« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
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 be tween 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 De fense Logistics Agency, and that we will be issuing a report pre senting 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 be cause 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 considers burden would not be burden to someone else, and maybe burden is good.
We hope to shed some perspective on this in our next report.
Mr. NICHOLS. Let me talk about the agencies. That is one of the areas, of course, that this subcommittee is looking into. We have a bill before us that would abolish the Defense Logistics Agency. Would you highlight what your report tells us about the functions of DLA?
Does your report suggest that DLA, with 53,000 people, is bloated? Do they have more people than they need? These are the sorts of questions that concern the committee. We rely on your judgment.
Your agency has a great deal of respect from this Member of Congress, I want you to know that; if you put your seal on it, I consider it to be impartial.
Mr. FINLEY. Mr. Chairman, the report that we submit today only talks about the functions of DLA and in that report, we say that the mission is to provide contracting, supply, technical services, and reutilization and marketing of excess DOD property.
We make no observations on the size, we make no analysis. I would like to share with you a report coming out next month with tentative conclusions, so you might look forward to it, and so we might send it to the subcommittee.
It was a management review of DLA. Although it doesn't observe anything about the size, I believe it is critical of DLA. The management review identified certain problems in financial management, automated systems, and other areas.
For example, many of DLA's automated systems are in need of modernization and control. Weaknesses in accounting data reporting areas have reduced the effectiveness of DLA supply support in contract administrative activities.
I should note, however, it is my understanding that during this review, that DLA high-level management is working with GĂO to try to correct the deficiencies noted.
Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Hopkins.
Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Finley, thank you very much for your report. Let me ask you about the DLA report that you are going to have out in the near future. How soon will that be available to us?
Mr. FINLEY. April 15 is my best guess.
Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions, but I would like to comment that the General Accounting Office response to this subcommittee has been on an expedited basis, under new procedures that the General Accounting Office has instituted.
GÃO officials knew that we were under very tight time constraints. They have prepared these interim reports in a very short time with a new procedure. They will be coming forward with their regular reports in the timeframe that they normally use.
I think this indicates how GAO can be much more responsive to Congress than it has been in the past. These are very useful documents made available during our consideration of these issues.
Mr. NICHOLS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming here.
The final witness this morning is Maj. Gen. Theodore Antonelli, U.S. Army, Retired, and former Project Director of the Defense Agency Review.
General Antonelli directed a 1979 study, Defense Agency Review, which is the most recent major departmental review of the missions and functions of the agencies.
The study particularly focused on the responsiveness of the agencies to the joint structure and to the need of wartime readiness. It is therefore especially informative during the hearings.
General, we are pleased to have you with us this morning, sir. Do you have a statement prepared? STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. THEODORE J. ANTONELLI, U.S. ARMY
RETIRED, FORMER PROJECT DIRECTOR, DEFENSE AGENCY REVIEW
General ANTONELLI. I don't have a statement prepared, sir, but I do think it might be useful to the committee and others if at least the executive summary of my report were entered into the record, or possibly the entire report.
It is possible that you all have seen it or read it, but it might be useful if I could give you some background of the context in which the study was conducted.
Mr. NICHOLS. Without objection, your report will be made a part of the official record.
[The following information was received for the record:]