Federal Advisory Committees: An Overview
Federal Advisory Committees: An OverviewWendy R. GinsbergAnalyst in American National GovernmentApril 16, 2009Congressional Research Service7-5700www.crs.govR40520CRS Report for CongressPrepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Federal Advisory Committees: An OverviewSummaryFederal advisory committees — which may also be designated as commissions, councils, or taskforces — are created as provisional advisory bodies that can circumvent bureaucratic constraintsto collect a variety of viewpoints on specific policy issues. Advisory bodies have been created toaddress a host of issues, ranging from policies on organ donation to the design andimplementation of the Department of Homeland Security. These committees are often created tohelp the government manage and solve complex or divisive issues. Such committees may bemandated to render independent advice or make recommendations to various bodies within thefederal government by congressional statute, created by presidential executive order, or requiredby fiat of an agency head.Congress formally acknowledged the merits of using advisory committees to acquire viewpointsfrom business, academic, governmental, and other interests when it passed the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (FACA) in 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix — Federal Advisory Committee Act; 86Stat.770, as amended). Enactment of FACA was prompted by the belief of many citizens andMembers of Congress that such committees were duplicative, inefficient, and lacked adequatecontrol or oversight. Additionally, some citizens believed the committees failed to sufficientlyrepresent the public interest — an opinion punctuated by the closed-door meeting policies ofmany committees. FACA mandated certain structural and operational requirements for manyfederal committees, including formal reporting and oversight procedures for the advisory bodies.FACA requires that committee membership be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of viewrepresented,” and advice provided by committees be objective and accessible to the public.Additionally, FACA requires nearly all committee meetings be open to the public. Pursuant tostatute, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintains and administers managementguidelines for federal advisory committees. During FY2008, GSA reported a total of 917 activecommittees with nearly 64,000 total members that provided advice and recommendations to 50federal agencies. The total operating costs for these committees in FY2008 was 344.3 million.Agency administrators, the President, and Congress continue to create federal advisorycommittees in the 111th Congress.Committees that fit certain FACA criteria and are created by the executive branch are governedby FACA guidelines. FACA was designed to eliminate duplication of committee expertise andmake advisory bodies in the executive branch more transparent. Congress may decide, however,to place FACA requirements on a body that it statutorily created. Existing statutes are sometimesunclear as to whether a congressionally created committee would have to comply with FACArequirements — except in cases when the statute explicitly mandates FACA’s applicability.Legislation (H.R. 1320) was reintroduced in the 111th Congress that would require members ofadvisory committees be selected without regard to their partisan affiliation. Also pursuant to thelegislation, executive branch agency heads would be authorized to require members serving onagency advisory committees to fully disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest.Additionally, GSA’s Administrator would be given authority to create regulations and guidelinesto further ensure that an advisory committee offered impartial advice and recommendations. Thebill would also require each advisory committee to create a website, publish advance notice ofmeetings, and provide public access to proceedings on its website. The bill was sent to the HouseCommittee on Oversight and Government Reform, and ordered to be reported from thecommittee on March 10, 2009. Similar legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress (H.R.5687), but was not enacted.Congressional Research Service
Federal Advisory Committees: An OverviewContentsIntroduction .1History.2The Department of Justice.3Congressional Action .4The President and the Executive Branch.4Congressional Reaction.5The Federal Advisory Committee Act.8Subsequent Amendments .9Contemporary FACA . 10Studies on Federal Advisory Committees . 11When FACA Applies. 13FACA and the 111th Congress . 15Creating a FACA Committee. 15Establishment and Mandate. 15Membership. 16Compensation and Travel. 18Committee Staff . 18Committee Reports . 19Committee Powers . 19Bylaws and Procedures . 19Funding . 20Committee Termination. 20Analysis. 20ContactsAuthor Contact Information . 22Congressional Research Service
Federal Advisory Committees: An OverviewIntroductionSince 1974, Presidents and executive branch agencies have been creating federal advisorycommittees to gain expertise from outside the federal government. These federal advisorycommittees have historically been created on an ad hoc, provisional basis. The entities are oftencreated to bring together various experts — often with divergent opinions and politicalbackgrounds — to examine an issue and recommend statutory, regulatory, or other actions.Federal advisory committees may be created because they have fewer administrativerequirements placed on them than other investigatory entities.In 1972, Congress formally instituted federal use of advisory committees with the enactment ofthe Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 1 Advisory bodies established or utilized by thePresident or agency heads in the executive branch are governed by FACA guidelines if they fitcertain criteria.2 Advisory bodies statutorily mandated may or may not be obligated to followFACA requirements — often depending on who appoints committee members and to whom thecommittee must report its findings.Congress, the President, and executive branch agency heads often create advisory bodies togenerate expert advice and recommendations. Whether called commissions, committees,councils, or task forces, these entities have addressed a gamut of public policy issues. Some ofthese advisory committees may offer recommendations on topics ranging from organ transplantpractices3 to improving operations at the Department of Homeland Security. 4Pursuant to statute, the General Services Administration (GSA) maintains and administersmanagement guidelines for federal advisory committees. During FY2008, GSA reported a total of917 active committees with nearly 64,000 total members that provided advice andrecommendations to 50 federal agencies. The total operating costs for these committees inFY2008 was 344.3 million. Agency administrators, the President, and Congress are likely tocontinue creating federal advisory committees throughout the 111th Congress.On March 5, 2009, Representative William Lacy Clay reintroduced legislation (H.R. 1320) in the111th Congress that would require that members of advisory committees be selected withoutregard to their partisan affiliation. 5 Moreover, executive branch agency heads would beauthorized to require that members serving on agency advisory committees to fully disclose anyactual or potential conflicts of interest. GSA’s Administrator would be given authority to createregulations and guidelines to further ensure that an advisory committee offered impartial adviceand recommendations.6 Also, advisory committees would be required to create websites, and1See the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. Appendix — Federal Advisory Committee Act; 86 Stat.770, as amended).2Pursuant to FACA, advisory bodies are subject to the act’s guidelines if they have at least one member who is not afederal employee, and if their membership is determined predominantly by the executive branch, among otherqualifications. 5 U.S.C. Appendix § 3.3U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation (42 U.S.C. § 217a).4U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advisory Council (6 U.S.C. § 451).5H.R. 1320 Sec. 2(b).6These regulations and guidelines would apply to all FACA committees and subcommittees.Congressional Research Service1
Federal Advisory Committees: An Overviewpublish advance notice of meetings and provide access to their proceedings on these websites.The bill was sent to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and ordered tobe reported from the committee on March 10, 2009. Similar legislation was introduced in the110th Congress (H.R. 5687). The bill passed the House on June 24, 2008, but was not reported outof the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.The bill may clarify certain transparency requirements for federal advisory committees and theirmembers. While the bill could make federal advisory committees more accessible to Congressand the public, it may also grant the GSA — an executive branch agency — greater control overFACA committee operations. Such action may remove some congressional control from FACAcommittee operations.HistoryAlthough FACA committees did not exist until 1974, George Washington is often credited withinitiating a tradition of presidential use of outside expertise when, in 1794, he appointed an ad hocgroup of commissioners to investigate the Whiskey Rebellion. 7 Since 1842, Congress haslegislated control over federal advisory bodies — mostly by limiting funding and committeemember pay. In 1842, for example, a law was enacted that prohibited payment to “anycommission or inquiry, except courts martial or courts of inquiry in the military or naval service”without explicit “special appropriations.”8 Similarly, in 1909, another law was enacted thatprohibited appropriation to “any commission, council, board, or other similar body . unless thecreation of the same shall be or shall have been authorized by law.”9 The law also prohibited thedetailing of any federal employee to work on an unauthorized commission.By the 20th century some Members of Congress believed the executive branch’s advisory bodieswere inefficient and not accessible to the public. Some Members believed that the publicharbored concerns that a proliferation of federal advisory committees had created inefficientduplication of federal efforts.10 Moreover, some citizens argued that the advisory entities did notreflect the public will, a point that was punctuated by many committees’ policies of closed-doormeetings. Congress was called on to increase committee oversight and gain some control over theproliferating advisory boards.11 To meet that end, Congress wrote the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. Appendix; 86 Stat. 770, as amended). The legislation wasenacted in 1972 and requires advisory bodies that fit certain criteria to report annually a variety ofinformation, including membership status and progress, to the Government ServicesAdministration (GSA). GSA then reports aggregated advisory body information to Congressannually.127"Whiskey Insurrection in Western Pennsylvania," in Pennsylvania Archives, ed. John B. Linn and Wm.H.Egle, 2ndSeries, vol. 4 (Harrisburg, PA: Clarence M. Busch, State Printer of Pennsylvania, 1794), pp. 155-164.85 Stat. 533. (1842).935 Stat. 1027. (1909).10See, for example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations, The Federal Advisory CommitteeAct, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., September 7, 1972, S.Rept. 92-1098 (Washington: GPO, 1972), pp. 5-6.11U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Government Operations, The Federal Advisory Committee Act, Report toaccompany S. 3529, 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., September 7, 1972, S.Rept. 92-1098 (Washington: GPO, 1972).12Effective May 15, 2000, P.L. 104-66 eliminated the requirement that GSA submit an annual report on FACAcommittees to Congress. GSA’s Administrator, however, is required by FACA to “institute a comprehensive review ofthe activities and responsibilities of each advisory committee” and recommend to Congress, the President, or the(continued.)Congressional Research Service2
Federal Advisory Committees: An OverviewThe Department of JusticeIn the 1940s and 1950s a variety of private sector industries had been creating advisorycommittees that attempted to influence federal governmental operations. In the 1950s, some ofthese entities were created under official auspices, using guidelines formulated by the Departmentof Justice (DOJ) in 1950.13 These entities operated without explicit legislative or executivebranch authority, but attempted to affect federal policies and practices. Government officials —including both the legislative and executive branches — as well as members of the general publicgrew concerned that these ad hoc committees were overstepping their authority.At various points within that era, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released legal opinions on thecreation, structure, and oversight of advisory committees. A 1944 statement by then-AttorneyGeneral Francis Biddle, for example, outlined limits to private industry’s ability to form advisorycommittees that offered unsolicited policy advice to the government. According to Biddle’sstatement, “the responsibility for the formation of an industry committee to advise any particulardepartment of the government is the responsibility of that department.”14A 1955 opinion released from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General created a five-prongedcollection of guidelines for the creation of a valid federal advisory committee.1. There must be either statutory authority for the use of such a committee, or anadministrative finding that use of such a committee is necessary in order toperform certain statutory duties.2. The committee’s agenda must be initiated and formulated by the government.3. Meetings must be called and chaired by full-time government officials.4. Complete minutes must be kept of each meeting.5. The committee must be purely advisory, with government officials determiningthe actions to be taken on the committee’s recommendations. 15(.continued)relevant agency head any actions he or she believes should be taken. The review is conducted annually. 5 U.S.C.Appendix § 7.13U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Antitrust Subcommittee (Subcommittee No. 5), WOC's [WithoutCompensation Government Employees] and Government Advisory Groups, Hearings, 84th Cong., 1st sess., August 4,1955, S.Hrg. Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1955), pp. 586-587. The public, throughout the 1940s and 1950s, wasconcerned about the power of these advisory committees to influence agencies’ policy decisions. The DOJ, in adocument released on April 26, 1944, stated that it had “no objection” to the creation of such advisory bodies, and thatthey did not violate antitrust laws as long as they did not determine policy. Ibid. pp. 585-586.14U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Antitrust Subcommittee (Subcommittee No. 5), WOC's [WithoutCompensation Government Employees] and Government Advisory Groups, Hearings, 84th Cong., 1st sess., August 4,1955, S.Hrg. Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1955), pp. 586-587.15Peyton Ford, Deputy Attorney General, Letter to All Agencies Regarding Advisory Committees, U.S. Department ofJustice, GPO, October 19, 1950, available in U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, AntitrustSubcommittee (Subcommittee No. 5), WOC's [Without Compensation Government Employees] and GovernmentAdvisory Groups, Hearings, 84th Cong., 1st sess., August 4, 1955, S.Hrg. Part 1 (Washington: GPO, 1955), pp. 586587.Congressional Research Service3
Federal Advisory Committees: An OverviewCongressional ActionOn January 22, 1957, Representative Dante Fascell introduced a bill that would have made theDOJ’s five advisory committee requirements law (H.R. 3378). The bill noted “an increasingtendency among Government departments and agencies to utilize the services of experts andconsultants as advisory committees or other consultative groups,” but warned that “protection ofthe public interest requires that the activities of such committees and groups be made subject tocertain uniform requirements.”16In addition to making the five DOJ standards law, the bill would have required the President tosubmit to Congress an annual report “detailing the membership of each advisory committee usedby each Federal department of agency; the function of each such committee; and the extent towhich the operations of the committees have complied with the Standards provided in this Act.”17The bill, as amended, passed the house on July 10, 1957. The bill was sent to the Senate andreferred to the Government Operations Committee, but no further action was taken.The President and the Executive BranchIn 1962, President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order (E.O. 11007) that reinforced theDOJ advisory committee requirements.18 The executive order defined an advisory committee asany committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similargroup . that is formed by a department or agency of the Government in the interest ofobtaining advice or recommendations . that is not composed wholly of officers oremployees of the Government.19E.O. 11007 also limited the lifespan of all federal advisory committees to “two years from thedate of its formation” unless special actions were taken by an agency or department head tocontinue the committee.On March 2, 1964, the Bu
Members of Congress that such committees were duplicative, inefficient, and lacked adequate control or oversight. Additionally, some citizens believed the committees failed to sufficiently represent the public interest — an opinion punctuated by the closed-door meeting policies of
2 18 discretionary." "Discretionary" advisory committees include those that an agency forms of its 19 own initiative or in response to a statute authorizing the creation of a committee.2 "Non- 20 discretionary" advisory committees include those formed by the President and those that 21 Congress, by statute, specifically directs the President or an agency to establish.3
74 DBS Annual Report 2017 Most of the above committees are supported by local risk committees in all major locations, where appropriate. These local risk committees oversee the local risk positions for all businesses and support units, ensuring that they keep within the limits set by the Group risk committees.
examination of the executive and finance committees, the two most common non-required committees. On the other hand, consistent with the view that committees can have information-segregation costs, we find that committee activity is lower whe
o Standing Committees: Separate subject-matter committees in each house of Congress that handle bills in different policy areas. o Joint Committees: Congressional committees on a few subject-matter areas with . AP US Gov Chapter 12 Page 6 Made by: Katie of 6 Frye Lobbyists and interest groups
John Westbrook U.S. Army Field Artillery School, Ft. Sill Scott Keith Will Rogers World Airport First Round of Advisory Committees The Personal Travel Advisory Committee met on June 10, 2014 and the Freight Travel Advisory Committee met on June 11, 2014. The Tribal Transportation Advisory Committee met on July 17, 2014.
Central Technical Services Advisory Services Regional Offices Expert Committees and Conferences ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS World Healt Assemblh y Executive Boar and d its Committees Regional Committees Total - OPERATING HIOGRAMM 8E 553 370 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE 1S 026 740 Total - ORGANIZATIONAL MEETINGS 32 700 3
Reporting to the Behavioral Health Advisory Board The Advisory Board provides input to the administration of the Mental Health Plan and functions in an advisory capacity. The Advisory Board is involved in the Quality Improvement Committee by appointing an Advisory Board member to the QIC. In addition, there is a direct reporting link to each of .
The “Agile Software Development Manifesto” was developed in February 2001, by representatives from many of the fledgling “agile” processes such as Scrum, DSDM, and XP. The manifesto is a set of 4 values and 12 principles that describe “What is meant by Agile". THE AGILE VALUES 1. Individuals and interactions over processes and tools 2. Working software over comprehensive .
