United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information, and Technology, Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10:30 a.m., EDT

Friday,

December 29, 1995

Travel of Government

Officials on Government

Aircraft

Statement of Mark E. Gebicke, Director,

Military Operations and Capabilities Issues,

National Security and International Affairs Division

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our reports on (1) the White

House staff’s use of military helicopters and (2) government aircraft used

to transport senior-level military and civilian officials. I will highlight the

key findings from these reports and then discuss each finding more

specifically.

Results in Brief In response to a congressional request, we reported in July that, as

previously disclosed by the White House, staff members had flown in

military helicopters 14 times during the first 16 months of the current

administration, without accompanying the President, Vice President, First

Lady, wife of the Vice President, or Heads of State.1

In response to another congressional request, we reported in June on

government aircraft used to transport senior-level military and civilian

officials.2

 Department of Defense (DOD) policy states that the military

services’ operational support airlift (OSA) inventory of fixed-wing

aircraft—which, among other things, are used to transport senior-level

military and civilian officials—should be based solely on wartime

requirements. However, DOD had not provided central guidance on how

the services should count their OSA aircraft or determine their wartime

requirements, leaving each service to independently establish its own

requirements. Our analysis showed that the April 1995 OSA inventory of

520 fixed-wing aircraft was about 10 times larger than the number of OSA

aircraft used in theater during the Persian Gulf War. In addition, the Army

and Air Force helicopters located in the Washington, D.C., area were not

justified based on OSA wartime requirements and DOD senior travelers’

most frequent helicopter flight was to or from Andrews Air Force Base,

Maryland, located about 15 miles from the Pentagon. In response to

recommendations made in our report, the Joint Chiefs of Staff completed a

study which recommends a reduction in the number of OSA aircraft to

391, and DOD strengthened the policy governing the use of OSA aircraft,

including helicopters, by senior-level travelers.

Regarding civilian agency aircraft used to transport senior-level officials,

we reported that only 19 of 1,500 aircraft operated by the various civilian

agencies were used to routinely transport senior-level officials.

1

White House: Staff Use of Helicopters (GAO/NSIAD-95-144, July 14, 1995).

2

Government Aircraft: Observations on Travel by Senior Officials (GAO/ NSIAD-95-168BR, June 5, 1995).

Page 1 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85
White House Staff’s

Use of Helicopters

In 1994, six Members of Congress3 expressed concern about a White

House official’s use of a military helicopter to visit Camp David and a golf

course on May 24, 1994. Accordingly, we were asked to determine (1) the

frequency of helicopter flights by White House staff from January 21, 1993,

to May 24, 1994, and (2) whether applicable White House procedures were

followed in requesting and approving the May 24 trip to Camp David and

the golf course.

Since 1976, the Marine Corps HMX-1 Squadron in Quantico, Virginia, has

been responsible for providing helicopter support to the White House. The

squadron is specifically tasked to fly the President, Vice President, First

Lady, wife of the Vice President, and visiting Heads of State. White House

staff may be authorized to use HMX-1 helicopters when they are directly

supporting the President, Vice President, First Lady, and wife of the Vice

President or conducting immediate White House activities. Manual records

of flights taken by, or in support of, the President, Vice President, First

Lady, wife of the Vice President, or Heads of State, are maintained at the

squadron’s Quantico facilities.

Staff Use of Helicopters According to HMX-1 manual records, approximately 1,200 flights were

flown in support of the President, Vice President, First Lady, wife of the

Vice President, and Heads of State during the 16 months before May 24,

1994. These records indicated that, as previously disclosed by the White

House, staff members flew in military helicopters 14 times without the

President, Vice President, First Lady, wife of the Vice President, or Heads

of State during this period. We performed several tests, which I will

discuss, to verify the completeness and accuracy of the HMX-1 manual

records. Our work did not identify any additional White House staff flights.

We reviewed approximately 1,200 manual records (HMX-1 after-action

reports) of flights by or in support of the President, Vice President, First

Lady, wife of the Vice President, and Heads of State. The after-action

report, which is filed by the pilot, identifies the passengers, an itinerary,

and the flight crew and is retained by the HMX-1 White House Liaison

Office in Quantico. Among the after-action reports we examined were the

14 flights previously reported by the White House as the only flights taken

by White House staff when the President, Vice President, First Lady, wife

of the Vice President, or Heads of State were not on board. According to

officials from the White House Military Office and the HMX-1 Squadron

and an associate counsel to the President, the after-action reports we

3

Representatives Bartlett, Gingrich, Clinger, Armey, Camp, and now-retired Representative Michel.

Page 2 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85
reviewed covered all White House-related flights between January 21,

1993, and May 24, 1994.

How We Did Our Work We performed four tests to independently verify the completeness and

accuracy of the manual records maintained by the HMX-1 Squadron. As

our first test, we compared the President’s itinerary, as reported in the

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, with HMX-1 after-action

reports. We then listed instances in which the President had traveled, but

no after-action reports existed. A White House official then provided us

documents from the Presidential Diarist and the Secret Service. These

documents verified that the President had used other forms of

transportation on the days in question. Next, we compared the records

maintained at HMX-1 with the flight records in the Navy’s automated Naval

Flight Record Subsystem. This database is part of a larger automated flight

record system used to track and manage all naval aircraft flights. The

database is maintained by the Navy and the Marine Corps and contains

flight information provided by pilots after each flight. The automated data

we obtained covered 6,120 flights of HMX-1 aircraft from January 21, 1993,

to May 24, 1994. We found the records maintained at HMX-1 to be more

complete than those maintained in the database.

Third, during our review of the previously reported 14 White House staff

flights, we found that 10 had a squadron-specific mission purpose code.

According to a Marine Corps official, pilots are to assign this HMX-1

squadron-specific mission purpose code to all flights for logistical support

of an executive aircraft, as well as any flight by White House staff that is

not directly associated with a flight taken by the President, Vice President,

First Lady, wife of the Vice President, or Heads of State. We searched the

automated database for all flights with this specific code and found 72

more flights. Of the 72 flights, 34 were included in the records we had

reviewed at HMX-1. The remaining 38 flights had no after-action reports.

Because it was unclear whether after-action reports should have been

completed for the 38 flights, we asked for clarification. We ultimately

confirmed why the 38 flights had not been included in the flight records

we reviewed at the HMX-1 Squadron. Some flights with no after-action

reports included flights to and from contractors for maintenance, flights to

test facilities, and support for presidential travel.

As one last check that the squadron had not inadvertently omitted a flight

from the after-action reports we had reviewed, we interviewed 52 pilots

still assigned to the squadron who had flown a White House mission

during the 16-month period of our review. In the presence of officials from

Page 3 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85
the White House and the HMX-1 Squadron, we asked the pilots if they had

ever flown a White House mission without filing an after-action report. All

the pilots said that they always filed after-action reports when they flew

missions in support of the White House.

Approval Procedures for

the May 24, 1994, Trip

At the time of the May 24 trip to Camp David and a golf course, White

House policy required that White House Military Office officials approve

all HMX-1 helicopter travel by White House staff. The former Deputy

Director of the White House Military Office stated that he had approved

the use of an HMX-1 helicopter for the May 24 trip. However, no written

procedures detailed how such flights were requested or approved. White

House Military Office officials told us that the infrequency of helicopter

use by the White House staff made written policies and procedures

unnecessary; each request had to be considered on an individual basis.

The former Deputy Director also told us that the request and approval for

helicopter service for the May 24 trip, like most requests for helicopter

service, were made orally.

Shortly after the May 24 trip, the White House changed the approval

authority for staff’s use of military aircraft. According to a May 31, 1994,

memorandum, the approval authority was elevated from the level of the

Deputy Director of the White House Military Office to the White House

Chief of Staff or the Deputy Chief of Staff. For trips that involve the Chief

of Staff, the approving authority is now either the White House Counsel or

the Deputy White House Counsel. Now let me turn to the issue of

senior-level officials traveling on government aircraft.

Travel by Senior

Officials on

Government Aircraft

Approximately 500 fixed-wing airplanes and 100 helicopters are used for

DOD’s OSA mission, which includes transporting senior-level officials in

support of command, installation, or management functions. The

Secretary of Defense has designated some DOD senior-level travelers as

required use travelers (1) because of their continuous requirement for

secure communications, (2) for security, or (3) for responsive

transportation to satisfy exceptional scheduling requirements. However,

the military department secretaries may apply more stringent restrictions

in determining which four-star officers within their respective departments

must use these aircraft. DOD policy excludes some aircraft, such as those

assigned to the Air Force 89th Military Airlift Wing, from the OSA mission.

The 89th Wing provides worldwide airlift support for the President, Vice

Page 4 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85
President, and other high-level officials in the U.S. and foreign

governments.

The Office of Management and Budget has made the General Services

Administration (GSA) responsible for managing civilian agencies’ aircraft

programs. DOD, like the civilian agencies, is required to report data to

GSA semiannually on senior-level, civilian officials’ travel.

April 1995 Osa Inventory Is

10 Times Greater Than

Number of OSA Aircraft

Used in the Persian Gulf

War

DOD’s policy states that the OSA inventory of fixed-wing aircraft should

be based solely on wartime requirements. During our review, however, we

found that each service had established its own wartime requirements

based on differing definitions and methodologies. As of April 1995, the

services reported 520 fixed-wing aircraft in DOD’s OSA inventory. Our

review showed that only 48 OSA aircraft were used in theater during the

Persian Gulf War, which is less than 10 percent of the April 1995 OSA

inventory.

In 1994, the Air Force determined that its OSA inventory exceeded its

wartime requirements, whereas the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps

determined that their OSA inventories were slightly less than wartime

requirements. However, a February 1993 report on Roles, Missions, and

Functions issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the

May 1995 report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed

Forces indicated that the existing number of aircraft dedicated to OSA

missions had been and continued to be excessive.

To correct this problem, we recommended in our June report that the

Secretary of Defense (1) provide uniform guidance to the services

concerning how to compute OSA wartime requirements, (2) develop the

appropriate mechanisms to ensure the availability of each service’s

aircraft to help fulfill the OSA needs of the other services, and (3) reassign

or otherwise dispose of excess OSA aircraft. Additionally, in our

September report on the 1996 DOD operation and maintenance budget, we

recommended that Congress direct the Air Force to reduce its OSA

inventory to its wartime requirements, which would save $18.1 million in

operation and maintenance costs.4

To address the recommendations in our June report, the Joint Chiefs of

Staff studied OSA wartime requirements across DOD, including how the

4

1996 DOD Budget: Potential Reductions to Operation and Maintenance Program

(GAO/NSIAD-95-200BR, Sept. 26, 1995).

Page 5 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85
availability of each service’s aircraft could help fill the needs of the other

services. The resulting October 1995 report established a joint requirement

for 391 OSA aircraft and developed a common methodology for

determining OSA requirements. The Chairman submitted the report later

in October to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, requesting his approval for

the OSA fleet to be sized at 391 aircraft, which would mean a reduction of

over 100 aircraft. The disposition of excess OSA aircraft is currently under

review. Further, DOD plans to update its policy on OSA to formalize the

definition, use, and management of OSA aircraft. Plans are also underway

to assign to the Joint Chiefs of Staff responsibility for determining DOD’s

annual OSA requirements.

A Downward Trend in

Travel on OSA Fixed-Wing

Aircraft

Adverse publicity and increased congressional concern about potential

abuses resulted in a number of statements during 1994 by the White House

and the Secretary of Defense emphasizing the need for senior officials to

carefully consider the use of commercial transportation instead of

government aircraft. On May 9, 1995, the Deputy Secretary of Defense

issued a revised policy memorandum that eliminates an entire category of

“required mission use” for justifying individual OSA flights and requires

that many more OSA flights be justified based on a cost comparison

between DOD’s OSA aircraft and commercial carriers.

Our review indicated that from March 1993 to February 1995, the number

of senior-level officials’ OSA flights generally declined. During that period,5

 the number of senior officials’ OSA flight segments6 per month ranged

from a high of about 1,800 in March 1993 to a low of about 1,000. We found

that 16 of the 20 destinations most frequently traveled to by senior-level

DOD officials were also served by commercial airlines with government

contracts. For example, 1,619 flight segments from Andrews Air Force

Base, Maryland, to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, could have

been served by government-contract airlines. It should be recognized,

however, that some of the trips we identified were made by those

senior-level officials required to use government aircraft and that the

contract flights may not have provided the same scheduling flexibility

made possible by government-owned aircraft.

On October 1, 1995, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a new policy

on travel that should help decrease the potential for abuse. The new policy

5

Our review covered October 1992 through March 1995, but complete records from all of the services

were available for only January 1993 through February 1995.

6

Agencies record travel in individual flight segments rather than in round trips.

Page 6 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85
(1) requires the services to use the smallest and most cost-effective

mission-capable aircraft available; (2) requires the Secretary of Defense’s

or the military department secretary’s approval for use of military aircraft

by required use officials for permanent change-of-station moves;7

(3) prohibits the scheduling of training flights strictly to accommodate

senior-level officials’ travel; (4) allows the military department secretaries

to further restrict the required use designation for four-star officers in

their respective departments; and (5) limits the use of helicopters for

senior-level officials’ travel.

Restrictions on Senior

Officials’ Use of

Helicopters

Although senior-level officials’ use of helicopters in the Washington, D.C.,

area declined substantially between April 1994 and March 1995, these

officials continued to use helicopters to travel between nearby locations.

For both the Air Force and the Army, the most frequently traveled

helicopter route was between Andrews Air Force Base and the Pentagon,

a distance of about 15 miles. According to an Army memorandum, flying

time for an Army UH-1H from Andrews Air Force Base to the Pentagon is

about 24 minutes—at a cost of about $185. The same flight in an Air Force

UH-1N would cost approximately $308. However, actual cost to the

government would be higher because all trips are round trips. In the case

of the Army, the cost to get a helicopter to the Pentagon or Andrews Air

Force Base must be included, which would increase the flight time to

about 1 hour and the cost to about $460. We estimate that the same trip

would cost about $9 by car and about $30 by taxi. Thus, for general

comparison purposes, a trip between Andrews Air Force Base and the

Pentagon on either an Army or Air Force helicopter would cost over $400

more than the same trip by car.

In December 1994, the Secretary of the Army established a new policy

prohibiting Army officials’ use of helicopter transportation between the

Pentagon and Andrews Air Force Base except in unusual circumstances.

The memorandum stated that the existence of unusual circumstances

would be determined by the Secretary of the Army or the Chief of Staff of

the Army. In our report, we recommended that the Department of Defense

adopt this policy.

The October 1995 revisions to DOD’s policy on the use of government

aircraft and air travel include a section on helicopter travel. The new

policy states that “rotary wing aircraft may be used only when cost [is]

7

All other travelers must obtain prior authorization for all travel, including permanent

change-of-station moves, from their designated authorizing officials.

Page 7 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85
favorable as compared to ground transportation, or when the use of

ground transportation would have a significant adverse impact on the

ability of the senior official to effectively accomplish the purpose of the

travel.” We believe that this change in policy should result in fewer

helicopter trips between the Pentagon and Andrews Air Force Base, as

well as other nearby destinations.

Inventory of Civilian

Agency Aircraft and

Operating Costs

At the time of our June report, civilian agencies had over 1,500 aircraft that

cost about $1 billion a year to operate. The civilian agency inventory

includes many different types of aircraft, such as helicopters,

special-purpose aircraft for fire-fighting and meteorological research, and

specially configured aircraft for research and development and program

support. However, only 19 are routinely used for senior-level officials’

travel. These 19 aircraft cost about $24 million a year to operate. The

operating costs reflect aircraft that are owned, leased, lease/purchased,

and loaned between civilian agencies. For most agencies, the operating

costs include those related to technical, mission-critical aircraft that are

not used for administrative purposes.

We also reviewed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and

Coast Guard senior officials’ use of aircraft and found that, although the

use of such aircraft was infrequent, when these aircraft are used, many of

the destinations were served by commercial airlines with government

contracts. Inspector General reports indicate that agencies were not

adequately justifying the need for aircraft acquisitions and that agencies’

cost comparisons with commercial service were not complete or accurate.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee

may have.

(703119) Page 8 GAO/T-NSIAD-96-85
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.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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

touchtone 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 an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100