U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 113TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2014

113–268 

Calendar No. 582 

CONFERENCE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

OF 2014 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

TO ACCOMPANY

S. 1347 

TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND 

LIMITATIONS OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED CONFERENCES 

OCTOBER 1, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of September 18, 2014 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Deputy Staff Director 

MARY BETH SCHULTZ, Chief Counsel 

JONATHAN M. KRADEN, Senior Counsel 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER J. BARKLEY, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

ANDREW C. DOCKHAM, Minority Chief Counsel 

PATRICK J. BAILEY, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 582 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 113–268 

CONFERENCE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2014 

OCTOBER 1, 2014.—Ordered to be printed 

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of September 18, 2014 

Mr. CARPER, from the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 1347] 

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

to which was referred the bill (S. 1347), to provide transparency, 

accountability, and limitations of Government sponsored conferences, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and recommends that the bill, as amended, do 

pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose and Summary .................................................................................. 1 

II. Background and Need for Legislation .......................................................... 2 

III. Legislative History ......................................................................................... 4 

IV. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Bill, as Reported .................................. 4 

V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact .................................................................. 6 

VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 6 

VII. Additional Views ............................................................................................ 8 

VIII. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 10 

I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The Conference Accountability Act of 2014 seeks to ensure that 

federal agencies spend responsibly and act transparently when 

hosting and sending employees to conferences. It increases the 

transparency of conference spending by requiring agencies to pubVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:34 Oct 03, 2014 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR268.XXX SR268

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1See Department of Justice Inspector General report, Audit of Department of Justice Conference Planning and Food and Beverage Costs (Revised Version), October, 2011 at http:// 

www.justice.gov/oig/reports/plus/a1143.pdf. 2See Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General report, Administrative Investigation 

of the FY 2011 Human Resources Conferences in Orlando, Florida, September 30, 2012 at 

http://www.va.gov/oig/pubs/VAOIG-12-02525-291R.pdf. 3See Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report, Review of the August 2010 

Small Business/Self-Employed Division’s Conference in Anaheim, California, May 31, 2013 at 

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2013reports/201310037fr.pdf. 4See Government Services Administration Inspector General report, Management Deficiency 

Report: General Services Administration Public Buildings Service, 2010 Western Regions Conference, April 2, 2012 at http://www.gsaig.gov/?LinkServID=90537F5B-FBF8-E39EA4F0D09005742C28&showMeta=0 5Department of Justice Inspector General report, supra note 1. 6See OMB Memorandum 11–35, Eliminating Excess Conference Spending and Promoting Efficiency in Government, September 21, 2011 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ 

memoranda/2011/m11–35.pdf. 7 Id. 

8See Office of Management and Budget Memorandum–12–12, Promoting Efficient Spending 

to Support Agency Operations, May 11, 2012 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ 

omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-12.pdf. 

lish quarterly reports on conferences that exceed a certain amount. 

The bill establishes limits on the total amount agencies can spend 

on conferences, caps spending on a single conference at $500,000, 

and prohibits agencies from sending more than 50 employees to a 

single international conference. 

II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The past decade has witnessed several well documented cases of 

excessive and wasteful spending at government conferences across 

the federal government, including the Department of Justice,1 the 

Department of Veterans Affairs 2 and the Internal Revenue Service.3 The most egregious example of wasteful conference spending 

was the Western Regions Conference held by the General Services 

Administration (‘‘GSA’’) in 2010. In that instance, GSA spent nearly $900,000 on an excessive and wasteful conference in Las Vegas, 

including more than $100,000 in planning costs, $75,000 for a bicycle building exercise, and nearly $150,000 on food. The Inspector 

General report on GSA’s Las Vegas conference 4 attracted sustained 

media attention and resulted in significant changes at the agency. 

In September 2011, shortly after a Department of Justice Inspector General report on excessive spending at a number of law enforcement conferences,5 the Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) attempted to address the issue of excessive conference 

spending with the release of OMB Memorandum 11–35, ‘‘Eliminating Excess Conference Spending and Promoting Efficiency in 

Government.’’ 6 OMB’s September 2011 memo instructed all agencies and departments to thoroughly review the policies and controls 

associated with conference-related activities and expenses. The 

memo further stated that until an agency could certify that the appropriate policies and controls are in place to guard against inappropriate spending on conferences, the Deputy Secretary of an 

agency must approve all conference-related activities and expenses.7

In May 2012, a month after the GSA’s excessive spending came 

to light, OMB issued more specific guidance 8 aimed at reducing 

federal spending on conferences and agency travel and to improve 

accountability on such spending. Under the guidance, a Deputy 

Secretary of an agency is required to review any conference spending greater than $100,000, and conferences costing more than 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

9 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113–76, § 742 (2014). 

10 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113–76, §§ 526, 560 and 7051 (2014). 11Testimony of Beth F. Cobert, Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and 

Budget, ‘‘Examining Conference and Travel Spending Across the Federal Government,’’ hearing 

before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 113th Cong. 

(January 14, 2014). A January 2014 report by Rep. John L. Mica, Chairman of the House of 

Representatives Subcommittee on Government Operations, also found that conference spending 

at the GSA, Internal Revenue Services, Veterans Affairs Administration and Department of Defense, was reduced by more than $200 million between 2010 and 2012. See U.S. House of Representatives Staff report, Oversight of Conference Spending Saves Taxpayers Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, (January 3, 2014), available at http://mica.house.gov/uploads/ 

2014%2001%2003%20Federal%20Conference%20Spending%20Reductions%20FINAL.pdf 

$500,000 are prohibited unless the spending is specifically approved by the Secretary of the agency. Furthermore, starting on 

January 31, 2013 and every January thereafter, agencies are required to report publicly on all conference expenses in excess of 

$100,000. 

In addition to the 2012 OMB guidance, recent appropriations 

bills have included reporting requirements on agency conference 

spending, as well as restrictions on such spending. For example, in 

January 2014, the omnibus appropriations bill that was enacted for 

fiscal year 2014 contained language that required agencies to submit annual reports to the agency’s Inspector General detailing costs 

and contracting information for each conference held by an agency 

that cost more than $100,000.9 That bill also restricted agencies 

from paying for the attendance of more than 50 employees at an 

international conference.10

Following the release of OMB guidance and reporting requirements in appropriations bills, agency spending on conferences significantly decreased. In fiscal year 2013, agencies had cut travel expenditures by $3 billion as compared to fiscal year 2010 spending.11 However, despite the drop in conference spending that has 

taken place, further legislative action is needed in order to ensure 

that transparency and accountability continue. The OMB guidance 

is merely that—guidance, subject to changing administrations. Furthermore, annual appropriations bills are not the best or most appropriate method for codifying important transparency and reporting requirements. 

The Conference Accountability Act would codify several of the requirements in the OMB guidance and annual appropriations bills 

and provide certainty that these transparency measures will continue to provide insight into conference spending by federal agencies. The bill would: require agencies to publish quarterly reports 

on conferences that exceed a certain amount; establish limits on 

the amount agencies can spend on conferences; prohibit agencies 

from spending more than $500,000 to support a single conference; 

and prohibit agencies from paying for more than 50 employees to 

attend a single international conference. These common sense reforms would bring transparency to conference spending, helping to 

ensure that the excesses of the past cannot take place again in the 

future. 

Finally, thanks to technological advancements, agencies will continue to cut conference and meeting costs through technology, conference calls, and webinars. However, the Committee recognizes 

the importance of face to face meetings within and among agencies 

and, more importantly, with those who work outside the federal 

government. This Committee has heard from numerous groups—including state regulatory agencies, non-profits, military associations, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

12See Statements for the Record in the appendix to the ‘‘Examining Conference and Travel 

Spending Across the Federal Government,’’ hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 113th Cong. (January 14, 2014). 

and scientists—that are very concerned that conference and travel 

limitations could cut off their primary means of communication 

with federal agencies and affect their ability to interact with the 

government.12 The Committee recognizes that, when properly 

planned and managed, conferences can help foster collaboration 

and partnerships among government employees, state regulators, 

academia and industry. This bill would help strike the necessary 

balance between the need for federal travel and the need to manage federal resources responsibly. 

III. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Coburn introduced S. 1347, the Conference Accountability Act of 2013, on July 23, 2013. The bill was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Senators Ayotte, Chiesa, Enzi and McCain cosponsored the bill. The 

bill is similar to H.R. 313, the Government Spending Accountability Act of 2013, which passed the House of Representatives on 

July 31, 2013 by voice vote on a motion to suspend the rules and 

pass the bill. 

The Committee held a hearing on January 14, 2014 titled ‘‘Examining Conference and Travel Spending across the Federal Government.’’ Witnesses included Beth Cobert, the Deputy Director for 

Management at OMB, Daniel Tangherlini, the Administrator of the 

General Services Administration, the Inspectors General of the 

General Services Administration and the Department of Justice, 

and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. 

The Committee considered S. 1347 at a business meeting on July 

30, 2014. Senators Coburn, Heitkamp, McCain, and McCaskill offered a substitute amendment that made a number of changes to 

the bill as introduced. These include changes to the spending limitations on conferences; a change in the cost threshold triggering reporting on conference spending; an exemption from reporting for 

military travel for combat, training, and deployment; an exemption 

from reporting for the disclosure of unpublished research, as well 

as for information that would undermine national security, international diplomacy, and other national concerns; and changes in 

authority to waive limitations on international conferences and 

spending limits. The Committee adopted the substitute amendment 

and then ordered the bill, as amended, reported favorably, both by 

voice vote on July 30, 2014. Senators present for both votes were 

Senators Carper, Levin, McCaskill, Begich, Baldwin, Coburn, Johnson, and Ayotte. Senator Landrieu was also present for the vote on 

the bill as amended. Senator Levin requested to be recorded as voting ‘‘no’’ on the bill. 

IV. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, AS REPORTED

Section 1. Short title 

This section establishes the short title as the ‘‘Conference Accountability Act of 2014.’’ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

13 5 U.S.C § 5701(1). 

Section 2. Definitions 

This section defines the term ‘‘agency’’ as having the meaning 

given that term in section 5 U.S.C. § 5701(1), which is: an executive 

agency; a military department; an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch; an office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch; and the government of the District of 

Columbia. It does not include a government controlled corporation, 

a Member of Congress, or an office or committee of either House 

of Congress or of the two Houses.13

This section defines the term ‘‘conference’’ as having the meaning 

given that term in section 300–3.1 of 41 Code of Federal Regulations: a meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium, or event that involves attendee travel. 

Section 3. Government sponsored conferences 

This section prohibits agencies from paying for travel costs for 

more than 50 employees to attend a single international conference 

unless the Deputy Secretary (or equivalent position, as appropriate) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) from that agency submit 

a justification to Congress that it is in the national interest. 

It also requires that each agency publish quarterly online reports 

on conferences exceeding $50,000. The report must include information outlining: 

(1) itemized expenses paid by the agency; 

(2) the primary sponsor of the conference; 

(3) the location of the conference; 

(4) in the case of a conference for which that agency was the 

primary sponsor, a statement that— 

(A) justifies the location selected; 

(B) demonstrates the cost efficiency of the location; and 

(C) provides a cost benefit analysis of holding a conference rather than conducting a teleconference, video conference, video training, or other means of remote communication; 

(5) the date of the conference; 

(6) an explanation of how the conference advanced the mission of the agency; 

(7) the pay grade of any federal employee or any individual 

who is not a federal employee whose travel expenses or other 

conference expenses were paid by the agency; 

(8) the total number of individuals whose travel expenses or 

other conference expenses were paid by the agency; 

(9) detailed information on any presentation made by a federal employee at the conference, including any speech, visual 

exhibit, photograph, slide, or video, digital, or audio recording; 

and 

(10) information regarding any financial support or other assistance from a foundation or other non-federal source used to 

pay or defray the costs of the conference, which shall include 

a certification by the head of the agency that there is no conflict of interest resulting from the support received from each 

such source. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

This information is not required for military combat or training 

travel, and certain information may be excluded that is national security or law enforcement sensitive. Previously unpublished scientific and medical research is also exempted from disclosure. 

This section also prohibits an agency from spending more than $500,000 to support a single conference, unless the agency head 

and CFO submit a written certification in advance to Congress that 

it is in the national interest. Such certification would include an estimate of the total cost, the dates, an estimate of the number of 

federal employees attending, planning costs, and an explanation of 

how it advances the mission of the agency. 

Finally, section 3 prohibits agencies from establishing policies 

that discourage or prohibit destinations that are perceived as resort 

locations when selecting locations for conferences. This provision 

would ensure that no location is ‘‘black listed.’’ 

V. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY IMPACT

Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has considered 

the regulatory impact of this bill and determined that the bill will 

have no regulatory impact within the meaning of the rule. The 

Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office’s statement that the bill contains no intergovernmental or private sectormandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

VI. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

AUGUST 28, 2014. 

Hon. TOM CARPER, 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1347, the Conference Accountability Act of 2014. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1347—Conference Accountability Act of 2014 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 1347 would have no significant net effect on the federal budget over the 2015–2019 period. 

The legislation would limit to $500,000 the amount any federal 

agency could spend to attend or host a single conference. Under the 

bill, no more than 50 federal employees working for the same department and stationed in the United States would be allowed to 

attend the same conference held outside of the United States. In 

addition, the legislation would require each agency to post quarterly reports on its website containing detailed information about 

all conferences hosted or attended by their employees that involve 

expenses of $50,000 or more. 

Most of the provisions of S. 1347 would codify or expand current 

practices of the federal government. Through Executive Orders, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

memorandums, and bulletins, federal agencies have already been 

directed to reduce conference and travel costs, as well as to review 

the need to attend conferences with expenses over various thresholds. The federal government spent almost $15 billion on travel-related expenses in fiscal year 2012 and almost $12 billion in fiscal 

year 2013. We expect that there would be some minor additional 

costs for agencies to prepare reports on travel expenses and to post 

materials on their websites. 

The legislation also could affect direct spending by agencies not 

funded through annual appropriations. Therefore, pay-as-you-go 

procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net increase 

in spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting 

the bill would not affect revenues. 

S. 1347 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Matthew Pickford. The 

estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(8) 

VII. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN ON S. 1347, 

THE CONFERENCE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, SEPTEMBER 

19, 2014 

The Conference Accountability Act (S. 1347) would impose unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and constrain our nation’s scientific 

and military communities from needed collaboration and training. 

While I share the Committee’s concern about wasteful and inappropriate conference spending, I believe that targeted measures to improve transparency and accountability, similar to those being implemented by the Administration, are a better approach than the 

one-size-fits-all, excessively bureaucratic approach taken in this 

bill. 

As the Committee notes, reports have identified examples of 

wasteful spending on conferences attended by federal employees in 

previous years. In response, nearly three years ago, in September 

2011, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began taking 

steps to prevent wasteful spending on conferences by issuing 

Memorandum 11–35. A year later, OMB put in place further accountability on conference spending by publishing Memorandum 

12–12, which reduced federal travel spending, established a stricter 

regime of senior level approval for moderate and large conference 

expenditures, and instituted a public reporting process. 

Two years after Memorandum 12–12, it appears that the OMB 

directives are working. The Committee’s report does not cite examples of wasteful conference spending that occurred after the 

issuance of the second OMB memorandum. Further, federal spending on conferences dropped by more than 50% from fiscal year 2010 

to 2013, with employees attending nearly 500 fewer conferences 

than before the memorandum. Given these facts, it would be reasonable to conclude that the OMB’s memoranda are addressing 

concerns with spending on conferences. 

In comparison to the existing OMB efforts, the Conference Accountability Act would put in place an unnecessary, one-size-fits-all 

policy on conference spending. The Committee suggests that ‘‘further legislative action is needed in order to ensure that transparency and accountability continue.’’ First, the Committee’s assertion that legislative action is necessary leads to the one-size-fits-all 

approach in the bill. Second, absent a failure of administrative efforts in this area, conference spending policies are best established 

at the executive branch level to ensure agencies have the flexibility 

to respond to unique agency needs and new developments. For example, the Conference Accountability Act would establish a rigid, 

overly broad statutory definition of ‘‘conference’’ that, according to 

the Department of Defense (DOD), could cover contingency planVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:34 Oct 03, 2014 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR268.XXX SR268

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

1The Indian Country Sex Offender Pre-Conference Institute held in Palm Springs, CA on Dec. 

10, 2008, which had a total cost of $90,201, of which the Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector 

General found $5,541 was spent on overpriced food and beverage. 

ning meetings, regional security cooperation seminars, nuclear assuredness inspections, and even a soldier’s attendance at Airborne 

School. Unlike one-size-fits-all legislation, administrative guidance 

provides flexibility to make common sense exceptions for examples 

like those above, on an as-needed basis. 

Although the Committee report suggests that the Conference Accountability Act codifies the terms of existing OMB guidance and 

appropriations restrictions, the bill would go much further than 

simply making permanent current policy. For example, current policy requires reporting of conference spending of more than 

$100,000. The bill would arbitrarily reduce this level to $50,000, 

even though the Committee has little evidence that the existing 

$100,000 level is subject to abuse. In fact, only one example of 

questionable conference spending 1 cited by the Committee would fall below the $100,000 reporting level. All other cited conferences 

would already have been covered at the current $100,000 level. The 

bill would also mandate substantial new disclosure requirements, 

far in excess of what is currently required. In particular, the legislation would require itemized expenses; a cost-benefit analysis of 

holding a teleconference, video conference, video training, or other 

form of remote communication; the pay grade of employees attending the conference; and detailed information on any presentation 

made by a federal employee at the conference. No cost-benefit analysis has been made of these very burdensome requirements; clearly 

there would be significant additional costs. For the Department of 

Defense alone, implementation costs are estimated to be approximately $39 million, which are not offset in the bill. It is ironic that 

the bill would mandate a cost-benefit analysis of every conference, 

yet the Committee offers no estimate of the savings that would result from the bill itself. 

Additionally, the Conference Accountability Act could harm our 

scientific community. The bill could have a chilling effect on scientific conference attendance and presentations. By limiting attendance at many conferences, the bill could result in only senior 

level officials attending. However, many innovative discoveries result from collaborative efforts between less senior employees working with industry experts or international peers, and if this bill 

were to be enacted, these opportunities could be severely limited. 

123 medical organizations and 70 scientific organizations have 

signed letters of opposition to this bill, and we should carefully consider the impact before passing a bill which would have such wideranging consequences. 

The Conference Accountability Act is a bureaucratic, one-sizefits-all bill that would impose significant burdens on federal agencies without demonstrating that it would produce meaningful savings. Wasteful spending on conference attendance is unacceptable 

and should be stopped. However, we should stop it in a thoughtful 

way, which the Administration has already implemented, rather 

than using the blunt and unnecessarily burdensome approach of 

this bill. 

CARL LEVIN. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(10) 

VIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING STATUTE MADE BY THE BILL, AS

REPORTED

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing law made by 

the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: (existing law proposed 

to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed 

in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 5. GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION 

AND EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 57. TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION, AND 

SUBSISTENCE 

Sec. 

5701. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

5712. Limitations and reports on conference expenses. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5712. Limitations and reports on conference expenses 

(a) In this section, the term ‘‘conference’’ means a meeting, retreat, 

seminar, symposium, or event that involves attendee travel. 

(b) No agency may pay the travel expenses for more than 50 employees of that agency who are stationed in the United States, for 

any conference occurring outside the United States, unless the Deputy Secretary (or the equivalent) and the Chief Financial Officer of 

the agency submit to Congress before the conference a written certification that attendance for such employees is in the national interest. 

(c) Not later than 30 days after the end of each quarter of each 

fiscal year, each agency shall post on the public Internet website of 

the agency a report on each conference that was held during the preceding 3 months for which the agency expended more than $50,000 

that includes— 

(1) the itemized expenses paid by the agency, including travel 

expenses, the cost of scouting for and selecting the location of 

the conference, and any agency expenditures to otherwise support the conference; 

(2) the primary sponsor of the conference; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

(3) the location of the conference; 

(4) in the case of a conference for which the agency was the 

primary sponsor, a statement that— 

(A) justifies the location selected; 

(B) demonstrates the cost efficiency of the location; and 

(C) provides a cost benefit analysis of holding a conference rather than conducting a teleconference, video conference, video training, or other means of remote communication; 

(5) the dates of the conference; 

(6) an explanation of how the conference advanced the mission of the agency; 

(7) the pay grade of any Federal employee or any individual 

who is not a Federal employee whose travel expenses or other 

conference expenses were paid by the agency; 

(8) the total number of individuals whose travel expenses or 

other conference expenses were paid by the agency; 

(9) detailed information on any presentation made by a Federal employee at the conference, including any speech, visual exhibit, photograph, slide, or video, digital, or audio recording; 

and 

(10) information regarding any financial support or other assistance from a foundation or other non-Federal source used to 

pay or defray the costs of the conference, which shall include a 

certification that there is no conflict of interest resulting from 

the support received from each such source. 

(d) Each report posted on the public Internet website under subsection (c)— 

(1) shall— 

(A) be in a searchable electronic format; and 

(B) remain on the website for not less than 5 years after 

the date of posting; and 

(2) shall not include— 

(A) information regarding travel or conference expenses 

involving military combat, the training or deployment of 

members of the Armed Forces, or other similar expenses, as 

determined by the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget in consultation with the Administrator of General Services; or 

(B) scientific or medical research presented by a Federal 

employee at a conference that was previously unpublished. 

(e) The head of an agency may exclude certain information, expenses, and materials from a report required under subsection (c) 

only if the head of the agency determines that the inclusion of such 

information would undermine national security, international diplomacy, health and safety inspections, law enforcement, or site visits 

required for oversight or investigatory purposes. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with HEARING