« PreviousContinue »
directly related to our turnover and recruiting activity and reflect the impact of this activity on the staffing of authorized positions and the actual amount of salary to be paid.
Mr. ANDREWS. Now we will take up B-1, each of the increases. Turn to page B-1 and explain that to us.
Mr. STAATS. Mr. Chairman, I thought that our general statement, where we covered each of these areas, pretty well spelled this out. I would be glad to go back over that if you wish.
INCREASED PERSONNEL REQUESTED-OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER
Mr. ANDREWS. Just speak to the increase in the Office of the Comptroller General where you show an increase of four.
Mr. STAATS. We have been attempting, in the Office of Comptroller General, to develop a system to improve our procedures; to speed up our reports. One of our great problems now is that there is such a lag between the time we collect our information in the field and the time that it is available to the Congress.
We had a good deal of criticism. I have been very unhappy about the time that it takes us to develop these reports. What we have been doing here is developing a small staff in a central office to try to improve this.
Secondly, we are trying to improve the central information that is available on all of our activities, budget, personnel, and our work reporting.
Thirdly, we have been trying to improve the very process on the very point that you are talking about, setting priorities within the GAO as a whole; how we can better allocate our manpower. One of the great problems we have is in our 16 regional offices, if we are normally performing studies where we have interruptions in our work for assignments from the Congress, to keep our staff fully occupied in all of these regional offices and not overburdened in other regional offices. It is a matter of distribution of the work. Being located in 16 regional offices and in offices overseas, we have a tremendous problem here. This is what we have been trying to do. That is why we have increased that staff.
INCREASED PERSONNEL REQUESTED—ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Mr. ANDREWS. The next increase.
Mr. STAATS. The next increase is in the Office of the Administrative Services. Mr. Simmons will speak to that.
Mr. ANDREWS. You are asking for six additional employees in that Office.
Mr. SIMMons. Yes, sir. Four of those positions, Mr. Chairman, are for computer technicians. The Comptroller General is having a study made of our information processing system. This study identified å need for these skills and we provided for them in 1969. The other two are merely to fill in a couple of gaps. Our travel and other expenses are increasing. There are more vouchers to audit and more records management work with the agencies.
INCREASED PERSONNEL REQUESTED OFFICE OF POLICY AND
Mr. ANDREWS. The next is Office of Policy and Special Studies. You ask for an increase of five.
Mr. STAATs. Mr. Morse will speak to that.
Mr. MORSE. Out of the five positions requested, two are for our new systems analysis group that we established during the last year. One position is for our automatic data processing group of specialists, and one is for our group serving the area of financial management and accounting systems development. The last one is for our audit policy group.
INCREASES REQUESTED_CIVIL DIVISION Mr. ANDREWS. Tell us briefly what this Office of Civil Division does.
Mr. Staats. Civil Division, Mr. Chairman, covers all of the agencies, domestic agencies. The only agencies excluded from the Civil Division are the Defense Department and the international agencies, such as State, AID, USIA, and Export-Import Bank. In other words, this includes all agencies such as Agriculture and Interior.
Mr. ANDREWS. Specifically, how much of the $612,000 increase is associated with the 31 additional positions under this Civil Division section?
Mr. CORNETT. It is about $154,500 for the 31 positions and the balance is for added cost of the last pay increase, promotions, and withingrade increases.
Mr. ANDREWS. Are there any particular agencies on the civil side of the Government that you would concentrate on? Is it a general strengthening of new positions ?
Mr. STAATS. It is the latter, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Samuelson may want to comment on this point further. I believe it is the latter.
Mr. SAMUELSON. Mr. Chairman, we are organized into 10 operating groups, somewhat along functional or activity lines, such as Agriculture, HEW, and Labor, housing, space, and so on. We shift staff between operating groups as our needs arise. It is pretty hard to identify any one specific group as being the recipient of our increase staff requirements here. Basically, for the long term, however, the increases would go into Health, Education, and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, Labor poverty programs, and to some degree transportation, natural resources, and to Agriculture. Those are the currently expanding programs.
Mr. STAATS. Those are the areas expanding most rapidly. We do not feel that we are adequately covering them.
Mr. ANDREWS. You are asking for a salary increase of $612,900 and an increase in the average number of positions of 31. I gather from your statement earlier that this is one of the principal front-line divisions in your office. From what you indicated in your general statement, I gather that much of this increase is occasioned by the general growth of the Federal Establishment in terms of numbers of programs and increased expenditures ?
Mr. STAATS. That is a very correct and good statement of it.
the Government that you would concentrate on, or is it a general strengthening of a new proposition?
Mr. STAATS. Again, our workload has to respond, first, to the needs of the Congress and then, secondly, we try beyond that to give priority to the areas which are the most costly and where we feel there may be problems of one kind or another. In general, we would concentrate the additional resources in the civil division mostly in the new and expanding areas where we have large increases, for example, in HEW, Labor, Housing, and Urban Development, and the poverty program.
We cannot be sure as of right now what additional requests we are going to get from Congress during the course of the year. I mentioned here that we had had something like 27 requests from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. We did not anticipate that a year ago. We cannot be sure that another committee might not come through and make a similar request next year. Our workload in the last year in the space program has jumped up tremendously. We cannot always anticipate what committee interests are going to be. Mr. ANDREWS. No one else can. Mr. STAATS. No one else can. We know it is growing.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE Mr. ANDREWS. About the General Counsel's Office, you are asking for an increase of $89,300. No additional positions. You do not show any increase from the average size of that staff, but you are asking for $89,300. What about that?
Mr. KELLER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The increase results from a few grade changes, but for the most part, it results from within-grade increases which are required under the law.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is any of that money to be used for salary increases under the pay act?
Mr. KELLER. Not the increases that will be effective in July 1968.
Mr. ANDREWS. You have told us that. There is no money requested of this committee for salary increases under the pay act?
Mr. WEITZEL. Some of the money, Mr. Chairman, like all the way through here would be for the additional costs over the full year of the pay increase that took effect last October.
Mr. ANDREWS. For the pay increase that will come in on the first of July, there is no money requested in this budget?
Mr. KELLER. That is correct.
Mr. ANDREWS. If I remember correctly, you said the pay increase that will become effective the first of July will amount to about $2.5 million for fiscal year 1969 ?
Mr. SIMMONS. That is our best estimate at this time. It could be a little bit more. We are not sure what the final increases will be for each grade.
Mr. KELLER. I want to make clear that the figures shown for General Counsel's Office include within-grade promotions that we must give to an employee who is performing satisfactorily.
Mr. ANDREWs. And the annualization of the pay increase that took effect the first of last October 1967 ?
Mr. KELLER. Yes, sir .
Mr. ANDREWS. Not the pay increase that will become effective July 1, 1968!
Mr. Keller. That is correct. In fact, I am not sure we have the precise figures on that increase at this time.
Mr. SIMMONS. We do not.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
Mr. ANDREWS. What about the Office of Personnel; you are asking for a salary increase of $21,600. There is no change in the average number, but $21,600 is requested additionally.
Mr. SIMMONS. That is the same situation as the Office of the General Counsel, Mr. Chairman. The increase provides for a few promotions, the added cost of last years' pay increase on a full-year basis, and the within-grade steps that we have to pay.
Mr. ANDREWS. Is that all for mandatory increases?
Mr. SIMMONS. No, sir. Some promotions are in there. Very few, but the increase is mostly for within grades and the pay increase.
Mr. ANDREWS. Does it include the salary increases that became effective October 1, 1967 ? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. ANDREWS. Not the salary increases that will become effective July 1? Mr. SIMMONS. That is right.
Mr. ANDREWS. In fact, there is no money in this request anywhere for the pay increase that will take place July 1, 1968?
Mr. SIMMONS. That is right.
PERSONNEL INCREASES REQUESTED— DEFENSE DIVISION
Mr. ANDREWS. I notice that you are asking for an average increase of 27 positions for the Defense Division. What was the increase in Defense that you mentioned earlier, or what percent of the budget is allocated to defense spending?
Mr. STAATS. Mr. Bailey will be able to respond to that. Mr. BAILEY. We are asking for 27 additional positions in the Defense Division as a part of the 100 additional positions discussed earlier. The amount that is involved is some $370,000, which would be for additional compensation for promotions, in-grades, and pay act costs. The increase is designed to bring our average number of positions from 264 up to 291 in 1969.
Mr. ANDREWS. Do you plan to send any of these new employees to Vietnam or Southeast Asia ?
Mr. BAILEY. Well, sir, these particular employees will go every. where. The new ones won't necessarily go, but some of the ones that we now have will go and the new ones will have to pick up some of the work in the United States.
Mr. ANDREWS. In other words, you are going to increase your staff in South Vietnam?
Mr. BAILEY. We will increase the effort, yes, sir, in South Vietnam as well as the effort in the Department of Defense as a whole with these additional employees.
Mr. ANDREWS. I suppose that as a general proposition you would
feel that you could greatly augment the effort in this area, defense area, and still not be overdoing it?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes, sir. I think that is right. For example, the Defense budget is increasing some $7 billion for 1969. That is their request. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that during 1967 the work of the Defense Division, in terms of measurable savings as well as cash collections, resulted in some $70,700,000 in benefits, a ratio of 1712 to 1 compared to our Division's 1968 budget. This would not account for the items where you cannot put a dollar figure on them. Of course these things could not be accomplished without the substantial support given by other parts of the General Accounting Offices particularly Field Operations Division and International Division. I do not think that by any means in the Department of Defense have we reached a leveling-off point, such as was discussed yesterday here.
Mr. ANDREWS. Approximately how many audit reports did you file last year dealing with defense spending or other defense matters?
Mr. BAILEY. I have the figure here.
Jr. Staats. While he is getting that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say this: While the dollar savings here have been very substantial, the work which our Division has done on the improvement of supply systems, controls, and reduction of inventories in this whole area in the Far East, in my opinion, has really been an outstanding job. It undoubtedly has saved several times over what he is talking about in terms of measurable savings.
Mr. ANDREWs. How much do you estimate your Office has saved in the Defense Department last year?
Mr. BAILEY. In fiscal year 1967, the actual collections were $5.5 million and the measurable benefits were $65,240,000, for a total of $70,700,000. This does not count the savings that you cannot quantify.
Jr. ANDREWS. Such as what?
Mr. BAILEY. Improved procedures which will continue to result in improvements in their activities, handling of their resources, this type of thing.
Mr. ANDREWs. Tell us briefly about the $5 million in cash that you recovered.
Mr. BAILEY. This resulted from amounts that were collected as a result of errors that were made, collections from contractors, resulting from our audits, this type of thing.
FOLLOW-UP ON GAO RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. ANDREWS. Do you maintain some sort of monitoring of the extent to which your recommendations and suggestions in connection with defense matters are actually taken up and followed through on by the Defense Department and by the committees of Congress!
Vír. Staats. Yes, sir; we do.
Mr. ANDREWS. Tell us briefly about that. You make a recommendation. What happens ?
Vr. Staats. Many times the Defense Department will accept our recommendations based upon seeing a draft of our report.
Mr. ANDREWs. Do you check on them to see whether or not they have followed your recommendations?
Mr. Staats. We do.