The Federal Advisory Committee Act: Analysis of Operations and Costs
Released: 2016-09-02T00:00:00

Introduction

Federal advisory committees are designed to collect a variety of viewpoints and to provide advice or recommendations to the executive and legislative branches of the federal government from nonfederal sources. Congress, the President, or agency heads may establish advisory committees, which render independent advice or make recommendations to their affiliated departments or agencies, and in some cases make recommendations to the President or Congress. Congress can also statutorily authorize an agency to create an advisory committee (leaving the final determination of whether to establish the advisory committee at the agency's discretion).

In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in response to the perception that existing advisory committees were duplicative, inefficient, and lacked adequate control or oversight. FACA sets structural and operational requirements for advisory committees, including formal reporting and oversight procedures. FACA requires that committee membership be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented," and that the advice provided by committees be objective, independent, and accessible to the public. Additionally, FACA requires that committee meetings be open to the public, unless the material discussed meets certain requirements. Pursuant to FACA, the General Services Administration (GSA) promulgates regulations and produces management guidelines for federal advisory committees. GSA also maintains the FACA Database, a database of information concerning FACA committee membership, operations, and costs.

Data and Methodology

Pursuant to FACA Section 7, the GSA Administrator must complete an annual review of FACA committees to determine whether they are carrying out their purposes, can be merged together, or should be abolished. To complete this review, the Administrator has the authority to request necessary information from agencies. GSA collected the information in paper form between 1972-1997. Since 1997, GSA has required agencies to report these data directly into the FACA Database, an online data collection tool GSA created and manages.

This report uses data from the FACA Database, the only publicly available source that includes aggregated and historical information on FACA committee membership, operations, and costs. According to GSA, the database is a "shared management system" wherein each participating agency and individual committee manager has responsibility for providing accurate and timely information that can be accessed by the system's wide array of users.

Within the database, GSA provides descriptions of the data sought from agencies. Agency employees then interpret these requests and report data. Agencies' employees, however, may interpret the requested data in a variety of ways.

The accuracy and completeness of the information contained in the FACA Database have not been independently validated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). In some cases, data reporting appears inconsistent. Certain data elements in the database are required, while others are optional. Consequently, some data elements are reported by some agencies and not reported by others. One example of this data limitation is the reporting of federal advisory committees' subcommittee meetings, membership, and costs. GSA allows agencies to report this information, but they are not required to do so by statute or regulation. Some agencies, therefore, report subcommittees' titles, member names, member affiliations, costs, and meeting dates—often in accordance with requirements set by the committee charter. The FACA Database requires that all committee and subcommittee costs be aggregated and reported as total costs. In cases where a FACA committee does not report subcommittee information, therefore, users of the data would not necessarily be able to determine whether subcommittees exist. Additional data concerns and limitations are discussed later in this report.

In addition to the aggregated, longitudinal data described above, this report provides detailed analysis of data from FY2015, the data most recently verified by the agencies and departments sponsoring the advisory committees and reviewed by GSA.

Data Examination and Analysis

Limits on the Possible Number of FACA Committees

Pursuant to GSA's interpretation of Executive Order 12838 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-135, the total number of advisory committees established by the executive branch, as opposed to those required by statute, may not exceed 534. According to GSA, every executive branch agency has a "ceiling" on the number of discretionary advisory committees it may create, "and the Committee Management Secretariat [within GSA] can adjust individual agency ceilings in consultation with the agency, as long as the overall [g]overnmentwide cap [of 534 total committees] is not exceeded." GSA requires agencies to provide a "determination of need" if they request new discretionary FACA committees—even if they are within their available ceiling. While there is a cap on the number of discretionary advisory committees that can be created by federal agencies, there are no limitations on the number of advisory committees that Congress and the President may establish. The potential number of total advisory committees, therefore, cannot be determined.

Figure 1 shows the total number of active FACA committees from FY2004 through FY2015. Included in this figure is a breakdown of the authorities used to create the FACA committees.

As Figure 1 shows, FY2009 had the fewest number of FACA committees report as active with 907, and FY2011 had the greatest number of FACA committees reported as active with 1,029. In FY2015, 1,009 FACA committees reported as active. From FY2004 to FY2015, the number of FACA committees:

required by statute increased inconsistently from 459 to 539 (+14.8%); established by agency authority declined inconsistently from 279 to 245 (-13.9%); authorized by statute declined inconsistently from 206 to 183 (-12.6%); and established by presidential directive increased inconsistently from 37 to 42 (+11.9%).

Figure 2 shows the number of new committees created by any authority during each fiscal year. From FY2004 to FY2015, the number of new active FACA committees declined inconsistently from 66 annually to 42 (-36.4%), ranging from a low of 23 new FACA committees in FY2014 to a high of 147 new FACA committees in FY2010.

Figure 3 shows the 14 executive branch departments or agencies that reported administering the largest number of FACA committees in FY2015. The data show that the Department of Health and Human Services reported the largest number of FACA committees with 248 (25.6% of total active FACA committees). HHS consistently operates the largest number of FACA committees in the executive branch.

FACA Committee Functions

GSA requires FACA committees to report their primary function, using one of seven categorical options. These options are

non-scientific program advisory board; scientific technical program advisory board; national policy issue advisory board; grant review committee; special emphasis panel; regulatory negotiations committee; or other committee.

As shown in Table 1 , of the 1,009 advisory committees active in FY2015, 265 (26.3%) reported acting as non-scientific program advisory boards, 197 (19.5%) reported acting as scientific technical program advisory boards, 133 (13.2%) reported acting as national policy issue advisory boards, 90 (8.9%) reported acting as grant review committees, 26 (2.6%) reported acting as special emphasis panels, 4 (0.4%) reported acting as regulatory negotiations advisory committees, and 294 (29.1%) reported acting as "other" committees.

FACA Committee Members

Total Number of Members

Roughly 70,000 FACA committee and subcommittee members serve in any fiscal year. Figure 4 shows the number of FACA committee members from FY2004 through FY2015. This number represents members who were reported as serving on committees and not the potential number of members who could serve if all committees had all available membership positions filled. GSA requires all FACA committees to enter the maximum number of members specified by their "charter or authorizing legislation." If neither document includes a maximum number of committee members, GSA instructs FACA committees to report their membership count as "unlimited." In FY2015, 72,200 members served on advisory committees.

As shown in Figure 4 , the number of FACA committee members remained around 70,000 per year from FY2004 through FY2015—the only exception being FY2009, when membership rose by 28.4% to 81,947 (an increase of 18,113 members). According to GSA, the growth in FACA committee membership in FY2009 was prompted largely by an increase in membership on committees that made recommendations about where and how to distribute appropriations provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-5 ). The data demonstrate that the FY2009 increase in FACA committee membership was prompted by a sharp increase in the number of peer review consultants, who serve only the National Institutes of Health. The number of members of other designations appears to have stayed relatively stable over time.

From FY2009 to FY2014, FACA member levels declined 16.8% (13,768 members), led by the decline in peer review consultants. From FY2014 to FY2015, however, the number of members serving on FACA committees increased 4,021 (5.9%) from 68,179 to 72,200.

Figure 5 shows the total number of members separated into the five distinct member designations from FY2005 to FY2015. Each designation has its own requirements, expectations, and standards—which are analyzed in greater detail in the sections below.

The data show that much of the growth in the number of federal advisory committee members comes from increases in peer review consultants (33,326 in FY2005 and 36,315 in FY2015, a 9.0% increase) and special government employees (19,784 in FY2005 and 23,306 in FY2015, a 17.8% increase). The data show that the 5.9% increase in members from FY2014 to FY2015 includes increases in peer review consultants (a 6.2% increase), representatives (a 6.1% increase), and special government employees (a 6.1% increase). The number of ex officio and regular government employee members declined slightly from FY2014 to FY2015.

In FY2015, 191 (19.5%) FACA committees reported an unlimited number of members. Moreover, in FY2015, 61 (6.2%) FACA committees reported that their membership was required to fall within a certain range. Of the 739 (75.4%) committees that reported a specific membership cap in FY2015, the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board within the Department of Energy reported the largest committee membership limit with 200 members. Of the 958 committees that reported committee membership totals, the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel within the Department of Health and Human Services reported the largest number of committee members with 11,620.

Ethical Requirements Placed on Members

FACA committee members are selected to serve for a variety of reasons, usually determined by an individual's expertise or experience in a particular policy or research arena. Because of these unique perspectives and backgrounds, not all FACA committee members must adhere to ethics and financial disclosure requirements that are placed on federal government employees. In some cases, for example, it may be in the government's interest to appoint to a committee a representative of a private, commercial company to ensure that the interests of an industry are taken into account when deliberating policies that will affect them.

Table 2 provides the number of FACA committee members, disaggregated by their designations. The table also provides the percentage of total members within each member designation category. The member's designation category determines what ethical and financial disclosure requirements the member must follow.

Peer Review Consultants

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. §52h.2, peer review consultants are expected to identify "real or apparent conflicts of interest" that could bias their evaluations of grant applications or other proposals. The FACA Database defines peer review consultant as

[a]n individual, primarily nongovernment expert, qualified by training and experience in particular scientific or technical fields, or qualified as an authority knowledgeable in the various disciplines and fields related to the scientific areas under review. For purposes of the FACA Database, this category applies only to an individual serving on a particular Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health peer review Federal advisory committee, who provides expert advice on the scientific and technical merit of grant applications or contract proposals, or the concept of contract proposals.

In FY2015, approximately half (50.3%) of all FACA committee members served as peer review consultants.

A peer review consultant is required to "recuse him/herself from the review" of a proposal or grant application if there is a conflict of interest. Some potential conflicts of interest are provided in the Code of Federal Regulations , and include certain cases in which the grant reviewer is a salaried employee of the applicant or the reviewer is a relative or close relation of the applicant. In each instance of a potential conflict of interest, the Director of NIH has the authority to waive the recusal requirements if he or she "determines that there are no other practical means for securing appropriate expert advice."

Special Government Employees

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §202(a), a special government employee (SGE) is "an officer or employee of the executive or legislative branch of the United States Government, or any independent agency of the United States or of the District of Columbia, who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with or without compensation, for not to exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days[.]" SGEs are subject to some ethics and financial disclosure regulations. In FY2015, 32.3% of FACA members were reported to serve as special government employees (SGEs).

Representatives

In the FACA Database, GSA uses the following definition of representative :

[a]n individual who is not a [f]ederal employee (or a [f]ederal employee who is attending in a personal capacity), who is selected for membership on a [f]ederal advisory committee for the purpose of obtaining the point of view or perspective of an outside interest group or stakeholder interest. While representative members may have expertise in a specific area, discipline, or subject matter, they are not selected solely on the basis of this expertise, but rather are selected to represent the point of view of a group or particular interest.... A representative member may represent groups or organizations, such as industry, labor, consumers, or any other recognizable group of persons having an interest in matters before the committee, including on occasion the public at large.

In FY2015, 14.3%, or 10,362 committee members were representatives. Financial disclosure is not required for representatives because these members serve for the purpose of representing an interest.

Regular Government Employees

In the FACA Database, GSA uses the following definition of regular government employee :

[g]enerally, an individual employed within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. [§]2105, or a [f]ederal officer as defined in 5 U.S.C. [§]2104. For purposes of the FACA Database only, this category also includes a [f]ederal officer holding a position in the uniformed services.

A small number of FY2015 FACA committee members (1,517 members, or 2.1%) were regular government employees, who are subject to federal ethics requirements. Federal employees must follow a variety of statutory and regulatory ethics requirements, including financial disclosures and certain outside employment restrictions.

Ex-Officio

GSA officials use the following definition of ex officio :

[a]n individual who serves on a [f]ederal advisory committee strictly by virtue of holding a particular governmental or organizational office, title, or other specified position. For example, if the committee's authority or charter states that a [f]ederal officer by position, or the Governor of a particular State, or the leader of a particular tribe, or the head of a particular trade association or other organization will serve as a member of the committee, that individual would be characterized as an Ex Officio member for purposes of the FACA Database.

The ethical requirements of ex officio members are not specified in the database. Many ex officio members are regular government employees. Others are private sector individuals. The ethical requirements for these individuals would be determined by the agency on a case by case basis.

Ex-officio members were the smallest reported designation of FACA members in FY2015 (720 members, or 1.0%). Some ex officio members are not allocated a vote and participate only in the deliberations of the advisory committee.

FACA Meetings

Total Number of Meetings

According to the FACA Database, in FY2015, 791 federal advisory committees held 7,494 meetings. The remaining 218 active committees reported holding no meetings in FY2015. The Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel reported holding the most meetings in FY2015, with 1,034.

As shown in Figure 6 , since FY2004, the number of meetings held per year by federal advisory committees has increased 11.2% from 6,737 in FY2004 to 7,494 in FY2015. That increase in the number of meetings, however, has been inconsistent over time. The number of advisory committee meetings generally decreased from FY2005 (7,012 meeting) to FY2008 (6,614 meetings). Meetings then increased from FY2008 to FY2011, which reported the highest number of federal advisory committee meetings with 7,622. The increase in FY2011 appears to be the result of a 35.6% increase, from FY2010, in the number of meetings held by committees with a function of "Other." It is unclear what might cause the increase in meetings in that category. From FY2011 to FY2012, meetings dropped by 626 meetings (8.2%) to 6,996. Since FY2012, the number of meetings held by federal advisory committees increased each year, up to 7,494 in FY2015.

Open vs. Closed Meetings

Figure 7 shows the trends in the number of federal advisory committee meetings that are open, closed, or partially closed. As shown, from FY2004 to FY2015, the number of closed meetings inconsistently increased, with some declines in FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012. The number of closed meetings has increased by 14.9% (688 meetings) since FY2012. FY2015 had the highest reported percentage of closed meetings (71.1%) during the time period of examination.

The number of open meetings has remained relatively steady, with some increase in FY2011, some declines in FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014, and another slight increase in FY2015. The number of open meetings increased from 1,647 in FY2014 to 1,782 in FY2015 (23.8% of total meetings held in FY2015).

The majority of grant review committee meetings (99.7%) and special emphasis panel meetings (99.7%) in FY2015 were closed to the public. When grant review and special emphasis panel committees are removed from the analysis, 26.7% of the remaining 2,589 FACA committee meetings were closed. These data demonstrate that grant review committees and special emphasis panels hold the majority of closed FACA committee meetings as well as the total number of meetings.

Table 3 provides the proportion of total meetings in FY2015 according to their committee functions. Grant review committees, which account for 8.9% of total committees, and special emphasis panels, which account for 2.6% of total committees, hold the majority of federal advisory committee meetings—40.7% and 28.0%, respectively.

Meeting Attendance Type

Since 2010, GSA has required committees to report "attendance type"—which indicates whether the meeting was held in person, via teleconference or otherwise. These data may provide Congress greater context in understanding technology's increasing role in the administration of federal advisory committees. For example, since FY2012, meetings held via webcast increased by 17.7%. The percentage of meetings held via teleconference increased 46.5% from FY2012. Meetings held via videoconference saw the biggest increased since FY2012 (130%). In FY2015, of the 7,257 meetings for which the attendance type was clearly reported, 2,134 (28.5%) were held in person, 3,921 (53.2%) were a mix of in person and virtual meetings, 1,202 (16.2%) were virtual meetings, and 238 (3.2%) chose not to report the attendance type.

Table 4 displays the number of meetings for each attendance type, by committee function. The majority of committee meetings were mixed (a combination of in person and virtual meetings). Scientific technical advisory board committees and special emphasis committees held the highest proportion of their meetings using a combination of in-person and virtual (54.2% and 94.7%, respectively).

Table 5 displays the number of meetings for mixed attendance type, by committee function. Figure 5 , therefore, is an examination of the 3,921 mixed meetings introduced in Table 4 . The majority (73.3%) of mixed committee meetings were held using "any combination" of the virtual categories. Grant review and special emphasis held the highest percentage of "any combination" of meetings (61.6% and 99.7% respectively). "Any combination" was followed by teleconference which was employed in 529 mixed meetings (13.5%).

Table 6 displays the number of meetings for each virtual attendance type, by committee function. Table 6 , therefore, is an examination of the 1,202 virtual meetings introduced in Table 4 . A majority (57.9%) of virtual committee meetings were held by teleconference. Non-Scientific, Scientific, National Policy, Special Emphasis and Other committees held the highest percentage of their meetings by teleconference (93.3%, 73.6%, 73.5%, 86.9%, and 82.6% respectively). The volume of teleconferences was followed by videoconferences of which there were 145 virtual meetings (12.1%).

FACA Costs

Total Meeting Costs

Figure 8 shows the FY2004-FY2015 total annual operating costs for federal advisory committees in constant 2015 dollars. Overall, total operating costs have dropped from $380,027,724 in FY2004 to $367,568,370 in FY2015 (a 3.3% decrease). Total operating costs includes six categories:

1. salaries for federal staff who support committee operations; 2. salaries for nonfederal employee members; 3. salaries for nonmember consultants; 4. salaries for regular government employees; 5. travel and per diem costs; and 6. "other" costs.

Figure 9 shows these disaggregated, component costs. Despite fluctuations in costs in particular years, the data show a general trend of decreasing costs for the administration of federal advisory committees over time. From FY2014 to FY2015, however, total annual operating costs increased $32,917,950 (9.8%) from $334,650,420 in FY2014 to $367,568,370 in FY2015. This increase in costs from FY2014 to FY2015 can be attributed primarily to increases in the costs of federal staff salaries (a $13,314,594 increase in FY2015), though each of the other five cost categories also experienced increases over the past fiscal year. FY2014's FACA committee costs were the lowest reported from FY2004 to FY2015.

Salary Costs

Figure 9 shows salary costs for federal staff who support FACA operations, nonfederal members who serve on FACA committees, nonmember consultants who support FACA operations, and regular government employee members who serve on FACA committees. As illustrated in Figure 9 , since FY2004, federal staff has constituted the largest proportion of salary costs, accounting for 79.8% of FACA salary costs in FY2015. Additionally, costs for federal staff have gradually increased over the past decade from $164,550,752 in FY2004 to $205,500,103 in FY2015. From FY2014 to FY2015, federal staff costs increased (6.2%) from $192,485,510 to $205,800,103. In contrast, salary costs for members and consultants have remained relatively stable. Salary costs for nonfederal employees have steadily decreased over the last five years, from $43,867,659 in FY2011 to $37,314,081 in FY2015.

Table 7 uses FY2015 data to illustrate the breakdown of costs among personnel, members, and consultants. As shown in Table 7 , 90.3% of committees that reported costs included salaries for federal staff to support their operations.

Travel, Per Diem, and "Other" Costs

In addition to salary costs, FACA committees are required to report "travel and per diem" costs and "other" costs. According to GSA, the "travel and per diem" category "should include all travel and per diem costs incurred by committee activity and authorized by 5 U.S.C. §5703 and paid to" federal employees, federal members, nonfederal members, and consultants. "Other" costs include costs for use of meeting rooms, costs for creating and making available transcripts, and costs associated with the design and maintenance of a committee website.

Figure 10 shows "travel and per diem," and "other" costs for FACA committees from FY2004 through FY2015 in constant 2015 dollars. As shown in the figure, since FY2004, these two categories of costs ebbed and flowed comparably to one another, peaking in FY2006 at $89,861,270 for "travel and per diem" costs and at $95,530,309 for "other" costs. The period between FY2006 and FY2008 saw a decline in both "travel and per diem" and "other" costs—decreasing to $64,312,510 and $71,567,930, respectively, in FY2008. These categories of costs began to rise again from FY2008 to FY2010—increasing to $77,716,535 for "travel and per diem" and $79,167,783 for "other" costs in FY2010. Since FY2010, "travel and per diem" and "other" costs have steadily decreased to $53,625,856 for "travel and per diem" costs and to $56,162,139 for "other" costs in FY2015. Overall from FY2004 to FY2015, "travel and per diem" costs have decreased 31.1%, while "other" costs have decreased by 18.2%. From FY2014 to FY2015, however, these costs increased by $3,791,397 (7.6%), marking the first increase in travel and per diem and "other" costs since FY2010.

Of the 917 FACA committees that reported costs in FY2015, 715 reported "other" costs. These 715 committees reported a total of $57,241,860 in such costs, averaging $80,059 per committee. The median for "other" costs per committee was $10,120. On average, "other" costs account for 15.4% of total committee costs; however, as a percentage of total costs, "other" costs range from 98.7% to less than 0.09%. The median percentage of total costs accounted for by "other" costs was 9.0%.

"Travel and per diem" costs are examined more granularly in Table 8 . The data demonstrate that of the 917 committees that reported costs in FY2015, 616 (67.2%) committees reported travel and per diem costs for nonfederal members. In comparison, 120 (11.9%) committees reported travel and per diem costs for regular government employee members. Travel and per diem costs for nonfederal members was $46,634,877, or 85.1% of all travel and per diem costs in FY2015. The difference between the average and median reported costs demonstrates that the travel and per diem costs varied widely among advisory committees.

Costs by Committee Function

Table 9 more granularly examines the costs of advisory committees, disaggregating cost data by committee function. Columns C, D, E, and F of the table examine costs per committee.

As displayed in Table 9 , in FY2015, special emphasis panels reported the highest average cost per committee ($2,766,336). The average cost, however, might not provide the best analysis of FACA committees' costs. Special emphasis panels had the widest range of costs ($15,815 to $29,107,010) including the highest single committee cost ($29,107,010). Providing the average, therefore, does not demonstrate the variance of special emphasis panel costs. Further, averages do not reflect number of meetings, number of members, and types of operations that drive committee costs. A more accurate measure of costs for special emphasis panels might be the median cost of $1.285 million. Five of the 26 advisory committees reporting as special emphasis panels reported costs within $200,000 of that median value.

Columns G, H, I, J, K, and L in Table 9 examine the total, average, and median number of members per type of committee and the total, average, and median number of committee meetings held by each type of committee. As mentioned previously, the FACA Database reports costs on the committee level. Consequently, member and meeting-specific cost data are not available. The number of members and the number of meetings likely have a strong link to costs a committee incurs. Congress, therefore, may choose to consider these factors when assessing advisory committee costs. For instance, special emphasis panels rank highest in terms of average cost per committee ($2,766,336) and in terms of median cost per committee ($1,285,711). Special emphasis panels also have the highest average and median number of members per committee (904 members and 390 members, respectively) as well as the highest average and median number of meetings per committee (81 meetings and 26 meetings, respectively). It could be reasonably expected, therefore, that each special emphasis panel would cost more to administer than other types of committees. Grant review advisory committee costs appear to be similar to special emphasis panel costs, demonstrating more members and more meetings per committee—leading to higher overall costs.

Potential Policy Options

Federal advisory committees can be effective tools for gathering expertise from a variety of federal and nonfederal experts. The data discussed and analyzed throughout this report show that advisory committees have certain commonalities, but each committee has a unique structure, operation, and mission. Despite these differences, FACA provides a common framework through which these committees communicate with the public and ultimately offer policy recommendations to federal officials.

Congress could decide to amend FACA in ways that might affect costs or operations associated with FACA administration. This section discusses some potential policy options for Congress.

Clarifying Data Reporting Requirements

Consistency in Reporting Information

As discussed earlier in this report, GSA requires committees to report certain data elements (e.g., the number of members serving on the committee or the total costs incurred by the committee). GSA asks for, but does not require, other data elements—such as subcommittee titles, membership, and costs. Within the FACA Database, therefore, some advisory committees offer detailed information about their subcommittees while others do not. Congress, for example, could consider whether the public should have access to data that identify the membership and costs of advisory body subcommittees. This information could make the operations of FACA committees more transparent. Such reporting requirements, however, might increase the amount of time committees spend reporting such information. Requiring subcommittees to report costs and member data could also cause some confusion over costs because it may be unclear whether data reported by the full committee represent both the full committee and its subcommittees or only the full committee. GSA would need to provide clear guidelines on how committees are to report data for full committees and subcommittees as well as make clear to those who use the dataset how the data were collected and are reported.

Consistency in Member Information

Member names and affiliations are available in the FACA Database. Database users are able to enter a member's first or last name into the database search engine and will be brought to an online list that includes every name that matches their request. Despite the usefulness of this feature, concerns exist over the consistency of member name inputs. For example, certain members may serve on multiple committees. According to the FACA Database, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell served on the greatest number of committees in FY2014 (29). Although Burwell's name was easy to identify as a unique member, the name "John Williams" is not. In FY2014, "John Williams" appears on the membership rosters of 6 committees. It is unclear whether this is the same "John Williams" in each case or if there is more than one "John Williams" serving as a member of an advisory committee. In another example, a single member could be input in the database under multiple variations or misspellings of their name and title. In that case, database users may not be able to determine that it was the same person serving on all of those committees. The FACA Database, therefore, may not be optimally helpful in allowing the public to determine who from the private sector or from other levels of government is given multiple opportunities to advise policymakers.

Congress may have an interest in requiring GSA to clarify requirements for inputting FACA member names and affiliations. Legislation introduced in the 113 th Congress ( H.R. 3316 , the Grant Reform and New Transparency Act of 2013 (GRANT Act)) would have, among other things, required committee members be assigned "unique identifiers." As of this writing, similar legislation has not been introduced in the 114 th Congress. Creating a unique identifier could demonstrate a person's service and influence over time without identity confusion. The unique identifier could be used in lieu of a name or other personal detail. In that way, a unique identifier may provide anonymity for peer reviewers who need their identities to be kept secret for fear they may be subject to criticism by peers who disagree with their recommendations. Congress may, however, decide that making such a change to data entry practices could add time and costs to operating and maintaining the FACA Database.

In addition, the public identification of each member on grant-making committees could make it difficult to attract qualified and appropriate members to the committee. Some academic communities are small enough so most practitioners know one another's work. If a grant applicant was provided access to a meeting in which he learned a colleague voted against his or her grant application, that scholar may seek to harm the future work or reputation of the advisory board member. Some level of anonymity for grant reviewers, therefore, may be warranted. Congress, however, may decide that the identity of anyone who serves on a federal advisory committee should be public at all times.

Changing Member Pay

In FY2015, FACA committee data demonstrated that the federal government paid nonfederal members of federal advisory committees $37.3 million. In addition to pay, nonfederal members are eligible to receive travel and per diem costs. In FY2015, FACA committees reported that nonfederal members received $46.6 million in travel and per diem costs.

In some cases, these members may be appointed to the committee specifically to serve as representatives of a private industry; state, local, or tribal government; or a nonprofit organization. In these cases, the federal government may be paying employees of private sector organizations or other levels of government to serve on a federal advisory committee as advocates for nonfederal entities. According to CRS analysis, in FY2015, 10 FACA committees reported providing compensation—in addition to travel and per diem—to a total of 659 members who were designated as representatives. The data show that most representatives who received compensation in addition to travel costs and per diem were affiliated with universities or research institutions. It is unclear why these members were designated as representatives. Regardless, this designation allows the members to provide advice to the federal government without complying with many ethics requirements placed on other federal employees. These members, therefore, do not have to recuse themselves from any recommendation—regardless of whether they may benefit from it financially or otherwise.

Congress may choose to consider whether FACA committee members appointed to serve as representatives should receive compensation from the government for their service. Moreover, Congress may choose to consider amending FACA to clarify whether the federal government should pay any nonfederal member of an advisory body—regardless of member designation. Most members receive pay to cover their travel costs as well as a payment for per diem expenses. Congress may decide it is unnecessary to provide compensation to members in addition to travel and per diem. Such an amendment to FACA would have reduced FACA implementation costs in FY2015 by nearly $37.3 million. On the other hand, Congress may conclude that paying members of federal advisory bodies will attract a more qualified membership. Certain representatives or scholars from outside of the federal government may choose not to participate on a federal advisory committee unless they believe they are receiving what they perceive to be fair compensation for their time and expertise.

Separating Grant Review Committees and Special Emphasis Panels

The analysis of FACA data suggests several categories in which grant review committees and special emphasis panels appear to operate differently than FACA committees with other functions. The most notable example of these differences is the percentage of closed meetings grant review committees and special emphasis panels hold. More than 99.5% of grant review committee meetings and 99.9% of special emphasis panel meetings were closed to the public in FY2015. As noted earlier, if grant review committees and special emphasis panels are removed from the analysis of open and closed meetings in FY2015, 73.5% of FACA committee meetings would be open, as opposed to 24.8% when they are included.

Grant review committee and special emphasis panel meetings are likely closed to the public for a variety of reasons. For example, a subject matter expert may join a FACA committee to provide his or her honest expert advice on which academic studies are the most qualified to receive a federal grant. The expert may not be able to provide an opinion in a public forum without fear of retaliation or other response. Additionally, meetings may be closed to protect proprietary information that a grant applicant may supply in his or her grant proposal. FACA was enacted to make federal advisory committee meetings more transparent and accessible to the public. It may be argued, therefore, that including committees whose primary function requires closed meetings under FACA may not appropriately fit FACA's aims.

Grant review committees and special emphasis panels also have, on average, more meetings and more members than federal advisory committees with other functions. This characteristic arguably demonstrates further that the operations and use of grant-review committees and special emphasis panels appear substantively different from those of other federal advisory committees.

Congress might consider removal of grant review committees and special emphasis panels from the jurisdiction of FACA. Removing those committee functions from the FACA Database would demonstrate FACA's efforts to make federal meetings more transparent and accessible. Removing grant review committees from the FACA dataset could, however, make oversight of advisory committees more difficult for Congress and the public because the information on such committees would no longer be available in a single, centralized database. Congress could also consider removal of grant review committees and special emphasis panels from the jurisdiction of FACA while requiring those committees to continue to report certain data elements to GSA.

Legislation Seeking to Amend FACA

Legislation in the 114 th Congress ( H.R. 2347 , the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2015), as reported in the House, would amend FACA in several ways. Among the amendments would be a requirement to clearly designate each nonfederal member of an advisory committee as either a representative or a special government employee. H.R. 2347 would also require agencies to provide "interested persons an opportunity to suggest potential committee members." Currently, agencies are not required to solicit public input on their advisory committee membership, provided their selections adhere to federal law. Furthermore, H.R. 2347 would require agencies to designate Advisory Committee Management Officers to supervise advisory committees and ensure that information pertaining to advisory committees and their activities is made available on the agency's website. H.R. 2347 would also require the Government Accountability Office to conduct reviews of agency compliance with FACA. Legislation similar to H.R. 2347 was introduced in the following previous Congresses:

113 th Congress ( H.R. 1104 ); 112 th Congress ( H.R. 3124 and H.R. 1144 ); 111 th Congress ( H.R. 1320 ); and 110 th Congress ( H.R. 5687 ).

Appendix A. Raw Data Used to Create Figures

CRS used data from the FACA Database to create the figures provided in this report. This Appendix provides the raw data used in the CRS analysis.

Appendix B. Administratively Inactive Committees

Appendix C. Committee Membership and Meetings