Ms. KLEEMAN. No, we specifically followed up on the defense science boards and those related committees that we had looked at in our 1983 report.

Senator LEVIN. You have heard testimony today about the SDIO. Does that testimony match your experience with the Defense Science Board?

Ms. KLEEMAN. Not the current experience.

Senator LEVIN. So we know DOD can do better?

Ms. KLEEMAN. That is right.

Senator LEVIN. And the Defense Science Board is an example of where they do do better, I gather?

Ms. KLEEMAN. Yes, and we found some improvements, we were pleased to find, since our 1983 report. There are still some things that we think can be done better, though.

Senator LEVIN. These reviews that you have told us about-how long are those reviews, how many pages?

Mr. ZIOMBRA. They are normally just a one-page memo that is prepared for the record, showing the essential results of the review. Ms. KLEEMAN. They do not contain any follow-up as to what happened after the review.

Senator LEVIN. Would you call them perfunctory reviews, or how would you describe them?

Ms. KLEEMAN. Well, I think they were called summaries of the total review.

Senator LEVIN. But you are not able to tell us anything about the quality of those reviews?

Mr. ZIOMBRA. No, we did not look at those reviews from that standpoint.

Senator LEVIN. Do you have any evidence that a hard look was taken? Or you just have no way of knowing?

Mr. ZIOMBRA. We have no way of knowing, really, as to how extensive a review was performed. We just know-

Senator LEVIN. Do you have an impression?

Mr. ZIOMBRA [Continuing]. The written record that was prepared as a result of those reviews.

Senator LEVIN. Do you have an impression of how extensive a review was carried out?

Mr. ZIOMBRA. Not really. As we point out in our testimony, we know that certain problems were discovered as a result of those reviews. And as we point out, it does not appear that corrective action was taken.

Senator LEVIN. Even where they discovered problems?

Ms. KLEEMAN. That is right.

Senator LEVIN. OK. Ms. Kleeman, you also, I understand, asked the DOD whether it had issued any mass mailings to DOD personnel to alert them to FACA's existence and requirements. What did you find?

Ms. KLEEMAN. I do not believe they did any mass mailings.

Mr. ZIOMBRA. That is correct. We found no evidence of any general mailings, or the fact that they conducted any seminars, or anything like that.

Senator LEVIN. We have heard testimony today that back in 1983 the GAO, the IG for the DOD, and the House Government Oper

ations Committee all recommended that the Department of Defense document how it was achieving balance on its committees.

Now, in 1988, you are making the same recommendation. Are we in the same place on this issue as we were in 1983?

Ms. KLEEMAN. I think we are. There has not been any definitive guidance in this area.

Senator LEVIN. When you speak of documenting how balance is achieved, do you mean a document that describes the criteria that were used, and how all the factors were weighed to come up with the roster of persons finally chosen?

Is that what you mean by documenting?

Ms. KLEEMAN. Well, I think it has to have that. I think there has to be some flexibility. I am not just sure how you would define balance exactly.

I think the principle of balance is important, and we would like to see some more specific guidance on that.

Senator LEVIN. Would you be so kind as to give some thought to that issue, and to send to the DOD a recommendation on that?

Ms. KLEEMAN. All right, we will certainly try to do that.

Senator LEVIN. When you were examining the DOD's conflict of interest procedures, did you perform any substantive analysis of financial disclosure forms to see if the members had conflicts of interest that were or were not identified and dealt with by the DOD? Ms. KLEEMAN. We did review each form, and we looked at some of the specifics.

Mr. ZIOMBRA. I would not term it a substantive review. We did not look at the forms and do our own assessment of whether or not an actual or potential conflict of interest existed.

We looked to see to what extent the senior scientific advisory committees reviewed these forms to identify conflicts of interest. Senator LEVIN. Did you have something to add?

Ms. KLEEMAN. I was going to say, we did find some items missing in our review of the forms. They were not always complete. But also, the reviews were not documented for two of the boards that we looked at, for two panels on each of the Defense Science Board and the Air Force scientific advisory board.

There was insufficient documentation that reviews had been conducted of statements when board members were assigned to panels. Senator LEVIN. Do they know about that now? Have they been sent copies of your review?

Mr. ZIOMBRA. We reviewed our findings with them, yes.

Ms. KLEEMAN. They were reviewed when they were on the Defense Science Board, but when they were assigned to panels, they were not further reviewed to see if there might be some problems with that particular panel.

Senator LEVIN. We may have additional questions for the record for you. And again, thanks for your patience. It has been a long wait this afternoon.

Ms. KLEEMAN. Thank you very much.

Senator LEVIN. Our final panelist is Paul Weiss, who is the Associate Administrator for Administration of the General Services Administration. I believe he is accompanied by James Dean, the Director of the Committee Management Secretariat of the GSA.

We also have with us F. Gary Davis, Chief Counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, who is accompanied by Don Campbell, who is the Deputy Director of the Office of Government Ethics.

So we have got GSA and OGE, the General Services Administration and Office of Government Ethics. You are our final panel. Thank you for your patience in waiting here. I think we will start with Mr. Weiss.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL T. WEISS, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES DEAN, DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT SECRETARIAT, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Mr. WEISS. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will briefly summarize my comments, and ask that you accept for the record my prepared statement.1

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, we will.

Mr. WEISS. Very briefly, you asked or Chairman Glenn asked, that we respond to five questions concerning our role in administering FACĂ.

One has to do with management controls, and how we insure, through our own process, and through other means, that the Act is effectively administered.

I essentially rely on four general areas. One would be Congressional oversight by the various committees over their respective departments and agencies.

We also rely very heavily on the departmental and agency management through their advisory committee management officers for information related to management controls.

We also receive our management information through the consultation process with each agency, as the advisory committees are chartered and rechartered. And of course we also rely on the open meeting aspect of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and through dialogue with the designated Federal officers.

In terms of how we collect our information through the process, we collect a great deal through the consultation process with the agencies. We also, through our annual comprehensive review, are able to gather a great deal of data relative to the Federal advisory committees.

And we also maintain very detailed records with respect to each of the advisory committees chartered under the Act.

We also have ongoing continuous dialogue with the committee management officers on virtually a daily basis. We rely heavily on the Federal Register, the Congressional Record and the media for information related to advisory committees.

And we also have recently formed an interagency committee on Federal advisory committee management which held its first meeting back in March, and is representative of all the agencies with Federal advisory committees.

And looking to the future, we have scheduled a conference of people involved, both officially and unofficially with the Federal

advisory committee act. That conference is scheduled for May 12th and 13th of this year, and we expect to gather a lot of information and share our views.

With respect to actions we would take if we learned of advisory committees formed outside the provisions of FACA, basically, it is a three-step process that we would engage in.

First of all, we would contact the committee management officer in the affected agency and attempt to resolve the issue at that level.

Barring success at that level, and agreement, we would then raise it to possibly the Assistant Secretary for Administration or other equal official who has jurisdiction over FACA within that agency, the general counsel, or even the head of the agency.

If we did not reach success and agreement at that level, we would then engage in discussions with the Department of Justice as to whether or not that particular committee would be covered by the Act.

You also asked, Mr. Chairman, for us to address specifically the status of advisory committees created in connection with the performance of Federal contracts, and whether or not they are covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

There is an extremely limited amount of case law in this area. However, given the way your question is posed, that is, if a contractor provides only administrative support to an advisory committee, and other features of the committee are undistinguishable from groups subject to FACA, that is, the group provides advice directly to a Federal official, and other criteria are met, then it seems to us, to GSA, that the committee would be and should be covered.

From our understanding of the issues involved, the test for inclusion under the Act is that the agency's contract requires that the advice of a group of other than contractor personnel be provided to the agency, and that the contractor has not merely solicited advice as part of the activities incidental to the performance of the contract.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, you inquired as to GSA's role in determining the standards of conduct applicable to advisory committee members, and our thoughts regarding any additional legislative authority which may be necessary to enhance the Secretariat's ability to enforce compliance with FACA.

GSA has taken steps to remain cognizant of the requirements of conflict of interest statutes, vis-a-vis members of advisory committees, and where appropriate, to notify agencies of changes in this

area.

GSA also intends to maintain a close working relationship with the Office of Government Ethics. As part of this commitment, GSA has initiated discussions at the staff level to develop the means to improve the Federal community's understanding of the application of ethics statutes to advisory committee members.

We are exploring several options, including reference of ethics requirements in OGE regulations to our own rules governing Federal advisory committee management.

In addition, GSA will devote a substantial portion of its training course on FACA which is currently under development to ethics issues. We believe these efforts will permit greater awareness of

the issues involved at the appropriate levels within organizations sponsoring advisory committees.

GSA does not believe it is necessary to pursue legislation which would provide a direct role for the Secretariat in matters related to conflict of interest.

With regard to other legislative options to improve GSA's ability to detect committees which should come under FACA, it is our belief that the Secretariat's current authorities are sufficient for this purpose.

In our opinion, initiatives undertaken with the Federal community during the past year, combined with those suggestions offered to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, at its initial hearing on FACA, should they be enacted, will result in a stronger, more effective oversight process.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary remarks.
Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Weiss.

Let's hear from OGE now, and then we will ask questions of both of you.

Mr. Davis?

TESTIMONY OF F. GARY DAVIS, CHIEF COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS, ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD CAMPBELL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Senator.

I would ask for the record, Senator, that Director Nebeker's statement, which responds to your March 25th questions, be made a part of the record.1

Senator LEVIN. It will be, in full.

Mr. DAVIS. I do not have any summary of the testimony, but I would like to point out, Senator, that there are standards that are already in existence for advisory committee members who are employees or special government employees.

I have an observation. I think that as I heard what was going on here with the testimony this afternoon, I think that advisory committees can be used by the Government to provide advice and recommendations, and they can also be used to seek the views of industry or business.

In the case of the former, members should be subject to the conflicts of interest statutes, while carrying on these Federal functions, in order to protect the Government's decision-making proc

esses.

And one of the main purposes of the change in the 1962 criminal conflicts of interest legislation was to facilitate the recruitment of experts for part-time assistance without relaxing basic standards or permitting actual conflicts of interest.

That is why we created the status of a special government employee.

On the other hand, I think it is important on occasion to seek the views from business or industry, and to be evaluated by an agency in formulating government action. And subjecting members

1 See p. 151.