Congressional Commissions:
Overview and Considerations for Congress
Updated January 22, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R40076

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Summary
Congressional advisory commissions are formal groups established to provide independent
advice; to make recommendations for changes in public policy; to study or investigate a particular
problem, issue, or event; or to commemorate an individual, group, or event. While no legal
definition exists for what constitutes a congressional commission, in this report a congressional
commission is defined as a multimember independent entity that (1) is established by Congress,
(2) exists temporarily, (3) serves in an advisory capacity, (4) is appointed in part or whole by
Members of Congress, and (5) reports to Congress. These five characteristics differentiate a
congressional commission from a presidential commission, an executive branch commission, or
other bodies with “commission” in their names. Over 150 congressional commissions have been
established since 1989.
Throughout American history, Congress has found commissions to be useful entities in the
legislative process. By establishing a commission, Congress can potential y provide a highly
visible forum for important issues and assemble greater expertise than may be readily available
within the legislature. Complex policy issues can be examined over a longer time period and in
greater depth than may be practical for legislators. Final y, the nonpartisan or bipartisan character
of most congressional commissions may make their findings and recommendations more
political y acceptable, both in Congress and among the public. Critics argue that many
congressional commissions are expensive, often formed to take difficult decisions out of the
hands of Congress, and are mostly ignored when they report their findings and recommendations.
The temporary status of congressional commissions and short time period they are often given to
complete their work product make it important that legislators craft statutes creating
congressional commissions with care. A wide variety of options are available, and legislators can
tailor the composition, organization, and working arrangements of a commission, based on the
particular goals of Congress. As a result, individual congressional commissions often have an
organizational structure and powers quite different from one another.
This report provides an overview and analysis of congressional advisory commissions,
information on the general statutory structure of a congressional commission, and a catalog of
congressional commissions created since the 101st Congress.
For additional information on congressional advisory commissions, see CRS Report R45328,
Designing Congressional Commissions: Background and Considerations for Congress, by Jacob
R. Straus; CRS Report RL33313, Congressional Membership and Appointment Authority to
Advisory Commissions, Boards, and Groups, by Jacob R. Straus and Wil iam T. Egar; CRS
Report R41425, Commemorative Commissions: Overview, Structure, and Funding, by Jacob R.
Straus; and CRS Report R45826, Congressional Commissions: Funding and Expenditures,
coordinated by Jacob R. Straus.

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Introduction
Congressional commissions are formal groups established by Congress to provide independent
advice, to make recommendations for changes in public policy, to study or investigate a particular
problem or event, or to commemorate an individual, group, or event. Usual y composed of policy
experts chosen by Members of Congress and/or officials in the executive branch, commissions
may hold hearings, conduct research, analyze data, investigate policy areas, or make field visits as
they perform their duties. Most commissions complete their work by delivering their findings,
recommendations, or advice in the form of a written report to Congress. Occasional y, legislation
submitted by commissions wil be given “fast track” authority in Congress.
Although no legal definition exists for what constitutes a “congressional commission,” in this
report, a congressional commission is defined as a multimember independent entity that (1) is
established by Congress, (2) exists temporarily, (3) serves in an advisory capacity, (4) is
appointed in part or whole by Members of Congress, and (5) reports to Congress. These five
characteristics effectively serve to differentiate a congressional commission from a presidential
commission, an executive branch commission, or other bodies with “commission” in their names.
Over 150 congressional commissions have been established since 1989.
Throughout American history, Congress has found commissions to be useful tools in the
legislative process,1 and legislators continue to use them today. By establishing a commission,
Congress can potential y provide a highly visible forum for important issues and assemble greater
expertise than may be readily available within the legislature. Complex policy issues can be
examined over a longer time period and in greater depth than may be practical for legislators. The
nonpartisan or bipartisan character of most congressional commissions may make their findings
and recommendations more political y acceptable, both in Congress and among the public.
Conversely, some have expressed concerns that congressional commissions can be expensive, are
often formed to take difficult decisions out of the hands of Congress, and are mostly ignored
when they report their findings and recommendations.
Congressional commissions can be categorized as either policy commissions or commemorative
commissions. Policy commissions general y study a particular public policy problem (e.g., the
United States Commission on North American Energy Freedom),2 or investigate a particular
event (e.g., the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States).3 Policy
commissions typical y report their findings to Congress along with recommendations for
legislative or executive action. Commemorative commissions, such as the Abraham Lincoln
Bicentennial Commission,4 are often tasked with planning, coordinating, and overseeing
celebrations of people or events, often in conjunction with milestone anniversaries.5
The temporary status of congressional commissions and their often short time horizons make it
important that legislators construct statutes with care. Statutes establishing congressional
commissions general y include language that states the mandate of the commission, provides a
membership structure and appointment scheme, defines member compensation and other benefits,

1 Colton Campbell, Discharging Congress: Government by Commission (Westport, CT : Praeger, 2002); Jordan T ama,
Terrorism and National Security Reform s: How Com m issions Can Drive Change During Crisis (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2011).
2 P.L. 109-58, 119 Stat 1064, August 8, 2005.
3 P.L. 107-306, 116 Stat. 2408, November 27, 2002.
4 P.L. 106-173, 114 Stat. 14, February 25, 2000.
5 For more information on commemorative commissions, see CRS Report R41425, Commemorative Commissions:
Overview, Structure, and Funding, by Jacob R. Straus.
Congressional Research Service

1

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

outlines the commission’s duties and powers, authorizes funding, and sets a termination date for
the commission.
A variety of options are available for each of these organizational choices. Legislators can tailor
the composition, organization, and arrangements of a commission, based on particular goals. As a
result, individual commissions often have organizational structures and powers quite different
from one another.
Defining Congressional Commission
In the past, confusion has arisen over whether particular entities are “congressional
commissions.” There are several reasons for this confusion. First, the term congressional
commission is not defined by law; observers might disagree as to whether an individual entity
should be characterized as such. Second, many different entities within the federal government
have the word “commission” in their name, such as regulatory commissions, presidential advisory
commissions, and advisory commissions established in executive agencies.6 Conversely, some
congressional commissions do not have the word “commission” in their name; instead, they are
designated as boards, advisory panels, advisory committees, task forces, or by other terms.
In this report, a congressional commission is defined as a multimember independent entity that
(1) is established by Congress, (2) exists temporarily, (3) serves in an advisory capacity, (4) is
appointed in part or whole by Members of Congress, and (5) reports to Congress. This definition
differentiates a congressional commission from a presidential commission, an executive branch
commission, or other bodies with “commission” in their names, while including most entities that
fulfil the role commonly perceived for commissions: studying policy problems and reporting
findings to Congress.7 Each of these characteristics is discussed below.
Independent Establishment by Congress
Congress usual y creates congressional commissions by statute.8 Not al statutorily established
advisory commissions, however, are congressional commissions. Congress may also statutorily
establish executive branch advisory commissions. Conversely, not al federal advisory
commissions are established by Congress. The President, department heads, or individual
agencies may also establish commissions under various authorities.9

6 For more information on executive branch advisory commissions, see CRS Report R44232, Creating a Federal
Advisory Com m ittee in the Executive Branch , by Meghan M. Stuessy; and CRS Report R44253, Federal Advisory
Com m ittees: An Introduction and Overview, by Meghan M. Stuessy.
7 Alternative definitions might be equally appealing. T he wide variety of boards, task forces, panels, an d commissions
created by Congress, coupled with the lack of a legal definition for “ congressional commission,” results in many gray
areas. Consequently, some entities created by Congress that do not meet all five characteristics might be considered
congressional commissions by observers using different criteria. For example, in the 110th Congress, legislation was
enacted creating a Committee on Levee Safety (P.L. 110-114, §9003, November 9, 2007). The committee was a
temporary advisory body created by statutory authority, but its membership was determined by executive branch and
state officials, and it report ed to both Congress and the Secretary of the Army. While it is not included in this report,
some observers might consider it a congressional commission.
8 An example of a commission that was widely considered a congressional commission but was not established by
Congress was the Iraq Study Group. Congress appropriated money to the U.S. Institute of Peace and informally
arranged for the selection of the chairs, but did not formally establish the group by statute or resolution. In addition,
some bodies created by chamber resolution might be considered congressional commissions.
9 For more information on establishing an advisory commission in the executive branch, see CRS Report R44232,
Creating a Federal Advisory Com m ittee in the Executive Branch , by Meghan M. Stuessy. Many well-known advisory
Congressional Research Service

2

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Congressional commissions are also general y independent of Congress in function. This
characteristic excludes commission-like entities established within Congress, such as
congressional observer groups, working groups, and ad hoc commissions and advisory groups
created by individual committees of Congress under their general authority to procure the
“temporary services” of consultants to “make studies and advise the committee,” pursuant to 2
U.S.C. §4301.10
Temporary Existence
Congressional commissions are established to perform specific duties, with statutory termination
dates linked to task completion. This restriction excludes entities that typical y serve an ongoing
administrative purpose, do not have statutory termination dates, and do not produce reports, such
as the House Office Building Commission11 or Senate Commission on Fine Art.12 Also excluded
are entities that serve ongoing diplomatic or interparliamentary functions, such as the U.S. Group
to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly,13 or the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group.14
Final y, Congress has created a number of boards to oversee government entities, such as the
United States Holocaust Memorial Council15 and the John F. Kennedy Center Board of Trustees.16
Although these entities could arguably be considered congressional commissions, their lifespan,
purpose, and function differ from temporary congressional commissions.
Advisory Role
Unlike regulatory commissions, congressional commissions are not typical y granted
administrative authority, and they usual y lack the power to implement their findings or
recommendations. Instead, advisory commissions typical y produce reports that present their
findings and offer recommendations for either legislative or executive action.
Inclusion of Members in the Appointment Process
Congressional commissions provide that Members of Congress, particularly the leadership, be
intimately involved in the appointment process, either through direct service on a commission, or
by appointing or recommending candidates for membership.17

commissions have been established by the President or by an agency. For example, the U.S. Commission on National
Security/21st Century (t he Hart -Rudman Commission) and the National Commission on Social Security Reform
(Greenspan Commission) were both established by executive order of the President.
10 For example, the Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index was established by the Senate
Committee on Finance in June 1995 and submitted its report to the committee in December 1996. See U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on Finance, Final Report of the Advisory Com m ission to Study the Consum er Price Index ,
committee print, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Prt . 104-72 (Washington: GPO, 1996).
11 2 U.S.C. §2001; P.L. 59-253; 34 Stat. 1365.
12 2 U.S.C. §2101; P.L. 100-696; 102 Stat. 4610.
13 22 U.S.C. §1928a; P.L. 84-689; 70 Stat. 523.
14 22 U.S.C. §276(d); P.L. 86-42, 73 Stat. 72.
15 36 U.S.C. §2302; P.L. 96-388; 94 Stat. 1547.
16 20 U.S.C. §76h; P.L. 85-874; 72 Stat. 1698.
17 For more information on the inclusion of Members of Congress in the commission appointment process, see CRS
Report RL33313, Congressional Mem bership and Appointment Authority to Advisory Com m issions, Boards, and
Groups, by Jacob R. Straus and William T . Egar.
Congressional Research Service

3

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Reporting Requirements
Congressional commissions are usual y required to submit their reports to Congress, or to
Congress and the President. Other advisory commissions, such as presidential or executive branch
commissions, typical y submit their reports only to the President or an agency head.
Types of Congressional Commissions
Congressional commissions can general y be placed into one of two categories: policy
commissions and commemorative commissions. Most congressional commissions are policy
commissions, temporary bodies that study particular policy problems and report their findings to
Congress or review a specific event. Other commissions are commemorative commissions,
entities established to commemorate a person or event, often to mark an anniversary. These
categories are not mutual y exclusive. A commission can perform policy and commemorative
functions in tandem.
Policy Commissions
The vast majority of congressional commissions are established to study, examine, investigate, or
review a particular policy problem or event. For example, policy commissions have focused on
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,18 motor fuel tax enforcement,19 threats to the
United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attacks,20 and the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks.21
Commemorative Commissions
Congress also creates commemorative commissions. These commissions most often
commemorate an individual, group, or event. In some circumstances, commemorative
commissions have also been tasked with the creation of national memorials in the District of
Columbia.
For more information on commemorative commissions, see CRS Report R41425,
Commemorative Commissions: Overview, Structure, and Funding, by Jacob R. Straus.
Potential Value of Congressional Commissions
Throughout American history, Congress has found commissions to be useful tools in the
legislative process. Commissions may be established to, among other things, cope with increases
in the scope and complexity of legislation, forge consensus, draft bil s, promote inter-party
communication, address issues that do not fal neatly within the jurisdictional boundaries of

18 T he Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and T errorism: P.L. 110-53, 121
Stat. 501, August 3, 2007.
19 Motor Fuel T ax Enforcement Advisory Committee: P.L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1959, August 10, 2005.
20 Commission to Assess the T hreat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks: P.L. 106-398, 114 Stat.
1654A-345, October 30, 2000.
21 National Commission on T errorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission): P.L. 107-306, 116 Stat.
2408, November 27, 2002.
Congressional Research Service

4

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

congressional committees, and bring together recommendations.22 These goals can be grouped
into five categories: expertise, political complexity, consensus building, solving collective action
problems, and visibility.
Obtaining Expertise
Congress may choose to establish a commission when legislators and their staffs do not currently
have sufficient knowledge or expertise in a complex policy area,23 or when an issue area is
sufficiently complex that engaging noncongressional experts could aid in policy development.24
By assembling experts with backgrounds in particular policy areas to focus on a specific mission,
legislators might efficiently obtain insight into complex public policy problems.25 Further, a
commission can devote itself to a particular issue full time, and can focus on an individual
problem without distraction.26
Overcoming Political Complexity
Complex policy issues may also create institutional problems because they do not fal neatly
within the jurisdiction of any particular committee in Congress.27 By virtue of their ad hoc status,
commissions may circumvent such issues. Similarly, a commission may al ow particular
legislation or policy solutions to bypass the traditional development process in Congress,
potential y removing some of the impediments inherent in a decentralized legislature.28
Consensus Building
Legislators seeking policy changes or requesting a congressional investigation may be confronted
by an array of political interests. The normal legislative or oversight process may sometimes
suffer political y from charges of partisanship.29 By contrast, the nonpartisan or bipartisan
character of most congressional commissions may make their findings and recommendations less
susceptible to such charges and result in further credibility both in Congress and among the
public.30
Commissions may also give competing viewpoints space to negotiate compromises, bypassing
the short-term tactical political maneuvers that may accompany public negotiations in a

22 Colton Campbell, “Creating an Angel: Congressional Delegation to Ad Hoc Commissions,” Congress and the
Presidency, vol. 25, no. 2 (Autumn 1998), p. 162.
23 Campbell, “Creating an Angel,” p. 174. See also Robert L. Chartrand, Jane Bortnick, and James R. Price, Legislator
as User of Inform ation (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1987), pp. 11 -15.
24 Campbell, Discharging Congress, pp. 55-59.
25 Campbell, Discharging Congress, p. 51.
26 Morris P. Fiorina, “Group Concentration and the Delegation of Legislative Authority,” in Roger G. Noll, ed.,
Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), p. 184. See also James E.
Katz, “Science, T echnology, and Congress,” Science vol. 30, no. 4 (May 1993), pp. 41-44.
27 George T . Sulzner, “T he Policy Process and the Uses of National Governmental Study Commissions,” Western
Political Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3 (September 1971), pp. 438-448.
28 Kenneth R. Mayer, “Closing Military Bases (Finally): Solving Collective Dilemmas T hrough Delegation,”
Legislative Studies Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 3 (August 1995), pp. 395-397.
29 Campbell, Discharging Congress, pp. 9-10.
30 Sulzner, “T he Policy Process and the Uses of National Governmental Study Commissions,” pp. 443-445.
Congressional Research Service

5

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

congressional markup or oversight session.31 Similarly, because commission members are often
not elected, they may be better suited to suggest unpopular, but arguably necessary, policy
solutions.32
Solving Collective Action Problems
A commission may al ow legislators to solve collective action problems, situations in which al
legislators individual y seek to protect the interests of their own district, despite widespread
agreement that the collective result of such interests is something none of them prefers.
Legislators can use a commission to jointly “tie their hands” in such circumstances, al owing
general consensus about a particular policy solution to avoid being impeded by individual
concerns about the effect or implementation of the solution.33
For example, in 1988 Congress established the Base Closure and Realignment Commission
(BRAC) as a political y and geographical y neutral body to make independent decisions about
closures of military bases.34 The list of bases slated for closure by the commission was required to
be either accepted or rejected as a whole by Congress, bypassing internal congressional politics
over which individual bases would be closed, and protecting individual Members from political
charges that they didn’t “save” their district’s base.35
Raising Visibility
By establishing a commission, Congress can often provide a highly visible forum for important
issues that might otherwise receive scant attention from the public.36 Commissions often are
composed of notable public figures, allowing personal prestige to be transferred to policy
solutions.37 Meetings and press releases from a commission may receive significantly more
attention in the media than corresponding information coming directly from members of
congressional committees. Upon completion of a commission’s work product, public attention
may be temporarily focused on a topic that otherwise would receive scant attention, thus
increasing the probability of congressional action within the policy area.38
Criticism of Commissions
Some political and scholarly observers have criticized congressional commissions. These
criticisms chiefly fal into three groups. First, critics often charge that commissions are an

31 John B. Gilmour, “Summits and Stalemates: Bipartisan Negotiations in the Postreform Era,” in Roger H. Davidson,
ed., The Postreform Congress (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), pp. 247 -248.
32 Daniel Bell, “ Government by Commission,” Public Interest, vol. 1, no. 3 (Spring 1966), p. 7; Campbell, Discharging
Congress, p. 70; Campbell, Discharging Congress, p. 13; Newt Gingrich, “ Leadership T ask Forces: T he ‘T hird Wave’
Way to Consider Legislation,” Roll Call, November 16, 1995, p. 5.
33 Gary W. Cox and Matthew D. McCubbins, Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1993), p. 80.
34 Mayer, “Closing Military Bases,” pp. 398-399.
35 Charles E. Cook, “Base Closing Furor: Minimal Political Impact for Members,” Roll Call, March 18, 1993, p. 1.
36 David S. Brown, “T he Public Advisory Board as an Instrument of Government,” Public Administration Review, vol.
15, no. 3 (Summer 1955), pp. 197-199.
37 Charles J. Hanser, Guide to Decision: The Royal Commission (T otowa, New Jersey: Bedminster Press, 1965), pp.
222-225.
38 Sulzner, “T he Policy Process and the Uses of National Governmental Study Commissions,” p. 444.
Congressional Research Service

6

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

“abdication of responsibility” on the part of legislators.39 Second, commissions are criticized for
being undemocratic, replacing elected legislators with appointed decisionmakers. Third, critics
also argue that commissions are financial y inefficient; they are expensive and their findings are
often ignored by Congress.
Abdicated Responsibility
Critics of commissions argue that they are primarily created by legislators specifical y for “blame
avoidance.”40 In this view, Congress uses commissions to distance itself from risky decisions
when confronted with controversial issues. By creating a commission, legislators can take credit
for addressing a topic of controversy without having to take a substantive position on the topic. If
the commission’s work is ultimately popular, legislators can take credit for the work. If the
commission’s work product is unpopular, legislators can shift responsibility to the commission
itself.41
Reduced Democratic Accountability
A second concern about commissions is that they are not democratic. This criticism takes three
forms. First, commissions may be unrepresentative of the general population; the members of
most commissions are not elected and may not reflect the variety of popular opinion on an issue.42
Second, commissions lack popular accountability. Unlike Members of Congress, commission
members are often insulated from the electoral pressures of popular opinion. Final y,
commissions may not operate in public; unlike Congress, their meetings, hearings, and
investigations may be held in private.43
Financial Inefficiency
A third criticism of commissions is that they have high costs and low returns. Congressional
commission costs vary widely, ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to over $10
mil ion. Coupled with this objection is the problem of congressional response to the work of a
commission; in most cases, Congress is under no obligation to act, or even respond to the work of
a commission. If legislators disagree with the results or recommendations of a commission’s
work, they may simply ignore it. In addition, there is no guarantee that any commission wil
produce a balanced product; commission members may have their own agendas, biases, and
pressures. Or they may simply produce a mediocre work product.44 Final y, advisory boards

39 Sen. T rent Lott, “Special Commissions,” Remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148
(September 23, 2002), p. S9050. See also David Schoenbrod, Power Without Responsibility: How Congress Abuses the
People Through Delegation (New Haven, CT : Yale University Press, 1993), p. 100; R.W. Apple, “ Keeping Hot
Potatoes Out of the Kitchen,” New York Times, February 2, 1989, D20.
40 R. Kent Weaver, “T he Politics of Blame Avoidance,” Journal of Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 4 (October-December
1986), pp. 373-374. See also Douglas Arnold, The Logic of Congressional Action (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1990), p. 101.
41 Campbell, Discharging Congress, pp. 68-69; Arnold, The Logic of Congressional Action, p. 101.
42 R. Kent Weaver, “Is Congress Abdicating Power to Commissions?” Roll Call, February 12, 1989, pp. 5, 25.
43 Natalie Hanlon, “Military Base Closures: A Study of Government by Commission,” Colorado Law Review, vol. 62,
no. 2 (1991), pp. 331-364.
44 James Q. Wilson, “A Reader’s Guide to the Crime Commission’s Report,” Public Interest, no. 9 (Fall 1967), pp. 64,
82.
Congressional Research Service

7

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

create economic and legislative inefficiency if they function as patronage devices, with Members
of Congress using commission positions to pay off political debts.45
Selected Considerations for Congress
Statutes establishing congressional advisory commissions general y provide the scope of a
commission’s mission, its structure, and its rules of procedures. Legislators can tailor the
composition, organization, and working arrangements of a commission, based on the particular
goals of Congress. As a result, individual congressional commissions often have an organizational
structure and powers quite different from one another.46
This section provides an overview of certain features commonly found in commission statutes.
For a more detailed and comprehensive description of legislative language and features that are
often included in congressional advisory commission statutes, see CRS Report R45328,
Designing Congressional Commissions: Background and Considerations for Congress, by
Wil iam T. Egar.
Membership and Appointment Authority
When creating a new advisory commission, several potential membership structures might be
considered. These could include the number of commissioners and who should appoint the
members.
Congressional commissions use a wide variety of membership framework and appointment
structures. The statute may require that membership of a commission be made up in whole or in
part of specifical y designated Members of Congress, typical y Members in congressional or
committee leadership positions. In other cases, selected leaders, often with balance between the
parties, appoint commission members, who may or may not be Members of Congress. A third
common statutory framework is to have selected leaders, again often with balance between the
parties, recommend members, who may or may not be Members of Congress, for appointment to
a commission. These leaders may act either in paral el or jointly, and the recommendation may be
made either to other congressional leaders, such as the Speaker of the House and President pro
tempore of the Senate, or to the President.
Reporting Requirements
Congressional commissions are usual y statutorily directed to carry out specific tasks. One of the
primary functions of most congressional commissions is to produce a final report for Congress
outlining their activities, findings, and legislative recommendations.47 These reports can be sent to
Congress general y, to specific congressional committees, to the President, to executive agencies,
or to a combination of entities. Recommendations contained in a commission report are only
advisory. The potential implementation of such recommendations is dependent upon future
congressional or executive branch action.

45 Brown, “T he Public Advisory Board as an Instrument of Government,” p. 199.
46 T hese considerations are based, in part, on Campbell, Discharging Congress, p. 7, T able 1.3.
47 Some commissions, such as the Motor Fuel T ax Enforcement Advisory Commission (P.L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 2941)
are not required to submit a final report, but instead make annual reports to Congress during the specifi ed lifespan of
the commission.
Congressional Research Service

8

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Report Destination
Most commissions submit their work product to both Congress and the President. A smal er
number submit their work to Congress only, and others have submitted their work to both
Congress and a specified executive branch agency. The report’s destination might matter for the
type of future action taken on a topic. If a report is sent to both Congress and the President,
potential exists for either legislative or executive action in that policy area. If a report is sent to
only one entity, that might reduce the likelihood that other actors might address a particular
concern.
Deadlines
Most commissions are given statutory deadlines for the submission of their final report. The
deadline for the submission of final reports varies from commission to commission. Some
commissions, such as the National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education,48 have been
given less than six months to submit their final report for Congress. Other commissions, such as
the Antitrust Modernization Commission,49 have been given three or more years to complete their
work product.
Commission Expenses
Congressional commission costs vary widely, and have been funded in a variety of ways. Overal
expenses for any individual commission are dependent on a variety of factors, including whether
commissioners are paid, the number of potential staff and their pay levels, and the duration of the
commission.
Many commissions have few or no full-time staff; others employ large numbers, such as the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,50 which had a full-time paid
staff of 80. Additional y, some commissions provide compensation to members; others only
reimburse members for travel expenses. Many commissions finish their work and terminate
within a year of creation; in other cases, work may not be completed for several years.
Secondary factors that can affect commission costs include the number of commissioners, how
often the commission meets or holds hearings, and the number and size of publications the
commission produces. For a more detailed analysis of commission funding and expenditures, see
CRS Report R45826, Congressional Commissions: Funding and Expenditures, by Wil iam T.
Egar.
Commission Member Pay
Most statutorily created congressional commissions do not compensate their members, except to
reimburse members for expenses directly related to their service, such as travel costs.51 Among

48 P.L. 105-18; 111 Stat. 207 (June 12, 1997).
49 P.L. 107-273; 116 Stat. 1856 (November 2, 2002).
50 P.L. 107-306; 116 Stat. 2408.
51 For example, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s statute (P.L. 105-292; 112 Stat.
2787, October 27, 1998) stated, “ (i) Funding.—Members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses,
including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5,
United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the
Commission.”
Congressional Research Service

9

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

congressional commissions that compensate their members, the level of compensation is almost
always specified statutorily, and is typical y set in accordance with one of the federal pay scales,
prorated to the number of days of service.52 The most common level of compensation is the daily
equivalent of Level IV of the Executive Schedule (EX), which has a basic annual rate of pay of
$172,500 in 2021.53
Most commissions created in the past since the 101st Congress have not paid members beyond
reimbursement. The remaining commissions have general y paid members at the daily equivalent
of Level IV of the Executive Schedule.
Staffing
Advisory commissions are usual y authorized to hire a staff. Many of these commissions are
specifical y authorized to appoint a staff director and other personnel as necessary. The size of the
staff is not general y specified, al owing the commission flexibility in judging its own staffing
requirements. Typical y, maximum pay rates wil be specified, but the commission wil be granted
authority to set actual pay rates within those guidelines.
Most of these congressional commissions are also authorized to hire consultants and procure
intermittent services. Many commissions are statutorily authorized to request that federal
agencies detail personnel to assist the commission. Some commissions are also authorized to
accept voluntary services.
Cataloging Congressional Commissions
This report attempts to identify al congressional commissions enacted into law between the 101st
and 116th Congress.
Methodology
To identify congressional commissions, CRS searched Congress.gov for terms and phrases
related to commissions within the text of laws enacted between the 101st (1989-1990) and 116th
(2019-2020) Congresses.54 Each piece of legislation returned was examined to determine if (1)
the legislation established a commission, and (2) the commission met the five criteria outlined

52 For example, the Antitrust Modernization Commissions statute stated, “(a) Pay.—(1) Nongovernment employees.—
Each member of the Commission who is not otherwise employed by a government shall be entitled to receive the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5
United States Code, as in effect from time to time, for each day (including travel time) during which such member is
engaged in the actual performance of duties of the Commission. (2) Government employees.—A member of the
Commission who is an officer or employee of a government shall serve without additional pay (or benefits in the nature
of compensation) for service as a member of the Commission. (b) T ravel Expenses. —Members of the Commission
shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code.” P.L. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1768, 1858, January 2, 2002.
53 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, “Salary T able No. 2021-EX: Rates of Basic Pay for the Executive Schedule
(EX),” at https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/21T ables/exec/html/
EX.aspx. Although Level IV of the Executive Schedule is the most common compensation level, commission members
could be compensated at other levels of the Executive Schedule or at particular levels of the General Schedule.
Members of congressional commissions that fall under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L . 92-463), however,
are prohibited from receiving compensation in excess of the rate specified for Executive Schedule Level IV.
54 T he search included such terms as commission, task force, advisory, board, panel, independent establishment,
coordinating com m ittee, study group, and working group.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 link to page 19

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

above. If the commission met the criteria, its name, public law number, Statutes-at-Large citation,
date of enactment, and other information were recorded.
Results
A total of 161 congressional commissions were identified through this search. Figure 1 shows the
number of commissions enacted in each Congress between the 101st and 116th Congresses.
Figure 1. Number of Congressional Commissions Created by Congress
101st to 116th Congress

Source: CRS search of public laws enacted between the 101st and 116th Congress.
Two caveats accompany these results. As stated above, identifying congressional commissions
involves making judgment cal s about particular characteristics. Second, tracking provisions of
law that create congressional commissions is an inherently inexact exercise. Although many such
bodies are created in easily identifiable freestanding statutes, others are contained within the
statutory language of lengthy omnibus legislation.55 Consequently, individual commissions may
have been missed by the search methodology.
Congressional Commissions, 101st to 116th Congress
The tables that follow provide information on the 161 congressional commissions CRS identified
through a search of Congress.gov for legislation enacted between the 101st and 116th Congresses.
Not included are commissions that were reauthorized during a given Congress. For example, in
the 109th Congress, the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attacks was reestablished. Since it was not a new commission, it is
not included in the table (Table 8) for the 109th Congress.

55 For example, provisions for the establishment of 12 separate advisory bodies were included in the text of the FY1999
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act ( P.L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681).
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 link to page 16 Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Each Congress is listed in its own table. For each newly created commission, the following
information is provided, in alphabetical order: the name of the commission, the public law
creating the commission, and the date of enactment.
Table 1. Congressional Commissions Created During the 116th Congress
Commission
Authority
Adams Memorial Commission
P.L. 116-9, §2406, 133 Stat. 749, March 12, 2019
CARES Act Congressional Oversight Commission
P.L. 116-136, §4020, 134 Stat. 486, March 27, 2020
Commission on Combating Synthetic Opioid Trafficking P.L. 116-92, §7221, 133 Stat. 2270, December 20, 2019
Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and
P.L. 116-156, 134 Stat. 700, August 14, 2020
Boys
Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and
P.L. 116-189, §11, 134 Stat. 970, October 30, 2020
Paralympics
Route 66 Centennial Commission
P.L. 116-256, 134 Stat. 1142, December 23, 2020
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.
a. The Commission on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys was amended by P.L. 116-260, Title II, §201,
December 27, 2020, to change the appointment structure.
Table 2. Congressional Commissions Created During the 115th Congress
Commission
Authority
400 Years of African-American History Commission
P.L. 115-102, 131 Stat. 2248, January 8, 2018
Commission on Farm Transactions-Needs for 2050
P.L. 115-334, 132 Stat. 5009, December 20, 2018
Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States
P.L. 115-91; 131 Stat. 1786; December 12, 2017
from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and Similar Eventsa
Commission on Military Aviation Safety
P.L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 1992, August 13, 2018
Cyberspace Solarium Commission
P.L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 2140, August 13, 2018
Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commission
P.L. 115-77, 131 Stat. 1251, November 2, 2017
National Security Commission on Artificial Intel igence
P.L. 115-232, 132 Stat. 192, August 13, 2018
Public-Private Partnership Advisory Council to End
P.L. 115-393, 132 Stat. 5278, December 21, 2018
Human Trafficking
Syria Study Group
P.L. 115-254, 132 Stat. 3519, October 5, 2018
Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commissionb
P.L. 115-31, 131 Stat. 502, May 5, 2017
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.
a. The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attacks and Similar
Events is a distinct commission from the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack that was created by P.L. 106-398, Title XIV. This legislation authorizing
the new Electromagnetic Pulse Commission repealed P.L. 106-398, Title XIV, which authorized the original
commission.
b. The Women’s Suffrage Centennial Commission was incorporated by reference in P.L. 115-31. Text of the
bil can be found in S. 847 (115th Congress), and in Appendix C of P.L. 115-31 (131 Stat. 842A-17).
Congressional Research Service

12

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Table 3. Congressional Commissions Created During the 114th Congress
Commission
Authority
Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission
P.L. 114-244; 130 Stat. 981; October 14, 2016
on Native Children
Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking
P.L. 114-140; 130 Stat. 317; March 30, 2016
Commission on the National Defense Strategy of the
P.L. 114-328; 130 Stat. 2367; December 23, 2016
United States
Congressional Task Force on Economic Growth in
P.L. 114-187; 130 Stat. 593; June 30, 2016
Puerto Rico
Creating Options for Veterans’ Expedited Recovery
P.L. 114-198; 130 Stat. 769; July 22, 2016
Commission
National Commission on Military, National and Public
P.L. 114-328; 130 Stat. 2131; December 23, 2016
Service
John F. Kennedy Centennial Commission
P.L. 114-215; 130 Stat. 830; July 29, 2016
United States Semiquincentennial Commission
P.L. 114-196; 130 Stat. 685; July 22, 2016
Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial
P.L. 114-224; 130 Stat. 921, September 29, 2016
Commission
Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission
P.L. 114-323; 130 Stat. 1936; December 16, 2016
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 4. Congressional Commissions Created During the 113th Congress
Commission
Authority
Commission on Care
P.L. 113-146; 128 Stat. 1773; August 7, 2014
Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a
P.L. 113-291; 128 Stat. 3810; December 19, 2014
National Women’s History Museum
National Commission on the Future of the Army
P.L. 113-291; 128 Stat. 3664; December 19, 2014
National Commission on Hunger
P.L. 113-76; 128 Stat. 41; January 17, 2014
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 5. Congressional Commissions Created During the 112th Congress
Commission
Authority
Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect
P.L. 112-275; 126 Stat. 2461; January 14, 2013
Fatalities
Commission on Long-Term Care
P.L. 112-240; 126 Stat. 2358; January 2, 2013
Congressional Advisory Panel on the Governance of
P.L. 112-239; 126 Stat. 2208; January 2, 2013
the Nuclear Security Enterprise
Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
P.L. 112-239; 126 Stat. 1787; January 2, 2013
Commission
Congressional Research Service

13

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Commission
Authority
National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force
P.L. 112-239; 126 Stat. 1703; January 2, 2013
World War I Centennial Commission
P.L. 112-272; 126 Stat. 2449; January 15, 2013
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 6. Congressional Commissions Created During the 111th Congress
Commission
Authority
Independent Panel to Assess the Quadrennial Defense
P.L. 111-84; 123 Stat. 2467; October 28, 2010
Review
Indian Law and Order Commission
P.L. 111-211; 124 Stat. 2282; July 29, 2010
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
P.L. 111-21; 123 Stat. 1625; May 20, 2009
Foreign Intel igence and Information Commission
P.L. 111-259; 124 Stat. 2739; October 7, 2010
Ronald Reagan Centennial Commission
P.L. 111-25; 123 Stat. 1767; June 2, 2009
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 7. Congressional Commissions Created During the 110th Congress
Commission
Authority
Commission on the Abolition of the Transatlantic Slave
P.L. 110-183; 122 Stat. 606; February 5, 2008
Trade
Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
P.L. 110-53; 121 Stat. 501; August 3, 2007
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism
Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a
P.L. 110-229; 122 Stat. 784; May 8, 2008
National Museum of the American Latino
Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
P.L. 110-181; 122 Stat. 230; January 28, 2008
Afghanistan
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of
P.L. 110-181; 122 Stat. 319; January 28, 2008
the United States
Congressional Oversight Panel (Emergency Economic
P.L. 110-343; 122 Stat. 3791; October 3, 2008
Stabilization Act)
Genetic Nondiscrimination Study Commission
P.L. 110-233; 122 Stat. 917; October 3, 2008
National Commission on Children and Disasters
P.L. 110-161; 121 Stat. 2213; December 26, 2007
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Congressional Research Service

14

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Table 8. Congressional Commissions Created During the 109th Congress
Commission
Authority
Commission on the Implementation of the New
P.L. 109-163; 119 Stat. 3431; January 6, 2006
Strategic Posture of the United States
Human Space Flight Independent Investigation
P.L. 109-155; 119 Stat. 2941; December 30, 2005
Commission
Motor Fuel Tax Enforcement Advisory Commission
P.L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1959; August 10, 2005
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
P.L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1962; August 10, 2005
Financing Commission
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
P.L. 109-59; 119 Stat. 1471; August 10, 2005
Commission
Technical Study Panel
P.L. 109-236; 120 Stat. 501; June 15, 2006
United States Commission on North American Energy
P.L. 109-58; 119 Stat. 1064; August 8, 2005
Freedom
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 9. Congressional Commissions Created During the 108th Congress
Commission
Authority
Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad
P.L. 108-199; 118 Stat. 435; January 23, 2003
Fel owship Program
Commission on the National Guard and Reserve
P.L. 108-375; 118 Stat. 1880; October 28, 2004
Commission on Review the Overseas Military Facility
P.L. 108-132; 117 Stat. 1382; November 22, 2003
Structure of the United States
Helping to Enhance the Livelihood of People (HELP)
P.L. 108-199; 118 Stat. 101; January 23, 2003
Around the Globe Commission
National Commission on Smal Community Air Service
P.L. 108-176; 117 Stat. 2549; October 18, 2003
National Prison Rape Reduction Commission
P.L. 108-79; 117 Stat. 980; September 4, 2003
Panel to Review Sexual Misconduct Al egations at
P.L. 108-11; 117 Stat. 609; April 16, 2003
United States Air Force Academy
Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission
P.L. 108-136; 117 Stat. 1676; November 24, 2003
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 10. Congressional Commissions Created During the 107th Congress
Commission
Authority
Antitrust Modernization Commission
P.L. 107-273; 116 Stat. 1856; November 2, 2002
Benjamin Franklin Tercentenary Commission
P.L. 107-202; 116 Stat. 739; July 24, 2002
Brown v. Board of Education 50th Anniversary
P.L. 107-41; 115 Stat. 226; September 18, 2001
Commission
Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations
P.L. 107-171; 116 Stat. 216; May 13, 2002
for Agriculture
Congressional Research Service

15

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Commission
Authority
Guam War Claims Review Commission
P.L. 107-333; 116 Stat. 2873; December 12, 2002
National Commission for the Review of the Research
P.L. 107-306; 116 Stat. 2437; November 27, 2002
and Development Programs of the United States
Intel igence Community
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
P.L. 107-306; 116 Stat. 2408; November 27, 2002
United States
National Museum of African American History and
P.L. 107-106; 115 Stat. 1009; December 28, 2001
Culture Plan for Action Presidential Commission
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 11. Congressional Commissions Created During the 106th Congress
Commission
Authority
Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission
P.L. 106-173; 114 Stat. 14; February 25, 2000
Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Care
P.L. 106-74; 113 Stat. 1106; October 20, 1999
Facility Needs in the 21st Century
Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States
P.L. 106-398, 114 Stat. 1645A-345; October 30, 2000
from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attacks
Commission on Indian and Native Alaskan Health Care
P.L. 106-310; 114 Stat. 1216; October 17, 2000
Commission on Ocean Policy
P.L. 106-256; 114 Stat. 645; October 7, 2000
Commission on the Future of the United States
P.L. 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-301; October 30, 2000
Aerospace Industry
Commission on the National Military Museum
P.L. 106-65; 113 Stat. 880; October 5, 1999
Commission on Victory in the Cold War
P.L. 106-65; 113 Stat. 765; October 5, 1999
Commission to Assess United States National Security
P.L. 106-65; 113 Stat. 813; October 5, 1999
Space Management and Organization
Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission
P.L. 106-79; 113 Stat. 1274; October 25, 1999
Forest Counties Payments Committee
P.L. 106-291; 114 Stat. 991; October 11, 2000
James Madison Commemoration Commission
P.L. 106-550; 114 Stat. 2745; December 19, 2000
Judicial Review Commission on Foreign Asset Control
P.L. 106-120; 113 Stat. 1633; December 3, 1999
Lands Title Report Commission
P.L. 106-568; 114 Stat. 2923; December 27, 2000
P.L. 106-569; 114 Stat. 2959; December 27, 2000
Mil ennial Housing Commission
P.L. 106-74; 113 Stat. 1070; October 20, 1999
National Commission for the Review of the National
P.L. 106-120; 113 Stat. 1620; December 3, 1999
Reconnaissance Office
National Commission on the Use of Offsets in Defense
P.L. 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501A-502; November 29, 1999
Trade
National Commission to Ensure Consumer Information
P.L. 106-181; 114 Stat. 105; April 15, 2000
and Choice in the Airline Industry
National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial
P.L. 106-408; 114 Stat. 1783; November 1, 2000
Commission
Congressional Research Service

16

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Commission
Authority
Public Interest Declassification Board
P.L. 106-567; 114 Stat. 2856; December 27, 2000
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Advisory Panel
P.L. 106-170; 113 Stat. 1887; December 17, 1999
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 12. Congressional Commissions Created During the 105th Congress
Commission
Authority
Advisory Committee on Electronic Commerce
P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-722; October 21, 1998
Amtrak Reform Council
P.L. 105-134; 111 Stat. 2579; December 2, 1997
Census Monitoring Board
P.L. 105-119; 111 Stat. 2483; November 26, 1997
Commission on the Advancement of Women and
P.L. 105-255; 112 Stat. 1889; October 14, 1998
Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology
Development
Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related
P.L. 105-85; 111 Stat. 1750; November 18, 1997
Issues
Commission on Online Child Protection
P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-739; October 21, 1998
Independent Panel to Evaluate the Adequacy of Current P.L. 105-56; 111 Stat. 1249; October 8, 1997
Planning for United States Long-Range Air Power and
the Requirement for Continued Low-Rate Production
of B-2 Stealth Bombers
National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of
P.L. 105-33; 111 Stat. 347; October 5, 1997
Medicare
National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education
P.L. 105-18; 111 Stat. 207; June 12, 1997
National Commission on Terrorism
P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-210; October 21, 1998
National Health Museum Commission
P.L. 105-78; 111 Stat. 1525; November 13, 1997
Parents Advisory Council on Youth Drug Abuse
P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-690; October 21, 1998
Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets
P.L. 105-186; 112 Stat. 611; June 23, 1998
in the United States
Twenty-First Century Workforce Commission
P.L. 105-220; 112 Stat. 1087; October 7, 1998
Trade Deficit Review Commission
P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-547; October 21, 1998
United States Commission on International Religious
P.L. 105-292; 112 Stat. 2797; October 27, 1998
Freedom
Web-Based Education Commission
P.L. 105-244; 112 Stat. 1822; October 7, 1998
Women’s Progress Commemoration Commission
P.L. 105-341; 112 Stat. 3196; October 31, 1998
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.
Congressional Research Service

17

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Table 13. Congressional Commissions Created During the 104th Congress
Commission
Authority
Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture
P.L. 104-127; 110 Stat. 938; April 4, 1996
Commission on Consensus Reform in the District of
P.L. 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-151; April 26, 1996
Columbia Public Schools
Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear
P.L. 104-201; 110 Stat. 2843; September 23, 1996
Weapons Expertise
Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
P.L. 104-275; 110 Stat. 3346; October 9, 1996
Transition Assistance
Commission on the Advancement of Federal Law
P.L. 104-132; 110 Stat. 1305; April 24, 1996
Enforcement
Commission to Assess the Bal istic Missile Threat to
P.L. 104-201; 110 Stat. 2711; September 23, 1996
the United States
Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal
P.L. 104-293; 110 Stat. 3470; October 11, 1996
Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons
of Mass Destruction
National Civil Aviation Review Commission
P.L. 104-264; 110 Stat. 3241; October 9, 1996
National Commission on Restructuring the Internal
P.L. 104-52; 110 Stat. 509; November 19, 1995
Revenue Service
National Gambling Impact Study Commission
P.L. 104-169; 110 Stat. 1482; October 3, 1996
Water Rights Task Force
P.L. 104-127; 110 Stat. 1021; April 4, 1996
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 14. Congressional Commissions Created During the 103rd Congress
Commission
Authority
Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators
P.L. 103-432; 108 Stat. 4463; October 31, 1994
Commission on Leave
P.L. 103-3; 107 Stat. 23; February 5, 1993
Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government
P.L. 103-236; 108 Stat. 525; April 30, 1994
Secrecy
Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the
P.L. 103-359; 108 Stat. 3456; October 14, 1994
United States Intel igence Community
National Bankruptcy Review Commission
P.L. 103-394; 108 Stat. 4147; October 22, 1994
National Commission on Crime Control and
P.L. 103-322; 108 Stat. 2089; September 13, 1994
Prevention
National Skil Standards Board
P.L. 103-227; 108 Stat. 191; March 31, 1994
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24 Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

Table 15. Congressional Commissions Created During the 102nd Congress
Commission
Authority
Commission on Broadcasting to the People’s Republic
P.L. 102-138; 105 Stat. 705; October 28, 1991
of China
Commission on Child and Family Welfare
P.L. 102-521; 106 Stat. 3406; October 25, 1992
Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States
P.L. 102-392; 106 Stat. 1726; October 6, 1992
Capitol
Commission on the Social Security “Notch” Issue
P.L. 102-393; 106 Stat. 1777; October 6, 1992
Commission to Protect Investment in America’s
P.L. 102-240; 105 Stat. 2020; December 18, 1991
Infrastructure
Congressional Commission on the Evaluation of
P.L. 102-558; 106 Stat. 4220; October 28, 1992
Defense Industry Base Policy
Glass Ceiling Commission
P.L. 102-166; 105 Stat. 1082; November 21, 1991
National Commission on Intermodal Transportation
P.L. 102-240; 105 Stat. 2160; December 18, 1991
National Commission on Reducing Capital Gains for
P.L. 102-245; 106 Stat. 21; February 14, 1992
Emerging Technology
National Commission on Rehabilitation Services
P.L. 102-569; 105 Stat. 4473; October 29, 1992
National Commission on the Future Role of United
P.L. 102-172; 105 Stat. 1208; November 26, 1991
States Nuclear Weapons
National Commission to Promote a Strong
P.L. 102-581; 106 Stat. 4891; October 31, 1992
Competitive Airline Industry
National Education Commission on Time and Learning
P.L. 102-62; 105 Stat. 306; June 27, 1991
Thomas Jefferson Commemoration Commission
P.L. 102-343; 106 Stat. 915; October 17, 1992
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.

Table 16. Congressional Commissions Created During the 101st Congress
Commission
Authority
Civil War Sites Advisory Commission
P.L. 101-628; 104 Stat. 4504; November 28, 1990
Commission on Legal Immigration Reform
P.L. 101-649; 104 Stat. 5001; November 29, 1990
Commission on Management of the Agency for
P.L. 101-513; 104 Stat. 2022; November 5, 1990
International Development Programs
Commission on State and Private Forests
P.L. 101-624; 104 Stat. 3548; November 28, 1990
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
P.L. 101-510; 104 Stat. 1808; November 5, 1990
Independent Commissiona
P.L. 101-121; 103 Stat. 742; October 23, 1989
Joint Federal-State Commission on Policies and
P.L. 101-379; 104 Stat. 478; October 18, 1990
Programs Affecting Alaska Natives
National Advisory Council on the Public Service
P.L. 101-363; 104 Stat. 424; August 14, 1990
National Commission on American Indian, Alaska
P.L. 101-235; 103 Stat. 2052; December 15, 1989
Native, and Native Hawai an Housing
National Commission on Defense and National Security P.L. 101-511; 104 Stat. 1899; November 5, 1990
Congressional Research Service

19

Congressional Commissions: Overview and Considerations for Congress

National Commission on Financial Institution Reform,
P.L. 101-647; 104 Stat. 4889; November 29, 1990
Recovery, and Enforcement
National Commission on Judicial Discipline and
P.L. 101-650; 104 Stat. 5124; December 1, 1990
Removal
National Commission on Manufactured Housing
P.L. 101-625; 104 Stat. 4413; November 28, 1990
National Commission on Severely Distressed Public
P.L. 101-235; 103 Stat. 2048; December 15, 1989
Housing
National Commission on Wildfire Disasters
P.L. 101-286; 104 Stat. 171; May 9, 1990
National Commission to Support Law Enforcement
P.L. 101-515; 104 Stat. 2122; November 5, 1990
Preservation of Jazz Advisory Commission
P.L. 101-499; 104 Stat. 1210; November 2, 1990
Risk Assessment and Management Commission
P.L. 101-549; 104 Stat. 2574; November 15, 1990
Source: CRS analysis of commission legislation from Congress.gov.
a. The Independent Commission was created to review the National Endowment for the Arts grant-making
procedures.

Author Information

Jacob R. Straus

Specialist on the Congress

Acknowledgments
This report was originally coauthored with former CRS Analyst Matthew E. Glassman. Raymond T.
Williams, former Research Assistant, and William T. Egar, former Analyst in American National
Government, also contributed to this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R40076 · VERSION 23 · UPDATED
20