Committee System Has Unique Features and Makes Important Contributions

The advisory committee system is unique in U.S. trade policy because it  provides a forum in which business and other interested groups can  consult confidentially with and provide advice to the executive branch on  trade negotiations, U.S. trade policy, and implementation of trade  agreements. The formal nature of advisory meetings helps ensure that  representatives of the private sector and other groups have regular access  to officials engaged in U.S. trade policy. Many participants said the advisory committee system serves an important  role in U.S. trade policy. Nevertheless, our review of existing agency records indicates that such  informal consultation is active. In addition, accountability for the use or  consideration of advice could be improved. Despite reporting general satisfaction with many aspects of the system,  more than a quarter of survey respondents felt that the system has not  realized its potential contribution to U.S. trade policy (see app. Our analysis of documents provided by USTR revealed that USTR  negotiators have not been actively working with some committees. Advisory Committee System’s Structure and Composition Do Not Fully Reflect U.S. Economy and Trade Policy Needs

Mismatches between the advisory committee system and the U.S. economy  and trade policy issues suggest that the system is not positioned to provide  the executive branch with all the advice it needs or to assure Congress that  negotiated agreements are fully in U.S. interests. New  trade issues and stakeholders have emerged since 1974, as trade  negotiations expanded beyond tariffs to include nontariff barriers to trade  and other complex trade-related issues, such as intellectual property rights  and health and safety. The limited resources USTR and the  other key agencies devote to managing the advisory committee system  have not been sufficient to position them to maximize input from the  committees. Members devote time and contribute  much to the process and report generally high satisfaction with many  aspects of committee operations and effectiveness. Recommendations for Executive Action

As Congress seeks to provide new direction to the President on U.S. trade  policy, we recommend that the U.S. Trade Representative, as the lead  agency for the committee system, work with the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Commerce, and Labor and the EPA Administrator to make the existing  system’s consultation process more meaningful and reliable. This point of view is supported by the GAO  survey, in Commerce’s opinion.
Why GAO Did This Study

In 1974, Congress mandated creation of a private sector advisory system to ensure that representatives from private business and other groups with a stake in trade policy could provide input as negotiations unfolded. The hope was that such involvement would result in trade agreements that Congress could approve with confidence. The law established a three-tier structure of committees to advise the President on overall U.S. trade policy, general policy area, and technical aspects of trade agreements. Four agencies, led by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), currently administer the committee system. According to many negotiators, agency officials, and committee members, the trade policy advisory committee system plays an important role in U.S. trade policy and has made valuable contributions to U.S. trade agreements. Although GAO's survey of committee members found high levels of satisfaction with many aspects of committee operations and effectiveness, more than a quarter of respondents indicated that the system has not realized its potential to contribute to U.S. trade policy.

What GAO Found

GAO found that consultations could be more timely and meaningful and that the consultation process needs greater accountability. The structure and composition of the committee system have not been fully updated to reflect changes in the U.S. economy and U.S. trade policy. In general, the system's committee structure is largely the same as it was in 1980, even though the focus of U.S. trade policy has shifted from border taxes toward other complex trade issues, such as protection of intellectual property rights and food safety requirements. Leadership direction and administrative support by USTR and the other managing agencies have not been sufficient to ensure that the advisory committee system works reliably. GAO found that negotiators have used inconsistent approaches to solicit committee member views, with some negotiators not consulting with committees at all.