VA TRAVEL

Better Budgeting and

Stronger Controls

Needed

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Oversight and Investigations,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

House of Representatives

August 1999

GAO/GGD-99-137

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-283221

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

GAO

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

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.

Results in Brief
B-283221

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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
B-283221

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

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.

Background
B-283221

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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.
B-283221

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

officials representing six appropriations accounts5

 and four revolving

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.

Scope and

Methodology
B-283221

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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
B-283221

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

submissions to Congress,8

 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 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.

VA Travel Budget

Requests
B-283221

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

appropriations accounts: (1) VHA Medical Care, (2) VHA Medical and

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.

VA’s Formulation of its

Travel Budget Request
B-283221

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

by millions of dollars in recent years. Although VA’s travel budget request

has averaged about $70 million annually since 1996,12 the department’s

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.

Travel Budget Requests,

Actual Expenditures, and

Appropriations
B-283221

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

accounts switched (reprogrammed) over $61 million in 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.

VA’s travel appropriations

have also exceeded actual

Reprogramming

Excess Travel Funds
B-283221

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

funds reprogrammed by appropriation account in each year from fiscal

year 1993 through 1998 in nominal and constant dollars, respectively.

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 a

Although 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.

b

VA's statutory limit on travel expenditures was not exceeded in this year because the budget

submission for this account was larger than actual appropriations.

c

VA's OIG is exempt from the statutory limitation on travel expenditures.

Source: VA Budget Office and GAO calculations of reprogrammed funds.

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 a

Although 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.

b

VA's statutory limit on travel expenditures was not exceeded in this year because the budget

submission for this account was larger than actual appropriations.

c

VA's OIG is exempt from the statutory limitation on travel expenditures.

Source: VA Budget Office and GAO calculations of reprogrammed funds.

Table 1: VA Excess Travel Funds Reprogrammed From Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1998 (In nominal dollars)

Table 2: VA Excess Travel Funds Reprogrammed From Fiscal Year 1993 Through 1998 (In constant 1999 dollars)
B-283221

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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;
B-283221

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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).
B-283221

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

VA’s travel policy allows employees who are frequent travelers to be

issued limited open travel authorizations, which permit them to 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

that these facilities had issued limited open travel authorizations to

employees who were not frequent travelers. Our review also revealed that

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

be issued to employees whose “duties require frequent travel of a

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.

Internal Controls Over

Limited Open Travel

Authorizations and

Delegated Travel

Authority

Limited Open Travel

Authorizations
B-283221

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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.
B-283221

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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.
B-283221

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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.

We also found the following examples of other problems associated with

limited open travel authorizations, which violated VA travel policy:

• 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

Other Problems Associated With

Limited Open Travel

Authorizations
B-283221

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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).
B-283221

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

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).

Delegated Travel Authority
B-283221

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Title Salary levela

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.

a

EX is Executive Schedule. SES is Senior Executive Service.

b

Includes the General Counsel, Inspector General, Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals, and

the Chairman of the Board of Contract Appeals.

c

Includes 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

Table 3: VA Officials With Delegated

Travel Authority
B-283221

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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).
B-283221

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

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.

Internal Controls
B-283221

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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.
B-283221

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

During the course of review regarding internal controls over VA’s

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.

Other Travel Policy Compliance

Issues
B-283221

Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

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).

Conclusions
B-283221

Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

• 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

Recommendations
B-283221

Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

August 3, 1999, VA provided us with comments on the draft, which we

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.

VA did not concur with our recommendation to reexamine its budget

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

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation

Reexamine Budget Formulation

Process
B-283221

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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
B-283221

Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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.

VA also did not concur with our recommendation that the Secretary of VA

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.

Follow Congressional

Reprogramming Guidance
B-283221

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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).
B-283221

Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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.

VA concurred with our recommendation to periodically monitor the travel

of employees with delegated travel authority and those who have limited

open travel authorizations. VA said that it recognized that its management

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.

Finally, VA concurred in principle with our recommendation to reevaluate

the manner in which limited open travel authorizations are administered.

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

Monitor Travel Taken by

Employees With Delegated

Travel Authority and Open

Travel Authorizations

Reevaluate Administration of

Limited Open Travel

Authorizations
B-283221

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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.
B-283221

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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

ungarb.ggd@gao.gov

Sincerely yours,

Bernard L. Ungar

Director, Government Business

Operations Issues
Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 36

VA Employee Travel

Appendix II 45

Comments From the

Department of

Veterans Affairs

Table 1: VA Excess Travel Funds Reprogrammed From

Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1998 (In nominal dollars)

11

Table 2: VA Excess Travel Funds Reprogrammed From

Fiscal Year 1993 Through 1998 (In constant 1999

dollars)

11

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

Travel

42

Table I.8: Differences Between VA’s Travel Budget and

Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In

nominal dollars)

42

Table I.9: Differences Between VA’s Travel Budget and

Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In

constant 1999 dollars)

43

Table I.10: Differences Between VA’s Travel

Appropriations and Actual Expenditures From Fiscal

Year 1993 to1998 (In nominal dollars)

43

Table I.11: Differences Between VA’s Travel

Appropriations and Actual Expenditures From Fiscal

Year 1993 to 1998 (In constant 1999 dollars)

44

Tables
Contents

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

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
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year 1993

(Nominal dollars) (Constant 1999 dollars)

Accounts/Funds BudgetaAppropriatedbActual 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

a

As 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.1: Fiscal Year 1993 VA Employee Travel
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year 1994

(Nominal dollars) (Constant 1999 dollars)

Accounts/Funds BudgetaAppropriatedbActual 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

a

As 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.2: Fiscal Year 1994 VA Employee Travel
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year 1995

(Nominal dollars) (Constant 1999 dollars)

Accounts/Funds BudgetaAppropriatedbActual 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

a

As 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.3: Fiscal Year 1995 VA Employee Travel
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year 1996

(Nominal dollars) (Constant 1999 dollars)

Accounts/Funds BudgetaAppropriatedbActual 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

a

As 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.4: Fiscal Year 1996 VA Employee Travel
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year 1997

(Nominal dollars) (Constant 1999 dollars)

Accounts/Funds BudgetaAppropriatedbActual 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

a

As 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.

c

VA's franchise fund was established in 1997.

Source: VA Budget Office.

Table I.5: Fiscal Year 1997 VA Employee Travel
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 41 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year 1998

(Nominal dollars) (Constant 1999 dollars)

Accounts/Funds BudgetaAppropriatedbActual 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 a

As 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.

c

According 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.

d

Starting in fiscal year 1998, MCCR was terminated and the Medical Care Collections Fund was

established.

Source: VA Budget Office.

Table I.6: Fiscal Year 1998 VA Employee Travel
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 42 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year 1999

(In nominal dollars)

Fiscal year 2000

(In nominal dollars)

Accounts/Funds BudgetaAppropriatedbBudgeta

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

a

As 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.

Fiscal year BudgetaActual expenditures

Difference between

budget and actual

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.

a

As requested in the President's budget submission to Congress.

b

Fiscal years 1999 and 2000 actual expenditures not yet available.

Source: VA Budget Office and GAO calculations of differences.

Table I.7: Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 VA Employee Travel

Table I.8: Differences Between VA’s Travel Budget and Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In nominal dollars)
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 43 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year BudgetaActual expenditures

Difference between

budget and actual

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.

a

As requested in the President's budget submission to Congress.

b

Fiscal years 1999 and 2000 actual expenditures not yet available.

Source: VA Budget Office and GAO calculations of differences.

Fiscal year AppropriatedaActual expenditures

Difference between

appropriated and actual

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.

b

Fiscal year 1999 actual expenditures not yet available.

Source: VA Budget Office and GAO calculations of differences.

Table I.9: Differences Between VA’s Travel Budget and Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In constant 1999

dollars)

Table I.10: Differences Between VA’s Travel Appropriations and Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to1998 (In nominal

dollars)
Appendix I

VA Employee Travel

Page 44 GAO/GGD-99-137 VA Travel

Fiscal year AppropriatedaActual expenditures

Difference between

appropriated and actual

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.

b

Fiscal year 1999 actual expenditures not yet available.

Source: VA Budget Office and GAO calculations of differences.

Table I.11: Differences Between VA’s Travel Appropriations and Actual Expenditures From Fiscal Year 1993 to 1998 (In

constant 1999 dollars)
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:

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov
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

(240312)