not ‘employee[s] of the [Federal] government.’ ” Id. at 816, 96 S.Ct. at 1977. Citing the relevant legislative history, the Court emphasized that “Congress intended not to create new federal agencies but rather ‘the strengthening of community capabilities’ ” for dealing with poverty. Id. at 817, 96 S.Ct. at 1977. The broad language and underlying rationale of Orleans foreclose any argument that community action agencies are “authorities of the Government of the United States” subject to the APA’s procedural requirements or that the agencies’ employees are “officers or employees of the United States” subject to mandamus. Cf. Forsham v. Califano, 190 U.S.App.D.C. 231, 238, 587 F.2d 1128, 1135 (D.C.Cir.1978), cert. granted, 441 U.S. 942, 99 S.Ct. 2159, 60 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1979) (No. 78-1118) (<HOLDING>). Because Orleans forecloses the federal-agency
holding under orleans that a federally funded private medical research organization is not an agency for purposes of the freedom of information act holding that a motion picture film is a record for purposes of the freedom of information act 5 usc  552 1976 recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act holding that refusal to disclose records under faca constituted sufficient injury to bestow standing similar to when an agency denies requests for information under the freedom of information act recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act