ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Question:

You indicated that your budget request represents your 1982 request adjusted for inflation. What figure would be required to provide

the level of the 1982 appropriation, adjusted for inflation?

Response:

$12,900,000 would be required to provide the level of the 1982 appropriation, adjusted for inflation.

The requested budget ($13.9 million) would allow OTA to increase (somewhat) the amount of work it can do. The area that we would propose to receive much of the increased support is national security, which at present is running only one project at a time, and foresight work on the roles of science and technology in fostering economic growth and competitiveness.

If the budget request were to be cut by $1 million (to $12.9 million), OTA could continue to operate at close to its present level (about 15 new starts per year). This is because our projected continued improvement in productivity can offset the loss of buying power that $12.9 million would represent compared with our FY '82 funding ($12.27 million, including a $0.25 million pay supplemental request).

At budget levels lower than $12.9 million, OTA's present ability to serve a full array of technology issues for Committees will be compromised. OTA's ability to deliver high quality products reports, testimony, briefings depends on the balance between inhouse research staff and extensive use of experts outside Congress. The importance of maintaining the ratio of inside to outside work was strongly supported at the recent Senate Oversight hearings; all the witnesses spoke to the point. This means that, if budget resources are curtailed, OTA must correspondingly reduce the scope of its coverage of technology, for example, by eliminating one or more of its program areas. The implications for Congress are a reduction in the number of Committees we can serve, plus a further cutback in the extent of services we can provide a given Committee.

Question:

In your testimony last year, you requested $150,000 to enable you to shift administrative costs from GAO to either OTA or the Library of Congress. What action was taken during the year on OTA's administrative requirements?

Response:

OTA transferred its administrative support from GAO to the Library of Congress. The transition was smooth and we are very pleased with the services provided by the Library. The yearly costs have been reduced. OTA reimbursed GAO $80,000 for fiscal year 1981 and will reimburse the Library $50,000 for fiscal year 1982.

The Library of Congress provides the following services to OTA:

1)

Payroll preparation: (a) Issuance of payroll checks to staff and consultants; (b) Reporting to appropriate agencies on retirement, taxes, and other payroll deductions; and (c) Maintenance of official leave records.

2)

Travel services:

3)

(a) Airline reservations; (b) Airline

ticketing; (c) GTR issuance; and (d) General travel
information.

Accounting services: (a) Disbursement of fiscal year 1982
funds; (b) All Treasury reporting and reconciliation; (c)
Formal accounting reports to OTA.

The following table represents a comparison of the estimated costs had OTA been required to develop its own in-house system compared to the 1982 reimbursement to the Library of Congress:

Last year you submitted data on the timeliness and cost of OTA reports, showing which reports were approved after the date for scheduled completion, and how much over budget individual reports were. Please submit the same data for reports completed in the past 14 months, and for those scheduled for completion in the past 14 months but not yet completed.

Response:

(See table)

ability

369,700

29,700

0

4

0

(a) This report is one of several produced as part of an assessment of National Information Systems. Costs and dates are given for full

assessment.

(b) Where a cost is shown as estimated, the report has been published
recently enough that some obligations are still open and a final
cost cannot yet be established.

(c) The assessment was originally scheduled for completion

between March 1981 and May 1982 but as of May 31 is not complete. All costs and dates shown for these four assessments are estimates.

Question:

Your budget shows almost a 21% increase in nonpersonnel related costs, such as travel, transportation of items, printing, and equipment. Were these figures prepared when we were facing double digit inflation? Couldn't these figures be revised downward now that inflation is under control?

Response:

The figures were prepared when we were facing double digit inflation; however most of the estimated increases are due to greater workloads (e.g., printing and reproduction), changes in rates (e.g., postal service, telephone, and subsistence), and GSA equipment leasing contract rate escalations. In those few instances where inflation rates were used, the rates assumed were six percent or less. If further reduction in the inflation factor were applied, it would not provide a significant reduction on the request. A small reduction in the requested increase would be possible in the areas of printing and rents and communications if we were to operate at the FY '82 budget level, adjusted for inflation, as proposed in the first question.

Question:

Last year the House Appropriations Committee report suggested that OTA "examine the growth of its overhead costs, which are approaching 30% of the entire OTA budget." Did such a reexamination take place? If so, what were the results?

Response:

OTA did reexamine its overhead costs and was able to reduce the percentage from 30 percent in FY '80 to 25 percent in FY '81. Further reductions will be examined, but we feel that the current fixed costs are at or near minimal levels.

Question:

The House also expressed reservations about growing "quick response operations," which it felt were outside the OTA charter. What "quick response operations" have been undertaken thus far in FY '82, and how much is budgeted for such reports in FY '83?

Response:

Last year, we combined the costs of short-term assessment-related responses (i.e., assessment-related briefings, Committee testimony, staff papers, technical memoranda) with the planning and evaluation necessary to define proposed assessment projects for Board consideration. This combination appeared to give the impression that we were doing short-term work, similar to the work of the Congressional Research Service, which was not an integral and necessary part of our assessments. This was not the case, so rather than separately identify these costs, we have kept them as part of each assessment project budget, which is where they logically belong.