Senator METCALF. Now, Mr. Lynn, I am very pleased that you are here with members of your staff who are working on this. As I said in my opening statement, I compliment you on the activity, the interest, and the concern that you have shown in trying to enforce this act. We don't have you up here for criticism so much as for advice and guidance and counseling, so that you can help us make it more effective and get rid of some of these useless committees and make this other advisory committee procedure more useful to the Government and get more money for the dollar spent. Senator Percy, do you have any comments? Senator PERCY. No further comments. TESTIMONY OF JAMES T. LYNN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGE- COUNSEL Mr. LYNN. Mr. Chairman, I will, of course, abide by the committee's wishes as to whether they wish me to read my statement in full. Frankly, what I would prefer to do, knowing it will receive. careful consideration by the committee, is ask to have the full statement incorporated in the record so as to save the time of this committee and allow maximum time for questions. Let me just state a few words, some of which are in my statement and some of which are not, by way of an introduction to the subject from our point of view. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much. Unless there is an objection, then we will have the statement incorporated in the record, as if read, at the conclusion of your testimony. It is a brief statement. But I would prefer to have you summarize and add some other comments that may have occurred to you this morning after the discussion with Senator Nelson and our own opening statements. Would you identify your colleagues at the desk? Mr. LYNN. Yes, I will. I have with me today--I think you know him-Mr. Clifford Graves who is our Deputy Associate Director for Evaluation and Program Implementation. I also have Mr. Robert Bedell, who is an Assistant General Counsel; and Mr. William Bonsteel who is well known to the committee. He is the Chief of our Committee Management Secretariat. As you mentioned, we also have Mr. Oaxaca, who takes a back seat for no man, figuratively, but literally, I guess, decided to lurk in the background. Senator METCALF. He has been a witness before this committee, and a very valued witness. So we are delighted to have you all here at this budget-making process on the Hill. We are honored you have taken the time out to appear at this hearing. Mr. LYNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear. I look upon this as important business. I would like, as a little aside, on BACFR, or whatever the pronunciation is, to just mention, if I might, a couple of facts with respect to BACFR that may be of interest. The Chairman of BACFR is a gentleman by the name of Carl Beck, who runs a company with less than 50 employees. There are six sponsoring organizations, and there are three people appointed from each one. That means 18 out of the 26 total members. One of those sponsoring organizations is the National Small Business Association, which is a contributing member. Also, the National Association of Manufacturers is another. It has 13,000 members. Twenty percent of them have less than 20 employees. Fifty-five percent of them have less than 100 employees. And 88 percent of them have less than 500 employees. I believe the Chamber of Commerce is another also sponsoring member, and the Chamber, of course, has a wide variety of sizes of firms among its membership. I think this year at least, where all of the meetings are on paperwork, that body is being supportive of what we are trying to do in OMB and what the Paperwork Commission that was established by Congress is trying to do. As I understand it, there has been complete unanimity that, although it is true that the larger business can surely cope with it easier than the smaller one can, paperwork is considered to be a terrific problem for both large and small business. I should add that as I occasionally get out across the country, I find the big business groups equally vocal to the small ones in saying, "Isn't there some way we can cut down on the paperwork?” Senator METCALF. I want to especially thank you for that summary and analysis of the composition of this Business Advisory Council. Mr. LYNN. Thank you, sir. As I say, I will put my statement in the record. Let me just give you a couple of random thoughts, if I might, some of which are in the statement and some of which are not. Some of this goes back to my days at HUD and my days in Commerce. I am not a strong advocate of advisory committees in general. I found as a manager of a department that rarely was the problem that I was facing encompassed exactly by the membership of any advisory committee. Any particular advisory committee, given a particular problem or set of problems, had a nucleus of people on it that would be useful to consult on that problem, but it would have other people who really didn't have much interest or much expertise. Conversely, in each one of those problems or groups of problems there were people who were not on the advisory committee whose expert advice you wanted. So during the period that I was there, if I recall correctly, I think we disposed of one or two or three. I must say as a practical matter it is very difficult, I found, to dispose of advisory committees because it is looked upon as a signal that you don't care, that you don't love somebody. After all, if a given advisory committee has been there for 4 years, and you try to dispose of it, does this mean you are now downplaying the importance of the advice from a given sector? You get into almost actual pleading by people "Please, our position in the world is being degraded if you don't have an advisory committee in our area of endeavor." My reply always was, "Not at all." What I would prefer to do is consult one-on-one with people whose advice I admire. If there is a need for advice on a broader basis, go to public hearings. I found in HUD that the hearing approach was an approach that was very, very useful. I started with public hearings on leadbased paint poisoning-which everyone told me I remember-they told me, "You can't hold hearings on this. It is too sensitive an issue. The world will collapse.' The truth of the matter is the hearings were welcome by all of the various groups interested in the subject. I think the hearings were handled fairly; and they helped both us in HUD and the public generally to better understand that the problem was one that needed solution but that there weren't any easy solutions. Also some options were identified at the hearings that we considered carefully, and we adopted one or two. I would say that I will consider my accomplishments great during the period of time that I am in OMB if I can get department heads and agency heads to think automatically about holding hearings with regard to important issues before they make policy or programmatic decisions. Whether it is an issue facing an agency head or an options paper going to the President, I believe that executive hearings, by allowing all interested parties to be heard, can make an important contribution to the decisionmaking process. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we should have balance; executive hearings are a good way to achieve this objective. The hearing provides the best forum, it seems to me, to get that kind of balance. So I must admit I have no love affair with advisory committees generally. Does that mean I think they all should be abolished? Of course not. I am just saying I think an agency or department should be put to the proof as to whether an advisory committee is the best way to approach a given matter. Having said that, I also believe that when we identify problems in the management of advisory committees, that we should not amend the statutes without first experimenting with different approaches to solving those problems. It is in that spirit that in a number of instances we respectfully disagree with the need or desirability for legislation in some of the areas that are covered by various bills that have been presented. But by the same taken, I would hope that we in OMB, working with the Subcommittee, could identify areas where we should take action on changes in the guidelines or changes in approach to see whether that will do the job. Doing it that way has a large advantage. One, it is very difficult to anticipate in advance the exact way an overall prescription or requirement will apply to every one of a 1,000-plus committees. On the other hand, if we do some of these things by administrative guidelines, you have the flexibility as you work along in time to make needed modifications, without requiring legislative change; and you also can treat it more or less as a test tube to see what works and what dosn't work. Then, having begun that challenge, if problems still persist, I think you have to lower the boom and seek a legislative solution. Let me say that some of the amendments we have here have a very direct relationship, of course, to "government in the sunshine." Certainly what happens in a closed meeting of an advisory committee relates to that overall topic. I have to say to you my general view is that to open up the processes of government is a very good thing. That is why I like the executive hearings that I have talked about earlier, because I think it gives an opportunity, whether it is for small business, big business, environmentalists, consumer groups, professors or just interested citizens, to come forward, to speak. On the other hand, I really have become a little concerned lately as to some of the kinds of things that Senator Percy was talking about, but a different aspect of it. I don't want to see us become so rigid in our rules with respect to open and closed meetings that we cut off a phenomenon that I have seen happen in some advisory groups that I have had advise me, or the Secretary in Commerce and in HUD-the phenomenon that occasionally some member of an advisory group will have the courage to break from the pack, so to speak. In a public meeting, members will not usually break with the group, break from the traditional views of that particular group. In a closed meeting or in a private discussion, however, some person will come up to us and say, "This is what the group is saying, but I am telling you that is a lot of bunk, and there really isn't a technological barrier in our performing thus or so." I really don't know the answer to that question. I do know one thing, that if we go too far toward open meetings, dissenting views may not be voiced. On the other hand, I would guess we could still get the views because you get an awful lot of unsolicited advice, whether you are at a place where you are giving a speech and people come up to you afterward or on a social occasion. I think the chairman and Senator Percy have had this experience in common with me. They will say, "Look here, on such and such a matter you fellows don't know what you are doing," or, on the other hand, "We really herald what you are doing in that regard." So we ought to realize that whatever we do in the formal areas, there is still that large informal area out there which has its bad side but also has a good side-of people, in one-on-one situations, telling us what they really think rather than what they are willing to have appear in the public press where they will be sometimes ridiculed by their peer group. There is a balance in there, and I have to say to you frankly, I don't know where it is. But I think that is a set of issues we have to keep in mind as we go along. With that background, I think, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer your questions. I think that is the way I can be most helpful. Let me add one other thing. You praised our efforts at OMB to some extent. There is room for criticism, as we well know. Where the praise lies is really with my staff. It is very nice as a head of an agency to take credit for good things. But I think we have had staff in OMB that by prodding us at the top of the agency, has made real progress. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much, Mr. Director. I think Senator Percy suggested in his amendment the attitude of all of us on the committee in introducing legislation. The reason we have hearings is to have your comment on such legislation and perhaps, when we see corrections that we feel should be made, discuss directives, or Executive orders, or some other remedies as well as amendments. That, of course, is what we are looking to achieve in the next couple of days in this discussion. I am trying to grope to find out just where the problem is and where we can answer the problem that you have suggested. People continue to come in and say, "These people on the advisory commissions will be inhibited if they are in an open session." That is what they said about opening up committees of the Congress or executive sessions of the Congress. We have opened up more than 90 percent of them in the last couple of years. I have not noticed any inhibition except for the first 2 or 3 days of the hearings. And, of course, people who are of the stature of advising the President or the members of the Cabinet are men and women who are not inhibited by public appearances and so forth. In fact, I think some of them are most uninhibited. But I appreciate your suggestion about getting rid of some of these advisory committees and having hearings and getting people in and experts testifying on the specific problem that is involved rather than just having people who are general experts. I hope that your staff, which is excellent, will meet with ours and maybe we can work something out in that area. During the next couple of days I know that we are going to have some suggestions. I just can't ask you some questions today. I think that you have directed, and you may give credit to your staff, if you will-and I will give them credit, too-but I think that you have set up a staff that has tried to carry out the spirit. of our act. So we are going to try to inquire in the next couple of days as to how we get rid of some of these committees, how we prevent 107 people from serving on 4 different advisory committees. in a country as large as this, how 47 persons serve on 5, 21 on 6. Why do we have to have that limited sort of representation? |