and is thus not complying with directives designed to prevent this situation from occurring.

3. The Corps is not complying with directives that all marginal travel be deferred or canceled. Some overseas trips authorized by the Corps are of questionable or marginal benefit, many of them held in exotic locations. Overseas trips are sometimes extended so Corps employees can participate in post-conference tours that usually do not justify the expense.

4. Authorization of employees to take annual leave in conjunction with overseas trips sometimes presents the appearance that the business trip is being used to subsidize the employees' vacation costs. The Corps is not adequately enforcing its regulations prohibiting reimbursement of expenses in excess of the business portion of trips and requiring that all leave taken in conjunction with travel be reported on travel authorization requests.

5. Corps management has failed to enforce directives that all overseas travel requests be submitted at least 4 months or 45 days (depending on the nature of the trip) in advance of the travel.

6. Supervisory personnel are not properly preauditing subordinates' travel vouchers before submitting them for payment, allowing some questionable claims and/or incomplete vouchers to be paid.

7. U.S. participation in the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) has greatly exceeded the Corps' authorization of $70,000 annually for these expenses. The large expense is, at least in part, due to the number of personnel authorized to attend and the fact that most of the meetings are held overseas, resulting in large expenditures for travel by U.S. delegates. The Corps has picked up the tab for nonvoting honorary, ex officio, and lifetime delegates and for delegates' expensive post-PIANC tours for which it is under no obligation to reimburse.

B. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING CORPS AIRCRAFT

1. The cost of acquiring, maintaining, and operating the Corps' three aircraft is substantial, especially when compared to the alternatives of traveling by commercial airline or charter aircraft.

2. The aircraft were seldom used for emergency response or to provide access to remote project locations, the purposes that served as the basis for their justification. Most of the Corps' air travel requirements can be met by commercial airlines, and charter aircraft can be used in those few instances where airline travel is impractical due to time constraints or remote destinations.

3. A majority of the flight hours traveled by the Corps' headquarters aircraft were for long, overseas trips in violation of a directive from the Secretary of the Army.

4. Substantial spouse travel has occurred on Corps aircraft, exposing the Government to substantial potential tort liability and unnecessarily exposing the Corps to criticism. Spouses traveled on a "space-available" basis aboard the headquarters aircraft to PIANC meetings while some U.S. delegates and other Corps personnel traveled to the same meetings on commercial airliners at Government expense. Neither the Chief of Engineers nor the Director of the Army Staff has complied with directives requiring writ

ten authorization for travel by spouses on Army aircraft, nor have they strictly enforced the rigid tests for determining when spouse travel should be authorized on Corps aircraft.

5. Substantial numbers of subordinate employees accompanied senior officials on trips aboard Corps aircraft. The committee concurs with the Army Audit Agency's conclusion that Corps policy, while not in direct conflict with strict Army policy limiting administrative travel, indirectly encourages travel by nonessential personnel on Corps aircraft.

6. Excessive "deadheading" and use of Corps aircraft as "shuttles" between major cities served by frequent, regularly scheduled airline flights indicate that the Corps is not properly managing its aircraft resources, resulting in the wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

7. The Corps has failed to comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-76 and A-126 concerning the acquisition, retention, use, and disposal of Government-owned aircraft. The Corps aircraft are administrative, rather than mission, aircraft as envisioned by these circulars, and were seldom, if ever, used for mission purposes. If the cost comparisons required by these circulars had been made, commercial alternatives (airlines or charter aircraft) would have been shown to be the more economical mode of transportation in virtually all, if not all, of the trips taken. Consequently, the Corps has failed to comply with OMB, Department of Defense, and Army directives requiring that the most economic form of transportation be utilized. This lack of compliance has cost the taxpayers as much as $1 million annually.

8. A contractor's study directed by the Corps to determine the costs of owning and operating its aircraft was fatally flawed through improper methodology, and therefore its conclusions must be rejected out of hand. Most of the $44,000 expended for the study was wasted.

C. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A line-item ceiling should be established for funds expended on travel outside of the continental United States (OCONUS), including all costs associated with use of Government-owned aircraft to transport personnel to OCONUS destinations.

2. Funds authorized and appropriated for U.S. participation in the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) should be increased to an amount sufficient to cover all reasonable costs necessary for support of and participation in this organization. Expenditure of any funds for this purpose beyond those specifically authorized and appropriated should be prohibited. Reimbursement of expenses for honorary, ex officio, or lifetime members of PIANC should not be authorized unless these members sit as voting delegates of the U.S. Section.

3. Financial controls should be tightened to ensure that all civil works funds expended for OCONUS travel are reported to Congress and that statutory limits on certain types of OCONUS travel are not exceeded.

4. Stricter controls over OCONUS travel should be implemented to ensure that (1) individual trips are justified as essential to ac

complishment of the Corps' mission; (2) length of trips are held to the minimum number of days required to accomplish the task or mission for which the trip has been authorized; (3) only the smallest number of personnel essential to accomplishment of the mission is authorized for travel; and (4) time spent on travel assignments does not prevent any individual from fully executing other duties outlined in his or her job description.

5. Generally, post-conference tours should not be authorized, except when it is determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the individual's participation in the tour is essential to the accomplishment of the Corps' mission. The committee expects this determination to be made only rarely.

6. Existing directives requiring that all annual leave taken in conjuction with travel be listed on the travel authorization request should be rigidly enforced, and vouchers for such travel should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that no expenses beyond the business portion of the trip are reimbursed by the Government.

7. Policy requiring that travel requests to attend OCONUS conferences, seminars, and workshops be submitted at least 4 months in advance of the travel, should be expanded to include all travel associated with PIANC and other treaty obligations and international agreements. This policy should be strictly enforced.

8. All travel vouchers should be preaudited by supervisory personnel before being submitted by payment. The Corps should take such steps as necessary to ensure that incomplete vouchers or vouchers containing questionable receipts are not paid until all questions have been satisfactorily resolved.

9. Legislation prohibiting the sale of the Corps aircraft should be repealed, and the Corps should dispose of these aircraft as soon as possible.

Until such time as the aircraft are disposed of, the committee makes the following recommendations to the Corps:

1. The Corps should annually report to Congress all costs associated with ownership and operation of its aircraft.

2. All travelers should be required to use the least-cost alternative transportation as determined by a legitimate cost comparison of airline, charter, and Government-owned aircraft options, in accordance with OMB Circular A-126 guidelines.

3. The Corps should design and implement an accounting system that captures all costs associated with ownership and operation of its aircraft.

4. Travel by spouses aboard Corps aircraft should generally be prohibited except in those cases where it is authorized in writing by the appropriate official and justified in accordance with existing regulations, policies, and guidance.

5. Corps policies should be strengthened to hold the size of parties utilizing Corps aircraft to the absolute minimum necessary to accomplish the task or mission.

6. Steps should be taken to minimize "deadhead" flights and to eliminate use of the aircraft as "shuttles" between cities with regularly scheduled airline service.

II. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has both a military mission and a civil works mission. Its civil works functions fall within the oversight and investigative jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government Operations' Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee.

Growing concern by the House Appropriations Committee over rising expenditures for overseas travel by the Corps of Engineers led to inclusion of language in the committee report accompanying the Corps' fiscal year 1987 appropriation bill directing that the Corps take steps to bring these expenses under control.

In response to the demands by the House Appropriations Committee, the Corps began preparing and submitting information on overseas travel. A review of this tabular information led the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee to begin an investigation into the Corps' expenditures for overseas travel in early 1987.

1

The subcommittee held a hearing on overseas travel by the Corps of Engineers of June 30, 1987. Witnesses included U.S. Representative Wes Watkins, a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee that brought the issue to the Government Operations subcommittee's attention; John S. Doyle, Jr., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and Lt. Gen. Elvin R. Heiberg III, Chief, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who was accompanied by Col. George Kleb, Commander of the Corps' Water Resources Support Center, and William Murden, Chief of the Corps' Dredging Division; Michael A. Janoski, Director, Acquisition and Systems Audits, Army Audit Agency (AAA), who was accompanied by Stephen E. Keefer, AAA's Associate Director for Acquisition Audits; and Col. Herbert R. Haar, Jr., USA (ret.), Deputy Executive Port Director, Port of New Orleans. Congressman Watkins testified about his concerns over the size of the Corps' expenditures for overseas travel; Mr. Doyle and General Heiberg testified about Corps policy governing overseas travel and the use of Corps aircraft; Mr. Janoski testified about the Army Audit Agency's recently completed audit of the Corps' usage of its aircraft; and as a former U.S. Delegate to the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses, Colonel Haar testified to the benefits gained by the U.S.' participation in this organization (funds for U.S. activities in the organization come from the Corps' civil works budget).

The findings of the AAA draft report concerning the acquisition and use of the Corps aircraft became one of the major elements of the hearing. While AAA looked at both foreign and domestic flights of the Corps aircraft, the 1987 hearing concentrated on use of the aircraft to support overseas trips by the Corps.2

The subcommittee held a second hearing on February 29, 1988, focusing on the Corps aircraft and the dispute between AAA and

1 General Heiberg has since retired from the Army, and Mr. Doyle has resumed his duties as Deputy Assistant Secretary, following the appointment of Mr. Robert W. Page as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) in late 1987.

2 A transcript of this hearing was published as "Foreign Travel by the Corps of Engineers," Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, June 30, 1987 [hereinafter referred to as "1987 Hearing"].

the Corps over the audit recommendation that the aircraft be disposed of. Witnesses at this hearing included Mr. Richard L. Fogel, Assistant Comptroller General, General Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), who was accompanied by Mr. L. Nye Stevens, Mr. Richard A. Helmer, and Mr. Hugh G. Pollon; the Honorable James R. Ambrose, Under Secretary of the Army, accompanied by Mr. Robert W. Page, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Mr. Doyle, and General Heiberg; and Mr. Harold A. Stugart, Auditor General and Commander, U.S. Army Audit Agency, accompanied by Mr. Janoski and Mr. Keefer. Mr. Fogel testified about previous audit work done by GAO concerning acquisition and operation of Government-owned aircraft, as well as a brief review conducted by GAO of methodology employed by a Corps contractor in a study of acquisition and operation costs of the Corps aircraft; Mr. Ambrose testified about his role in resolution of the audit dispute between the Corps and AAA over retention of the aircraft; the remainder of the witnesses testified about their roles in, and their positions on, the audit dispute. In addition, Mr. Stugart was asked to provide AAA's evaluation of the Corps-contracted study purporting to show retention of the aircraft to be cost-effective.4

III. BACKGROUND

This report deals with overseas travel by personnel of the Corps of Engineers, as well as the Corps' ownership and operation of executive aircraft for all travel, overseas as well as domestic. To the greatest extent possible, the committee has attempted to separate these two subjects. However, use of the aircraft involves travel, temporary duty assignment (TDY), and vouchers to recover out-ofpocket expenditures. Likewise, Corps travel frequently involves use of the Corps aircraft. Consequently, some of the issues, such as spouse travel or unnecessary trips, apply to both subjects covered in this report. Simply because spouse travel was not cited in the section dealing with overseas travel, and unnecessary trips were not cited in the section dealing with aircraft, should not be taken as an indication that the committee did not find these situations to exist. Rather, for brevity, they were not repeated in each section.

A. OVERSEAS TRAVEL

Travel is a major budget item for the Federal Government. During the 1987 hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Synar noted that travel abuse is "perhaps second only to abuse of the Federal telephone system" in terms of extent and expenditures. Expenditures for temporary duty (TDY) for the Corps during fiscal year 1983 totaled $45 million, including both domestic and foreign travel.

3 Mr. Ambrose has since retired.

* The transcript of this hearing, "High Fliers at Taxpayers' Expense: A Review of Executive Aircraft Owned by the Corps of Engineers," had not been published at the time this report was written. The transcript will remain available for review in the subcommittee's office prior to publication. This document is subsequently referred to as "1988 Hearing," and all references will refer to the appropriate page of the transcript. Readers should be aware that, when subsequently printed, page numbers of the published hearing will not correspond to the page numbers of the transcript cited in this report.