Now, you have to filter it a little bit and take a look to see if it is one of the fanatics you are talking about. So should you refuse to honor a request from the Senator or individual Congressman just because it comes from them, and honor a complaint if it comes from John Smith of Sioux City, or wherever he lives? REQUESTS TO GAO THAT SHOULD GO TO AGENCY Mr. STAATS. We have a request that any of these come over the name of a Member or a chairman of a committee. We feel this is important to have established, and if we have-in some cases if we have problems, we then go back to the Member and talk to him to see whether we cannot obtain it in some other way, such as going to the agency. Many times when we get a request, it is perfectly clear to us that the agency can supply the information just as well as we can, and we are just adding cost to get that information to the Member. We can usually persuade the Member that he can get it from the agency. We can help him identify where the information is and who the responsible individual is. Senator COTTON. I can assure you what happened in our case won't happen again, but in this particular instance, the reply of the agency itself should have been perfectly satisfactory, and if I had been handling the situation and had read that reply, I would have taken care of the inquiry I had, and you wouldn't have been put to all this trouble. But it can happen, and perhaps I don't run as tight a ship in my office as other Senators, but I think I am about the average, and if it can happen to me, I think it can happen to others. Mr. STAATS. This is a matter we are going to be concerned about, and it may reach a point at some time where we would feel some new rules would have to be established, but up to the present time, when you consider all these items that have been referred to here on pages 11 and 12, they still add up to less than 20 percent of our professional effort. I have been reluctant to take the position that we should not try to help out when we have a legitimate request. If this continues to grow and creates a problem for us in our ability to carry out the rest of our program Senator COTTON. You may have to come to the situation such as I mentioned. I am interested in that question I put to you, and I see no objection to going to the chairman of my committee and asking him to make that request. So that would be of some benefit if that rule were made. Probably something of that kind, if it were necessaryI am not suggesting immediately-could be done in a limitation in an appropriation bill without being subject to a point of order. Mr. STAATS. We find that an individual Member interested in the operation of a program in a State or district, if in our opinion it is of really broad application, we have had very little difficulty in having a Member agree to furnishing it to other committees, or the chairman of the committee. This really has not been a problem. Senator HOLLINGS. We have a roll call at 11:35, so we will move on. Mr. STAATS. Mr. Chairman, if you wish, what follows here on pages 12, 13, and 14, these are all examples of work that we have done as a result of requests that come in. Senator HOLLINGS. Let's insert those in the record, because I think we are pretty much up to date in these. They have been in the news. MILITARY ACTIVITIES Mr. STAATS. For example, on page 12, we did nine studies on the automatic data processing systems in the Defense Department. We refer to on the next page the studies we did for the House Appropriations Committee on the management of nonappropriated fund activities. These are your post exchanges and clubs. Then another study we did for Chairman Stennis on the proliferation of tactical air-to-ground missiles in the Defense Department. Another study we did for the House Armed Services Committee on military airlift and sealift requirements. Those are just some examples. DOMESTIC CIVIL ACTIVITIES On the next page, page 14, in the domestic field, we did a number of studies for both the Senate Finance Committee and the House committees on medicare payments. At the bottom of page 14, we refer to studies we did for the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, one on the management of radioactive wastes, and we refer to other studies for them on page 15, such as a study for them on the commercial feasibility of selling uranium enrichment facilities to the private utilities, and under "International,' we refer here to an example of some studies we have made in Vietnam at the request of the Congress. INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES On page 16 we refer to a study we are doing currently for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on military assistance training programs. That one has now been completed. Those are all examples of work that we have done at the request of committees of Congress. REVIEWS OF MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY AND PROGRAM RESULTS Then we turn to the work that we do on our own initiative, reviews of management efficiency and program results. Here, again, this is the area I was referring to where we feel we need some relief in our 1972 budget. DOMESTIC CIVILIAN PROGRAMS I would like to read on the bottom of page 17, if I may. In the years ahead, we envision continued growth in the number and size of domestic civilian programs, and in the portion of total Federal budget resources applied to them. I am referring especially to programs related to poverty, health, education, housing and urbanization, and environmental quality. Accordingly, we are planning to increase, during fiscal year 1972, our total manpower applied to reviews of domestic civilian programs by 187 man-years. While some increased audit emphasis will be applied to all civil departments and a number of the larger independent agencies, the more significant increases will be applied to the Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare; Transportation; Labor; Housing and Urban Development, and the newly created Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies account for a net increase of about $8.2 billion of the $16.4 billion increases in Federal budget outlays proposed by the President for 1972. In planning our reviews of domestic civil programs, we are attempting to look more than previously at related programs which cross agency lines. For example, we have made one of our senior officials the point for coordination of all GAO work in the medical and healthrelated activities. Total Federal outlays for health in 1972 are estimated at about $22.2 billion, compared to $20.7 billion in 1971. We have underway studies of (1) comprehensive health planning; (2) health facilities construction; (3) health activities related to sanitation, drug manufacture and consumer protection; and (4) purchases of drugs for use in Federal hospitals. REQUEST BEFORE COMMITTEE TO STUDY WELFARE Senator HOLLINGS. We have a request before this committee for $500,000 to study welfare. It is a special joint committee. Could that study be better made by GAO, or by a joint committee here, or could it be done the same by either? Mr. STAATS. I am not familiar with the request in detail, although I had heard there was a request for this amount before the committee, I believe made by the Joint Economic Committee. Senator HOLLINGS. That is right. Mr. STAATS. I would have to take a look at it and know a little bit more about it, I think, before I could answer that. Senator HOLLINGS. I geuss what I was really asking, is that you are not into welfare as deeply as you are into health? We wouldn't be duplicating that or do you know? Mr. STAATS. I couldn't really say until I knew more about the other request, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to take a look at it. We are doing work in the welfare field. Senator HOLLINGS. We got it in the second supplemental. I would just like to know generally if you are comprehensively going into welfare as you are here with respect to health. Is GAO doing that now? Mr. STAATS. We haven't established quite the same approach in the welfare area. Can you supply any more detail on this, Mr. Samuelson? Mr. SAMUELSON. Yes, we have a fairly active program at the Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare where we are looking into the administration of the welfare programs in selected States, as well as certain aspects of the welfare program, such as the procurement of drugs or services, the use of nursing homes, and that sort of thing. That is over and above the work we do on medicaid. Senator HOLLINGS. I am talking about welfare, away from all the health now. I am talking about food stamps, housing, job employ ment, day-care centers. There is $14 billion for public assistance and aid for dependent children. I am talking about the welfare mess everybody has read about all year long. Mr. SAMUELSON. We have a fair amount of work in all those areas by our different operating groups. Mr. STAATS. One area we have been interested in is how the States determine eligibility or noneligibility for receipt of welfare payments. This has been the area that the Ways and Means Committee has had particular concern about. Large numbers of the people are reported to be on the welfare rolls, but who are not eligible. We are interested in how well the States are managing this job. We got into this in part because of a study we did for the Ways and Means Committee in New York City, which showed the rate of ineligibility prevailing in New York City to be about four times the rate indicated by the local welfare agency. WELFARE STUDY OF NEW YORK CITY Senator HOLLINGS. You have a New York City study of welfare? Mr. STAATS. We performed one for the House Ways and Means Committee. Senator HOLLINGS. Can you send me a copy of that individually, not for the committee here? Mr. STAATS. Yes. Mr. STAATS. We are going into that in other States, the determination of the eligibility program. DOMESTIC CIVIL PROGRAM AREAS Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you. Proceed, please. Mr. STAATS. Additional domestic civil program areas to which we plan to direct increased attention during 1972 are: Education, especially higher education and elementary education. Public assistance and family services programs. Urban renewal and model cities activities. Manpower programs. Air traffic control systems development and operation. Federal-aid highway programs, highway safety programs, and urban mass transportation. Air and water pollution and solid waste management. Consumer protection programs. In other program areas, such as those of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Justice, Treasury, and most independent agencies, we anticipate that our overall level of effort will remain substantially at the same level as 1971. DEFENSE PROGRAMS In defense, we are planning to reduce our overall effort in the defense area to 1,256 man-years in fiscal year 1972. Although this represents a relatively small reduction of about 70 man-years as applied in 1971, our 1971 requirements were considerably increased by the study directed by the Congress of the profits made by contractors and subcontractors on contracts on which there is no formally advertised competitive bidding. We are not anticipating that the Congress will either legislate or request during fiscal year 1972 a study of this magnitude. Of the 1,256 man-years we plan to apply to defense activities, 908 will be applied to surveys and reviews initiated within GAO, and 348 to special requests received from congressional committees and individual Members. As in previous years, a significant portion of our effort will be devoted to defense procurement activities. We plan to continue in-depth reviews of contract pricing by defense procurement activities. We plan to continue to perform "should cost" studies at selected contractors' plants, and at some in-house overhaul activities. By "should cost study," Mr. Chairman, we mean going in and seeing if there are better ways of managing a procurement that will save some money. We were convinced that a good deal of savings can be made in this area, not only by our office but by the contracting agencies. We plan also to review the Defense Contract Audit Agency's postaward (defective pricing) program. We will review the efficiency and effectiveness of the audit agency's performance, its basis for selecting contracts for review, the audit techniques employed, and the benefits compared with the costs of the program. Additionally, we plan to initiate a review of the waivers of cost or pricing data by the heads of the military departments in connection with negotiated procurement. The objective of this review is to examine into the reasons for the waivers, and whether this has resulted in prices that are higher than would normally be negotiated had the cost data been made available. We will explore alternate means available to the Government to assure that prices are fair and reasonable. Also, we are currently reviewing the reasonableness of costs incurred under major príme contracts such as those for the C-5A, F-14, F-15 and COBRA aircraft programs. We are bringing to a conclusion our review of close air support. We initiated this review because of congressional interest concerning the possibility of duplicating defense expenditures for different weapons systems to fulfill the close air support mission. The different systems in question are the AH-56 (Cheyenne), which is under review by the Air Force, and the AV-8A (Harrier). We plan to provide the Congress with our observations on how the aircraft in question meet the close air support mission requirements. I can read the rest of it if you wish, Mr. Chairman. Senator HOLLINGS. I have been following it down, and there was a claim that reports were being leaked, and all that. I put your response in the Congressional Record, and for the sake of coherence, we will include it in the hearing record here. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to inquiry with respect to the allegations which have appeared recently in the press relating to a report issued on |