Chairman DAWSON. In contravention of the provision? Mr. BARNES. I say it is not in contravention of the statute. Mr. PINCUS. One of the reasons I assume that Congress speaks of authorizing these committees and similar bodies is that sometimes it becomes rather difficult to discern whose idea it was to have this committee in the first place. Now, for example, in the description that was furnished by the Department in the hypothetical case we read earlier, it is rather unclear as to whether it wasn't the idea of the sponsoring trade associations to have that committee or whether it stems from the responsible Government official. So that you begin to get into a very nebulous area here. Mr. BARNES. I agree with you entirely, but I point out that is why. we try to set up some of these safeguards, for example, to require the executive to set up what the agenda should be, he is the one to call the meetings, and he is the one before the committee what they should consider and not the committees that control that. Mr. PINCUS. They are not doing that in many instances. Mr. BARNES. Not completely. Mr. PINCUS. So at least they are evading the spirit and intent of the enactments by Congress, and the heads of the Department have that responsibility for that evasion, do they not? Mr. BARNES. Well, you say evasion of the spirit and intent. Mr. BARNES. Those requirements are recommendations from the Department of Justice. They are not law. I can't go out and tell the secretary of X that he can only hold a meeting under those rules. Mr. PINCUS. They are not law at all? Mr. BARNES. They are not law at all. Chairman DAWSON. Then why did you draw them? Mr. BARNES. Because I think they are good things, and I think that they should be exercised. Chairman DAWSON. Your recommendations are based on law, aren't they? Mr. BARNES. They are based upon law and upon the implications of the possibilities of the evasions of the antitrust laws, which I must enforce. We get into implications. You can recommend certain standards. I think they are good solid, sound standards, but that doesn't mean that I can impose those thoughts on some other governmental agency. Mr. PINCUS. Now, why is it you happen to think they are good, solid standards and all of the other department heads seem to think they are not? Mr. BARNES. I don't think all of the other department heads think they are not. I think a majority of the department heads follow them and follow them very carefully. Mr. PINCUS. Can you cite from your figures how many departments have more than 1 committee in them of the 150 some that are not following these standards? Mr. BARNES. Well Mr. PINCUS. Maybe the President ought to knock a few heads together. He is supposed to be responsible for the whole executive branch. Mr. JONAS. May I interject? I haven't heard any testimony here before this subcommittee that anybody is doing anything wrong. I have heard Mr. Pincus make the statement a few times. Why don't we bring the people in here and get it out on the table as to who is violating laws instead of having counsel make statements not supported by testimony? Chairman DAWSON. They will be in. Mr. BARNES. May I repeat, we are not talking about violations of law. We are talking about violations, if you want to use that term, of suggested or recommended rules or guides. Mr. PINCUS. That is correct. Mr. BARNES. Now, as I say, that has not been followed in all instances. For instance, the Atomic Energy Commission we found were not following our rules in that there was a full-time Government chairman. Of their 17 committees, they did not require a full-time Government official as chairman. They changed that just last week in at least all but 3 of the 17 committees. Mr. PINCUS. What department is that? Mr. BARNES. The Atomic Energy Commission. So that is an example, you see when you put out guides that are not law, why it is very natural that in different agencies, I mean, I am sure that Congressmen can understand that there are different drives that are behind different agencies. The Small Business Administration is not interested in business as a whole; it is interested in small business. Now, some other agency may be interested in representing a certain shade of opinion. There are differences of opinion as to the effect of these advisory committees and the difference of opinion as to the benefits that may accrue from the advice that they give. Now, simply because some other executive of the Government in a far higher position than I am doesn't agree with me that for antitrust purposes primarily there should be these guides does not mean that he is wrong or that he is violating the law. He is exercising his judgment, and I respect his right to exercise his judgment. Chairman DAWSON. Does the Attorney General agree with you? Mr. BARNES. He certainly does because he signs any letter that to another agency. goes Chairman DAWSON. Do you know whether he ever brought these questions up in any of the Čabinet meetings? Mr. BARNES. I do not know, and, of course, I couldn't say if I did. Mr. PINCUS. Could you furnish for the record, please, those agencies not complying in whole or in part? Mr. BARNES. I would want to bring this up to date before we submit it. It is a continuing process and we have made a lot of progress. (The matter referred to above follows:) Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, June 4, 1956. Chairman, Government Operations Committee, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN DAWSON: In accordance with my testimony before your committee May 15, 1956, I hereby submit a summary of the extent to which advisory committees utilized by the Federal Government have regulations requiring adherence to certain standards suggested by this Department. Appraising this summary, certain caveats are essential: First, we do not know how many advisory committees in fact abide by these suggested standards. Our survey suggests only the number of advisory committees that have regulations requiring adherence to our recommended standards. And, even without regulations re quiring adherence to our recommended standards, our information is that somecommittees in practice abide by them. Second, our survey is based on information collected some 6 to 10 months ago. Short of undertaking the time-consuming task of checking again with each department and agency, we could not bring those estimates to date. With these caveats in mind, our survey sugests there are some 5,400 advisory committees utilized by the Federal Government. Of these approximately 5,400 committees, Congress has by statute specified the purpose, composition, and/or conduct for some 4,047. Since Congress has itself determined for these more than 4,000 committees how they should be used, how members should be chosen, or how meetings run, any standards suggested by this Department would have no application. Thus remaining are some 1,400 committees to which our suggested standards might apply. Of these 1,400, almost half or 615, committees have regulations requiring adherence to our recommended standards. The remaining 779 committees either have no regulations or regulations which in some manner do not comply. This does not necessarily mean, I repeat, that these 779 committees do not in fact adhere to our recommended standards. It means only they have no regulations requiring adherence. For your record I submit the following breakdown by departments and agencies: Summary of public advisory committees reported with breakdown of those subject to Department of Justice recommended standards Total reported public advisory committees____ 5, 441 4, 047 Total public advisory committees subject to this Department's sug- 1, 394 Breakdown of committees subject to this Department's suggested standards Number of committees whose regulations comply with Department of Justice's recommended standards____ Number of committees whose regulations do not comply. 615 482 297 Finally, your committee counsel, Mr. William Pincus, has requested that we transmit a copy of our March 31, 1954, letter re advisory committee sent to all Federal departments and agencies. For your record I submit a copy of that letter and a list of all Federal departments and agencies to which it was sent. Sincerely, STANLEY N. BARNES, Assistant Attornney General, Antitrust Division. [Enclosure No. 196074, from Department of Justice] HON. H. V. HIGLEY, MARCH 31, 1954. Administrator, Veterans' Administration, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. HIGLEY: This letter is addressed to those departments or agencies which seek or utilize advice or information from business or industry in connection with the performance of their duties. It will be appreciated if you will furnish the following information concerning those advisory or consultative groups which you utilize, including information concerning any groups whose advice you contemplate seeking as well as those whose advice you have sought during the current fiscal year, and indicating in each instance which groups are industry advisory committees functioning under or authorized by the Defense Production Act of 1950. (1) Please state the number of committees, panels or other groups of an advisory nature which you are utilizing or expect to utilize. (2) Please indicate in connection with which functions of your agency these groups are utilized or will be utilized. (3) Please state whether you have statutory authority for the utilization of such groups or whether you have made an administrative finding concerning their necessity. (4) If you have statutory authority, please specify the statute under which these groups are utilized. (5) Please indicate what regulations you have established for the organization and guidance of these groups. If the compilation of this information will take some time, we would like to have you send us information concerning Defense Production Act committees first, following as soon thereafter as possible with the information concerning all other consultative groups. Sincerely yours, Exact letter was sent to the following: STANLEY N. BARNES, Assistant Attorney General. H. V. Higley, Administrator, Veterans' Administration J. M. Mehl, Administrator, Commodity Exchange Authority Banta, Parke M., General Counsel, Health, Education, and Walfare Abe McGregor Goff, Solicitor, Post Office Department Douglas MacArthur 2d, Esq., Counselor, Department of State F. Trowbridge Vom Baur, Esq., General Counsel, Department of the Navy Wm. McC. Martin, Jr., Chairman, Federal Reserve System Val Peterson, Administrator, Federal Civil Defense Administration Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission Robert B. Murray, Jr., Chairman, Air Coordinating Committee Maj. Gen. Glen E. Edgerton, President, Export-Import Bank of Washington Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, Chairman, Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Research and Development Francis A. O'Neill, Jr., National Mediation Board Alan T. Waterman, Director, National Science Foundation Edgar B. Brossard, Chairman, Tariff Commission, United States Chairman DAWSON. Do you think legislation is indicated to carry out your recommendations? We believe they are good ones. Mr. BARNES. No, I do not believe legislation is recommended as far as advisory committees are concerned. Chairman DAWSON. As far as any committee is concerned, not only advisory committees, I mean. Mr. PINCUS. Any council, board, or similar body. Mr. BARNES. Well, I still believe you have to rely upon the integrity and the good judgment of the executives, who have the responsibility under our system of Government of doing what they should do, and I don't think that you ought to straitjacket them any more than you can help. I think that a majority of them, where they can, will follow these guidelines once they are brought to their attention and they realize their importance, but I still believe that it is better to do it that way than to straitjacket them along certain lines. Chairman DAWSON. We assume that every Government employee until he demonstrates otherwise has integrity in all of those things, still we put certain safeguards and establish certain qualifications. We believe when a man takes a Government post he has all of those qualifications, but experience has shown us that we can guide him, set up standards, and as you have attempted to do in this instance, guide him; and I do not think that that questions the integrity of the individual. I don't think that is even involved. I think that we are trying to get matters of practice and policy that will make this Government work more efficiently. Mr. BARNES. I don't say it is a question of integrity, but my question is, intelligence. Chairman DAWSON. Well, it has been demonstrated these things go on and happen inside of the Government, and certainly we would try to safeguard the people from not depending upon the intelligence alone of the particular individual in matters that have been deemed of particular interest to the people. The Government is the people's business. Mr. Montgomery. |