ESTIMATE IN FISCAL YEAR 1964 Mr. CAMPBELL. My statement relative to the budget estimates of the U.S. General Accounting Office for fiscal year 1964 summarizes our requirements and operations. I believe the justifications of the estimates which you have before you contain additional information which provides you rather comprehensive data on our operations and requirements. Our estimates for 1964 total $46,850,000, an increase of $2,950,000 over the amount appropriated for 1963. Of our request, $3,250,000 is required for payment of the two pay increases provided under Public Law 87-793, October 11, 1962; $3,010,000 for salaries and $240,000 for retirement contributions and similar costs arising from those pay increases. Excluding the $3,250,000 referred to, our estimates would have been for $300,000 less than our appropriation for the current fiscal year. Senator MAGNUSON. In other words, the way that you submitted our budget, if the pay increases, the salary increases and contributions had not been passed by the Congress you might have come out even under last year? Mr. CAMPBELL. We would have been asking for $300,000 less. SALARIES, PERSONNEL BENEFITS, AND TRAVEL It may be of interest ot note that 97.3 percent of our estimated needs for 1964, or $45,603,000, is to cover salaries, personnel benefits, and travel of our staff. The estimates for 1964 provide for a net increase of 23 positions over our revised 1963 estimates, all of which are in the professional accounting and auditing category. In line with our professional staffing goals necessary for more comprehensive coverage, we have provided in 1964 for an average of 2,200 accountants and auditors, as compared with 2,061 in our 1963 estimates, an increase of 139. The additional funds required to finance the expansion of the accounting and auditing staff in 1964 have been reduced by savings resulting from the planned reduction of 116 employees in other areas throughout the office. Senator MAGNUSON. This at this point, as to the reduction of 116, were some of them to be transferred to other agencies or would they be new people? Mr. CAMPBELL. The net increase of 139 in our professional staff would be new people. Senator MAGNUSON. New people. Mr. CAMPBELL. And the planned reduction of 116 employees would be by retirement, principally. We retire about 150 people a year. Senator MAGNUSON. All right, you may proceed. PERSONNEL SITUATION Mr. CAMPBELL. On June 20, 1963, we had a professional staff of 2,138 accountants, auditors, and investigators, not including 79 who are currently on military duty, and we expect to have 2,148 accountants on the rolls by June 30. We also expect 70 accountants to report for duty during July and August. The table on page A-9 of the justifications shows by organization and category of expense a comparison of staffing and fund requirements for 1963 and 1964. Our appropriation for 1963 provided for an average of 4,906 employees, $36,477,000 for salaries, and $7,423,000 for other objectsa total of $43,900,000. We have been able to absorb the increased pay costs amounting to $1,667,000 for 1963 within our basic appropriation of $43,900,000 by reducing the staffing provided in our 1963 appropriation from an average of 4,906 to an average of 4,711, a total of 195 positions. The reductions were made principally in areas other than our professional staff where the attrition rate in 1962 exceeded our expectations and has continued to be heavier than expected in 1963. The justifications before you include 1963 estimates as finally revised to operate within our appropriation for 1963. TRAVEL STATUS AND REQUIREMENTS Effective examination of the activities of Federal agencies and contractors requires that our audit and investigative work be done at Federal agency offices, installations, and contractors' plants located throughout the United States and in numerous countries abroad. During the fiscal year 1962, our staff carried out its work at 2,505 locations throughout the world, including 22 foreign countries. For this reason, a large part of the working time of our professional staff of accountants and auditors must be spent in travel status. For fiscal year 1964, we are requesting an authorization of $3,400,000, an increase of $125,000 over the amount authorized for 1963, to meet our estimated travel requirements. Approximately $2.1 million of our total travel requirements of $3.4 million is for subsistence and per diem payments to our staff while in travel status, and $1.3 million is for the payment of transportation, mileage, and other costs incidental to their assignments. Although the headquarters staff travel will remain at present levels, we anticipate an increase of $125,000 in our field offices, both in the United States and abroad, will be incurred by our expanded staff in these offices. Details concerning our travel requirements are shown on pages A11 through A14 of the justifications. Senator MAGNUSON. For the record, what kind of work would they be doing abroad and in what field? Mr. CAMPBELL. Our offices in Europe are in Paris and Frankfort. Substantially all of our staff in Europe are in military assistance program, defense installations and on contract work throughout France, Germany, Spain, and most of the Western European and Middle East countries. Senator MAGNUSON. It would be, as you say, 99 or 100 percent in our defense installations abroad? Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct. OFFICE IN THE ORIENT Senator MAGNUSON. Do you have any in the Orient? Mr. CAMPBELL. We have an office in Tokyo; that staff works generally in the area from Japan south to the Philippines, west as far as Pakistan, and east to Guam. That requires very heavy travel. Senator MAGNUSON. Well, now, in the Orient, would there be some other than military that they would look at? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. In the Orient our Tokyo staff has assisted considerably on foreign aid assignments. Senator MAGNUSON. I was going to say, because in Europe the foreign aid is practically nil, except the military. Mr. CAMPBELL. That is correct. Senator MAGNUSON. Such as commitments to NATO, and so forth. Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Senator MAGNUSON. But that would be classed as military. But in the other end of the world you have a foreign aid matter. Mr. CAMPBELL. We have foreign aid problems. Senator MAGNUSON. And that works out of the Tokyo office? Mr. CAMPBELL. Out of the Tokyo office, although we do send men. from this country to work with the Far East staff. Senator MAGNUSON. Occasionally they go direct? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Senator MAGNUSON. Into Pakistan and other places? Senator MAGNUSON. How often does the foreign aid group call upon you to do this, or do you take it up on your own initiative? Mr. CAMPBELL. We generally take it up on our own initiative. We do have assignments from various committees, principally the House Committees on Government Operations, Foreign Affairs, and Appropriations, but in general it is our own program. Senator MAGNUSON. And the agency itself very seldom calls upon you to look at something? Mr. CAMPBELL. Very seldom. Senator MAGNUSON. Very seldom? Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes. Senator MAGNUSON. It may be from a congressional group or a program that you have initiated consistent with the expenditure in the area? Mr. CAMPBELL. That is right. Senator MAGNUSON. Are there any questions on this? DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND Senator ALLOTT. Yes, I do have some questions. Mr. Campbell, one fact which we studied here about 4 years ago was the Development Loan Fund. To what extent do you go into the loans made under the Development Loan Fund? Mr. CAMPBELL. We review their loans periodically. We do not look at the loans currently in the making, but we are looking at certain of the loans now in effect. Senator ALLOTT. When you say you are looking at them, in what department and from what perspective do you look at them? I will tell you why I want to know this. I do not think that anyone in Congress although just as a guess we must have almost $3 billion in this program by now-has ever taken a long, accurate look at any of the loan funds, such as the DLF funds, so far as I know. At least, I have never seen a report on it. Senator MAGNUSON. You mean development loans? Senator ALLOTT. Yes. A part of our foreign assistance program, BASIS FOR LOANS Mr. CAMPBELL. In other words, you are referring to the basis for the loan-what is behind the loan? |