Mr. NICHOLS. I mean someone representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General CHAVARRIE. I think the answer to that is, no. And the reason is, on what basis would this Joint Staff officer be sitting on that board? The board has all the service records. This fellow comes in almost as a token person, and then you would say, how much influence would this person have?

We have 20 people from one service sitting on a promotion board, and here comes a sort of outsider to sit on the board. I am not sure on what basis he would have to make a judgment as well as a service person could.

That would be a tough one, sir.

Mr. NICHOLS. Should a JCS chairman be given a voice in promotions?

General CHAVARRIE. There is a role for the JCS chairman to play in promotions. However, what the voice is, I think, is something that would have to be worked on, to see just how the chairman could influence promotions.

The chairman should have a voice. The voice needs to be determined.

Mr. NICHOLS. Finally, should the JCS chairman be given a voice in reassignment of officers who served in the joint arena?

General CHAVARRIE. I think that the chairman can, or should, watch assignments that his people go to, and if they are not good assignments, and I think then it is the proper role of the chairman to roll in on that one.

If he sees people going to assignments that are not as good as he might think, and he knows, because he has the experience. I think there is a role for the chairman to play, for the system to allow the chairman to play a role in assignments, I do.

Mr. NICHOLS. Further questions?

Thank you very much, gentlemen, very much for being with us. Mr. NICHOLS. Our next witness this morning is Mr. Harry Finley, Associate Director of the National Security and International Affairs Division of the General Accounting Office, and with him is Mr. William Quade and Mr. Harold Andrews, Evaluators in Charge in that agency.

Mr. Finley is Senior Associate Director in the National Security and International Affairs Division of the GAO. He comes today to present two reports: One on the level of congressional demands on the Defense Department; and the second on a study to inform the committee on the functions and structure of the Defense agencies. I should add that the agency's report is primarily designed to inform us of the history and the function of Defense agencies, as we approach our consideration of our own legislation rather than an evaluation of the agencies. But the report on the congressional budget gives us a lot to consider, so we should focus our attention on that report this morning.

Mr. Finley, do you have a statement.

STATEMENT OF HARRY R. FINLEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM QUADE, EVALUATOR IN CHARGE, GAO, AND HAROLD ANDREWS, EVALUATOR IN CHARGE, GAO

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NICHOLS. That will be made a part of the record. You may proceed with your presentation.

Mr. FINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to appear before you today to present the results of work we undertook at the request of the full committee on two issues:

One, congressional requests for information on Defense activities; and two, the evolution of certain Defense agencies.

The first of these issues was the subject of a report we issued on February 14, entitled "Legislative Oversight: Congressional Requests for Information on Defense Activities." Mr. Harold Andrews, who is to my left, was Evaluator-in-Charge of this effort.

In early January, the committee advised us that it was hearing comments from DOD officials that congressional requests for testimony, briefings, and reports, and written and telephone inquiries from the Congress were imposing an immense burden on DOD.

Some of the comments linked the growth in the number of congressional committees and subcommittees with which DOD must deal, to an immense burden being imposed on DOD.

Some of these comments also included reference to the number of these requests. The committee requested that we ask DOD officials where these figures came from and if they had compiled similar figures over the years.

Specifically, we were requested to obtain the figures for past years and analyze the trends over the years.

We asked DOD for the information and found that some of the figures had been compiled every year for the past 20 years. Other figures were available only for some of those years.

However, there was sufficient coverage in the information to allow us to conduct an analysis to respond to the committee's con

cerns.

In analyzing the data provided by DOD, we compared the 10-year period 1965 to 1974 to the following 10-year period. The comparison showed that:

The average number of committees and subcommittees requesting hearings nearly tripled, but the number of hearings increased by only 5 percent.

Mr. HOPKINS. Could I interrupt you there for a minute? Explain that to me. First of all, you are comparing two different 10-year periods-I don't mean to interrupt you. Maybe you want to go ahead, I am sorry.

Well, you are comparing two periods here, is that correct?

Mr. FINLEY. That is correct.

Mr. HOPKINS. What do you mean in stating that the average number of committees and subcommittees requesting hearings nearly tripled and the number of hearings increased by only 5 per

cent? Now, they nearly tripled in comparing those two 10-year periods.

Mr. FINLEY. Correct.

Mr. HOPKINS. You had three times more during the 1980 period than you did the 1970 period, is that correct?

Mr. FINLEY. Yes, the 10-year period 1964 to 1975, and 1975 to 1985.

Mr. HOPKINS. The number of hearings increased by only 5 percent. I don't understand.

Mr. FINLEY. Because the committee making the requests in the first 10-year period were averaging 16 such requests. In the second 10-year period, they were only requesting an average of six hearings, so although there were more committees making requests, they were asking people to appear a fewer number of times.

Mr. HOPKINS. What does that tell you, that we are smarter now than we were, you have smarter Congressmen now?

Mr. FINLEY. I laid awake last night thinking about that. I only wish I could tell you that that is GAO's position. I do believe that it shows that you are dividing your workload. People are probably paying more concentrated attention to subjects, would be my personal view.

Mr. HOPKINS. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. I am sorry I interrupted you.

Mr. FINLEY. The average number of testimonies last year by the Secretary of Defense decreased from 24 to 19, a decrease of 21 percent.

The average number of written inquires from congressional offices per year decreased from 164,388 to 108,772, a decrease of 34 percent.

The average number of telephone inquiries from congressional offices per year decreased from 616,385 to 505,911, a decrease of 18 percent.

There were significant increases in the number of pages in budget justification books and in the number of directions for reports/studies, provisions of law and other actions contained in the reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, on Armed Services and on Budget, particularly since fiscal year 1983.

For example, the annual average increase in the number of reports and studies required in these reports was 14 during the period 1970 to 1982, but was 88 in the period 1983 to 1986. This is an increase of over 500 percent.

The information provided by DOD suggests that the increase in congressional requests for information on Defense activities comes primarily from committees and subcommittees which have had jurisdiction over DOD's budget for many years rather than from an increase in the number of committees and subcommittees requesting information from DOD.

However, the information does not clearly indicate whether the total burden of congressional requests has increased over the years. I should note that the data which we analyzed was provided by DOD, and we did not validate its accuracy or completeness.

On February 5, Chairman Aspin wrote to the Comptroller General requesting a more comprehensive undertaking on the subject of legislative oversight and the impact on DOD.

We have begun work on this request and will be reporting to the committee upon completion. In the meantime, we will continue to keep the staff informed of the progress of this work. The second issue is the subject of a report we are issuing today, entitled "Selected Defense Agencies: Current and Historical Information on Missions, Work Force and Budget.'

Mr. Bill Quade, who is to my right, was evaluator-in-charge of that effort.

The committee requested that, in order to provide a ready reference for its members during consideration of issues involving the Defense agencies, we pull together, in a single document, selected current and historical information on eight of the major Defense agencies. The eight agencies are:

The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, established in 1958, now has a budget of $670 million and an authorized work force of 151 to manage high-risk, high-payoff, basic research.

The Defense Communications Agency, established in 1960, now has a budget of $416 million and an authorized work force of 4,854 to provide audit, accounting and financial advisory services to DOD components and other Government agencies.

The Defense Investigative Service, established in 1972, now has a budget of $145 million and an authorized work force of 4,194 to perform personnel security investigations and operate the Industrial Security Program.

The Defense Logistics Agency, established in 1961, now has a budget of $1.9 billion and an authorized operation and maintenance work force of 53,190, with a mission to provide contracting, supply, technical services, and reutilization and marketing of excess DOD property.

The Defense Mapping Agency, established in 1972, now has a budget of $721 million and an authorized work force of 9,865 involved in mapping, charting, and geodetic activities.

The Defense Nuclear Agency, established in 1947, now has a budget of $364 million and an authorized work force of 1,359 to provide consolidated management of the DOD nuclear weapons stockpile, DOD nuclear weapons testing, and nuclear weapons effects research.

The Defense Security Assistance Agency, established in 1971, now has a budget of $6.1 million and an authorized work force of 145 to direct, administer, and supervise the execution of Security Assistance Program responsibilities for the Secretary of Defense.

These eight Defense agencies were selected in consultation with the committee staff. We did not include the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security, Agency/Central Security Services or other smaller agencies.

We provide a discussion of the method used to create each of these agencies and of the evolution of their assigned mission. We also include information on budget levels and staffing levels, over time for each of the agencies.

For example, we show that the Defense Logistics Agency's budget has increased from $0.8 billion in fiscal year 1975 to today's $1.9 billion.

However, converting the fiscal year 1975 budget for the Defense Logistics Agency to calendar year 1986 dollars can provide a much more accurate and meaningful comparison. This shows the fiscal year 1975 "base year budget" as $1.6 billion compared to the fiscal year 1986 figure of $1.9 billion.

Generally, the information presented indicates that most of these agencies experienced only moderate growth in staffing levels between 1975 and 1986.

I should point out that the General Accounting Office is now in the process of completing a general management review of the Defense Logistics Agency, and that we will be issuing a report presenting the results of that review in the near future. In this review, we looked at DLA's planning, directing, and other internal management processes.

I would be happy to respond to any questions you or your colleagues might have at this time.

Mr. NICHOLS. The first report that you bring to our attention-I gather it is an interim report, not complete?

Mr. FINLEY. That is correct.

Mr. NICHOLS. When do you expect to have that report completed, a month, 6 months?

Mr. FINLEY. We are talking more in the order of 6 months. The next part is much more difficult to do.

Mr. NICHOLS. OK, you say you got these records from the Department of Defense, the figures from the Department of Defense on telephone calls and requests for reports, so forth and so on?

Do you have any problem? Do you have any reason to believe that these are in any way incorrect, or do you question their recordkeeping?

Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is fair to say that any given year's numbers are probably not totally accurate, but because DOD used consistent methods of deriving the data, I believe that the trend data is very accurate.

Mr. NICHOLS. Secretary Lehman of the Navy has come to our committee, and he has presented us a list of 46 different committees and subcommittees that the DOD reports to. He also states regularly that these are on the increase each year, and impose a tremendous workload on staff, civilian staff and military staff.

Yet, in looking over the figures you have brought to us, on request for letters, requests for reports, telephone calls submitted, I don't necessarily pick this up.

Would you give me your comment on that? I know this is not a final report, but is the workload increasing?

Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe that the Secretary's comments were accurate, but they need to be brought into perspective. It is true that the number of committees and subcommittees requesting testimony from DOD is increasing.

As our figures show, it has tripled. However, they have not tripled the requests for hearings. The number of hearings in the last 10 years is up a modest 5 percent-compared to the increase in DOD's budget that is relatively insignificant.

Your question concerning burden-GAO's second effort is going to look at burden. Burden is hard to define. What one person con