United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information, and Technology, Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

2:00 p.m., EDT

Tuesday

July 14, 1998

FEDERAL ADVISORY

COMMITTEE ACT

Advisory Committee

Process Appears to Be

Working, but Some

Concerns Exist

Statement by L. Nye Stevens

Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-98-163

Summary 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

Federal agencies often receive advice from advisory committees on a

range of issues, including policy and scientific matters. In fiscal year 1997,

federal agencies could turn to over 900 advisory committees for advice.

Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to ensure

that (1) valid needs exist for establishing and continuing advisory

committees, (2) the committees are properly managed and their

proceedings are as open to the public as is feasible, and (3) Congress is

regularly informed of the committees’ activities.

GAO has issued two recent reports relating to FACA. The most recent of

these reports, which is being released today, summarized the views of

federal advisory committee members and federal agencies on specific FACA

matters. The other report, issued in June 1998, assessed the General

Services Administration’s (GSA) efforts in carrying out its oversight

responsibilities under FACA.

The information from these two reports led GAO to make three general

observations.

1. Advisory committees appear to be adhering to the requirements of FACA

and Executive Order 12838, which led to the establishment of ceilings for

each agency on the number of discretionary advisory committees. These

requirements do not appear to be overly burdensome to agencies.

2. Although the responses of committee members and agencies portrayed

a more positive than negative image of FACA, their responses did raise

concerns and issues that the Subcommittee may wish to explore in its

consideration of FACA. For example, there appears to be some concern

among agencies about the possibility of being sued for noncompliance

with FACA if they obtain input from parties who are outside of the agency

and its advisory committees.

3. GSA’s Committee Management Secretariat has fallen short of fulfilling its

FACA oversight responsibilities. For example, GSA has not submitted its

annual reports to the President in time for him to meet the December 31

reporting date to Congress in 8 of the last 10 annual cycles. Further, GSA

did not ensure that advisory committees were established with complete

charters and justification letters. Thirty-six percent of the 203 advisory

committee charters and 38 percent of the 107 justification letters from

October 1996 through July 1997 that we reviewed were missing one or

more items required by FACA or GSA regulations. GSA said it will take

immediate action to improve its oversight.

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on federal advisory

committees as the Subcommittee explores possible changes to the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the advisory committee process. Last

November we presented to the Subcommittee an overview of advisory

committees since 1993.1

 We have issued two reports on FACA since then on

issues that you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator John Glenn asked us to

examine. The most recent of these reports, which is being released today,

gathered the views of federal advisory committee members and federal

agencies on specific FACA matters.2

 The other report, which was issued last

month, assessed the General Services Administration’s (GSA) efforts in

carrying out its oversight responsibilities under FACA.

3

 My statement today

will focus on these two reports, as you requested.

As you are well aware, federal agencies often receive advice from advisory

committees, and this advice covers a range of topics and issues, including

national policy and scientific matters. In fiscal year 1997, federal agencies

could turn to 963 advisory committees for advice. Most of these

committees were discretionary; that is, they were created by agencies

acting under their own authority or were authorized—but not

mandated—by Congress. The rest were mandated by Congress or the

President.

Congress has long recognized the importance of federal agencies receiving

advice from knowledgeable individuals outside of the federal bureaucracy.

Nevertheless, Congress enacted FACA in 1972 out of concern that federal

advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review,

oversight, or accountability. FACA provisions are intended to ensure that

(1) valid needs exist for establishing and continuing advisory committees,

(2) the committees are properly managed and their proceedings are as

open to the public as is feasible, and (3) Congress is regularly informed of

the committees’ activities.

To help meet these objectives, FACA directed that a Committee

Management Secretariat, which is now located at GSA, be established and

1

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Overview of Advisory Committees Since 1993 (GAO/T-GGD-98-24,

Nov. 5, 1997).

2

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Views of Committee Members and Agencies on Federal Advisory

Committee Issues (GAO/GGD-98-147, July 9, 1998).

3

Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration’s Oversight of Advisory

Committees (GAO/GGD-98-124, June 15, 1998).

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

responsible for all matters relating to advisory committees. GSA has

developed guidelines to assist agencies in implementing FACA; has

provided training to agency officials; and was instrumental in creating, and

has collaborated with, the Interagency Committee on Federal Advisory

Committee Management.

Although FACA was enacted to temper the growth in advisory committees,

the number of advisory committees grew steadily from fiscal year 1988

until fiscal year 1993, when the number totaled 1,305. In February 1993, the

President issued Executive Order 12838, which directed agencies to

reduce the number of discretionary advisory committees by at least

one-third by the end of fiscal year 1993. Under authority provided by the

executive order, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established

ceilings for each agency on its maximum allowable number of

discretionary committees. Subsequently, the number of advisory

committees declined from 1,305 in 1993 to 963 in fiscal year 1997, the most

recent fiscal year for which complete data are available.

Although the number of advisory committees has decreased, the average

number of members per committee and the average cost per committee

have increased. On average, between fiscal years 1988 and 1997, the

number of members per advisory committee increased from about 21 to

38, and the cost per advisory committee increased from $90,816 to

$184,868. In constant 1988 dollars, the average cost per advisory

committee increased from $90,816 to $140,870 over the same period. A

total of 36,586 individuals served as members of the 963 committees in

fiscal year 1997. According to data published by GSA, the cost to operate

the 963 committees last fiscal year was about $178 million.

GAO’s Two Recent

FACA-Related Reports

To gather the views of advisory committee members on committee

operations for our report being released today, we surveyed a statistically

representative sample of advisory committee members. The questionnaire

responses we received from 607 members are generalizable to the

approximately 28,500 committee members for whom we had names and

addresses. We also sent a questionnaire to 19 federal agencies to obtain

their views on FACA requirements, and all 19 completed the questionnaire.

These 19 agencies account for about 90 percent of the federal advisory

committees.

To determine for our June 1998 report whether GSA’s Committee

Management Secretariat was carrying out its FACA responsibilities, we

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

reviewed committee charters and justification letters, annual reports for

advisory committees, and other pertinent documents; applicable laws and

regulations; and GSA’s guidance to federal agencies. We also interviewed

Committee Management Secretariat officials at GSA and committee

management officers at nine agencies.

The information from these two reports led us to three general

observations.

1. Advisory committees appear to be adhering to the requirements of FACA

and Executive Order 12838. These requirements do not appear to be overly

burdensome to agencies.

2. Concerns surfaced about certain advisory committee requirements that

the Subcommittee may wish to explore in its consideration of FACA.

3. GSA has fallen short of fulfilling its FACA oversight responsibilities. In

response to our June 1998 report, GSA said it will take immediate action to

improve its oversight.

I will turn now to each of these observations in more detail. In examining

the responses of advisory committee members to our questionnaire, we

determined the overall response to each question and, in addition,

separately reported the responses of peer review panel members and

general advisory committee members where appropriate.

Advisory Committee

Requirements and

Process Were Viewed

in a Positive Light

Overall

The answers the committee members gave to our survey showed that,

generally, they believed that their advisory committees were providing

balanced and independent advice and recommendations. The committee

members also reported that they believed their committees had a clear and

worthwhile purpose and that the committees’ advice and

recommendations were consistent with that purpose and considered by

the agencies. These responses are shown graphically in the following two

figures, which group together by topic a number of the specific questions

that we asked committee members.

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

Figure 1: Advisory Committees

Providing Balanced and Independent

Advice and Recommendations

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of respondents answering

90

85 85

92

Committee's membership

 fairly balanced in points

 of view represented

Committee includes cross-

 section of those directly

 interested in and 

 affected by issues

Based on inadequate 

 data or analysis

Contrary to general 

 consensus of 

 committee

Advisory committee members

generally to strongly agreed

Advisory committee members answered

no to whether agency officials ever asked

them to give advice or recommendations

Source: Responses from surveyed advisory committee members.

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

Figure 2: Advisory Committees

Serving Useful Purpose

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of respondents answering

Committee has a

 

 clearly defined

 

 

 purpose

Committee has

 a worthwhile 

 purpose

Committee's advice or

 recommendations

 consistent with

 its purpose

Agency considers

 committee's 

 advice or 

 recommendations

Agency solicits

 committee's 

 advice or 

 recommendations

Advisory committee members generally to strongly agreed

94 96 94

87 84

Source: Responses from surveyed advisory committee members.

FACA sets out requirements for agencies and advisory committees to

follow, and we asked the 19 agencies about their perceptions of how

useful or burdensome those requirements were. With regard to the

requirements in general, figure 3 shows the range of agencies’ responses.

The largest number of agencies considered the requirements to be useful.

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

Figure 3: Agencies’ Views of FACA

Requirements Overall

10 agencies 

Viewed FACA requirements

much more or somewhat more 

useful than burdensome

7 agencies

Viewed FACA requirements

about as burdensome as 

useful

2 agencies 

Viewed FACA requirements 

somewhat more 

burdensome than useful

53%

37%

10%

N = 19

Source: Responses from surveyed agencies.

In addition to their overall characterizations, the agencies also rated how

useful and burdensome they found each of 17 FACA requirements. A

majority of the agencies (generally more than 10 agencies) rated 14

requirements to be useful to a moderate, great, or very great extent. In

contrast, only four requirements were considered to be especially

burdensome by a majority of the agencies. These same four were also

among those rated as useful to a moderate or greater extent.

We also questioned the agencies about the impact of FACA requirements on

their receiving input from the public and about the impact of FACA

requirements and Executive Order 12838 on their forming new advisory

committees, and their responses were generally positive. We asked the

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

agencies whether FACA had prohibited them from receiving or soliciting

input on issues or concerns from public groups (other than from advisory

committees). Most of the agencies—16 of the 19—answered no.

There has been some question about whether the possibility of litigation

over compliance with FACA requirements has inhibited agencies from

forming new advisory committees. The most frequent response—received

from 14 of the 19 agencies—was that this possibility did not inhibit the

formation of new committees.

As I noted earlier, Executive Order 12838 established ceilings for each

agency on its maximum allowable number of discretionary advisory

committees. A majority of the agencies (12) said that the ceilings did not

deter them from seeking to establish new advisory committees. Seven

agencies, however, said the ceilings did deter them. An agency could

request approval from OMB to establish a committee that would place it

over its ceiling. Two of the seven agencies had done so during fiscal years

1995-1997, and OMB approved their requests.

Concerns Surfaced

About Certain

Advisory Committee

Requirements

Although committee members and agencies responding to our

questionnaires generally provided a more positive than negative image of

FACA, their responses also pointed to concerns and issues that the

Subcommittee may wish to explore in its consideration of FACA. We list

these concerns in no particular order of priority.

• About 13 percent of the general advisory committee members said that

agency officials had asked their advisory committees on occasion to give

advice or make recommendations on the basis of inadequate data or

analysis.

• A majority of the 19 agencies reported that two FACA

requirements—preparing an annual report on closed advisory committee

meetings and filing advisory committee reports with the Library of

Congress—required little labor on their part but offered little value, at

least in the agencies’ estimation.

• Seven agencies offered suggestions for changing the FACA requirements,

including two that suggested that rechartering be required every 5 years

instead of the current 2 year cycle.

• Under FACA, peer review panels are treated as advisory committees, and

six agencies indicated that they used peer review panels. Five of these

agencies said that panels should be exempt from some, most, or all FACA

requirements.

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

• Agencies identified 26 congressionally mandated committees that they

believed should be terminated.

• GSA regulations allow agencies to determine whether members of the

public may speak at advisory committee meetings. (Members of the public

are allowed to submit their remarks in writing.) All 19 agencies allowed

members of the public to speak before at least some advisory committees.

However, agencies placed restrictions on the public’s ability to speak at

committee meetings (e.g., only if time permitted), and the restrictions

varied from agency to agency.

• Advisory committees may also have subcommittees. Meetings of

subcommittees may be exempt from FACA requirements, and agencies

reported that about 27 percent of the meetings subcommittees held during

fiscal year 1997 were not covered by FACA. For these meetings, the

subcommittees may voluntarily follow FACA requirements. However, the

extent to which the requirements are followed appears to vary. For

example, of the eight agencies that responded, only two said Federal

Register notices were given for all or most subcommittee meetings. Five

said a designated federal officer attended all or most subcommittee

meetings.

• Although 16 agencies said FACA had not prohibited them from soliciting or

receiving input from the public, 3 agencies said it had prohibited them.

One agency said that it had to limit its prior practice of forming working

groups or task forces to address specific local projects or programs.

Another agency said that FACA had made it more cumbersome to seek

citizen input because of the staff time required to complete FACA

paperwork. And, the third agency said that solicitation of a consensus

opinion from a task force or working group could lead to that task force or

working group being considered subject to FACA.

• Finally, there appears to be some concern among agencies about the

possibility of being sued for noncompliance with FACA if they obtain input

from parties who are outside of the agency and its advisory committees.

Although 10 agencies said the possibility of such litigation has inhibited

them to little or no extent from obtaining outside input independent of

FACA, 8 agencies said that it has inhibited them to some, a moderate, or

very great extent.

The Director of GSA’s Committee Management Secretariat said that the

responses from committee members and agencies had suggested areas

that should be examined further, several of which GSA already had been

examining and others that GSA plans to examine.

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

GSA Has Fallen Short

of Fulfilling Its FACA

Oversight

Responsibilities

Although the GSA Committee Management Secretariat does not have

authority to stop the formation or continuation of an advisory committee,

FACA and GSA regulations assign it certain responsibilities for overseeing

the federal advisory committee program. These responsibilities include

• ensuring that advisory committees are established with complete charters

and justification letters;

• conducting a comprehensive review annually to independently assess

whether each advisory committee should be continued, merged, or

terminated;

• submitting information to the President in time to meet the statutory due

date for the President’s annual report to Congress on advisory committees;

and

• ensuring that agencies provide Congress with follow-up reports on

recommendations made by presidential advisory committees.

We concluded in our June report that the Secretariat had not carried out

each of these four responsibilities. For example, even though all charters

and justification letters had been reviewed by the Secretariat, 36 percent

of the 203 charters and 38 percent of the 107 letters from October 1996

through July 1997 that we reviewed were missing one or more items

required by FACA or GSA regulations. When reviewing the advisory

committees’ annual reports for fiscal year 1996, the Secretariat did not

independently assess whether committees should be continued, merged,

or terminated. For 8 of the last 10 annual presidential reports on advisory

committees, GSA submitted its report to the President after the President’s

report was due to Congress. The Secretariat did not ensure that agencies

prepared for Congress the 13 follow-up reports required on

recommendations made by presidential advisory committees in fiscal

years 1995 and 1996, and in fact none had been prepared. Based on our

findings, we recommended that the GSA Administrator direct the

Committee Management Secretariat to fully carry out the responsibilities

assigned to it by FACA in a timely and accurate manner.

In response to that recommendation, the GSA Administrator said the

Associate Administrator for Govermentwide Policy will ensure that the

Committee Management Secretariat takes immediate and appropriate

action to implement our recommendation.

In summary, although agencies reported that they have benefited from

FACA requirements in administering their advisory committee programs,

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Statement 

Federal Advisory Committee Act: Advisory

Committee Process Appears to Be Working,

but Some Concerns Exist

there appear to be areas in which those requirements warrant a fresh look.

In addition, there is room for GSA’s Committee Management Secretariat to

improve its fulfillment of its FACA oversight responsibilities. GSA says that it

is acting on both fronts. Still, the Subcommittee may wish to explore the

concerns surfaced in our reports as it considers ways to improve FACA.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to answer

any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

(410346) Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-98-163
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100