Senator GLENN. And it could be there.
Mr. CAMPBELL. It could be there.

Senator GLENN. Thank you. My time is up.

Chairman ROTH. Senator Grassley.

Senator GRASSLEY. I don't have questions for this panel, but could I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman? Are you going to go through the lunch hour, or are you going to quit for lunch and come back this afternoon?

Chairman ROTH. It is my intent to proceed.

Senator Lieberman.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have one question for this panel. This goes to the sort of mea culpas that several of us have done; that maybe we have met the enemy and it is us.

With respect to Congress being part of the problem here, did you find that GAO says no to inappropriate congressional requests? And if so, how often? Should there be some more formal procedure to encourage them to say no more often?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am going to ask Dr. Walsh to comment on this because she has spent a good deal of time looking at it. Let me simply say that GAO does on occasion say no for reasons related to duplication of other studies, in relation to the likelihood of a study being very extensive and very costly in terms of what the outcomes will be.

However, they also go way out of their way to be as responsive as they can.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.

Mr. CAMPBELL. My own view is that unless there is some selfrestraint exercised on the part of Congress, it is going to be very difficult to control that situation.

Annmarie?

Ms. WALSH. Yes. GAO tries to respond to almost all requests that it gets and tries to politely negotiate its way out of inappropriate requests by perhaps shifting the nature of the study. But it has felt the pressure of trying to respond to all Ranking Minority and Chairman requests and most Member requests.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right.

Ms. WALSH. That pressure could be to some extent controlled by terms of reference in the design of projects in the beginning, giving GAO the ability to sit down and look at the request and say: Do we have the skills to do this? Is the information available to do this? Is this appropriate? It will flag some of the things so that GAO could go back to a requester and say, "This isn't for us, and maybe there is a different way of going about this."

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that answer. Let me ask the question in another way. Should we as part of this review process be putting limitations on ourselves? In other words, should we be establishing more clear standards for what are appropriate requests to make of GAO so that they will have some basis in rule or statute for rejecting requests more easily that are not appropriate? And if so, how would you design it?

You have spent so much time on this, and I think you have got a pretty good set of opinions about what is the mission, the appropriate mission, of the GAO. And if we are taking it off that appro

priate course, asking too much of it, maybe we ought to figure out how to hone it down a little bit more.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is a very relevant question because the panel was quite concerned about the demands made on GAO. It is very difficult to think of how one could, in legislation, set limits other than to set total limits-I mean limits in terms of numbers of studies or something.

We thought that two things we recommended would help on this, one of which we have talked about quite a bit, the use of terms of reference. The other which we have not talked much about is to open up the strategic planning process within GAO so that those who are relevant to GAO-that is, the Congress-would have an opportunity to review that strategic plan. Since it lays out the kinds of projects that are going to be undertaken in the future, it would then be possible to determine whether a request fits or doesn't fit the plan. And if Congress has, in fact, sort of endorsed or at least reviewed, that strategic plan, there would be a justification in rejecting requests which don't fit the plan.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Well, that is an idea worth-Ms. Walsh, did you want to add something?

Ms. WALSH. We looked at many reports in which the panel concluded that GAO went beyond where you would really want GAO's role to be focused. And all I can say is that we knew them when we saw them, but it would be impossible to categorize them in law. An example might be upstream and downstream water rights, which have historically been solved in the United States more by guns than by audit.

But I think the line would be impossible to categorize in statute. Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. Your reference to knowing it when you see it brings to mind the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity. Ms. WALSH. Right.

Senator LIEBERMAN. Were these areas where Members of Congress asked the GAO to answer policy questions more than do analyses or is too simplistic a statement?

Ms. WALSH. That is certainly one area, and there are areas in which there really isn't a data base. In other words, if you were trying to design the project from the beginning, you would figure out whether there is a data base, a factual foundation by which the questions can be answered.

We kept reiterating in the report the importance of a fact basis, fact-based research. In some cases, one can determine in advance that there is no fact base for a particular question at this point in time.

Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. That is helpful, and I hope we will come back to that as a response to your report and as an attempt to self-discipline here. It will make it easier for GAO to do what we must want it to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ROTH. Senator Cohen.

Senator COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Campbell, from your report I couldn't gather this, but what were the policy thickets that GAO was stepping into? We know the Supreme Court doesn't step into the political thicket. What were

the policy thickets that you have identified that GAO has stepped into?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, I will ask both my colleagues to comment on that because they did review literally hundreds of reports, and I think it fair to say that the tendency to get into policy areas related to fiscal issues, issues related to savings and loans, issues related to the whole question of farm price supports.

There were a set of things there on which, by the way, there were some very useful studies done which were very, very carefully carried out and carefully documented. The issue is where do you stop.

Senator COHEN. Were there any studies that indicated that GAO recommended we should increase taxes or cut taxes or that we should grow the size of government or shrink the size of government, as you have raised these issues in the Executive Summary? I don't recall ever seeing those kinds of reports.

Mr. CAMPBELL. On taxes, there is the one transition report which everybody points to and

Senator COHEN. GAO actually recommended we increase taxes? Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, it depends how you read it. It says that if you want to accomplish this, this is what you have to do.

Senator COHEN. It may be in response to a Member saying, "How do we achieve the following objectives? If we do the following, what is the result?" So it does become very difficult to draw the line.

You also indicated in this, on page 3 of your report, that GAO should confine itself to core activities and leave for others the responsibilities or sources that are provided by others, and I wasn't sure what you meant by this.

For example, the Chairman mentioned that Senator Domenici and others perhaps have called upon the GAO to make an analysis of the regulations that the Executive Branch is now going to propose. Do you think it is appropriate then that Congress simply defer to OMB to make that analysis? And then under your example, this is GAO doing something that is already provided by another source. That other source happens to be OMB, and those of us on this side would say, wait a minute, we don't think OMB is objective enough. We would like to have Congress' own arm make an analysis of these regulations as to whether they measure up to the cost/benefit or risk assessment.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Certainly, in terms of the specific question you raise relative to review of regulations, there is obviously a very recent development, and the panel did not evaluate it. I would argue, though, that the panel would certainly say that if Congress wants GAO to do that, that is Congress' business. They should recognize that it is a very big task, and it is going to take a lot of resources and time to do it. For Congress to prefer GAO to do that rather than OMB is, to me, a legitimate direction because of, obviously, the separation of powers.

Senator COHEN. You have talked about having GAO perhaps make a cost assessment for each request before it is actually authorized.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Right.

Senator COHEN. Let me ask you to step into policy issue now. Do you think it would be helpful if we published the cost analysis

made by GAO, have it made part of the public record prior to its being undertaken? Would that be helpful in discouraging Members from asking for studies that are costly?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think I speak for the panel when I say that we believe that that process should be opened up to public scrutiny, and that would certainly include estimates of costs of projects before they are undertaken.

Senator COHEN. And publicizing it.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, as far as publicizing it, the question is to what degree you publicize it. Obviously, if the Committee and Congress are going to look at it and it is going to be put in a public document, then it is there.

Senator COHEN. It is there after the fact.

Mr. CAMPBELL. No, I am not saying that. I am sorry. What I am saying is that before the study is undertaken, that process should be gone through and an estimate of costs made which is a public estimate.

Senator COHEN. You just stepped into a policy recommendation. You understand this?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, I understand that.

Senator COHEN. OK.

Mr. CAMPBELL. We didn't feel any restraint about that.

Senator COHEN. You also indicated that you don't want to see GAO studies used to make headlines, and I think that was one of the comments that either you or the Chairman made. The question that occurred in my mind: Should we use the studies not to make headlines? I mean, as a practical matter, when we make a request for GAO to do a study on something that we think may reveal something fundamentally wrong or flawed, we take those studies and we, in fact, intend to make headlines.

GAO did a study on drug addicts and alcoholics collecting billions of dollars from disability insurance payments and SSI payments. Mr. CAMPBELL. Right.

Senator COHEN. I went and made headlines with that. As a result of making headlines with that, I was able to get a law passed with the help of my colleagues to change the law. So we used the GAO analysis to make the headlines. We use GAO to come up with an analysis of $100 billion lost every single year in health care fraud.

I have used that study as a basis of making headlines to call our colleagues' attention, to rally public support, to say we need to change the law to provide for a separate Title 18 provision dealing with criminal fraud activities. I haven't made much headway on it yet, but I am making headlines with this issue. Hopefully this year we will finally pass a bill that will stop these activities. It is what the Department of Justice wants, the FBI wants and the President wants.

So we use those studies, in fact, to make headlines. I think the problem is that we really have to be careful with where GAO-and I think this is what you are focusing on-where GAO uses language that is shaped to conform either to the intent or to the ideology of a particular Member or a particular Committee, and that is something that ought to be avoided.

89-838 98-2

But it seems to me that the purpose of requesting the study is, in part, to make headlines if we find there has been egregious behavior. If we find, for example, that the Federal Government has spent $200 billion over the past decade buying computers that don't talk to each other, that are completely inefficient, then we ought to make headlines with something like that.

Now, you pointed out that GAO has got a problem. They have outmoded computers. And in the short term, we may have to, as Senator Glenn said, spend more money for GAO to bring them up to a par where the commercial sector is right now.

But I must say that the notion that somehow these GAO reports must be so scrubbed and so sanitized that we have a thought control board, to make sure that no politically insensitive words can be used because Members might take those and make headlines, I think we are getting into an area which is very, very difficult to monitor. And I am not sure it is a wise one.

I think we can determine when someone is using a GAO report or someone is writing a report that has a partisan or political element to it or that is being misshapen and taken completely out of context to score political points. That is one thing. But I must say that as a result of what GAO has been doing, at least for me and the kind of requests I have made, they have been very helpful in making headlines and in gathering public support and gathering political support to do something about the problem.

That is a statement, Mr. Chairman, not a question.
Chairman ROTH. Senator Levin.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief statement that I want to open with before I ask some questions.

First, I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Senator Glenn for his persistence in obtaining this study. This study has been underway for some period of time. It began under Senator Glenn's leadership as Chairman, has been continued under Senator Roth, but it was Senator Glenn's initiative which started us down the road of taking a look at the GAO with this study, and I want to just make sure that we all pay him our respect for what he has done here as well as thanking the Academy for its work. It is important work. We obviously have to look at our own operations and not just the operations of Executive Branch agencies.

There are a number of very important proposals that you are making, and I believe that the GAO will take them seriously and not defensively. I have no reason to believe that they are going to do anything other than to take a look at what this excellent outside board has looked at and take them to heart and to make changes which are appropriate.

We should apply this kind of review to every agency, be it an Executive Branch agency or a Legislative Branch agency. We shouldn't shy away from looking at our own agencies, and this Committee is not going to be shy in looking at the congressional agencies. Where improvements are indicated, they should be made-not defensively, but very openly, and with appreciation for the people who made the recommendation for change.