Advisory Committees available for sale through the GPO. We appreciate your subcommittee's having printed the report in its entirety, as well as having had it indexed. As the Director noted to you in his letter of December 6, 1973, we are looking for ways of making this information available without having to print the report in its entirety. We may be able to do this by expanding the summary.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Subcommittee is interested in hearing an expression of OMB views on what constitutes "balanced membership" on an advisory committee.

The Act itself uses broad language to establish the requirement, Section 5(b) (2) saying that any legislation creating an advisory committee shall "require the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee;".

For the present, we plan to include this statutory language in Circular A-63, and to rely on a supplementary Department of Justice memorandum to discuss the concept of balanced membership. We will, at a later time, evaluate our experience with this part of the guidelines, making such modifications as may be appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, we have made considerable progress in administering the Act since it was passed. We had the advantage of an existing framework for Committee Management-that established by Executive Order 11671. We used that framework and established procedures for the orderly administration of advisory committees. We have provided the first comprehensive report to the Congress of the composition and function of such committees. We have worked closely with the departments and agencies, and we have answered many public inquiries on various aspects of advisory committees. It is clear, though, that after a year's experience with the Act, we are still learning as we go along, and we hope to improve our administration of the Act as time goes on.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Malek, I am sure that all of us would agree that you have made progress. Senator Percy, who was one of the chief sponsors of this legislation and participated in the hearings I am sure will be delighted to know that a number of advisory committees has already been substantially cut. He was concerned about the proliferation of advisory committees.

As the act continues in effect I am sure that others will be discontinued and, of course, there is the sudden death provision in the act, if proper steps are not taken to continue a committee.

As you have outlined, we have nothing but praise for some of the accomplishments you have made and I hope that we can work together to achieve more of the objectives of the act.

We did receive your annual report, and printed it as a committee document. We had the Library of Congress assist us in the indexing. In the future, will OMB arrange to print and index the second report and the succeeding reports? How do you propose to get dissemination of such a report?

Mr. MALEK. Mr. Chairman, we would intend to rely on the GSA to compile the report and submit it in a similar fashion as we have in the past to the Congress.

Senator METCALF. How are we going to get it printed? This reportvoluminous as it is-was a best seller. There was quite a demand for it around the country, and I am sure that when your second annual report comes in at the end of March that it, too, will be a matter of great interest.

We would like to have some way of making this advisory committee data more available.

It would seem to me that under the law it would be the responsibility of OMB to at least supervise the printing and indexing.

Mr. MALEK. Yes, sir. We do intend to supervise the preparation of the report, the printing, and the indexing of the report to insure that a product that meets your standards is submitted to the Congress. Do you want to add to that?

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may, we are still looking for ways of providing the public the soundest access to the data without necessarily having to print it in its entirety.

If there is a way to insure that the public has access, we are trying to discover it.

Perhaps a means of doing that would lie in an expanded summary and an annotated index in that summary which would indicate to the public where they could obtain additional information concerning a particular agency's advisory committee.

That is a possibility. We may ultimately wind up arriving at the view that in order for the public to have such access that we may have to print the entire report.

Mr. MALEK. I think the thrust here, Mr. Chairman, is that we being as dollar conscious as we are in the OMB are very concerned that it may not be the best use of the taxpayers' money to print as voluminous a set of documents as we have printed in the past. Maybe it is, but we are searching for ways to reduce the total size in order to cut the expense to the taxpayer and if we can find a means of doing this, and yet fulfilling the requirements, that is what we would recommend.

Senator METCALF. Mr. Turner, do we have a copy of that report here?

Mr. TURNER. Yes. Director Ash's letter to the Chairman rather clearly said "We are examining alternative ways of making advisory committee data more readily available to the public and printing the entire report is one of these alternatives."

Director Ash felt that the printing of the entire report was definitely one of the alternatives and that is one you were exploring.1

To what extent have you decided you will turn the responsibility for printing the report over the General Services Administration? What discussions have you had and what decisions have you made with respect to delegating this responsibility to General Services Administration?

Mr. MALEK. First, I think we should separate the effort of overseeing this and making the policy decision as to what the report will contain and the format that it will be printed in.

We are continuing to be involved in that decision and the GSA role would be more one of collecting, assembling, putting together the necessarv information to be printed.

Clearly one of the alternatives would be to once again compile a report of that size. On the other hand, in our search to find ways of saving money for the taxpaver, we are trying to find some alternative means that could be used to provide the same information at less cost. Mr. HAWLEY. May I add to that sir?

Senator METCALF. Mr. Hawley.

Mr. HAWLEY. The function of accessibility in the public's mind is an economic one as well and the total report you have printed there is admirable, but the five volumes are expensive. They run on the order

1 See appendix III, p. 169.

of about $60 in toto. The summary we have printed-without claiming any particular merit for it-is available for sale at $1.25.

That price presumably could be reached this year. With an index it probably could lay a trial through which the public can have access to the data without necessarily having to spend that amount of money. I think that is a consideration.

Senator METCALF. I think our mutual concern is to have as much public access to the report as possible and, of course, it is difficult to have the public who wants to read the report have to purchase-how much are they?

Mr. HAWLEY. The five volumes together, sir, approximate $60.

Senator METCALF. Part 2, which is the largest, costs $15 at the Government bookstore.

Mr. MALEK. Mr. Chairman, I take it from your comments that the committee would favor an effort to somehow reduce the size of this. Senator METCALF. I don't know whether we favor that effort. We would favor any effort to make it completely and thoroughly accessible to the public. As far as I am concerned if there was some way a summary-my staff says no, but as far as I am concerned, if there were some way a summary could be devised so that interested people could, as Mr. Hawley said, "lay the trail" to that kind of discoveryperhaps we could work it out.

I think Mr. Turner and somebody from your staff can work out some way to get publication.

I don't think that it should be a continuing responsibility of the committee to make the President's report accessible to the public. There should be some turnover to OMB, GSA, or another agency in the administration to take care of this in an orderly, regular, and routine manner.

Mr. MALEK. Yes, sir. We agree with that. We appreciate the cooperative effort we have had from the subcommittee staff and would like the opportunity to review with them in the coming months the future plans for the report.

Senator METCALF. Thank you.

A matter that has been of great concern, and you have touched on it in your prepared statement, Mr. Malek, is balancing membership of the advisory committees. I have been very disturbed by the fact that these advisory committees have not been balanced. There hasn't been proper diversity to achieve the kind of overall representation on the committees that we had hoped by the general language in the law.

I realize that we sometimes use specific language in the law and later have difficulty getting the implementation. I remember getting an amendment into one of the railroad laws that called for public membership on a committee. I found out that public membership was somebody from the Bank of America, or some brokerage house that loaned money to the railroads themselves.

We have continued responsibility to observe advisory committees. Through vigilance we can keep these advisory committees balanced. What are you doing about requiring the membership of advisory committees to be fairly balanced with at least public representation? Mr. MALEK. The guidelines that we have submitted to the agencies, of course, spell out the need for balance in the membership.

In our meetings at the staff level with the agencies concerned we continue to emphasize this need. At the same time I think you are absolutely right that there have been instances where appropriate balance has not been achieved and it is something that we have to continue to work with agencies on.

The new Circular A-63 we hope will help us in encouraging the balance that we all feel is necessary.

Senator METCALF. An instance comes to mind-the Emergency Petroleum Supply Committee. I asked Assistant Secretary of the Interior Wakefield to carry out the statutory responsibility of having a balanced advisory committee. In an open hearing in the Interior Committee room he promised me that he would-that he would add people to represent various parts of the public other than members of the seven largest oil companies.

I suggested that we have someone from the consumers, someone from the oil jobbers, maybe someone from the large utilities and someone from the REA Co-ops or something of that sort, all of whom are very much concerned and interested in the petroleum supply.

Mr. Wakefield gave me every assurance that he would balance that committee. He finally wrote me a letter and said he added a representative from the oil jobbers. However, I have a letter that I received from that representative of the oil jobbers. He said when he went to the committee they treated him as an observer. They didn't allow him to take his place on the committee. They didn't allow him to be represented on any of the subcommittees.

How do we enforce this business of achieving balance and eliminate such a thing as emergency petroleum supply committee membership from the half a dozen, or maybe seven, large oil companies that have gotten us, or helped to get us, into the present energy crisis?

Mr. MALEK. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a good example, which as you point out, needs balance. However, I don't think it is feasible for the Executive Office of the President to watch over the appointments to every committee.

I think this is something that the President must entrust to the heads of the various agencies to do under his guidelines. I think what we need to do, if this kind of problem is a recurring one, is simply make the point more strongly with the heads of the agencies as to their responsibility in this area and perhaps to work with them at a higher level to insure they interpret the guidelines properly and pay attention to the composition of their committees.

Senator METCALF. Here is a copy of the February 4 letter from Mr. Douglas Mitchell, chief counsel of the National Oil Jobbers, in response to my inquiry of how he was getting along on that Emergency Petroleum Supply Committee.

I ask that the correspondence also be put in the record at this point as an example.

[The letter to Mr. Mitchell and his response follow :]

U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OERATIONS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BUDGETING, MANAGEMENT, AND EXENDITURES,
Washington, D.C., February 1, 1974.

Mr. DOUG MITCHELL,

Chief Counsel, National Oil Jobbers Council,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MITCHELL: Last fall Chairman Metcalf discussed with Interior Department officials the composition of the Emergency Petroleum Supply Committee,

an advisory committee established under the Defense Production Act of 1950 and subject also to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. 92–463. The Senator was concerned by the narrow range of economic interests represented on the EPSC, all of its membership coming from large oil companies, despite the "fair balance" provisions of P.L. 92–463 and the requirement, in the Defense Production Act of 1950, that advisory committees established thereby include fair representation for independent, small, medium and large business enterprises, for different geographical areas, for trade association members and different segments of the industry.

One of the trade associations which Chairman Metcalf suggested for membership on EPSC was the National Oil Jobbers Council.

On Tuesday, February 5, this subcommittee will take testimony regarding various aspects of the Federal Advisory Committee Act from the Office of Management and Budget, which has primary responsibility for administering the act. Compliance with the statutes dealing with fair balance of advisory committees will be discussed. Chairman Metcalf would appreciate receiving from you, prior to the hearing, a response to the following questions:

(1) Has an NOJC representative been placed on the EPSC and its subcommittees?

(2) Is membership on the EPSC now, in your opinion, fairly balanced as required by the statutes referred to above, and

(3) Inasmuch as EPSC meetings have been closed to the public on the basis of national security, what security clearance procedures are used, to your knowledge, to screen persons admitted to EPSC meetings?

Sincerely,

VIC REINEMER,

Staff Director.

Senator LEE METCALF,

NATIONAL OIL JOBBERS COUNCIL,
Washington, D.C., February 4, 1974.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Budgeting, Management, and Expenditures, Committee on Government Operations, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: On February 1, 1974, the Staff Director of your Subcommittee, Vic Reinemer, asked that I reply to three questions about my participation on the Emergency Petroleum Supply Committee (EPSC). The questions and my answers follow:

(1) Has a NOJC representative been placed on EPSC and its subcommittees? I was invited to and did attend two meetings of the full EPSC held on November 8 and December 11, 1973. At the latter meeting, a January session for the full committee was mentioned, but a date was not set and, to my knowledge, the committee has not met since December 11.

My status on the committee was not at first clear to me. During the November meeting, I was seated with the lawyers, assistants, advisors, and government observers rather than at the main conference table, which was reserved for representatives of the major oil companies, each of whom had an identifying sign. When the roll was called, all those at the table were identified; government observers and others associated with the committee were named and asked to show their presence; and, finally, I was asked to do this along with John Buckley (representing a terminal operation) and several others whom I did not recognize.

I later learned that I had only "observer" status. This information developed when I asked to serve (or to let an associate in New York serve) on the subcommittee or the staff which was determining the impact of the boycott on foreign petroleum supplies to the United States. The committee had discussed forming two subcommittees at the November meeting-the one just mentioned and one on transportation. It seemed to me that the subcommittee and its staff from major oil companies would find it extremely difficult to collect and analyze the necessary data without some anticompetitive consequences for the independent sector of the industry, part of which I represent. To help avoid this, I telephoned an Interior official, Bob Presley (the call was transferred several times, so it is remotely possible that I spoke to someone else), and asked if I or a delegate could serve on the staff or the subcommittee. I preferred a delegate from New York, because the staff offices were located there. At that time, Mr. Presley mentioned the "observer" status and added that no representative from my group could offer any expertise in international petroleum supply. I explained that my delegate was