought that an explanation of what was actually going on would be beneficial to 

those employees who may be under some sort of scrutiny because 

of the actual conference that was attended. 

If you would look into those that I have called to your attention, 

all on this page? Would you kindly respond to me in writing on 

these, since you were—I know that you were caught off-guard. You 

weren’t expecting this specific list, and that is understandable. I 

don’t want you to be demeaned in any way, because you didn’t have 

this specific list. 

So now that you have it, would you kindly respond in writing? 

That way I will be able to give explanations as needed. 

I want to commit this to you: If it is legitimate, and it is to benefit the taxpayers, and the employee was there, and other things 
29 

aside that have to be corrected, I will work with you on these 

things that are legitimate. Thank you very much. 

Ms. DUKE. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Green. 

I do want to echo what Mr. Green was saying. I think it is important that we be able to track and account for what is spent. No one, 

as I said before, wants to see conferences end. There is value in 

them. There is value in travel. There is value to going to Las 

Vegas, actually, and looking at the Predators and the programs out 

there, as long as it is legitimate. You know, that is not an issue. 

We don’t want to get ourselves in a position where people are 

looked at with jaundiced eye because of doing this. If we can’t account for it, you can justify the jaundiced eye. 

I certainly hope that the person who said we don’t have accountability in this because we have unlimited spending has been educated otherwise now and is doing business differently. 

The truth is, every one of us behind this podium and at your 

seats, you know, are responsible for the taxpayers’ dollars. I think 

it is fair to say that, for the first 7 years of DHS’s existence, that 

responsibility among some wasn’t taken very lightly—was taken 

very lightly, wasn’t taken very seriously. 

We are going to change that. This subcommittee, this committee, 

you and I are going to change that. You know, the taxpayers need 

to know that—especially in times like this—that the monies that 

they are spending to keep this Government running are being 

spent well and wisely and to keep us safe. 

I appreciate you both coming here. I imagine there is going to be 

lots of other questions that have been generated by this line of 

questioning and your answers. I would—if so, I would certainly appreciate written responses in a very timely fashion. 

Thank you both for coming. I appreciate it. The subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ