Page images
PDF
EPUB

The General Auditing Office and the Auditor General shall exercise no functions other than those vested in and imposed upon them by this act, and nothing contained in this act shall be construed as authorizing the General Auditing Office or the Auditor General to revise settlements of public accounts made by the Secretary of the Treasury, or to direct the manner in which the Secretary of the Treasury or the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall exercise the functions vested in and imposed upon them by this act.

Mr. GULICK. If this act as it stands does not do what I said, then it is not in conformity with the recommendation of the committee at that point.

Senator BYRD. Could you furnish us a memorandum to show specifically where the Auditor General would have the right to report on the legality of the different expenditures? It is not in here, as I see it. In fact, he is specifically restrained from doing anything except what is in this act.

Mr. GULICK. As we explained yesterday, that draft of an act was never drawn up for submission to the committee here; it was drawn up as a working paper in the President's committee to see how the thing might be arranged, and primarily to test out the possibility of a statement in constitutional terms of the power of the Executive to shift and organize. That is the question that the chairman just now cleared up for us.

It was suggested yesterday that the President's committee take this material which came before us as a possible foundation for the draft of an act, and we plan to sit down with Colonel Wren, if he can be put at our disposal, and work out a more satisfactory statement answering these questions which have been raised by his memorandum and by various comments of the committee.

I can assure you the task of the Auditor General is to be the examination of the legality, the accuracy of the accounts, and the report to the Congress and the public on those items, and also to report with reference to any items where he feels there had been bad management in the Government.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, there has been specifically stated a number of times that the present administration of the Comptroller General's office has interfered greatly with the administration of the departments. I want to offer a resolution that the President's committee be requested to give specific instances of the alleged interference with the administrative functions of the several departments. of Government by the Comptroller General's office. I think the committee is entitled to that.

Representative TABER. Why don't you ask the question of the wit

ness?

Senator BYRD. I asked the question of the witness yesterday.
Representative TABER. Ask him to submit it to the board.

Senator BARKLEY. I know myself a number of cases where, in the operation of the P. W. A., the work had been delayed considerably by the Comptroller General holding up his approval.

Senator BYRNES. On that question I think I shall make a statement, because I stated yesterday, when the subject was discussed, I would, in addition to the one matter about the payment of the ginI referred to the statement that several years ago I had been advised about the examination of titles first in the Department of Agriculture, then by the Department of Justice, then by the Comp

ners.

troller General. I inquired since that time as to what is the practice at this time. I am advised it is not followed now; that when the Mount Vernon Highway was built the Comptroller General insisted that before vouchers were cleared that he should approve the title, and the Department of Agriculture took the position that the law, in section 355 of the Revised Statutes, specifically provided that no land should be purchased until approved by the Attorney General and a certificate in writing be forwarded to the Treasury, and that the Department of Agriculture refused to submit the abstracts for the approval, insisted on being paid, and that being held up for a while the compromised by saying that the Comptroller General could come to the solicitor's office of the Department of Agriculture and investigate the abstract, and as the result of it there was no investigation.

But since that time, or immediately after that, the vouchers were cleared, and they have been paid. So at this time the practice is not followed of the Comptroller General insisting upon examining titles, but he has become satisfied that it can be done under the statute by approval in writing of the Department of Justice.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Do you know whether the Comptroller is examining titles under the resettlement submarginal land purchases? Senator BYRNES. I will relate this from my personal experience in the question of titles, that in the purchase of lands they were held up by the Comptroller. I do not know whether it was for the examination of titles. He said we did not have any right to buy land under the law for quite a while, but later he approved the purchase of land under the Resettlement Administration. I do not think it was a question of title; it was just a question of having authority to do it. Senator BARKLEY. Heretofore in many cases the Comptroller General has refused to accept the legal opinion of the Department of Justice with respect to matters coming under his jurisdiction. The Attorney General is made the law officer of the Government. The President can ask him for his opinion about matters. It seems to me that it would work for confusion for the Attorney General to set himself up independently, whether he happens to be a lawyer or not, and to scorn the opinions of the Attorney General with respect to matters that are under the Comptroller General's jurisdiction. What do you do to clear up that situation? If the President desires the legal advice of his legal adviser, who is the Attorney General, on matters pending before the Comptroller General, or Auditor General, what do you do about that?

Mr. GÜLICK. We provide that the Attorney General will be the law officer in the case of a difference of opinion that is to be settled, and that would govern the actual carrying out of the work. You do not require the independent auditor to accept that decision if he disagrees with it. He may agree with the decision or he may disagree; and if he disagrees with it, then he reports to the Congress that he does not agree with the opinion which has been rendered by the Attorney General.

Senator BARKLEY. What happens if Congress is not in session, or if it is in session and takes no action?

Mr. GULICK. If it takes no action, then it stands.

Senator BARKLEY. You mean the Auditor General's opinion?
Mr. GULICK. The Attorney General's opinion stands.

Senator BARKLEY. Upon what theory do you feel that an Auditor General, who may not be a lawyer-he is not required to be oneshould supersede the Attorney General in the legal opinions as to the power of a certain department to do a thing?

Mr. GULICK. In the plan which we propose he does not supersede the Attorney General in determining the power of a department to proceed. We think that he should not.

Senator BARKLEY. Well, he reports to Congress a disagreement.

Mr. GULICK. Yes; but under the plan that we propose, Senator, the Auditor General will have no power to hold up the work of the Department. He reports his disagreement and raises the thing with the congressional committee so it can be aired with the public.

Senator HARRISON. Under the law the Treasury Department cannot pay a claim, if there is a conflict in the payment of taxes, over $25,000, unless they submit it to the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation and our experts work with them. Then we hear all the facts, and so forth. If they raise the question, then they have got to go through the courts to settle the proposition. Is that still your idea?

Mr. GULICK. Precisely.

Senator BYRNES. Under the existing plan, do the departments have litigation with the Comptroller General?

Mr. GULICK. Yes, sir.

Senator BYRNES. Are there many cases?

Mr. GULICK. I do not know just how many, but there have been quite a few, certainly considerably in excess of 100. Not between the departments and the Comptroller General; I mean claimants who complained of the action of the Department.

Senator BYRNES. Will you put into the record whether the Comptroller General has ever been sustained by the courts?

Mr. GULICK. Yes.

Senator BYRNES. Either the Court of Claims or the United States Supreme Court?

Mr. GULICK. Yes.

Senator BYRNES. In any case where there was an action between the Department and the Comptroller General?

Mr. GULICK. I am not sure about an action between the Department and the Comptroller, but in individual cases, where the private litigant brings into conflict the decision made by the Department and by the Comptroller General, there have been a great many cases of that sort, where the Government is really not a party to it; that is, the Department is not a party to it. I was recently told of a tabulation of 100 cases-there were 2 in which the Attorney General had been sustained.

Senator BYRNES. I asked that question of Mr. Brownlow following one of the hearings the other day, not having had the opportunity to ask him in the hearing-I intended to do it-and he said that there was a record of 104 cases in which the Comptroller General had been sued or had brought suits, and that of the 104 cases of record he lost 100 cases and won 4. Now, I presume that Mr. Brownlow had made an investigation of that. I am sure it was he that made that statement-no; it may be that it was the Director of the Budget. Let me leave that open as to who made the statement, and I will check up on it. I had in mind these questions and made inquiry about it. It

was either the Director of the Budget or Mr. Brownlow. Refreshing my memory, I think it may have been the Director of the Budget. I asked him how many cases of litigation had occurred, and he said there were 104 cases. I asked him then the question in how many cases the Comptroller General prevailed, and he said in 4; he lost 100 of the cases. I am pretty sure now it was Mr. Bell.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, could not we get an itemized list of those cases and put them into the record?

Representative GIFFORD. That might have been a lot of similar cases where the precedent was followed.

Senator BYRNES. It may have been. I have no information as to what the cases involved. I think it would be a very good thing, in an informative way, to have the information that Senator Byrd called for, and supplement that also with the request for a brief summary of the litigation. I am sure the Director of the Budget can supply that without a great deal of trouble.

Representative GIFFORD. Yes; I think the similarity of the decisions may imply that many of them were exactly alike.

Senator BYRNES. There may have been a number of claimants. Representative GIFFORD. On the same issue.

Senator BYRNES. Presenting the same issue.

Representative COCHRAN. Will your committee, or officials now in the Government service, make the recommendation to the President relative to this new set-up?

Mr. GULICK. We assume that that would be done as the result of the studies of the Efficiency and Research Division of the Budget itself.

Representative COCHRAN. You are going to leave it to them?

Mr. GULICK. Our committee is certainly through. It cannot be done by outsiders; it has got to be done by people who participate intimately in the examination and who have knowledge of all of the traditions of the agencies.

Representative COCHRAN. Do you think if your committee were kept in existence and you made those investigations, along with the Research Bureau, that you could offset any recommendations they might make against a regrouping or consolidation, say, on account of personnel interests?

Mr. GULICK. That is possible.

Representative COCHRAN. In approaching the reorganization question we certainly should bear in mind that we want to improve the efficiency and that we want to simplify procedure. I am sure you will agree that cannot be done without bringing about economies.

Mr. GULICK. Certainly. That is one of the main reasons-is to bring about economies.

Representative COCHRAN. Well, could you see any objection to there being a provision in the law that would provide where there is to be a reorganization or consolidation, or transfer, or retransfer, or regrouping, that there must also be a reduction in expenditures? Mr. GULICK. Well, I have never believed in general provisions of law that just said, "Now, you must save money." I think it has got to be translated into specific terms to be workable.

Representative COCHRAN. My thought is, the people of the country are not only interested in reorganizing the Government, improving the efficiency, and simplifying procedure, but there is always the

question of economy; and if we do not include in the bill something that will bring about economies, do you feel that we will get any? We can reorganize-I know it can be done-increase efficiency, and reduce expenditures at the same time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cochran, may I point out to you this consideration in that connection: This plan contemplates added functions to the Bureau of the Budget. It will make necessary, if it should be agreed to, an additional force in the Bureau of the Budget. It contemplates increasing expenditures in that particular. If economies are to be accomplished they are to be expected rather in the indirect result of the broader supervision, the exercise of the managerial service by the Bureau of the Budget, rather than in transferring it to any function that somebody else now performs.

Mr. GULICK. Senator, the other day, when I was discussing this with a group of business leaders in my section of the country, one of the directors of a corporation said: "Now, there is one point that you have missed in this statement, and this is the point that I, as a director of a big corporation and member of the board of directors of many corporations, feel very keenly, and that is the tremendous economy that will ensue in the time and effort of the citizen and corporations in dealing with the Government that is organized in a few departments. You know where to go and", as he said, "you will not get the run-around."

Senator BYRD. Is that true if you continue the same bureaus?

Mr. GULICK. I think so. The minute the bureau is transferred to a department, unless it is transferred to a semiautonomous state, where it has to stand by itself as an entity within that department, presumably it would be consolidated and worked in with the departments. Its law division would disappear in the law division of the department; its statistical division would disappear in the statistical division of the department; its other functions would similarly be divided up into the divisions.

Representative GIFFORD. I want to bring up one point, if I may. It may not be worthy of consideration, but, as Senator Harrison suggests, it would supposedly be left to the President to manipulateI do not like that word-after you build the framework, to hook one here and hook one there, as he may act upon the advice he may receive, but he is hooking up commissions and other organizations that we, the Congress, have created. In giving the President authority to carry out the will of the Congress, are we likely to go beyond the bounds of restraint here and become involved in some constitutional question as to somebody, or some department that may feel they have a constitutional right vested in them, and that we have clothed the President with too much power? I have heard it argued a great deal that the powers of the Executive should be carefully prescribed and limited by the Congress. I am wondering if there would be a question whether the limitations imposed upon the President by this act are sufficient? As you know, there have been cases where people's jobs have been abolished under color of a change. I would like to bring that up just as a thought.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I can answer the question implied in your proposition. As to executive matters, matters that are essentially executive, no rule of law is necessary to be imposed upon the Presi

« PreviousContinue »