PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL STUDIES SUBCOMMITTEE

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee was reconvened at 1:10 p.m. in room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John S. Monagan presiding. Present: Representatives John S. Monagan and John W. Wydler. Staff members present: Louis L. Freed, staff administrator; Herschel F. Clesner, counsel; and Thomas H. Saunders, minority staff. Mr. MONAGAN. I call the hearing to order.

The Special Studies Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee today reconvenes hearings on Presidential advisory and interagency committees as an instrument of Executive operation.

The purpose is to examine the organization, the efficiency, the utilization, and the economy in the use of Presidential councils and committees, as well as interagency and agency advisory committees. The role of the council, committee, or commission as a governmental advisory or coordinating function in the operation of the executive branch of the U.S. Government has never been fully reviewed.

The Committee on Government Operations is charged with overseeing the efficiency and economy of operation of the departments and agencies of the executive branch.

In this context, the Special Studies Subcommittee is responsible for the oversight of the operation of the Executive Office of the President. With the recent Presidential message to the Congress calling for the creation of the Domestic Council, the suggested realinement of existing councils and the reorganization of the Bureau of the Budget into an Office of Management and Budget, the subject matter of this hearing becomes more significant and of value to the Government Operations Committee as a whole, as well as to the Special Studies Subcommittee and other responsible subcommittees.

In this connection together with the purpose of the hearings, the appearance of today's first witness, Dwight Ink, Assistant Director for Executive Management, the Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President, is timely and constructive.

Mr. Ink, we are delighted to have you with us and we would be glad to have you proceed with your statement.

(61)

43-861-70- -5

STATEMENT OF DWIGHT INK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; ACCOMPANIED BY HOWARD SCHNOOR, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION STAFF, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, BOB; HOWARD MESSNER, MANAGEMENT ANALYST, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, BOB; ROGER GREENE, EXAMINER, OFFICE OF BUDGET REVIEW, BOB; WILLIAM DINSMORE, MANAGEMENT ANALYST, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, BOB; PAUL KRUEGER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF STATISTICAL STANDARDS FOR ECONOMIC STATISTICS, BOB; AND ROGER GOLDE, SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATE, PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION

Mr. INK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to discuss the use of interagency and public advisory committees by the President and executive branch agencies.

The administration shares your interest and concern in the role committees play within the Federal Government. We agree there is need for stronger management oversight and direction to this large and diverse group of organizations.

Shortly after he took office, the President directed his staff to undertake a study of committees with the objective of eliminating those groups which no longer serve a useful purpose. I will discuss the initial results of this effort a little later in my statement. I also know that your subcommittee and its staff has spent considerable time and effort on this subject during this same period, and their work has been constructive and most helpful to us.

My office, the Office of Executive Management within the Bureau of the Budget, has a special interest in the results of these efforts. and in the conclusions reached regarding committees particularly insofar as improved management controls are found to be desirable and

necessary.

We know that a great deal of time and energy is spent on certain committees activities-not only by Federal employees but also by thousands of persons from outside of the Federal Government who serve on public advisory committees. We also know that, while interagency and public advisory committees are to be found throughout our Federal history, relatively little attention has been paid to their management or their overall contribution to Federal policies and operations. Efforts to provide central oversight have been sporadic. Congressional concern over the use of interagency and other committees by the executive branch dates back over 100 years and has been directed largely at the use of funds for unauthorized committees. For example, general congressional prohibitions on the use of funds for commissions not authorized by law can be found as early as 1842 (31 U.S.C. 672) and 1909 (31 U.S.C. 673). The so-called Russell Amendment of 1944 (31 U.S.C. 696) prohibits the payment of the expenses of

any instrumentality of the executive branch (including ad hoc commissions) for more than 1 year unless the Congress specifically appropriated funds for, or authorized the expenditure of funds by such groups.

Despite such sweeping restrictions, committees and commissions have grown in number with the growth of interest in drawing upon multiple sources of information and advice, in part because the Congress has granted powers to many agencies to establish advisory groups. In addition, the effect of the Russell amendment was greatly limited by a 1945 act (31 U.S.C. 691), which authorized the use of appropriations for interagency groups.

More recently, however, the Congress enacted a series of restrictive provisions to the 1969 and 1970 appropriation acts which stated "none of the funds in this act shall be available to finance interdepartmental boards, commissions, councils, committees, or similar groups under section 214 of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1946 (31 U.S.C. 691) which do not have prior and specific congressional approval of such methods of financial support."

The intent of Congress in this instance was to prevent contributory funding of interagency committees, wherein Federal agencies make cash contributions to pay the expenses of certain interagency groups, unless approved by Congress.

Despite these periodic expressions of congressional concern, there has been little in the way of systematic study of the role of committees. Nevertheless, a few steps have been taken during the past 5 or 6 years to bring management guidance and a measure of order to this field. There is more that can and should be done.

I would like to review briefly the major types of committees and their numbers. There are basically two types of committees operating in the executive branch--(1) interagency committees and (2) public advisory committees. In addition to serving the needs of the individual Federal agencies, a number of both of these types of committees have a unique relationship to the President, and I will discuss those separately.

First are the interagency committees. These committees include representatives of two or more agencies and generally are chaired by Federal agency personnel. These committees serve the agencies primarily as vehicles for the exchange of information and to formulate advice on interagency problems.

I should say that is an oversimplification. In practice they are used for quite a broad range of purposes.

The Bureau of the Budget has developed general management guidance and an agency reporting system covering the activities of interagency committees. These instructions are contained in Budget Circular No. A-63, which was first issued in 1964 and supplemented in 1965. The circular requires each agency to submit to the Budget Bureau an annual report covering the committees it chairs. These reports summarize committee activities and actions taken to terminate and establish such groups.

Our records, compiled from these agency reports, indicate that there are now about 850 interagency committees in existence, under this frame of reference. I mention that because different groups, according to the definition of a committee, will come up with different totals.

In 1965, the first year for which reports were received under the amended circular, the agencies reported a total of 785 interagency committees. Thus, over a 5-year period there has been a net growth of about 65 committees, or an 8.3 percent increase. This growth we believe is not surprising in view of the many new programs in recent years requiring extensive interagency coordination. An estimated 15-20 percent of these committees in both 1965 and currently are actually subcommittees of larger bodies.

It is also significant that there is a continuing process of establishing new committees and terminating old ones. Each year, the agency reports reflect a turnover in committees with more than 10 being terminated and 100 being established.

Although one might question its adequacy, the annual termination rate of about 13 or 14 percent, I think, does indicate an active review effort on the part of a number of agencies. The circular's guidelines also help in the termination process by stipulating that committees be established by the least formal means available so that their eventual elimination can be achieved more readily.

The specific responsibility for each interagency committee rests with the chairing agency. The head of the chairing agency is in the best position to judge the value of a committee, and is therefore, the best judge of whether it should be continued or terminated.

The Bureau of the Budget's role in this aspect of committee management is to support and encourage the responsible agency officials in their efforts to make interagency committees productive and efficient or, alternatively to terminate them.

We do believe, however, that there is a need to undertake special studies of problem areas especially when agencies which have large numbers of interagency committees show little evidence of turnover in such groups in their annual reports.

Circular No. A-63 has not been revised since 1965, and I believe improved management guidance on interagency committees is necessary and a strengthened information system concerning them is desirable. We have developed a draft revised Circular A-63 to accomplish these improvements which will be issued soon. We thought it would be wise to wait until after the hearings to issue the revised circular, so we could take advantage of matters that might emerge in the course of the work of the committee in these hearings which we could reflect in the circular.

The second major

Mr. MONAGAN. As long as you give us some credit for stimulating the issuance of the circular, why, we won't object.

Mr. WYDLER. We also don't want to be put in the position of holding up progress here.

Mr. İNK. I assume responsibility for the holdup because I thought it was wise to wait until after the hearings so we could take advantage of what emerged.

Mr. FREED. Are you going to wait for our report?

Mr. INK. I haven't decided. I can wait for the report.

Mr. FREED. We might have some good recommendations.

Mr. INK. I don't know when the committee's report is coming out, but I would assume within a month or two.