NGISC was established pursuant to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act (NGISC Act). The act requires NGISC to conduct a comprehensive legal and factual study of the social and economic impacts of gambling in the United States and report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the President, Congress, state governors, and Native American tribal governments. The report is due no later than June 20, 1999, 2 years after the date of NGISC’s first meeting. This study is to include, at a minimum, the following elements: a review of existing federal, state, local, and Native American tribal government policies and practices with respect to the legalization or prohibition of gambling, including a review of the costs of such policies and practices; an assessment of the relationship between gambling and levels of crime, and of existing enforcement and regulatory practices that are intended to address any such relationship; an assessment of pathological or problem gambling, including its impact on individuals, families, businesses, social institutions, and the economy; an assessment of the impacts of gambling on individuals, families, businesses, social institutions, and the economy in general, including the role of advertising in promoting gambling and the impact of gambling on depressed economic areas; an assessment of the extent to which gambling provides revenues to state, local, and Native American tribal governments, and the extent to which possible alternative revenue sources may exist for such governments; and an assessment of the interstate and international effects of gambling by electronic means, including the use of interactive technologies and the Internet. NGISC is to be terminated 60 days after it submits its final report, which is due in June 1999. NGISC is a nine-member commission with three members (or commissioners) appointed by the President, three by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and three by the Majority Leader of the Senate. The act provides for the appointing officials to jointly designate one commissioner to serve as the Chair. The Chair has the authority to call NGISC meetings, hire the personnel necessary for NGISC to perform its duties, and procure temporary and intermittent services to assist NGISC in its work. The commissioner selected to serve as Chair is the Dean of Regent University’s Robertson School of Government. NGISC’s enabling legislation directed that NGISC contract with the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and NAS-NRC for some of its research. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations contract was to include a thorough review and cataloging of all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances that pertain to gambling in the United States. The NAS-NRC contract was to include an assessment of pathological or problem gambling, including its impact on individuals, families, businesses, social institutions, and the economy. The legislation that established NGISC does not specify the branch of government in which NGISC is located. In our view, NGISC is a legislative branch entity. As explained in an August 13, 1997, letter from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to NGISC, NGISC is a legislative branch entity because (1) six of the nine members are appointed by the congressional leadership, (2) congressional leadership has the majority role in choosing the Chair of the Commission, and (3) only information gathering and advisory functions are performed by NGISC.Because NGISC is a legislative branch entity, General Services Administration (GSA) found NGISC to be exempt from the procurement and personnel laws that apply to executive branch agencies. GSA also concluded that FACA applies to NGISC. NGISC’s enabling legislation specifies that the Chair may, without regard to civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and other personnel necessary for NGISC to perform its duties. In 1997, legislation was passed to clarify that NGISC members and personnel are considered to be federal employees under the Federal Tort Claims Act and would not incur personal liability while acting within the scope of their employment at NGISC. In response to a request from GSA, on January 26, 1999, the Department of Justice’s OLC issued an opinion concluding that NGISC is not subject to 18 U.S.C. 208, a criminal conflict of interest statute. To address the objectives of this report, we interviewed GSA officials, NGISC employees, NGISC’s Chair and two of her staff from Regent University, located in Virginia Beach, VA, and an official from NAS-NRC. We reviewed necessary documentation, including NGISC travel vouchers, time and attendance records, and contract files. We also reviewed the applicability of laws pertaining to NGISC. We conducted our review in Washington, D.C., and Virginia Beach, VA, from October 1998 through February 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments on a draft of this report from NGISC’s Chair and the Administrator of GSA. Their comments are summarized near the end of this letter and are included in appendix III. Appendix I provides further details about our scope and methodology. Is NGISC subject to FACA and, if so, did it follow FACA with respect to three specific meetings? FACA establishes requirements pertaining to the creation, operation, duration, and review of covered advisory committees. For example, the act requires advisory committees to file charters, publish notice of their meetings, open their meetings to the public, and make their minutes and other committee records publicly available. Whether a particular group is subject to FACA’s requirements depends on whether it is an advisory committee to the President or a federal agency. GSA concluded that NGISC is an advisory committee to the President and is therefore subject to FACA. NGISC’s outside counsel reached a contrary conclusion primarily based on the view that NGISC was not established to advise the President, but rather to study the impact of gambling to advise the Congress and state and tribal governments. For the reasons explained in appendix II and summarized below, we believe that NGISC is an advisory committee under FACA. FACA’s definition of an advisory committee is broadly worded and includes, in relevant part, any commission that is established by statute, the President, or an agency “in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government.” FACA section 3(2), 5 U.S.C. app. 2. The definition does not cover committees that are established solely to advise the Congress. However, a committee can be established in the interest of advising the President or the executive branch, and thus subject to FACA, even though part of the purpose of the committee is to report to the Congress. As recognized by the courts and OLC, the starting point for determining whether a commission was established in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or an executive agency is the text of the commission’s authorizing legislation. In this case, the text of the NGISC Act clearly identifies the President as a recipient of NGISC’s advice and recommendations. Specifically, section 4(b) of the NGISC Act provides that NGISC “shall submit to the President, the Congress, State Governors, and Native American tribal governments a comprehensive report of the Commission’s findings and conclusions, together with any recommendations of the Commission.” In support of its position that FACA does not apply to NGISC, NGISC’s outside counsel relied on OLC’s opinion in Applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act to the Native Hawaiians Study Commission (“Native Hawaiians”), 6 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 39, 1982. In Native Hawaiians, OLC concluded that the Native Hawaiians Study Commission was not an advisory committee to the President because, even though the Commission was required to provide the President as well as the Congress with a copy of its final report, the Commission’s recommendations were to be provided only to the Congress. Further, the legislative history of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission’s authorizing legislation established that it was created to provide advice and recommendations to the Congress and not to the President. Unlike the statutory provisions addressed in Native Hawaiians, the NGISC Act does not draw a distinction between the types of work results to be provided to the Congress and the President (i.e., a copy of the report with and without recommendations). Rather, as discussed above, the NGISC Act places the President, the Congress, and the other listed recipients of the Commission’s work on an equal footing by requiring NGISC to provide each recipient with (1) a report on its findings and conclusions and (2) any recommendations it has developed. Further, there is nothing in the legislative history of the NGISC Act to suggest that the Congress viewed NGISC’s work as being directed to the Congress rather than to the President or that it otherwise intended for FACA not to apply to NGISC. The only specific reference to FACA was made during the Senate’s consideration of H.R. 497, the bill that eventually was enacted as the NGISC Act, and this statement was to the effect that FACA was intended to apply to NGISC. Accordingly, we conclude that NGISC is an advisory committee subject to FACA. While the NGISC’s outside counsel ultimately concluded that FACA does not apply to NGISC, NGISC has taken steps to comply with FACA’s requirements. For example, before its first meeting, NGISC filed a charter with GSA. NGISC designated an official (the current Executive Director) to serve as NGISC’s Designated Federal Officer; under FACA this official, among other things, is responsible for approving and attending committee meetings. NGISC’s operating rules, adopted in October 1997, state that, “in general, will conduct its activities in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) . . .