system. It was an important first step in providing basic protection and guidelines for operation of advisory committees. However, because Congress and the Executive Branch were essentially learning how to deal with this problem for the first time, the Act was left with several rough spots.

Over the years these uneven spots have led to subtle distinctions in interpretation, to differences in agency practice, to litigation, and to uncertainty on the part of senior public officials desirous of establishing committees and obtaining advice. These uncertain items have included

O

the meaning of "utilized" in the Act as regards

a committee.

the definition of what constitutes an "advisory

committee."

the applicability of the Act to "subcommittees," "task forces," and "working groups.'

the requirement for "balanced" membership in

terms of committee purposes and affected

interests.

the extent of independence and the manner in
which agency "support services" would be
provided to Presidential committees.

FACA now permits a great deal of flexibility in
This has resulted in differences in approaches

interpretation.

and operations by various agencies. I believe that the clear intent of the Congress regarding these matters should be

expressed.

An

The requirement for a central government agency "consultation" on the decision of a cabinet officer or agency head to create an advisory committee should be eliminated. agency head has responsibility for major expenditures and program operations. It is reasonable and logical for him or her to have authority to make a judgment regarding the need for. outside advice, to constitute a committee, and to determine its scope and charge. The agency head can be held accountable for the actions within his or her agency. Also, the agency head should account for the actions taken regarding the

recommendations and advice received from advisory committees established in the agency.

If there is any central government review function it should be to determine actions taken as a result of the committees' recommendations and to determine the general. compliance with the provisions of the Act regarding openness of process, balanced membership, and freedom from undue influence either by outside interest groups or by particular agencies or officials within the government. These requirements are currently in FACA.

The monitoring of FACA compliance is very different from the policy and programmatic decision to create a committee. The creation process should be streamlined, straightforward and in the hands of the agency head. The monitoring process can be done in the manner of an audit, across agency lines, and it should be performed independently.

The results of such reviews should assist the Congress in its oversight function on advisory committees.

FACA should provide for agencies to obtain a

The

definitive interpretation of the Act from a central recognized source. The Department of Justice has generally occupied this position but not for FACA. GAO continues to exercise its role where a question of the expenditure of funds is involved. Congress placed the FACA responsibility with the Office of Management and Budget in 1972, With the transfer of that responsibility to GSA, the need for an authoritative legal interpretive office arose.

It is noteworthy that the administration of FACA began in the 1970s with a joint Department of Justice/OMB memorandum published in the Federal Register. This memorandum was later withdrawn in favor of more general guidelines

published in an OMB Circular which were maintained on a current

basis.

The specific duties to be

There is need for greater clarity in the Act's provision that an assigned agency will provide "support services" to Presidential Advisory Committees (i.e., those with a charge to advise the President). exercised by an agency with responsibility to provide "support services" to a committee assigned to it has been ambiguous. Some agencies have interpreted the support services function to permit control of the committee's activities, whereas others have viewed the agency role as purely ministerial. It appears that the Congress may wish to speak to this matter.

FACA's ambiguities have led to different

interpretations regarding what may or may not be exempted from

coverage.

The Act provides certain specific exemptions

(Sections 3 and 4). Through interpretation and agency

practice, these have included various activities. Exemptions have been provided for "task forces", "subcommittees",. committees with "operational" responsibilities, committees which are engaged in "fact-finding," committees which do not provide "consensus" advice, etc. If the Congress desires another result it should clarify the language of the Act. Thank you.