<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27027.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-634
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CONFERENCE SPENDING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-027 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, AND INTERNATIONAL
SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska THOMAS CARPER, Delaware
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
Katy French, Staff Director
Sheila Murphy, Minority Staff Director
John Kilvington, Minority Deputy Staff Director
Liz Scranton, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Coburn............................................... 1
Senator Carper............................................... 4
Senator Akaka................................................ 26
WITNESSES
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
Scott H. Evertz, Former Director, White House Office of National
AIDS Policy.................................................... 6
Charles Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Budget, Technology and
Finance, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.......... 13
Sid Kaplan, Acting Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of
State.......................................................... 14
James M. Martin, Acting Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development............................... 16
Michael W.S. Ryan, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 18
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Evertz, Scott H.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Johnson, Charles:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 37
Kaplan, Sid:
Testimony.................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Martin, James M.:
Testimony.................................................... 16
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 53
Ryan, Michael W.S.:
Testimony.................................................... 18
Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 60
APPENDIX
Charts submitted by Senator Coburn:
``What Federal Employees Spend While Attending A Domestic
Conference''............................................... 29
``What Federal Employees Spend While Attending A Foreign
Conference''............................................... 30
``Federal Agencies and Conference Spending 2000-2005......... 31
Questions and Responses for the Record from:
Mr. Johnson.................................................. 65
Mr. Kaplan................................................... 75
Mr. Martin with attachments.................................. 84
Mr. Ryan with attachments.................................... 93
FEDERAL AGENCIES AND CONFERENCE SPENDING
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, and International Security
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Coburn,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Coburn, Carper, and Akaka.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COBURN
Senator Coburn. The Federal Financial Management,
Government Information and International Security Subcommittee
of the Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committee will
come to order.
I want to thank all our guests for being here. I've asked
Mr. Evertz to go first because I thought it appropriate insight
for somebody who's worked within an agency for the agencies to
hear what somebody on the ground feels about this. And we've
asked him to testify first, and I would appreciate your
indulgence as we do that. I know your time is valuable, and
it's not meant to take your time from your obligations.
One of our key goals is to reestablish accountability and
transparency within the Federal Government. And that's what
drives the oversight work of this Subcommittee. Unaccountable
spending of tax dollars is an abuse of power. It also is an
abuse of the heritage of this country, where we've had a
heritage of sacrifice for the next generation so their economic
opportunities will be appropriate.
When Congress exercises its constitutionally-derived power
by levying taxes, but then fails to insist upon accountability,
we deprive Americans of the checks and balances to which they
are entitled.
Last summer, I sent a letter to every Federal agency
requesting a full accounting of conference spending and
participation from 2000 to 2005. Some responses were very
thorough. Some were indecipherable. And some didn't show up at
all. And that is unacceptable. And it belies a greater problem
within the Federal Government, that of a lack of availability
of numbers to those who are in charge of making decisions based
on those numbers.
The reports are astounding. Since the year 2000, we've
spent $1.4 billion on conferences, including both underwriting
conferences as well as sending Federal employees to
conferences. Between 2000 and 2005, the total Federal
conference spending increased 70 percent.
What amazes me even more is this increase occurred during a
challenging time for our country, a time when our priorities
should have been dramatically realigned. We are at war. We face
tremendous natural disasters. We face unfettered growth in
unfunded liabilities for our entitlement programs that are
nearly $60 trillion.
Historically, presidents have shifted priorities under
these conditions. During a time of great challenge and war,
President Roosevelt cut non-defense spending by 20 percent.
Several years later, President Truman cut non-military spending
by 28 percent.
Things are different, however, today. For example, HUD
increased conference spending a mind-blowing 340 percent over a
4-year period. Every other agency increased their conference
spending significantly. I find that the hearing's purpose today
is to find out the accountability and the reasons behind that.
We're going to hear testimony today arguing that because
agency budgets are increasing, spending on meetings and travel
must naturally increase proportionately. I would argue just the
opposite. As discretionary and mandatory spending increase at a
rate that is going to undermine our children and our
grandchildren, it's all the more important to rein in spending
on anything less than truly essential meetings. Increased
budgets make these expenditures less defensible, not moreso.
There's a disconnect when conference attendance and
spending are increasing at the exact time technology is
dramatically reducing the need for travel and conferencing. In
the modern telecommunications era, it is unnecessary to spend
time and resources to finance so many conferences.
Teleconferences and video conferencing, for example, can save
money while allowing the same type of interaction and
information sharing at a mere fraction of the cost. I'm not
here to get into the weeds or details of specific conferences,
but here are some examples that caught my eye.
In 2004, at least 59 conferences around the world were
attended by HHS delegations of greater than 100 Federal
employees, including over 1,000 attendees to sunny Orlando. In
2002, HHS sent 236 employees to a conference in Barcelona,
Spain, spending $3.6 million on one single conference.
Department of Education sent 158 employees to a conference in
New Orleans.
Many conferences are set in beach, resort, casino, or
European tourist destinations, such as Miami, Paris, Palm
Springs, Berlin, Atlantic City, Rio, or Las Vegas where hotel
rates are likely to be high and extracurricular temptation to
skip the so-called vital conference sessions are even higher.
HUD participated in the Sacramento Home Ownership Fair, not
in Sacramento or even in California, but in Honolulu, Hawaii.
HUD also sent three people to Los Cabos, Mexico for the
conference about U.S. real estate and urban economics. EPA was
the primary sponsor of a national conference in that low-cost
destination, Honolulu.
One witness today will share his conference experiences as
a recent Federal official who worked both at the White House
and at HHS. He will demonstrate great courage. He reports that
there are few internal controls on conference attendance or
spending, and questions the cost-effectiveness of the array of
conferences which many deride as ``spring break.''
Ultimately, some of the problems could be avoided simply by
increasing transparency. My hope is that this hearing is the
beginning of that process. And I'm announcing today we'll have
a follow-up hearing 4 months from today to see what process has
been done in terms of accountability, transparency, and follow-
up from the results of this hearing.
There should be a formal vetting and justification process
for conference requests. I noted in the testimony that some
agencies have put that in. And this is especially true when
technology allows for teleconferencing and the use of internet
to exchange information. Every department should document
conference spending and attendance online in the interest of
transparency.
One outcome of our investigation was the near-unanimous
complaint from all the agencies about how hard it was to answer
the very simple questions that we asked. Most responses came
back with substantive gaps and missing data. Even these patchy
and incomplete responses arrived months after the requested
delivery date, which meant you had to do hard work to find the
information rather than having the information at your
fingertips.
The Commerce Department tells my staff that the response is
in the mail. We've not received it yet. The Department of
Veterans Affairs and the Department of the Interior submitted
incomplete reports. Some of you just provided 1 year's worth of
conference details, when you were asked for 5 years.
This difficulty responding to fairly simple questions
highlights how poorly we track expenditures down to the dollar.
Yet that is exactly the appropriate and reasonable expectation
of taxpayers.
I do want to commend an exception to the rule. The
Department of Energy submitted a highly detailed conference
report, and actually tallied individual conference costs from
2001 to 2005. They provided a copy of their regulations
regarding conference approval and travel.
Every year in their report to Congress, they detail
conference participation and support for the previous year and
the coming year's estimates. They require personnel to explore
off-season travel costs, discourage resort and recreational
destinations, and they consider ``the potential for any adverse
appearance associated with DOE participation.'' Although DOE,
like other agencies, has increased their conference spending in
recent years, at least they have internal controls regarding
this spending.
As we go forward, I would encourage agencies to be sure
that every conference attended by Federal employees passes the
following tests:
Does the conference help further the Department's mission?
Could the information be shared through a teleconference or
the internet?
Is the location appropriate and justified?
Is the number of employees attending justified?
Does participation in the conference validate or endorse
ideas or values harmful to American interests?
Does the conference give a platform to ideas and panelists
who undermine American interests?
Is the conference a wise use of tax dollars when we have an
$8.1 trillion debt?
Every conference should be readily defensible, on its face,
to regular Americans in terms of topic, location, and
participants. It also should be available to them online on how
we spend that money. It's time to scale back. It's time to make
tough decisions. It's time to set priorities. I look forward to
our dialogue.
I would also say that Senator Carper and I are dedicated to
doing the oversight that's necessary to help you accomplish
what you want to accomplish. This isn't a beating up session.
It's not intended to be--we know that you have great
intentions. We also know you're overwhelmed. Our goal is to
help you build the process whereby you can make great decisions
for the American taxpayer.
It gives me great privilege, after hearing his statement on
the floor on the asbestos bill, to recognize my contributor in
arms in tackling the financial problems of our country, Senator
Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honored to be
here with you, and look forward to this hearing. I thought we
had a pretty good one--was it yesterday?
Senator Coburn. In Chicago.
Senator Carper. A field hearing in Chicago. And I would
just add to what the Chairman has said, if I could. When you
have a budget deficit as large as the one we have and one that
it appears is going to be with us for some time if we continue
to do what we've been doing, we need to look at every part of
our budget.
We need to look at the taxes that were not collected that
are owed. We need to look at the improper payments that are
being made, especially overpayments. We need to look at
entitlement programs to make sure that they're actually going
to the people who need the help the most. And we need to look
at all parts of our discretionary budgets, defense and non-
defense.
And yesterday we were looking, in Chicago, at the
management of Federal property. One of the questions that we
asked of our witnesses was: What do we need to be doing in the
Congress, Executive Branch, Legislative Branch? What do we need
to be doing on real property management that would enable you
to do a better job of managing your property--have fewer vacant
buildings, less unused space, less under-utilized space, less
land that frankly is serving no useful purpose. And they
actually shared with us some ideas of things that we can do to
help them.
And so we weren't there just to put them on the spot or put
a spotlight on them in saying, what you're doing is bad or
unlawful or anything like that. What we were looking for was to
commend those who were doing a good job--several were--and to
say to those that weren't, what can we learn from the people
who are doing an especially good job? And so I thought it was
most constructive. And my hope is that this will be as well.
I would like to say in addition to that, the Chairman is
right. I think there's value, frankly, in pulling people
together to meet face to face; not all the time, but there's
value in doing that. And 10 or 15 years ago, we couldn't do
that electronically, but today we can.
And I was in a briefing in the White House not too long
ago--I think it was last month, Mr. Chairman--and we were
meeting with the President and Vice President, Secretary of
State, Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. And we had about 12 of our colleagues around the table.
And joining us live in color from Baghdad were Dr.
Khalilzad, our Ambassador, and General George Casey, our
military leader in Iraq. And the idea of having us all go over
to meet or for them to come over here and to meet just makes no
sense. But we were able to do it using live video, and that's
the sort of thing that we need to be doing more of.
The other thing I would say, in addition to finding out
what meetings, what conferences, can just as easily be held by
video, or some of the stuff we do--I'm sure you do it, too--we
do it by speakerphone, something as rudimentary as just doing
it on the phone with a bunch of people gathered around these
different microphones, and doing it that way.
The other thing is we find that we can save a lot of money.
And we do some travel that's government-related. We also do
travel that's personal, back and forth, maybe to our States.
And we do travel that is political, and as we go around the
country for different events.
And what we've learned to do is to try to figure out how to
handle all that travel, to do all that travel, more cost-
effectively. I'll just give you a recent example. By booking
flights a couple weeks early before the flight as opposed to a
couple of days before the flight, you can save more than 50 or
75 percent of the cost of a ticket.
People in my neck of the woods, in Delaware, historically
went up to Philadelphia to catch flights to go to places. And
they found that if they were to either drive to BWI, Baltimore-
Washington International, or take the train to BWI, get off at
BWI, and take a flight out of BWI, they could save a ton of
money, and catch flights to take them where they needed to go
by airplane for a lot less dollars.
In fact, we found that people could actually pay for their
train ticket from Wilmington to BWI, get the airline, fly the
airline out of BWI, fly back into BWI, take the train and go
home, and save a lot of money, hundreds of dollars, in the
meantime.
So what I hope that we talk about today is not just is it
important to bring people together for a conference, but on
those occasions when it is, are there other things that we can
be doing when we say that meeting has to take place--maybe not
in Mexico, maybe not in Hawaii, maybe not even in Orlando;
maybe in Delaware, maybe in Tulsa, where I've been before--that
we find a really cost-effective, efficient way to get there and
come home.
Thank you.
Chairman Coburn. Thank you.
Just to summarize why we are diligent, this last year we
added a half a trillion dollars to the national debt. And I
know how numbers are manipulated in Congress, and I know how
they're manipulated by the Administration. And the deficit
doesn't reflect the true cost of what we're doing to our kids.
I also would note that in the year 2000, $88 million was
spent on travel and conferences, and in the year 2005, $225
million was spent on travel and conferences. No American in
this country has had that kind of increase in their travel
budgets or conferencing budgets. You can't find a firm that's
done it. You can't find an individual organization. But the
government has somehow seen fit that's applicable to us.
And the whole purpose of this hearing today is to look at
it, to cause you all to look at it, to be better stewards, and
for us to make sure you know we're going to continue to look at
it. And it's not just travel budgets. As many of you know, this
Subcommittee is looking at everything.
We're going to have 42 hearings this year on oversighting
expenditures within the Federal Government with the hope of
sharpening our ability to control the expenses. Every dollar
that we spend on a conference that could be spent saving
somebody's life with HIV or treating malaria or treating TB or
drilling a water well for somebody in Africa is real dollars
making a real difference in peoples' lives. So the purpose for
us doing this is noble, and it's not to cast aspersions or to
say you care. We know you care. What we want to do is help
sharpen the focus.
Let me introduce to you Scott Evertz. He's the Vice
President for International Affairs for OraSure Technologies.
Mr. Evertz I know well. I've worked with him in the past when I
was out of government. He works with lawmakers and implementing
partners of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and
with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in
Geneva.
He previously served as the Special Assistant to the
Secretary of Global AIDS Initiatives, where he developed and
implemented HHS strategy to combat HIV/AIDS. He also is the
former Director of the White House Office of National AIDS
Policy. Your full testimony, Mr. Evertz, will be made a part of
the record. You are recognized, and if you would, please let us
hear from you.
TESTIMONY OF SCOTT H. EVERTZ,\1\ FORMER DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF NATIONAL AIDS POLICY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS FOR ORASURE TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Evertz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, and
good afternoon, Senator Carper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Evertz appears in the Appendix on
page 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Ranking Member, you stole my line. I was going to
start by suggesting that conferences be held in Dover and Tulsa
henceforth and hereafter, to gain favor with the Subcommittee.
The perspective I bring here is, as Chairman Coburn
suggests, as a former government employee, political appointee
in the Bush Administration. Senator Coburn, you mentioned our
time together, when you served as co-chair of PACHA, the
President's Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS. I enjoyed our
work together and want to thank you again for your service in
that capacity.
As you suggest, from July 2002 to April 2005, I served as
Special Assistant to Secretary Thompson on global HIV/AIDS
issues. And it was in this context that I observed the issues
that your Subcommittee is seeking to address. What I discovered
and witnessed was an attitude of entitlement among certain
officials in terms of attendance at conferences. And I would
suggest a downright arrogance when attendance at those
conferences was challenged by higher-ups in the agency.
It appeared to me personally that there was a limitless
travel budget, and that one could pick and choose which of
these conferences to attend. And as you suggest subtly, and I
would suggest less subtly, there's a perverse incentive to pick
Los Cabos over a conference that may be held in Tulsa, with all
due respect.
During my tenure in the Administration, I discovered that
these conferences and meetings were often a waste of time and
money, and that there were other technologies that could enable
us to access the good information that was being shared at
these conferences.
During my tenure at the White House and at HHS, I never
attended the International AIDS Conference held in Barcelona
and then subsequently in Bangkok, Thailand while I was with the
Administration. During that period, though, I would note that I
and others in the Administration developed the architecture for
the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria without the
benefit of having attended those conferences.
We did so, however, in close consultation with
multinational organizations and using many of the technologies
to which you refer. So clearly, it is possible to address the
pandemics that you reference--AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria--
without attending costly conferences.
The individual who became my boss, Secretary Thompson,
attended the Barcelona conference in 2002, and as many of you
will remember, was not able to engage in the so-called exchange
of ideas that occurs at these conferences because he was
shouted down. He was shouted down, in fact, sir, by many
individuals whose attendance was paid for by the U.S.
Government.
So when you reference figures around conferences, not only
are you talking about Federal Government employees that are
attending those conferences, but others who are on scholarships
from one of the many agencies, or whose NGO is supported by the
United States. I can highlight examples during the question-
and-answer session.
But it was always truly amazing to me that we were funding
nongovernmental organizations and literally enabling them to
yell at Federal officials at conferences. I was one of those
officials in one of my first appearances in Atlanta at a CDC
prevention conference, and it was all grantees in the audience.
And we were simply there to talk and to exchange ideas.
Even with the United States sending more than 200 attendees
to the Bangkok conference which followed the Barcelona
conference, critics of our Administration bemoaned the severe
restrictions being placed on attendance. And quite frankly,
sir, there were many of us, and still are, in the
Administration who did not consider 200 individuals severe
restrictions.
A noted journalist and now Senior Fellow for Global Health
at the Council of Foreign Relations first criticized the
Administration for limiting attendance at the Bangkok
conference, but having attended the conference herself,
summarized what she thought to be a less than useful venture by
saying, ``To be blunt, top HIV laboratory researchers simply
don't come to the international gathering any more, finding it
irrelevant.''
The cost of that conference was nearly $17 million,
according to organizers. But I would argue there are ancillary
costs and expenditures that, beyond the scope of what we're
talking about today, are outrageous if you care about fighting
HIV/AIDS.
The pharmaceutical companies and others who have a vested
interest in the HIV/AIDS industry sponsor lavish cocktail
parties and events that cost into the millions. So if you truly
were to look at the cost of a conference such as that, it's
well above the $17 million that's in my testimony and that
you've referenced.
Now, I see on the poster here, life-saving drugs for 5,000
individuals living with HIV for an entire year is what HHS
could have paid for with conference costs. Let me suggest
something else. Optimal AIDS combination therapy, which has
definitely lowered in price, but optimal therapy costs up to
$12,000 per year per patient. That's a very high number,
depending upon the regimen and the payor. However, even at the
optimal cost, if you take the cost of the Bangkok conference,
we could have put 1,500 additional individuals living with HIV/
AIDS on ARVs.
Perhaps more alarming is the fact that we could administer
about 3.4 million doses of Nevirapine for the cost of this
conference, which as you know, sir, prevents the transmission
of HIV from mother to child.
Now, these conferences have a value, so lest anyone
conclude that I'm suggesting they be discontinued, I'm not. But
we certainly need to consider, as you suggest, sir, in an era
of budget deficits, and in an era when there are waiting lists
in this country for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program, which is
part of the Ryan White Care Act, and increasingly there are
countries, even in the PEPFAR initiative, that are having
trouble getting as many individuals on ARVs as the President
would like because of budget constraints, that we look at ways
to do this differently and we look at what some--and you
mentioned in your opening statement, sir, conferencing that's
spring break, in essence.
Now, I'm happy in the question and answers to provide
examples. But let me give you one example of a trip that I went
on that would not be captured--so this is illustrative because
this would not be captured through any of the numbers that
we're talking about today, and that is travel at the invitation
of a nongovernmental organization.
I would suggest to you that in any given month, I could
have chosen one or two opportunities to be the guest of a
nongovernmental organization in my capacity at the White House
and at HHS. But as you know, it was that Federal agency, the
Executive Office of the President or HHS, that had to foot the
bill.
I attended one of those trips, and if I may digress for
just a second, we were in a remote area in the bush in South
Africa where they were testing individuals for HIV. These
incredible volunteers--at this point they were using the finger
prick device, not the oral HIV tests that my company markets
and sells--but they were using that device and they were
testing individuals for HIV.
And so we said, well, walk us through this process. Test
one of us and then tell us what you do. And they started by
explaining how difficult it was for individuals to get to this
testing site because it was--no one lives close to anyone in
this part of South Africa. But individuals would take the time.
They would go to this testing site which--I loosely refer to as
a clinic--be tested, and this was before the era of the rapid
test or as many rapid tests, and these individuals had to come
back to get their results.
Many of them did. And of course, then we said, well, then
what do you do? And the young woman who does the counseling and
testing said, ``Well, we tell them their results, and if
they're positive, we talk about nutrition and ways to protect
their partners and their family.'' And she kind of lowered her
head. And she said, ``But we can't give them treatment because
we have no treatment.''
And it was at that point that the irony of a whole group of
us standing there from the United States, most all of us from
the U.S. Government, some of your colleagues from the House,
and had literally no way to help these individuals.
Many of us went back and we worked diligently on the PEPFAR
initiative. But my point is that's inexcusable. And it
literally reached--it sunk home with me because on this trip,
one of our leisure activities was a safari, and that I had been
given the opportunity to attend--to participate in a safari and
then had to stand here and listen to a woman say, ``We don't
have treatment.'' Obviously, there's a whole bunch of
logistical issues that would disable her from getting
treatment. But it's inexcusable that there's no treatment
because of lack of money.
I'd like to applaud my former boss, Secretary Thompson, for
directing his Special Assistant for International Affairs to
try to get a handle on this.
Senator Coburn. Let me get you to summarize, if you will.
Mr. Evertz. Yes, sir. It looks like we didn't, quite
frankly. But they tried. Dr. Bill Steiger, who is that Special
Assistant, put an end, basically, to business class travel,
which was something that Secretary Thompson didn't appreciate
when he started traveling so much, but nonetheless sat in the
back of the plane while, again, individuals from NGOs that
we're funding sat in the front of the plane.
Finally, and I will conclude now with a little anecdote,
something that's also not captured, I don't think, in any of
the numbers that we're talking about today is attendance at
meetings of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
Malaria, and other such multinational organizations. The United
States, as are all delegations, allowed to send 10 individuals
to these meetings, which are held quarterly.
I witnessed the difficulty in paring down the list to 10.
And as a good friend of mine, and someone who's still with the
government so I'm not going to single her out for fear of
reprisal, but suggested, ``So we spend all this money to send
government officials to Global Fund board meetings to make sure
the Global Fund doesn't waste our money.'' And the answer is
yes, because some of those meetings are in very nice places.
Thank you, sir. I welcome your questions.
Senator Coburn. Just a few questions for you. In terms of
abstracts of scientific papers, one of the things that we're
going to hear is that NIH needs to travel and needs to be
there. And there certainly is some validity to that.
On most of these conferences, aren't the abstracts of the
papers that are going to be presented available prior to the
conference?
Mr. Evertz. Yes, sir. As I suggest in my written testimony,
when I mentioned that I never attended the International AIDS
Conference, my staff and I, however, did access transcripts,
manuscripts, and materials that you reference so that we could
do our job.
And quite frankly, it's a lot easier to do that sometimes
in the office setting than it is when there are, as you
referred in your statement to, temptations to skip. We all were
tempted to skip, and I will tell you right now that I did--not
often, but did. It's quite easy.
Senator Coburn. You indicated there were numerous
conferences on the same topic throughout the year attended by
the same people, in your written testimony. From your
experience, are multiple conferences useful to fostering new
ideas and solutions, or a misuse of funds and employee time
that could be better spent?
Mr. Evertz. Well, I'm going to answer cautiously. I'm not
going to answer just flat-out yes because I think that there
are some conferences where there are opportunities that could
not be gained otherwise.
But there is a conference circuit, sir. And I refer to this
in my written testimony as a set, if you will, of individuals
that you do see in Geneva or Doha or Siemreab, Cambodia. And
there's an expectation--and I will attest to it--an expectation
that certain people be there.
Guess what happens when President Bush's AIDS czar doesn't
show up at something? Well, that's outrageous. Well, criticize
me for what I did or didn't do in that position, but don't
criticize me for not being at conferences because in my
estimation, there would have been no added value, or value
added, if I attended everything on the circuit. I wouldn't have
done anything in Washington. We would not have passed the
PEPFAR initiative.
Senator Coburn. One final question. If you were to look at
your time in HHS and the White House and look at the number of
conferences, what percentage of those could have been done
through teleconferencing or, in your opinion, were absolutely
necessary?
Mr. Evertz. I would say--given again the technology that
you mentioned, I would say at least 75 percent of those
conferences, at the very least, could have their attendance
pared way down. I mean, there is a value in face-to-face, and
I'm sure that the airline industry would quarrel with some of
the technologies that we're talking about because there is a
value in being face-to-face and there is valuable hallway
discussions, as it's referred to.
But let me kind of qualify my answer again. I would say of
all those conferences that--and I've got a calendar here for
2006. There's one every month somewhere, Orlando or Montreal.
Oh, here's three: Jacksonville, Quebec, and Arlington. I'm not
going to the Arlington one. It's right across the river.
Dallas, Miami, Amsterdam, or Hollywood, Florida. That's cool.
Versailles.
I don't think--and I don't see how anyone ever unpacks if
they attend all of these things. And the answer is, maybe they
don't. Pardon the cynicism. But there would be ways. I mean,
for instance, the conference in Versailles is the 22nd
Conference on Sexually Transmitted Infections. I would be
willing to bet that you in your practice, sir, could access all
of the information that would be discussed at this conference
without traveling to Versailles, and better serving your
patients in Oklahoma.
Senator Coburn. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you so much for being with us today
and for your presentation and responding to our questions.
I just want to return to something you said. There is value
in some cases to being there, not just to be a participant in
the formal program of a conference, but to have the opportunity
to meet some people, to talk to them, maybe outside of the
conference, maybe over breakfast or dinner, and to create--
actually to form some relationships that can later on pay real
dividends for the people that we're trying to serve. So there's
value that sometimes is a bit hard to measure. But I agree with
what you said there.
I just have one question, and it's a question I ask from
time to time of folks that appear before us. Knowing what you
know, having seen what you've seen in this regard, what advice
would you have to us as to how to reduce the incidence of
travel that's not well thought out, and frankly, not especially
fruitful?
Mr. Evertz. That's a good question, Senator. And it sounds
like DOE, the Department of Energy, has been doing some of
that. I suggested to you some of that which was implemented at
HHS. And I would argue those numbers would look worse, perhaps,
if what Secretary Thompson initiated was not--did not happen,
for instance, the banning of business class travel.
The other thing or aspect that was changed is tacking on a
personal vacation to official government travel. And this was
disallowed. And actually, it's my understanding that this was
disallowed even electronically at HHS by looking at someone's
travel orders and determining if in fact a conference ends on
such-and-such a date and their return date is 5 days later,
guess what? The conference was in Cabo and they're not
returning for 5 days? Again, I say cynically, but guess what
they're doing? And you and I have paid for their flight there
and tacked on a vacation.
So practically speaking, get rid of that kind of stuff.
Practically speaking, you get rid of business class travel and
you're talking thousands of dollars per ticket. You referenced
cost savings in the airline industry.
The other thing that I would suggest is a more robust,
rationed process of identifying the rationale for attending. I
suggested to you that 10 individuals from the U.S. Government
attend the Global Fund board meeting every time the board
meeting is held, and that it's usually difficult to limit it to
10.
Now, I work closely with those individuals, and so,
Senator, I thank you for suggesting that I'm courageous in
speaking before you because I wouldn't want to tell you who of
the 10 I wouldn't want attending. But guess what? Ten people do
not need to attend the Global Fund board meeting.
But there's no process by which the rationale for travel is
determined, at least in my experience at HHS. Now, at the White
House, which has no money, I didn't travel much at all.
Senator Carper. Again, my question is: What advice would
you have for us?
Mr. Evertz. The advice--yes.
Senator Carper. Concrete things that we can do to reduce
the amount of travel that's just poorly thought through.
Mr. Evertz. Well, I think one thing is to have the agencies
do what HHS has tried, which is to limit number of attendees. I
think that's a little simplistic because that doesn't entirely
get at the issue of cost. But really, the agencies need to be
held accountable for these numbers, and those responsible for
signing off on travel need to be held accountable if the
numbers are increasing at a time of budget deficits.
Senator Carper. OK. The other thing I would add to that,
and I thank you for that response, Mr. Evertz, I would say to
my staff, when you're thinking of doing something and the
question of cost is a consideration, you're not sure that it's
the right expenditure that actually helps us do our job better
and to serve better, just imagine a newspaper article--and we
only have one statewide newspaper in Delaware--just imagine a
story on the front page of the newspaper above the fold that
talks about the particular event we're going to travel to or
the meeting or convention we're going to participate in.
And if it meets that test and you feel like you'd be happy
to see that story, then let's go ahead and do it. If not, let's
find another way to skin that cat. Thank you.
Chairman Coburn. Mr. Evertz, thank you very much.
We'll start with our second panel now, and I will introduce
them.
Michael Ryan is the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the
EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. He's served as the EPA's
Deputy CFO since 2000. He is responsible for managing strategic
planning, budgeting, financial management, performance
measurement, analysis, and accountability functions. He
previously served as the agency's controller, and has held
positions in the State Department and Department of Defense.
James Martin, Assistant Chief Financial Officer for
Financial Management, Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Mr. Martin joined the HUD CFO office in 2000. He
works on eliminating the Department's high risk and material
weakness issues, improving the content of the annual
performance and accountability report, the PART report, and he
coordinates HUD's efforts to implement President Bush's
management agenda. Mr. Martin has served in a variety of
capacities at HUD since joining the Department in 1983.
Sid Kaplan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic
Performance and Planning, Bureau of Resource Management, at the
Department of State. Mr. Kaplan serves as the Acting Assistant
Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial Officer.
He's a member of the Senior Foreign Service and has held
numerous positions within the State Department. He's the former
Managing Director of the International Financial Services
Directorate.
Charles Johnson, Assistant Secretary of the Budget in the
Department of Health and Human Services. He is the Assistant
Secretary for Budget, Technology, and Finance at HHS. He
previously served as the Chief Financial Officer of the EPA.
He's the former President of the Huntsman Cancer Foundation,
and he has held a number of positions in Utah State government.
He also has considerable experience in the private sector.
Thank you all for being here today. You each will be
recognized. We won't stay tight within the 5-minute rule, and
your entire statement will be made a part of the record.
And Mr. Johnson, I'll recognize you first.
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES JOHNSON,\1\ ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
BUDGET, TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Coburn, Senator
Carper. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today on the topic of Federal agencies and conference spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson with an attachment
appears in the Appendix on page 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HHS is the principal Federal agency responsible for
protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential
human services, especially for those who are least able to help
themselves. We have more than 300 grant programs. We are the
Nation's largest health insurer and the largest government
grant-making agency.
I'm not here to defend any specific conferences, but I can
tell you that good communication to disseminate and share
information is a key to our success. Appropriate conferences
play a major role in facilitating this communication both with
grantees and between grantees on policies, goals, best
practices, and new discoveries. HHS's participation in
conferences can be a cost-efficient way for the Department to
communicate with as many stakeholders as it deals with.
Last year, in response to your request, Mr. Chairman, HHS
compiled information on the total amount spent on conference
activities in fiscal years 2000 through 2004, and provided you
an estimate of the expenditures for 2005. We have now updated
our 2005 information.
This updated information on conference spending shows that
we are up about a third from fiscal 2000, but we have been
relatively constant since 2003 and actually decreased our
conference spending from fiscal 2004 to 2005. Conference
spending increases are in two major agencies, National
Institutes of Health and Administration for Children and
Families.
Sharing scientific information, as has been pointed out, is
an important form of leveraging research activities and
hopefully results in a decrease in those research expenditures.
ACF, the Administration for Children and Families, has had a
lot of new programs over the last 5 years. But despite the fact
that they've had these programs, in the year 2004, they had a
higher expenditure than in 2005.
I think this brings out an important management principle.
That is as follows. With launching a new program, we may incur
startup costs. However, when information has been shared with
the relevant parties, a reduction in conference spending will
be expected. That's an important stewardship matter, and I
think the ACF has followed that.
Having said that, I agree that additional oversight can
improve our stewardship. As I reviewed the current policies, I
felt that we must tighten our conference policies in two areas:
First, in the selection of the conferences, and the programs
and policies being presented at those conferences; and second,
in the financial areas surrounding conferences.
To that end, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary
for Administration and Management, we have issued a memorandum
to all HHS operating division heads that strengthen the
Department's current policy on conferences. This memorandum
places additional responsibility on operating division heads in
determining content and sponsorship of conferences and in
controlling costs.
It emphasizes the need to more actively engage with
grantees to assure that they are aware of our policies and
procedures. It adds additional approvals on travel. In summary,
we have strengthened our oversight on conferences, which in
turn will help us contain costs.
As evidenced by our most recent clean audit, the seventh in
a row, HHS has a commitment to strong and transparent financial
management. We are continuously monitoring our internal
controls and strengthening our Departmental policies. I
personally have a strong belief in accountability and
transparency, and pledge to you that we will do better.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, this concludes my testimony.
But I stand ready to answer any questions that you or any other
Members of the Committee may have on this topic.
Chairman Coburn. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kaplan.
TESTIMONY OF SID KAPLAN,\1\ ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Kaplan. Chairman Coburn and Senator Carper, thank you
for the invitation to testify today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kaplan appears in the Appendix on
page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know, the conduct of diplomacy frequently
requires face-to-face interactions, venues for the exchange of
ideas, and meetings that foster personal relationships which
are critical to the success of our mission.
Conferences are an integral means by which the Department
of State conducts our Nation's international affairs. The
Department conducts diplomatic relations with 188 countries
through over 260 posts around the world, and participation in
conferences is an effective means to promote advancement of
issues across a wide array of operational and policy areas.
For some international organizations, conferences are the
primary means by which business is conducted. The United States
also advances and protects hemispheric interests through
participation in the meetings of the Organization of American
States and related organizations. The United States realizes
similar goals reflecting key regional relationships through
participation in meetings of the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation Forum, or APEC, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, or NATO, the United Nations regional commissions,
and other signatories to major treaties.
Active State Department participation in international
conferences ensures that the United States maintains our
influence, and promotes and protects key U.S. interests in the
formulation of policy, the management of the Department's
operations, and the deliberations of multilateral international
organizations in which the United States has membership.
The Department's participation in conferences is often
essential to achieving a desired outcome, and cost of
attendance is justified by what was or was not accomplished due
to U.S. engagement. For example, failure to attend a conference
that results in action not supported by our policies could
require a greater expenditure of resources to address the
action in retrospect than it would have cost to participate in
the conference.
The Department has taken steps to institute controls over
conference participation and to stem the increase in conference
costs. The Department is also continuously exploring and making
use of ways to leverage technology and resources so that the
Department's participation in meaningful conferences is
facilitated in the most cost-effective way possible.
The funding used to support conferences is managed within
each of the Department's bureaus. Therefore, bureaus and,
consequently, U.S. missions overseas must prioritize funding
for conferences against other competing requirements.
In 2004, the State Department instituted a policy requiring
advance approval from the office of the Under Secretary for
Management in order to attend or host conferences. Under the
policy, requests to host or hold conferences, workshops, or
other meetings to which travel is required and where 25 or more
Department personnel will participate must be submitted 120
days in advance. The request must be justified by demonstrating
the benefit to the Department, the outcome or results expected,
security risks, cost, and how the conference advances the
Department's strategic priorities.
The Department is also using technology to increase
efficiency and cut conference costs. The use of digital video
conferencing, or DVC, is on the rise. As an example, rather
than attending regional management or budget conferences, I and
in most cases a small panel of management colleagues have
frequently opted to deliver our presentations using DVC.
Also, while not conferences per se, the Bureau of Resource
Management regularly uses DVC to conduct our mission
performance plan reviews with embassy teams, substantially
reducing international travel and costs. In short, as DVC
technology has improved, this practice is becoming more
prevalent, and I expect it to only grow in the future, which
will contribute to greater cost-effectiveness.
The conference spending data reported covers a 5-year
period. The report includes information on conferences with a
variety of purposes, including policy issues related to
Afghanistan, Iraq, the Global War on Terror, and the fight
against AIDS, as well as management and professional
development conferences. Most recently, conference spending has
decreased from $30.9 million in fiscal year 2004 to $26.5
million in fiscal year 2005, primarily due to non-recurring
conferences such as the hosting of the OAS General Assembly and
the increased use of technology.
As the Acting Chief Financial Officer, I can assure you
that the Department will continue to avoid unnecessary
conference expenditures and, where appropriate, to vigorously
pursue more cost-effective methods of participating.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak before the
Subcommittee, and I look forward to answering any questions
that you might have.
Chairman Coburn. Mr. Kaplan, thank you. Mr. Martin.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. MARTIN,\1\ ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Martin. Chairman Coburn, Ranking Member Carper, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the
topic of Federal agencies and conference spending. My testimony
focuses on the nature, extent, and benefits of conference
spending at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Martin with an attachment appears
in the Appendix on page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the current Federal budget climate, I agree with you
both that it is more important than ever that every Federal
dollar be properly spent with a clear mission-related purpose
and benefit. HUD sponsors, cosponsors, or approves staff to
participate in conferences for a variety of mission-related
purposes.
HUD's significant and diverse program activities serve
millions of American households and most communities. These
programs are delivered through thousands of third party program
administrators, including units of State and local government,
public housing agencies, private mortgage lenders, nonprofit
and for-profit housing sponsors, developers, and managers, and
various faith-based and community-based service organizations.
Effective communication of program goals and requirements
to program beneficiaries and our third party program
administrators is a critical component of HUD's program control
environment. Such communications are in keeping with the
Government Accountability Office's standards for effective
internal control in the Federal Government.
Most of HUD's third party program administrators and
program beneficiaries are represented by national and/or local
associations or interest groups. HUD's participation in
conferences sponsored by or for these associations or interest
groups is often a cost-efficient and effective way for the
Department to communicate with its many program stakeholders.
Another factor in an effective system of internal control
is management's commitment to competence in its own workforce.
Some conference participation is to enhance the knowledge,
skills, and abilities of HUD staff to better enable them to
perform their jobs and to support HUD's mission.
Mr. Chairman, in response to your request, HUD compiled
information on the total amount of conference spending in
fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Our queries for that period
indicate that HUD's conference spending ranged from a low of
$3.2 million in 2001 to a high of $13.9 million in fiscal year
2005.
In analyzing that spending trend over the 5-year period,
2001 was found to be an uncharacteristically low period for
conference spending due to the change in Administrations and
leadership during that period. The increased conference
spending between fiscal years 2002 and 2005 was largely due to
a greater focus on promoting the Department's revised strategic
coals and program changes designed to increase performance
results.
HUD's mission is to increase home ownership, support
community development, and increase access to affordable
housing free from discrimination. The list of 989 conferences
supported by HUD in fiscal year 2005 conforms to HUD's mission
and goals. Although there is no specific limit on how much HUD
can spend on conference support or participation, spending is
limited by HUD's normal budget constraints.
Nearly 31 percent of HUD's total fiscal year 2005
conference spending was from the public housing technical
assistance program funds that were appropriated for such
purposes. In the case of program technical assistance funds,
HUD is required to submit an annual spending plan for
Congressional approval before these funds can be used for
conferences or other planned purposes.
Conference activities not funded by program technical
assistance funds must be funded out of HUD's limited salaries
and expense fund. The S&E fund has little discretionary funding
available for conference participation after covering the cost
of HUD's salaries and other normal operating expenses. The
total $13.9 million spent on conferences in fiscal year 2005
represented a very small percentage of HUD's total enacted
budget of $33.7 billion that year.
Supervisory approval of conference participation is
required in all cases, along with separate processing and
approval of any associated funding required for travel expense,
conference facility or equipment rental, or materials
development, or printing costs associated with conference
participation.
My written testimony provides several examples where HUD's
conference participation is believed to be a contributing
factor to increasing program performance results. Those
examples include HUD's efforts to increase home ownership,
record home ownership levels today. And we particularly focus
on minority home ownership. Minority home ownership is also at
record levels.
Our efforts to promote program participation or increase
program participation by faith-based and community service
organizations and to reduce improper rental housing assistance
payments are all areas where we believe performance has
improved as a result of our participation in conferences to
communicate program requirements and goals with our program
stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that I've been able to shed some light
on the controlled nature of HUD's participation in conference
activities and the benefits derived from those activities. That
concludes my testimony, and I stand ready to answer any
questions either of you may have. Thank you.
Chairman Coburn. Thank you very much. Mr. Ryan.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL W.S. RYAN,\1\ DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Ryan. Good afternoon, Chairman Coburn, Senator Carper.
On behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, I'd like to
thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify today on the subject Federal agencies
and conference spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan appears with an attachment
in the Appendix on page 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA appreciates your interest in this topic. We share your
concern for efficient, effective, and appropriate use of
taxpayers' dollars, whether for conferences or for any other
purpose.
Conference must promote EPA's mission to promote human
health and the environment. We carry out this mission through
the work of some 17,500 employees located in Washington, DC, 10
major regional offices, and other facilities across the
country.
Our work is organized in terms of five long-term strategic
goals. These goals shape the way we plan, budget, and account
for our work. We organize our budget in terms of results and
annual goals that relate to these strategic goals.
We also account for spending by these goals with reference
to specific programs and projects that may or may not involve
conferences. In this way, we aim to account for spending in
terms of the results of our work.
Our cost accounting system follows the structure of our
strategic and annual goals. And for this reason, we had to do
further analysis to produce the kind of information you
requested and to identify trends in spending on conferences.
Based on analysis of the detailed data submitted to the
Subcommittee, I would estimate that EPA's spending on formal
conferences is in the range of $16 to $19 million annually.
EPA has broad authority under civil statutes to conduct
formal conferences to deliver useful environmental information
to the public and to other Federal agencies. These statutes
include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the Superfund
and Brownfields statutes, and the Government Employees Training
Act.
A number of EPA programs rely on close coordination with
community groups, intergovernmental organizations, and members
of the regulated community. EPA generally supports conferences
that bring together different constituencies to promote
collaboration and partnerships for the Nation's environmental
programs.
Many EPA conferences are designed to inform a non-Federal
audience about important developments in environmental policy.
Other conferences promote technology transfer, research,
cooperation between stakeholders with different perspectives,
voluntary actions, and other non-regulatory approaches to
protecting the environment and public health.
Decisions on conference attendance and support are not made
centrally for the agency. Generally, these decisions are made
at the appropriate management level within individual program
and regional offices. For example, Assistant Administrators or
Regional Administrators may make decisions on whether to hold
conferences on mission-related topics. Individuals' attendance
must be approved by their supervisors.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, in the
current budget climate, it is incumbent on all of us to take a
hard look at spending to identify greater efficiencies, reduce
costs, and produce meaningful results. We get better results
when our work brings together the perspectives of many groups
that make up the American community.
Congress has recognized this by creating laws that provide
for conferences to support coordination and information
sharing. At the same time, we also need to be careful stewards
to ensure that costs for a conference are appropriate and
contained.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to examine
how we manage conference spending, and to make sure that we are
using these resources for the greatest benefit. And if I can
depart from my text for a moment, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
thank you also for your statement in which you declared the
intention to help us work on this issue. And I hope in that
spirit we can enter into this conversation.
And that concludes my oral testimony, and I would be
pleased to answer any of your questions.
Chairman Coburn. Well, thank each of you. I have a few
questions just to kind of get down to some detail
First, Mr. Martin, in 2001 you all had a $3.2 million
expenditure for conferences. And I think your statement was
that's because of a change in administration. It leads me to
ask: Did HUD carry out its responsibilities that year?
Mr. Martin. Absolutely.
Senator Coburn. But they did it with $3.2 million worth of
conference spending, and yet they carried out their
responsibilities? So it begs the further question, is if in
2001 they could carry out their responsibilities with $3.2
million, why are we at $13.9 million now?
Mr. Martin. I think my statement was that during that
change in administration and leadership, the following year
there was a focus on revised strategic goals, increased
emphasis on home ownership, increasing faith-based and
community organization participation in our programs, and just
a new direction.
It just was a lull period in 2001 compared to prior
periods.
Senator Coburn. It's true you all are having trouble with
improper payments because so much of what you do goes through
to other agencies. One of the things we've been working on is
the Improper Payments Act, and I know you all are having
trouble getting your hands around that. And I'm going to give
you all deference to try to do that this year.
But the fact is, as an agency, you don't know what you're
improperly paying for. How do you know that the expenditures
for travel and conferencing accurately reflects the needs of
the agency?
Mr. Martin. And that's all budgeted for and planned within
the Department, and our execution of our salaries and expense
fund. And clearly, one of the goals that was focused on in 2002
was the reduction of improper payments.
And that required us to issue updated and approved program
guidance and disseminate that guidance to our program
administrators, public housing authorities, and private owners,
to provide training to their staff and our staff on that new
guidance. Those were all contributing factors to reducing those
improper payment levels over that period of time.
Senator Coburn. But you all are out of compliance right now
with improper payments, right, under the law?
Mr. Martin. No. We believe we're in full compliance with
IPIA.
Senator Coburn. We believe you're not. And we'll have that
discussion at a later time.
Mr. Martin. Right. We owe you a response on February 14.
Yes.
Senator Coburn. OK. I also would note that the Senate is on
record for limiting your conference numbers, an amendment that
I offered when I saw it. And it was stripped in conference. But
nevertheless, the Senate is on record to try to limit that. The
whole goal was to raise the awareness--it wasn't to tell you
how to run your organization. It was to raise the awareness
that this is going to a faster level.
And I'm going to ask each of you this: What percentage of
the conferences that you're doing now are teleconferences or
digital video conferencing? And what percentage that are
planned for the future could be done that way? And then the
third part of the question: Do you have a line item budgeted in
your total budget for conferences and travel related to those
conferences?
Mr. Martin, you can answer first, and then the others can
answer.
Mr. Martin. OK. Our use of satellite broadcasts and
webcasts is on the rise. The preponderance of our internal
staff training and information dissemination is all done
through satellite broadcasts and webcasts. And we're using it
more frequently to communicate with our program stakeholders
externally. That's definitely on the rise.
HUD has a satellite broadcast center in its headquarters.
We have downlink capability to all 86 HUD offices. We recently
expanded what we call HUD TV to our public housing authorities,
which administer the preponderance of our program dollars. So
that's been a great benefit to provide training and information
to them through those means.
So it's definitely on the rise. We do not have a separate
line item budget for it. I think it's probably a good idea for
us to try to provide that kind of focus and oversight on it, as
you suggest, going forward.
Senator Coburn. OK. Do you actually have a budget that
says, here's how much we're going to spend?
Mr. Martin. It's somewhat limited by--the services are
largely contracted. The satellite broadcast center has----
Senator Coburn. No, I'm talking about for overall the
conferences. In other words, how do lower level managers make a
decision about which conference is most effective for us, if
we've got all these conferences and we don't have a fixed
budget? How do they make a decision to prioritize those?
In other words, if they're just saying, this can come out
of our fund and we think this is fine, we'll use it for budget
rather than having a fixed amount for conferences and travel?
There is not a fixed amount for conference and travel in HUD.
Is that what you're telling me?
Mr. Martin. Not specifically, no. Just a general budget
constraint limit.
Senator Coburn. OK. As a financial manager, do you not see
a problem with that, that you won't force good decisionmaking
unless you have a budget line item which you're addressing up
against?
Mr. Martin. There's a ``general other services'' line item
which forces them to make decisions within that limited funding
for that category of expenses. And that's competing with staff
training and contract services as well that are in that object
class. But it's not specifically for conferences.
Senator Coburn. OK. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. With respect to technology, I can tell you
that we're using technology a great deal within the
organization. But the extent of our use with conferences and
with grantees, I don't have a feel for that.
I can tell you that with the way we do it internally, there
is a--you put people in two categories. The need to go to a
conference, or the need to know. And if you have a need to go,
then your responsibility is then to disseminate the information
among those who have a need to know.
But I think we probably can use technology to a greater
extent. But you do have a rather diverse group of grantees, and
their ability to connect and to deal with us on that basis will
also have some limitations. But I think it's an area that we
have to do more on.
With respect to a line item on travel and conferences, we
don't have that. I think, from what I can gather, for the first
time we have really focused in on the amount of spending on
travel and conferences as a result of your request. I think we
now have a base, and I think we have everyone's attention with
that base, and I think we'll see some improvements just by the
mere fact that we have that.
We're installing a new accounting system. As we install
that and get that throughout the system, throughout our entire
Department, we definitely will have a line item and an ability
to capture conferences and travel.
Senator Coburn. Let me just follow up with you before I go
to our other two witnesses. Congress recently spent $62.5
million for a high-tech communications center at the CDC, $62.5
million. Has the availability of this communications center had
any impact on the number of CDC employees that travel to or the
amount spent on conferences at CDC? What's the response to
that?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I can tell you, again, from an internal
standpoint, we have a lot of meetings with CDC, and they're all
through teleconference and video. I don't know the extent
beyond that, the extent that it would be used with respect to
conferences, other conferences outside. But certainly within,
virtually every meeting that I go to that involves all the
operating division heads, there is a video connection to CDC in
Atlanta.
Senator Coburn. Yes. All right. Mr. Kaplan.
Mr. Kaplan. Yes, sir. Regarding technology, the State
Department has a global reach, of course. And to the extent
possible, we are focusing more on trying to use technology more
and more.
In some locations, however, technology is just not
possible. It's very difficult. I was at a conference last year
in Africa where we were trying to use video conferencing to
pull people together, and it just didn't work. On the other
hand, just a couple of weeks ago, rather than make a trip out
to our Asia region to address a gathering there on budget
issues, I was able to use video conferencing from back here in
Washington, resulting in considerable savings not only in my
time but in cost as well.
So we are trying to use this technology more and more. Our
bureaus and our embassies who make these decisions on funding
for this equipment realize the value of it, and it is
increasing.
Regarding the line item, in our budget we do not have a
separate line item. But within the limited discretionary
funding within our embassies and our bureaus, there's a great
deal of sensitivity on conferences and travel, and we're trying
to limit it as much as possible and ensure that the right
prioritization is taking place.
Senator Coburn. I would note, it's ironic to me that HHS
spends two and a half times what the State Department does on
conferences and travel. Two and a half times at HHS--we've got
to address that imbalance, think about that for a minute.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Chairman Coburn, as far as the technology, I'm
afraid I'm going to sound a lot like the others. We've had
video conferencing capability at EPA, if my memory serves me,
just for the last couple of years. We use it more and more for
internal meetings so that people don't have to come in from San
Francisco, and it's very useful.
There are a number of conferences, if you look at our
detail. Some of the conferences that we do I think you'd
probably want us to continue to do because the citizens want to
get a piece of us, frankly.
Senator Coburn. Sure.
Mr. Ryan. They want to see us in person and ask us some
hard questions.
I think in other areas--and I was talking to our guys in
the research area, where you'd expect people to be high tech--I
think that would be a great idea, to use that technology for
that. And I would probably be looking into that more. I know we
have some problems with bandwidth in some of the labs.
Senator Coburn. We're going to try to fix that by 2009.
Mr. Ryan. I'll be with you.
Line item budget, no, we don't have it. To echo what I
think Mr. Johnson said, I learned a lot more about what we do
on conferences when you asked the question, frankly. We gather
the information because it's decentralized. I looked at it and
concluded, I think, some of the things you concluded. And I
think we're going to be looking at that much harder.
I think that having a line item per se possibly could
produce counter-intuitive results. However, having to report
the first bullet on your accountability chart of transparency,
I think that goes a long way.
If you simply flush out all these costs by putting a code
in the accounting code, making people use it, and then report
so that people at a level in the agency can actually see what's
going on, I think that goes a long way to help control this.
And would probably be more important than an item.
Senator Coburn. Let me ask each of you, do you all have the
authority within your organizations to essentially demand e-
conferencing or to hold accountable--in other words, to try to
force this down the line? Is there any ability that you all
have to say, this is how we're going to--other than to say,
you're going to have to account. Here's a new number. You're
going to have to put it in.
But is there anything that you can do in your positions of
authority as the financial managers of these organizations to
force this down the line that would cause that, other than a
budgeted line item or greater sunshine on it? Anybody want to
answer?
Mr. Ryan. Well, I'd start out by saying that to answer your
question directly, I don't have the authority--the CFO doesn't
have the authority to force it. That's not to mean that we
can't--in order to, say, direct it. What we'd have to do is
rely on persuasion and a bully pulpit kind of thing, and other
tools that you have because you have the leverage of the
budget. But I can't direct it at the current time, to answer
your question.
Senator Coburn. Any other comments on that?
Mr. Kaplan. Sure. Personally, the CFO does not have the
authority in the State Department, either. But that decision is
made at the Under Secretary level. Of course we have a close
working relationship, and the Under Secretary is always looking
to make the most efficient, budget-wise decisions. So I think
there's an influencing and a relationship there that we can
work further in this direction.
Senator Coburn. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I can tell you as we discussed this issue with
our operating division heads, and the Secretary was there, he
indicated a very large interest in this area, and basically
said that he would like to see transparency and he would like
to see controls, and gave us basically the authority and the
charce to work together to accomplish that. So I think having
the Secretary in that camp is pretty good authority.
Senator Coburn. I also would note in one of your comments,
we've spent a ton of money wiring universities, colleges,
libraries, and schools. And so you have stakeholders out there
that we often assume don't have availability for some of this,
but they really do. They have it at community centers and other
areas throughout the country where we could utilize that.
I want you to look at these two charts because one of the
things that is growing is we pay per diems.\1\ And as I've
talked to Federal employees, the best thing about a trip is you
can make cash off of it. And I'm wondering if you have any
comments to maybe change this policy to a cost-plus max and
have them turn it in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The charts referred to appears in the Appendix on page 29 and
30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you don't want to deal with the paperwork associated
with travel vouchers and all that other. But when you pay
somebody $390 a day per diem and they spend $200 or $250, and
most of the conferences they go to have the food there, they're
taking home $100 a day.
And the same is true with Members of Congress when they
travel. The American public needs to know that. What it ought
to be is reasonable and customary expenses ought to be paid for
rather than somebody gaming the system. Any comments on that?
Think we ought to change that?
It may not apply as much to the State Department because of
where they travel, but certainly for the rest of it--and I've
traveled once as a Congressman, and I was amazed that I turned
in $1,600 back to the Treasury, whereas most people keep it.
Mr. Ryan. Actually, I think that would be a great idea. And
I think as the Federal Government goes to electronic travel
vouchers, the paperwork burden will be reduced. If what I
understand you're saying is simply allow for a cost, and
basically everybody goes back to their computer, as they do
now, and puts in what they spent, and has the vouchers and
beyond that they don't get anything beyond that for
reimbursement, I have no problem with that. That sounds like
you're paying for the cost of the travel.
Senator Coburn. Right. Any other comments on that?
Mr. Kaplan. Sir, as you mentioned, the State Department is
a little bit different. In many overseas locations where we
are, it's often cost-effective to hold a conference rather than
fund the air travel to bring people back. So we have a slightly
different formula.
Senator Coburn. Right. Yes. I agree with that.
Mr. Kaplan. But I think the more scrutiny and the more
light that is shed on this issue, working closely with GSA who
does set the per diem rates, there might be some improvements
that could be made in the system.
Senator Coburn. All right. Mr. Ryan, I have one other
question for you, and then I have one final question for all of
you.
From 2000 to 2004, your conference spending jumped 107
percent, doubled. Last year, though, your agency spent less,
actually brought it down several million dollars. The actual
amount was--you brought it down $7 million, $6.5 million
dollars.
Mr. Ryan. Right.
Senator Coburn. Did it compromise your mission?
Mr. Ryan. No. Not at all. In fact, I have to confess to
you, I think some of the difference in the 2 years is probably
somewhat artificial by the simple fact that our most expensive
conference, which is the Brownfields conference, which is about
$3 million a year----
Senator Coburn. Yes.
Mr. Ryan. It's a fall issue. And it just happened to fall
within two fiscal years. It was October, one year and
September, the other. And that inflated it. And that's why in
my oral statement I said, $16 and $19 million.
But to answer your question without answering it exactly
the way you asked it, if we were to reduce our conference
spending, do I think we would not achieve our goals? No. I
think I would echo what the administrator said when he talked
about our budget, that we're stewards of the environment as
well as stewards of the taxpayer dollar. And we could spend a
lot less on conferences and still accomplish what we're doing.
Senator Coburn. OK. One final question for all of you, and
then I'll--actually, two final questions. I'll be more
straightforward than that.
If you're out on the street, not in the job you're in
today, and somebody came up to you and said, the Federal
Government over the last 5 years increased their conference
spending 70 percent, what would you think about that? That's 13
percent per year. What would you think about that? Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. I think I talk with more people outside
government than I talk within government, and I can tell you
that they would be horrified. Any business, any large
corporation, would say, that's not the way we've had to operate
over the last 5 years. And so they would not take kindly to it.
Senator Coburn. Mr. Kaplan? You all, by the way, have not
increased it that much, but----
Mr. Kaplan. I think people would be upset to hear that high
percentage of increase, and would logically ask the question,
could business be done differently? Could we look at the
technology and newer tools and controls, as we ought to be
continually looking at how to improve our business practices?
Senator Coburn. Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin. Well, I think I'd want to know why did it go up
and what did you get for it. But I know in HUD's case, looking
back at 2001 when we were in that lull period between
administrations, shortly after the new administration came in,
there were a lot of change proposals that needed to be
processed. And it was communicating those changes and to do
things like reducing improper payments and things that had a
benefit.
Senator Coburn. Well, I said 70 percent. HUD went up 340
percent.
Mr. Martin. Right.
Senator Coburn. So let's use 340 percent in your case. You
don't think they'd question that?
Mr. Martin. Absolutely question it. But again, it's
relative. And again, going back to the question of why did it
go up and what did you get for it, and----
Senator Coburn. OK. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan. Chairman Coburn, I think to answer your question,
I had to think of what I would say to my mother-in-law about
this. [Laughter.]
And I would think that I wouldn't want to talk to her very
long about because she pretty much would tell me, ``I think you
boys better get this stuff under control.'' So I think, again,
to echo Mr. Johnson's comment of horrified at the jump, that
would be probably where I'd be and where most people would be.
Senator Coburn. One final question, and then I'll introduce
Senator Akaka. Welcome.
Senator Akaka. Good to be here with you.
Senator Coburn. You all have indicated a willingness, or at
least a desire, to try to get a handle on this. And I'm
extremely thankful to you.
Would you each be willing to work with my office this year
to write some parameters? Not specific rules; I don't want the
Congress micro-managing you. I want us doing our proper job of
oversight. But there are things that we can do to limit some of
the excesses. And all I would ask is: Would you be willing to
work with us to help give you more tools to help control some
of these costs better?
[Panelists nod affirmatively.]
Senator Coburn. We're just about to finish up. Senator
Akaka, I'm glad you came.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to
know I look forward to working with you. I enjoy working with
you. And I must tell you that as Chairman of this Subcommittee,
you have been--maybe this is too strong--that you have focused
in dealing----
Senator Coburn. I don't need any help in getting a bad
reputation. [Laughter.]
Senator Akaka [continuing]. With the problems that are in
management. And I really commend the Chairman for that.
I regret I was unable to be here earlier, but I was serving
as a ranking member of the Armed Services readiness hearing on
contracting in Iraq and the problems that we have there.
However, I consider this hearing very important, and I
appreciate the Chairman's interest in making sure that Federal
agencies are spending funds wisely when it comes to sending
Federal employees to conferences.
I'm proud to represent the beautiful State of Hawaii, which
is one of the Nation's premier conference and convention
destinations. We in Hawaii are sometimes frustrated by the
assumption that a Federal employee who attends a conference in
Honolulu, for example, is wasting taxpayers' dollars.
No Federal employee should be discouraged from
participating in a conference as long as there is a legitimate
reason to do it. I know our Chairman's focus on government
efficiency is sincere, and I want to assure him that my
constituents share that value, too.
We cannot forget, however, that Hawaii, our 50th State, is
home to nearly 25,000 Federal employees, 16,500 of whom are DOD
civilian workers and about 45,000 active duty members of the
Armed Services. Hawaii is headquarters for the U.S. Pacific
Command, and serves as the operational heart of the world's
largest naval command, the Pacific Fleet, whose reach extends
all the way to Africa.
PACCOM's operational responsibility covers 105 million
square miles, more than 60 percent of the world's population,
and $548 billion in U.S. trade. We don't want to unfairly
refuse participation in a conference in Hawaii to any Federal
employee.
My constituents should not be denied access to the exchange
of ideas and expertise of agencies such as HUD or HHS or EPA or
State Department. There are unique issues that face the people
of Hawaii, but by working with the Federal Government, we can
fund solutions. Conferences, conventions, and forums all offer
important venues for such critical personnel interactions.
We in Hawaii have long understood the importance of
visitors to our State and the State's economic vitality. Given
the crucial standing that Hawaii and its capital, Honolulu,
hold in this Nation, once again I strongly urge that the
Federal employees neither be denied nor discouraged from
attending conventions or conferences in the 50th State.
And that's my statement that I'd like to put in the Record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Thank you, Chairman Coburn. I consider this hearing very important,
and I appreciate your interest in making sure that Federal agencies are
spending funds wisely when it comes to sending Federal employees to
conferences.
I am proud to represent the beautiful State of Hawaii, which is one
of the Nation's premier conference and convention destinations. We in
Hawaii are sometimes frustrated by the assumption that a Federal
employee who attends a conference in Honolulu--for example--is wasting
taxpayer dollars. No Federal employee should be discouraged from
participating in a conference as long as there is a legitimate reason
to do so. I know our Chairman's focus on government efficiency is
sincere, and I want to assure him that my constituents share that value
too.
We should never forget that Hawaii, our 50th State, is home to
nearly 25,000 Federal employees--16,500 of whom are DOD civilian
workers--as well as 45,000 active duty members of the Armed Services.
Hawaii is headquarters to the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) and serves
as the operational heart of the world's largest naval command--the
Pacific Fleet--whose reach extends to Africa. PACOM's operational
responsibility covers 105 million square miles--more than 60 percent of
the world's population and $548 billion in U.S. trade.
We don't want to unfairly refuse participation in a conference in
Hawaii to any Federal employee. My constituents should not be denied
access to the exchange of ideas and expertise of agencies such as the
Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, and State, as well the Environmental Protection Agency.
There are unique issues that face the people of Hawaii, but by working
with the Federal Government, we can find solutions. Conferences,
conventions, and forums all offer important venues for such critical
personal interactions.
We in Hawaii have long understood the importance of visitors to our
State's economic vitality. Given the crucial standing that Hawaii and
its capitol--Honolulu--hold in this Nation, once again I strongly urge
that Federal employees neither be denied nor discouraged from attending
conventions or conferences in the 50th State.
Senator Coburn. You've been heard, the junior Senator from
Hawaii. We have heard you.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Senator Coburn. I would note for the record, however, the
Defense Department's expenditures on travel and conferences has
only risen 8 percent since 2002. They've been pretty good
stewards in terms of the increases. And most of the conference
that goes on in Hawaii are related to the Department of
Defense. So they've been good.
Your statement, however, does not reflect the fact that the
HUD had a conference on Sacramento home ownership in Honolulu.
The American people are going to ask a question about why do we
do that. We're for Honolulu and Hawaii. I want to go there for
a conference, too. I've just not been invited yet. And I may
not be after one of these hearings. [Laughter.]
Did you have a question for our guests?
Senator Akaka. Yes. I have one question.
Senator Coburn. Thank you.
Senator Akaka. Mr. Ryan, you mentioned the use of shared
costs for conferences. You also note that if EPA had greater
authority to retain and use fees, that more costs could be
offset. What authority does EPA need to do this?
Mr. Ryan. This was an idea that if we had authority in law,
which we don't have, to charge a fee and retain it to pay for a
conference, the marketplace--for certain types of conferences.
I'm not talking about a conference that we have with citizens
about a Superfund site. No. I'm talking about a conference
where we're giving information primarily to people who want to
do business with the EPA or get grants.
And we might soon find out--the marketplace might determine
whether or not that was valuable information or not because if
it wasn't, they wouldn't pay for it. And if they do pay for it,
then the American taxpayer is not. And so that was a
suggestion. We don't have the authority to do that now.
Senator Coburn. That's a good idea.
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Coburn. Once again, let me thank each of you for
coming. I know you've got tough jobs. And I appreciate your
spending the time. Our grandchildren are worth us doing the
right thing every time, and working hard to make sure not one
penny is spent in an improper way.
We will ask you for information in May. I hope that from
October 1st to May, that you will have that available for us.
We'll go back and look at--we're going to look at individual
conferencing and the decisions that you're making. We're going
to highlight ones that we think the American people might not
agree with.
And so I would just ask you to be discerning, and follow
up--what I find is if we have a good discussion, we're going to
learn about what you are doing more, which means we're going to
be better stewards to get you what you need. And the American
people can see it.
And transparency and accountability are the things they're
going to have to count on. And we've got about 6 years to turn
things around before the real crunch hits us. And you all know
what I'm talking about. And we need to be serious about doing
it.
We thank you for your attendance and your time. The hearing
is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 27027.100
<all>