[Comments on EPA Payment of Travel Expenses for Conference Attendance]

B-251921, April 14, 1993

Appropriations/Financial Management Appropriation Availability Purpose availability Invitees/guests Travel expenses Representative John Dingell asked whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could pay the travel costs of 16 private citizens to attend a United Nations-sponsored conference at which EPA was a participant. The Congressman is advised that, although 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5703 authorizes so- called invitational travel, a separate statute (31 U.S.C. Sec. 1345) expressly bars the use of appropriated funds to pay the travel costs of private citizens to attend meetings. Absent specific statutory authority or a direct benefit to the agency, the expenditures questioned are improper.

The Honorable John D. Dingell Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter of December 15, 1992, requesting our views and opinion regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) payment of the travel expenses of 16 people, who were not government employees, to attend a conference conducted on November 4-8, 1991, in Miami, Florida. You also asked for information on the amount of funds EPA paid out to these people, the extent to which travel advances have been recovered, and the extent of use of invitational travel by EPA.

The discussion below is based on information provided to you in a letter dated August 26, 1992, with enclosures, from the former EPA Administrator, and additional information EPA recently provided us in response to our request.

The conference in question was the Global Assembly of Women and the Environment "Partners in Life". It was sponsored by the Senior Women's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development to the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The conference was one of four international conferences to demonstrate the valuable contributions women have made towards solving environmental problems. The Advisory Committee invited Renew America, a national nonprofit environmental education organization, to nominate 14 women-run environmental programs to represent the United States. Each nominee then completed an application to the Global Assembly before receiving an invitation to participate. Renew America selected its nominees to be "Success Story Presenters" through its "Searching for Success" program, which identifies and publicizes environmental success stories. In addition to the 14 presenters, two others also attended the conference, one as a "mentor" and the other as a "facilitator" in workshop sessions and keynote speaker.

Renew America submitted an unsolicited request to EPA to have EPA pay the expenses of the women selected to attend the conference, which EPA agreed to do. Renew America's proposal stated that its objective was "[t]o demonstrate women's capacity in environmental management, the elements of leadership necessary for success, and the policies which can advance (or) retard such efforts." Under the heading, "Justification of Need," the proposal states:

The protection of the planet requires cooperation across all sectors of society, bridging racial, religious and sexual prejudices. By sharing insights and methods, these women will foster the more rapid and widespread adoption of the most workable program ideas, while emphasizing the influence of women environmentalists.

EPA has indicated that it paid the travel expenses for the 16 individuals as invitational travelers under authority provided by the Travel Expenses Act of 1975. It appears that the provision of that act to which EPA refers is now codified at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5703 (1988), which provides:

An employee serving intermittently in the Government service as an expert or consultant and paid on a daily when-actually-employed basis, or serving without pay or at $1 a year, may be allowed travel or transportation expenses, under this subchapter, while away from his home or regular place of business and at the place of employment or service.

A July 16, 1992 memorandum from the EPA's Office of the Comptroller, regarding travel authorized for individuals, other than government employees, who take part in activities of EPA, so-called "invitational travelers", states, "The principal requirement for eligibility for travel reimbursement and per diem is that the individual have knowledge, capability, or experience which the Agency has solicited." It further indicates that such individuals include those who are both invited to confer on official agency business and will be performing a direct service for the agency.

Although we do not disagree with EPA's general characterization of the requirements for invitational travel, we note that another statute specifically limits the use of appropriated funds for travel expenses for meetings. That provision, found at 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1345, states in pertinent part:

Except as specifically provided by law, an appropriation may not be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses for a meeting. This section does not prohibit--

(1) an agency from paying the expenses of an officer or employee of the United States Government carrying out an official duty;...

We have previously considered the relationship between the predecessors of the two statutory provisions discussed above in a case that also involved EPA, 55 Comp.Gen. 750 (1976). There we concluded that 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1345 prohibited EPA's payment of the transportation and lodging expenses of 87 State officials who attended the National Solid Waste Management Association Convention, which EPA co-sponsored with the Association, a non-Government organization. Based on the legislative history of both provisions, we concluded that what is now 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5703 never was intended to authorize payment of travel expenses for nongovernment employees who simply attended a meeting that was related to an agency's official business. To do so, we reasoned, would make the limitation in section 1345 meaningless.[1]

Similarly, in 62 Comp.Gen. 531 (1983), we held that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had no authority to pay the lodging and transportation costs of State officials to participate in a workshop on detecting odometer tampering sponsored by NHTSA. Although we found that NHTSA had the authority to sponsor the workshop, we explained:

By using the word "specifically" [in Sec. 1345], Congress indicated that authority to pay travel and lodging expenses of nongovernment employees should not be inferred but rather that there should be a definite indication in the enactment that the payment of such expenses was contemplated. In other words, there is a distinction between the general authority to hold a conference and the specific authority to overcome the prohibition in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1345.

See also B-193644, July, 1979, to the same effect concerning the expenditure of appropriated funds for the travel and subsistence expenses of nongovernment personnel attending mine safety seminars conducted by the Department of Labor.

From the record before us, it appears that the conference at issue here was a meeting subject to the limitations on expenditure of appropriated funds provided by 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1345. EPA has cited no specific statutory authority constituting an exception to that provision to support payment of the transportation expenses of the 16 non-government individuals in question to participate in the conference, and we know of none.

Furthermore, it is questionable that the travel of these 16 individuals met EPA's own criteria for invitational travel, specifically, that the traveler have knowledge, capability or experience that the agency "solicited." In this case, apparently it was the Global Assembly, not EPA, that invited the women to participate in the conference and it was Renew America, not EPA, that proposed to have EPA pay the travel costs of Renew America's nominees. Also, we see no direct service provided to EPA from the participation of these individuals in the conference, and EPA has cited none.

In view of the above, it is our opinion that EPA did not have sufficient authority to justify payment of the travel costs for these participants at the Global Assembly.

In answer to your other questions, EPA recently advised us that it had advanced a total of $11,524.45 to these individuals.[2] EPA also advised us that it has received vouchers covering $8,467.65 in travel expenses for 11 of the 16 individuals, it has collected $304.25 from individuals whose advances exceeded their allowable costs, and it is continuing its efforts to obtain vouchers from the remaining individuals covering their outstanding balances. Concerning the extent to which EPA has used invitational travel, EPA advises that it is unable to provide us with such information without an investment of considerable staff time because its financial management system does not separately list invitational travel and, therefore, there is no automated mechanism to retrieve this data. EPA states that to retrieve the information would require a massive effort reviewing thousands of documents located at various finance offices around the country. In view of these objections, we do not plan to press the matter further at this time.

1. This is distinguished from the situation where a private individual is invited to an agency meeting as a guest speaker, or to provide other direct service to the agency. See e.g. 60 Comp.Gen. 303 (1981).

2. The discrepancy between this amount and the $12,578 in advances EPA previously reported, EPA indicates, is due to one individual's advance being returned as undeliverable.