Chairman GLENN. Well, what staff tells me here is that on the report that you send up on this, for instance, here is one here where it says that the status of Federal advisory committees recommended for termination during fiscal year 1986, and we have different groups here, it says requires legislation, but the reason for that and justification for why you want to undo that or disband that particular group is what we need, I guess.

Mr. WEISS. That is correct, it is not in the summary, the annual report summary.

Chairman GLENN. I was told that we do not get separate letters on any of these, either. Is there a summary-do you send a separate document or are you supposed to send a separate document that gives us that?

Mr. WEISS. The reason, Mr. Chairman, for proposing a committee for termination are contained in the more detailed information that we provide to the Senate and the House as part of the annual report process and as part of the annual comprehensive review. If the committee proposed termination through legislation, the reasons for that are outlined in the-

Chairman GLENN. OK. If that is contained in something else, I would like to have the staff get in touch with you and make sure that we are either getting that information or that we want it submitted with the annual report, one or the other.

Mr. WEISS. OK.

Mr. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify. This is the summary of the annual report required by FACA. It is not the annual report itself. You do receive this from the President, but the much more detailed information taken together with this report constitute the annual report of the President.

Chairman GLENN. Who does that go to?

Mr. DEAN. In the Senate, it goes to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. We sent up several boxes of material to you for these hearings. And on the House side it goes to the Government Operations Committee.

Mr. WEISS. Literally, a stack of-

Chairman GLENN. Well, I would like to have the staff, without taking up the Committee's time-we are late here and it is 20 of 1, so I would like to end this up pretty soon here, so maybe staff can get together with you and make sure we are getting everything we need to do our job, too.

Do you think an agency head should retain final authority over establishing an advisory committee.

Mr. WEISS. Yes, I believe so.

Chairman GLENN. And the termination of it?

Mr. WEISS. If it is a statutory committee or one that the agency head, him or herself, establishes?

Chairman GLENN. Primarily the statutory ones, I guess.

Mr. WEISS. We have suggested in our statement to you that FACA, of course, has to be amended to provide for that. But we recommend giving the agency head the authority to terminate a committee provide that he or she consults with the congressional committee, with the Congress, and also advises the Secretariat.

Chairman GLENN. Your data on advisory committee management indicates that less than one percent of committees proposed

for establishment result in a nonconcurrence from a Committee Management Secretariat. I presume a non-concurrence is where you just disagree with the establishment of the committee and refuse to charter it, is that correct?

Mr. WEISS. That is correct.

Chairman GLENN. Does GSA in every instance confer with OMB on an agency proposal for establishing an advisory committee?

Mr. WEISS. No. We do confer with OMB in those cases where we feel they can lend something to the deliberative process and where there is a duplication across government that we may not be aware of, we feel that OMB might have information and

Chairman GLENN. Can you give us an idea of what percent of cases does GSA confer with OMB under, and on what types of commissions?

Mr. DEAN. It has varied over the years, Mr. Chairman. The practice which has been maintained by the Secretariat since its arrival in GSA, the consultation with OMB or assistance from them was primarily carried over from the time that the Secretariat was in that location.

Since I have been with the Secretariat for the past nine months, we have much more selectively relied upon OMB, I would say probably say fewer than 5 percent of the establishments that we get, I have asked for some input from OMB on.

Chairman GLENN. Do you prepare recommendations concerning the continuation or termination, either one, of committees for OMB's consideration during the preparation of the budget?

Mr. DEAN. No, sir, we do not. However-

Chairman GLENN. Do you not think you should on that? Is that something that should be done, because it involves some dollars of a substantial number?

Mr. DEAN. We are a little bit out of sync with the budget process itself. However, we are considering an initiative beginning this year to take more initiative in discussing with the agency our feelings about various committees. What we would like to do is to resolve any outstanding issues with the agencies before we provided any information to OMB.

Mr. WEISS. If I could elaborate just a little bit, Mr. Chairman, OMB has undertaken a process over the last couple of years of what they call their management review in which they look at every program within the agency that is broad in scope and rises to their level. As part of that review, as part of my responsibilities, we will begin sharing with them once we have got the data we can rely on, based on our new system, we will begin sharing with them information from this process that we feel they should have in their budget deliberations on advisory committees.

Chairman GLENN. Well, on the whole committee-commission process here, we are up to-what was our total figure now-$86 million or what is our total cost? So, we are $80-million-some on this, and it would seem to me that would have to show up in your request to OMB, and I would think there would have to be justification for that figure, so you would have to review these things every year when you submit them to OMB.

Mr. DEAN. It shows up in each agency's request, that is funding it. You see, that is where the two do not go together.

Chairman GLENN. You do not approve them, out of yours, I see. Mr. DEAN. Each agency funds its own committee, so therefore it comes up through that process.

Chairman GLENN. OK. Have you ever recommended to OMB that a committee be terminated or continued, either one, and the agency disagreed with your recommendation?

Mr. WEISS. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GLENN. Who is the final authority, you or OMB, in that case?

Mr. WEISS. In recommending a termination? If it is in the budget process, I would say it is probably theirs.

Chairman GLENN. It has never occurred, and I guess it is academic, but I was just thinking of who has the final say on that one. Mr. DEAN. Well, I believe that the head of the agency has the final authority to terminate. However, OMB has been known to strongly recommend that some things take place

Mr. WEISS. Not only in this area, but others as well.

Chairman GLENN. Well, the OMB head comes before this committee on occasion, too. I have been told by different ones through the years that people look at the Vice President as being the second most powerful spot in government, but I do not agree with that at all. I think the OMB head is the number two man in government, because they make more decisions directly affecting what happens in government than anybody except the President, as I see it, but that is an aside.

The Secretariat function used to be in OMB back years ago and it was transferred over to GSA and you administer it now. Removing yourself and your previous prejudices from it, do you think that that was right to do that? It is a rather-just on the surface of it, it would appear that perhaps OMB is the more logical spot for the Secretariat. It was moved over to GSA, I guess because you have a lot to do with logistics and supporting all of these different groups and so on. Do you think it should be with GSA or should the Secretariat be moved back to OMB?

Mr. WEISS. Well, trying to remove myself from it and be objective about it, I have only supervised this program for the last two years, so I can be fairly dispassionate, I think. I think at the time it existed in OMB, it was able to draw on resources within the Office of Management and Budget that obviously were not available in GSA, the budget examiners, for example.

Since that time, however, it has come to GSA and over the last 2 years we have been working with the Committee Secretariat to enhance its capabilities, I think that the level of expertise is going to improve, I think the level of analysis, the depth of analysis is going to improve, and I think that you are going to see a much more enhanced committee management process coming out of GSA over the coming years.

So, I would have to say, based on the plans that I have seen for it, I would leave it where it is, within GSA. And as another aside to this, I do not believe OMB would have the resources to devote to it. As you know, they are so caught up in the budget process and other things, that I believe this would fall pretty low on their list of priorities.

Chairman GLENN. Is the OMB staff looked at as being part of the White House staff?

Mr. WEISS. They belong to the President, yes, in that sense.

Chairman GLENN. Since it is run out of the Office of the Presi

dent.

Mr. WEISS. Yes.

Chairman GLENN. I think, if we are recalling_correctly, that is how this whole thing occurred. It was part of President Carter's pledge when he was running for President that he was going to cut down the size of the White House staff, and this is one place he whacked at once he got in. Since OMB was part of the White House staff technically, he transferred them over to a different agency of Government. It did not change anything as far as the overall budget or anything, except it got the Secretariat off the White House pay roll, I guess. Is that what happened, or do you know?

Mr. WEISS. I have heard the same stories you have, Mr. Chairman. The number I think was five or three positions moved out, three at the time, which is almost insignificant.

Chairman GLENN. All right. Well, thank you very much.

Do any of the staff people have any additional questions to ask? [No response.]

Chairman GLENN. Fine. It has been a long hearing and we appreciate you sticking with us here this morning. It has been good testimony. We may have additional questions from staff or Senators who were not able to be here this morning, and we would appreciate an early reply so we can include those in the record, and we want to work with you on making this whole thing work better. Thank you very much.

Before recessing, there are several statements and documents that we will have printed in the record.

Thank you all.

The Committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the Chairman.

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Committee was in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIX

Statement of Michael H. Cardozo

My involvement in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) started with my serving as a consultant to the Administrative Conference of the U.S. During 1979 and 1980 for the purpose of preparing a report on the operation of the first fifteeen years of the FACA. My report was considered at the Conference's plenary session in June 1980; it has also been published in the Winter, 1981, issue of the Administrative Law Review. A number of other studies and reports have been completed and published, all contributing to the effective functioning of the advisory committee

system.

New and Importart Committees

The importance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act is exemplified by the continual establishment of new committees to deal with emerging problems and crises and by the strength of feeling on issues arising out of operations under the Act. Each year as many new advisory committees are being created as are dissolved. Right now there is litigation

involving the operation or status of the Presidential Commission to study the AIDS epidemic and the Committee on Judicial Selection of the American Bar Association. In the recent past the Commission of the Three Mile Island Accident and two Commissions on Obscenity and Pornography have dealt with those critical subjects. Only last month the President

created a "task force" to advise on the stock market situation.

Advising in Secret

The Act was introduced and enacted because of a perception that important government decisions were often being made on the strength of

(65)