U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–898 PDF 2013

THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED: REDUCING FEDERAL 

TRAVEL & CONFERENCE SPENDING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Serial No. 113–14 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Chairman 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 27, 2013 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Rush Holt, a Member of Congress from the State of New 

Jersey 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Mr. Danny Werfel, Comptroller, U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Ms. Cynthia Metzler, Chief Administrative Services Officer, U.S. General 

Services Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

APPENDIX 

A letter from the U.S. Science, Engineering and Higher Education Organizations Written to the Honorable Blake Farenthold, a Member of Congress 

from the State of Texas ....................................................................................... 30 

A letter from Barry C. Melancon, CPA, CGMA President and CEO, American 

Institute of CPAs .................................................................................................. 32 

The Honorable Stephen F. Lynch, a Member of Congress from the State 

of Massachusetts, Opening Statement ............................................................... 33 

Questions for the Honorable Daniel Werfel from the Honorable Blake 

Farenthold ............................................................................................................ 35 

A letter from the Center for Association Leadership (ASAE) .............................. 43 

A letter from the Government Managers Coalition to the Honorable Blake 

Farenthold ............................................................................................................ 45 

A letter to the Honorable Blake Farenthold from the Society of Toxicology ...... 48 

(1) 

THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED: REDUCING 

FEDERAL TRAVEL & CONFERENCE SPENDING 

Wednesday, February 27, 2013, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE AND THE CENSUS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:33 p.m. in room 

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Blake 

Farenthold [chairman of the subcommittee], presiding. 

Present: Representatives Farenthold, Walberg, Lynch and Clay. 

Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Majority Communications Advisor; 

Alexia Ardolina, Majority Assistant Clerk; Molly Boyl, Majority 

Parliamentarian; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member 

Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief 

Clerk; Jeffrey Post, Majority Professional Staff Member; James 

Robertson, Majority Professional Staff Member; Scott Schmidt, 

Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Peter Warren, Majority Legislative Policy Director; Lena Chang, Minority Counsel; Jennifer 

Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; Adam Koshkin, Minority Research Assistant; and Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of Legislation. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, 

U.S. Postal Service and Census is hereby called to order. We are 

ready to get our hearing underway. 

I would like to begin by reciting the mission statement of the 

Government Oversight and Reform Committee. 

We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans 

have the right to know that the money Washington takes from 

them is well spent. Second, Americans deserve an efficient and effective government that works for them. 

Our duty on the Government Oversight and Reform Committee 

is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold the 

government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a 

right to know what they get from their government. We will work 

tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts 

to the American people and bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. 

This is the mission of the Government Oversight and Reform 

Committee. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

2 

Nine months ago, the whole Committee on Government Oversight and Reform held a hearing on the now infamous GSA Las 

Vegas conference that cost the taxpayers more than $750,000 spent 

by the agency that is charged with keeping federal costs low. 

Shortly following that boondoggle and justifiable public outcry 

accompanying it, the OMB issued a memo in May 2012 outlining 

new policies and procedures for federal travel and conferences. The 

OMB guidance instructs the heads of federal departments and 

agencies for the fiscal year 2013 to spend at least 30 percent less 

on travel expenses than they did in fiscal year 2010. This is similar 

to a recommendation of the President’s Simpson Bowles Commission. If that goal is met, the Federal Government will have spent 

around $4.6 billion in non-military federal employee travel this 

year. 

In addition, the OMB memo offers new rules for conferences such 

as requiring senior level review for planned events, senior level approval and public reporting for those in excess of $100,000 and a 

general prohibition on those costing more than $500,000 unless a 

head of an agency provides a waiver. 

For fiscal year 2012 alone, there were 750 conferences that cost in excess of $100,000. The total cost to the taxpayers of these 

events was more than a quarter of a billion dollars. With the looming $85 billion across the board sequester spending cuts and the 

Administration s unwillingness to offer specific cost saving measures, today s hearing offers us an opportunity to hear how OMB’s 

directive, if fully and responsibly implemented, can potentially help 

save the taxpayers billions of dollars by reducing travel in conference costs that may not be necessary for federal employees to 

discharge the duties of their office. 

We are hoping to determine today if these new policies will curb 

wasteful and expenditures and what new statutory changes may be 

required to reduce travel spending and appropriately shred greater 

transparency upon travel and conference spending. We want to ensure that a GSA, Las Vegas-type conference does not happen again. 

In the last Congress, this committee approved legislation that 

eventually passed unanimously in the House of Representatives 

that would largely implement the guidelines of the OMB memo and 

create greater transparency in travel and conference spending. Our 

former colleague, Jo Ann Emerson, reintroduced this legislation, 

H.R. 313, the Government Spending and Accountability Act, earlier 

this year. 

This is not an indictment of conferences or travel. The district I 

represent, Corpus Christi, Texas, is a tourist destination and home 

to many conferences. What this is is an investigation into how the 

public money is spent. It is different from how the private sector’s 

money is spent; it is different from how your personal money is 

spent. 

It always has to be kept in mind why those traveling on the taxpayers dollars need to be frugal, to treat that money better than 

they would treat their own money. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I look forward now to hearing from the witnesses. I will yield now to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lynch. 

I am a Texan. Anybody north of Texas and Louisiana is potentially a Yankee. 

3 

Mr. LYNCH. There you go. As a Red Sox fan, I have to go easy 

though. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At the outset, let me congratulate you on your appointment as 

Chairman of our subcommittee from addressing comprehensive reform of the United States Postal Service and challenges facing our 

dedicated federal workforce to examining important Census Bureau 

issues. Our subcommittee has a lot of work on its plate and I look 

forward to working with you on all those issues in this new Congress. 

I appreciate the Chairman calling this hearing to monitor the 

Federal Government’s progress in reducing travel and conference 

spending, strengthening internal controls and enhancing cost 

transparency. It is important for the Congress and the American 

taxpayer to be assured that the government spends money only for 

what is absolutely necessary regarding travel and conferences. 

We all remember as the Chairman has noted, the excessive, improper spending by the General Services Administration on a 2010 

Las Vegas conference and by the Veterans Affairs Department on 

two conferences held in Orlando, Florida. These conferences were 

regrettably examples of wasteful spending which justified heightened scrutiny by Congress and the Administration. 

In particular, the committee held a hearing last April looking 

into the GSA conference and the Administration issued a subsequent directive to all Executive Branch agencies mandating that 30 

percent of travel and conference spending be reduced, imposing 

conference cost restructuring and restrictions and public posting 

and reporting requirements. 

We all regret the misspending that went forward there. We agree 

that the government must be a good steward of American taxpayer’s money and that it is important to shine on government 

travel and conference spending. 

As part of our oversight responsibilities, this hearing will help us 

examine agency progress in implementing the Administration’s directive. It is critical for us to know how much the Federal Government, as a whole, is spending on travel and conferences. We need 

to ensure that only necessary conferences are held and only those 

who need to attend participate and that there are no improper expenses. 

In this regard, I look forward to Representative Holt’s testimony 

about the impact on the scientific community. In addition, Mr. 

Chairman, I received two letters yesterday expressing views about 

federal travel and conference policies, one from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and several other scientific 

organizations and another from the American Institute of Certified 

Public Accountants. I ask unanimous consent that the letters be included in the hearing record. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Without objection. 

Mr. LYNCH. Lastly, I would note that we only have two legislative days before sequestration takes effect and 14 legislative days 

before a possible government shutdown takes effect. Accordingly, I 

would urge this committee to dedicate its oversight efforts to examining the opportunities to prevent that and also the potential imVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 May 29, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\80898.TXT APRIL
4 

pact of these budgetary events so that we can best address the corresponding needs of our agencies and federal employees. 

Mr. Chairman, again, congratulations on your appointment. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. I look forward to working with you 

throughout this congressional term. We have our work cut out for 

us and I hope we can get all of it done. 

We have the distinct privilege of having a distinguished colleague 

here to testify before us. As is the tradition and protocol associated 

with this committee, we will allow Representative Holt, who represents the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey to testify 

first. Then I will introduce and swear in the rest of the panel. 

Representative Holt, you are recognized. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Mr. Lynch and Mr. 

Clay. I thank you for the opportunity. 

As a professional scientist and now a member of Congress, I testify today with firsthand knowledge of how scientific innovation, especially what has developed from the sharing of ideas at conferences, contributes to every American’s quality of life. 

As we work to ensure oversight on travel expenditures, we 

should work to preserve the many benefits of appropriate travel. 

Many scientists, for example, receive federal grants from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National 

Institutes of Health, and others. These scientists rely on federal 

funding to travel to conferences in order to share thoughts, to collaborate, to learn from their peers to advance knowledge and to 

create innovation. 

Both H.R. 313 and the OMB Guidance, I think regrettably, put 

forward prohibitions and impediments that hinder scientific collaboration and communication. I know firsthand how important scientific conferences and meetings are. The informal conversations as 

well as the formal presentations that go into a conference lead to 

real collaboration. These are not fancy junkets. 

What is so special about science? Why does it work? It works because one of its fundamental tenets is communication. To be sure, 

there are many ways to communicate but scientific conferences are 

critically important. A recent essay by the Presidents of the American Chemical Society and the American Physical Society discuss, 

for example, an anti-cancer drug that was the result of collaboration between a team of scientists at three laboratories that took 

place at conferences. I think the obstacles this bill creates would 

hinder that kind of collaboration. 

The American Chemical Society, at its biennial meetings, attracts typically 13,000 chemists and chemical engineers, about 800 

of them on federal contract. Under the new rules and the pending 

legislation, as I understand it, 50 percent roughly of those federal 

scientists would be cut off from participation with the chemistry 

community in these meetings. The Division of Plasma Physics and 

the American Physical Society that I know well meets each year 

5 

with hundreds of engineers and scientists from around the Country, many hundreds of them on DOE contracts. 

The fact remains that many insights are possible only because of 

close personal interactions among scientists who see each other 

regularly. Those who do not work at the same university or laboratory must rely on interacting at the conferences. Proximity matters 

in science as in other fields. 

Just to drive this point home, let me ask if you would propose 

that the Legislative Branch, you and I, remain in 435 separate locations, never to see each other, communicating by email and 

phoning in our votes. It could save hundreds of expensive trips 

each week to do that. Do you think, as I do, that the Country 

would be worse off? 

I am hopeful that this oversight hearing and Administrative 

Guidance would be modified to allow for scientific progress instead 

of obstructing the sharing of ideas an information. A weakening of 

collaboration is not a wise course. It is not the way to build our 

economy; it is not the way to create jobs and the innovation that 

leads to those jobs. 

We should be investing more in research and development generally at the federal level, as well as in the private sector. That 

also means investing in scientists and investing in scientist’s ability to pursue the scientific procedure which includes face-to-face 

communication as well as electronic and print communication. 

I would argue we should be spending more on conferences like 

those which promote. I realize this is heresy in the day before the 

sequestration takes place but I would argue we should be spending 

more on conferences like those. We should be investing more in research and research scientists in microbiology, in physics and 

chemistry, in a myriad of other scientific areas. 

These are not instances of wasteful spending. Not every collaboration leads to successful science, but many do. You do not need 

too many successful examples of cancer drugs, energy sources, 

transportation improvements or public health advances to understand this is an important investment. 

I thank the committee. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Holt follows:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 1 here 80898.001
7 


Insert offset folio 2 here 80898.002
8 


Insert offset folio 3 here 80898.003
9 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Representative Holt. 

You are welcome to stick around. I know our schedule is busy 

today. If you wish to take off and attend to other maters, you are 

welcome to do that as well. We appreciate your testimony and your 

input. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. As we got into this, I failed to mention earlier 

on that members will have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I do have prepared testimony that I 

would like to have included in full. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Absolutely. Without objection, so ordered. 

At this point, we will introduce our other two witnesses. The 

Honorable Danny Werfel is the Comptroller of the U.S. Office of 

Management and Budget. Ms. Cynthia Metzler is the Chief Administrative Services Officer of the U.S. General Services Administration. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn before 

they testify. Please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. You may be seated. 

Let the record reflect that both witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion and questions, we would ask 

that you limit your testimony to five minutes. 

You have testified before Congress before. We have these fancy 

devices in front of you that count down the time and much like a 

traffic signal, green means go, yellow means speed up and red 

means stop. 

We will start with Mr. Werfel. 

STATEMENT OF DANNY WERFEL 

Mr. WERFEL. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Lynch and members of the subcommittee, for the invitation to 

discuss our work to reduce federal travel and conference spending, 

as well as our efforts to increase public transparency on travel and 

conference activity. 

As you know, this Administration has taken a number of aggressive steps to cut waste and modernize government over the past 

four years, working to create a government that is more efficient, 

effective and accountable to the American people. 

A key area of focus in this area has been working to reduce 

spending on travel and conferences by focusing on making smarter 

decisions, eliminating unnecessary trips and conferences, and implementing innovative solutions that reduce costs, save time and 

achieve better results overall. 

More recently, in May of this past year, OMB released a memorandum entitled Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency 

Operations. This memorandum directed agencies to reduce travel 

spending in fiscal year 2013 by at least 30 percent from fiscal year 

10 

2010 spending levels and to maintain these reduced spending levels 

through fiscal year 2016. 

The memorandum also directed agencies to institute a series of 

internal controls that require senior level approval of certain conference planning related decisions. Agencies now must seek senior 

management approval all the way to the Deputy Secretary or Secretary for conference spending over a specific threshold. 

Finally, Federal agencies, for the first time, are required to begin 

public reporting of their annual spending on conferences in excess 

of $100,000, allowing the public full visibility into how federal dollars are spent on conferences. Agencies published the first of these 

public reports on January 31, 2013. 

Our efforts are already delivering significant results. In fact, agencies expect to lower spending by more than $3 billion between 

fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013 with nearly $2 billion 

achieved so far. The reductions have not only been the result of reducing overall travel, but by also ensuring that required travel is 

completed in a cost effective manner. 

For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has reduced travel costs by $125 million in fiscal year 2012 by traveling less 

and traveling smarter and is on tract to reduce total travel expenditures by an additional $90 million in fiscal year 2013 when compared to 2010 levels. The Department of Interior has reduced travel spending by $30 

million through higher utilization of low cost alternatives to traditional travel such as webinars, teleconferencing and by conducting 

training in-house or in locations closer to employee home offices. 

These are just a few examples demonstrating agencies work to reduce travel expenditures during this time of tight budgets. These 

innovative practices expand beyond travel. 

Agencies are also applying similar cost effective practices in the 

planning and execution of conferences. This includes increasing the 

use of low cost government-owned meeting and conference space, it 

also means thinking creatively about how to save money wherever 

possible such as ending conferences a few hours earlier to avoid 

extra costs associated with an additional night of lodging. 

Agencies are also working diligently to establish new internal 

control procedures to ensure that this increased level of oversight 

and accountability continue as part of agency overall operations. 

As we continue to build on the progress made to date in reducing 

travel and conference costs, we are also aware of the important role 

travel and conferences can play in carrying out an agency s mission. It is important to remember that the definition of conferences 

can involve much more than federal employee traveling away from 

their official duty stations to receive training or network with distant colleagues. 

For example, an off-site training event where FBI agents learn 

how to prepare for a potential terrorist attack is considered a conference under federal regulations. I think we can all agree that 

such an activity is neither wasteful nor unnecessary. Therefore, 

while we must continue to be vigilant about reducing unnecessary 

travel or conference spending, we also must be vigilant in protecting our activities that are necessary and vital to our shared priorities as a nation. 

11 

While we believe it is important to highlight agencies early efforts in reducing travel and conference spending, our work in this 

area is just beginning. OMB will continue to work with agencies to 

find ways to cut costs, eliminate waste and make our spending in 

all areas more efficient, transparent and accountable. 

We also believe that cost cutting activities agencies have enacted 

to date should become part of standard government operations 

going forward. We are working diligently to ensure that these new 

standards remain in place for years to come. 

We look forward to continuing to work with Congress, the Inspector General community, other oversight institutions and the American public to ensure agencies remain dedicated to rooting out 

waste and driving efficient spending in all government operations 

now and into the future. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify and I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Werfel follows:] 

12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 80898.004
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 80898.005
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 80898.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 80898.007
16 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Werfel. We appreciate your testimony and we will get to questions in a moment. 

Next, we have Ms. Cynthia Metzler. She is the Chief Administrative Services Officer for the GSA. Ms. Metzler, you are recognized 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA METZLER 

Ms. METZLER. Good afternoon, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking 

Member Lynch and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Cynthia Metzler and I am the Chief Administrative 

Services Officer at the General Services Administration. 

In that capacity, I coordinate internal management and support 

services to promote efficiency within the agency, covering a wide 

variety of issues, including conferences and travel. I appreciate this 

opportunity to come before you today to discuss the reforms at 

GSA. I have submitted my full written testimony and would like 

at this time to highlight a few of the key reforms. 

Under the leadership of our Acting Administrator, Dan 

Tangherlini, GSA has refocused its mission of delivering the best 

value in real estate acquisition and technology services to government and the American people. In April 2012, the Acting Administrator issued new guidelines on travel and conferences. All spending for travel, including training, conference and award ceremonies 

was suspended. 

Oversight of conference and travel expenses was consolidated 

into my office which was directed to review each and every planned 

conference to make sure that these events and any related travel 

is justified. As part of these reforms, travel and conferences can 

only be approved when all other alternatives, including 

videoconferencing and webinars have been considered. Additionally, 

travel must be for work related to GSA’s essential mission such as 

building inspections, contract negotiations and meeting with customers. 

To ensure that all travel requests receive appropriate review, 

GSA has instituted policies that limit the use of blanket travel authorizations and require that travel is authorized in advance on a 

trip by trip basis. In addition, any international travel must be approved by the Deputy Administrator to make certain that the considerable expense is used only for legitimate purposes. 

With regard to conferences, they can no longer be held without 

submission of a detailed justification, including the mission related 

purpose of the conference and whether any other alternatives were 

considered. A proposed budget, review and approval occur from 

multiple divisions. At a minimum, this means that any conference, 

no matter what its proposed cost, is reviewed both by the head of 

the division and by myself. 

In line with Administration guidance, when the proposed cost of 

a conference exceeds $100,000, the Deputy Administrator must approve the conference. If a conference is to cost more that $500,000, 

the Acting Administrator must approve it and document justification for why the conference must be held. 

To ensure that we scrutinize any internal meetings that require 

travel, the Deputy Administrator must approve. Additionally, any 

attendance at a conference requires multiple levels of approval, inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 May 29, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\80898.TXT APRIL
17 

cluding my office. Employees must justify their potential attendance and outline the expenses. 

To increase transparency and improve recordkeeping, GSA requires employees to use the Government Travel Charge Card for 

payment of all travel expenses. We have also mandated the use of 

the ETS travel system for airline, rail and car rental, as well as 

Fed Rooms for lodging. 

GSA now requires mandatory annual training regarding conference attendance for all employees. This training highlights the 

importance of considering cost effective alternatives and ensures 

that each and every employee understands the difference between 

an appropriate and inappropriate expense. 

We have also provided greater transparency into our conference 

expenses. We have posted on our website all conferences held last 

year with a cost of over $100,000. That includes the budget and 

justification for why the conference was held. 

All told, these changes under Acting Administrator Tangherlini 

have dramatically reduced costs, improved oversight and ensured 

that travel and conference expenses are fully justified and mission 

related. In 2012, our travel costs were less than half of what GSAs 

expenditures in 2011. We have saved $28 million through the end 

of fiscal year 2012 alone. 

Finally, as part of our agency’s mission to serve our federal partners and deliver savings, we are providing tools to allow agencies 

better to manage their travel and conference spending. We are 

working with OMB on changes to government-wide travel policies 

that will increase efficiency and effectiveness, reduce cost and incorporate industry best practices. 

These efforts are in line with the Administration’s aim to reduce 

cost across a wide range of administrative expenses including travel and conferences. We are firmly committed at GSA to improving 

the efficiency and effectiveness of the government including reducing travel costs. Our work is not done and we continue to refine 

our policies, work with OMB and other federal agencies and members of this committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss our changes 

and welcome any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Metzler follows:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 8 here 80898.008
19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 80898.009
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 80898.010
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 80898.011
22 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Ms. Metzler. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. 

I do think one of the important things that will come out of this 

hearing and the proposed regulations is a change in the culture on 

the part of government employees, to take to the mind set that this 

is the taxpayers hard earned money that we are spending and you 

actually need to spend it more carefully than even you would spend 

your own money. 

Having gone to numerous conferences in my previous career as 

a lawyer, even working in the private sector, there were certain expenses I would not put on the blue slip. I would put the McDonald’s lunch on there but if I decided to treat myself to a steak dinner, I would eat that cost myself. 

Obviously, we cannot ask the federal workforce to buy their own 

meals, but when they are asking the taxpayers to pay for them, I 

think it is appropriate they think maybe I could do with a sandwich instead of a steak. It is that sort of incentive. 

I think the GSA is taking the lead in that. Obviously it is unfortunate that it had to come as the result of a very public scandal. 

One of the impediments I see to taking advantage of that is actually educating the workforce and simplifying some of the tools like 

ETS and Fed Rooms and even though outside of the travel area, 

GSA purchasing websites, that are very often difficult to use for 

the end user compared to private sector equivalents. 

I know in my travel, I am able to book online. I do not use ETS. 

If I am on United, I can get government rates on their website. I 

think they are one of the few airlines that offer that. I would encourage you to work with your vending partners to make the process much simpler. 

I am concerned the culture is not catching on. There were recent 

reports that the Post Office spent a ton of money and had a $15 

billion loss and cutting Saturday delivery, but they have a conference they set up in San Francisco that was going to cost $2.2 

million. That seems like that’s not in the spirit. 

Are we seeing the government actually following this? I will ask 

Mr. Werfel, have all the agencies complied and are they reporting 

their expenses over $100,000? Are you getting that information? 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question. 

I think there were one or two agencies that missed our January 

31 deadline but for the most part, I believe all reports are now in. 

I think the key is that the reports do demonstrate what we believe 

to be happening post last year when GSA had the issue we have 

been describing and OMB issued its memorandum. There has been 

significant attention to this matter and a lot of aggressive action 

to cut back on this type of spending. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Do you have any numbers on how many conferences have gone over the $500,000 threshold? 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes, I do have some of those summary statistics. I 

believe it is roughly between 130 and 140 conferences that were 

over the $500,000 threshold. I can get you more precise numbers. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I would like to see those for the record. Are we 

seeing them actually posted on the website in a manner that the 

public can find? 

23 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes. That is how we got the information I just 

shared with you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It is my understanding that the VA finally 

came in today with their report. 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes. I think that was the last agency. I think we 

now have full compliance. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Ms. Metzler, the GSA’s job is to negotiate 

deals and save us money. Having grown up in and representing an 

area that the travel industry is important too, I understand the 

revenue streams of hotels are derived not just from the overnight 

stay of the rooms. In conference situations, often they will give you 

the rooms free but you end up paying a lot for the catering and 

cannot bring in food. There are reports of very expensive breakfasts 

and lunches at hotels. 

Is there anything that GSA can do to leverage the government’s 

buying power to bring some of those in line and bring the catering 

costs to where if you were going to do a conference at a hotel within the allowable per diem rate for government employees while 

traveling? 

Ms. METZLER. Thank you for the question. 

Since April 2012, in terms of the conferences that GSA itself has 

hosted, we have been able to negotiate with the conference sites 

and the hotel to bring the food costs under the per diem rate. We 

can begin working with OMB and other agencies to share our experience. It is possible to do it. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I think it is an opportunity for the GSA to take 

leadership in making that available. I really do think it is consistent with the GSA’s mission. I look forward to having you back 

here next year to hearing what a huge success it is. 

I see I am running out of time. We need to let the other members 

get to questions. If we have time afterwards, I do have another 

round of questions if you will indulge me. At this point, I will yield 

to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for coming here today and helping 

us with our work. 

This is for both of you. If OMB tracks costs for travel and conferences separately, what are the government-wide totals for these 

categories? Is that how we are reporting this? I am concerned 

sometimes we begin to pay attention when we have a scandal like 

we did with GSA last year but then things sort of get forgotten 

until the next scandal and it pops up on our radar screen again. 

What are the ongoing procedures in monitoring methods that we 

are using to keep track of this? 

Mr. WERFEL. Let me first start by saying that on the one hand, 

it is fortunate that our budget structure does enable us to isolate 

travel. Travel is a big category. There are a lot of diverse actions 

that take place under that category. We do collect information. One 

of the things in my testimony is that when you look at the overall 

cost of travel across government, they are steadily declining. In 

2010, it was $11.7 billion. We expect them to be closer to $9.5 billion by 2013. 

The challenge that arose was with respect to the issue when we 

learned there was this significant financial risk associated with 

24 

conference spending that we do not and have not historically 

disaggregated conference spending within our budget accounts. We 

needed to take action because part of the challenge here is not only 

taking the specific steps to be smarter about meals and lodging, 

but also to understand the macro numbers going on across government and agency specific. 

We have now initiated this collection of information from agencies. We now have a baseline. I earlier mentioned a number to 

Chairman Farenthold in terms of the number of conferences over 

$500,000. Next year, we will know the updated number and see 

where we are trending, the updated cost number of conferences because we are collecting this information. 

The information we are collecting is imperfect. There might be a 

level of detail that you would like to know and we have to balance 

the burden that is imposed on agencies in collecting all this information. What we have done is to try to collect the right amount 

of information we think enables us to see trends and identify risk 

points. 

As I mentioned earlier, I think as a general matter, what we 

have seen occur since the situation with GSA and the Las Vegas 

conference is an enormous amount of attention that is generating 

very important and positive results in terms of improving our overall approach, not just to travel and conferences, but administrative 

expenses across the board like information technology and other 

things. 

Mr. LYNCH. Ms. Metzler? 

Ms. METZLER. Since April 2012, GSA now tracks its conference 

spending separately from its travel spending. Partly that is because 

in order to hold a conference or attend a conference, the requestor 

must submit a detailed budget. That budget includes the expenses 

of the conference including booths, meals and travel. We can now 

begin to disaggregate the travel costs associated with conferences, 

the travel we have that is mission-related travel and has nothing 

to do with conferences and the cost of having a conference. We did 

not do that before April. We are continuing to evolve those. 

Mr. LYNCH. Do either of you have any examples where we might 

incentivize agency departments or groups to spend less? Do we use 

the carrot and a stick or do we just say we want a 30 percent and 

by God, we have to have it? 

Mr. WERFEL. I think one of the things I have learned through 

this process is that in response to a situation where many across 

government were angered and upset and continue to want to demonstrate to the taxpayer that we are way more often than not effective stewards of the taxpayer dollar. 

This event has really incentivized a different set of behaviors 

across government. From secretaries down to the GS–9 or GS–7 

employee that is involved in planning for these, there is an enormous amount of due diligence. Let me give you one anecdote. 

My job is not to do specific conferences but every once in a while, 

I get invited to a conference where it is about financial management internal control. I was invited to participate in planning for 

a conference. The type of planning that went in, we were dedicated 

to doing it in a government facility, it had to be in Washington, 

25 

D.C. because that is where most of the people were to do one day 

and try to pack in the most substantive agenda we could. 

On meals, since Chairman Farenthold asked about it, we held 

the facility near a food court and decided to do no catering. Everyone bought their own lunch at the food court. That is the type of 

culture we are transitioning to. 

Mr. LYNCH. Did anyone come? 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes, we had 800 people. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you. 

I will recognize Mr. Walberg for five minutes. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the witnesses for being here. 

Let me ask Mr. Werfel and Ms. Metzler a simple question. How 

frequently does conference spending on meals and incidentals exceed the GSA set maximum, allowable per diem of reimbursement? 

How frequently does that happen? 

Mr. WERFEL. I am not sure I know the answer to that question. 

I apologize. I can try to work on data and get back to you. 

I do not know if this will be responsive to your question, what 

we are concerned about are situations in which if a conference participant is given a meal that creates no out of pocket costs for 

them, then they have to adjust down their per diem appropriately 

to make sure they are not getting any extra funding or bonus as 

a result of this event. That is in a list we perceived as we were 

working through the conference activity. 

In terms of your question, I do not have the specific data. 

Mr. WALBERG. Ms. Metzler, do you? 

Ms. METZLER. In our request to attend or host a conference, one 

of our line items is the food item and they have to justify that it 

is at per diem rate. That is part of the approval process. 

In early April 2012, under the Acting Administrator, GSA limited 

the per diem cost for conferences, limited the cost for meals to the 

actual per diem. 

Mr. WALBERG. They are not pushing it? 

Ms. METZLER. We are pushing it, yes. We will not approve a conference or an activity that has not been limited to the per diem 

rate. That is part of our oversight. As Mr. Werfel said, when we 

are looking at a conference, we are looking at every alternative to 

make sure that people are not getting inappropriate food. If it is 

a local conference, they are not entitled to per diem, there cannot 

be any food provided. 

Mr. WALBERG. But again I guess what we are saying is we do 

not know the frequency of them pushing this GSA rule? 

Ms. METZLER. We know internally within GSA we are pushing 

it. 

Mr. WALBERG. I guess my question was, the departments are 

coming to you with clean, clear requests for conferences. I guess 

what I am looking at is, are they getting it, are we getting it 

across? 

Mr. WERFEL. I think I understand your question and the root of 

your concern. Let me back up a second and say, first, OMB, as an 

institution, does not approve conference by conference. We estabVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 May 29, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\80898.TXT APRIL
26 

lish and work with GSA to establish government-wide regulations. 

Our regulations are getting stronger. 

They were already strong. A lot of things that happened in Las 

Vegas were violations of existing regulation. Nevertheless, it was 

still important to tighten those regulations even further. It is really 

up to the agency to abide by those regulations. 

My bottom line point is I do believe, based on everything and all 

my involvement in this issue, this issue is being taken as seriously 

as any in government right now. 

Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Werfel, what was the total spent for administrative costs for all fiscal year 2012 conferences that cost in excess 

of $100,000, administrative costs? 

Mr. WERFEL. I think the total costs, There is a slide up there we 

are still working through the numbers. For example, VA’s report 

has just come in, but I think that is in the right range. It is somewhere between $250 and $300 million in conference costs in 2012 

for conferences above $100,000 in total costs. 

Mr. WALBERG. Let me ask, Mr. Werfel, it appears that military 

travel is not on pace to meet the 30 percent reduction goal. We are 

facing sequester issues now and great concern about the defense 

budget and capabilities. If this is the case, could you discuss what 

specific steps OMB has taken to ensure that the Department of Defense meets this target by the end of this fiscal year? 

Mr. WERFEL. I think this echoes some of what Congressman Holt 

was saying. In taking the 30 percent cut, we wanted to make sure 

that we were protecting mission critical activities where there was 

a real sense that a reduction or steep reduction would compromise 

the agency mission. The goal in eliminating the 30 percent is making sure we are eliminating excess or somewhat discretionary travel activities. 

All of it is important but there is a difference between, for example, military travel or civilian travel to support particular military 

operations, scientists getting together to study molecular biology 

and study different diseases and FBI agents getting together 

versus accountants getting together to train, and procurement officials getting together to train. That is important but what we perceive there is an ability to drive some greater efficiencies. 

In the area of military travel, we have essentially excluded that 

from our 30 percent reduction category because we believe when 

the military travels, it is extremely important to give them some 

flexibility in terms of how they take those reductions due to some 

of the really acute operational issues that emerge. 

Let me close with this point which is really important. One of the 

challenges we have here is one in which we invite your feedback, 

that the definition of conferences is extraordinarily broad. When 

this whole issue came up, we had to make a decision, do we try 

to narrow the definition of conference and then try to attack the 

problem on a narrow definition. 

If employees are co-locating to work, it is technically a conference. That can even come up with respect to FBI agents co-locating to do an investigation. If scientists are co-locating in Africa to 

study a particular outbreak of a virus, that is technically a conference. When you pile that into all the other conferences and atVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:50 May 29, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\80898.TXT APRIL
27 

tempt to take a 30 percent cut, it creates some mission complications. 

We have decided for the time being to take this approach. We 

have not changed the definition of conferences; we have established 

a 30 percent cut and then we have asked each agency to meet that 

30 percent cut but protect certain activities. We have had numerous discussions with agencies to make sure they are not over protecting or under protecting. 

Military travel falls in the area of protection. If there are concerns about that, we should definitely have more discussions with 

you about how we can resize that. That is our approach right now. 

Mr. WALBERG. I appreciate those details. Those are very helpful. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I see with just three of us present, we do have 

time, if you will indulge us, for a quick second round of questioning. Then I think we all need to be off to our other responsibilities. 

Where are we, Mr. Werfel, in reaching the 30 percent goal of reduction? Do you have a number? Are we at 10 percent, 20 percent, 

or 30 percent? Are we close? How is it coming? 

Mr. WERFEL. We are close. We are right in range. I mentioned earlier that the total travel costs in 2010 were roughly $11.7 billion. We are on track for there to be a slightly more than $3 billion 

lower spend rate in 2013 versus 2010. I mentioned in my oral testimony that we are $2 billion of the way there. We are zeroing in 

on a rough 30 percent goal in terms of seeing the overall travel 

spending reduction. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Since you monitor this, are you hearing anything through the grapevine or around the coffee machine that 

these effects are having an adverse effect or are we getting the cost 

savings we are after? 

Mr. WERFEL. I am hearing a mixture. This is something I think 

government agencies should be proud of. As you mentioned, it is 

unfortunate that we had this event occur that drove some of this 

but the reality today is that the culture has changed dramatically 

in terms of travel and conference spending. The public transparency we are providing I think feeds into more accountability 

and better results. 

The biggest area that I face criticism and concern is coming from 

the scientific community as Representative Holt mentioned. I think 

it is legitimate. These are very tough questions of public policy. 

I have learned through this process and have a growing appreciation for is how critical to the advancement of science collaboration 

is. When there is a scientific advancement or a setback, the whole 

engine of science runs by co-locating and collaborating around it. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Some of the best inventions and breakthroughs 

have been the result of accidents. You learn that in elementary 

school science. 

Let me ask you a question. A lot of government employees who 

travel are issued a GSA travel card much like the one I use for official travel expenses. I had a speaking engagement in Austin, Texas 

last week and bought my meals with this card. Under the supremacy clause to the United States Constitution, the States cannot tax 

us but at every restaurant they tried to tag me with sales tax. Had 

28 

I used this card for a hotel, they would have tried to charge me 

hotel and motel tax. There is a complicated procedure and form I 

have to fill out to save that money. In Texas, sales tax is 8 percent 

plus depending on where you are. 

Is there a way GSA can work with the credit card vendors or 

come up with a way where the taxpayers are not paying taxes to 

the State when we do not have to? 

Ms. METZLER. Mr. Chairman, yes. GSA is looking at that. There 

are only 11 States that do not charge the travel card because they 

are, as you know, individually issued to the federal employee. 

With our Fleet Card, which is another part of the Smart Pay 

Program, that card and the purchase card are government cards 

and there are no taxes charged to those. There is a recovery effort 

with the Fleet Card programs but we are working with those other 

11 States on the issue that you are raising. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

This is a huge savings with absolutely no cuts for anybody if we 

do not pay stuff we do not owe. To me that seems like a no brainer. 

Mr. Werfel, you mentioned redefining what a conference is. I 

know the FAA struggles every year in Oshkosh with a big air show 

of private airplanes. They take the best of the best of their controllers to Oshkosh to be the air traffic control for what becomes for 

one week’s time the busiest airport in the world. They are concerned that under conference definitions, sending those people 

there to do their job is a conference. I understand your concern. 

That leads me to the next question which I will pose to you both. 

What are we missing here aside from defining conference? Is there 

anything else that is too much or not enough in the proposals that 

we need to look at if we decide to pursue something on a legislative 

front? 

Mr. WERFEL. That is a good question. I think the definition of 

conference is one we need to sort through, as I mentioned. I think 

the keys here are public policy tension, which I mentioned before. 

We want to be very protective of taxpayer resources and make good 

decisions, but at the same time, an across the board cut of 30 percent or whatever it is needs to have a very well thought out exception clause. 

We need a good structure in place to ensure that we are filtering 

through the exception clause things that should move forward as 

they were intended. Maybe the air show example is a good one of 

that versus things that we might make a mistake on and it would 

filter through. That is a collaborative effort amongst professionals, 

both science, financial management and maybe GAO could be helpful and involved in that as well. 

I think the other key thing to look out for that we struggle with 

is how much data to put on the Web and to make clear. Clearly 

we have a great start. We have total conference expenses, location, 

date, explanation of how the conference advances mission, number 

of individuals that are going that are paid by the agency, etc. There 

is a good footprint of information. 

However, I cannot answer all the questions that are being posed 

because I would add 20 or 30 more line items. With each additional 

line item of data, you are asking agencies to collect that information and that has an underlying administrative cost. I think one of 

29 

those areas to help us is what is the optimal point in terms of data 

collection. I think there is more to be looked at to make sure we 

are at the right spot. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I am out of time. I want to give Ms. Metzler 

an opportunity before we go back to Mr. Lynch. 

Ms. METZLER. I would just concur with what Mr. Werfel said. I 

don’t think I can add anything to that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do notice that if you look at the text of the OMB memorandum 

and then look at H.R. 313, it actually limits the number of people 

who can go to a conference to 50. I have heard grumblings from 

some of the folks in our scientific community. Mr. Holt raised some 

of these concerns. 

I know the International AIDS Conference is attended by hundreds and hundreds, probably thousands of scientists and other experts. Also, I think the Human Services Department and the National Institutes of Health have, in the past, sent hundreds of scientists. Are we hurting the efficacy and the value of those conferences by severely limiting it to 50 people? 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes, I think so potentially in two ways. One, if we 

don’t enable the head of the agency or the leader of that particular 

program area to make a best judgment in terms of are we effectively serving our mission by getting more people there and we 

have kind of a strict rule of construction? That is one thing. 

I will tell you where I come from, my expertise is more around 

financial management and cost savings. Often we are sending more 

people in order to drive more efficiency because if we have to train 

these people, if we decentralize training and send 30 people and 30 

people and 30 people to three different trips versus 90 people to 

one trip, that can have cost implications. Let me give you one example to drive that home. 

Law enforcement, FLETC, we have developed these training centers around geographic locations to bring a bunch of people together to co-locate for that training. If we set a limit of 50 people, 

you are devolving back into not co-locating for training but a lot of 

disparate training, and that cost issue. 

Mr. LYNCH. Ms. Metzler, anything on that? 

Ms. METZLER. GSA does not send a lot of people to international 

conferences. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Lynch. 

I have enjoyed our first hearing. I look forward to continuing to 

work with you, your staff and the rest of the committee. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the time from 

their very busy schedules to appear before us. I charge you to go 

back and save the taxpayers some money. 

With that, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

30 


Insert offset folio 12 here 80898.012
31 


Insert offset folio 13 here 80898.013
32 


Insert offset folio 14 here 80898.014
33 


Insert offset folio 15 here 80898.015
34 


Insert offset folio 16 here 80898.016
35 


Insert offset folio 17 here 80898.017
36 


Insert offset folio 18 here 80898.018
37 


Insert offset folio 19 here 80898.019
38 


Insert offset folio 20 here 80898.020
39 


Insert offset folio 21 here 80898.021
40 


Insert offset folio 22 here 80898.022
41 


Insert offset folio 23 here 80898.023
42 


Insert offset folio 24 here 80898.024
43 


Insert offset folio 25 here 80898.025
44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 80898.026
45 


Insert offset folio 27 here 80898.027
46 


Insert offset folio 28 here 80898.028
47 


Insert offset folio 29 here 80898.029
48 


Insert offset folio 30 here 80898.030
49 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 31 here 80898.031