A presidential advisory team tasked with developing strategies to cut the U.S. national deficit recommended a $400 million reduction in the federal travel budget by 2015. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recommended federal agencies use telecommunications technologies to replace travel, proposed cuts in airport funding and suggested increases to passenger security fees.
President Barack Obama in February created the commission, which has its critics, to advise on how to cut government spending by $200 billion and balance the federal budget by 2015. Obama appointed six members, including the chairmen, former Sen. Alan Simpson, R.-Wyo., and Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. Other members include current congressional delegates and leaders from private industry.
Released last week, the commission's report noted that despite "record deficits, government expenditures for travel have grown by leaps and bounds." According to the commission report, the federal government spent $14.8 billion on travel during fiscal year 2007, up from $9 billion in fiscal year 2001. "The fact that travel spending is rising at such a rapid pace would seem to be counterintuitive, considering that the last decade witnessed remarkable improvements in telecommunications technology," according to the report. The availability of such telecommunication technologies "should have decreased the need for in-person meetings and onsite visits."
The commission spotlighted the U.S. Department of Energyfor its plans to reduce by $3 million FY 2011 travel expenditures via remote conferencing technology. "By increasing reliance on Web cameras and other video- and teleconferencing equipment, including instant chatting, DOE will reduce the need for some business travel," according to the report. "This will yield savings not only in terms of travel dollars, but also in travel time for federal workers and contractors."
The commission estimated that such a policy applied to all federal agencies would generate $4.22 billion in savings during the next 10 years.
The commission specifically accused the U.S. Department of Justice of "wasteful spending." The DOJ budget request for FY 2011 called for $450 million in travel expenses.
DOJ's Office of the Inspector General similarly criticized the department's travel spending. In a report released last week, OIG noted that reimbursement for travel by DOJ attorneys exceeded federal government lodging per diems set by the General Services Administration. "Many" attorneys and their subordinates approved their own travel and a "small number" of attorneys routinely exceeded per diems by large amounts without justification, according to the DOJ OIG report. It also found that almost 66 percent of all DOJ attorneys between 2007 and 2009 exceeded per diem limits at least once. In describing "problems and abuses," OIG recommended the department alter its travel policy to specify that travelers cannot approve their own trips.
Targeting Airports
The commission report also suggested that the Federal Aviation Administration should eliminate grants to large and medium-sized hub airports and that airports should fund a larger portion of the cost of aviation security. According to the commission, eliminating grants to airports to expand runways, improve safety and security and make other capital investments as part of the Airport Improvement Program would save about $1.2 billion.
"Federal grants to airports merely substitute for funds that large to medium-sized airports would otherwise raise from private sources, such as investments and passenger fees," according to the report.
The commission also proposed to amend the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, allowing airlines to increase passenger security charges, now capped at $5 for a one-way trip.
USTA Response
"The government should always look at ways to reduce expenses, and we saw that in the last recession," according to U.S. Travel Association executive vice president Geoff Freeman. "Travel is frequently one way of reducing expenses, but we would advise to reduce unnecessary travel but keep that travel that has a return on investment. That is important; you can't just do arbitrary travel cuts.
"There is a difference between what the deficit commission is doing and what the GSA is doing," Freeman continued, referencing a General Services Administration initiativeto reduce business travel-related greenhouse gas emissions. "In an effort to protect the environment, they think that cutting travel is the single best thing that the government needs to do. We take issue with that on a variety of levels. There needs to be much more dialogue on sustainable travel rather than arbitrarily cut travel."
Freeman noted that USTA did not provide testimony to the commission, "nor did [the commission] signal that arbitrary cuts in travel was going to be an area where they focus on. The deficit commission has a lot of interesting recommendations. We will see where that [report] goes. It is an excellent start that will force us to have a discussion about how we address the deficit. Travel may or may not be part of that."