Page images

storage of bibliographic data, manual processes, and other feasible possibilities. The General Accounting Office should be consulted in regard to the methodology to be used in conducting such a study and should be asked to validate the results.

Mr. HELLER. Thank you for reminding me.
Mr. BENJAMIN. I thought my memory had failed.
Mr. HELLER. No, sometimes mine does.

We have been in touch with the Library as required there. Don Horan back here has indicated he will submit something for the record as to where he stands now, but we have been in contact with them on several occasions.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Don is with what division?
Mr. KELLER. Logistics and Communication Division.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Is some work being done in the Financial Management and General Studies Division, too?

Mr. HELLER. I do not believe so, sir; no, sir.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Okay. You are going to submit that for the record, please? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. [The information follows:]

GAO ACTION ON STUDY CITED in House Report No. 95–1457 The study called for in House Report No. 95–1457 is currently being conducted by the staff of the Library of Congress. Since December 18, 1978, staff members from GAO's Logistics and Communications Division have been meeting periodically with the Library's study group to keep informed of the status of the project and to offer timely advice and assistance on methodolgy and approach. The Library expects to have a draft of its study report ready for GAO's review and evaluation in March 1979.

JOINT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mr. BENJAMIN. Joint Financial Management Improvement Program, page M-1. You are requesteing $139,000 and five average positions, an increase of $8,000. Mr. STAATS. Mr. Scantlebury will comment on that.

Mr. BENJAMIN. On that particular program would you provide the same information that we have asked for in others? Mr. Staats. Yes. [The information referred to appears on pages 1883-1902.)

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION Mr. BENJAMIN. General Government Division, Page N-1. You are requesting $6,499,000 and 229 average positions, an increase of $438,000 and 6 additional staff years. Justify the increase requested and also justify the increase of 17 additional average positions for the field staff. So there is 23 total?

Mr. Voss. We will use an additional 23 staff years in fiscal 1980 to fulfill the audit requirements of the newly enacted Federal Banking Agency Act which gave us the authority to audit of FDIC, the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

We will go from 28 staff years in fiscal 1979 to 51 staff years in fiscal 1980.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Also, for the record, provide information regarding the grade levels of current and requested employees for your Washington staff and the field resources as well as the expenditures by quarter for calender year 1978.

Mr. Voss. Mr. Chairman, with respect to field resources the staff that we use in our assignments come and go, and the grade levels, of course, do not remain constant.

Mr. BENJAMIN. You can reflect that.
[The information referred to appears on pages 1883–1902.]

INTERNATIONAL DIVISION Mr. BENJAMIN. Page 0-1 of justifications. Requesting $7,967,000 and 270 average positions, an increase of $382,000.

Please be kind enough to justify the increase of $382,000 and 2 additional staff.

Mr. HYLANDER. Those 2 additional staff years are needed for the work under the Nuclear Anti-proliferation Act which is one of the seven acts mentioned in Mr. Staats' statement. We have set up a joint task force with the Energy Division to do our work in that area since it affects both divisions. That was also part of Mr. Peach's explanation of his need for additional staff.

We anticipate 2 additional staff in Washington and 4 additional in our regions and overseas for that.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you provide us the same information I have asked of the other divisions?

Mr. HYLANDER. Certainly.
[The information referred to appears on pages 1883-1902.]

LOGISTICS AND COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION Mr. BENJAMIN. Logistics and Communications Division, page P-1. Requesting $5,866,000 and 194 average positions, an increase of $537,000 and 9 average positions. Your notation of “Total Positions” shows an increase of 10. Please be kind enough to justify the increase of $537,000 and the additional staff.

Mr. HORAN. Most of the additional resources that we are asking for would be used to shore up some areas of interest to us, particularly in the defense area, things where we have had to spread ourselves too thin.

We would expect that some of that would be used to look at military preparedness, readiness type work, and hopefully to provide the committees better information on which to judge the requests for funds that Defense submits to maintain existing equipment.

What we are trying to do is to get the Department of Defense and the committee to look at it from the standpoint of where the money can be used to get the greatest amount of increase in readiness.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Do you also deal in defense with manpower?
Mr. HORAN. No, sir.
Mr. BENJAMIN. Just the hardware?
Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you be kind enough to provide the information for the record that I have asked of the other divisions? Mr. HORAN. Yes, sir. [The information referred to appears on pages 1883-1902.] Mr. STAATS. I might say here, Mr. Chairman, that this is one of the areas where large savings were found possible, dollar savings come from this area.

HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION Mr. BENJAMIN. The Human Resources Division, Page Q-1 of justifications. Requesting $8,694,000 and 293 average positions, an increase of $588,000 and six average positions. Your notation of "Total Positions” shows an increase of seven. Explain. Justify the increase of $588,000 and six average positions requested.

Mr. AHART. The 21 total staff years which are justified in the budget will go to partially offset the increases that we expect from some of the statutory and mandated work in conference reports which we have gotten during the past year which will carry over into 1980.

Partially to my mind, also, it offsets some of the staff years the Comptroller General found necessary to borrow from me or steal from me, if you will, to help meet his problems with the increased workload in 1978 and 1979 without an increase in the budget.

One of the three main things you see in the justification is the one Mr. Staats mentioned earlier:

The conference report on the education amendments in 1978 which calls upon us to address ourselves to the adequacy of the HEW evaluation reports and Federal education programs; and second, a congressional request which is from the House Government Operations Committee which calls for an intensive investigation of the Social Security Administration's total systems develop ment. That is a very long-term effort as I am sure you know.

Then the conference report on title XX of the Social Security Act which it says here indicates congressional interest in a GAO review. It is actually a mandate to review the social services pro gram, including contracting for social services by States and local agencies. The derivation of that is an example of how we work to try to get out of a lot of mandated work.

In this case there was a provision in the Senate bill which would have required us to do an extensive, long-term effort. Through negotiations with the committee staffs and Members and with notification to the House Members, we were able to get that provision out of the legislation so we would have more flexibility in meeting the needs within our limited resources and get it as a mention only in the conference committee report.

But we do feel an obligation to do a substantial amount of work, I guess, partly in return for their kindness in not mandating a major long-term effort on us.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you be kind enough to give us the same information that we have requested of the other divisions.

[The information referred to appears on pages 1883-1902.)

review, includinkerivatior mandated win the

Mr. BENJAMIN. Page R-1, Procurement and Systems Acquisition
Division, requesting $5,836,000 and 178 average positions, an in-
crease of $473,000 and 8 average positions along with 12 field staff.

Please be kind enough to justify those increases.
Mr. SHELEY. Yes, sir.

Part of our positions, approximately 2 staff years of that, is the result of the Proxmire amendment to the defense appropriation bill last year having to do with the settlement of the Shipyard Claims Act. The balance of that increase is the result of the increased emphasis, as Mr. Staats pointed out, on more coverage in the military establishment, primarily in the weapons systems area and in the procurement area.

Their costs—for example, procurement costs last year alone in the Department of Defense went up over $10 billion. They have something like 151 major defense programs that total $280 billion in total authorizations for those programs.

So this is where we are concentrating our additional coverage in the systems and procurement areas. Mr. BENJAMIN. Off the record. [Discussion off the record.] Mr. BENJAMIN. On the record.

Would you be kind enough to supply us the same kind of information I have asked the other divisions?

Mr. SHELEY. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to appears on pages 1883–1902.]

the systems where was for thosense pro

Small Businescent that Metatie in the fietian

COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Mr. BENJAMIN. On page S-1, the Community and Economic Development Division justification. Requesting $7,902,000 and 262 average positions, an increase of $503,000 and an increase of 4 average positions. Justify the increase.

Mr. ESCHWEGE. Aside from the normal increases which we discussed before, there is $111,500 in Washington for 4 additional staff, and as you pointed out, 11 additional staff in the field to partially offset a massive requirement that Mr. Staats mentioned earlier in the area of Small Business Administration, where legislation imposed upon us requires us to review several programs. There are six in total.

Also, there is a new program, the National Climate Program, which will involve 4 staff years and a continuation of our efforts in the foreign investment of farmland where we were instrumental in helping the Congress get some legislation passed. We now have to see how well that legislation is operating.

So it is these major pieces of legislation which require us to have an increase.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I am sorry Mr. Smith has departed. Have you been in contact with him regarding the studies mandated by the law and SBA?

Mr. ESCHWEGE. Yes, he has been very interested in the SBA as well as farmland.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I can imagine.

There's nosed upon

Again, I ask you to provide the same information we have asked of the other divisions.

Mr. ESCHWEGE. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to appears on pages 1883-1902.]

CLAIMS DIVISION Mr. BENJAMIN. T-1, Claims Division, requesting $2,498,000 and 130 average positions, an increase of $15,000. Explain the increase.

Mr. LEARY. The $15,000 is a net of the increase in salaries, promotions and step increases, lump sum leave payments, with decreases in temporary employment and overtime.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Is that overtime just for nonprofessional people? Mr. LEARY. Well, no, there would be some adjudicators, grades 11 and 9.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Is that unusual from the other divisions where they generally don't give overtime?

Mr. LEARY. I think at the grade 9 and 11 level-isn't overtime at the auditor level sometimes approved? Mr. Pin. It can be, yes. Mr. LEARY. But a good part of it is clerical. Mr. BENJAMIN. Several years ago in one of the supplementals apparently they made the appropriation for claims against the Federal Government a permanent appropriation.

Is that correct? Are you familiar with that?
Mr. LEARY. No, sir.

CLAIMS Mr. SOCOLAR. You might be referring to the permanent appropriation for the payment of judgments and claims. That is dated from 1956. Just recently there was an amendment to remove a $100,000 limitation on the payment of claims out of that permanent and definite appropriation so that any judgments rendered against the United States without limitation as to amount are payable from that appropriation.

Mr. BENJAMIN. Where is that done? Mr. LEARY. That is done by the Treasury through our authorization. We authorize the payment to be made by the Treasury from that fund.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I would assume, then, previous to that amendment, removing the $100,000 cap, that some of you would have to come back to the Congress and indicate--Mr. LEARY. Only those that are over $100,000, yes, sir.

Mr. BENJAMIN. What has that done to the overall figure now since that does not have to be done?

Mr. LEARY. I am really not sure. I would have to take a look and see what it is.

Mr. KELLER. I doubt if it changed because I don't think there is a case where the Congress refused to appropriate an adjustment.

Mr. LEARY. Moneywise it would wash out. I think Mr. Keller is correct.

« PreviousContinue »