VA Travel: Better Budgeting and Stronger Controls Needed (Letter Report,
08/23/1999, GAO/GGD-99-137).
The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) total budget requests for
travel, as found in the President's budget submissions to Congress, were
formulated on the basis of the prior year's actual travel expenditures,
adjustments for inflation, and expected initiatives or program changes.
VA's travel budget requests have exceeded its actual travel expenditures
by millions of dollars in recent years. VA reprogrammed excess travel
funds, representing the difference between the amounts included for
travel in VA's appropriations accounts and expenditures--more than $61
million for fiscal years 1993 through 1998. VA spent the excess travel
money on general operating expenses, such as salaries and equipment. VA
is required to inform the Senate Appropriations Committee before
reprogramming more than $250,0000. VA did not inform the Committee of
the excess travel reprogrammings because it did not consider switching
excess travel funds to other object classes, in this instance, to
constitute reprogramming. The Comptroller General's internal control
standards require continuous supervision to ensure proper review and
approval of employees' activities, as well as separation of duties and
responsibilities in authorizing transactions. However, GAO found that
VA's limited open travel authorizations were being issued to many
employees without the required supervisory reviews to determine whether
they were frequent travelers. GAO also found that VA's policy on
delegated travel authority was being implemented without a system of
controls to compensate for the lack of separation of duties inherent in
self-authorization and approval of travel. At the 23 VA field
facilities, GAO found five officials who authorized their own travel and
approved their own travel vouchers that exceeded the applicable per-diem
allowances without any justification.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-99-137
TITLE: VA Travel: Better Budgeting and Stronger Controls Needed
DATE: 08/23/1999
SUBJECT: Travel
Internal controls
Reporting requirements
Funds management
Noncompliance
Federal employees
Travel allowances
Reprogramming of appropriated funds
IDENTIFIER: VA Veterans Integrated Service Network
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report
to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives August
1999 VA TRAVEL Better Budgeting and Stronger Controls Needed
GAO/GGD-99-137 United States General Accounting Office GAO
Washington, D.C. 20548 General Government Division B-283221
August 23, 1999 The Honorable Terry Everett Chairman, Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Veterans' Affairs
House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: This report responds
to your request for information on travel-related issues at the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).1 As agreed with your office,
our specific objectives were to provide information on (1) how VA
formulates its travel budget request; (2) whether VA's use of
excess travel funds is in accordance with guidance from the Senate
Appropriations Committee regarding the reprogramming of funds
between programs, activities, or elements; and (3) whether VA has
adequate internal controls over the authority it grants to certain
employees to authorize their own travel and approve their own
travel vouchers, as well as whether it has adequate control over
employees who are issued limited open travel authorizations, which
allow them to travel without additional authorization. Your
office asked that we address these issues out of concern about the
accuracy of VA's travel budget request and the adequacy of VA's
internal controls over travel. As agreed, we focused our review
on temporary duty travel by field employees. VA's total budget
requests for travel, as contained in the President's budget
Results in Brief submissions to Congress, were comprised of
estimates developed separately for six appropriations accounts and
four revolving funds. In formulating their travel budget
requests, managers of these accounts and revolving funds reported
that they generally considered the prior year's actual travel
expenditures, adjustments for inflation, and expected initiatives
or program changes. VA budget officials said that the provision
in VA's appropriations act limiting the department's travel
expenditures to the amounts requested for travel in the
President's budget submission for various appropriations accounts
affected the way they formulated their travel budget requests.
The officials also said that the limitation caused 1 For a
February 11, 1999, House appropriations hearing on VA, we provided
the subcommittee information about VA's statutory travel budget
limitation (which limits the amount that VA may spend on travel to
the estimates for travel contained in the President's budget
submission to Congress), travel budget requests, and actual travel
expenditures for fiscal years 1993 through 1999. The data from
that request are also provided in appendix I of this report. Page
1
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 them to formulate travel budget
requests that were large enough to ensure that the legal
limitations would not be exceeded. VA's travel budget requests
have exceeded its actual travel expenditures by millions of
dollars in recent years. For the six appropriations accounts,
VA's travel budget requests exceeded actual travel expenditures by
about $28 million in 1996, over $11 million in 1997, and over $5
million in fiscal year 1998. VA's travel appropriations have
also exceeded actual travel expenditures for these accounts by at
least $9 million in each of the last 3 fiscal years. VA
reprogrammed excess travel funds, representing the difference
between the amounts included for travel in VA's appropriations
accounts and travel expenditures-over $61 million in total for
fiscal year 1993 through 1998. VA spent the excess travel funds
on general operating expenses, such as salaries and equipment. A
recurring directive in Senate Appropriations Committee reports
directs VA to inform the committee prior to any reprogramming that
exceeds $250,000 between programs, activities, or elements. VA
did not inform the Senate Appropriations Committee of the excess
travel reprogrammings because it did not consider switching excess
travel funds to other object classes, in this instance, to
constitute reprogramming. We believe that VA's switching of
excess travel funds constitutes reprogramming that is covered by
language in the committee's report. However, this failure to
inform the committee of reprogrammings above the $250,000
threshold does not constitute a violation of law. The Comptroller
General's internal control standards require, among other things,
continuous supervision to ensure proper review and approval of
employees' activities, as well as separation of duties and
responsibilities in authorizing transactions. Our review of
travel files within 4 Veterans Integrated System Networks (VISNs)
and 4 Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) regional offices
(representing 23 facilities) found that VA's limited open travel
authorizations were being issued to many employees without the
required supervisory review to determine whether they were
frequent travelers. Although neither the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR) nor VA's travel policy defines frequent traveler,
VA's travel policy chief defined a frequent traveler in the
context of limited open travel authorizations as one who travels
an average of at least once per month. Using this definition, we
found that 220 of 239 employees (92 percent) at the 23 facilities
with limited open travel authorizations were not frequent
travelers. We also found instances where administrative personnel
were not obligating the funds associated with limited open Page 2
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 travel authorizations in
accordance with VA policy, resulting in a possible loss of control
over expenditures. In addition, we found some other practices
with respect to the processing of travel vouchers that raised
questions about compliance with VA's travel policy and the FTR. We
also found that VA's policy on delegated travel authority was
being implemented without a system of controls to compensate for
the lack of separation of duties inherent in self-authorization
and approval of travel. At the 23 VA field facilities, we found 5
officials who authorized their own travel and approved their own
travel vouchers that exceeded the applicable per-diem allowances
without any justification, contrary to VA travel policy.
Moreover, we found that no VA Central Office staff monitored the
travel of field employees who had limited open travel
authorizations or delegated travel authority, except for when
their travel was the subject of complaints made to the
department's Inspector General. This lack of internal controls
over open travel authorizations and delegated travel authority
increases the potential for abuse and has hindered VA's ability to
prevent and detect noncompliance with travel requirements. We are
making recommendations to VA to address the problems we
identified. VA operates a nationwide program of healthcare,
benefit services, and Background national cemeteries for
veterans. The fiscal year 1998 budget authority for VA was $42.8
billion. VA's largest components are (1) the Veterans Health
Administration (VHA), which provides healthcare services to 2.7
million veterans and performs medical research and (2) VBA, which
administers veterans' benefits in the form of disability
compensation and pension income, educational support, vocational
rehabilitation, and housing credit assistance. To provide these
services and administer benefits, VA staff travel to provide
healthcare, meet with veterans' groups, receive training, visit
departmental facilities, conduct research, and attend professional
meetings. As of April 30, 1999, VA had 194,932 full-time
employees; VHA had 176,536 full-time employees; and VBA had 11,231
full-time employees. In October 1995, VHA was reorganized into 22
healthcare networks, or VISNs. In connection with this
reorganization, VHA headquarters (Central Office) in Washington,
D.C., downsized its staff by more than 20 percent and
decentralized much of its operational decisionmaking authority to
the field. VHA's 22 VISNs oversee 172 medical centers. VBA has
58 regional offices. Page 3
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 Chapter 57 of title 5 of the
U.S. Code authorizes the payment of travel and transportation
expenses of government employees. Under this authority, the
General Services Administration (GSA) has issued the FTR to
implement statutory requirements and executive branch policies for
travel. In July 1998, GSA revised the FTR into a question-and-
answer format.2 Under the revised FTR, agencies were given greater
discretion to determine their travel policies and procedures.
However, since the FTR was revised, VA has not amended its travel
policy, dated February 28, 1995, with respect to the department's
policies on employees authorizing and approving their own travel
and on those who are issued limited open travel authorizations. VA
has a travel policy office that disseminates travel policies to
all facilities, but it has no central travel office that makes
travel arrangements or processes travel departmentwide. VA
administers employee travel in a decentralized manner, and each
field facility processes travel for employees working onsite.
Some VA facilities have their own travel policies that supplement
the department's travel policy. The primary forms for completing
employee travel are travel authorizations and vouchers. Under VA
travel policy, travelers normally must complete travel
authorizations prior to travel. These documents must be
authorized by "officials . . . cognizant of travel plans." After
the travel is completed, employees must submit vouchers
documenting expenses incurred. These vouchers are to be approved
by "the traveler's supervisor who has knowledge of the facts
involved in the travel." In each VA field facility,
administrative personnel prepare travel authorizations and process
vouchers for their employees and other VA employees working at
their facilities.3 According to a VA Central Office official,
less than one-half of all VA offices use automated travel-
processing systems, allowing travel authorizations and vouchers to
be prepared and processed on computer. In reimbursing employee
travel, VA follows rates established by GSA known as the per-diem
allowance, which is a daily payment for lodging, meals, and
related incidental expenses.4 Reimbursement for actual travel 2
FTR, chapter 300, parts 1-3, previously 41 C.F.R. 301-304. 3 VA
refers to other VA employees working at facilities as "tenants."
Some VA facilities process travel vouchers for their tenants. 4
GSA issues per-diem allowances for domestic travel and the
Department of State issues per-diem allowances for foreign
destinations. Page 4
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 expenses up to 300 percent of
per diem is also permitted under special circumstances with proper
justification. To describe how VA formulates its travel budget
requests, we asked Scope and officials representing six
appropriations accounts5 and four revolving Methodology funds6
with travel budgets to explain how they formulated their travel
budget requests from fiscal year 1993 through 1999. We also
interviewed VHA and VBA budget officials, and reviewed OMB budget
guidance. Because VA's travel appropriations are not specifically
identified in the department's appropriations act, VA provided us
the amounts for travel included in its appropriations accounts
after appropriations were enacted, as well as actual travel
expenditures. We did not verify this information. To determine
whether VA's use of excess travel funds was in accordance with the
Senate Appropriations Committee's guidance regarding
reprogramming, we reviewed VA appropriations statutes,
congressional appropriations committee reports, reprogramming
guidance, and decisions of the Comptroller General regarding
reprogramming. We also interviewed appropriations committee staff
and VA budget and general counsel officials. To gain an
understanding of VA's internal controls over temporary duty
travel, we interviewed VA's travel policy chief and officials
involved in preparing the department's internal controls reports
and officials from VBA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer and
VHA's Office of the Chief Network Officer. We also interviewed
GSA travel management policy officials and reviewed the FTR for
temporary duty travel and travel system requirements reports
issued by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program
(JFMIP).7 In addition, we reviewed VA's Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act reports and the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) and our guidance on internal control standards.
Further, we reviewed our previous reports issued on travel and
internal controls matters. We also contacted VA OIG officials
about their investigations of employee travel and reviewed related
OIG reports. 5 The six appropriations accounts are VHA Medical
Care; VHA Medical and Prosthetic Research; VHA Medical
Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses; General
Operating Expenses, including VBA, the Office of General Counsel,
Board of Veterans' Appeals, and Board of Contract Appeals;
National Cemetery Administration; and the Office of Inspector
General (OIG). 6 The four revolving funds are VHA Medical Care
Cost Recovery (MCCR) Fund, Supply Fund, Canteen Service, and
Franchise Fund. 7 JFMIP is a joint cooperative undertaking of the
Office of Management and Budget, GAO, and the Office of Personnel
Management to improve financial management in the government. Page
5
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 To determine whether VA has
adequate internal controls over the authority it grants to certain
officials to authorize and approve their own travel (delegated
travel authority) and employees who are issued limited open travel
authorizations, we reviewed the FTR and VA's travel policies on
delegated travel authority and limited open travel authorizations.
We reviewed travel files of officials who exercised their
delegated travel authority and/or employees who had limited open
travel authorizations at facilities within 4 VISNs, which included
15 medical centers, and 4 VBA regional offices (representing 23 VA
field facilities) to determine the adequacy of internal controls
over these authorities. The travel files we reviewed covered a
16-month period during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 (through January
31, 1999). In reviewing the travel files of officials who
exercised delegated travel authority, we compared their travel
practices to VA's travel policies and the FTR. To assess internal
controls over the issuance and usage of limited open travel
authorizations, we collected data on the number of employees who
were issued limited open travel authorizations and their frequency
of travel. We reviewed the frequency of travel by all employees
with limited open travel authorizations at the locations included
in our review, except for at one location where we selected a
random sample of travelers. We compared the issuance of limited
open travel authorizations to VA's travel policy and the FTR. In
the instance when we found a conflict between VA travel policy and
the FTR regarding the period of revalidating limited open travel
authorizations, we used the FTR, which takes precedence in this
instance. We reviewed the travel files of officials who may have
exercised delegated travel authority and employees who were issued
limited open travel authorizations for this 16-month period and
interviewed travel and financial staff on site at VHA medical
centers in Baltimore, MD; Bay Pines, FL; Dallas, TX; Loma Linda,
CA; Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Martinsburg, WV; San Diego,
CA; and Tampa, FL; VISN executive offices in Linthicum, MD; Bay
Pines, FL; Grand Prairie, TX; and Long Beach, CA; and VBA regional
offices in Bay Pines, FL; Los Angeles, CA; Roanoke, VA; and Waco,
TX. At our request, six other VHA facilities that were part of
the four VISNs we selected provided travel files for our review
regarding officials who may have exercised delegated travel
authority and data on the frequency of travel by employees with
limited open travel authorizations. These six facilities included
VHA medical centers in Gainesville, FL; Lake City, FL; Las Vegas,
NV; Miami, FL; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and West Palm Beach, FL.
The sites included in our review were selected judgmentally to
achieve geographic dispersion and to meet the Page 6
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 subcommittee's request that we
visit certain offices. The results of our travel file reviews,
both at the facilities we visited and from those sites that
provided data at our request, are not projectable to the
department. We also surveyed all of VHA's 22 VISN offices, which
included 172 medical centers, 58 VBA regional offices, and the VHA
and VBA Central Office to determine the extent to which limited
open travel authorizations had been issued to employees during the
16-month period. We received a 100 percent response rate to our
survey. We did our work at VA's Central Office in Washington,
D.C., and its field facilities, which we visited from October 1998
through June 1999, in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. We provided a draft of this report
to the Secretary of VA for review and comment. We received
written comments from VA's Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Analysis that are reprinted in appendix II. We discuss these
comments in the report where appropriate and in the agency comment
section at the end of this report. VA's total budget requests for
travel, as contained in the President's budget VA Travel Budget
submissions to Congress,8 were comprised of estimates developed
Requests separately for six appropriations accounts and
four revolving funds. In formulating their travel budget
requests, managers of these accounts and revolving funds reported
that they generally considered the prior year's actual travel
expenditures, adjustments for inflation, and expected initiatives
or workloads. VA budget officials said that the provision of VA's
appropriations act limiting the department's travel expenditures
to the amounts requested for travel in the President's budget
submissions affected the way they formulated their travel budget
requests. The officials also said that the limitation caused them
to formulate travel budget requests that were large enough to
ensure that the legal limitations would not be exceeded.9 VA's
travel budget requests have exceeded the department's actual
travel expenditures by millions of dollars in recent years.
However, as travel expenditures have increased in recent years,
the 8 Hereafter in this report, VA's total funding estimate for
travel will be referred to as "VA's travel budget request." 9 For
many years, the annual appropriations acts that contain VA's
appropriations have included a general provision that limits the
amounts VA and other agencies covered by the act can spend on
travel expenses. For example, the fiscal year 1998 Appropriations
Act containing VA's appropriation, P. L. No. 105-65, 11 Stat.
1344, 1381, provides that VA's travel expenditures may not exceed
the amounts set forth in the budget requests submitted for the
various appropriations accounts. If actual appropriations
exceeded the amount requested, expenditures may exceed the budget
request by the same proportion. The VA OIG is specifically exempt
from the limitation. VA's revolving funds are also not subject to
the limitation because they do not receive direct appropriations.
Page 7
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 gap between VA's travel budget
requests and actual travel expenditures has narrowed. VA's travel
budget request was comprised of estimates prepared for six VA's
Formulation of its appropriations accounts: (1) VHA Medical
Care, (2) VHA Medical and Travel Budget Request Prosthetic
Research, (3) VHA Medical Administration and Miscellaneous
Operating Expenses, (4) VA General Operating Expenses, including
VBA, (5) National Cemetery Administration, and (6) OIG, and four
revolving funds that do not receive direct appropriations: (1)
VHA's Medical Care Cost Recovery Fund (MCCR), (2) Supply Fund, (3)
Canteen Service, and (4) Franchise Fund. At our request, managers
of these accounts and revolving funds provided written
explanations of how they formulate their travel budget requests.
Generally, they reported that they mainly consider the prior
year's actual travel expenditures, adjustments for inflation, and
expected initiatives or program changes. Representatives from
these accounts and funds provided the following descriptions of
how their travel budgets were prepared: * VHA, which requested 81
percent of VA's total travel budget request in fiscal year 1998,10
reported that it considers projected inflation, historical
obligation trends, and the impact of requested initiatives for its
three appropriations accounts and one revolving fund.11 VHA also
noted that VA budget policy guidance does not provide any specific
instruction on preparation of travel budget requests. In
addition, VHA budget officials said that the provision of VA's
appropriations act, which limits the department's travel
expenditures to the amounts requested for travel in the
President's budget submission for the various appropriations
accounts, affected the way they formulated their travel budget
requests. The officials also said that the limitation caused them
to formulate travel budget requests that were large enough to
ensure that the legal limitations would not be exceeded. * The
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget reported that
its formulation of the General Administration portion of the
General Operating Expenses appropriation (excluding VBA) is based
primarily on the prior year's travel budget request, plus
adjustments for inflation. VBA did not identify any specific
method of formulating its travel budget 10 Excluding the revolving
funds. 11 These are the Medical Care, Medical and Prosthetic
Research, Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating
Expenses accounts, and the MCCR revolving fund. VHA reported that
the travel budget for MCCR, which was terminated in 1997, was
based on estimated needs for managing and completing specific
projects or initiatives. Page 8
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 request but said it was based on
the department's "call memorandum" for the internal budget. The
call memorandum requires travel estimates to be broken out by
category of travel, such as conferences, training, and program
travel, and supported with narrative justification. * The
National Cemetery Administration (NCA) said it considers recurring
operational requirements and key management initiatives requiring
travel funds, plus actual travel expenses from prior years. * The
OIG indicated that its travel budget request is influenced by many
factors, including personnel strength, tactical and strategic
plans, external demand for services, economic assumptions on cost,
and historical experience. OIG noted that formulating its travel
budget is difficult because of unanticipated work that can result
from hotline complaints or congressional requests. * The Supply
Fund's manager said that its travel budget is based primarily on
the prior year's travel budget, plus adjustments for inflation and
program initiatives. * The Franchise Fund's manager reported that
it considers the prior year's actual travel expenditures, plus
current and future business and customer service needs. * The
Canteen Service's manager said the starting point for its travel
budget is what was actually spent in the prior year, which may be
adjusted for workload and training needs, as well as additional
personnel. VA's travel budget requests have exceeded its actual
travel expenditures Travel Budget Requests, by millions of
dollars in recent years. Although VA's travel budget request
Actual Expenditures, and has averaged about $70 million
annually since 1996,12 the department's Appropriations
travel expenditures have increased from about $44 million in
fiscal year 1996 to nearly $62 million in fiscal year 1998. These
increased travel expenditures have narrowed the difference between
VA's travel budget request and actual travel expenditures. VA's
travel budget requests exceeded actual travel expenditures by
about $28 million in 1996, over $11 million in 1997, and over $5
million in fiscal year 1998. VA's travel appropriations have
also exceeded actual travel expenditures by at least $9 million in
each of the last 3 fiscal years. VA's budget requests,
appropriations, and actual expenditures for travel from fiscal
year 1993 through 1999 are contained in appendix I. 12 Excluding
the revolving funds, which do not receive direct appropriations.
Page 9
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 In analyzing the most recent
travel budget requests for individual VA appropriations accounts,
the differences between travel budget requests and actual travel
expenditures have been greater for VA's three VHA appropriations
accounts (Medical Care, Medical and Prosthetic Research, and
Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses)13
than for VA's three other appropriations accounts (General
Operating Expenses, including VBA; National Cemetery
Administration, and OIG). In fiscal year 1998, for example, the
travel budget request for VHA's Medical Care account exceeded
actual travel expenditures by $6.3 million, or 14 percent ($51.7
million budget request versus actual travel expenditures of $45.4
million). Also in fiscal year 1998, VHA's travel budget request
for Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
account exceeded actual travel expenditures by $139,000, or 18
percent ($903,000 budget request versus actual travel expenditures
of $764,000). By comparison to VHA's appropriations accounts, VA's
General Operating Expenses account (including VBA) had a budget
request that was about 6 percent or $641,000 less than actual
travel expenditures in fiscal year 1998 ($10.7 million budget
request versus actual travel expenditures of $11.3 million).14
The National Cemetery Administration account had a budget request
in fiscal year 1998 that was 7 percent or $42,000 more than it
spent on travel ($625,000 budget request versus actual travel
expenditures of $583,000). From fiscal year 1993 through 1998,
managers of VA's appropriations VA's travel appropriations
Reprogramming accounts switched (reprogrammed)
over $61 million in excess travel funds have also exceeded actual
Excess Travel Funds to other object classes.15
Reprogramming is the utilization of funds in an appropriation
account for purposes other than those budgeted or projected at the
time the appropriation was made (e.g., it is shifting funds from
one object class to another within an appropriation.)16
Therefore, VA's reprogrammed funds represented the difference
between the amounts included for travel in VA's appropriations
accounts and actual travel expenditures. Tables 1 and 2 show the
amount of excess travel 13 Since fiscal year 1993, VHA represented
at least 67 percent of VA's travel budget requests. Moreover,
VHA's Medical Care account's share of VA's travel budget requests
has increased from 60 percent in fiscal year 1993 to 77 percent in
fiscal year 1998. 14 VA's General Operating Expenses account
received an appropriation of $11.6 million in fiscal year 1998--
$943,000 more than it had requested in its budget submission to
Congress. 15 Object class codes identify the obligations of the
federal government by the types of goods or services purchased and
are a means of monitoring how agencies spend their money. 16 See
unpublished Comptroller General Decision, B-278121, Nov. 7, 1997.
Page 10
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 funds reprogrammed by
appropriation account in each year from fiscal year 1993 through
1998 in nominal and constant dollars, respectively. Table 1: VA
Excess Travel Funds Reprogrammed From Fiscal Years 1993 Through
1998 (In nominal dollars) Accounts/Funds FY 1993
FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997
FY 1998 Total VHA Medical Care
$944,000 $1,301,000 $4,350,000 $19,372,000
$9,985,000 $9,197,000 $45,149,000 Medical &
Prosthetic Research 1,387,000 (24,000)a
429,000 1,360,000 192,000 (88,000)a
$3,256,000 Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating
Expenses 91,000 296,000
(28,000)b (140,000)b (13,000)b 139,000
$345,000 VHA subtotal: $2,422,000 $1,573,000
$4,751,000 $20,592,000 $10,164,000 $9,248,000
$48,750,000 General Operating Expenses (includes VBA)
1,031,000 2,693,000 1,563,000 3,496,000
1,437,000 302,000 $10,522,000 National Cemetery
Admin. 31,000 30,000 18,000
133,000 10,000 42,000 $264,000
Office of Inspector General 439,000 787,000
467,000 340,000 (156,000)c (234,000)c
$1,643,000 Total $3,923,000
$5,083,000 $6,799,000 $24,561,000 $11,455,000
$9,358,000 $61,179,000 aAlthough VA budget data provided
indicated that $24,000 in fiscal year 1994 and $88,000 in fiscal
year 1998 were reprogrammed into travel for Medical and Prosthetic
Research, those amounts were available for obligation for 2-year
periods and therefore did not exceed the statutory limitation.
bVA's statutory limit on travel expenditures was not exceeded in
this year because the budget submission for this account was
larger than actual appropriations. cVA's OIG is exempt from the
statutory limitation on travel expenditures. Source: VA Budget
Office and GAO calculations of reprogrammed funds. Table 2: VA
Excess Travel Funds Reprogrammed From Fiscal Year 1993 Through
1998 (In constant 1999 dollars) Accounts/Funds FY
1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996
FY 1997 FY 1998 Total VHA Medical Care
$1,052,000 $1,416,000 $4,623,000 $20,200,000
$10,220,000 $9,299,000 $46,810,000 Medical &
Prosthetic Research 1,546,000 (26,000)a
456,000 1,418,000 197,000 (89,000)a
$3,502,000 Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating
Expenses 101,000 322,000
(30,000)b (146,000)b (13,000)b 141,000
$375,000 VHA subtotal: $2,699,000 $1,712,000
$5,049,000 $21,472,000 $10,404,000 $9,351,000
$50,687,000 General Operating Expenses (includes VBA)
1,149,000 2,930,000 1,661,000 3,645,000
1,471,000 305,000 $11,161,000 National Cemetery
Admin. 35,000 33,000 19,000
139,000 10,000 42,000 $278,000
Office of Inspector General 489,000 856,000
496,000 355,000 (160,000)c (237,000)c
$1,799,000 Total $4,372,000
$5,531,000 $7,225,000 $25,611,000 $11,725,000
$9,461,000 $63,925,000 aAlthough VA budget data provided
indicated that $26,000 in fiscal year 1994 and $89,000 in fiscal
year 1998 were reprogrammed into travel for Medical and Prosthetic
Research, those amounts were available for obligation for 2-year
periods and therefore did not exceed the statutory limitation.
bVA's statutory limit on travel expenditures was not exceeded in
this year because the budget submission for this account was
larger than actual appropriations. cVA's OIG is exempt from the
statutory limitation on travel expenditures. Source: VA Budget
Office and GAO calculations of reprogrammed funds. Page 11
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 As shown in tables 1 and 2,
VHA's Medical Care account generally represented the largest share
of reprogrammed funds, compared with other VA accounts that
received appropriated funds. From fiscal years 1993 through 1998,
over $45 million in excess travel funds was reprogrammed from
VHA's Medical Care account, or about 74 percent of the over $61
million that all VA appropriations accounts reprogrammed during
that 6-year period. The next largest amount reprogrammed was over
$10 million, or about 18 percent, from VA's General Operating
Expenses account during the same 6-year period. Between fiscal
year 1993 and 1999, the General Operating Expenses account
experienced the largest difference between its travel budget
request and actual travel expenditures in fiscal year 1996, when
the General Operating Expenses travel budget request exceeded
actual travel expenditures by more than $7 million, or 80 percent.
According to VBA, which is included in the General Operating
Expenses account, VA was funded through Continuing Resolutions
during the first 6 months of fiscal year 1996 and travel was held
to a minimum. During fiscal year 1996, VHA's Medical Care account
had a $19 million, or a 63 percent, difference between its travel
budget request and actual expenditures. VHA budget officials said
this difference occurred because of the unknown impact of VHA's
reorganization into VISNs and because of the government's
temporary shutdown in 1996. However, VHA's Medical Care travel
budget request continued to exceed actual travel expenditures
after fiscal year 1996, by nearly $10 million in fiscal year 1997
and $6.3 million in fiscal year 1998. In commenting on the
reprogramming of excess travel funds for the Medical Care account,
VHA indicated that the issue should be viewed in the context of
overall Medical Care obligations. VHA noted, for example, that
the $9.2 million it reprogrammed in 1998 represented only 0.05
percent of total Medical Care obligations. Further, VHA officials
said they believed their managers should have the flexibility to
determine how these funds should best be spent on providing
healthcare for veterans. Excess travel funds in the VA accounts
listed in tables 1 and 2 were reprogrammed into other object
classes, where the funds were disbursed for expenses such as
salaries and equipment. VA officials said that specific uses or
purchases with the excess travel funds could not be identified
because (1) each account's spending plans for general operating
expenses are not fixed and the money can be moved around between
categories of spending; (2) spending needs change throughout the
fiscal year, and changes in spending plans may not be attributable
to excess travel funds; Page 12
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 and (3) general operating
expense accounts are very large, compared with the amount of
excess travel funds. A recurring directive that appears in Senate
Appropriations Committee reports directs VA to "notify the
chairman of the Committee prior to each reprogramming of funds in
excess of $250,000 between programs, activities, or elements . . .
."17 In commenting on a draft of this report, VA officials said
that VA does not view switching excess travel funds to other
object classes to be reprogramming that is covered by the Senate
Committee report language; and, therefore, VA has not notified the
committee when such switches occur. We do not agree with VA for
several reasons. First, as defined by the Glossary of Terms Used
in the Federal Budget Process,18 reprogramming is the "[s]hifting
of funds within an appropriation or fund account to use them for
different purposes than that contemplated at the time of
appropriation (for example, obligating budgetary resources for a
different object class from the one originally planned)." Second,
although the language in the Senate committee reports directs VA
to notify the committee of reprogramming of programs, activities,
or elements exceeding $250,000, there is nothing in the committee
report to indicate that the committee used such language in an
attempt to modify the generally accepted definition of
reprogramming set forth above, or otherwise to exclude
reprogramming of funds from one object class to another that
exceeded the $250,000 threshold. Third, congressional concern
about VA's travel and the way in which it uses those funds is
evident from its long-standing inclusion of a provision in VA's
annual appropriations acts that limits VA's travel expenditures to
the amounts requested for travel in the President's budget
submission. It should be noted that the committee report language
regarding reprogramming, which directs the agency to notify the
committee of reprogrammings above the $250,000 threshold, does not
have the force and effect of law and is not legally binding on an
agency.19 We also note that VA plans to reconfirm with the
committee the activities for reprogramming notification as well as
discuss an adjustment to the thresholds. 17 For example, see
Senate Report 105-53, July 17, 1997, for the fiscal year 1998
appropriation for VA. 18 U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO/AFMD-2.1.1, Jan. 1993) (Exposure Draft). 19 See Blackhawk
Heating and Plumbing Co. v. United States, 622 F 2d 539,548 (Ct.
Cl. 1980). Page 13
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 VA's travel policy allows
employees who are frequent travelers to be Internal Controls Over
issued limited open travel authorizations, which permit them to
travel Limited Open Travel without preparing travel
authorizations on a trip-by-trip basis. Our review of travel
files within four VISNs and four VBA regional offices indicated
Authorizations and that these facilities had issued
limited open travel authorizations to Delegated Travel
employees who were not frequent travelers. Our review also
revealed that Authority the frequency of
employees' travel was not being reevaluated before reissuing the
limited open authorizations, which violates VA travel policy. VA's
travel policy also delegates authority to many of its top
officials to authorize and approve their own travel. We found
that no VA Central Office officials monitored the travel files of
field employees who had limited open travel authorizations or
those who were delegated travel authority, except when the
employees' travel was the subject of an investigation that
resulted from allegations of wrongdoing made to the OIG. This
lack of review suggests internal control weaknesses that could
hinder VA's ability to prevent or detect abuse or noncompliance
with its travel policies. According to VA's travel policy, limited
open travel authorizations20 may Limited Open Travel
be issued to employees whose "duties require frequent travel of a
Authorizations repetitive nature."21 VA's
travel policy does not define "frequent travel," but the
department's travel policy chief defined frequent travel in the
context of limited open travel authorizations to be at least an
average of one trip per month.22 The policy also states that "an
employee named in a limited open authorization is permitted to
perform temporary duty travel without further authorization under
certain specified conditions, which 20 VA's travel policy also
allows certain top officials to have unlimited open travel
authorizations. Under the policy, an employee with an unlimited
open travel authorization is permitted to "perform temporary duty
travel without further authorization." Unlimited open travel
authorizations are restricted to top officials in VA's Central
Office. VA reported that three VHA Central Office top officials
and three VBA Central Office top officials had unlimited open
travel authorizations in fiscal year 1999. Officials who may use
unlimited open travel authorizations include the Secretary and
assistants; Deputy Secretary and assistants; Under Secretaries,
their deputies and executive assistants; Assistant Secretaries;
Director, National Cemetery Administration; Medical Inspector, and
other key officials. According to VA's travel policy chief, "other
key officials" include the General Counsel, Inspector General,
Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals, and the Chairman of the
Board of Contract Appeals. 21 The policy indicates that open
authorizations will not be used for foreign travel, entitlement or
permanent change of station travel, preemployment interview
travel, or to attend national meetings, conferences, and
conventions of national service organizations as representatives
of VA. 22 Under the FTR before it was revised in July 1998,
limited open travel authorizations could be issued to employees
whose duties required "frequent repetitive travel." The FTR
contained no specific definition of frequent repetitive travel,
and, according to GSA, it was incumbent upon agencies to determine
what constituted frequent repetitive travel. The term "frequent
repetitive travel" was removed from the revised travel
regulations. Page 14
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 should include realistic
limitations on purposes, geographic areas, trip duration, and
costs."23 VA's travel policy requires that "all limited open
authorizations must be reviewed at the beginning of each fiscal
year, and, if it is determined that the authorization is still
necessary, it will be revalidated by the designated official."
VA's yearly revalidation requirement conflicted with the FTR,
which, prior to its July 1998 revision, provided that limited open
travel authorizations should be revalidated quarterly.24 VA's
policy also did not indicate that limited open travel
authorizations should specify the number of permissible trips, as
was required under the FTR before July 1998. VA did not maintain
data on the number of VA employees who were issued limited open
travel authorizations. However, we surveyed all VHA and VBA
facilities, which reported that 986 VHA field employees and 981
VBA field employees were issued limited open travel authorizations
in fiscal year 1998. VA reported that no Central Office VHA or
VBA employees had limited open travel authorizations. Responses
to our survey also indicated that VA employees who were issued
limited open travel authorizations were employed at grade levels
ranging from General Service (GS)5 to executive-level officials.
The limited open travel authorizations that we reviewed indicated
that they were issued so that employees could perform the duties
of their positions or were to be used by employees for specific
purposes, such as making site visits, providing home-health care
to patients, and conducting training. Geographic limitations
contained in the limited open travel authorizations restricted
employees from traveling to areas within the VISN or region;
particular cities, counties, or states; or the continental United
States. The authorized duration of trips ranged from 2 to 31
days. 23 Before the FTR was revised in July 1998, under section
301-1.102 (a)(2), agencies were instructed that a limited open
authorization should include realistic limitations on purpose(s),
geographic area(s), number of trips(s), trip duration, and costs.
This requirement was removed from the revised regulations.
However, the revised regulations in FTR section 301-71.103 provide
that open authorizations should include an estimate of the travel
costs over the period covered. 24 Although the FTR was revised in
July 1998, VA is still following a 1995 travel policy that
implemented the prior set of federal travel regulations. Since
1995, VA has issued revisions to the travel policy manual, but
none related to delegated travel authority or limited open travel
authorizations. The revised FTR states that agencies must
determine what internal policies and procedures must be
established for travel authorizations (FTR section 301-71.108)
consistent with the guidelines in the regulations. Therefore,
according to GSA, under the revised FTR, agencies have the
discretion to determine if and when it will review and revalidate
open travel authorizations. Although the revised FTR does provide
agencies with greater discretion in this regard, VA has not
exercised this discretion by revising its travel policy regarding
limited open travel authorizations. Page 15
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 Of the 23 VA field facilities in
our review,25 we found that 3 facilities issued limited open
travel authorizations on a quarterly basis, 9 issued them yearly,
and the remaining 11 facilities did not issue any limited open
travel authorizations in fiscal year 1998. The facilities that
issued limited open travel authorizations on a quarterly basis
limited travelers to spending between a range of $9.50 to $10,000
per quarter, while those facilities that issued the limited open
travel authorizations on a yearly basis limited travelers to
spending from a range of not specifying any cost limits to $10,000
per year. Our review of travel files from the 23 VA field
facilities indicated that many employees with limited open travel
authorizations were not frequent travelers. VA's travel policy
manual does not define "frequent travel," but we used the
definition of frequent travel provided to us by VA's travel policy
chief. The travel policy chief defined frequent travel in the
context of limited open travel authorizations as an average of at
least one trip per month. The 23 VA field facilities in our review
issued limited open travel authorizations to 296 employees in
fiscal year 1998. We collected data on the frequency of travel on
23926 of the 296 employees during fiscal year 1998 and found that
220 of the 239 employees (92 percent) traveled less than an
average of once per month. Included in our review of the 239
limited open travel authorizations were the following examples of
limited open travel authorizations being issued to employees who
were not frequent travelers in fiscal year 1998: * At one VBA
regional office, 65 of 67 employees with these authorizations
traveled less than an average of once a month. * At another VBA
regional office, we reviewed a random sample of 15 of those 72
employees' travel files and found that 14 of the 15 employees took
2 or fewer trips during the fiscal year. * At a medical center,
all 26 employees with this authorization traveled less than an
average of once a month. Moreover, 17 of these 26 employees 25
The 23 field facilities comprised the 4 VISNs, which included 15
medical centers, and 4 VBA regional offices. 26 We collected data
on a random sample of employees at one facility that had issued
limited open travel authorizations to 72 employees. At that
facility, we reviewed the frequency of travel by every fifth
employee. Page 16
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 took no trips during that fiscal
year. * At another medical center, 23 of 25 employees with these
authorizations traveled less than an average of once a month.
Further, 16 of the 25 employees traveled 4 times or less during
the fiscal year. * At a third medical center, 31 of 32 employees
took 3 or fewer trips during the fiscal year. VA officials at the
facilities we visited where limited open travel authorizations
were issued said the purpose of issuing them was to save time by
avoiding the preparation of travel authorizations for each trip or
to allow for travel on a moment's notice. They said in the past,
travel authorizations were prepared in a time-consuming manner
using a typewriter and required making several carbon copies.
Some officials acknowledged that certain employees were being
issued limited open travel authorizations who were not frequent
travelers. The officials explained that some limited open travel
authorizations continued to be issued to employees whose positions
involved travel in the past, but no longer did. They added that
the practice of issuing the limited open travel authorizations had
continued without reevaluating the employees' current travel
requirements or the relative ease of preparing travel
authorizations on a per-trip basis using an automated travel
system. At VA facilities where few or no limited open travel
authorizations were issued, officials said they discouraged using
this type of authorization because (1) funds expended under the
authorizations are difficult to track and (2) employees may not be
knowledgeable about federal travel regulations and per-diem rates,
which could result in violations of the FTR and claims for
nonreimbursable expenses. Other VA officials said their employees
were not considered to be frequent travelers and did not ask to be
issued limited open travel authorizations. Other Problems
Associated With We also found the following examples of other
problems associated with Limited Open Travel
limited open travel authorizations, which violated VA travel
policy: Authorizations * An official at one VBA
regional office said the office did not obligate all of the funds
contained in the limited open travel authorizations. Rather, the
official said the office obligated the amount of money contained
in its travel budget, which was a smaller amount than the sum of
all of the amounts contained in the limited open travel
authorizations. Before its 1998 revision, the FTR required
agencies to obligate travel cost estimates Page 17
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 contained in open travel
authorizations.27 Under the current FTR, travel authorizations are
to "provide financial information necessary for budgetary
planning."28 Although not stated explicitly in VA's travel policy
manual, according to VA's travel policy chief and VBA's Finance
Director, funds contained in limited open travel authorizations
must be obligated when the authorizations are issued. * One
medical center allowed its tenant employees with limited open
travel authorizations to exceed the amounts contained in their
limited open travel authorizations, and the medical center had to
obligate additional funds after the travel was taken. * Another
medical center allowed employees with limited open travel
authorizations to redelegate their authority to other employees,
which violates federal travel regulations. Before the FTR's 1998
revision, travel authorizations could be issued only to an
employee and not to a position. The revised travel regulations
state that agencies must determine what internal policies and
procedures must be established for travel authorizations,
including the circumstances under which different types of travel
authorizations will be used. However, the regulations also state
that all travel authorizations must include the name of the
employee authorized to travel.29 * At 2 of the 23 VA facilities
included in our review, limited open travel authorizations were
issued for $350 or less per year. Two other facilities issued
limited open travel authorizations for less than $100 per quarter.
This appeared to conflict with VA's travel policy requirement that
limited open travel authorizations be issued to frequent
travelers, given the costs of travel. * Of the 23 VA facilities
included in our review, 3 issued limited open travel
authorizations that did not contain any monetary limitations; 6
issued them without geographic limitations; 3 facilities issued
limited open travel authorizations without specifying the trip
duration; and none of the facilities issued limited open travel
authorizations specifying the permissible number of trips. These
authorizations conflicted with VA's travel policy requirement that
limited open travel authorizations contain realistic limitations
on costs, geographic travel areas, and duration of trips. 27 FTR
section 301-1.102(d). 28 FTR section 301-71.100 (c). 29 FTR
section 301-71.103(a). Page 18
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 The FTR before its July 1998
revision required that limited open travel authorizations specify
the permissible number of trips. * In fiscal year 1998, 9 of the
23 facilities in our review issued limited open travel
authorizations yearly, rather than being reviewed and revalidated
at least quarterly, as was required by the FTR before July 1998.30
In this case, we applied the requirement in the FTR, rather than
the VA's policy, since the FTR's more stringent requirement is
controlling. Under the revised FTR, agencies have the discretion
to determine if and when it will review and revalidate open travel
authorizations. Therefore, currently, VA's travel policy
regarding the annual review requirement is permissible. VA's
travel policy delegates authority to many officials holding top
Delegated Travel Authority positions to approve their own
travel authorizations prior to travel and to approve their own
travel vouchers to claim reimbursement for expenses incurred.
These officials include VA's field facility directors, such as the
directors of VHA's 172 medical centers and 22 VISN offices, as
well as VBA's 58 regional offices. At our request, VA also
provided data indicating that officials holding 100 Central Office
positions have delegated travel authority. Table 3 lists the VA
positions with delegated travel authority. 30 FTR Section 301-
1.102(a)(2). Page 19
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 Table 3: VA Officials With
Delegated Title
Salary levela Travel Authority Deputy
Secretary EX-II Chief of Staff
SES-6 Under Secretaries EX-III
Under Secretaries' Deputies, VHA Assistant Under Secretaries, and
VBA Associate Deputy Under Secretaries
SES or GS-15 Assistant Secretaries
EX-IV Deputy Assistant Secretaries SES 5-6
Other Key Officialsb and their Deputies EX-IV, SES 4-
6, or GS-15 VHA and VBA Chief Office Directors, VBA Chief of Staff
SES 4-6 VHA and VBA Service Directors GS
14-15 VHA VISN Directors, NCA Area Directors, and their Deputies
SES 4-5, GS 14-15 Veterans Canteen Service Director
Own pay system; equivalent of GS 13-14 Regional Counsels
GS-15 Field Facility Directorsc and Chief of Staff at VHA
Facilities when designated by the Director
SES 1-4 Field Facility Directors' Associates and Assistants
GS 14-15 Note: The Secretary also may authorize and approve
his/her own travel. aEX is Executive Schedule. SES is Senior
Executive Service. bIncludes the General Counsel, Inspector
General, Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals, and the
Chairman of the Board of Contract Appeals. cIncludes directors of
medical centers, regional offices, regional and insurance centers,
automation center, finance center, domicilliaries, outpatient
clinics, supply depots and the National Acquisition Center.
Source: VA travel policy office. VA does not maintain data on the
number of top officials who actually authorize or approve their
own travel. Our review of travel files from 23 field facilities
indicated that 12 of those facilities' directors approved their
own travel. The other 11 directors had their travel vouchers
approved by other officials, such as their associate directors or
operations staff. VA travel policy provides that travelers may
spend up to 150 percent of the per-diem rate under special
circumstances and that "procedures shall be established by each
authorizing official to ensure that actual subsistence expense
reimbursement . . . is properly administered to prevent abuse . .
. " The policy also states that "an appropriate review of the
justification for travel on an actual subsistence expense basis
shall be made." However, our review of travel files from 23
facilities found 5 officials who approved their own travel
vouchers making claims for actual expenses that Page 20
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 exceeded per-diem allowances
without providing any justification.31 These vouchers only listed
the actual expenses claimed and did not justify or explain the
circumstances for exceeding per diem. We found no written
procedures in place at these facilities to ensure that actual
subsistence expense reimbursement was properly administered.
Further, although the claims were processed for reimbursement by
travel clerks, the vouchers were not reviewed by the travelers'
supervisors. An amendment to VA's travel policy, dated August 7,
1997, allows authorization and approval of up to 300 percent of
the per-diem rate within the continental United States on an
actual subsistence basis and may only be used when "special or
unusual circumstances result in an extreme increase in subsistence
costs for a temporary period." The policy also states that
amounts exceeding 150 percent of per diem "shall not be authorized
or approved without technical advice from the travel policy
section." However, of the four VISN Directors' travel files we
reviewed, we found that two VISN Directors exceeded 150 percent of
per diem in lodging without receiving approval from VA's travel
policy section, as required. One VISN Director, who approved his
own travel vouchers, claimed hotel expenses of $260 per night in
Washington, D.C., in June 1998, when the lodging allowance was
$126; and $191 per night in New Orleans in October 1998, when the
lodging allowance was $88.32 This VISN Director's travel vouchers
did not provide any explanation for incurring expenses over the
per-diem allowance. Another VISN Director who did not approve his
own travel voucher, claimed a hotel expense of $174 per night in
New Orleans in October 1998, when the lodging allowance was $88.33
During an interview with VA's travel policy chief, we were told
that field facilities must make their requests to exceed 150
percent of per diem to her office in writing and that a file was
maintained of these requests. We reviewed the travel policy
office's files regarding requests to exceed 150 percent of per
diem and found only four such requests during fiscal years 1998
and 1999, and none of the requests for approval to exceed 150
percent of per diem were from the two VISN Directors whom we found
had exceeded 150 percent of per diem. 31 These officials also
signed their own travel authorizations for these trips. 32 This
VISN Director took 30 trips in fiscal year 1998 and 9 in fiscal
year 1999 (through January 31, 1999). 33 This VISN Director took
18 trips in fiscal year 1998 and 8 in fiscal year 1999 (through
January 31, 1999). Page 21
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 Further, we found that another
VISN Director had issued a blanket temporary authorization for all
employees of that VISN traveling to a particular county to incur
lodging expenses up to 200 percent of the lodging allowance for
that county. This action was taken in response to action by GSA
to lower the lodging allowance in that county.34 The travel
policy section's files of requests to exceed 150 percent of per
diem did not contain a request from this VISN regarding this
matter. VA's travel policy chief said this VISN Director should
have sought approval from the travel policy section regarding this
temporary blanket authorization. The Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 198235 requires Internal Controls
agencies to establish internal accounting and administrative
controls in accordance with standards prescribed by the
Comptroller General and evaluate these controls in accordance with
guidelines issued by OMB. The act also requires that (1) the
Comptroller General issue standards for federal agencies internal
accounting and administrative control systems and (2) the Director
of OMB issue guidelines for agencies to use in evaluating these
systems. In 1982, OMB issued these guidelines in Circular A-123
(updated in 1995), which indicated, among other things, that
agency managers should continuously monitor and improve the
effectiveness of management controls. According to VA internal
control staff, travel has never been reported as a material
internal control weakness under FMFIA, and no VA staff offices or
components have done a systematic review of internal controls over
travel. Further, OMB issued Circular A-127,36 which requires
federal agencies to conduct annual studies of their automated
information systems to identify material internal control
weaknesses. We found that VA used at least three different
automated systems37 to process employee travel, but it had not
conducted annual studies of these systems to detect possible
weaknesses. In 1983, the Comptroller General issued standards for
internal controls in the federal government that contained the
criteria we used to assess VA's internal controls over delegated
travel authority and limited open travel 34 The blanket
authorization was issued for 4 months. GSA reconsidered and
increased the lodging allowance for that county. 35 P.L. 97-255.
36 OMB Circular No. A-127, Revised July 23, 1993. 37 These systems
included PC Travel Enterprise, developed by VA; Travel Manager,
developed by GSA; and PerDiemAzing, developed by a private
contractor. One of the VA facilities we visited for our review
also had developed its own automated travel system. Page 22
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 authorizations. Under the
Comptroller General's internal control standards,38 separation of
duties is a key internal control that applies to employee travel.
These standards require that key duties and responsibilities in
authorizing, processing, recording, and reviewing transactions
should be separated among individuals. To reduce the risk of
error, waste, or wrongful acts, or to reduce the risk of them
going undetected, no one individual should control all key aspects
of a transaction. Rather, duties and responsibilities should be
assigned systematically to a number of different individuals to
ensure that effective checks and balances exist. Similarly,
JFMIP's document entitled "Travel System Requirements" also
established a mandatory requirement that agencies' travel systems
maintain adequate separation of duties.39 Because VA operates in
a decentralized environment, it has delegated management of
internal controls to the Administrations (e.g., VHA and VBA, and
staff offices). In this regard, VHA and VBA are responsible for
ensuring that their field facilities adhere to VA travel policy.
VA's travel policy provides for many of its top officials to be
delegated authority to authorize and approve their own travel. We
found that this policy was being implemented in the field without
compensating controls, which increases the likelihood that errors
and abuses may occur and not be detected. Our review determined
that no VA Central Office staff, including VHA and VBA Central
Office staff, monitored the travel of field employees who had
limited open travel authorizations or delegated travel authority,
except when their travel was the subject of complaints made to the
OIG. An OIG official said that the OIG previously conducted
audits of VA field facilities, including travel, but that the site
audits ceased about 10 years ago.40 However, we believe that
compensating internal controls, such as periodically checking the
travel vouchers of officials who approve their own travel with an
oversight staff could compensate for the lack of separation of
duties inherent in VA's delegated travel policy. The Comptroller
General's internal control standards also state that qualified and
continuous supervision is to be provided to ensure that 38
Although these standards remain conceptually sound and are used
throughout the federal government, they are being updated and
enhanced to recognize recent internal control evaluation guidance
developed by the private sector with assistance from us and other
as well as to give greater recognition to the increasing use of
information technology. 39 Mandatory requirements are based on
federal laws and regulations. Agencies heads evaluate their
systems against these requirements to determine compliance with
system requirements under FMFIA. 40 An OIG official said that the
OIG has conducted reviews of Central Office senior officials'
travel as part of the Financial Statement Audit. These reviews
were of a sample of Central Office senior officials' travel. Page
23
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 internal control objectives are
achieved. Assignment, review, and approval of a staff's work
should result in the proper processing of transactions and events,
including (1) following approved procedures and requirements; (2)
detecting and eliminating errors, misunderstandings, and improper
practices; and (3) discouraging wrongful acts from occurring or
from recurring. VA's travel policy also requires that limited
open travel authorizations be reviewed at the beginning of each
fiscal year, and, if it is determined that the authorizations are
still necessary, revalidated by the designated official. As stated
earlier in this report, VA's travel policy, which requires that
limited open travel authorizations be revalidated annually,
conflicted with the FTR, which required a quarterly revalidation
prior to its revision in July 1998. Although 12 of the 23
facilities in our review issued limited open travel authorizations
in fiscal year 1998, only 3 of the 12 issued them quarterly; this
conflict between VA's travel policy and the FTR may explain why 9
other facilities in our review issued these authorizations
annually. However, regardless of whether the limited open travel
authorizations were issued quarterly or annually, we found that
limited open travel authorizations were being reissued routinely
without periodic supervisory reevaluation of whether the employees
were frequent travelers. For example, at one medical center, we
found that 31 of the 32 employees who were issued limited open
travel authorizations had taken 3 or fewer trips in fiscal year
1998. We found one VBA regional office had its own travel policy
that appeared to contain opportunities for implementing
supervisory internal controls over the use of limited open travel
authorizations both before and after the travel occurred.
According to the policy, employees with limited open travel
authorizations were required to submit itineraries to their
supervisors prior to travel. The policy further required that
those itineraries, the limited open travel authorizations, and
approved travel vouchers must be maintained for 2 years.
According to the policy, "the documents will be reviewed
periodically to satisfy the requirements for internal controls and
related systematic analyses."41 Other Travel Policy Compliance
During the course of review regarding internal controls over VA's
Issues delegated travel policy and the
issuance of limited open travel authorizations, we found some
other practices that raised questions about compliance with the
department's travel policy and the FTR: 41 This office had not
issued limited open travel authorizations to any of its employees
in recent years, so we were unable to observe how this policy was
being implemented. Page 24
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 Vouchers contained improper
signatures for the traveler and the approving official or were not
approved for payment by a certifying officer. They included the
following: * At one VBA facility, an assistant to the regional
director (a GS-13) was signing as the traveler on the director's
travel vouchers. Federal travel regulations require the traveler
to affirm by signature or initials that the voucher is correct.42
* At a medical center, we observed that fiscal staff, rather than
the traveler's supervisors, were signing travel vouchers as the
approving officials. VA travel policy requires employee travel
vouchers to be "examined and approved by the employee's supervisor
having knowledge of the facts involved in the travel."43 *
Another medical center was using an automated travel processing
system that did not generate travel vouchers that included space
for approval by a certifying officer, and the vouchers were not
signed by a certifying official. However, under VA travel policy,
a certifying officer should be responsible for reviewing vouchers
before payment is made. VA's travel budget requests have
substantially exceeded its actual travel Conclusions
expenditures in recent years. Travel budget requests for VHA's
Medical Care account, in particular, do not appear to be realistic
estimates of travel expenditures. We recognize that the
appropriations provisions that limit VA's travel expenditures to
the amounts set forth in the budget requests may have caused VA to
overstate its annual travel budget requests. We also recognize
that OMB does not provide any specific guidance on the formulation
of travel budget requests. However, we believe that the
difference between VA's travel budget requests and actual travel
expenditures in recent years, particularly in VA's Medical Care
appropriations account, has been larger than appears reasonable to
avoid exceeding the ceiling on travel expenditures. By
reprogramming millions of dollars in excess travel funds in recent
years without notifying the Senate Appropriations Committee, VA
has not 42 41 C.F.R. part 301-52.3. 43 VA policy manual, chapter
2, paragraph 18 (b)(1). Page 25
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 adhered to the guidance from
that committee directing VA to notify it prior to any
reprogramming that exceeds $250,000. Although VA's failure to
notify the committee of reprogrammings that exceed the $250,000
threshold does not give the committee an adequate opportunity to
review VA's plans to use funds in a manner different from the
manner proposed when it requested those funds, VA's failure to
notify the committee does not constitute a violation of law. VA
lacks adequate internal controls over its limited open travel
authorizations and delegated travel authority, resulting in the
potential for abuse or noncompliance with requirements. We found
instances of limited open travel authorizations not being
administered in accordance with VA policy, with respect to the
obligation of funds and limitations on purposes, number of trips,
geographic areas, trip duration, and costs. We also found a lack
of separation of duties and supervision inherent in these policies
and that compensating internal controls were not in place to
mitigate the risk of abuse or noncompliance with requirements.
Compensating controls, such as periodic monitoring or supervisory
review, should enable VA to assess whether top officials who are
authorizing and approving their own travel are following VA travel
policies and making proper expense claims. Another compensating
control, periodic reevaluations, should enable VA to determine
whether employees with limited open travel authorizations are
frequent travelers. We recommend that the Secretary of VA direct
appropriate officials to Recommendations * reexamine the budget
formulation process, particularly with respect to VHA's Medical
Care appropriations account, to determine what steps can be taken
to improve the accuracy of the travel budget requests. * follow
congressional guidance directing VA to inform the Senate
Appropriations Committee prior to reprogramming more than $250,000
in excess travel funds and see that any new agreements reached
with the committee regarding the activities or amounts subject to
reprogramming rules be documented. * periodically monitor travel
taken by employees who may authorize and approve their own travel
and employees who have limited open travel authorizations to
assess compliance with travel policies and regulations. *
reevaluate the manner in which limited open travel authorizations
are administered, including (1) whether funds are being obligated
in accordance with VA policy; (2) whether the authorizations
contain Page 26
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 reasonable limitations on
purposes, geographic areas, trip duration, and costs; and (3)
whether the employees who have been issued limited open travel
authorizations are expected to be frequent travelers, and if not,
revoke or not renew those authorizations. We requested comments on
a draft of this report from VA. In a letter dated Agency Comments
and August 3, 1999, VA provided us with comments on the draft,
which we Our Evaluation have reprinted in
appendix II. VA disagreed with our first two recommendations to
reexamine its travel budget formulation process and to inform the
Senate Appropriations Committee regarding the reprogramming of
excess travel funds. It agreed with our recommendation to
monitor the travel of employees who may authorize and approve
their own travel and who have limited open travel authorization.
Finally, VA agreed in principle with our recommendation to
reevaluate the manner in which limited open travel authorizations
are administered. Reexamine Budget Formulation VA did not
concur with our recommendation to reexamine its budget Process
formulation process. The department indicated that its current
means of developing a travel estimate for expenditures several
years into the future is sound and ensures that funds are
available for travel activities affecting areas of immediate
importance to veterans or their direct service providers. VA said
that its current process considers the department's full range of
potential travel needs and to do otherwise could jeopardize travel
activities. For example, VA said that with the recent advent of
community and hospital-based home care, VA expects an increased
use of travel funds. VA stated that because Congress limits travel
expenditures to the amounts contained in the President's travel
budget requests, VA's travel budget requests invariably result in
overstatements of travel needs. In addition, VA stated that
events or circumstances beyond the department's control
contributed to revised travel estimates after the budget requests
were submitted, such as the 1996 government shutdown and the
reorganization of VHA. Moreover, VA stated that the amounts of
the excess travel funds must be kept in perspective with the
overall $17 billion appropriation that Congress provides for
veterans' health care. We recognize that VA would like to ensure
that the limitation on travel expenditures does not have a
potentially negative effect on the services provided to veterans
and on those who provide such service and that VA's travel
limitation can result in some overstatement of travel needs. We
also do not disagree with the possible need for increased travel
expenses to provide veterans' health care. However, we continue
to believe that the size of the difference between VA's travel
budget requests and actual travel Page 27
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 expenditures, particularly with
respect to VA's Medical Care appropriations account, has been
larger than might be considered reasonable to avoid exceeding the
limitation. In fiscal year 1998, for example, the travel budget
request for VHA's Medical Care account, which represented 77
percent of VA's total budget request for that year, exceeded
actual travel expenditures by $6.3 million, or by about 14
percent. Despite that difference, VA increased the travel budget
request for Medical Care by $3.5 million in fiscal year 1999.
Further, our report contained VA's views that the amounts of the
excess travel funds should be viewed in relation to the size of
the overall Medical Care appropriation and that events in 1996
such as the government shutdown affected travel expenditures that
year. VA also indicated that reexamining its budget formulation
process was unnecessary because its travel cap has been "straight-
lined" for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and that it proposes to
maintain that level in future budget requests until actual
expenditures are closer to the budget request. We note that only
the budget request for the Medical Care account is at a constant
level for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, while travel budget requests
for VA's other appropriations accounts increased by a total of
$8.5 million from $17.9 million to $26.4 million during that same
period, or a 48 percent increase. We believe that VA's proposal to
achieve a smaller difference between its actual travel
expenditures and budget requests is the appropriate goal. However,
a constant-level Medical Care travel budget request for fiscal
years 1999 and 2000 suggests that VA is not formulating its
request for that account based on a thorough consideration of
prior years' expenditures and future needs. We are concerned that
in the future, after VA ceases use of a constant-level budget
request for Medical Care, no assurance exists that a smaller
difference will be maintained. Although we focused on increases
in travel budget requests for the Medical Care account, we are
also concerned about the 48 percent increase in the travel budget
request for the other appropriations accounts in fiscal year 2000.
Since 1993, the largest annual increase in actual travel
expenditures for the other appropriations accounts was 14 percent
in fiscal year 1997. Therefore, we question whether this 48
percent increase is based on a realistic estimate of travel
expenditures and needs. We continue to believe that VA should
reexamine its budget formulation process to improve the accuracy
of its budget requests. VA also indicated that in 1997, VHA's
travel expenditures under its Medical Care account increased by
over $10 million to $41.4 million, which the department said it
would not have been able to achieve if the travel Page 28
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 limitation had not been
increased starting in 1995. We recognize that VA increased its
Medical Care travel budget request by $6.8 million in fiscal year
1995, by $10 million in fiscal year 1996, and by $1.4 million in
fiscal years 1997. However, these increases appear to have been
larger than needed, since the Medical Care travel budget request
in fiscal year 1997 ($51.4 million) was $10 million more than
actual travel expenditures ($41.4 million) that year. Follow
Congressional VA also did not concur with our recommendation
that the Secretary of VA Reprogramming Guidance direct VA
officials to follow congressional guidance to inform the committee
prior to any reprogrammings of more than $250,000 in excess travel
funds. VA stated that for several reasons, it does not view
switching excess travel funds to other object classes to be
reprogramming covered by the Senate report language and that it
therefore has not violated congressional guidance regarding
reprogramming. First, it stated that the Appropriations
Committees have always been aware of the status of travel funds
because VA submits an annual report to the committee staffs that
compares budgeted, appropriated, and actual travel expenditures to
ensure compliance with the statutory restriction limiting amounts
that VA can spend on travel to the amounts requested for travel in
the President's budget submission. VA further maintained that it
has agreed with the committee staffs that reprogramming only
applies to the major program activity components listed in the
Program and Financing Schedule contained in the Budget Appendix,
which is defined in terms of major program activities, not in
terms of objects of expense. VA stated that its interpretation of
congressional expectations regarding reprogramming has not been
challenged by the committee. VA also stated that redefining
reprogramming requirements to apply to an object class level is
inconsistent with objectives of the Government Performance and
Results Act (Results Act) and other reinvention efforts that
encourage managerial flexibility. VA maintained that it has been
extremely efficient in using travel funds and should not be held
to an unprecedented degree of oversight. Finally, VA noted that
the $250,000 reprogramming threshold was developed many years ago
when budgets were smaller. VA proposed to meet with committee
staff to reach a mutual agreement concerning both the activities
within each VA appropriation that need to be subject to
reprogramming and realistic reprogramming thresholds. VA
acknowledged this had not been done in recent years and that
clarification of the reprogramming process would be beneficial to
both VA and Congress. Page 29
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 With respect to VA's proposal to
meet with committee staff to reach mutual agreement concerning the
activities within each VA appropriation that will be subject to
the reprogramming rules and agree on more realistic reprogramming
thresholds, we agree that this is desirable and would be
beneficial to both VA and Congress. We also believe that any
agreements reached on the activities subject to reprogramming
should be documented to provide a record of the agreement reached
and prevent future misunderstandings. However, unless or until
such an agreement is reached with the committee, VA should comply
with the existing guidelines set forth in the committee reports.
While VA maintains that the Appropriations Committees were fully
aware of and concurred in VA's interpretation of the reprogramming
guidelines, it provided no documentation supporting this or
showing that it informed the committee of how it planned to use
the funds that were shifted from the travel account. Further, we
believe that VA's proposal to meet with the committee staffs to
clarify these guidelines and the circumstances in which they would
apply would be consistent with our recommendation. Nonetheless,
unless or until a contrary documented understanding is reached
under the applicable congressional guidance, VA should notify the
Senate Committee whenever it shifts $250,000 or more in travel
funds to other object classes. Such shifts fall within the
definition of reprogramming contained in the Glossary of Terms
Used in the Federal Budget Process as the "[s]hifting funds within
an appropriation or fund account to use them for different
purposes than those contemplated at the time of appropriation (for
example, obligating budgetary resources for a different object
class from the one originally planned)."44 VA said that redefining
reprogramming to apply to travel expenditures-an object class
level-is inconsistent with the objectives of the Results Act and
other reinvention efforts encouraging managerial flexibility and
would hold VA to an unprecedented degree of oversight. Under the
generally accepted definition of reprogramming quoted in the
previous paragraph, we do not agree that we are redefining
reprogramming requirements. Further, while managerial flexibility
is a desirable objective, nothing in the Results Act provides
agencies with a basis for not adhering to congressional guidance
or directives. Moreover, while we recognize that the travel
expenditures in question comprise a relatively small percentage of
VA's overall budget, over $61 million in excess travel funds were
reprogrammed from fiscal years 1993 through 1998. Further, 44
U.S. General Accounting Office, A Glossary of Terms Used in the
Federal Budget Process (GAO/AFMD-2.1.1, Jan. 1993 ) (Exposure
Draft). Page 30
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 congressional concern about VA's
travel budget and the way in which it uses those travel funds is
evident from its long-standing inclusion of a provision in VA's
annual appropriations acts that limits VA's travel expenditures to
the amounts requested for travel in the President's budget
submission. Monitor Travel Taken by VA concurred with our
recommendation to periodically monitor the travel Employees With
Delegated of employees with delegated travel authority and
those who have limited Travel Authority and Open open travel
authorizations. VA said that it recognized that its management
Travel Authorizations of self-approved travel and open
travel authorities needed improvement and said that periodic
monitoring of employees' travel could be done without
significantly raising overhead costs. VA suggested that we clarify
in the report that VA operates in a decentralized environment and
has delegated management of internal controls to the
Administrations (e.g., VHA and VBA, and staff offices, typically
to the facility level). In this regard, VHA and VBA are
responsible for ensuring that their field facilities adhere to VA
travel policy. We clarified the report on this matter where
appropriate. VA also indicated that VHA's Chief Network Office
will coordinate with VHA field and headquarters offices to devise
a plan to initiate monitoring of travel. In addition, VA
indicated that, among other actions, VBA's (1) Central Office will
perform periodic reviews of travel documents and conduct on-site
reviews and (2) Office of Field Operations will review the travel
of employees with delegated travel authority and those with
limited open travel authorizations. These proposed actions appear
to respond to our recommendation on this matter. Reevaluate
Administration of Finally, VA concurred in principle with our
recommendation to reevaluate Limited Open Travel the
manner in which limited open travel authorizations are
administered. Authorizations VA indicated that
this recommendation will be accomplished through the monitoring of
travel and that if significant problems are found, it will
initiate additional action. According to VA, these reviews will
determine whether limited open travel authorizations are being
properly issued, documented, and reviewed, and whether funds are
being properly obligated. We believe this is a reasonable
approach to implementing our recommendation. While agreeing in
principle with this recommendation, VA also said that it defines
"frequent traveler" by many methods. For the purposes of
obtaining a travel card, for example, VA said that an employee who
travels twice a year would be a frequent traveler. We recognized
that VA may define a frequent traveler in different ways and
indicated throughout this Page 31
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 report that the definition used
( i.e., an employee who travels at least once a month) was
provided by VA's travel policy manager in the context of issuing
limited open travel authorizations. VA said that another reason
for issuing limited open travel authorizations, in addition to
facilitating the travel of frequent travelers, is to allow
employees to travel without notice. According to VA's travel
policy manager, employees whose jobs require travel without notice
may be issued limited open travel authorizations. We note that
the FTR states that agencies should establish procedures for
travel situations where it is not practical or possible to issue a
written travel authorization in advance.45 However, VA's travel
policy manual does not contain any provisions that permit the
issuance of limited open travel authorizations to employees who
must travel without notice. Finally, VA said that although it has
not issued a revised travel policy manual since 1995, the policy
has been updated through field faxes and messages from the
Secretary. We added this information to the report but also
indicated that none of the travel policy updates related to
delegated travel authority or limited open travel authorizations.
We are sending copies of this report to Senator Robert Byrd,
Senator John Rockefeller, Senator Ted Stevens, and Senator Arlen
Specter, and to Representative Corrine Brown, Representative Lane
Evans, Representative David Obey, Representative Bob Stump, and
Representative Bill Young in their capacities as Chair or Ranking
Minority Member of Senate and House Committees and Subcommittees.
We are also sending copies of this report to the Honorable Togo
West, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Copies will also be made
available to others upon request. 45 Note to FTR section 301-
71.105. Page 32
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel B-283221 Major contributors to this
report were Gerald Barnes and Robert Homan. If you have any
questions, please contact me on (202) 512-8387 or at
[email protected] Sincerely yours, Bernard L. Ungar Director,
Government Business Operations Issues Page 33
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Contents 1 Letter 36 Appendix I VA
Employee Travel 45 Appendix II Comments From the Department of
Veterans Affairs Table 1: VA Excess Travel Funds Reprogrammed From
11 Tables Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1998 (In
nominal dollars) Table 2: VA Excess Travel Funds Reprogrammed
From 11 Fiscal Year 1993 Through 1998 (In
constant 1999 dollars) Table 3: VA Officials With Delegated Travel
Authority 20 Table I.1: Fiscal Year 1993 VA
Employee Travel 36 Table I.2: Fiscal
Year 1994 VA Employee Travel 37 Table
I.3: Fiscal Year 1995 VA Employee Travel
38 Table I.4: Fiscal Year 1996 VA Employee Travel
39 Table I.5: Fiscal Year 1997 VA Employee Travel
40 Table I.6: Fiscal Year 1998 VA Employee Travel
41 Table I.7: Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 VA Employee
42 Travel Table I.8: Differences Between VA's Travel Budget and
42 Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In nominal
dollars) Table I.9: Differences Between VA's Travel Budget and
43 Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In constant
1999 dollars) Table I.10: Differences Between VA's Travel
43 Appropriations and Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993
to1998 (In nominal dollars) Table I.11: Differences Between VA's
Travel 44 Appropriations and Actual
Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In constant 1999
dollars) Page 34
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Contents Abbreviations FMFIA
Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act FTR Federal
Travel Regulation GS General Service GSA General
Services Administration JFMIP Joint Financial Management
Improvement Program NCA National Cemetery Administration
OIG Office of the Inspector General OMB Office of
Management and Budget VA Department of Veterans Affairs
VBA Veterans Benefits Administration VHA Veterans
Health Administration VISN Veterans Integrated Service
Network Page 35
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.1:
Fiscal Year 1993 VA Employee Travel
Fiscal year 1993 (Nominal dollars)
(Constant 1999 dollars) Accounts/Funds Budgeta
Appropriatedb Actual Budget
Appropriated Actual VHA Medical Care
$30,046,000 $31,501,000 $30,557,000
$33,496,000 $35,118,000 $34,066,000 Medical and
Prosthetic Research 2,719,000
2,807,000 1,420,000 3,031,000
3,129,000 1,583,000 Medical Administration and
Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
843,000 1,191,000 1,100,000 940,000
1,328,000 1,226,000 General Operating Expenses
(includes Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)
13,299,000 13,079,000 12,048,000
14,826,000 14,581,000 13,431,000 National
Cemetery Admin. 650,000 650,000
619,000 725,000 725,000
690,000 Office of Inspector General 2,429,000
2,425,000 1,990,000 2,708,000
2,703,000 2,219,000 Subtotal for Appropriations
Accounts 49,986,000 51,653,000
47,734,000 55,726,000 57,584,000
53,215,000 Revolving funds: Medical Care Cost Recovery Fund (MCCR)
2,160,000 2,174,000
2,408,000 2,424,000 Supply Fund
1,421,000 1,817,000
1,584,000 2,026,000 Canteen
Service 875,000
928,000 975,000
1,035,000 Subtotal for Revolving Funds 4,456,000
4,919,000 4,967,000
5,485,000 Total travel $54,442,000
$51,653,000 $52,653,000 $60,693,000
$57,584,000 $58,700,000 aAs requested in the President's
budget submission to Congress. b"Appropriated" refers to
information VA provided to us on the amounts for travel included
in its appropriations accounts after appropriations were enacted.
Source: VA Budget Office. Page 36
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.2:
Fiscal Year 1994 VA Employee Travel
Fiscal year 1994 (Nominal dollars)
(Constant 1999 dollars) Accounts/Funds Budgeta
Appropriatedb Actual Budget
Appropriated Actual VHA Medical Care
$33,240,000 $33,240,000 $31,939,000
$36,170,000 $36,170,000 $34,754,000 Medical and
Prosthetic Research 2,723,000
2,153,000 2,177,000 2,963,000
2,343,000 2,369,000 Medical Administration and
Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
1,293,000 1,113,000 817,000
1,407,000 1,211,000 889,000 General
Operating Expenses (includes VBA) 10,834,000
13,401,000 10,708,000 11,789,000
14,582,000 11,652,000 National Cemetery Admin.
585,000 585,000 555,000
637,000 637,000 604,000 Office of
Inspector General 2,405,000 2,105,000
1,618,000 2,617,000 2,291,000
1,761,000 Subtotal for Appropriations Accounts
51,080,000 52,597,000 47,814,000
55,583,000 57,234,000 52,029,000 Revolving funds:
MCCR 2,330,000
1,751,000 2,535,000
1,905,000 Supply Fund 1,063,000
1,707,000 1,157,000
1,857,000 Canteen Service 800,000
688,000 871,000
749,000 Subtotal for Revolving Funds 4,193,000
4,146,000 4,563,000
4,511,000 Total travel $55,273,000
$52,597,000 $51,960,000 $60,146,000
$57,234,000 $56,540,000 aAs requested in the President's
budget submission to Congress. b"Appropriated" refers to
information VA provided to us on the amounts for travel included
in its appropriations accounts after appropriations were enacted.
Source: VA Budget Office. Page 37
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.3:
Fiscal Year 1995 VA Employee Travel
Fiscal year 1995 (Nominal dollars)
(Constant 1999 dollars) Accounts/Funds Budgeta
Appropriatedb Actual Budget
Appropriated Actual VHA Medical Care
$40,000,000 $40,275,000 $35,925,000
$42,508,000 $42,800,000 $38,177,000 Medical and
Prosthetic Research 1,803,000
2,153,000 1,724,000 1,916,000
2,288,000 1,832,000 Medical Administration and
Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
1,200,000 795,000 823,000
1,275,000 845,000 875,000 General
Operating Expenses (includes VBA) 13,502,000
14,182,000 12,619,000 14,349,000
15,071,000 13,410,000 National Cemetery Admin.
650,000 650,000 632,000
691,000 691,000 672,000 Office of
Inspector General 2,099,000 1,857,000
1,632,000 2,231,000 1,973,000
1,734,000 Subtotal for Appropriations Accounts
59,254,000 59,912,000 53,355,000
62,670,000 63,668,000 56,700,000 Revolving funds:
MCCR 2,400,000
1,758,000 2,550,000
1,868,000 Supply Fund 1,455,000
1,455,000 1,546,000
1,546,000 Canteen Service 900,000
645,000 956,000
685,000 Subtotal for Revolving Funds 4,755,000
3,858,000 5,052,000
4,099,000 Total travel $64,009,000
$59,912,000 $57,213,000 $68,022,000
$63,668,000 $60,799,000 aAs requested in the President's
budget submission to Congress. b"Appropriated" refers to
information VA provided to us on the amounts for travel included
in its appropriations accounts after appropriations were enacted.
Source: VA Budget Office. Page 38
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.4:
Fiscal Year 1996 VA Employee Travel
Fiscal year 1996 (Nominal dollars)
(Constant 1999 dollars) Accounts/Funds Budgeta
Appropriatedb Actual Budget
Appropriated Actual VHA Medical Care
$50,000,000 $50,000,000 $30,628,000
$52,138,000 $52,138,000 $31,937,000 Medical and
Prosthetic Research $2,153,000
2,900,000 1,540,000 2,245,000
3,024,000 1,606,000 Medical Administration and
Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
826,000 426,000 566,000
861,000 444,000 590,000 General Operating
Expenses (includes VBA) 16,093,000
12,412,000 8,916,000 16,781,000
12,943,000 9,297,000 National Cemetery Admin.
680,000 600,000 467,000
709,000 626,000 487,000 Office of
Inspector General 1,859,000 1,690,000
1,519,000 1,938,000 1,762,000
1,584,000 Subtotal for Appropriations Accounts
71,611,000 68,028,000 43,636,000
74,672,000 70,937,000 45,501,000 Revolving funds:
MCCR 2,778,000
2,610,000 2,897,000
2,722,000 Supply Fund 2,082,000
1,910,000 2,171,000
1,992,000 Canteen Service 1,000,000
943,000 1,043,000
983,000 Subtotal for Revolving Funds 5,860,000
5,463,000 6,111,000
5,697,000 Total travel $77,471,000
$68,028,000 $49,099,000 $80,783,000
$70,936,000 $51,198,000 aAs requested in the President's
budget submission to Congress. b"Appropriated" refers to
information VA provided to us on the amounts for travel included
in its appropriations accounts after appropriations were enacted.
Source: VA Budget Office. Page 39
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.5:
Fiscal Year 1997 VA Employee Travel
Fiscal year 1997 (Nominal dollars)
(Constant 1999 dollars) Accounts/Funds Budgeta
Appropriatedb Actual Budget
Appropriated Actual VHA Medical Care
$51,365,000 $51,365,000 $41,380,000
$52,574,000 $52,574,000 $42,354,000 Medical and
Prosthetic Research 1,701,000
2,153,000 1,961,000 1,741,000
2,204,000 2,007,000 Medical Administration and
Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
878,000 700,000 713,000
899,000 716,000 730,000 General Operating
Expenses (includes VBA) 11,568,000
11,361,000 9,924,000 11,840,000
11,628,000 10,158,000 National Cemetery Admin.
630,000 592,000 582,000
645,000 606,000 596,000 Office of
Inspector General 1,434,000 1,461,000
1,590,000 1,468,000 1,495,000
1,627,000 Subtotal for Appropriations Accounts
67,576,000 67,632,000 56,150,000
69,167,000 69,223,000 57,472,000 Revolving funds:
MCCR 2,873,000
2,560,000 2,941,000
2,620,000 Supply Fund 2,082,000
1,919,000 2,131,000
1,964,000 Franchise Fundc 2,000,000
504,000 2,047,000
516,000 Canteen Service 1,000,000
905,000 1,024,000
926,000 Subtotal for Revolving Funds 7,955,000
5,888,000 8,143,000
6,026,000 Total travel $75,531,000
$67,632,000 $62,038,000 $77,309,000
$69,223,000 $63,498,000 aAs requested in the President's
budget submission to Congress. b"Appropriated" refers to
information VA provided to us on the amounts for travel included
in its appropriations accounts after appropriations were enacted.
cVA's franchise fund was established in 1997. Source: VA Budget
Office. Page 40
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.6:
Fiscal Year 1998 VA Employee Travel
Fiscal year 1998 (Nominal dollars)
(Constant 1999 dollars) Accounts/Funds Budgeta
Appropriatedb Actual Budget
Appropriated Actual VHA Medical Care
$51,691,000 $54,599,000 $45,402,000
$52,266,000 $55,206,000 $45,907,000 Medical and
Prosthetic Research 1,750,000
2,031,000 2,119,000c 1,769,000
2,054,000 2,143,000 Medical Administration and
Miscellaneous Operating Expenses
903,000 903,000 764,000
913,000 913,000 772,000 General Operating
Expenses (includes VBA) 10,681,000
11,624,000 11,322,000 10,800,000
11,753,000 11,448,000 National Cemetery Admin.
625,000 625,000 583,000
632,000 632,000 589,000 Office of
Inspector General 1,574,000 1,616,000
1,808,000 1,592,000 1,634,000
1,828,000 Subtotal for Appropriations Accounts
67,224,000 71,398,000 61,998,000
67,972,000 72,192,000 62,687,000 Revolving
funds: MCCR 2,908,000
d 2,940,000
c Supply Fund 3,778,000
2,467,000 3,820,000
2,494,000 Franchise Fund 2,539,000
552,000 2,567,000
558,000 Canteen Service 1,000,000
969,000 1,011,000
980,000 Subtotal for Revolving Funds 10,225,000
3,988,000 10,338,000
4,032,000 Total travel $77,449,000
$71,398,000 $65,986,000 $78,310,000
$72,192,000 $66,719,000 aAs requested in the President's
budget submission to Congress. b"Appropriated" refers to
information VA provided to us on the amounts for travel included
in its appropriations accounts after appropriations were enacted.
cAccording to VA officials, the amount actually expended for
travel in fiscal year 1998 "Medical and Prosthetic Research"
appropriations account includes unobligated amounts from the 1997
Appropriations Act for travel, which are available for obligation
for 2 years. Therefore, based on this information, VA's
expenditures for that purpose in fiscal year 1998 did not exceed
the applicable ceiling on employee travel in the 1998
Appropriations Act. dStarting in fiscal year 1998, MCCR was
terminated and the Medical Care Collections Fund was established.
Source: VA Budget Office. Page 41
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.7:
Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 VA Employee Travel Fiscal year 1999
Fiscal year 2000 (In nominal dollars)
(In nominal dollars) Accounts/Funds
Budgeta Appropriatedb
Budgeta VHA Medical Care
$55,143,000 $55,143,000
$55,143,000 Medical and Prosthetic Research
2,137,000 2,244,000
3,102,000 Medical Administration and Miscellaneous Operating
Expenses 923,000
969,000 1,400,000 General Operating
Expenses (includes VBA) 12,254,000
15,746,000 18,651,000 National Cemetery
Admin. 795,000
795,000 947,000 Office of Inspector
General 1,766,000
2,085,000 2,271,000 Subtotal for
Appropriations Accounts 73,018,000
76,982,000 81,514,000 Revolving funds:
Supply Fund
3,891,000
3,800,000 Franchise Fund
664,000
869,000 Canteen Service
1,000,000
1,000,000 Subtotal for Revolving Funds
5,555,000
5,669,000 Total travel
$78,573,000 $76,982,000
87,183,000 aAs requested in the President's budget submission to
Congress. b"Appropriated" refers to information VA provided to us
on the amounts for travel included in its appropriations accounts
after appropriations were enacted. Source: VA Budget Office.
Table I.8: Differences Between VA's Travel Budget and Actual
Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In nominal dollars)
Difference between budget and actual Fiscal year
Budgeta Actual expenditures
expenditures Percentage difference 1993
$49,986,000 $47,734,000
$2,252,000 4.5 1994
51,080,000 47,814,000
3,266,000 6.4 1995
59,254,000 53,355,000
5,899,000 10.0 1996
71,611,000 43,636,000
27,975,000 39.1 1997
67,576,000 56,150,000
11,426,000 16.9 1998
67,224,000 61,998,000
5,226,000 7.8 1999
73,018,000 b 2000
$81,514,000 b Note: This table
excludes VA's four revolving funds: Canteen Service, Franchise
Fund, MCCR, and Supply Fund. aAs requested in the President's
budget submission to Congress. bFiscal years 1999 and 2000 actual
expenditures not yet available. Source: VA Budget Office and GAO
calculations of differences. Page 42
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.9:
Differences Between VA's Travel Budget and Actual Expenditures
From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In constant 1999 dollars)
Difference between budget and actual Fiscal year
Budgeta Actual expenditures
expenditures Percentage difference 1993
$55,726,000 $53,215,000
$2,511,000 4.5 1994
55,582,000 52,028,000
3,554,000 6.4 1995
62,969,000 56,700,000
6,269,000 10.0 1996
74,673,000 45,502,000
29,171,000 39.1 1997
69,167,000 57,472,000
11,695,000 16.9 1998
67,972,000 62,688,000
5,284,000 7.8 1999
73,018,000 b 2000
$81,514,000 b Note: This table
excludes VA's four revolving funds: Canteen Service, Franchise
Fund, MCCR, and Supply Fund. aAs requested in the President's
budget submission to Congress. bFiscal years 1999 and 2000 actual
expenditures not yet available. Source: VA Budget Office and GAO
calculations of differences. Table I.10: Differences Between VA's
Travel Appropriations and Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year
1993 to1998 (In nominal dollars)
Difference between appropriated and actual Fiscal year
Appropriateda Actual expenditures
expenditures Percentage difference 1993
$51,653,000 $47,734,000
$3,919,000 7.6 1994
52,597,000 47,814,000
4,783,000 9.1 1995
59,912,000 53,355,000
6,557,000 10.9 1996
68,028,000 43,636,000
24,392,000 35.9 1997
67,632,000 56,150,000
11,482,000 17.0 1998
71,398,000 61,998,000
9,400,000 13.2 1999
$76,982,000 b Note: This table
excludes VA's four revolving funds: Canteen Service, Franchise
Fund, MCCR, and Supply Fund. a"Appropriated" refers to information
VA provided to us on the amounts for travel included in its
appropriations accounts after appropriations were enacted. bFiscal
year 1999 actual expenditures not yet available. Source: VA
Budget Office and GAO calculations of differences. Page 43
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix I VA Employee Travel Table I.11:
Differences Between VA's Travel Appropriations and Actual
Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In constant 1999
dollars)
Difference between appropriated and actual Fiscal year
Appropriateda Actual expenditures
expenditures Percentage difference 1993
$57,584,000 $53,215,000
$4,369,000 7.6 1994
57,233,000 52,028,000
5,205,000 9.1 1995
63,668,000 56,700,000
6,968,000 10.9 1996
70,936,000 45,502,000
25,434,000 35.9 1997
69,224,000 57,472,000
11,752,000 17.0 1998
72,192,000 62,688,000
9,504,000 13.2 1999
$76,982,000 b Note: This table
excludes VA's four revolving funds: Canteen Service, Franchise
Fund, MCCR, and Supply Fund. a"Appropriated" refers to information
VA provided to us on the amounts for travel included in its
appropriations accounts after appropriations were enacted. bFiscal
year 1999 actual expenditures not yet available. Source: VA
Budget Office and GAO calculations of differences. Page 44
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix II Comments From the Department
of Veterans Affairs Page 45 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel
Appendix II Comments From the Department of Veterans Affairs Page
46 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA
Travel Appendix II Comments From the Department of Veterans
Affairs Page 47
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix II Comments From the Department
of Veterans Affairs Page 48
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix II Comments From the Department
of Veterans Affairs Page 49
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Appendix II Comments From the Department
of Veterans Affairs Page 50
GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Page 51 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Page
52 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel Ordering Information The first copy
of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2
each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied
by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of
Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent. Order by mail: U.S.
General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or
visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S.
General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed
by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061,
or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly
available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of
the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call
(202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will
provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information
on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send e-mail message
with "info" in the body to: [email protected] or visit GAO's World
Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov United States General
Accounting Office Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty
for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested (240312)
*** End of document. ***