In analyzing the statistics on GAO operations for the

last several years, I note that in fiscal year 1978 we traveled 110,000 days, whereas in fiscal year 1981 our total travel days had dropped by about 28 percent to 79,000 days. About 93 percent of our travel is directly related to carrying out specific

audits.

Only 7 percent is for training and conferences.

My assessment is that we must travel more, not less, to do our jobs better and more quickly. I knew before I came to GAO that it had staff located in offices throughout the United States and overseas. But it wasn't until I became Comptroller General and began visiting all our offices that I fully appreciated how important it is that our staff be located not only in Washington, D.C., but also at the various locations where Federal dollars are actually received and used. Having staff throughout the country and the world is what puts GAO in the unique position to report accurately on what happens to Federal dollars spent everywhere.

Travel is fundamental to the work of the GAO. If we are to do our work effectively and be of most use to the Congress, we must be able to travel to where the action is. We must travel to give our staff proper supervision and guidance. Travel is also essential to assure that all GAO staff understand the initiatives we want to take and how problems are to be

addressed.

Our audit teams are usually made up of both Washington and field staff. Audit team members must communicate effectively with each other to assure that we are doing our work correctly. I do not believe that our Washington supervisors travel enough to the site of our audits throughout the country to make sure we are properly doing the work as quickly as possible. I want them to travel more so we can provide the Congress the timely, relevant information it needs to make decisions.

done on a timely basis. We cannot control where attrition takes place. Hiring restrictions make it difficult to assure the availability of particular expertise that might be critical to timely completion of our work. That is why I am requesting a program supplemental of $2,211,000 to restore GAO staffing to the level suggested by the Committee for FY 82.

The pay raise supplemental of $9,225,000 is the minimum required for the cost-of-living adjustment effective last October for general schedule and wage board employees as well as for the executive pay raise. Personnel costs account for 77 percent of

our budget. I would like to be able to absorb part of this request, but we have closely examined our financial requirements for the balance of the year and find it impossible to free up funds without causing serious disruption to our operations.

Fiscal Year 1983 Request

Our fiscal year 1983 budget request of $255,014,000 supports compensation for the same average position level of 5,100 and provides for an overall 6-percent increase in our appropriation, primarily to provide for the cost of inflation and other mandatory costs without reducing current operating

levels.

This amount will enable me to sustain the new initiatives in defense and block grants while providing funds to address certain problems that I believe will eventually erode GAO's overall excellence if not attended to promptly.

My visits with the GAO staff at the division level, in the regions, and at the audit sites have convinced me that we should begin to address these issues right now. The most important one is travel and the second is more effective training to upgrade staff skills. We can also enhance productivity by improving the working conditions and support for our staff.

We have begun using conference calls and sometime during my term as Comptroller General it may well be that we will have video conference rooms to help achieve the the personal contact I consider important. But until then we must rely chiefly on travel.

Investment in training of our staff is also critical to sustain GAO's capacity over the long term to be a dynamic, relevant congressional support agency. During fiscal years 1979 and 1980, GAO had to impose a moratorium on employee training because of funding shortages. All training, except that for secretaries, one entry-level course, and a firstline supervisory course, was eliminated. The results:

--New employees had to rely on on-the-job training.
Basic GAO work skills were not formally communi-

cated.

--Higher level staff did not receive technical or
supervisory training, resulting in a loss of rigor
in the application of GAO's conceptual framework
for auditing and evaluating. Supervisors who were
themselves uncertain of some basic skills were
hardly in a position to provide effective on-the-
job training to newer employees.

We have reinstituted the training program, but we must make new investments in training if we are to carry out some of the initiatives I mentioned earlier.

will illustrate what I mean.

One specific example

Over the next several years, because information in both the public and private sector will increasingly be computerized, GAO must enhance its capability to effectively audit the computer-assisted operations of executive branch agencies. Further, the great potential for inefficient use of computers means that we must identify problems early and get agencies to

take corrective action before millions of dollars are sunk into inadequate systems. Our capability to do audit work through

the use of computers is not adequate.

We must develop an

intensive training program to upgrade staff skills in auditing

with computers.

During the past several months I have also observed that GAO staff can be even more productive than they have been. We do not have the right type of support to do our audit work efficiently.

In the last several years, great progress in technology, such as the use of electronic work stations, has facilitated the effective processing of information as well as its gathering and analysis. It is critical that GAO capitalize on this technology to improve our productivity as we try to satisfy specific new statutory requirements, not by increasing staff, but by redirecting professional resources that were used to fulfill expired statutory requirements. We cannot produce timely products if we do not have a stable, highly motivated support staff that uses the most effective means to do good work.

To carry out some of my initiatives I know I will have to shift resources from some areas in GAO to others that may be of higher priority. I am not reluctant to do that. But I am also concerned that we continue to give adequate coverage to executive branch operations so that we can respond quickly and effectively to congressional needs for information about programs and activities in all areas of government. The amount of money I have requested for our FY 82 supplemental and our FY 83 budget will provide me the resources necessary to maintain the organizational stability essential to being responsive to the Congress.

The Congress is being called upon to make monumental decisions regarding what the Federal Government will do and how

it will do it. It needs facts about how current programs are working and about how new ones will be working. GAO's mission is to provide that information. To fulfill its mission effec

tively GAO needs organizational stability, a properly trained

staff, and support capability.

This concludes my prepared statement; I will be pleased

to answer any questions.