APPLICATION OF 5-PERCENT CUT Mr. STAATS. We had to go through a pretty drastic reprograming after that 5-percent provision was included. We made across-theboard cuts and some of these cuts are in areas where I don't think we can sustain them for very long. For example, we had to cut back our travel substantially. We just can't do our work without a lot of travel because we have to go out to the work sites and wherever necessary to do our work. Nevertheless, we had to cut travel. We had to cut training programs, as well as put a freeze on hiring. This meant that we couldn't fill any vacancies. GAO RESPONSIBILITIES AS SPECIFIED IN LEGISLATION Mr. BENJAMIN. The 1980 budget request includes 168 additional staff years, presuming the 82 additional staff years will be allowed in your fiscal 1979 supplemental request. Besides specific legislation, which is mentioned, you attribute your growing workload to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 and Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Please explain how these laws impact on your overall request for 250 additional staff years. Mr. STAATS. Let me answer the question in general terms, and then we can supply the figures to go along with that. In 1970, in the Legislative Reorganization Act, a provision was included which said that the GAO, at the request of a committee of Congress, or on our own initiative, should audit the cost and benefits of Government programs. Now this meant that we were put into the business of trying to look at the effectiveness of programs, whether they were really paying off or not, whether there might be more cost-effective ways of accomplishing what the legislation provided for as a major new area of responsibility for us. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT In 1974, the Congress reiterated that provision, and then added to that a requirement that we provide assistance to committees of Congress in helping them find ways to evaluate programs and to develop guidelines for the agencies in their efforts to evaluate the cost and benefits of Government programs. Also, in a separate title, it gave us the job of working with the Congress in supplying budgetary information. This was distinguished from the work of the Congressional Budget Office, in that we were supposed to work with the Treasury and the OMB in providing financial information and approving budget classifications. A whole series of actions were spelled out in section 8 of the Congressional Budget Act, that we were to provide help to the Congress on. And indeed in connection with that, we have done a great deal of work with both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees as well as the authorizing committees. The third title in the Congressional Budget Act was the so-called Anti-Impoundment Title (title 10). This title provides that whenever there is a deferral of spending by the executive branch or where the executive branch proposes to rescind an appropriation, 35-533 79 40 (Pt. 2) we have to look at it not only from the standpoint of legality, that is, whether or not it is under the terms of the law a deferral or a rescission, but also we have to provide some judgment as to what the effect of that would be. Also, we have to make reports on each such action by the executive branch. It also states that we should seek out cases where that is happening, even though not reported by the executive branch. Now these are three titles that were included in the 1974 legislation, all of which were specific responsibilities placed on GAŎ. To find the dollars and the staff to go along with each of these would be a little difficult, especially for the first part of this, because it is woven in with all the work that we do. Mr. BENJAMIN. Have you found any instances since the adoption of the Budget Control and Impoundment Act of rescissions, in fact, where the executive has not reported those? Mr. STAATS. I don't know. Perhaps Mr. Socolar knows. Mr. SOCOLAR. Yes, I believe, as a matter of fact, under a HUD program, initially there was no reporting of an impoundment under that act. The position of the executive branch was that there was no impoundment. We concluded that there was, and, as under the act, we proceeded to a court test of that particular situation. Before the court could ultimately dispose of the problem raised, the executive branch concluded they would make the moneys available, and the court case was mooted. Mr. BENJAMIN. Were there other instances that were not taken to court? Mr. SOCOLAR. There were, but I don't recall them specifically off of the top of my head. We can supply it for the record. Mr. BENJAMIN. Please, and the action taken by GAO in each instance. Mr. SOCOLAR. Sure. [The information follows:] B-115398 ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES November 1, 1974 Speaker of the House President pro tempore of the Senate Section 1015(a) of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the Comptroller General to report to the Congress whenever he finds that the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States or any other officer or employee of the United States has ordered, permitted, or approved the establishment of a reserve or deferral of budget authority and the President has failed to transmit a special message with respect to such reserve or deferral. This report is submitted in accordance with that requirement. Title 31 U.S.C. 665, section (d) (1) states: "Each such appropriation shall be apportioned not later The Public Works for Water and Power Development and Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation Act, 1975 (Public Law 93-393) was enacted on August 28, 1974. Under the above cited Act, the funds were required to be apportioned for agency use by September 27, 1974. The Corps of Engineer's records on this matter disclose that the Corps did not receive formal notice of the apportionment action until October 17, 1974. Inasmuch as this delay precluded the availability of the funds to the Corps of Engineers, the delay constitutes a deferral of budget authority. We have just received copies of six special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on October 31, 1974 proposing to defer the availability of budget authority granted by the Act totaling $81,558,000. We are examining these special messages as required by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and will issue our report to the Congress as soon as possible. Sincerely yours, Signed PHILLIP S. HUGHES Phillip S. Hughes Assistant Comptroller General Section 1015 (a) of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires the Comptroller General to report to the Congress whenever he finds that the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States or any other officer or employee of the United States has ordered, permitted, or approved the establishment of a reserve or deferral of budget authority and the President has failed to transmit a special message with respect to such reserve or deferral. This report is submitted in accordance with that requirement. Title 31 U.S.C. 665, section (d)(1) states: "* * * Each such appropriation shall be apportioned not later The Departments of Labor, and Health, Education and Welfare Appropriation Act, 1975 (Public Law 93-517) was enacted on December 7, 1974. The Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 665, requires that these appropriations be apportioned to the Departments by January 6, 1975. As of January 9, 1975, OMB had completed about one-half of the required apportionments and estimated that about a week would be required to apportion the balance. Since this delay limits the funds available to the Departments, it constitutes a deferral of budget authority that the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires us to report to the Congress. Officials at OMB advised us that several deferral and rescission messages were being prepared as part of the apportionment process that would account for all withholdings applicable to this appropriation. When these special messages are received, we will examine them as required by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and issue our report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, Signed PHILLIP S. HUGHES Phillip S. Hughes Assistant Comptroller General |