[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9924-S9925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Senator Carper successfully offered an 
amendment to this act that would authorize the EPA to conduct a study 
on black carbon emissions to ``improve global and domestic public 
health'' and ``to mitigate the climate impacts of black carbon.''
  A similar bill, S. 849, was also introduced by Senator Carper and 
approved recently by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public 
Works.
  While I did not object to the purpose of the bill, I did object to 
the bill because the cost of the study--$2 million according to the 
Congressional Budget Office--was not offset.
  As I wrote in a letter to Minority Leader McConnell and Senator 
Carper outlining my objections to this bill, ``At a time when our 
national debt is greater than $11.6 trillion, we cannot afford to add 
to this debt that will be inherited by our children and grandchildren. 
Even our best intentions need to be paid for with offsets from lower 
priorities or wasteful spending.''
  I also requested the opportunity to modify this legislation if no 
offsets were made.
  I intended to offer a second-degree amendment to offset the expected 
cost increase in spending as a result of the Carper amendment by 
capping the amount of funds EPA can spend on conference travel. 
According to EPA, $17.296 million was spent on conference travel in 
2006--the last year for which we have records. This amendment would 
have capped conference travel spending at $15 million, thus assuring 
that the full cost of the study will be offset.
  In the past couple of years, as Americans were tightening their belts 
and travelling less, EPA was growing its conference budget and 
travelling more. This is reflected in its annual costs for

[[Page S9925]]

conference participation and related expenses, which increased from 
$10.781 million in fiscal year 2000 to $17.296 million in fiscal year 
2006.
  Conference attendance for Federal employees in many, if not most, 
cases is discretionary, meaning that it is up to Federal agencies to 
determine to what conferences agency employees should go and how many 
employees should go. Some conferences provide valuable educational or 
agency-related information in a format unavailable in a normal office 
setting. Many conferences, by the sponsors' design, are held in 
locations chosen to attract attendees.
  That being said, it is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress and 
the managers within Federal agencies to exercise due diligence in 
performing oversight over an area of Federal spending that has cost 
taxpayers over $2 billion on conferences from 2000-2006. This spending 
has increased over 95 percent, from over $200 million a year in fiscal 
year 2000 to almost $400 million a year in fiscal year 2006. In 
addition to the financial cost of these trips, oversight hearings I 
held as the chair of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee 
highlighted the lost productivity of government employees when they are 
out of the office on nonessential travel.
  The EPA is just one among many Federal agencies that I believe has 
overspent on nonessential conferences and travel. In my research I 
found numerous instances where EPA showed questionable judgment in this 
regard.
  In September 2006, EPA sent 23 employees to Paris, France, for the 
International Society of Exposure Analysis Meeting, at a cost of 
$56,000. This conference featured a gala dinner cruise on the River 
Seine and a cast of presenters that consisted primarily of Americans.
  The agency's employees attended an annual National Beaches Conference 
in Niagara Falls, NY. The 2006 conference was attended by at least 
seven EPA employees, at a cost to taxpayers of $52,500.
  One EPA employee attended a December 2006 GSA Small Business 
Conference in Palm Springs, CA, at a cost of $4,100, with his or her 
travel costs alone listed at $1,800.
  A Cancun, Mexico, meeting attended by two EPA employees cost $4,200, 
with travel costs listed at $2,900.
  A March 2007 Waste-to-Energy Conference in San Juan, Puerto Rico cost 
taxpayers $48,000 for nine EPA employees and two taxpayer-funded 
nonemployees to attend.
  A 2006 ``Beyond Translation Forum'' sponsored by the EPA in Texas to 
``engage the Hispanic community in becoming environmental stewards'' 
costs $52,100 for the attendance of 20 EPA employees and 85 taxpayer-
funded nonemployees.
  Over 2 years, EPA also spent $2.6 million in grants and contracts and 
over $300,000 in travel and related expenses for brownfields 
conferences in Oregon and Missouri.
  EPA spent $235,000 in grants and $25,000 in travel costs for the 
National Tank Conference in Memphis. Costs included events at BB King's 
and seeing the Memphis Grizzlies basketball team play.
  EPA spent $355,000 in grants and contracts and $167,000 in travel 
costs for the Community Involvement Conference in Milwaukee.
  In February of 2007, EPA spent $150,000 to sponsor the ``Measuring 
Program Results'' Conference, to which it sent one EPA employee and 
paid for the attendance of four nonemployees.
  Instead of specifically capping the amount EPA could spend on 
conference travel, Senator Carper has graciously modified his amendment 
to transfer $2 million from the EPA's Environmental Programs and 
Management account to fund this study of black carbon emissions. This 
EPA account ``provides personnel compensation, benefits, and travel and 
other administrative expenses for all agency programs.''
  It is my hope that this transfer in funds will help EPA better manage 
the funds it is entrusted with by Congress and limit questionable 
expenditures and unnecessary conference travel and related expenses.
  I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to this offset and hope that 
Congress can begin to prioritize funds for its priorities with real 
offsets.

                          ____________________