In short, what I am saying is, that frankly I would have liked a much more substantial explanation of the rationale for arriving at some of the figures that you allude to in your testimony and we don't have this.

Mr. CARLUCCI. Let me try to answer your questions. It is envisaged that, once we attain authorization for the Council, the 26 people who are presently on nonreimbursable detail would be returned to their agencies or their agencies would be reimbursed for the details. We would have a more or less permanent staff of 29 bearing in mind the comments on tenure that Secretary Peterson made. This is not to say that the Council might not want to employ some of those people and in effect hire them away from the agencies that originally lent them to the Council as it is functioning now. We would not add the 29 people to the 26 that are presently on detail. We are talking about a staff of 29 full-time permanent positions, plus an executive director, and the flexibility to retain some personnel on reimbursable detail. That is it.

Mr. MITCHELL. Are you sure you won't take 13 of them on continued detail. You won't have five more detailed personnel added on to the staff?

Mr. CARLUCCI. We are talking about having a staff of 29, plus an executive director, who would be in authorized positions and the people on nonreimbursable detail would return to their agencies.

Now, that staff continues at 29 through fiscal year 1973 and the increase in budget authority that is being requested represents the mandatory costs in 1973 of the same level of staff which would exist at the end of 1972. Some of this staff were not in CIEP for the full year in 1972, so 1973 must cover the full 12 months costs of those people. Also, some of that mandatory increase is for increases in pay rates. As you know, we operate in civil service under the Pay Comparability Act, so the cost of all salaries would go up. And we have no real control over that. That is done through BLS survey data which is analyzed by the Civil Service Commission and the Office of Management and Budget, and the pay scale is put in effect, thus the expenses automatically go up for personnel.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, do I have time for one more question?

Mr. ASHLEY. You do indeed.

Mr. MITCHELL. I am advised that the staff requested from OMB, more than a month ago, the memorandum submitted by the President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization; that is a memorandum entitled "Organization for Foreign Economic Affairs, August 17, 1970."

It is my further understanding that this memorandum from the Advisory Council on Executive Organization made some recommendations which dealt with the organization of the Federal Government for the formulation of policy and the integration of operations in international economic affairs.

Now, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, neither the staff nor the committee has received that memorandum. Ár. Carlucci, I would ask you to submit this memorandum for the record now if you have it with you, and if you don't have it with you to supply this for the record as soon as possible. I think you can understand that the absence of that kind of information-and your presentation-only

strengthens my belief in the necessity of the kinds of reporting requirements called for in the original bill. Do you have a copy of that memorandum?

Mr. CARLUCCI. I do not have a copy of the memorandum you are talking about, nor have I seen the memorandum myself. It is my understanding that the Ash council did recommend that a focal point be created in the Executive Office of the President to try and coordinate agencies

Mr. MITCHELL. Would you use your good offices to see that this subcommittee and its staff are supplied with a copy of that memorandum?

Mr. CARLUCCI. I will see that the committee and staff are supplied with the appropriate information. I don't know specifically which memorandum you are talking about but I will see that information regarding the Ash Commission's recommendations is made available. to the committee, Congressman, yes.

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you.

(in response to the request of Mr. Mitchell, the following information was submitted for the record by Mr. Carlucci.)

REPLY RECEIVED FROM MR. CARLUCCI

The information requested is as follows:

The President's Advisory Council on Executive Organization, chaired by Mr. Roy L. Ash, made recommendations in late 1970 on the "Organization for Foreign Economic Affairs." It reviewed and found inadequate the then existing organization for policy and program devleopment relating to world trade, investment, monetary affairs, development assistance and related functions. It found a proliferation of involved units and coordinating bodies totaling more than sixty. It also found that the U.S. faced unprecedent challenges in international economic affairs, the meeting of which required improved organization.

Accordingly, the Ash Council proposed the establishment of a point of reference, in the Executive Office of the President, for the integration of all aspects of foreign-economic policy. The formulation of such policy was found to be a Presidential responsibility, and hence the Council prescribed a Presidentiallyheaded Council of the principal relevant policy officers supported by a staff office responsible directly to the President.

The Ash Council conceived the CIEP organization as a third policy formulation body parallel to the NSC and the Domestic Council.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Peterson and Mr. Carlucci, a couple of quick questions on this specific legislation.

Mr. Peterson, you make mention of the fact on page 2 of your testimony that the Ash Council's analysis concluded that then existing structures and procedures in the executive branch for dealing with international economic affairs were inadequate. Then the statement, for example, the Ash Council found the responsibilities for international economic affairs were dispersed among about 60 departments, agencies, and committees.

Can we infer, and I remember reading the Ash report in many of its reorganizations recommendations, which I certainly concur with, especially the reduction side, do you contemplate as a result of this legislation reducing some of these, or abolishing or consolidating some of these 60 departments, agencies, and do you mind us writing that into the legislation?

Secretary PETERSON. It has been said that advisory ccmmittees don't die or even perhaps fade away.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr Carlucci could speak to that because the Republican promise of 1968 was to eliminate and fade out OEO and it is still there. So I think that we can testify to the fact that they never go away many times.

Secretary PETERSON. Occasionally I practice what I preach, not very often, but rarely. One of the committees that was set up in the whole international economic arena was a group called the Textile Advisory Committee of some sort. I upon becoming Secretary and on knowing about the role of the Council, recommended, along with others, that that committee be done away with it, was no longer necessary. I would certainly applaud any notion of getting rid of unnecessary advisory committees.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Do you contemplate in this action that you are recommending here today, this legislation, that some of these 60 departments, agencies, or committees can be abolished, eliminated, consolidated?

Secretary PETERSON. I will go straight out and say that that number should be reduced.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Could you give us a specific letter telling us those that you think could be done away with on the basis of your broad experience in the White House staff on this particular activity and now as Secretary of Commerce also having international trade responsibilities, where we could eliminate, where we could consolidate, so that maybe we could include that in this legislation? I think that would enhance it as far as I am concerned and I am sure others would like to increase it.

Secretary PETERSON. Congressman, it is hard for me to remember but I should remind myself and I remind you I am now Secretary of Commerce, not Executive Director of the Council.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. No, but you are here today to testify on behalf of this legislation.

Secretary PETERSON. I mean with regard to specific committees. some of which fall outside of my purview. I think the Office of Management and Budget obviously would play a critical role, do you not, Mr. Carlucci, in getting rid of advisory committees?

Mr. CARLUCCI. We are engaged in a very intensive effort to cut down on the number of advisory committees. As I mentioned earlier, we have an Executive order which I hope will come out in another week or two which will address this question very specifically.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. You mean specifically to these 60?

Mr. CARLUCCI. To advisory committees.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. You and Mr. Weinberg will have some specific recommendations of elimination, consolidation, and so forth, in this

group?

Mr. CARLUCCI. We will set up a process which will make the agency heads responsible for controlling the number of advisory committees. The Executive order will provide a life tenure, a lifespan of only 2 years for advisory committees at which point they go out of business automatically and there would have to be a positive finding that they need to be renewed to get them to go forward.

If I may add, the President has had before the Congress for the past year and a half the most far-reaching reorganization proposals in the history of the Federal Government which could cut down some six Cabinet departments to four, would eliminate a number of independent

agencies, greatly streamline the executive branch, and contribute we think to far greater efficiency in the Federal Government, and we are hopeful that the House of Representatives and the Senate could see fit to pass one, hopefully two of these bills this session.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Glad to hear of that effort. Mr. Peterson, could you still give us your input? I think it would be valuable. You have served as Executive Director of what will become this agency. Could you give us your input?

Secretary PETERSON. I will give you an appropriate input, Con

gressman.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. On page 8 of your statement you refer to the work that this international economic advisory body has already done. At the bottom of the page you refer to consolidating with great strides which have been made by the President's visit to Peking and Moscow. When you were Executive Director of this particular international economic group, prior to your going over to Commerce, did you participate in the preparation of economic ideas to be discussed in both Peking and Moscow?

Secretary PETERSON. Yes, sir; very intimately.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Was either group that recommended paying Peking and Chou En-lai $10 million together there?

Secretary PETERSON. $10 million for what?

Mr ROUSSELOT For our wonderful trip to Peking?

Secretary PETERSON. No, that did not fall

Mr. ROUSSELOT. That didn't emanate from your group?

Secretary PETERSON. No; I would assume the Office of Management. and Budget would know more about that than I did. That is one I am delighted to pass to you.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. It didn't emanate from your group when you were there; is that correct?

Secretary PETERSON. It did not; no.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I am delighted to hear that. Could you get us an answer as to where that came from?

Mr. CARLUCCI. I am not at all familiar with it.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. One more quick question. What is the cost now of the international economic advisory group cf 26 people, what does it now cost?

Mr. CARLUCCI. I don't have the exact figures.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Give us a rough estimate.

Mr. CARLUCCI. I would assume we would be talking about an expenditure of perhaps $1 million a year.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. So you want to kick it up from $1 million to $1,400,000.

Mr. CARLUCCI. We are talking about increasing the staff from 26 to 29.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. That takes $400,000?

Mr. CARLUCCI. It works out to an average of about $37,000 per employee.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I have averaged it out. I have $1,400,000 cost. Mr. CARLUCCI. I am assuming

Mr. ROUSSELOT. That gets awfully top academics for that.

Mr. CARLUCCI. I defer to your arithmetic. I assume it is costing us more than $1 million in that case.

Mr. ASHLEY. Was it your testimony the present staff members of the Council are being paid by their constituent departments and agencies?

Mr. CARLUCCI. That is correct.

Mr. ASHLEY. From the funds that are appropriated for the use of those agencies?

Mr. CARLUCCI. Yes, sir. These are agencies, of course, which are engaged in the field of international economic policy, Department of Agriculture, AID, Commerce, State Department, Treasury, Labor. I will be glad to supply for the committee a list of

Mr. ASHLEY. Are these people being paid from the Exchange. Stabilization Fund?

Mr. CARLUCCI. On the Exchange Stabilization Fund, the Council on International Economic Policy has received two allocations of $50,000 from the Exchange Stabilization Fund, and these have been expended primarily for nonpersonnel expenses.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. One more question. Mr. Peterson, how many people in the Department of Commerce now work in the field of international trade? How many staff people do you have there now? Secretary PETERSON. It is a number much much larger than this depending

of

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Roughly.

Secretary PETERSON. Specifically related to trade, it is on the order.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. International trade.

Secretary PETERSON. About 250 people.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. 250 people giving input on international trade? They can't do the job?

Secretary PETERSON. I think what Mr. Carlucci has suggested is an enormously important coordinating role, Congressman, and I don't see how a department can perform that role.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. All right, and further how many on the Council of Economic Advisers are now in the field of

Mr. BROWN. When you are talking about 250 people, aren't you talking about all the people who actually administer the Export Administration Act?

Secretary PETERSON. This is a number I would like to elaborate further so we are sure we know what we mean by trade. I am talking about people administering the Export Administration Act, gathering trade statistics of all kinds.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. All fields of international trade. How many in the Council on the Economic Advisers of a staff of 60 are in the field of international trade at all? Do they have any?

Mr. CARLUCCI. I would have to submit something for the record. I assume they do have people working in the area.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. That would be helpful.

(In response to the request of Mr. Rousselot the following information was submitted for the record by Mr. Carlucci:)

REPLY RECEIVED FROM MR. CARLUCCI

The Council of Economic Advisers has the following staff working in the fields of international trade and finance (which are inextricably interwoven):

1 senior professional, full-time

1 senior professional, a majority of his time

1 senior professional, a significant part (but not a majority) of his time

1 junior professional, full-time supported by four nonprofessionals.