September 19, 1972
Page 31224
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STANDARDS ACT – CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on behalf of the junior Senator from Montana (Mr. METCALF), I submit a report of the committee of conference on H.R. 4383, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows: The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4383) to authorize the establishment of a system governing the creation and operation of advisory committees in the executive branch of the Federal Government, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report; signed by all the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the consideration of the conference report?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the report. (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of September 18, 1972, at pp. 30952-30954.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this conference report is a balanced compromise between the Senate and House that will develop a workable and effective system for the creation and operation of Federal advisory committees.
It is the culmination of extensive hearings, investigations, and legislative consideration by members of the Government Operations Committees of both Houses.
On the Senate side, the legislation was handled by the distinguished Senator from Montana (Mr. METCALF), who did an outstanding job in conducting the hearings of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and in guiding the legislation (S. 3529) through the committees and the Senate.
Senator METCALF has been strong and persistent in his effort to halt the proliferation of advisory committees, and to establish requirements for public access to committee meetings and records. The Senator's concern is best expressed in his own words at the subcommittee hearings:
What we are dealing with here, goes to the bedrock of government decision making. Information is an important commodity in this capital.
Those who get information to policymakers, or get information for them, can benefit their causes, whatever it may be. Outsiders can be adversely and unknowingly affected. And decision makers who get information from special interest groups who are not subject to rebuttal because opposing interests do not know about the meetings – and could not get in the door if they did – may not make tempered judgments.
Mr. President, however, the effort to develop a Senate bill on advisory committees was bipartisan. We are indeed grateful for the able assistance provided by the senior Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY), the junior Senator from Delaware (Mr. ROTH), and the junior Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BROCK), each of whom played a major part in drafting the legislation and obtaining Senate approval.
On the House side, we are indebted to the very able Congressman from Connecticut (Mr. MONAGAN) for his leadership both in conducting an in-depth investigation of the advisory committee problem, and in sponsoring the legislation which received overwhelming House approval.
The conferees did their work well. Although the Senate members were not able to convince their House colleagues on all points, they were able to reach agreement on a workable bill. Among other things, the legislation would–
(1) require Congress to make a continuing review of existing advisory committees to determine which should be abolished, merged or revised, and to follow certain guidelines in the creation of any new committees.
(2) require the OMB to institute a comprehensive review of advisory committees and recommend reorganization or abolishment of such committee to the President; to prescribe administrative guidelines and management controls; and to report annually to Congress on the activities, status, and costs of such committees.
(3) authorize the President to assign responsibility for evaluation and action on recommendations of Presidential advisory committees, and to report on the disposition of such recommendations.
(4) provide for uniform procedures in the establishment and conduct of advisory committees.
These include the filing of a committee charter, requirements of notice and public access to meetings and records, subject to certain exceptions, and the monitoring of such meetings by a Government employee.
(5) provide for the opportunity for advisory committee meetings to be closed where they deal with matters exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; and
(6) provide for the termination of advisory committees after 2-year periods, subject to formal renewal under certain procedures.
On June 5, 1972, after the House had passed H.R. 4383, and after the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations unanimously reported S. 3529, the President proclaimed new Executive Order 11671. This order contained to some degree concepts incorporated in the two pieces of legislation. I think it is most important to note that the conferees considered the provisions of the Executive order in arriving at their agreement, and in fact included in the conference report some of its key provisions.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I believe this conference report represents a fair balance between the House and Senate bills. The major area of compromise is section 10, setting forth requirements for opening up advisory committees to the public, and extending public access to their documents. The Senate bill provided guarantees that if meetings were closed because they dealt with matters of national security, business confidentiality, or other matters provided for in the exemptions section of the Freedom of Information Act – section 552(b) of title V of the United States Code, transcripts must be taken. The House bill did not contain such provisions. The conference report accepts the principle that advisory committee meetings should be open, and that documents associated with advisory committees should be available to the public on request.
Under the conference version, however, meetings can be closed to the public, and documents can be withheld, under the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. In cases where meetings are closed, the President or agency head who closes them must say why. Another requirement is that detailed minutes be kept of each meeting, but these are not available to the public in cases where meetings are required to be closed.
Otherwise, the bill continues to contain provisions regulating the cost, establishment, and termination of the over 1,000 Federal advisory committees that are now estimated to exist at a cost of over $70 million. It is an innovative, important bill that will create order out of the chaotic situation that now exists. I wholeheartedly recommend adoption of the conference report.
Mr. President, I have only one point upon which I would very much appreciate a clarification by the distinguished manager of the bill.
I would like to say I think this is the Government Operations Committee at its best. We have an oversight responsibility, where 1,800 of these advisory commissions and committees are in existence, at a cost of $75 million. I think, by putting them under control, we have a strong management bill before us.
I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine this question: I note that the only standard contained in the bill regarding membership of advisory committees is the provision in section 5 (b) (2) requiring the Congress, in creating new advisory committees, to insure that the membership of such committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the function to be performed by the advisory committee." As I understand it, there is no limitation on those who may be appointed to be members, including the executives of associations of businessmen or other groups. Indeed, I would infer that the purpose of section 5(c) is to further insure that all advisory committees, whether created by statute, by the President, or by an agency head, are broadly representative.
I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations (Mr. MUSKIE): Is there anything in the bill that might be construed to limit executives of trade associations from participation in or membership on Federal advisory committees regulated by this act?
Mr. MUSKIE. No; I know of nothing in this bill to that effect. I would hope, of course, that they would not be given a disproportionate influence or role in these committees, but I know of no restriction.
Mr. PERCY. I very much appreciate this observation by the distinguished Senator. This point is of interest to the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BROCK), who regrets that he could not be here today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.