Consultations with Trade Advisory Committees Have Generally Improved

Our 2002 survey of trade advisory committee members found high levels  of satisfaction with many aspects of committee operations and  effectiveness, yet more than a quarter of respondents indicated that the  system had not realized its potential to contribute to U.S. trade policy. In  particular, we received comments about the timeliness, quality, and  accountability of consultations. For example, the law requires the  executive branch to inform committees of “significant departures” from  committee advice. However, many committee members reported that  agency officials informed committees less than half of the time when their  agencies pursued strategies that differed from committee input. Changes Made to Improve Committee Logistics Have Not Been Fully Tested

In 2002, we found that slow administrative procedures disrupted  committee operations, and the resources devoted to committee  management were out of step with required tasks. In several instances, for  example, committees ceased to meet and thus could not provide advice, in  part because the agencies had not appointed members. However, the  length of time required to obtain a security clearance contributed to delays  in member appointment. To address these concerns, we recommended the  agencies upgrade system management; and in response, they began to  grant new advisors interim security clearances so that they could actively  participate in the committee while the full clearance is conducted. Despite these actions, however, trade advisory committee chairs we  contacted in 2007 told us certain logistics such as delays in rechartering  committees and appointment of members still made it difficult for some  committees to function effectively. We found several committees had not  been able to meet for periods of time, either because agencies allowed  their charters to lapse or had not started the process of soliciting and  appointing members soon enough to ensure committees could meet once  they were rechartered. The Labor Advisory Committee, for example, did  not meet for over 2 years from September 2003 until November 2005 due  in part to delays in the member appointment process. These types of  process delays further reduced a committee’s ability to give timely, official  advice before the committee was terminated, and the rechartering process  had to begin again. This was particularly true in the case of the Labor  Advisory Committee, which, at the time of our 2007 report, still had a 2- year charter. Representation of Key Stakeholders Remains Important for Any Review of Trade Advisory Committee System

In addition to the need to improve certain committee logistics, we also  found that representation of stakeholders is a key component of the trade  advisory committee system that warrants consideration in any review of  the system. In particular, as the U.S. economy and trade policy have  shifted, the trade advisory committee system has needed adjustments to  remain in alignment with them, including both a revision of committee  coverage as well as committee composition.
Why GAO Did This Study

This testimony provides a summary of key findings from the comprehensive report on the trade advisory system that we provided to the Congress in 2002, as well as from our more recent report in 2007 on the Congressional and private sector consultations under Trade Promotion Authority. In particular, this testimony highlights our recommendations in three key areas--committee consultations, logistics, and overall system structure--as well as the changes that have been made by the U.S. agencies since those reports were published.

What GAO Found

Our 2002 survey of trade advisory committee members found high levels of satisfaction with many aspects of committee operations and effectiveness, yet more than a quarter of respondents indicated that the system had not realized its potential to contribute to U.S. trade policy. In particular, we received comments about the timeliness, quality, and accountability of consultations. For example, the law requires the executive branch to inform committees of "significant departures" from committee advice. However, many committee members reported that agency officials informed committees less than half of the time when their agencies pursued strategies that differed from committee input. In 2002, we found that slow administrative procedures disrupted committee operations, and the resources devoted to committee management were out of step with required tasks. In several instances, for example, committees ceased to meet and thus could not provide advice, in part because the agencies had not appointed members. However, the length of time required to obtain a security clearance contributed to delays in member appointment. To address these concerns, we recommended the agencies upgrade system management; and in response, they began to grant new advisors interim security clearances so that they could actively participate in the committee while the full clearance is conducted. Despite these actions, however, trade advisory committee chairs we contacted in 2007 told us certain logistics such as delays in rechartering committees and appointment of members still made it difficult for some committees to function effectively. We found several committees had not been able to meet for periods of time, either because agencies allowed their charters to lapse or had not started the process of soliciting and appointing members soon enough to ensure committees could meet once they were rechartered. The Labor Advisory Committee, for example, did not meet for over 2 years from September 2003 until November 2005 due in part to delays in the member appointment process. These types of process delays further reduced a committee's ability to give timely, official advice before the committee was terminated, and the rechartering process had to begin again. This was particularly true in the case of the Labor Advisory Committee, which, at the time of our 2007 report, still had a 2-year charter. In addition to the need to improve certain committee logistics, we also found that representation of stakeholders is a key component of the trade advisory committee system that warrants consideration in any review of the system. In particular, as the U.S. economy and trade policy have shifted, the trade advisory committee system has needed adjustments to remain in alignment with them, including both a revision of committee coverage as well as committee composition.