[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-151 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Jane Harman, California Lamar Smith, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Daniel E. Lungren, California
Columbia Mike Rogers, Alabama
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Henry Cuellar, Texas Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Laura Richardson, California Pete Olson, Texas
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico Steve Austria, Ohio
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
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 Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Al Green, Texas Daniel E. Lungren, California
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (Ex Officio)
Officio)
Tamla T. Scott, Director & Counsel
Nikki Hadder, Clerk
Michael Russell, Senior Counsel
Kerry Kinirons, Minority Subcommittee Lead
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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 mission, 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:]
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 off-site
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 Department-wide 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,
Departmental Operations in the Directorate for Management
(DEP OPS).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Departmental 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal
Component Year Conference Name Conference Location In/Non-CONUS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA 2006 National Disaster Reno, NV............. In-CONUS
Medical System (NDMS)
Conference.
2007 Regional Interagency Honolulu, HI......... Non-CONUS
Steering Committee
(RISC) Meeting.
ICE 2006 Detention Management Batavia, NY.......... In-CONUS
Control Program
Training.
2007 Regional (Asia) Orchard District, Non-CONUS
Attache Conference. Singapore.
USCG 2006 West Coast Aids to Everett, WA.......... In-CONUS
Navigation (AToN)
Conference.
2006 District 17 Commanding Juneau, AK........... Non-CONUS
Officers' Conference.
S&T 2005 2005 National BioWatch Washington, DC....... In-CONUS
Conference.
2007 International London, England...... Non-CONUS
Underwater Tunnel
Protection.
2009 2008 Asia Pacific Honolulu, HI......... Non-CONUS
Homeland Security
Summit and Exposition.
DEP OPS 2007 FY2007 Chief Washington, DC....... In-CONUS
Administrative
Officer's (CAO) Forum.
2007 29th International Montreal, Canada..... Non-CONUS
Data Protection and
Privacy
Commissioner's
Conference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 Department'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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
In addition, consideration must be given to other cost categories
to ensure a well-rounded 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The fiscal year 2006 Commanding Officers' Conference cost
$113,401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
off-site 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 hearing: 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 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.
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.
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 cost-effective 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 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, directly 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 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.
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
eye-openers, 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 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.
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 travel-related 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.
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.
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 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?
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 approving 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.
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 taking 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 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.]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
