Controlling the Quantity and Mix of Support Agency Work The first issue involves the question of the mix of work that the support agencies perform for the Congress. It has been said that because there is no cost to congressional requesters for the work we undertake, there is no incentive for Congress to focus resources on high priority work. While this has always been a matter of concern, and particularly in a time of scarce resources, I noted earlier that GAO has taken steps that we believe have been effective in reducing low priority work, and we will continue to work on this issue. Further encouragement, however, from this Committee to have Congress channel request work through the committee structure and encourage bipartisan cooperation on work related to important program issues would be welcomed. We have considered proposals put forward by others to create a board to screen or approve the requests we receive or to create a voucher system that would ration committee access to support agency services. As an agency that is asked to undertake a large volume of complex work, we are concerned about the administrative practicality of these mechanisms. We would, of course, be willing to discuss such proposals further if you choose to pursue them. I would caution you, however, regarding any approach that would limit our ability to negotiate the scope of work requested of us or our flexibility to undertake work on our own initiative. Such measures are tantamount to "muzzling the auditor," which has led to disastrous consequences in both the private and public sectors. Downsizing Any significant downsizing presents a daunting management challenge, which we would face along with the rest of the federal government. Reducing the deficit is the most serious problem facing government today, and it is difficult to conceive of a solution that does not reduce the size and cost of government. In addition, quite independent of the budget problem, many citizens have lost faith in their federal government. We, therefore, face a very difficult task--to create a government that is smaller and less expensive, but that is also efficient and responsive. We must do more with less. GAO is willing to do its part, but I would like to clearly state that, in my view, drastically reducing GAO's staffing level would be penny wise and pound foolish. For several years, we have been emphasizing work that can reduce spending; improve cost-effectiveness; and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse. Over the last 10 years, every dollar invested in GAO has been returned many times in measurable financial benefits. On the other hand, GAO's staffing has been relatively fixed at about 4,900 to 5,100 employees since the early 1970s, while our potential audit universe--measured by the number of federal programs and overall budget expenditures--has gone up geometrically. Looking at the federal budget for example, in the early 1970s, federal spending was just over $200 billion as compared to nearly $1.5 trillion today. We have also seen myriad new federal programs, greatly complicated state/federal relationships, and huge increases in the complexity of tax laws and federal regulations. Perhaps the most important issue regarding downsizing is how it is accomplished. At GAO, downsizing has already begun--our staff year ceiling was reduced to 4,900 for this fiscal year, and it is likely to be reduced more during the next 2 years due to funding constraints. We can do this successfully and without jeopardizing our effectiveness, as long as it is done slowly and with predictability. If it is done haphazardly or too quickly with a single draconian reduction, we will lose talented and experienced people, thus reducing our technical and subject area expertise that have taken years to develop. It would also do violence to the gains we've made in building a diverse work force, which is much more representative of American society today than it was just 10 years ago. As you probably know, I am now working with the Appropriations Committees to achieve the flexibility we need to manage our reductions at GAO. Congress must also realize that a smaller GAO would mean fewer reports and testimonies in the future. Modernizing ADP, Communications, and Facilities I also understand that a major issue the Committee will take up later this month is the role information and communication technology can play in increasing legislative branch effectiveness. Earlier, we discussed the progress we have made in computerization, publishing technology, and communications, including video conferencing, as well as our efforts to modernize our facilities. These enhancements have been crucial to our successful efforts to respond to increased demand for our services and to improve the quality of our products and services. They have also allowed us to be much more responsive to the Congress on time-sensitive assignments. Without these modern technological tools, we would not have been able to respond to an increased work load while maintaining the same staffing levels. On the other hand, budget stringency is making it increasingly difficult for us to implement our strategic plans in the area of technology. The point I'd like to stress then, is that given the rapid pace of technological change, the desire to downsize and the likelihood that the work of Congress will become even more complex, legislative branch investment in equipment, technology and facilities is a necessity, not a luxury. External Review During the last several years there has been much discussion of the need for or desirability of an external quality review of GAO. I have supported this idea and, as noted earlier, have attempted to have an external peer review conducted. The recent decision by the Senate Governmental Affairs to fund a study by the National Academy of Public Administration is a very positive development, and we believe that periodic, external peer review should be incorporated in GAO's overall review process. Better Oversight The last issue I'd like to address is also one the Committee is considering. Much of our value to the Congress is our assistance in oversight of the executive branch. We believe that GAO could be more useful to the Congress in exercising its oversight responsibility if the committees of jurisdiction were encouraged to hold comprehensive oversight hearings on all major agencies annually or perhaps once during each Congress. Such hearings would utilize agency Chief Financial Officers' annual reports, the agency's audited financial statements, and annual reports on the adequacy of their internal controls, as well as evaluation and investigative work performed by GAO, the other congressional support agencies, and the Inspectors General. Federal agencies would also report on their progress against specific goals and provide information on the kind of performance measures envisioned in the draft Government Performance and Results Act now under consideration by Congress. In closing, we believe that the investigative and analytical work we perform is more and more at the forefront of congressional efforts to deal with the most important issues facing our nation. As we move further into the last decade of the 20th century, it is clear that new issues are emerging to challenge policymakers. Dealing with such issues in the face of a severe budget deficit will require your best thinking. I believe strongly that GAO has the expertise to assist the Congress in that task. At the same time, I am aware that in a period of budget stringency we must, and we intend to, make the best use of our resources. As you consider the functions and roles of those staff and agencies who support the Congress during this period, I would ask you to remember two key points. First, well over 99 percent of federal spending is managed by the executive branch. Second, effective oversight and evaluation is critical to the efficient functioning of government. As we downsize, Congress must make difficult and critical decisions for which reliable information and analysis is indispensable. Thus, drastic cuts in legislative branch spending would have limited impact on the deficit, whereas providing adequate analytical and staff support to Congress as they make difficult decisions on high cost programs and other major issues could be an investment that pays great dividends for the American people. This concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have at this time. Comptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 June 25, 1993 The Honorable Lee H. Hamilton Organization of the Congress Dear Mr. Hamilton: During the Joint Committee's June 10th hearing on the congressional support agencies, I was asked some questions by the Committee Members pertaining to congressional oversight, federal financial management, streamlining the federal budget process and improving GAO's working relations with Congress. I have taken the opportunity to prepare responses to these questions so they can be (1) considered by the Committee Members and (2) included in the hearing record. Specifically, I am forwarding a proposal to help enhance congressional oversight of the executive branch agencies to improve agency effectiveness and efficiency, ⚫ three ways in which GAO could better relate to its principal customers-Congress' committees. · some ideas that could lead to a more streamlined budget process, and · our suggestions on how to achieve much needed reform of the financial management of the Federal Government, If you or your staff have any questions concerning our responses, please contact Mr. William J. Gainer, our Director for Program Planning, on (202) 512-6190. Sincerely yours, Charles A. Bowsher Charles A. Bowsher Comptroller General of the United States Comptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 June 25, 1993 The Honorable David Dreier Vice Chairman, Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress Congress of the United States Dear Mr. Dreier: During the Joint Committee's June 10th hearing on the congressional support agencies, I was asked some questions by the Committee Members pertaining to congressional oversight, federal financial management, streamlining the federal budget process and improving GAO's working relations with Congress. I have taken the opportunity to prepare responses to these questions so they can be (1) considered by the Committee Members and (2) included in the hearing record. Specifically, I am forwarding ⚫ a proposal to help enhance congressional oversight of the executive branch agencies to improve agency effectiveness and efficiency, ⚫ three ways in which GAO could better relate to its principal customers-Congress' committees. some ideas that could lead to a more streamlined budget process, and our suggestions on how to achieve much needed reform of the financial management of the Federal Government, If you or your staff have any questions concerning our responses, please contact Mr. William J. Gainer, our Director for Program Planning, on (202) 512-6190. Sincerely yours, Charles A. Bowsher Charles A. Bowsher Comptroller General of the United States |