[Senate Report 113-268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 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
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JON TESTER, Montana RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MARK BEGICH, Alaska MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
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
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 publish 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See 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.
\2\See 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.
\3\See 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.
\4\See 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-E39E-
A4F0D09005742C28&showMeta=0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Department of Justice Inspector General report, supra note 1.
\6\See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76,
Sec. 742 (2014).
\10\Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76,
Sec. Sec. 526, 560 and 7051 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Testimony 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.pd
f
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.''
Section 2. Definitions
This section defines the term ``agency'' as having the
meaning given that term in section 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\5 U.S.C Sec. 5701(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 sector-mandates 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, 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.
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 planning 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
wide-ranging consequences.
The Conference Accountability Act is a bureaucratic, one-
size-fits-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.
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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 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;
(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.