**REVIEW OF SECRETARY'S TRAVEL**
**BETWEEN**
**OCTOBER 5 AND 18, 1996**
***Secretary's travel adhered to all requirementsand policy guidance.***
**Report No.:  7AN-G03-015**
**Date:  December 18, 1996**
**Office of Inspector General**
**Washington DC  20420**
**SUMMARY MEMORANDUM**
**REVIEW OF SECRETARY'S TRAVEL**
**BETWEEN OCTOBER 5 AND 18, 1996**
1.  In accordance with Congressman Frank D. Riggs' letter of October9, 1996, and a follow-up meeting on October 15, 1996, with a memberof his staff and staff members of the Subcommittee on GovernmentManagement, Information and Technology, the Committee on GovernmentReform and Oversight, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (VA),we reviewed the recent travel of the Secretary of the Departmentof Veterans Affairs to Northern California and assessed adherenceto all applicable requirements.  This letter reports our determinationson the Secretary's trip to Northern California in October 1996.Our broader review of the Department's use of political versusofficial travel continues and will be reported on at a later date.
2.  Our review concluded that the requirements and policy guidancefor political activities and related travel were met and an appropriatedistribution was made for the travel costs allocable between appropriatedfunds and campaign funds.  
3.  The Secretary's visit to Northern California on October 8,1996, was part of a "mixed" purpose trip during whichthe Secretary visited 13 cities between October 5 and 18, 1996. The trip was "mixed" in that official business wasconducted as well as certain permitted political activities. Federal regulations, White House policy, and VA policy delineatewhat expenses can be paid from appropriated funds, which mustbe paid by campaign funds, and which must be prorated with appropriatedfunds being reimbursed by the campaign(s) for the political portion. The regulations also define, for government employees, whichactivities are allowed and which are not allowed on behalf ofpolitical candidates, political parties, and political elections. The Secretary was accompanied by two VA employees who servedas liaisons and were appropriately considered to be on officialbusiness for the entire trip. 
4.  Between October 5 and 18, the Secretary traveled to the followingdestinations in the order presented:  Detroit, Michigan; Fairfield,and Suisun City, California; Rapid City and Sioux Falls, SouthDakota; Grafton, North Dakota; Minneapolis, Fergus Falls, Duluth,St. Cloud, and Mankato, Minnesota; San Diego, California; andRochester, New York.  The appearances in Grafton and Rochesterwere for official business.  The activities in Detroit and SanDiego were on behalf of the Presidential Campaign.  The remainingappearances in California, South Dakota, and Minnesota were onbehalf of the campaigns for candidates for Congressional offices. Each type of visit - official business, the Presidential Campaign,andCongressional campaigns - is covered byregulation as to which costs are appropriate for the Governmentto pay and those costs that must be paid or reimbursed by others.
5.  The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in Titles 5 and 11,addresses campaign-related travel.  The White House and VA haveissued interpretations of these regulations in various papersand guidelines.  These interpretations include which costs willbe paid by campaigns, and in the case of trips which have a mixof official and political travel, the costs which are appropriateto be paid by the Government.  Three basic principles were emphasized:- Appropriated funds can be used only for the purposes for whichthey were appropriated.  - Official activities should be paid only from appropriatedfunds.  - All travel by senior Administration officials on behalf ofthe President's authorized campaign committee must by paid forby that committee.  
6.  An October 18, 1995 White House memorandum addresses the paymentof travel by senior Administration officials on behalf of thePresidential Campaign.  Any activity on behalf of the Presidentmust be paid by the President's campaign committee.  As the Secretary'strip involved more than travel on behalf of the President, theportion of that trip (stops in Detroit and San Diego) allocableto the President's campaign committee was determined using the"hypothetical trip formula". This formula requires calculatingwhat the trip would have cost from the point of origin througheach campaign-related stop and back to the point of origin.  Weconfirmed that the President's campaign committee reimbursed VAfor the hypothetical air and ground transportation costs.  Also,we found that government funds were not used to pay other travelexpenses of the Secretary at these two campaign stops.
7.  This same White House memorandum also addressed other politicaltravel.  As the remainder of the Secretary's trip was both forofficial and political reasons, the costs were required to beallocated by using the "hard time" formula.  The "hardtime" formula, set in regulation at 5 CFR 734.503, requirescost apportionment based on time spent on political activitiesand time spent performing official duties.  We found that theVA was reimbursed for travel costs of the Secretary as computedby the hard time formula. 
8.  We found that for this 2-week trip, VA incurred travel expendituresfor the Secretary totaling $4,403.59.  We verified that the VAhas been reimbursed for $3,211.78 by the various campaigns andis due a $468.00 refund on a returned airplane ticket.  We determinedthat the remaining $723.81 is the cost of the two official stopsin North Dakota and New York.
9.  A VA non-career employee traveled with the Secretary for theentire trip.  The Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairsjoined them for a portion of the trip.  The two served as liaisonsand were considered to be on official business.  The previouslycited October 18, 1995 White House memorandum states that thereare some persons whose official duties may require them to bewith a senior Administration official whether or not that officialis on agency business. According to this memorandum, expensesincurred during travel with a senior Administration official bythis group of individuals are official regardless of the characterof the event that may be involved.  We determined that VA correctlyapplied the guidance.  
10.  On another subject - notification of Congressional delegationswhen the Secretary was to visit their district/state - we foundthat VA usually sent written notice a few days prior to the Secretary'sarrival.  In some instances, the notification was informal, and if the Secretary was appearing at an event with a Member of Congress,arrangements were made through other means.  Before October 8,1996, all written notices stated that the Secretary would be visitingthe district/state on official business and then briefly describedthe event(s) he would attend.  This format was confusing, as itwas used for both political visits and official business visits. On October 8, these notices were changed to announce only thatthe Secretary would be visiting the district/state, without statingwhether the visit was official or political, and continued tobriefly describe the events to be attended. 
11.  As we found adherence to regulatory and policy guidance,this report has no recommendations.  The Office of the Secretaryreviewed the draft report and concurred with the facts.  
         [*Signed*]
MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN 
Assistant Inspector General 
   for Auditing   

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**
**Page**
**Summary Memorandum** i
**APPENDICES**
**I**DETAILS OF THE SECRETARY'STRAVEL 1
**II** DUTIES OF VA EMPLOYEESACCOMPANYING
 THE SECRETARY 6
**III**NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESSOF SECRETARIAL VISITS 8
**IV** REGULATIONS AND POLICYON PAS POLITICAL TRAVEL 10
**V** OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, ANDMETHODOLOGY 15
**VI** FINAL DISTRIBUTION16
**DETAILS OF THE SECRETARY'S TRAVEL**
As requested, we reviewed the Secretary's travelbetween October 5 and 18, 1996, during which the Secretary appearedin 13 cities to attend official and political events.  Duringthis trip the Secretary visited two VA facilities and attendedevents sponsored by four political campaign organizations.  WhiteHouse policies refer to this as a "mixed" trip; costallocations for travel are defined by regulation.  VA funds werenot used for certain "political" travel expenses.  Forall other "political" travel expenses, as allowed byregulation, VA funds were used and then the involved politicalcampaign organizations reimbursed VA within a reasonable periodof time.  Travel costs for the Secretary to attend official eventswere paid from appropriated funds.
**The Secretary's Itinerary**
Details of the Secretary's itinerary and the eventshe attended are provided in the following chart.
**Itinerary - October 5 through October18, 1996**DateLocationEvent (Sponsor)Nature of EventOctober 5N/ATravel to MichiganN/AOctober 6Detroit, MichiganDebate Watch Party (sponsored by the Clinton-Gore '96 Campaign)Political
(Presidential)October 7N/ATravel to CaliforniaN/AOctober 8Fairfield, CaliforniaVeterans Leaders Breakfast (sponsored by Alioto for Congress)Political
(Congressional)Suisun City, CaliforniaVeterans Rally, Press Conference (sponsored by Alioto for Congress)Political
(Congressional)October 9N/ANo ActivityN/ARapid City,
South DakotaVeterans Rally, Press Conference (sponsored by Tim Johnson for South Dakota)Political
(Congressional)October 10Sioux Falls,
South DakotaMeetings with Weiland Veterans Committee, Veterans Leaders, Rally (sponsored by Tim Johnson for South Dakota)Political
(Congressional)October 11Grafton,
North DakotaDedication of VA Clinic (sponsored by VA)OfficialOctober 12N/ANo ActivityN/AOctober 13Minneapolis, MinnesotaSpeech in Church (sponsored by Wellstone for Senate)Political
(Congressional)
**Continuation of the Secretary's Itinerary**DateLocationEvent (Sponsor)Nature of EventMinneapolis, MinnesotaMeet with Leadership of Minnesota Veterans Community (sponsored by Wellstone for Senate)Political
(Congressional)Duluth, MinnesotaAirport Press Conference (sponsored by Wellstone for Senate)Political
(Congressional)October 14Fergus Falls, MinnesotaEvent on Behalf of Representative Peterson (sponsored by Wellstone for Senate)Political
(Congressional)St. Cloud, MinnesotaAirport Press Conference (sponsored by Wellstone for Senate)Political
(Congressional)Mankato, MinnesotaPress Conference, Dinner at Veterans of Foreign Wars Post (sponsored by Wellstone for Senate)Political
(Congressional)October 15N/ANo ActivityN/AOctober 16San Diego, CaliforniaAttend Presidential Debate (sponsored by the Clinton-Gore '96 Campaign)Political
(Presidential)October 17N/ATravel to New YorkN/AOctober 18Rochester,
New YorkDedication of VA Clinic (sponsored by VA) and travel to Washington, DCOfficial
**Allocation of the Secretary's Travel Costs**
The Secretary's travel between October 5 and 18,1996, involved participation in official VA events, activitiesin support of the President's reelection, and political activitieson behalf of congressional candidates.  The Secretary's travelcosts totaled $3,935.59 (VA paid a total of $4,403.59 and willobtain a refund of $468.00 in unused airfare from American Express,resulting in a net cost of $3,935.59).  Travel costs were paidfrom appropriated VA travel funds and the following politicalorganizations:- Clinton-Gore 96 (Presidential campaign committee)  Michela Alioto for CongressTim Johnson for South Dakota 
- Paul Wellstone for Senate   
The Presidential campaign committee paid $1,152 toVA for the Secretary's campaign related activities.  Title 11,Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9004, requires that travelexpenses incurred on a trip that includes both campaign and non-campaignstops be allocated.  The prescribed allocation method, calledthe "hypothetical trip" formula, required VA to calculatewhat the trip would have cost from the point of origin, througheach  campaign related  stop, and back  to the point
of origin.  (See Appendix IV, page 11 for additionalinformation on this regulatory requirement.)  We found that theSecretary's lodging and subsistence costs associated with thePresidential campaign events on October 6 and 16, 1996, were notpaid from VA funds.  We verified that the campaign organizationreimbursed VA for the Secretary's "hypothetical" round-tripairfare and ground transportation from Washington, DC to Detroit,Michigan, and San Diego, California, the sites of the Presidential campaign functions.
We found the remaining $2,783.59 was allocated betweenVA and the three Congressional campaign organizations based onthe formula prescribed by Title 5, CFR, Section 734.503.  Thisregulation stipulates that travel costs must be apportioned basedon the amount of time spent on political activities and the timespent performing official duties.  Using this "hard-time"formula, officials in the Office of the Secretary and the Officeof the General Counsel calculated the Secretary's total activitytime for the events sponsored by the three Congressional campaignorganizations and for the two official VA events that occurredduring the trip and prorated the time spent on each type of activity. (See Appendix IV, page 13 for additional information on thisregulatory requirement.)  Travel costs were allocated as follows.**Activity****Total**
**Activity Time**
**(Minutes)****Percent Determined by VA*****Amount**Michela Alioto for Congress16015 %$417.52Tim Johnson for Senate21022 %584.53Wellstone for Senate39038 %1,057.73Official VA Events  270 26 %    723.81Total1,030100 %$2,783.59
**Allocation of Travel Costs (Hard-TimeFormula)**
** Does not add due to rounding.*
**Cost of the Secretary's Travel**
We found that after the trip was completed, the fourpolitical organizations were informed of the amounts owed VA. We verified that as of November 22, 1996, all four politicalorganizations had paid VA the amounts due.  Our computation showsthat the net amount of the Secretary's travel cost paid from appropriatedVA travel funds was $723.81 as summarized below.
**Summary of Financial Transactions**Amounts disbursed by VA$4,403.59Reimbursements to VA-3,679.78Net cost of the Secretary's Travel$  723.81
Details of the financial transactions are providedin the following charts which shows disbursements and reimbursementsassociated with the Secretary's travel.
**Disbursements by VA**Description of DisbursementDateAmountPayment to the Secretary for lodging and per diem expenses claimed on his travel voucher.November 5, 1996$1,103.65Payment to the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs for the cost of the rental car used to transport the Secretary from Sioux Falls, South Dakota to Grafton, North Dakota and Minneapolis, Minnesota.November 12, 1996584.94Payment to American Express for the original cost of the Secretary's airline tickets.  November 19, 19962,715.00Total disbursements by VA$4,403.59
**Reimbursements to VA****Description of Reimbursement****Billing (Credit)  Date****Date Payment Received****Amount**Reimbursement from Presidential campaign committee for the hypothetical cost of the Secretary's round-trip airfare from Washington, DC to the two presidential campaign eventsOctober 24 October 25$992.00Reimbursement from Presidential campaign committee for the hypothetical cost of the Secretary's round-trip ground transportation from his residence to the airportOctober 31November 1160.00Reimbursement from the Michela Alioto for Congress campaign  committeeNovember 1November 18417.52Reimbursement from Wellstone for SenateNovember 1November 221,057.73Reimbursement from Tim Johnson for South Dakota November 1November 22584.53Reimbursement due from American Express for unused airline tickets returned to Omega TravelNovember 5468.00Total Reimbursements to VA$3,679.78
**CONCLUSION:**
We concluded that an appropriate distribution wasmade for the travel costs allocable between appropriated fundsand political campaign funds.  Further, we determined that regulatoryand policy requirements were met as the President's Campaign Committeeand the three Congressional Campaigns reimbursed VA the appropriatefunds. 
**DUTIES OF VA EMPLOYEES**
**ACCOMPANYING THE SECRETARY**
During his travels, whether they are for politicalor official purposes, the Secretary, according to regulations,may be accompanied by VA employees in order for him to continueto carry out his official duties.  These VA employees are consideredliaisons and as such need to be present with the Secretary inorder to be the VA link for the Secretary while away from hisoffice.  The liaison needs to be present at events the Secretaryattends, including political events or events attended by Membersof Congress.
We interviewed officials in the Office of the Secretaryto learn of the role of VA employees who accompanied the Secretaryduring his travel.  We also interviewed the two employees whotraveled with the Secretary on this 2-week trip. We referred tothe regulation in Title 5 CFR, Section 734.503(b)(3), concerningthe use of appropriated funds for payment of travel costs of Departmentalemployees who accompany senior Administration officials.  Theregulation provides that the compensation and expenses of anyGovernment employee, required in the performance of their dutiesto accompany or assist a person engaging in political activity,are expenses that may be paid from appropriated funds.  
The two VA employees who accompany the Secretaryare:  (i) the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs; and,(ii) a Special Assistant from VA's Office of Public and IntergovernmentalAffairs.  During the subject trip, the Assistant Secretary didnot accompany the Secretary at the Presidential Campaign eventin Detroit, Michigan.  Instead, on October 7, he joined the Secretaryin California.  He also did not travel with the Secretary to thelast two events during the trip, instead returning to his officeon October 15.  The Special Assistant traveled with the Secretaryduring the entire October 5-18 trip.
The general duties and responsibilities performedby each of the two VA employees who travel with the Secretaryare described in the following sections as they were related tous by each employee.
**Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs**
The Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairsis a Presidential Appointee with Senate confirmation (PAS).  TheAssistant Secretary traveled with the Secretary on the majorityof the Secretary's October 5-18, 1996 trip.  He often travelswith the Secretary on official trips and political trips.  Whendoing so, he acts as a close advisor to the Secretary as wellas a liaison with Members of Congress.  In addition, while travelingwith the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary will normally contactCongressional officials of an area visited and discuss matterswith them.
He also provided the Secretary with any needed informationregarding issues affecting Departmental clientele or news relatingto the Department.  For example, during the subject trip, theSecretary heard news of a report from the Institute of Medicineconcerning Persian Gulf veterans.  The Assistant Secretary contactedVA Central Office staff to obtain more details about the reportand surrounding issues, and he then briefed the Secretary duringthe trip.  
The Assistant Secretary stated that on these tripswith the Secretary, he does not engage in any political activity,including the wearing of political buttons.
**Office of Public and Intergovernmental AffairsSpecial Assistant**
The Office of Public and Intergovernmental AffairsSpecial Assistant is a Schedule C employee who accompanies theSecretary on all trips.  His responsibilities are to act as anadvance person and as a liaison for the Secretary.  Prior to theSecretary's travel, the Special Assistant discusses logisticalfacts of the trip with organizational sponsors to ensure the scheduleis workable.  The Special Assistant arranges ground transportation,ensures hotel reservations are made, and performs any other dutiesnecessary for the Secretary's travel.  
As liaison, the Special Assistant keeps track ofany requests to the Secretary for information during his appearances. For example, veterans or other beneficiaries often ask the Secretaryto help them in some manner, and the Special Assistant ensuresthat each request referred to him by the Secretary is followedup.  In such cases, the Special Assistant obtains the requester'sname and other pertinent information for follow-up by appropriateVA staff.  
The Special Assistant stated that he does not engagein any political activity while on trips with the Secretary.
**CONCLUSION**
Based on our regulatory review, the duties describedby officials in the Office of the Secretary, the representationsof the two individuals involved, and our analysis of the trips,we determined that the VA employees accompanying the Secretaryon the subject trip were properly considered to be acting in anofficial capacity.  Therefore, VA funds were appropriately usedto pay for their travel expenses.  
**NOTIFICATIONS TO CONGRESS OF**
**SECRETARIAL VISITS**
The staff of the office of Congressman Frank Riggsbrought to our attention an inconsistency in the wording of VAnotifications to Members of Congress when the Secretary wouldattend events in their districts/states.  Consequently, we reviewedVA's process for notifying Members of Congress about the Secretary'sarrival at sites during his travel October 5-18, 1996.  
The Office of the Secretary informed us that as acourtesy to Members of Congress, VA normally will notify officesof Senators of each State visited by the Secretary as well asRepresentatives in or near areas visited by the Secretary.  Writtennotices to Members of Congress are made by the Office of the AssistantSecretary for Congressional Affairs.  We interviewed staff inthat office and obtained copies of 76 notices regarding Secretarialappearances that were sent by VA staff to Members of Congressfrom July 1996 through October 18, 1996.  Included in the 76 noticeswe reviewed were 14 notices that VA sent to Members of Congressregarding the Secretary's October 5-18, 1996 trip as follows:
**NOTICES SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS****Event Location**
**(Date)**
***(Listed in Order of Official Itinerary)*****Congressional Official**
**(State)****Date and Time Notice Sent****Days Between Notice and Event**Senator Abraham (Michigan)10/4/96 3:09pm2Senator Levin (Michigan)10/4/96 2:33pm2Representative Rivers (Michigan)10/4/96 2:37pm2Detroit, MIRepresentative Levin (Michigan)10/4/96 2:34pm2(October 6, 1996)Representative Dingell (Michigan)10/4/96 2:43pm2Representative Collins (Michigan)10/4/96 2:46pm2Representative Conyers (Michigan)10/4/96 3:41pm2Fairfield andSenator Boxer (California)10/4/96 2:00pm4Suisun City, CASenator Feinstein (California)10/4/96 1:56pm4(October 8, 1996)Representative Riggs (California)10/4/96 1:57pm4Rapid City and SiouxSenator Daschle (South Dakota)10/8/96 4:30pm2Falls, South Dakota (October 10, 1996)Senator Pressler (South Dakota)10/8/96 4:40pm2Grafton, North DakotaSenator Dorgan (North Dakota)10/2/96 9:06am9(October 11, 1996)Representative Pomeroy (North Dakota)10/2/96 9:05am9
According to the Office of Congressional Affairs,notices were not sent to some of the Senators or Representativesfrom the States of California, Minnesota, New York, or South Dakotabecause the Secretary was either with them at events or they werenotified through other means.  For example, the VA facility, whichthe Secretary was to visit, made the notifications.  
Office of the Assistant Secretary for CongressionalAffairs staff stated that on October 4, 1996, they were preparingnotices to the affected Congressional Delegation regarding plannedSecretarial visits in California.  While preparing those notices,the staff member stated that he received a telephone inquiry fromstaff of the office of Congressman Frank Riggs about the natureof the Secretary's planned appearances in Fairfield and SuisunCity, California.  The VA staff member stated that he informedthe inquiring Congressional office that the Fairfield and SuisunCity appearances were political in nature and would be sponsoredby the Alioto for Congress Campaign.  
That staff member continued by stating that shortlyafter the telephone inquiry, VA sent three notices of the Secretary'splanned political visits in California to the offices of the affectedCongressional Delegation - Senators Boxer and Feinstein, and RepresentativeRiggs.  However, these notices to the California Delegation containedinconsistent wording.  The notices contained a statement thatthe Secretary would be visiting on official business and thenprovided a narrative that described the events as political. 
We noted, in our reading of the notices, that VAstaff used similar terminology indicating official purposes ofvisits in 10 other notices that were for politically-related Secretarialvisits.  These were sent on September 27 to three Members of Congressfrom the State of Florida and on October 4 to seven Members fromthe State of Michigan.  
On October 8, 1996, the responsible VA staff recognizedthat they had used inconsistent wording.  The VA staff immediatelyacted to change the terminology in notices issued from that dateforward by using words that announced the Secretary would be makinga visit, without stating whether the visit was official or political,and by continuing to use words that briefly described the eventsto be attended.
To validate this action, we reviewed 12 notices senton or after October 8, 1996 regarding Secretarial visits, includingfive for visits that were political in nature.  We found thatall 12 notices, including those for political visits, had therevised wording.  
**REGULATIONS AND POLICY ON PAS POLITICALTRAVEL**
The following is a general narrative summary of thestatutes and regulations governing PAS travel and does not purportto be an exhaustive recitation of either.  
When considering the payment of travel expenses incurredby PAS (senior Administration officials who were appointed bythe President and confirmed by the Senate) on behalf of the President'sauthorized campaign Committee, three principles govern - use ofappropriated funds, augmentation of appropriations, and Federalelection laws.
The first basic principle is that appropriated fundsare to be used only for the purposes for which they were appropriated. Accordingly, funds appropriated for the official functions ofthe departments and agencies are to be used for travel expensesonly if the travel is reasonably related to an official purpose. If an expense is incurred purely for partisan political purposes,official funds are not to be used to pay the expenses.
The second principle is that, in general, officialactivities should be paid only from funds appropriated for suchpurposes, unless Congress has authorized the support of thoseactivities by other means.  This principle prevents unauthorizedaugmentation of appropriations.
The third principle involves the requirements ofthe Federal election laws.  Once the President is a "candidate",all travel by senior Administration officials on behalf of thePresident's authorized campaign committee must be paid by thatcommittee.
The regulations and policies that cover officialand political travel by PAS are as follows:- Title 5 CFR, Part 734 sets the general applicabilityand legal effect regarding political activities of federal employees.   - Title 11 CFR, Part 106 sets the allocation ofexpenses between campaign and non-campaign related travel.   - Title 11 CFR, Parts 9004-9034 set the allocationof travel expenditures relating to Presidential campaign committeeand the apportioning of expenses between campaign-related andnon-campaign related travel.    White House policy, including General Counseland Counsel to the President opinions, provide guidelines forallocating travel expenses of PAS.

Each of these will be discussed in the remainderof this Appendix.
**Title 5 CFR, Part 734**
Historically, under the Hatch Act (5 United StatesCode (USC) sections 7324-7328), PAS have been free to engage inpartisan political campaigns.  Under the Hatch Act Reform Amendmentsof 1993, which became effective on February 3, 1994, PAS may continueto take active part in partisan politics, both on and off duty. However, the costs associated with this activity may not be paidby money derived from the U.S. Treasury******(Section7324(b)(1) of 5 USC).  It is important to note that, funds fromthe U.S. Treasury are not considered used if the Treasury is reimbursedwithin a reasonable period of time******(5 CFR, Section734.503(a))***.***
The type and degree of political activities politicalappointees can participate in vary according to the type of appointment.For this review, the significant differences between PAS (excludingInspectors General) and other political appointees is that PAScan use official time for political activity, including writinga speech for a PAS to deliver at a partisan political event.
Costs associated with a political activity do notinclude any costs that the Government would have or had incurredregardless of whether the activity was political.  An exampleis the compensation of PAS and the compensation and expenses ofany government employee who is required in the performance ofhis or her duties to accompany or assist the person engaging inthe political activity (5 CFR, Section 734.503(b)).
**Title 11 CFR, Parts 106, 9004, and 9034**
Title 11 CFR, Part 106 sets forth the allocationof expenses between campaign and non-campaign related travel withrespect to campaigns of candidates for Federal office, other thanPresidential and Vice Presidential candidates who receive federalfunds.
Where a candidate's trip involves both campaign-relatedand non-campaign-related stops, the expenditures allocable forcampaign purposes are reportable, and are calculated on the actualcost-per-mile of the means of transportation actually used, startingat the point of origin of the trip, via every campaign-relatedstop and ending at the point of origin.  Where a candidate conductsany campaign-related activity in a stop, the stop is a campaign-relatedstop and travel expenditures made are reportable. Where an individual,other than a candidate, conducts campaign-related activities ona trip, the portion of the trip attributed to each candidate shallbe allocated on a reasonable basis.
Title 11 CFR, Section 9004.7(b) states that, fora trip which is entirely campaign-related, the total cost of thetrip shall be a qualified campaign expense and a reportable expenditure. For a trip which includes campaign-related and non-campaign relatedstops, that portion of the cost of the trip allocable to campaignactivity shall be a qualified campaign expense and a reportableexpenditure.  Such portion shall be determined by calculatingwhat the trip would have cost from the point of origin of thetrip to the first campaign-related stop and from the stop througheach subsequent campaign-related stop to the point of origin. If any campaign activity, other than incidental contacts, isconducted at a stop, that stop shall be considered campaign-related. Campaign-related activity shall not include any incidental contacts. Campaign activity includes soliciting, making or accepting contributions,and expressly advocating the election or defeat of the candidate. Other factors, including the setting, timing, statements or expressionsof the purpose of an event, and the substance of the remarks orspeech made, will also be considered in determining whether astop is campaign related.  For each trip, an itinerary shall beprepared and such itinerary shall be made available.  The itineraryshall show the time of arrival and departure and the type of eventheld (11 CFR, Section 9034.7 (b) (2) & (3)).
**White House Policy**
The Counsel to the President, in a memorandum tothe Cabinet dated February 17, 1994, provided advice with respectto the payment of travel expenses incurred by PAS.  The memorandumfocused on the legal principles that govern the allocation andpayment of costs associated with mixed official and politicaltravel.  An October 18, 1995 memorandum from the Counsel to thePresident to the Cabinet, reiterated regulations and policy alreadydiscussed, in previous regulations and policy, including the followingdiscussion from the 1994 memorandum to the Cabinet.
For non-Presidential election campaign events (e.g.,state, local, and congressional campaigns), applicable laws andregulations do not provide a specific method for allocating thecosts of mixed official and political travel by individuals otherthan candidates.  There also is no precise test for distinguishingbetween official and political events.  As a result, the guidelinesset forth are based on general legal principles, guidance fromOffice of Legal Counsel opinions, and policies established overa period of years by previous administrations.
When considering payment of expenses associated withtravel by PAS, two major principles governing the use of appropriatedfunds must be kept in mind.  First, appropriated funds may beused only for the purposes for which they were appropriated, andsecond, official activities should be paid for only from fundsappropriated for such purposes.
The President's authorized campaign committee must,under Federal Election Campaign (FEC) regulations, pay all Presidential"campaign-related" travel costs using the "hypotheticaltrip formula" for all travelers: calculating what the tripwould have cost from the point of origin through each campaign-relatedstop.
Costs associated with political activity for sponsorsother than the Presidential campaign are allocated according tothe "hard-time formula": splitting the allocable costsaccording to the proportion each aspect (official and political)bears on the total activity time for the trip.  However, if anyPresidential campaign-related activity at all occurs on a trip,the costs of the Presidential campaign stops must be allocatedaccording to the "hypothetical trip formula".
Briefly discussed earlier, there are some individualswhose official duties require them to be with the Cabinet member,whether or not the Cabinet member is on official business.  Expensesincurred by this group during travel with a Cabinet member shouldbe considered official, regardless of the character of the eventthat may be involved in a given trip.
Normally, the allocation formula is applied to allof the relevant costs of a mixed trip.  However, there may beoccasions when application of the formula to all costs of a totaltrip may not be equitable to the government.  For example, if the Secretary attended only campaign-related functions duringthe first 3 days of a 4-day trip, and on the fourth day attendedan official VA function, it would not be equitable for VA to paya percentage of each hotel bill or air fare if there was no inordinateamount of travel during the first 3 days.
Each trip must be analyzed based on the circumstancesof that trip, and while the goal is an equitable allocation, thesituation in which the government pays a disproportionately largeshare of the cost of a particular trip as a result of the politicalactivity, must be avoided.  Expenses that are associated specificallywith a political activity and not with any official activity mustbe treated as political, and expenses associated specificallywith an official activity must be treated as official.
In allocating the costs of travel other than airtravel, the allocation formula should be applied to any governmentmaximum for that type of expenditure.  For example, if on a mixedtrip (50% official and 50% political) a government employee isonly entitled to $26 per diem for food on a wholly official trip,the government share would be 50% of $26, not 50% of the actualamount spent.
The cost of air travel on a mixed trip for PAS travelingseparately from the President or Vice President may be paid forin one of several ways.  First, if the political sponsor providedthe ticket for the entire trip, it may be accepted and used bythe PAS.  Then, upon completion of the travel and settlement ofthe PAS's travel claim, the political sponsor must be immediatelyreimbursed for the official portion of the trip.  In no case shouldthe government ever pay more for official travel than the officialgovernment rate.  Second, based on an estimated advance allocationof the trip, the department could issue a Government Travel Requestor a travel advance in cash covering that portion of the tripthat pertains to its official business.  The balance of the airfare would be paid for in advance by the political sponsor bya check issued to the air carrier.  Third, the traveling PAS maypurchase the tickets with personal funds or credit cards and subsequentlycollect the properly allocated reimbursement from the departmentand the group sponsoring the political event.  In any event, itis essential that the details of the "mixed trip" beworked out well in advance by the traveling PAS with the appropriatedepartment staff, the election committee, and/or political sponsor.  
**OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY**
**Objectives**
The Office of Inspector General reviewed the circumstancessurrounding Secretary Brown's travel between October 5 and 18,1996.  The purpose of the review was to assess adherence to allapplicable requirements.
**Scope and Methodology**
We reviewed applicable sections of the Code of FederalRegulations, Office of Personnel Management regulations, opinionsof the Office of Legal Counsel, and guidance on political activitiesby political appointees issued by the White House and VA GeneralCounsel.  We reviewed travel expenditures and reimbursements,the Secretary's itinerary and speeches, and written notices ofthe Secretary's appearances sent to Members of Congress.  In additionwe interviewed responsible personnel in the Office of the Secretaryand other VA offices.
We performed our review between October 16 and November25, 1996, at VA Central Office in Washington, DC.  This reviewwas part of a broader review of the Department's use of politicalversus official travel which was performed under generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards.
**FINAL DISTRIBUTION**
**VA DISTRIBUTION**
Secretary (00)
General Counsel (02)
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs (009)
**NON-VA DISTRIBUTION**
Office of Management and Budget
Congressional Committees:
Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Ranking Member, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs
Ranking Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Ranking Member, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Government Management, Informationand  Technology, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,SenateCommittee on Appropriations
Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, House Committee on  Appropriations
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,House  Committee on Appropriations