Federal Advisory Committee Act: General Services Administration's Oversight of Advisory Committees
Released: 1998-06-15T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In 1972, Congress passed FACA in response to a concern that federal advisory committees were proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or accountability. FACA states that Congress intended that the number of advisory committees be kept to the minimum necessary, and that the advisory committees operate under uniform standards and procedures in the full view of Congress and the public.

Although Congress recognized the value of advisory committees to public policymaking, it included in FACA measures intended to ensure that (1) valid needs exist for establishing and continuing advisory committees, (2) the committees are properly managed and their proceedings are as open as possible to the public, and (3) Congress is kept informed of the committees’ activities. Congress ensured through FACA that the public had access to advisory committee information and activities, including charters, reports, and transcripts of committee meetings and other records. Under FACA, the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and agency heads are to control the number, operations, and costs of advisory committees.

To help accomplish these objectives, FACA directed that a Committee Management Secretariat be established in OMB to be responsible for all matters relating to advisory committee administration. In 1977, the President transferred advisory committee functions from OMB to GSA. The President also delegated to GSA all of the functions vested in the President by FACA, except that the annual report to Congress required by section 6(c) of the act was to be prepared by GSA for the President’s consideration and transmittal to Congress. To fulfill its responsibilities, GSA has developed regulations and other guidance to assist agencies in implementing FACA, has provided training to agency officials, and was instrumental in creating and has collaborated with the Interagency Committee on Federal Advisory Committee Management. GSA is also in the process of linking an internet-based reporting system with its internal database that is used to track committee transactions.

FACA requires that each agency head designate an advisory committee management officer to help manage the committees, and that designated federal officials shall be responsible for the individual committees. According to FACA, a committee’s designated federal official must approve or call a committee meeting, approve the agenda, and chair or attend each meeting.

In February 1993, the President issued Executive Order 12838, which directed agencies to reduce by at least one-third, the number of discretionary advisory committees by the end of fiscal year 1993. Discretionary committees are those created under agency authority or authorized by Congress. OMB, in providing guidance to agencies on the executive order, established a maximum ceiling number of discretionary advisory committees for each agency and a monitoring plan. Under the guidance, agencies were to annually submit committee management plans to OMB and GSA. These plans were to include performance measures that were to be used to evaluate each committee’s goals or mission, information on new committees planned for the upcoming year, actions taken to maintain reduced committee levels, and the results of a status review of nondiscretionary committees, which are committees mandated by Congress or established by the President. OMB approval was required before the creation of new discretionary committees. Later, in 1995, OMB dropped the requirement for prior approval of new committees, as long as an agency was beneath its approved ceiling.

Since fiscal year 1988, the number of federal advisory committees has declined. There were 1,020 advisory committees in fiscal year 1988. The number of advisory committees grew to 1,305 in fiscal year 1993 and then declined over the next several years to 963 committees in fiscal year 1997.

This decrease occurred after the President’s February 1993 executive order to reduce the number of advisory committees.

Advisory committees are made up of individuals, not organizations, and a total of 36,586 individuals served as members of the 963 committees in fiscal year 1997. Members of the 1,020 committees in fiscal year 1988 numbered 21,236 individuals. From fiscal years 1988 to 1997, the number of individuals serving on advisory committees had generally increased. Advisory committees incur costs to operate, and GSA reported that the cost to operate the 963 committees in fiscal year 1997 was about $178 million. However, the cost to operate the 1,020 committees in fiscal year 1988 was about $93 million. The costs incurred over the 9-year period were on a steady increase through fiscal year 1992, after which they began to increase only sporadically. In constant 1988 dollars, the costs to operate advisory committees went from about $93 million in fiscal year 1988 to about $136 million in fiscal year 1997.

On average, between fiscal years 1988 and 1997, the number of members per advisory committee increased from about 21 to 38, and the cost per advisory committee increased from $90,816 to $184,868. In constant 1988 dollars, the average costs per advisory committee increased from $90,816 to $140,870 over the same period. Appendix I contains statistics on the number of federal advisory committees and their (unadjusted) costs and membership from fiscal years 1988 through 1997.

In 1988, we reported that GSA had focused its oversight responsibilities under FACA on preparing the President’s annual reports to Congress and issuing guidance to agencies. We found that GSA had not appropriately ensured that (1) advisory committees were properly established, (2) committees were reviewed annually, (3) annual reports were submitted to the President before they were due to Congress, and (4) follow-up reports on presidential advisory committees’ recommendations were prepared for Congress. At that time, GSA attributed these shortcomings to insufficient staff and management inattention.

The Secretariat is under the GSA Associate Administrator for Governmentwide Policy. For fiscal year 1997, the Secretariat had eight employees and a budget of $645,000 ($491,490 in constant 1988 dollars). It had five employees in September 1988 and a budget of $220,000 for fiscal year 1988.

Scope and Methodology

To determine whether GSA had ensured that federal advisory committees were established with complete charters and justification letters, we obtained from GSA advisory committee charters and justification letters that agencies had submitted from October 1, 1996, through July 21, 1997. The charters were for 203 committees, and the justification letters were for 107 of the 203 committees. GSA regulations require justification letters for discretionary committees (107 of the 203 committees) but not for nondiscretionary committees (96 of the 203 committees). We reviewed the charters and letters to determine whether each contained the items of information (e.g., the committee’s objectives and why the committee is essential to the agency) required by FACA and GSA regulations. If an item of information was missing from the charter or letter, we reviewed information in the applicable GSA file to ascertain whether the file documented that GSA acted to obtain the missing item.

To determine whether GSA had comprehensively reviewed each advisory committee annually, we first requested from GSA the annual report for each of the 1,000 advisory committees that existed in fiscal year 1996. In total, we reviewed the annual reports for 978 advisory committees; the reports for 22 committees were missing from GSA’s files. According to GSA regulations, the Committee Management Secretariat is to make its annual review of each committee by using the committee’s annual report. We read the reports to see if they contained the information that GSA regulations prescribe. We then discussed with Secretariat officials how they used information from the reports to make comprehensive reviews.

To determine whether GSA had submitted annual reports on advisory committees to the President in a timely manner, we examined documentation regarding when GSA had submitted annual reports to the President for fiscal years 1988 through 1996. We compared the dates on the letters GSA used to transmit the reports to the President with the date that FACA requires the President to report to Congress, which is December 31, or 3 months after the end of a fiscal year.

To determine whether GSA had ensured that follow-up reports to Congress were prepared on recommendations by presidential advisory committees, we contacted agencies’ committee management officers to ascertain whether they knew of the follow-up requirement and whether the follow-up reports were submitted to Congress. According to GSA regulations, agencies are to prepare the reports and submit them to Congress, but GSA is to ensure that it is done. We discussed GSA’s role with Secretariat officials and contacted committee management officers for the 17 cases that were identified in the President’s annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 as requiring follow-up reports. These officers were employees of the 9 agencies that were accountable for the 17 cases.

In general, to identify and understand GSA’s oversight responsibilities, we interviewed Secretariat officials and reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and GSA guidance to agencies regarding advisory committee activities. We did not assess the extent to which GSA provided the agencies with guidance on advisory committee activities beyond the guidance for establishing advisory committees, the comprehensive annual reviews, and the follow-up reports on presidential advisory committees. Also, we did not assess OMB’s role in dealing with advisory committees beyond reviewing its guidance to agencies for implementing Executive Order 12838.

We did our work in Washington, D.C., between June 1997 and April 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. After we completed our work, the Secretariat provided a summary table of advisory committee data for the entire 1997 fiscal year. These data are to be included in the President’s annual advisory committee report for fiscal year 1997, and they were incorporated in this report for comparison to previous years.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Administrator of GSA and the Director of OMB or their designees. Written comments provided by GSA are discussed near the end of this letter and are reproduced in appendix II. An OMB official responsible for federal advisory committee matters provided oral comments on May 13, 1998, which are discussed near the end of this letter.

GSA Did Not Ensure That Advisory Committees Were Established With Complete Charters and Justification Letters

FACA and GSA regulations require that agencies consult with GSA before establishing advisory committees. As part of this consultation, FACA requires agencies to submit charters for all committees, and GSA regulations require them to also submit justification letters for discretionary advisory committees. These documents must contain specific information. FACA outlines that agencies are to include 10 specific items in the charter, including the committee’s objectives and scope of activities, the time period necessary to carry out its purpose, and the estimated annual staff years and cost. GSA regulations state that agencies must address three items in the justification letter: why the committee is essential to conduct the agency’s business, why the committee’s functions cannot be performed by the agency or other means, and how the agency plans to attain balanced membership.

GSA’s role is to review agency proposals to establish advisory committees and determine whether FACA requirements and those imposed by regulation are met. The regulations say that GSA is to review the proposals and notify the agency of its views within 15 days, if possible. However, GSA does not have the authority to stop the formation of an advisory committee. Nor does it have the authority to terminate an existing committee. GSA can only recommend to the President, Congress, or an agency head that an advisory committee not be formed or that an existing committee not be continued.

In our review of the 203 charters and 107 justification letters submitted to GSA from October 1, 1996, through July 21, 1997, we found that 36 percent of the charters and 38 percent of the letters were missing at least one item that was required by FACA or GSA regulations. Seventy-four charters were missing a total of 85 items, such as stating the period of time necessary for the committee to carry out its purpose and estimating annual operating costs and staff years. For the justification letters, 41 were missing a total of 88 items, such as a description of the agency’s plan to attain balanced membership. Appendix III shows the number of specific items that we found missing in the charters and justification letters. We found minimal evidence in GSA’s files to indicate that GSA raised questions about these missing items. GSA completed its reviews of the charters and notified the agencies, generally by letter, of its views within an average of 5 days and positively concurred in establishing the 203 advisory committees.

Secretariat officials told us that, while they concurred with the need for the 203 committees, the agencies were responsible for ensuring that the charters and justification letters were properly done. These officials said that most charters and letters were done well and met the spirit of FACA. They also said that the problems that did exist relating to incomplete or inadequate charters and letters may have occurred due to review oversight by Secretariat analysts. The officials believed that some of the missing items of information were more significant than others. For example, they believed that missing information pertaining to estimated annual operating costs and staff years and a description of the agency’s plan to attain a fairly balanced membership were more significant than information on the agency or official to whom the committee reports and the time necessary for the committee to carry out its purpose. Nevertheless, the officials recognized that all of the required information should be in the charter and justification letters. They also said that they plan to provide the analysts with tools to better enable them to make comprehensive reviews.

Advisory Committees Were Not Comprehensively Reviewed Annually

FACA requires GSA to make an annual comprehensive review of each advisory committee to determine whether it is carrying out its purpose, whether its responsibilities should be revised, and whether it should be abolished or merged with another committee. After completing the reviews, GSA is required to recommend to the President and to the agency head or Congress any actions GSA deems should be taken.

GSA regulations require that agencies prepare an annual report for each committee, including the agencies’ recommendations for continuing, merging, or terminating committees. For continuing committees, the annual reports are to describe such things as how the committee accomplishes its purpose; the frequency (or lack) of meetings and the reason for continuing the committee; and why it was necessary to have closed committee meetings, if such meetings were held. The annual reports also are to include the committee’s costs.

GSA’s regulations call for it to use the data it receives in the agencies’ annual reports, including the agencies’ recommendations to continue or terminate the committees, in conducting the comprehensive annual review. However, GSA did not use the data provided by the agencies to assess on its own whether committees were carrying out their purposes, whether their responsibilities should be revised, or whether the committees remain necessary.

We reviewed 978 advisory committees’ annual reports that were submitted to GSA by the agencies for fiscal year 1996. We were unable to review another 22 reports that GSA reported receiving because they were missing from GSA’s files. For those annual reports that we reviewed, agencies generally reported the required information, with the exception of explaining why some continuing committees did not meet during the year.

According to data GSA obtained from the annual reports, 212 advisory committees (about 21 percent of the total number of 1,000 committees) did not meet during fiscal year 1996. Agencies did not have to explain why no meetings were held for the 113 new and terminated committees in 1996. However, agencies were required to explain why the remaining 99 continuing committees did not meet. In our review of the 99 committees’ annual reports, we found that 47 gave reasons why the committees had not met, including reasons such as the committees’ having no agenda items to consider, lacking funding, and having delays in appointing members. Fifty-two annual reports did not explain why the committees had not met or why they should continue. We found no evidence that GSA had requested follow-up information on why the committees had not met or why the agencies believed that the committees should continue.

Secretariat officials told us that they do not verify the agencies’ data, and that they accept the data without further review, including the agencies’ recommendations to continue, merge, or terminate committees. The officials said they could not undertake reviews on their own because they do not have the expertise or program knowledge to determine which committees should be continued or terminated. Regardless of whether this is the case, we believe that it is incumbent upon Secretariat officials to follow up with agencies to determine why committees have not met before accepting agencies’ recommendations that the committees be continued.

Secretariat officials also told us that they have held discussions with congressional staff about the possibility of reducing the number of committees mandated by Congress that may no longer be warranted. Such committee terminations would require legislation. Although we did not evaluate this issue as a part of this review, we believe it illustrates the benefits to GSA of following up with agencies when they do not report why committees did not meet or why the agencies believed the committees should continue. For example, of the 52 committees that did not explain why they did not meet in fiscal year 1996, 25 were mandated by Congress. By delving into the specifics of why no meetings were held, GSA might develop information to assist Congress in determining the potential for terminating some congressionally mandated committees by clarifying reasons to continue them. We recognize that there are legitimate reasons why committees may not meet in any given year.

Annual Reports Were Not Submitted to the President in a Timely Manner

The President is required to report annually to Congress on the activities, status, and changes in the composition of advisory committees. The annual reports are due to Congress by December 31 for each preceding fiscal year. GSA prepares the annual reports for the President on the basis of information provided in agencies’ annual advisory committee reports.

GSA did not submit most of its annual reports to the President in time for him to meet the December 31 reporting date to Congress. For seven of the last nine annual reports, covering fiscal years 1988 through 1996, GSA transmitted the reports to the President after they were due to Congress. In the last 4 years, one report was delivered to the President 5 days before the due date to Congress; three reports were delivered, on average, about 3 months after the due date.

As of April 27, 1998, GSA had not submitted the fiscal year 1997 report to the President. According to Secretariat officials, the December 31 reporting date to Congress is unattainable because, among other things, agencies have other end of fiscal year reporting requirements, in addition to the advisory committee reports. Secretariat officials also told us that they plan to ask Congress for a later reporting date. We did not examine the reasonableness of the December 31 reporting date.

GSA Did Not Ensure That Follow-Up Reports to Congress on Presidential Committee Recommendations Were Prepared

FACA requires the President, or his delegate, to report to Congress within 1 year on his proposals for action or reasons for inaction on recommendations made by a presidential advisory committee. According to FACA’s legislative history, these follow-up reports are intended to justify the investments in the advisory committees, provide accountability to the public and Congress, and require the President to state his response to the advisory committees’ recommendations.

According to GSA regulations, the agency providing support to the advisory committee is responsible for preparing and transmitting the follow-up report to Congress. However, the regulations also state that the Secretariat (1) is responsible for ensuring that the follow-up reports are prepared by the agency supporting the presidential committee and (2) may solicit OMB and other appropriate organizations to help, if needed, to obtain agencies’ compliance.

GSA identified 17 presidential advisory committee reports in the President’s annual reports for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 that required follow-up reports. We contacted the nine agencies that were responsible for the follow-up reports to determine whether the reports were prepared within the year and delivered to Congress. According to agency officials, follow-up reports were not required in 4 of the 17 cases because the advisory committees were erroneously listed as having issued a report with recommendations to the President. Follow-up reports were required in the remaining 13 cases but, according to agency officials, none were transmitted to Congress. These presidential advisory committees included, for example, the Glass Ceiling Commission, the President’s Cancer Panel, and the Federal Council on the Aging. Six of the nine committee management officers told us that they were unaware of the reporting requirement. Secretariat officials said that agencies are responsible for preparing and delivering the follow-up reports to Congress; therefore, they had not contacted the nine agencies to see whether the reports were prepared and delivered.

Conclusions

Although it has no authority to stop a federal advisory committee from being formed or to terminate an existing committee, GSA is obligated to ensure that its FACA responsibilities are fulfilled completely and in a timely manner. These responsibilities are not insignificant. Congress imposed them to help ensure that federal advisory committees are needed, that the committees are properly managed, and that Congress is kept informed of the committees’ activities in a timely manner. Although we recognize that GSA believes it does not have the expertise or program knowledge to determine whether federal advisory committees are needed, it has the authority to ask agencies to provide justification for their recommendations. For example, GSA could follow up with agencies to determine why committees have not met before accepting agencies’ recommendations that the committees be continued.

The Committee Management Secretariat intends to ask Congress to move to a later date the reporting deadline for the President’s annual report to Congress on the activities of federal advisory committees. The Secretariat’s view and proposed action do not relieve it of its responsibilities under FACA, and the Secretariat has not fulfilled those responsibilities.

Recommendation

We recommend that the Administrator of GSA direct the Committee Management Secretariat to fully carry out the responsibilities assigned to it by FACA in a timely and accurate manner. In particular, the Secretariat should (1) consult with the agencies to ensure that the charters and justification letters for federal advisory committees contain the information required by law or regulation, (2) follow up with agencies when their annual reports contain information that raises questions about whether committees should be continued, and (3) ensure that agencies file the required follow-up reports to Congress on presidential advisory committee recommendations. The Secretariat should also make the necessary arrangements with agencies to submit its annual report to the President on time or follow through with its intention to ask Congress to move the reporting date.

GSA and OMB Comments and Our Evaluation

GSA and OMB provided comments on a draft of this report. In an April 27, 1998, letter (see app. II), the GSA Administrator said the Associate GSA Administrator for Governmentwide Policy will ensure that the Committee Management Secretariat takes immediate and appropriate action to implement our recommendation. The Administrator also said GSA will continue to improve its oversight of advisory committees by (1) proposing amendments to FACA to address some of the issues addressed by our report; (2) proposing new governmentwide regulations relating to FACA in June 1998; and (3) finalizing its new internet-based reporting system by the end of fiscal year 1998, which will allow agencies to electronically transmit data to GSA.

On May 13, 1998, an OMB official responsible for advisory committee matters said that we had conducted a thorough review of GSA’s oversight responsibilities in meeting FACA’s procedural requirements, and that GSA appeared to have undertaken some corrective actions that will address many of our concerns and had scheduled other corrective actions during 1998. The OMB official said they would work with GSA to ensure the success of the GSA efforts.

The GSA Administrator and the OMB official made additional comments, which we address here and as appropriate in appendix II for GSA.

In general comments, GSA said that the draft report had not fully examined the extent to which GSA’s actions have achieved FACA’s principal stated outcomes of accountability for committee accomplishments and public access to committee deliberations and products. In addition, GSA said it has sought through its actions to strengthen the ability of other responsible officials at the agency level to perform more adequately their required FACA responsibilities.

We recognize that GSA plays a broad role in overseeing advisory committee activities and are aware of its past initiatives, such as the creation of the interagency committee on FACA; the governmentwide training program for agency personnel who manage advisory committees; and the reduction of discretionary advisory committees under Executive Order 12838, which we mentioned in this report. But GSA also has a narrower, more focused role of carrying out its specific responsibilities that FACA and GSA regulations require. This latter role was the focus of this report. Nevertheless, we have cited some of GSA’s other activities in the text of this report.

GSA also said that it is in the process of linking its new internet-based reporting system with an internal FACA database that it uses to track committees. By capturing data electronically, GSA expects that gaps in required data will be identified more easily and corrected contemporaneously. We believe such a system, if successful, should enable GSA to better ensure that its analysts have the full range of required information available to them as they perform GSA’s required FACA oversight responsibilities.

GSA and OMB took exception to our finding that advisory committees were not comprehensively reviewed by GSA. GSA and OMB stated that advisory committees are reviewed annually by GSA through (1) the annual reporting process used by the agencies to certify the need for specific committees (which are the advisory committee annual reports) and (2) the annual process developed to implement Executive Order 12838 and OMB Circular A-135, which require the committee management plans.

Under FACA, GSA has the responsibility to judge whether there is a convincing case for continuing a committee and cannot delegate this responsibility to the agencies under current law. The advisory committee annual reports were the basis for our analysis and conclusion that GSA was not independently assessing whether the committees should be continued or terminated. The committee management plans are used primarily to ensure that the number of discretionary advisory committees within the agencies does not exceed the ceiling established under Executive Order 12838 and to focus on the need for new, not existing, committees. A discussion of what should be included in the plans can be found in the Background section of this report. The management plans that we reviewed did not contain all of the information that would be needed for GSA to determine or question the continuing need for committees. For example, an explanation of why a committee had not met during the year is not required to be included in the management plan. Thus, we have not changed our conclusion.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; the Ranking Minority Member, House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and other interested congressional committees; the Administrator, GSA; the Director, OMB; and other interested parties. We will also make the report available to others on request.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. If you have any questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8676.

Federal Advisory Committee Statistics During Fiscal Years 1988-97

Total costs(millions)

Comments From the General Services Administration

The following are GAO’s comments on GSA’s April 27, 1998, letter.

GAO Comments

1. Although agreeing that not every committee charter and justification letter that we reviewed included all of the required information, GSA suggested that the 36-percent error rate in the charters and the 38-percent error rate in the justification letters were misleading. Regarding committee charters, GSA said that a fairer assessment of GSA’s and agencies’ compliance with FACA would be to determine the error rate on the basis of the number of data items found not to be in compliance (85) divided by the total number of data items in the 203 charters we reviewed (2,030). This calculation provides an error rate of 4.2 percent. We do not believe that this would be a meaningful analysis because the charters or justification letters are the unit of analysis. That is, FACA and GSA regulations require each charter or justification letter to include a full set of specific data so that GSA analysts and others can properly and fully assess whether the committee is needed and whether it meets the FACA requirements for public participation and disclosure.

GSA said that among the 85 missing items in the charters that we identified, 33 related to the period of time necessary for a committee to carry out its purpose. GSA said that 95 percent of all charters submitted to GSA for review are for advisory committees that are of a continuing nature, and that a default presumption of 2 years (based upon the sunset provision of FACA) is applied. GSA suggested that the default presumption mooted the absence of a stated period in the charters. It said that removal of these 33 data items from the 85 found to be in error would result in an overall error rate of 2.6 percent.

We cannot ignore these 33 data items in an analysis of compliance with FACA requirements. Congress specifically required that charters include the time necessary for a committee to carry out its purpose, just as it required that charters include the committee’s termination date if it is less than 2 years after the committee is established. We believe that Congress included these two items, as well as the other eight items, in the charters to help keep Congress and the public informed about committee activities. Further, it seems to us that a benefit of including such information in the charters is to help agencies focus in the beginning of the process on the amount of time the committees should be taking to accomplish their purposes. 2. GSA suggested that two of the items required in the justification letter—explanations of why a committee is essential and why a committee’s function cannot be performed by other means—are contained in the two other submissions by the agencies. GSA said it is in the process of revising its regulations to eliminate redundant information and certifications among the advisory committee annual reports, consultation letters (which are the justification letters), and annual committee management plans, which are required by OMB and GSA to implement Executive Order 12838 and OMB Circular A-135. GSA suggested that as long as an item of information is contained in one of the required documents, it need not be in the others. It said that if these data items were removed from our analysis, the error rate, on the basis of the number of data elements found to be in error divided by the total number of data elements, would be 10.6 percent.

As previously stated, we do not believe that this would be a meaningful analysis because it is the justification letters that should be the unit of analysis and not the individual data elements. Further, the two items in the justification letter to which GSA referred are only required to be in the justification letter and, therefore, agencies might not include them in the other two reports. For example, the two items do not need to be included in the advisory committee annual reports if the committee is new—during fiscal year 1996, there were 52 new committees. Additionally, only the justification letters are submitted when the committees are established; the other two reports are submitted on an annual basis that does not necessarily coincide with the justification letter submissions by the agencies. It would also appear to be more efficient for GSA analysts reviewing the charters to be able to rely on the justification letters for all needed information, rather than having to retrieve other documents that may or may not include relevant information. 3. We deleted the section in the draft report that is referred to in these comments. GSA has corrected the underreporting of advisory committee members and costs, which we brought to their attention during the course of our work. The underreporting was also acknowledged by GSA at the November 5, 1997, hearing on FACA before the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology.

Occurrence of Required Items Missing in Charters and Justification Letters Submitted to GSA From October 1, 1996, to July 21, 1997

Items missing from 41 of 107 justification letters for discretionary committees

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government Division, Washington, D.C.

Office of the General Counsel

Jill P. Sayre, Attorney The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.