If I had my way, they would cut down on the time it takes to produce their reports, particularly in the review process which seems to add an inordinate delay. We do not always have the luxury of time around here and the last thing you want is a nice blue cover report after-the-fact.

The other area they need to work on is simply being straightforward: Don't mince words; tell it like it is. Lay out the facts and let the chips fall where they may, whether I happen to agree with their findings or not. Tell me who is responsible or accountable, not that "general management practices are deficient".

One final area I want to address is the NAPA report, undertaken in close consultation with Senator Roth and paid for largely by Committee funds.

It is a comprehensive report on the role and mission of GAO. It makes several good recommendations governing what GAO does, how they should do it, and where Congress fits in.

It is worth noting, however, that NAPA found no evidence of partisan political, or other bias in GAO's work. Further, they recommended against making any changes in GAO's statutory charter at this time, though I know some Members in Congress would like to do just that.

Obviously, auditing and evaluation go hand-in-hand. In my judgment, to have one without the other would not be very useful.

GAO is, therefore, going to sometimes enter the arena of policy, a very hostile arena at that. Dare I say that sometimes it almost becomes the sacrificial lamb. We tend to shoot the messenger around here, rather than the message.

An example contained in the NAPA report bears this out. It mentions that one evaluator, during the review process, had to defend his work some 27 times before GAO published it. According to NAPA:

"In this example, the study had become controversial even though it was grounded solidly in fact, because the underlying program is strongly supported by some congressional members and sharply criticized by others."

Now, whether the subject was grazing fees, government hydroelectric rates, peanuts or tobacco subsidies, the SuperConducting SuperCollider (SSC), or the B-2 Bomber, is not important. But it is indicative of the fact that sometimes feathers may get ruffled, particularly when they're plucked from one's home State or district. In closing, I just want to point out that last October, when I was Chairman, we had scheduled a Committee hearing to coincide with the release of the NAPA report. That was postponed at the urging of every Member on the other side, with the objection that a subject of this magnitude, to do it justice, should not be considered in the waning days of Congress.

I did want to note this for the record, not to cast blame or aspersion in any way. But I do think if we had had that hearing-on GAO's role and mission--it would have put today's hearing in the proper context. Before we adjudge how much of a hit-and over what time-GAO can take it, I think it would have been wise to examine exactly what GAO does, and means, to Congress, the Executive Branch, and the American people.

Thank you.

Senator GLENN. I also would like to enter into the record a statement by Senator Dorgan, who could not be here today, and he wanted me to read his whole statement in the record. I will summarize it briefly here. He is out there, because of some Base Closing Commission work, at two air bases in North Dakota and wouldn't be able to be here today. He has been involved with GAO the past 15 years and found them to be extraordinarily helpful. They have been involved in complicated tax, economic, and financial issues at his request. Their work is professional, thorough, absolutely independent and invaluable for Congress. I ask unanimous consent that his entire statement be included in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Dorgan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DORGAN

Mr. Chairman, because the Base Closing Commission is visiting two air bases in my State today, I'm necessarily required to be in North Dakota. Regretfully, I will miss this important hearing on the subject of the effectiveness of the General Accounting Office (GAO).

I have been involved in many study requests of the GAO over the past 15 years, and I want to relate my experiences with the GAO.

I've found the GAO to be extraordinarily helpful and effective in examining and evaluating some very difficult subjects and providing answers that can be used for legislative guidance on a wide range of matters.

They've been involved in complicated tax, economic and financial issue studies at my request, and I have always felt their work was professional, thorough and absolutely independent.

I think it is invaluable for Congress, whether led by Republicans or Democrats, to have a fiercely independent, nonpartisan organization like the GAO to do the research and investigations necessary to provide a base of information with which to guide good legislative policy.

I commend the GAO for its excellent work, and I hope the Congress will see the merit of continuing this fine organization.

Senator GLENN. NAPA, Mr. Campbell, we thank you very much for your efforts.

Senator COHEN [presiding]. Senator Glenn, thank you for that very dispassionate expression of support for GÃO. [Laughter.] Senator Grassley.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GRASSLEY

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, I think you have heard two excellent statements by our leaders about GAO, one asking for introspection and a detailed effort to make sure that the taxpayers' money is well spent, and you have heard another leader say that GAO does a very good job. I don't know how we can disagree with those statements.

Today, I am going to associate myself more closely to the opening statement of our Chairman. I go back as a launching-off point for my point of view today to what the Senate's first action was this year: A bill that will never get much public attention, but when we applied the laws that we have exempted ourselves from to the Congress for the first time, I think it was a very symbolic act. It said. that we are going to lead by example, not by rhetoric. More important, it was meant to restore credibility with the people. Our credibility had eroded.

With the passage of that one act, the Congress has gone a long ways towards restoring our credibility as an institution. I raise this point for the Members of this Committee because I think there is a parallel with the subject of this hearing.

I read the report by the Committee's professional staff that reviewed the GAO's management. I have to say that it really raised my eyebrows. The staff review confirmed many of the key findings and recommendations of the NAPA report. Among the staff's finding is that GAO's average cost per job is $396,000. By improving GAO's use of modern analytical methods and computers, the average cost per job could be reduced to $194,000. That alone would save $147 million, or 33 percent of the GAO's budget. In addition, overhead costs could be reduced significantly from the current 30 percent of the GAO budget.1

So, Members of this Committee, I think it is very imperative that the Congress and the public have utmost confidence that their No. 1 watchdog is watchdogging not just other Federal agencies, but itself as well. So, to me, that also is a matter of credibility. How can Congress' auditing arm, which is charged with finding waste and

1 Staff report appears in the Appendix on page 89.

mismanagement in other agencies, have credibility when it is itself replete with waste and mismanagement? At least, that is how I read this staff report.

I am saying this as a Senator who has been a long-time customer of the General Accounting Office, and I have long praised the GAO for its good work. As the Comptroller General knows, I have been supportive of him and his office when warranted, and I have been tough on him when it was needed. And I think now is a critical time to be tough again.

I don't know about other Members, but I view this kind of toughness as constructive and in the best interest of the GAO and its service to the Congress and the people of this country. I hope that Mr. Bowsher will show a commitment to working with us to improve GAO's effectiveness, whether it means a 25-percent budget cut or whatever amount is ultimately cut. And I hope that we are all mindful of how very important it is for our No. 1 watchdog to watchdog itself, because it is an issue of credibility.

When it comes to management of resources, GAO must be like Caesar's wife-above reproach.

So, to the Members of this Committee, and particularly to our Chairman, I want to commend him for his leadership on this matter, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Mr. Bowsher to improve the General Accounting Office's effectiveness.

I would like to commend the work of the Committee staff for the review that they conducted as well as the report given to us by NAPA. Thank you.

Senator COHEN. Senator Pryor.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR

Senator PRYOR. Senator Cohen, thank you.

Senator Levin just asked Senator Lieberman how long his statement was going to be, and Senator Lieberman responded: I don't know. I haven't given it yet. So I will try to make mine very quick because we are in the last 2 minutes of a vote.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I just want to express my support for the General Accounting Office. I cannot do it in terms strong enough. I do not know of any department or any agency of the Federal Government that in the last 5 years has given us $57 back for every $1 it received in appropriations. There is no match for that record.

I am looking at this chart here that indicates the number of reviews. I assume that is to show the bureaucratic tendencies of the General Accounting Office. But, Mr. Chairman, I don't care how many steps are in this process for the General Accounting Office, as long as the bottom line says that they are giving us the facts as they see them-from an independent auditing agency, the facts as they see them.

I have never known the General Accounting Office not to supply those facts to us, as individuals or especially to this Committee, which has used them so often to help save the taxpayers' dollars.

In 1997, the General Accounting Office is going to have less than 4,000 employees, making it the smallest that GAO has been since the 1930's. I don't know of another agency that will match those figures, Mr. Chairman. I think they do an excellent job. There may

be some streamlining that we want to prod them on, and if so, I think we should. But every now and then I think that we need to pass out some bouquets, and I would like to pass one out today to the General Accounting Office.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COHEN

Senator COHEN. Thank you very much, Senator Pryor.

Knowing from past experience that Senator Lieberman will give a very lengthy statement, I am going to take just a couple of minutes before we depart for the vote on the floor right now.

I think it is important that we have these hearings. I commend the Chairman for calling the hearing because we know that there are lawyers who advise clients and never write a will for themselves, there are doctors who examine patients and never have an annual physical, there are auditors in government who audit other people's financial arrangements and never look to their own house to see that it is in order. So it is important that we have this type of hearing.

I must say Senator Roth has raised a key issue, as has Senator Grassley. Who is at fault? And it seems to me that Congress is the one that is making all the demands. We are the ones who call upon GAO for virtually everything, myself included. I could go around this table and ask how many of us have turned to the GAO: Tell me about DOD. How much are they spending to process travel vouchers? How much are we wasting on health care fraud? Is it $100 billion? Who do I turn to for that? I turn to the GAO.

As Senator Roth has talked about, we have now passed a new bill dealing with federal regulations, and we say, "Well, who is going to analyze the regulations passed down by the Executive Branch? Are we going to give it to OMB?" And how many of us on this side of the aisle will then say, "Well, the Federal agencies have issued these new regulations that are supposed to show the cost/ benefit analysis and risk assessment? The administration may tell us that OMB has checked it out, and it is OK."

Now, how many of us on this side of the aisle are going to say, "Wait a minute, we don't really trust the Executive Branch. We think we have to have an independent analysis by Congress, i.e., the GAO."

So I think we have got to be careful here as we look at what we are asking of the GAO, and I think the Chairman is correct. I don't know how we supervise ourselves and insist upon some standards of restraint, because every time we come up with a tough issue, the first thing we do is pick up the phone and call Chuck Bowsher: Get me a report, get me an analysis, get me something that I can show we are wasting our expenditures.

Mr. Chairman, I support you in this effort to look at GAO. I support bringing the NAPA study before the Congress. But I think we have to proceed with some caution in terms of the GAO. I have not found the abuses, frankly, in terms of a political abuse that has been alleged in the past. They have always served me well, and I hope that they will continue to serve all of us well in the future. With that, I note that we have maybe 2 minutes left before the vote expires on the Senate floor. I have delayed long enough so

Senator Lieberman has to leave with me and go over and vote. And I will have more to say about this later.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.]

Senator LIEBERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to move for cloture. [Laughter.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN

Senator LIEBERMAN. Senator Cohen and others here have spoken so much to the point that I will be brief. Actually, I was thinking that I should begin my remarks by singing that tune from Simon and Garfunkel, "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, the Nation turns its lonely eyes to you," which is a song about heroes. And there is an unsettling quality to this proceeding, because I must say that in my time here in the Senate, the folks at GAO have really been some of my foremost heroes. And so to have their efficiency questioned is unsettling.

But no one is perfect. We all are humans and, therefore, imperfect, and therefore, all of us can stand review. But I must say, just to echo what has been said before, that I begin this proceeding with true bias, which is in favor of GAO. The fact is that in this budget of ours, the Federal budget that has grown to now over $1.5 trillion-hard to imagine that much money being spent in 1 year-we have too little management, not too much; we have too little oversight, not too much; we have too little focus on efficiency, not too much.

And GAO really has been the source of much of that management advice. It has helped in becoming more efficient, and helped the Congress in performing part of our function that we don't perform very well. It is easy enough to authorize programs, too easy to finance them, to fund them, not so easy to find out what happened after all that occurs. We walk away, too often, and that has been the role of this Committee, to oversee, to look back, and to check efficiency and whether the programs are achieving their goals. And our staff has helped us extraordinarily well over the years, but GAO really has been right at the forefront of that.

So I begin with a bias and a hope that we will not do damage to GAO in the critical work it performs for us and the American taxpayers as we expose it to the review that all of us as humans deserve to be exposed to every now and then.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROTH. Thank you, Senator Lieberman.

I am going to proceed with the first panel in the interest of conserving time. I know a number of Senators may have not had the opportunity to make their opening remarks, so with your kind indulgence, once they come back, we will interrupt and give them that opportunity.

First of all, let me welcome you here. We have three witnesses from the National Academy of Public Administration: Scott Fosler, the President; Scotty Campbell, who is Chairman of the NAPA panel; and Annmarie Walsh, who is the Project Director.

It is a pleasure to have you. I will let you proceed as you will.