U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–307 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–322

GAO’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING CONGRESSIONAL

OVERSIGHT: AN OVERVIEW OF PAST WORK AND

FUTURE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 21, 2007

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Senior Counsel 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JAY W. MARONEY, Minority Counsel 

MELVIN D. ALBRITTON, Minority Counsel 

LEAH Q. NASH, Minority GAO Detailee 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 2

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 4

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 14

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 18

WITNESS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007

Hon. David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Letter sent to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated March 

1, 2007, from GAO ........................................................................................ 53

Questions and responses submitted for the Record ....................................... 69

(1)

GAO’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING 

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT: AN OVERVIEW 

OF PAST WORK AND FUTURE 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2007

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Akaka, McCaskill, Collins, and 

Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The hearing will come to order. Good 

morning, and welcome to everyone, particularly welcome to our 

Comptroller General, David Walker. We hope that this room seems 

like your home away from home, and we thank you for all the 

times you have been here and been so constructive. 

Today, instead of asking you to focus the light of your office on 

another government office, this Committee has asked you to help 

us focus on your office. And if I may paraphrase, normally we ask 

what GAO can do for us. Today we are going to ask what we can 

do for you because this Committee is not only grateful to you for 

the specific and substantial help you have given us in our work of 

oversight, but we are great admirers of your work, generally. 

You and your staff have helped us to evaluate and consider ways 

to improve the operation of agencies and programs throughout the 

Federal Government. Because this Committee has oversight of government responsibilities, we depend heavily on GAO, and as the 

Committee with jurisdiction over the Homeland Security Department, we have also depended on you in a different way, which is 

to help us help those in charge of the Department to transform this 

amalgam of 180,000 employees and 22 agencies into a superior 

homeland security operation. 

In preparation for the hearing, my staff went back and looked at 

just the last 12 months, and we were quite struck to note that we, 

this Committee, have received over 200 reports in the last 12 

months, either requested by us, the Committee or Subcommittees, 

or initiated by GAO and addressed specifically to us. That is quite 

a remarkable number. And the range of topics covered is in its way 

2

even more remarkable, from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disaster 

relief to improving governmentwide financial management, to 

strengthening the privacy of health information, to the Department 

of Homeland Security’s management of homeland security first responder grants, to securing and rebuilding Iraq. Our work—that is, 

this Committee’s work—has benefited greatly from your output and 

so, I am confident, have the American people. 

This morning we have asked the Comptroller General to provide 

an overview of GAO’s traditional work in supporting congressional 

oversight and also to describe GAO’s efforts to provide Congress 

with what David Walker has called ‘‘insight and foresight’’ on approaches to problems that are still with us, unresolved, and where 

best practices should be applied. 

The Comptroller General has been particularly active in providing Congress and the public with an understanding of our longterm fiscal problems and the dangers that they present to the future of our country and really to every American. GAO has issued 

a number of significant and substantial reports in this particular 

area, most recently in its January 2007 report on fiscal stewardship. And now, like the hero of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s 

poem, David Walker rides ‘‘booted and spurred’’ throughout the 

American countryside, sounding the alarm at town hall meetings 

as part of the Fiscal Wake-Up Tour led by the aptly named Concord Coalition, in which he is the central spokesperson. 

During the mid-1990s, coming back home to GAO, GAO suffered 

a 40-percent budget reduction and the loss of many full-time equivalent positions. Since the Comptroller General took office in 1998, 

he has transformed the agency into a more results-oriented, clientfocused, and very efficient operation. Last year, GAO determined 

that it had provided quite a remarkable return on public dollars invested, which is to say $105 saved for the taxpayers for every $1 

spent on this office. Also, this is an office with very high client satisfaction ratings. And yet GAO’s budget has declined by 3 percent 

after inflation over the past 4 years. 

So I look forward to hearing the Comptroller General testify 

about his fiscal year 2008 budget request, which includes additional funds to help the office meet the demands on it and maintain 

its high level of quality and effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In 

a sense, you might say this is a GAO authorization hearing, that 

is, a budget authorization hearing, by the Committee to review 

what you have been doing, to take a look at what amount of money 

has been recommended for you next year and in the years ahead, 

and to see how we might help you better help us and the American 

taxpayers. Thank you. 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For more than 85 years, the Government Accountability Office 

has worked with Congress and for the American people to make 

Federal agencies and programs more accountable and more effective. The ‘‘watchdog of Congress’’ has served us well as auditor, 

overseer, investigator, and evaluator. I look forward to hearing the 

3

testimony today from the Comptroller General as the Committee 

considers GAO’s work, its results, and its challenges. 

Let me make clear at the outset how much I appreciate the work 

of the GAO. Not only does the office perform yeoman’s service in 

research, analysis, and evaluation, but it presents its work in a 

compact, coherent, and accessible form, and in a conscientiously 

nonpartisan way. 

GAO reports are authoritative and invaluable tools for lawmakers and for our staff. The professionals at GAO are entitled to 

feel a sense of great pride in the work that they undertake. Simply 

noting the range of recent GAO reports for this Committee suggests the value that they represent. They have done work for us 

on border security, Hurricane Katrina, homeland security grants, 

interagency contracting, immigration services, human capital reform, and, of course, the well-known high-risk list of government 

agencies and programs. 

I was, of course, very pleased that the GAO has removed the 

U.S. Postal Service from the high-risk list this year as a result of 

reform legislation that Senator Carper and I sponsored in the last 

session of Congress. I hope that the high-risk list may soon have 

another success story. S. 680, the Accountability in Government 

Contracting Act, which I have introduced with the Chairman, Senator Coleman, Senator Carper, and Senator McCaskill, will strike 

at many of the serious issues that GAO has identified in the acquisition and oversight processes that govern billions of dollars in Federal contracting each year. GAO’s research findings and recommendations played a key role in the development of that bill. 

The GAO has also provided a great deal of valuable analysis and 

assistance on issues before this Committee, such as homeland security and disaster preparedness and response, issues that have accounted for much of this Committee’s work during the past 2 years. 

Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the GAO provided Congress with more than 30 reports and statements on FEMA, Federal 

grant programs, disaster housing assistance, medical expenditures, 

contracting, and disaster program waste, fraud, and abuse. All of 

this work was extremely helpful last year as the Committee conducted its extensive in-depth investigation of the failed response to 

Hurricane Katrina. 

I understand, as the Chairman has indicated, that GAO has computed its fiscal year 2006 financial benefits of its work at $51 billion, representing an amazing return of $105 for each $1 spent. 

That kind of return, not to mention the GAO’s clean financial 

statement, should be the envy of both the private sector and government organizations. That GAO has been able to perform all of 

this work on a budget that is 3 percent lower in real dollars than 

just 4 years ago is truly impressive. I hope today’s hearing will not 

only illuminate some of the fine service that GAO performs, but 

also spread Mr. Walker’s message about the challenges of funding 

operations and human capital needs now and in the years ahead. 

Some of you may recall that Senator Voinovich and I collaborated 

in 2003 on authorizing some personnel reforms for the GAO, and 

I look forward to hearing about further needs in this area as well. 

Let me close with one more note of appreciation, and, again, it 

is an issue that our Chairman has mentioned. 

4

GAO’s leadership in the continuing nationwide Fiscal Wake-Up 

Tour on our long-term Federal budget problems strikes me as a 

particularly valuable public service. As demands for new or increased Federal spending multiply, the core fiscal reality is this: 

We are on an unsustainable path that cannot be remedied with 

simple solutions. This message needs forceful and repeated explanation and examination, and I commend Mr. Walker for working 

with a wide variety of groups across the political spectrum to 

spread that message in a responsible way that educates the public 

but does not prejudge policy choices or outcomes. 

In sum, Mr. Chairman, we have a wide variety of reasons to welcome Mr. Walker here today, and I commend you for scheduling 

this hearing. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. 

Senator Voinovich, who has worked so much on issues related to 

human capital management, unfortunately cannot stay very long, 

and I wanted to ask him at this point to perhaps make an opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this 

hearing. Comptroller General Walker, I just want to express my 

appreciation to you for all of the help and cooperation that you 

have given me since I have been a Member of the U.S. Senate. I 

think that history will record you as the most outstanding Comptroller General that we have had. I would agree with the statements made by the Chairman of the Committee and the Ranking 

Member of how you have contributed to improving the management of government here in the U.S. Senate and in the country, 

and also for your very responsible effort to awaken the American 

people to the looming fiscal crisis that we seem to continue to ignore. 

I am particularly interested in hearing from you about what you 

have done with the personnel flexibilities that we have given to 

you, in particular authorities to enhance your pay-for-performance 

system, which is something that still is a controversial thing here. 

And last, but not least, some of the other ideas that you have on 

how you feel that you can improve GAO’s operations. 

As mentioned, we get thousands of reports. Mr. Chairman, is 

that correct? 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We had more than 200 in just the last 

year directed to us. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I would be interested in your perspective, 

Mr. Walker, on how you decide where you put your emphasis and 

human capital. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I would ask that my 

total statement be made a part of the record. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. Since its creation 

in 1921, GAO has worked with Congress to make Federal agencies and programs 

more accountable. GAO works for Congress, but its beneficiaries are the American 

people who rightfully expect the Federal Government to spend their tax dollars 

5

wisely. Today, we examine the results GAO has achieved and the challenges it 

faces. 

Under Comptroller General Walker’s leadership, the depth and breadth of GAO’s 

work on behalf of Congress has continued to expand. Congress has provided GAO 

with personnel flexibilities to recruit, retain, and reward the highly-skilled workforce necessary to get the job done. While there is always room for improvement in 

human capital management, I am pleased that GAO has led by example in managing its workforce. Comptroller General Walker has not lost the connection between good management practices and operational success. 

I commend GAO for its continued commitment to the high-risk list. This bi-annual 

report outlines governmentwide and agency-specific programs that are susceptible 

to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. In 2005, my good friend Senator 

Akaka and I began an extensive review of GAO’s high-risk list, which to date has 

included eight hearings, as well as regular meetings with GAO and the Office of 

Management and Budget. Our work on DOD supply chain management and security 

clearance reform has helped DOD to better manage these areas which can have negative implications to our Nation’s security and waste taxpayer’s money. It is imperative that we continue our work to resolve the management challenges on the highrisk list. 

However, in some instances, improving the performance of a high-risk program 

area requires more than implementing sound business practices and oversight from 

Congress. Transforming the Department of Homeland Security represents the single 

largest restructuring of the Federal Government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947, and continues to be a top priority for me. 

That is why I am so pleased that S. 4, which recently passed the Senate, would 

create a Chief Management Officer at DHS. I believe the creation of a CMO is essential in addressing the critical management challenges facing the Department, 

and will generate the high-level attention and focus needed to produce results. 

I have been working closely, for some time now, with Comptroller General Walker 

on the issue of our Nation’s fiscal health. America’s fiscal situation is dire. And, it’s 

getting worse by the day. In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend more than it brings in. We are using our children and grandchildren’s credit card for today’s needs, knowing that the interest and debt will continue to accrue. We have an obligation to share with the American people the grim 

state of our fiscal health. That is why GAO’s work on long-term fiscal challenges 

is so important. This is a call to action that no one who cares about the future of 

our Nation can ignore. 

I have said many times that I am concerned we are running out of time to face 

reality and do what is right. If we don’t assume the responsibility of reversing our 

irresponsible behavior and nurse our fiscal system back into good health, how can 

any of us look our children and grandchildren honestly in the eye and pretend to 

be concerned about their future? 

Since I arrived in the U.S. Senate, the national debt has increased from $5.6 trillion in 2000 to $8.6 trillion today—an increase of more than 50 percent in just 7 

years. This amounts to $29,000 of debt for every American. What is even more concerning, however, is that 55 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by 

foreign creditors, including the Chinese government—and that’s up 35 percent from 

just 5 years ago. Yet, these numbers, which represent our past behavior, pale in 

comparison with the budget problems looming in our future as the Baby Boom generation begins to retire less than a year from now. 

We have a moral obligation to restore the fiscal health of our Nation. I agree with 

Comptroller General Walker. Our commitments to the War on Terror, to defending 

our borders, and to investing in our national infrastructure of competitiveness, demand tremendous resources and require long-term financial obligations. The need 

for tax reform and entitlement reform has never been greater. 

That is why I am pleased to have partnered with Congressman Frank Wolf to introduce the Securing America’s Future Economy Commission Act, which establishes 

a national, bipartisan commission to present solutions to place the Nation on a fiscally sustainable course. 

The Commission will hold town hall meetings throughout the country to engage 

in a national discussion with citizens and consider possible policy options and will 

produce a report to Congress with proposed legislation. Our bill establishes that the 

Administration and Congress will have 90 days to review the proposal and develop 

an alternative package of reforms if they believe it is necessary. The most important 

feature of the bill is the fast-track procedure to guarantee a vote in Congress on 

either the Commission’s legislation or Congress’s alternative. 

6

1The prepared statement of Mr. Walker appears in the Appendix on page 29. 

We, in Congress, need to do a better job of oversight, and will continue to rely 

on GAO to support our efforts. Together, we can help bring increased attention to 

the challenges facing our Nation. Thank you.

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. 

Mr. Walker, Comptroller General, honorable friend, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID M. WALKER,1 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. WALKER. Chairman Lieberman, Senators Collins, Voinovich, 

and McCaskill, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here, 

and thank you for your kind remarks. 

Let me say at the outset I am pleased and honored to be able 

to head the GAO. I work with over 3,000 of some of the brightest, 

best educated, and most dedicated public servants that exist on 

this planet, and while I am their leader, believe me, we are a team. 

I very much appreciate your kind comments, and I will take them 

as reflecting on the entire organization, as they should. 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk about GAO’s 

role, to review a few of our recent major initiatives, and to talk 

about some of our current challenges and future directions. I think 

it is important to note that GAO is in the business of trying to improve government performance and assuring accountability for the 

benefit of the American people. We are in the oversight, insight, 

foresight, and adjudicatory business. And as I know every Senator 

here recognizes, GAO is truly a strategic asset for the Congress, in 

general, and for this Committee, in particular, as we try to go 

about addressing various sustainability challenges and transforming government to better meet the challenges and capitalize on 

the opportunities of the 21st Century. 

We have an ability to look longer range, to look across silos, and 

to employ a more integrated approach to a range of issues, and I 

might add this Committee has that same ability. You are uniquely 

positioned to be able to address a number of the current and 

emerging long-range and cross-cutting issues that exist and that 

face the United States in its position in the world. 

But also being the chief audit organization of the United States, 

I believe very strongly—and our employees and executives have 

risen to the challenge—that we have an obligation to lead by example, to be as good or better than any other government agency in 

every major area of management. 

Now, if I can, let me summarize some of our most recent significant publications that I think should be able to help you help the 

American people, and that is what we are all about—trying to 

make a difference. And I know that is what all of you are all about. 

In the area of oversight, on November 17, 2006, I sent to every 

Member of this Committee a list of 36 suggested areas for oversight. Believe me, it could have been much longer, but we have to 

try to prioritize. And these are areas that in some cases have received oversight in the past, and they need continued oversight. In 

some areas, they really have not had as much oversight as they deserve, and I would commend to you this document as you are tryVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:59 Mar 24, 2008 Jkt 036307 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\36307.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
7

ing to set the agenda for this Committee and for the respective 

Subcommittees. 

In January 2007—because clearly one of the biggest issues on 

the agenda in November in the minds of the American people was 

the challenges that we face in Iraq—we issued a special report on 

work that we have done in Iraq and suggested a number of areas 

that are in need of additional oversight with regard to that particular issue. 

At the end of January, we issued our new high-risk list, which 

has 26 areas on it, 15 of which relate to the Department of Defense 

directly or indirectly. It is clearly the most challenged entity in the 

Federal Government at the present point in time with regard to 

management, economy, and efficiency matters. In fact, many of you 

participated in the release of this, and I want to thank you for your 

interest and efforts in that regard. And I do want to note that two 

items came off the list. In particular, I want to commend this Committee, Senator Collins, Senator Carper, and others for their leadership in connection with postal reform legislation. There was a 

combination of efforts by the leadership at the Postal Service as 

well as achieving this landmark legislation that enabled us to take 

the Postal Service’s transformation effort off the high-risk list. And 

that is an example of how we have to move beyond fraud, waste, 

abuse, and mismanagement. We should have zero tolerance for 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, but it will never be zero. 

As you all know, there is no line item in the Federal budget that 

says fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement that you can just 

eliminate. In fact, arguably, the largest item of waste in the Federal budget is the $227 billion in interest on the Federal debt, 

which is over double what we spent in Iraq because we get nothing 

for interest. It is for past excess consumption. But the key is that 

we need to transform what government does and how it does business. There is much more money to be obtained in that, but we also 

should try to minimize fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. 

On insight, we have issued a comprehensive framework on our 

work in conjunction with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for this 

Committee. We have recommended a number of improvements to 

management structures—in particular, the need for a chief management official in selected departments and agencies to elevate, to 

integrate, and to institutionalize a number of major transformation 

efforts. In my view, this is highly desirable at the Department of 

Homeland Security and at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It is absolutely essential for the Department of Defense, 

in my view. 

We have talked about the need for a comprehensive human capital reform framework. We are in danger of seeing a fragmentation 

of the rules that apply to civil servants in this country. At present, 

many agencies are trying to pursue their own actions without a 

comprehensive framework that is necessary to make sure that we 

are making progress while preventing abuse. We have also talked 

about the need for this Nation to implement a set of key national 

indicators, outcome-based indicators to be able to assess our position, our progress, and how we compare to others. 

On foresight, our 21st Century Challenges document raises over 

200 questions that need to be asked and answered to reengineer 

8

the Federal Government for the 21st Century. Our fiscal stewardship and sustainability report that was sent to every member of the 

Senate and House in January lays out in clear and concise terms 

where we are, where we are headed, and as Senator Collins said, 

the fact that we are on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal 

path. As a result, we need to start making tough choices sooner 

rather than later. And our new strategic plan, which we are preparing in conjunction with the Congress, will be coming out at the 

end of this month. It will include various themes and challenges 

facing the United States. 

With regard to GAO, I am pleased to say that our executives and 

employees have risen to the challenge to lead by example, and we 

are in the forefront of government transformation as it relates to 

strategic planning, organizational alignment, human capital practices, financial management, information technology, performance 

metrics, and a variety of other areas. We are the leader or one of 

the leaders recognized by independent third parties in all of these 

areas. And in part, it is because of the authorization that this Committee gave GAO in the human capital area or other support that 

this Committee has provided. 

I also might note that we have of late experienced certain records 

or people access challenges which are in various stages of trying to 

resolve. In the case of the Department of Homeland Security, we 

have had a number of delays, not outright denials. They have an 

inefficient process for trying to be able to deal with requests from 

GAO, but I am pleased to say that within the last week I had a 

constructive conversation with Secretary Chertoff, and I am hopeful that we are going to see positive progress moving forward. 

With regard to the Department of Defense, we may be issuing 

our first demand letter since the Cheney litigation in the near future if we cannot achieve successful resolution of a couple of requests that have been pending for months at the Department of 

Defense. 

At the State Department, we have been seeking their approval 

for a number of months for GAO to be able to have three persons 

spend up to 3 months in Baghdad, in the Green Zone, at the request of the Congress to provide a continuing presence there as a 

supplement to projecting people in and out of that country on a 

periodic basis, and they have yet to approve our request. I am trying to resolve that. 

With regard to linking resources to results, Mr. Chairman, I am 

a strong believer in linking resources to results, although I would 

respectfully suggest that is totally inconsistent with how the appropriations process works for the Federal Government. And that is 

one of the reasons why we need key national indicators, so we 

know what the results are, what the outcomes are, and so the Congress can make better decisions in connection with authorizing, reauthorization, oversight, and appropriations matters. 

For GAO, since 2003, as you pointed out, our purchasing power 

has declined 3 percent, and our results have increased dramatically. But that is going to change if we do not get more support. 

We have done about everything that we can do to improve our 

processes, to leverage our technology, to try to do what we can 

within available resource levels. Our backlogs are real, and our 

9

supply and demand imbalance is going to get worse over time because of the tremendous pent-up demand to address some of the 

issues that I talked about. In that regard, this country is a great 

country, but it faces many serious sustainability challenges—fiscal, 

health care, Social Security, education, energy, environment, Iraq, 

and immigration. They are all sustainability challenges. Our 

present course is not sustainable. We need to make some changes, 

and we can help the Congress make timely, informed judgments in 

these areas. 

With regard to legislative proposals, there are several that we 

are going to be seeking your assistance on: 

First, GAO’s authorities and human capital flexibilities. We have 

looked at our authorities and tried to ascertain where they need to 

either be reaffirmed or strengthened. And, we have looked at our 

human capital flexibilities, and there are at least a couple of things 

that we think would benefit our employees that we are going to ask 

for your consideration, specifically, for example, to eliminate the 

GS 15–10 cap for pay for some of our employees. That would not 

give us more money. It just means that we can end up paying what 

the market says that we should pay in some circumstances without 

being artificially constrained by that GS 15–10 cap. We will propose an alternative cap that would hopefully be acceptable to this 

Committee. 

And, second, as we move to a more skills, knowledge, performance, and market-based pay system, we want to make sure that, 

to the extent that we provide part of annual compensation in the 

form of a bonus that historically might have been paid in the form 

of base pay, it should not penalize somebody’s ‘‘high three’’ for pension purposes. I think that is very important, and we want to try 

to do that. It is very pro-employee. I think you will find when you 

see what we are going to be asking for, it is all pro-employee, and 

I think that is important. 

We are going to be asking for authority to establish a Board of 

Contract Appeals for Legislative Branch contracting disputes. We 

are also going to be asking for your support to eliminate a number 

of mandates that have occurred over the years that do not pass a 

cost/benefit test, to put it plainly. 

And, last, we are going to work with this Committee and its 

Members to seek support for moving legislation that would improve 

transparency in accounting and budgeting matters. We clearly need 

to have more transparency with regard to our long-range fiscal situation, in financial reporting, in the President’s annual budget documents, and in the budget process that Congress goes through in 

discharging its constitutional responsibilities. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, I think GAO is a very important 

agency. I think it is becoming more important as time goes on. I 

think it is clearly a strategic asset for the Congress, and in particular for this Committee. I want to thank you for all your past 

support. I want to seek additional support in this and other areas. 

And I am more than happy to answer any questions that you and 

the other Senators may have. 

Thank you. 

10

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Mr. Walker. Excellent 

opening statement. I guess we can do 7-minute rounds of questions 

to start off with. 

Let me focus for a moment on your budget. Just give us an overview of how many employees you have now and how much funding 

you received this year and what is the proposed funding for next 

year. 

Mr. WALKER. We have about 3,200 employees. As you pointed 

out, we were downsized about 40 percent in the mid-1990s. We had 

a hiring freeze for about 5 years, limited promotions, etc. Our head 

count, as I look here before me, which I believe is in Appendix IV 

of my statement, was 3,194 for 2006. It is expected to be about the 

same for 2007. Our total budget was $484 million in 2006. As you 

pointed out before, we generated $51 billion plus financial benefits 

in that year. That is how you get to $105 billion. 

But if you look at Appendix IV, you will see that in purchasing 

power, the peak of our purchasing power since I have been Comptroller General was in 2004 at $495 million, and it has declined 

since then. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes, that is what is really compelling 

about Appendix IV, which is that the line goes down, basically. Occasionally a little blip up, as from 2002 to 2003, but in real dollars 

you are down from a high of $602 million in support we gave you 

in 1992 to $479 million for 2007. 

Mr. WALKER. And as you know, 80 percent of our budget is for 

compensation costs. And of the other 20 percent, a majority of it 

is for nondiscretionary items. They are contracting costs to maintain our computers; they are for rent; and they are for items that 

really are nondiscretionary. And so we have done everything we 

can to try to get as much as we can, but I fully also recognize that 

the Congress has constraints. We do have a fiscal challenge. At the 

same point in time, I would hope that in trying to constrain spending Congress would allocate whatever spending that is made to the 

agencies that generate results. So it is a reallocation rather than 

necessarily continuing to increase levels. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Are you asking in the appropriations 

process for an increase beyond the amount recommended for next 

year? 

Mr. WALKER. I testified last week before the Senate Legislative 

Branch Subcommittee. Senator Landrieu is Chair of that. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WALKER. We had a very positive hearing, and I know she 

wants to try to be helpful. But I think the key is that while we are 

not asking for a head count increase this year, we are asking for 

about an 8.5 percent dollar increase in order to be able to do things 

that have been deferred for too long and in order to make sure that 

we are in a position to continue to improve our productivity and 

maintain our results and not increase backlogs. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So that is an increase for overall spending, not in personnel. 

Mr. WALKER. We are not asking for an increase in personnel 

with regard to fiscal year 2008. I did, however, say that, in my 

opinion, we are going to need to look at possibly an increase in personnel, in installments, over the next 6 years or so. As I look at 

11

existing supply and demand imbalances and what is likely to occur 

in the years ahead, the Congress is going to need more help to address a lot of these challenges, and we are well positioned to do it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. So in dollars, how much more does 8.5 

percent come to? 

Mr. WALKER. I think it is around $530 million in total authority. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. As opposed to $479 million, you are asking for $530 million? 

Mr. WALKER. As opposed to $489 million, which includes $481 

million in direct appropriations and almost $8 million from reimbursements for selected financial audits and for lease of GAO 

building space. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WALKER. It is about $489 million. But that includes reimbursements that we receive from financial audits and space leasing. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Perhaps we as, in a sense, your authorizing Committee can work with Senator Landrieu, who, of course, 

is also a Member of this Committee. 

Mr. WALKER. Which is helpful. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. It is. Let me ask you to just take a 

minute or two and give some detail and life to this remarkable return-on-investment number that I cited in my opening statement. 

Where is it coming from? 

Mr. WALKER. One of the things that we do is measure success 

on four bases: Results; client feedback, which means the Congress; 

employee feedback, our most valuable asset; and partner feedback. 

On results, there are several measures, one of which is financial 

benefits. Financial benefits represent the amount of money that either is saved and/or freed up for redeployment to higher priorities 

as a result of either the Congress or the Executive Branch adopting 

a GAO recommendation. The latest summary annual report that 

we issued is this document, which I know has come up, and this 

document summarizes some of the greatest financial benefits for 

the particular year. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Give us a few examples, please, if you can 

find them quickly. 

Mr. WALKER. I will be happy to do that. For example, ensuring 

the continued monetary benefits from Federal full spectrum auctions, $6 billion; working with DOD to reduce unobligated funds in 

military service operations and maintenance budgets, about $4 billion; adoption of alternative payment methods to cut Medicare costs 

for durable medical equipment, about $3 billion. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. Those are each responses to the investigation reports that GAO did. 

Mr. WALKER. And specific related recommendations. Importantly, 

we achieved confirmation that the recommendations have been 

adopted, and we do not come up with the financial benefits. Those 

are from numbers that we receive from others, and any major financial benefit over a certain amount of money is also looked at 

by our Inspector General to make sure that she believes that we 

are appropriately taking credit. 

12

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. That is truly impressive. Am I correct that there is a growing number of requests for action by GAO 

from Members of Congress? 

Mr. WALKER. In the short term, no. But it is a timing difference. 

Let me clarify what is going on now. There were increasing requests until the change in control of Congress. As has historically 

been the case when there is a change in control, it takes a little 

bit of time for the Congress to be able to staff up, to decide what 

its agenda is going to be, and so we see a delay in new requests. 

The most recent statistics are as follows: We have had a significant increase in hearings that are based upon past GAO work and 

pent-up demand. We have seen a temporary decrease in requests, 

but we know based on past history that it is only temporary. And 

based upon conversations that we are having with people on the 

Hill, we know there is a lot in the pipeline that just has not come 

in the door yet. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very interesting. But skip back before 

this January 1. Over the preceding 5 years, was there an increase 

in requests? 

Mr. WALKER. Yes, it varied by year, but here is the important 

thing, and I know that Senator Voinovich mentioned this before. 

We are much more discerning about requests that we accept. We 

are basically to the point that because of supply and demand imbalances, if it is not a Chair or Ranking Member of a committee 

or subcommittee with jurisdiction over the matter, we are having 

to say no because that is where we are on supply and demand. 

There are certain areas where we have significant supply and demand imbalances, including health care and certain aspects of 

homeland security, and we expect they are going to grow over time. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Walker, I mentioned in my opening statement your Fiscal 

Wake-Up Tour, which I think is so beneficial as far as educating 

the American people about the tough budget challenges that we 

face. And you have made a convincing case that our current fiscal 

path is simply not sustainable. There is, however, still a lot of misconceptions about the path that we are on. 

In August 2006, the GAO put out a very interesting set of charts 

to accompany you on your tour, and one of the charts appears to 

show that neither slowing the growth in discretionary spending nor 

allowing tax relief to expire, nor both together, would eliminate the 

imbalance. Is that correct? 

Mr. WALKER. That is correct. 

Senator COLLINS. And that suggests to me that Congress really 

needs to tackle entitlement reform, which is very difficult for us to 

do. Is that your conclusion as well? 

Mr. WALKER. It is. Basically, here is my conclusion. In January 

2001, based on reasonable assumptions, we had fiscal sustainability for 40-plus years. Today the same model that is used in 

order to calculate fiscal sustainability based on reasonable assumptions crashes in 40-plus years. We need to do several things. 

We need to reimpose tough budget controls, tougher than we had 

before: Pay-as-you-go rules on both sides of the ledger; discretionary spending caps while not exempting large parts of discreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:59 Mar 24, 2008 Jkt 036307 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\36307.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
13

tionary spending; mandatory reconsideration triggers when certain 

mandatory spending programs and tax preferences get to a certain 

size of the budget and/or the economy; and mandatory disclosure 

of the long-range affordability and sustainability of major tax and 

spending proposals before they are enacted into law. We need to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; we need to reengineer the base of other spending; and we need to engage in comprehensive tax reform and get more revenue as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) than we do now. We need to do all those 

things. 

We are going to have to get the most money, in my opinion, out 

of entitlement reform. That does not mean eliminating these programs. It means better targeting them to those in need, considering 

more income-related premiums, and employing managed-care approaches to control cost, among other things. 

Similarly, we need to act on tax incentives. We need to target tax 

incentives better, as well. But we are also going to need to reengineer and constrain other spending, and ultimately we are going to 

need to engage in tax reform in a way that generates more revenues as a share of the economy than we now have. The numbers 

just do not work. They do not come close to working. And here is 

the sad thing. We have gone from total liabilities in unfunded commitments in this country of $20 trillion 6 years ago to $50 trillion. 

In 6 years! It is going up $3 to $4 trillion a year on autopilot. So 

every year that we wait, it is going up $3 to $4 trillion a year. We 

are now at 95 percent of the estimated net worth of every American household, and on our current path we are going to pass 100 

percent within 2 years. 

So that is a pretty compelling case. 

Senator COLLINS. It is indeed. When you look at the entitlement 

programs, if you were advising Congress on which we need to tackle first, is it the Social Security side or is it the health programs? 

Mr. WALKER. I think we need to do the following—and, by the 

way, I know that Senator Voinovich and Congressman Wolf have 

a commission proposal. There are several other commission proposals up here. My personal view is the first thing that we need 

to do is reimpose budget controls; second, engage in comprehensive 

Social Security reform that will make that program solvent, sustainable, and secure indefinitely. And, believe it or not, that is 

easy. We can exceed the expectations of every generation—with or 

without individual accounts—you can make it work. And I am 

working with others on that. Third, round one of tax reform, including doing something about AMT. And, fourth, round one of 

health care reform, which includes considering the tax preferences 

for health care and income-related premiums for Medicare, etc. 

If the Congress could do that, we could end up making a signifi- cant down payment on this $50 trillion imbalance. The Congress 

could end up gaining confidence and improving credibility with the 

American people. I really think that is possible. It is clearly necessary that it happens sooner rather than later. The question is: 

Will it? 

Senator COLLINS. I thank you for those responses. I think that 

the work you are doing in this area and particularly the educational tour are really important because it is only going to come 

14

about if we educate the public about the tough choices that are 

going to be necessary. I think only then will Congress summon the 

political will to tackle all of these issues in the broad and necessary 

way that you have suggested. 

I want to switch to a different issue. You and I have talked a little bit about a contracting reform bill that I have introduced, along 

with the Chairman and my colleague, Senator McCaskill. It is intended to respond to numerous reports that the GAO has done over 

the years as well as the IGs which highlight abuses in contracting 

and overreliance on sole-source contracts and poor management in 

general of contracts, and the result costs us literally hundreds of 

millions of dollars in waste, probably even more. 

I know that my staff is having discussions with you. I think now 

that you are going to have some suggestions for us. But overall, do 

you see a need for a contracting reform bill along the lines of what 

we have introduced? 

Mr. WALKER. Senator Collins, we have done a lot of work in this 

area. There are serious challenges in this area. I think the contracting area is in need of fundamental reassessment and reform. 

Some of it will require legislation. Our staff is looking at the details. The preliminary feedback that I have received is a number 

of the proposals you have are consistent with some of the issues 

that we think need to be pursued. 

I am sure that we will have some potential suggestions for you, 

but I think clearly action is going to be necessary. And, frankly, I 

think one of the things that I would respectfully suggest that this 

Committee think about is whether or not it is appropriate to have 

a hearing to look at the contracting and acquisitions area. It is 

really out of control. I mean, we have strayed so far from where 

we were a few years ago as to who is doing what, on what basis, 

how are they getting compensated, and I think that your bill will 

address some of that. But there are issues that do not require legislation that need to be addressed that we need this Committee’s 

help on as well. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. We 

will do that. We will hold a hearing because when you say the contracting and acquisition systems of the Federal Government are 

‘‘really out of control,’’ that is enough. I think we know that, but 

your saying that is enough for us to make sure we hold a hearing. 

Mr. WALKER. And one example, Mr. Chairman, is that we have 

come up with a list of 15 systemic acquisition and contracting problems. The illustrated case is the Department of Defense, but it applies beyond the Department of Defense. It costs billions every 

year. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator McCaskill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My friends are teasing me because they have come to my place—

I am living here in Washington, and on the way to my kitchen 

every morning to get my cup of coffee, I look out my front window, 

and I look at the front yard of GAO. I am your next-door neighbor. 

And they are teasing me that I got that place to live in Washington 

15

so I could be close to GAO because they know how interested I am 

in this area. 

Let me start with talking about access issues. I was in an interesting hearing yesterday having to do with the levies on uncollected taxes for Medicare providers and listened to testimony that 

just made me want to tear my hair out about an access issue that 

GAO was having in getting data from CMS. And believe it or not, 

Mr. Walker, the testimony was, keep in mind, they got 9 months’ 

worth of data, but then they would not give them any more data 

because the arm of GAO that was looking at this, which was the 

forensic investigatory arm, had not signed a data use agreement. 

Now, to me as an auditor, when part of government starts saying 

you have got to sign an agreement before we give you the information for you to do your audit, it is a giant red flag. Generally, that 

is done when you want to circle the wagons, when you want to 

make excuses, when you want to protect your turf. And I would 

really like to be more helpful on access issues. I would like to be 

prepared in every hearing I attend with any agency if there have 

been access issues or there are access issues. In fact, I addressed 

this issue with Secretary Chertoff when he was in front of this 

Committee about having lawyers sit in on interviews with employees at the Department of Homeland Security. And I was amazed 

that Secretary Chertoff said, ‘‘Well, I think having lawyers there is 

important.’’ And I said, Well, you understand the audit process. If 

there is information that is going to go in the audit, you are going 

to have an opportunity to review that, and you are going to have 

an opportunity to talk about legal issues, and GAO is not going to 

be interested in putting anything in an audit that is going to compromise any kind of security issues. What they are interested in is 

gathering information in the most open setting they can possibly 

gather it. And so I was frustrated at his unwillingness to recognize 

that putting a lawyer in the interviews is counterproductive to the 

process. 

Is there a way that you could notify Congress or notify Members 

of this Committee or even—I am certainly vitally interested in 

this—about the ongoing access issues you have as you are doing 

audits because they are incredibly expensive because they slow 

things down immensely. 

Mr. WALKER. Senator McCaskill, first, I hope it is an inspiring 

view every morning when you look out and see GAO every morning. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It is inspiring. It puts a spring in my step. 

Mr. WALKER. And you have upgraded our neighborhood by moving in. 

Senator MCCASKILL. There you go. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WALKER. So I appreciate that. 

We are monitoring very closely records and people access challenges. In fact, ever since the Cheney case where we, unfortunately, had to sue the Vice President over a records access issue 

some years ago, every week in the managing directors’ meeting 

that I chair, typically on a Friday, I will go around the table and 

ask: Are we having a records access or people access challenge? If 

so, what is it? What level are we dealing with? And sometimes I 

personally get engaged. I mentioned several examples earlier of 

16

where I am personally engaged right now in dealing at the secretarial or deputy secretarial level because we are having a problem. 

Typically, it is delays, not denials, and you are correct, having 

been a former State auditor, to understand that there are certain 

words and approaches that are red flags. Now, fortunately, in the 

case of the Department of Homeland Security, it was the exception 

rather than the rule that lawyers sat in. But, nonetheless, it can 

have a chilling effect. 

The other thing that I have found being in government in my position for a number of years, when somebody says that something 

is sensitive, I translate that to probably embarrassing. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Mr. WALKER. And, therefore, we will be happy to work with you 

and others to let you know when we are having problems because 

many times it makes sense for us to pursue our statutory rights 

to issue demand letters, etc. Sometimes it makes sense for Congress to exercise its constitutional responsibilities in order to try to 

be able to get this information as well. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I certainly think it would be helpful 

if it has gotten to your level to get a heads up so that we have an 

opportunity at the appropriate moment—I am thinking particularly 

because the Department of Defense, the armed services issues, 

many of our members are members of the Armed Services Committee, I think it would give us an opportunity to bang on the right 

people about access at the appropriate moment. 

Mr. WALKER. On that, if I can, Senator, the Armed Services 

Committees are aware of the records access problems that we are 

having right now to obtain information on transitional readiness 

assessments on Iraqi troops, where we are trying to assess the 

readiness of Iraqi troops that are prepared by U.S. forces. The U.S. 

Government has funded billions of dollars for this, and the Administration is now asking for several billion more for the same thing. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I would like to talk a little bit about consumption of your products. That is the challenge, in my opinion, is 

the work you do—I find it inspiring, and I am incredibly drawn to 

it, and I spend more time reading GAO reports than I spend reading anything else since I have arrived here. But I do understand 

that consumption is the issue and that we are spending—I think 

we should spend more on your agency, but if we are spending that 

kind of money on your agency and nobody is reading the stuff, that 

is a giant waste of money. And I would like to, as I read your stuff, 

I find sometimes I can easily find what I want to know. Sometimes 

it is more difficult for me in terms of getting into the report and 

finding what I want to pull out in order to ask the right questions 

and try to provide the kind of oversight that I think that we can 

help provide. 

If you would speak just a moment, because my time is about out, 

about consumption and what you do to try to facilitate getting 

Members of Congress to read this stuff. I questioned the Secretary 

of the Air Force this week at a hearing. I looked at their testimony 

last week on the acquisition of the systems and the big problems 

they have with identifying needs at certain junctures and how 

much money that is costing us. He was not even aware of this information, and he was the Secretary of the Air Force. I asked him, 

17

Have you read it? And he acknowledged—and credit to him that he 

was honest about it—that he had not even read it. 

We have got a problem if the Secretary of the Air Force is not 

aware of the information that you all have uncovered. He was making a tanker his biggest funding priority, and you laid out in this 

report how the information they were relying on to buy that tanker 

was flawed. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, Senator, thanks for asking that question. It 

is a challenge, and, unfortunately, that happens all too frequently, 

where the people at the right level are not familiar with some of 

this information. It does not get to them. It is not because we have 

not sent it over there, but there are so many layers, so many players, that it does not necessarily get to the right person. Here is 

what we have tried to do: 

First, several years ago I recognized that no matter how good 

GAO’s report might be, a senator, a cabinet secretary, or people 

right below that level are not going to read something this thick. 

And so, therefore, several years ago we established a policy where 

every major testimony and report has a one-page summary that 

says here is what we did, here is who we did it for, here is why 

we did it, here is what we found. That has been tremendously successful. We have received positive feedback from members, from 

key staff, from the press, and from the public. 

One of the things you referred to is what I would call our ‘‘quicklook’’ reports. One of the things that we issue once a year for the 

Defense Department are one-page summaries of where things 

stand on a number of major acquisition initiatives. Again, one 

page. It conveys a lot of really critically important information in 

one page with the hope and expectation that the key decisionmakers will have time to at least read one page. However, if they 

never get it, they cannot read it. 

So my view is the problem in that case is within the Department 

of Defense, that we are doing whatever we can to try to be able 

to present timely, reliable, useful information clearly and concisely, 

but it is not always getting to the right person. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I am sure asking the question in every 

hearing, and hopefully we are going to inspire people to read more 

of them. But it would be interesting to do a study, a survey, on how 

many crucial people in these organizations that need to be consuming your product, how many of them are and what are the barriers they find in terms of being able to do it. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. WALKER. The last thing on this to help you is that I have 

sent the list of 15 systemic acquisition and contracting challenges 

in the Department of Defense to the Secretary, to the Deputy Secretary, and to the Under Secretary for AT&L and have asked for 

a meeting to be able to brief them on this issue because it has got 

to come from the top. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

18

1Letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, dated March 1, 2007, from GAO, appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, I want to thank you for 

your leadership of this Committee. In 2007, we are working more 

hours and trying to improve the way we govern. This is where 

GAO comes in. 

And I want to say, Comptroller General David Walker, that over 

the years it has been a real pleasure for me to work with you. You 

have helped us a lot on this Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you for your testimony 

today. 

I would like to get your opinion on the record concerning legislation that Senator Lautenberg and I introduced earlier this year—

S. 82, the Intelligence Community Audit Act of 2007. 

First, to quote from a letter that you sent to the Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence, a copy of which both you and they graciously provided to me, and you wrote, ‘‘. . . the Executive Branch 

has not provided GAO the level of cooperation needed to conduct 

meaningful reviews of elements of the Intelligence Community. 

This issue has taken on new prominence and is of greater concern 

in the post-9/11 context, especially since the Director of National 

Intelligence has been assigned responsibilities that extend well beyond traditional intelligence activities.’’

I want you to know that I agree with your statement, which is 

why I introduced S. 82, to reaffirm GAO’s authority in this area. 

I would ask consent, Mr. Chairman, to place into the hearing 

record GAO’s letter to the Intelligence Committee.1

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Without objection. 

Senator AKAKA. One of the principal recommendations of the 9/

11 Commission was to encourage improved oversight by Congress 

of the intelligence community. And I would observe that Representative Hamilton and Senator Gorton, when they testified before this 

Committee in January, endorsed the intent of my legislation. To 

quote Representative Hamilton, ‘‘The intelligence community in 

turn would benefit from its agencies being held to the same high 

standards of performance as other agencies of the Federal Government.’’

I want to, at this point, mention to Senator McCaskill that I 

share your concern over GAO’s access issues, which leads me to my 

first question. 

Mr. Walker, what areas do you believe that this Committee, in 

fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, could benefit from the GAO 

conducting audits and evaluations of the intelligence community 

that the GAO currently is unable to do because of obstacles presented by the DNI? 

Mr. WALKER. Well, first, Senator Akaka, let me thank you for 

your interest and efforts in this regard. I do believe that your legislation has strong conceptual merit, and I think it would help tremendously if the Congress ends up moving legislation along the 

lines of what you have suggested. 

In my view, the three biggest transformation challenges that 

exist in the Federal Government from a management standpoint 

are: The Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland SeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:59 Mar 24, 2008 Jkt 036307 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\36307.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
19

curity, and the intelligence community. The intelligence community 

wants to say that it is different. In reality, it is not that different. 

The intelligence community needs to have strategic planning, organizational alignment, human capital strategy, information technology, financial management, acquisitions/contract management, 

change management, knowledge management, etc. Every agency 

needs that. 

We have had broad-based authorities to do work in the intelligence community for many years; however, as a matter of policy, 

going back two prior comptroller generals, we have not done much 

work in the intelligence community because, after the Intelligence 

Committees were set up in the Congress, there was resistance from 

the intelligence community for us to do any work, and we did not 

receive any requests from the Intelligence Committees to do any 

work. And since we had a huge supply and demand imbalance—

we had more people wanting us to do work in areas where we were 

getting congressional support and weren’t facing resistance—my 

predecessors made a conscious decision not to allocate GAO resources there unless and until we either received more support 

from the Intelligence Committees or a more cooperative attitude 

from the intelligence agencies. 

The irony is there is no question we can help the intelligence 

agencies. You may know, our No. 1 competitor for new hires is the 

CIA. We hire the same kinds of people—highly educated people to 

do analytical work. They just do different kinds of analytical work. 

So when you talk about a lot of the things that we have done at 

GAO, they have to do some of the same things there. We can help 

them. But, second, I know for a fact that the Intelligence Committees and others are having challenges in trying to oversee a number of their acquisition efforts, a number of their knowledge-sharing efforts, etc. And I think we can be helpful. 

The key is we have people with all the necessary clearances. To 

my knowledge, GAO has never had a leak of classified information, 

never in its 86-year history. And so I think there is both a need 

and an opportunity for us to be able to do more work there, and 

I want to thank you for your related interest and efforts. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you for your response, and I want 

you to know that I am looking forward to working with you more 

closely on those issues. 

I think we can both agree that Congress relies heavily on the 

solid work of GAO employees. Although I plan to hold hearings 

with the House Federal Workforce Subcommittee in the near future 

with Senator Voinovich, I have a few questions that I would like 

to ask you today about GAO’s new personnel system. 

I understand that GAO based its decision on Band 2 restructuring on a study completed by Watson Wyatt, a consulting firm, 

which found that many GAO analysts were overpaid compared to 

employees with comparable skills and experience in other agencies 

and in the private sector. Could you please describe the materials 

Watson Wyatt provided you on its study and how you evaluated its 

recommendations? 

Mr. WALKER. First, I want to thank this Committee for its leadership that led to the passage of the GAO Human Capital Reform 

Act of 2004. That legislation gave GAO a number of authorities: To 

20

decouple from the Executive Branch across-the-board annual increase. In the Executive Branch under the GS system, those agencies that follow it, 85 percent of annual pay adjustments have nothing to do with performance. They are on autopilot. They are based 

on the passage of time. That is obviously not a modern compensation practice or theory. 

What we did after the passage of that legislation was we conducted the first ever professional and independent pay study of 

GAO’s employees. We hired one of the top four firms in that business to do the work. It was done through a competitive process. 

They ended up conducting a compensation study to be able to understand what competitive compensation was for, in this particular 

case, our analysts—they have done it in other areas, but in this 

particular case analysts—for considering the type of organizations 

that we compete with to hire people and considering the type of organizations that we lose people to. 

The focus was primarily on Washington because that is where 70 

percent of our people are, but they also did work to understand salary differentials in the 11 other cities that we have employees because we have employees in 12 different cities in the United States. 

The result of that study was, by and large, positive with one exception. The study came back and said for most of our employees 

GAO’s pay ranges were competitive. For roughly 29 percent of our 

employees, we actually should raise our pay ranges, raise our pay 

ranges for attorneys, information technology specialists, and certain so-called Band 2 or mid-level personnel who were supervisors 

and leaders on a recurring basis, that we should raise their pay 

ranges, and, in fact, we did that. 

But what it also came back and said is in 2006 about 10 percent 

of our workforce, based upon their roles, responsibilities, etc., they 

were paid above market, in some cases by $10,000 or more. 

So what I did in that particular case is, looking at the statutory 

provisions that underlie the Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, 

which said, among other things, that I should consider equal pay 

for work of equal value, I should consider pay disparities and pay 

rates for individuals on the competitive basis in markets that we 

have people, I decided that it was not appropriate to provide 

across-the-board pay adjustments for people who were paid above 

market, in many cases by $10,000 or more. And at the same point 

in time, I decided not to freeze their pay across the board, which 

I had the authority to do under the law, because I wanted to provide an incentive for them to perform. And so we did make available to them an opportunity to earn performance-based pay increases and bonuses based upon how they do as compared to their 

peers. 

Nobody’s pay was cut, and if these individuals end up getting 

promoted to the next level or placed at the next level, they will 

have an opportunity to earn over $10,000 more than they ever 

could have earned under the old system. So we have a temporary 

problem. This year about half of the people that did not get an 

across-the-board increase last year did not get one this year. So we 

are already down about 50 percent in 1 year, and it is a temporary 

issue. 

21

1GAO response to Senator Akaka appears in the Appendix on page 70. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much for that response, 

and let me just finally conclude with this: Does GAO have a list 

of the outside organizations that GAO was compared to when Watson Wyatt developed their data? And will you submit for the record 

a copy of this information that Watson Wyatt provided to you? 

Mr. WALKER. I would be happy to do that. In fact, I am in the 

process right now of responding to a congressional request. Some 

of this information we have already provided to our employees. 

Some of it we have already provided to the Hill. But I am happy 

to do that.1

And just to help you understand, Senator Akaka and other Members, what Watson Wyatt did was they looked at roles and responsibilities, they looked at the type of organizations that we compete 

with for talent, they picked compensation surveys that included 

those types of roles and responsibilities and those types of employers, and they did their work based upon the surveys. This is standard and the generally accepted methodology used for both the public sector and the private sector, but what I think some people are 

concerned about is we do not have individual pay ranges for individual employers. That type of information is not available. Plus it 

might cause antitrust or competitive concerns if that kind of information was provided on a recurring basis. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Akaka. Senator Voinovich, welcome back. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to pursue what Senator Akaka has been questioning 

you about—GAO’s performance management system. The fact of 

the matter is that it is not easy to follow up on the recommendations that come back. I was faced with a similar situation as mayor 

of the city of Cleveland, and it was very difficult. But we did find 

a lot of our people were overpaid for the positions that they had. 

I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, if we did that for Federal workers, 

we would find there are a lot of categories in the Federal workforce 

that are getting paid much more than their counterpart in the private sector and that we would find the same thing that you found, 

that about 20 percent of them maybe were underpaid for the jobs 

that they were doing. 

But it might be something that we should look at. But it is tough 

to undertake it and do it. 

I had the misfortune of having to freeze the pay of two of my directors—that was not easy. We did the same thing you did. These 

individuals did not get automatic pay increases, and over a couple 

of years the market caught up to them. But for the time being, 

there was a little heartburn. That is just part of the way it is if 

you are going to do this thing correctly. 

I am very frustrated by the fact that it does not seem that we 

are moving as quickly as we should be with the high-risk list. This 

Committee is in its third year of overseeing the Department of Defense’s supply chain management system. I am real concerned that 

Ken Krieg has left and question whether or not we are going to see 

22

the benefits of our oversight. That is why I think that having a 

Chief Management Officer at the Department of Defense would be 

good. If we do not have that, I am afraid that we will lose the momentum that we have, and that supposedly, if it comes out the 

right way, could save $24 billion a year. It has been on the highrisk list since 1990. 

I am equally concerned with our system for security clearances, 

though I understand we are making some progress there. However, 

when I was at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base earlier this year, 

I learned they are 18 months behind on security clearances for people that work on the base. 

Mr. Walker, I would like you to comment on how you think we 

could improve upon getting these various agencies off the high-risk 

list because we are talking about waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, and it just seems like we are not 

making the progress that we should be. We have 26 programs on 

the high-risk list right now, and if we are not careful, we will have 

30. What can we do to do a better job? If you were advising our 

leaders and Members of this Committee, what would you say to us? 

How do we get some action? 

Mr. WALKER. Well, thank you, Senator Voinovich. The first thing 

I would say is I touched on a number of documents that GAO has 

issued within the last several months, one of which was the new 

high-risk list. Others included, for example, the 36 areas that are 

in need of additional oversight. 

I would suggest that the leadership of both the Senate and the 

House as well as the respective committees and subcommittees 

need to focus on those, need to target their efforts on those items, 

as well as selected issues in our 21st Century Challenges document 

that was issued in February 2005. 

In the case of the Defense Department, it is the most challenged 

agency in government from the economy, efficiency, transparency, 

and accountability perspective. And we may be great on the battlefield, we may be unparalleled with regard to fighting and winning 

armed conflicts, but we are a D on those factors—15 of 26 highrisk areas. 

Now, we are making progress in several areas, some more than 

others. With supply chain management, we have made some real 

progress. There is a possibility, if they can maintain momentum, 

they could come off in 2 years. It’s a possibility. But you point out 

one of the real challenges we face. Many of these high-risk areas 

have been there for years, and it is going to take considerable and 

sustained effort over an extended period of time to deal with the 

problem. And that is why I feel that a Chief Management Officer 

or official at the Department of Defense is absolutely essential. It 

is not highly desirable. It is absolutely essential. 

In fact, I am pleased to say that not only has GAO recommended 

it, but, in addition to that, the Defense Business Board has recommended it, the Institute for Defense Analysis has recommended 

it, and McKinsey, in a broader study, has also recommended it. 

There are differences as to what level. There are differences as 

to reporting lines. There are differences as to terms of appointment. But there is agreement that this is necessary. And it needs 

23

to happen if we are going to see this area and others come off the 

high-risk list within a reasonable period of time. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Let’s pursue that because I have had several 

conversations with Deputy Secretary Gordon England about this 

issue, and he was supposed to get back to me in regard to his decision. It is my understanding—and maybe you are familiar or not 

familiar—that one of those reports recommended a CMO, and it 

somehow got kind of taken out of that report. Are you familiar with 

that? 

Mr. WALKER. Well, here is my understanding of where things 

stand: That GAO recommended a Level 2 official reporting directly 

to the Secretary, working in partnership with the current Deputy 

Secretary, that would have a 7-year term appointment, that would 

focus on the business transformation process and would not be an 

additional layer for day-to-day operations. 

Defense Business Board (DBB) recommended 5-year, Level 2, reporting to the Deputy Secretary, if you will. But, again, they recommended a term appointment and Level 2, but a different reporting line. 

And the Institute of Defense Analysis recommended that they 

have a deputy to the deputy, that it be Level 3, and that it have 

a 5-year term appointment. That is my understanding. 

Now, only government would have a deputy to a deputy. I mean, 

that does not make sense. So there is agreement that there is a 

need, but you and I know, especially those of you who are on the 

Armed Services Committee, that rank matters in the Pentagon. 

And whether you are a civilian or whether you are military, rank 

matters. It is one of the most hierarchical organizations that exists. 

If this person is not a Level 2 official, they will not be able to operate on a level playing field with the service secretaries. That is essential because they do not need to just deal with the under secretaries, they need to deal with the service secretaries in order to get 

things done. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that 

we really spend some time on this and see if there is a possibility 

that we can make recommendations in some of these bills that are 

going to be before the Senate, such as the Authorization Act, to 

make sure this happens because there seems to be a reluctance at 

the Department of Defense to move forward with it. I think we 

have an excellent opportunity to really see some significant change 

made over there. And I would hate to see 3 years of hard work on 

the supply chain go down the tubes because of the fact that we do 

not have someone that is going to stay on this as we transition to 

the next administration. 

I really believe that, just as in the Department of Homeland Security where we have suggested a CMO, if we got that legislation 

passed, we could find someone who could do the job and who would 

be acceptable to both Republicans and Democrats. Somebody who 

is a real professional, in whom we have confidence, and no matter 

who is elected President, we can say, ‘‘There is a competent individual, and I am glad they are doing the job,’’ and let them continue their important work. I really believe that is why we have 

had all these things on the high-risk list since 1990. 

24

Mr. WALKER. Can I suggest for this Committee—I think it is 

within your jurisdiction to think about. I think government needs 

to step back and recognize that there are really three kinds of presidential appointees with Senate confirmation. There are policy 

players, which clearly ought to serve at the pleasure of the President. There are operational players, which in some circumstances 

you want a professional who may be a political appointee, but you 

do not want a partisan. You want somebody who is going to help 

make government more economical, efficient, effective, ethical, and 

equitable. And in that circumstance, you may want to have statutory qualification requirements. You may also want to have a term 

appointment, and there are some term appointments. And then 

there are adjudicatory and oversight professionals. Those are different jobs, and yet in many cases we treat them all the same. And 

I think that is part of the problem. 

We need to step back and re-analyze, put them in different buckets, approach them in different ways. I think it will help us a lot. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Voinovich. 

Your idea is a good one, and we ought to work on this together as 

the relevant bills work their way through the Senate. 

I want to propose that we do one more 3-minute round each, 

maybe one question each, and then thank you and move on. 

On the Senate floor this week, we are considering the budget resolution. The budget resolution has a pay-as-you-go provision in it. 

I know that you have advocated such provisions in the past. I 

wanted to ask you if you have had a chance to look at the language 

of this one and if you think it does what it ought to do? 

Mr. WALKER. I have not looked at the language, but I will and 

I will get back to you on it. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very good. Well, I am going to stop at 

that one question and set a good example. [Laughter.] 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Walker, between 1991 and 2001, the total number of Federal 

civilian acquisition personnel decreased by 22 percent, and of the 

remaining acquisition workforce, approximately 38 percent will be 

eligible to retire by the end of this fiscal year. Now, during the 

same period of time, the number of procurement actions has risen 

by more than 12 percent. Studies have correlated this decrease in 

the trained expert acquisition workforce with the rise in the number and complexity of procurement actions and concluded that this 

is in part responsible for some of the poor procurement outcomes 

that we are seeing. 

Have you looked at this issue? And do you have any recommendations on how we can counter the trend of a declining procurement workforce to deal with an exploding workload? 

Mr. WALKER. Senator Collins, you are correct that the number of 

contracts has gone up and the complexity has increased, while at 

the same point in time the number of personnel in the acquisition 

workforce has gone down. And in some cases, it is not just the 

number. It is whether they have the right kind of skills and knowledge to deal with the new type of contracting arrangements that 

we have. 

25

1GAO response to Senator Collins appears in the Appendix on page 73. 

This is one of the reasons that contracting is on GAO’s high-risk 

list. So the workforce is clearly a subset of this challenge. I might 

also note that in the 15 areas that I noted that were systemic challenges, which, if you would like, I would be happy to provide for 

the record, one of which is the workforce issue, that we need to do 

an analysis of how many people do we need, with what type of 

skills and knowledge, because it is as much a qualitative factor as 

it is a quantitative factor that we have to address, I believe.1

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. We had a discussion in our markup about 

the single audits that are done by all the States, and when we were 

doing the single audit every year, it always struck me that a lot 

of what we found in the single audit would have been of more 

value to Congress than it would have been to people at the State 

level because we were uncovering problems in the systems of these 

Federal programs. 

I am curious if you have ever considered trying to look at all of 

the 50 single audits that are done on an annual basis and try to 

cull out some commonality among all the States because I think if 

you found the same kind of things in a dozen or more States, that 

would be a real help to us in terms of looking at those programs 

and how they are actually being administered in terms of the Federal dollars at the State level. 

Mr. WALKER. Well, Senator McCaskill, as you know, the single 

audit reports go to the Executive Branch, normally the Inspectors 

General. In fact, one of the things that we are trying to do is we 

are trying to work with them more to try to benefit from the knowledge that each of us gains so that we can end up not just using 

it within our respective agencies but also share it with the Congress and others as appropriate. 

One of the provisions that we are seeking potential action on is 

to create an intergovernmental accountability forum similar to the 

Joint Financial Management Improvement Program. But I think 

that is a good idea, and let me see if I can take that back as part 

of our coordination efforts with the IGs and see what we might be 

able to do there. I am going to be addressing all the IGs here within the next month or two, and I think that is an item that I can 

end up putting on the agenda. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I know that I would be very interested in 

problems that were found. And, frankly, I think there are a lot of 

Members of Congress that may not be aware of the tool of the single audit. And it is a way that if they are curious about how some 

of the Federal programs in their own States—I know that there is 

maybe even some duplication that is out there because in Congress 

we say, well, let’s have people audited. They do not realize that 

there is a mechanism right now where these State auditors, or 

whatever they are called in their various States, can actually look 

at what is going on in their State through the mechanism of the 

single audit. I would have welcomed a suggestion from one of the 

Senators of Missouri as to things that they would like to be inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:59 Mar 24, 2008 Jkt 036307 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\36307.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
26

1GAO response to Senator Voinovich appears in the Appendix on page 69. 

cluded in the single audit along with the requirements that we had 

in terms of single audit programs we were looking at. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator McCaskill. Senator 

Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. A couple of things. 

Has the GAO done a study on the issue of executive appointments requiring confirmation by the Senate? 

Mr. WALKER. I think we have done some prior work on that, Senator, but I would have to go back and look for sure as to when we 

did it. May I provide that for the record?1

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes. I know this was a hot issue 2 or 3 years 

ago, and Senator McConnell and Senator Reid were working on it, 

and all of a sudden it evaporated. I do not know why. 

Mr. WALKER. We have done some work, and let me, if I can, put 

on the table another concept for you to think about. I gave you one 

concept. Another concept is if you have something like a chief management official, then there could be a layer below that—such as 

chief human capital officer, chief financial officer, chief information 

officer. One of the things that the Senate may want to consider is 

if you have statutory qualification requirements that people have 

to meet for these positions because they are not policy jobs, they 

are more operational jobs, the possibility of having an advance notification requirement to the Senate that says, ‘‘I plan to appoint 

X person to a PA job for this position, I believe they meet these 

statutory qualification requirements,’’ without necessarily requiring 

Senate confirmation, in other words, make them PA rather than 

PAS. You know as well as I do that there are a lot of ways that 

Senators can end up making things happen or not happen other 

than just through the confirmation process. I think that is something that needs to be thought about as well. 

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. The last one is a hot potato here, and 

that is the TSA. We are in the midst of a big controversy over 

whether or not we should put TSA back under Title 5. As you 

know, we gave TSA unique flexibility when they were created, the 

idea being that they had to stand up about 55,000 people. One of 

the things that TSA has done with its flexibility is establish a payfor-performance system. I looked into all of the other benefits provided to screeners. They get all the benefits of the Federal employees, including TSP and FERS. Have you looked at what TSA is 

doing and how that system is working? It is the largest example 

of pay for performance, I believe, that we have in the Federal Government today. Have you folks looked at that? 

Mr. WALKER. To my knowledge, we have not. But I will go 

back—I think that is a good suggestion, if we have not, to look at 

that. I will provide something for the record as to whether or not 

we have, and if not, maybe work with you on something there. 

Senator VOINOVICH. I have been going out and talking to some 

of the screeners, and they can belong to the union. A union can 

represent them on grievances that come up. There are a couple of 

suggestions on giving them statutory authority to go to the Merit 

27

Board and the OSC. They have informal groups in local airports 

that represent employees. 

The creation of workforce flexibilities for TSA was not one of 

these things that we rushed into, and I did not want to rush into 

it because of the fact that the unions were concerned about it. One 

of the biggest mistakes we made is that we should have had binding arbitration at the end of the negotiations between the union 

and the departments in terms of some of those rules and regulations. There is still heartburn about it. But at least there would 

have been finality to it. What I am worried about is if the President vetoes this bill, we are going to lose everything that we have 

worked so hard on to get into the 9/11 bill that we spent time on. 

If you could look at TSA’s personnel system, I would appreciate 

it. 

Mr. WALKER. I will look at that and get back to you. If I can, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Please 

Mr. WALKER. Let me tell you a lesson that I think that we have 

learned in our efforts. You obviously have a concern with human 

capital reforms throughout government, at TSA, GAO, and elsewhere. 

First, I believe very strongly that there is a need to have reasonable flexibility in this area with regard to classification and pay. 

But you need to have adequate safeguards to help ensure consistency and prevent abuse. In our case, we have statutory criteria 

that the Comptroller General is required to consider in connection 

with annual pay adjustments and things of that nature, so it provides reasonable flexibility, but it also provides things that have to 

be considered that ultimately I am held accountable as to whether 

or not I adequately and reasonably did that or not. 

There are three lessons that we learned in moving to pay banding and pay for performance. 

First, you really have to be careful in determining how many pay 

bands you should set up based upon the difference in the roles and 

responsibilities that your people have. In our case, we should have 

set up an additional one back in 1989, and we did not. 

Second, you should not assume that the GS system is reflective 

of market. In some cases, it is under market; in some cases, it is 

over market. You need to do market-based compensation studies. 

Third, you need to make sure you have a modern, effective, credible, and preferably validated performance appraisal systems to 

evaluate people as a basis to make informed decisions. And we 

need to recognize that government is very different than the private sector. Everything cannot be at risk; that if people perform at 

‘‘meets expectations’’ or better, if they are paid within market levels, they ought to get some across-the-board adjustment, but that 

the pay-for-performance should do two things: One, if you are not 

meeting expectations you do not get any raise; two, but if you do 

meet expectations and you are paid within market, you get something, but on top of that you should get more based upon how you 

do relative to your peer group, with the truly top performers getting the most and people that are doing a good job but not as well 

not getting as much. 

28

That is a hybrid system, and it is one that I think can work in 

government, and it is one that an overwhelming majority of our 

employees are benefited by, but not all. And you tend to hear from 

the squeaky wheels. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks a lot. It has been a refreshing 

morning. Always great to hear you. You have got tremendous 

knowledge and a lot of fresh ideas. 

We are going to try to go from here. First, we wanted to send 

you a message of appreciation from the Committee. And, second, 

we hope to do anything we can to support your work, including 

most directly in the appropriations process this year. 

I thank the Members of the Committee who came out. I thank 

you for your time. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(29)

A P P E N D I X 


36307.001
30


36307.002
31


36307.003
32


36307.004
33


36307.005
34


36307.006
35


36307.007
36


36307.008
37


36307.009
38


36307.010
39


36307.011
40


36307.012
41


36307.013
42


36307.014
43


36307.015
44


36307.016
45


36307.017
46


36307.018
47


36307.019
48


36307.020
49


36307.021
50


36307.022
51


36307.023
52


36307.024
53


36307.025
54


36307.026
55


36307.027
56


36307.028
57


36307.029
58


36307.030
59


36307.031
60


36307.032
61


36307.033
62


36307.034
63


36307.035
64


36307.036
65


36307.037
66


36307.038
67


36307.039
68


36307.040
69


36307.041
70


36307.042
71


36307.043
72


36307.044
73


36307.045
74

Æ


36307.046