« PreviousContinue »
respond to the question raised by the chief operating officer of the survey sending a memorandum characterizing the survey in the way in which this memo does. Maybe you might want to direct a new memorandum, telling people that indeed you do want to concentrate on saving big dollars and increasing efficiency, rather than depending on horror stories.
Mr. LARKIN. I think that would be a good idea.
Mr. Larkin, that White House fact sheet dated July 15, that the chairman alluded to, says, “The individual task forces will be made up of citizens from across the country, drawing particularly from industry, labor, and the academic communities,” which is what the law is under the Advisory Committee Act. My question is, of the 152 members selected, how many task force members are from labor?
Mr. LARKIN. One.
Mr. LARKIN. We had two. We invited others from both categories and were not able to secure them. I am not sure that we have any from academia at the moment. Several came on. Mr. Martin Feldstein was a member, and then he resigned. There was a dean from Stanford University who became ill and withdrew.
Mr. CLAY. One from labor and two from the academic community?
Mr. LARKIN. The two from academia are not on it. We did have on the original list that were invited more than that, but they were not willing to serve or could not serve for a variety of reasons.
Mr. CLAY. How many are women?
Mr. LARKIN. On the Executive Committee, there is one woman. There is a lady from Chicago, an attorney, Mrs. Lafontant. There are women, quite a few, on the task forces, about 200 women on the survey of the 1,000 total.
Mr. CLAY. But of the 152
Mr. LARKIN. No; that is the Executive Committee. I was talking about the task forces.
Mr. CLAY. Let us talk about the Executive Committee. There is one person from labor and two from the academic community and one woman on the Executive Committee?
Mr. LARKIN. That is right.
Mr. LARKIN. I do not have a count. We have given you the names of these committee members. Whether the names suggest Hispanics or not-I think some of them do. But we have not inquired of people, when we have invited them, what their race, religion, or other persuasions are, their political affiliations or anything else. I would have to examine the list, but you have it actually.
Mr. CLAY. I saw 2 blacks on the list of 152.
Mr. LARKIN. But Ms. Lafontant is a black lady, as you probably know. You may already know her.
Mr. CLAY. Yes, and Bill Coleman. But the law requires a fair balance of views. Whether you take into account what the race or the
religious views, and so on, the law says that there will be a balance of views on any advisory committee; is that right?
Mr. LARKIN. What law are you referring to: The advisory law? Mr. CLAY. Yes.
Mr. LARKIN. Well, we tried to get some, as we said. Our problem is quite unique, Mr. Congressman, as I tried to point out. We have to finance this ourselves, the business community. We have to provide or find people who could provide a lot of workers. A number of the executive committee members are not affiliated with companies, or they are attorneys, or the one labor leader, they did not have organizations which they could call upon to provide people. In order to do the study, we had to recruit—they had to recruit—this large number, which amounts to about 1,200 people. For practical reasons, therefore, we quickly had to invite more people to the executive committee who belonged to companies or organizations or associations that had a large number of people or who could furnish them. That, from a practical standpoint, was a problem that we had in that respect.
As I said, we tried for the others, and we have a very minimal amount, to be sure. But in order to get all these workers, we finally, on the second run and the third run, had to get people with large resources. We initially assigned, in many cases, two cochairmen. One cochairman could not secure anybody. We had to get two or three others on there to help them secure workers. So that is the practical problem we faced, and I think we, in a minimal fashion, adhered to the law.
Mr. Clay. Forbes magazine just published the 400 wealthiest people in the United States. In the top 12, 5 of them were women. Are you saying that those women do not have the same kind of resources that men would have?
Mr. LARKIN. Most of them would not, unless they are executives of corporations.
Mr. CLAY. They own the corporations.
Mr. LARKIN. Yes; I understand that, but we already have, as I said, some 200 on the task forces. Those people their opinions and evaluations of things are input. So there is a rather extensive input of women in the working group, and that is the source of the identification of issues. They have had a say on it, and they will be participants in the final recommendations.
Mr. Clay. I certainly could have appreciated that argument 20 years ago, but I did not think I would hear it today.
The President in his statement on the task force, said that the group would begin with the Department of Defense, and the Department of Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development. Who has been appointed the chairman of the task force on the Air Force?
Mr. LARKIN. I think the committee has that information, but we will give it to you right now.
Mr. Clay. If you find the Army, the Navy, HHS, and HUD while you are going through, we would like to have that information.
Mr. LARKIN. The Air Force is Mr. Robert Galvin of Motorola, James Evans of Southern Pacific, and James Oreffice of Dow Chemical.
Mr. CLAY. And the Army and the Navy?
Mr. LARKIN. You have John Horan of Merck & Co. Here we are. I have it here.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bolduc was reading from what looked like a computer printout. Is that a printout of the makeup of all your task forces?
Mr. BOLDUC. Yes, and I believe you have already been furnished that, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. No, we do not have it.
Anyway, the Army is William Marquand of American Standard, John Horan of Merck, I believe, Roger Birk and Louis Preston. It escapes me. Here we are. Army is Marquand of American Standard; John Horan of Merck; Roger Birk, the chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch; and Louis Preston, chairman and chief executive officer of J. P. Morgan.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Larkin, will you provide the committee with a list of all of those task forces, plus the people who are working on them?
Mr. LARKIN. Will we furnish them? Certainly.
Mr. CLAY. We would like to have a list, if you can make it available to us, within the next couple of days.
Mr. LARKIN. Surely, we will furnish them.
Mr. CLAY. Fine. In the President's press conference or opening statement describing this commission, he said,
Almost $2 billion a day, $1,400,000 a minute, or about $23,000 dollars a second is being spent by the Government.
In view of the fact that the Defense Department is spending $32 million per hour, every hour of the day, would you assume that you are going to find considerable waste and inefficiency in the expenditure of so much money?
Mr. LARKIN. I would assume so, yes. I would assume that there is duplication and inefficiencies. Without touching the weapons systems or any of the policy things, as your chairman has identified, I think in administrative areas there would be considerable substantial savings, or we could recommend such. Whether they would be implemented, sir, I do not know.
Mr. Clay. In your statement, you speak about all the time donated by all the individuals, and I think you made the statement that you only had one paid employee. You talked about the rent and, I assume, other expenses that would go along with the project, such as printing, postage, and so on. Can you provide for us what you have already expended out of the $1.8 million and for what purposes?
Mr. LARKIN. Yes, we can. I think that has been given to you, but I will furnish you with a statement as of August 31st on that subject.
Mr. CLAY. The staff informs me that we already have the information. Thank you.
No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Are task force members required to file any financial disclosure statement or be cleared in any way by the agency whose programs and records they are reviewing?
Mr. LARKIN. No. The task force members, Mr. Chairman, are not Federal employees. They have signed secrecy agreements. I say “they''; I mean 95 percent of them. We keep adding them, and the last few, we have not received statements from them. They have signed secrecy agreements, which alert them to the fact that they must be careful about any possible conflict of interest, and if they run into such they should disqualify themselves. Beyond that-and it is not required, under my understanding, because they are not Federal employees—they are agents, unpaid by the foundation. We have asked them all to give us additional data on background and personal data and financial data, in terms of securities holdings and so forth, so that we can review-and we are doing it now-to satisfy ourselves, to the extent we can, that they in fact do not have conflicts of interest. That was the significance of my statement.
The CHAIRMAN. You were, if I am informed correctly, the first general counsel of the Department of Defense when it was created.
Mr. LARKIN. I was the second.
The CHAIRMAN. What would your reaction have been, as general counsel of the Department of Defense, if a top administrative officer of a major defense contractor was sent in by a group like yours to look at your defense procurement systems from the inside, with carte blanche to look at any and all of your practices and any and all of your records? Would that make you uneasy?
Mr. LARKIN. You are giving me an “iffey” case, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. You were there at the end
Mr. LARKIN. I know I was. What we did in those days, and I presume they are doing it now, is where we enlisted the expert assistance of different people who in fact were contractors. If I recall, at one period of time, we enlisted the assistance of Mr. Raymond and Donald Douglas, in terms of trying to get an evaluation from them as to the worthiness of an Air Force plane which was supposed to be both commercial and military. In that circumstance, however, trying to be sensitive to this conflict of interest problem, I think we made a very serious effort to make sure that they had no information that had any relation to their company. I think, as far as I understand it—and I have been away from the Government for many years now—the clearance that has been given by the White House and by the agencies to the executive committee members in some cases has reservations. They may be small.
To the extent that an executive is looking at the Energy Department, let us say, and he happens to be a director-not an officer, but a director and perhaps some stockholder-of some contractor to the agency, his clearance has restricted him from learning anything about any of the dealings of that company with the agency. As to other things, he is free to get information. That, as I understand it, is the procedure.
The CHAIRMAN. But you do know that under the Ethics in Government Act, as amended in recent years, the kind of consultant that you described at that time could be called into the Defense Department from the private sector to advise with you but could not then return to a company that was selling anything to the Air Force for a period of years. That was not the law in those days; that is very clearly the law now. When this committee passed that
bill—with some reluctance, I might say, on the part of some oí us-during the Carter administration, it produced a rash of resignations by people from colleges and universities and other institutions because they were in the agencies from whom their institution was going to receive Federal money or by whom their institution was being regulated. So to get under the deadline that was set, July 1, 1978, they left Government so that they would not be barred.
Now, I do not know the man from Armour that you described. I just asked that one because you happened to have Agriculture with you. But if he is a top executive of Armour-I am on the committee that has the school lunch program, and we buy millions of dollars worth of products from the major packing houses in this country for the school lunch program and for the other feeding programs that we have. Do you not think that you and Mr. Grace ought to consult with your staff on the apparent problem that exists when a major contractor with the Department of Agriculture is represented at the top with somebody who can walk in and look at the whole program?
I am not suggesting that there is anything at all wrong. I am talking now about the “Ceasar's Wife syndrome." It just raises an immediate question in people's mind as to why a major contractor with a Federal agency ought to have their man on the inside.
Mr. LARKIN. Mr. Chairman, I am sympathetic to the problem, certainly. I, and others, have been asked to come down here as businessmen to look into procedures and efficiencies and inefficiencies. We have relied-and maybe we should not have; I do not know if you are suggesting we should not have we have relied on the Office of the Counsel to the President. We have relied on the different departments to do the clearing. To the extent they have cleared them, I have not tried to go behind their rulings and tried to rationalize them or contradict them or anything else. I feel I am satisfying whatever responsibility I may have in this regard if the experts in this matter are doing the clearing. Now that is what has been done.
The CHAIRMAN. I guess the point I was trying to get at with my original question is whether the agency that is being examined by a task force is at any time in the process asked to clear the person who is going to be on the inside. We understand that desk space and offices are being assigned, and obviously they did this over at OPM, and that is certainly at Government expense. Employees are being detached from their regular duties to go and get the files and run and get materials. There is a substantial involvement of our employees in this process which is natural to anybody who came in, whether a congressional committee, the GAO, or you. It would necessitate an expenditure of time, money, and space to accommodate that investigation.
Does the Secretary of Agriculture know that he has somebody from Armour who has the ability to pick employees of his company to come into the Department of Agriculture and ask any question he wants about the operation of agricultural programs and policies?
Mr. LARKIN. In that case, he is not with Armour and has not been for years. But, to answer the question, all the cochairmen