APPENDIX Statement of D. O. Cooke Before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Hearings on the Federal Advisory Committee Act, April 19, 1988 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to you today regarding the Department of Defense committee management program Specifically, how we manage the Federal Advisory Committee Act within the Department of Defense. Within the Department of Defense, our use of advisory committees has enabled us to obtain sound advice from a wide variety of experts covering most of the functional areas throughout the Department. Because of their contributions, the management of DoD programs has been strengthened considerably. The cost of obtaining these valuable services has been minimal if one considers what it would cost to employ these professionals at the going rate in private industry. Its is also important to note that only one third of our non-Federal committee members receive compensation. It is clear that we are receiving the services of high caliber experts at bargain prices. Nevertheless, we try to keep the number of DoD advisory committees at an absolute minimum. Before a committee is established, a sponsoring official must take a hard look at the need for the committee. Normally, a sponsoring official is the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a Military Department, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an Under Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or the head of a Defense Agency. The sponsor also determines whether the committee's objectives can be accomplished with existing resources and what benefits are expected to accrue. At the present time, there are only 61 DoD advisory committees. We believe that this relatively low number, when compared to the size of the Department, reflects that only those committees considered to be essential to mission accomplishment are established. The DoD advisory committee program is managed under the basic principle of centralized policy guidance and oversight and decentralized execution of operations. The DoD Committee Management Officer, who reports directly to me, is responsible for developing policy, issuing guidance, coordinating Department-wide issues, preparing reports, maintaining records, and monitoring operations. Each DoD organization having an advisory committee has a committee management officer who reports to the head of that organization, or his designee. These individuals are responsible for managing and coordinating the activities of the committees under their cognizance. Each committee has an executive secretary or coordinator who is responsible for managing day-to-day operations. This arrangement, which is reflected in more detail on a chart which was provided to you earlier, works well. We believe it gives us maximum efficiency at minimal cost. DOD Directive 5105.18, titled "DoD Committee Management Program," provides the overall policy guidance for the committee (45) management program. The Military Departments and other DoD components have issued implementing instructions and regulations to amplify the requirements and adapt them to their own needs. In addition, we have issued guidance on specific aspects of the program in the form of policy memoranda, as necessary. For example, we outlined our program of advisory committee reviews to DoD Components in a memorandum in January 1984. Similarly, we announced our policy on hiring non-Federal members in August 1979. This arrangement works, in large part, because we keep in close touch with committee management officers and sponsors throughout the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Military Departments, Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Agencies. If the This close association is reflected by the manner in which we establish an advisory committee. When a sponsoring official believes that an advisory committee is needed, he or his representative meets with the organization's committee management officer, who in turn reviews the requirement and consults with the DoD Committee Management Officer. The proposed establishment is then discussed in detail and an assessment of the validity of the requirement is made. proposed committee appears to have merit, and has been thoroughly screened to ensure that the functions can not be performed in-house, the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are addressed, emphasizing the importance of balanced membership, appointment procedures, financial disclosure statements, the need to file Federal Register notices, and other salient points of the program. Copies of DoD Directive 5105.18, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the GSA Final Rule, and a procedural guide are provided for the prospective sponsor so he can move ahead to formally request establishment. We also work closely with the General Services Administration Committee Management Secretariat. After determining that a new committee is required, we send the final version of the proposed charter, along with rationale for forming the committee, including a balanced membership plan and cost estimate, to the Secretariat. The Secretariat staff has been exceptionally responsive, and on those occasions where we have differed, we have been able to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution. We are also represented on the Interagency Committee on Advisory Committees, which is headed by the Secretariat. In addition, we renew our charters every two years, with GSA consultation, and do an annual review of our entire program, providing GSA with membership lists, program costs, and other operational data. So we work closely with the Secretariat on a continuing basis and believe the relationship serves us both well. In As in the case with any wide-spread program, problems regarding the administration of DoD advisory committees sometimes surface. When they do, we address them promptly. 1983, the DoD Inspector General prepared a report on the Defense Science Board and the General Accounting Office prepared a report on other scientific advisory committees. Deficiencies were cited regarding members appointments, inadequate filing of financial disclosure statements, and internal operating procedures. As a result, we established a review program in January 1984 to ensure that advisory committees are reviewed on a regular basis for compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and DoD policies and procedures. During the first year we mounted an intensive effort and completed twenty-five reviews. Since then, the reviews have continued, consistent with time and staffing constraints and we completed thirty-one more through 1987. Throughout the process, we have tried to concentrate on potential problem areas. Thus, for example, we have reviewed the Defense Science Board and a number of its subpanels annually, along with several other of the scientific advisory committees. In addition to the reviews, we have tightened the program in other areas. DoD Directive 5105.18, was revised to ensure that our policies are consistent with the GSA Rule and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. We have also monitored the annual report submissions more closely to check for inconsistencies in costs and other operational data. We screen charter renewals to be sure that the committees are justified and fully documented. Finally, we plan to consolidate all of the statutory and policy guidance on advisory committees into a single DoD Directive. An important aspect of our program that has caused some concern to your committee, as well as the Department of Defense, has to do with the appointment of advisory committee members. Let me emphasize that all committees that meet the criteria of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are chartered, managed, and monitored under the provisions of the Act and in accordance with DoD policies and procedures. Advisory committee members are covered by the requirements of DoD Directive 5500.7, "Standards of Conduct." Before being employed, they are subjected to a screening process. First, they must file a completed DD Form 1555, "Confidential Statement of Affiliations and Financial Interests." Second, those that will be exposed to classified material must undergo a security investigation. And third, they must be approved by the Assistant to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. With respect to establishing committees under contracts, committees that we establish, which meet the criteria of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, are constituted under the provisions of the Act, with individuals formally appointed as members. We do not knowingly authorize, nor is it Department of Defense policy to condone, the formation of Federal advisory committees with contractors or with any other third party. If such arrangements come to our attention, we immediately confront the sponsors involved and initiate action to cancel them. However, we do not have cognizance over committees established by DoD contractors for their own purposes. In these instances, committee members are contractor employees, receiving guidance and supervision from their employer, who is the contractor. You expressed an interest in the degree to which the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization has complied with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Our records indicate that the SDIO has one advisory committee, which was established in January 1985 in accordance with the same policies and procedures as every other Department of Defense advisory committee. We consulted with the SDIO representatives who proposed to establish the committee, reviewed their justification, membership balance, draft charter, and so on; then went through the consultation process with GSA. We worked closely with the SDIO staff on appointment of members, filing of proper Federal Register notices, and the other administrative requirements that go into the management of advisory committees. In September of last year, we reviewed the SDI advisory committee records and operating procedures as part of our review program. We found no irregularities and stressed that they should continue to follow the requirements of the Act. Should you have specific questions on the day-to-day operations of the SDI committee, Mr. William Carroll, the SDI General Counsel is here to speak for that organization. This completes my presentation. I will be happy to answer any questions. This responds to your letter of April 25, 1988, in which you requested that we provide answers to a number of follow-on questions relating to the April 19 hearing that was conducted by your Committee. The questions and answers are: Q: Do you think you could provide more detailed guidance on the balanced membership requirement to officials within the Department and its components? A: "Balance membership" has not been clearly defined in the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the GSA Final Rule. In fact, in testimony at the April 19 hearing, the GAO witness stated "We recognize the difficulty in defining the term balance as envisioned in the act and determining whether in a given case balance has been achieved." Within the DoD, each committee tries to achieve "balanced membership" under different criteria, depending on the nature of the subject matter involved and the expertise required. Membership qualifications may involve such considerations as substantive knowledge, organizational representation, minority status, geographic location, etc. applying the "balanced membership" criteria on a case-by-case basis, we believe that the objective of balanced advice is best served. "Balanced membership" has been the subject of considerable discussion within the DoD and in our dealings with the GSA Committee Management Secretariat. The DoD would welcome a clearer definition and improved guidance with respect to "balanced membership" criteria. By Q: A: As I indicated on April 19th, the DoD makes a conscientious effort to ensure compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This includes the prohibition of committee establishments through improper means and aggressive action to ensure that |