Page images

(91) Section 31 of the Act of September 7, 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 749; U.S.C., title 5, sec. 782).

(92) T'he last sentence of section 35 of the Act of September 7, 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 749; U.S.C., title 5, sec. 785).

(93) So much of section 1 of the Act of October 1, 1890 (26 Stat. 653; U.S.C., title 10, sec. 214), as reads: "and the Signal Corps of the Army shall remain a part of the Military Establishment under the direction of the Secretary of War, and all estimates for its support shall be included with other estimates for the support of the Military Establishment".

(94) The last proviso of section 4 of the Act of March 12, 1926 (44 Stat. 206; U.S.C., title 10, sec. 1597).

(95) So much of section 1 of the Act of June 12, 1917, as amended (40 Stat. 153; U. S. C., title 16, sec. 452), as reads: "and the Secretary of the Interior is directed to submit, for the fiscal year nineteen hundred and nineteen and annually thereafter, estimates of the amounts required for the care, maintenance, and development of the said parks."

(96) So much of section 1 of the Act of July 24, 1876, as amended (19 Stat. 99; U. S. C., title 24, sec. 278), as requires estimates for the care and maintenance of the national military cemeteries to be submitted annually by the Director of the National Park Service.

(97) So much of section 1 of the Act of January 24, 1923 (42 Stat. 1208; U. S. C., title 31, sec. 12), as reads: "The aggregate of all estimates of appropriations from the ‘reclamation fund' contained in the Budget for any fiscal year shall be included in the totals of the Budget for that year.”

(98) The second paragraph under the heading “Pay, Miscellaneous” of the Act of March 3, 1909 (35 Stat. 754; U. S. C., title 31, sec. 609a).

(99) The third paragraph under the heading “Office of the Fourth Assistant Postmaster General" of the Act of June 9, 1896 (29 Stat. 316; 1. S. C., title 31, sec. 610a).

(100) The last proviso under the heading “National Home for Disabler Volunteer Soldiers” of the Act of October 2, 1888, as amended (25 Stat. 543; U.S.C., title 31, sec. 719).

(101) Section 119 of the Act of June 3, 1916 (39 Stat. 213; U. S. C., title 32, sec. 25).

(102) So much of the fourth full paragraph on page 558 of volume 39 of the Statutes at Large in the Act of August 29, 1916 (U. S. C., title 34, sec. 504), as reads: "and the Secretary of the Navy shall each year, in the annual estimates, report to Congress the number of persons so employed, their duties, and the amount paid to each”.

(103) The last proviso in the third paragraph on page 377 of volume 37 of the Statutes at Large in the Act of August 23, 1912 (U. S. C., title 39, sec. 769).

(104) Section 27 of the Act of January 12, 1895, as amended (28 Stat. 604; U. S. C., title 44, sec. 37).

(105) The eighth full paragraph on page 382 of volume 35 of the Statutes at Large in the Act of May 27, 1908 (U. S. C., title 44, sec. 37).

(106) The last paragraph under the heading “Government in the Territories” in the Act of June 20, 1874 (18 Stat. 99; U. S.C., title 48, scc. 1456).


SEC. 302. (a) The omission of any provision of law from the provisions of law repealed under section 301 shall not be construed as limiting the application of section 201 or 216 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, as amended, or the powers of the President thereunder, or as evidencing an intent that such provision was not to be be superseded by such sections.

(b) Whenever any law authorizes expenditures for a particular object or purpose to be made from an appropriation item referred to in such law by the specific title theretofore used for that appropriation item in the appropriation Act concerned, and thereafter such title is changed or is eliminated from such appropriation Act, expenditures for such object or purpose thereafter may be made from any corresponding appropriation item.

(c) Except where authority for performance of a function is specifically repealed in section 301, none of the provisions of such section shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibility of any agency or officer of the Government over any function or organizational unit referred to in such section.

(d) Existing laws, policies, procedures, and directives pertaining to functions covered by this Act, and not inconsistent herewith or repealed hereby, shall remain in full force and effect unless and until superseded, or except as they may be amended, under the authority of this Act or under other appropriate authority.

Approved September 12, 1950.




Washington, October 30, 1958. The Honorable the COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

DEAR MR. COMPTROLLER GENERAL: Reference is made to your letter of September 10, 1958 (file B-107366, B-134192), by which you forwarded a copy of a letter you had sent to the chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, concerning your earlier request for a copy of a report prepared by the inspector general of the Air Force titled "Survey of Management of the Ballistic Missiles Program," and my reply thereto.

In my letter to you of July 30, 1958, I set forth the considerations which compelled me to conclude that the public interest would best be served by not releasing the report which you have requested. I nevertheless stated that I would furnish a summary of the findings of fact contained in the inspector general's report. In my letter to you of August 13, 1958, I forwarded a summary of the essential findings of the report.

However, in your letter to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, you stated in part:

“The summary report consists of a list of general conclusions in various areas of management and organization, budgeting and funding, procurement and contractual relationships. The summary does not include specific data on the operating conditions and management controls or a summary of the factual information on which the conclusions are based."

It is my desire to cooperate as fully as possible with you in connection with the carrying out of your responsibilities. I believe the Air Force record in this regard over the past years amply demonstrates the high degree of cooperation achieved. Accordingly, while I am unable to comply with your request for the inspector general report itself, I am forwarding for your information a statement of the facts contained in the report. Opinions, conclusions, recommendation's and other advisory matter contained in the report have been omitted for the same reasons which underlay the decision, reflected in my letter to you of July 30, 1958, against furnishing the inspector general report itself.

The overall security classification of the inspector general report is secret. In preparing a statement for your use we have been able to declassify most of the material and the statement enclosed consists of 35 single-spaced typewritten pages of unclassified matter. Such material as we have been unable to declassify has been summarized and is being transmitted under separate cover. By reason of our declassification action, this classified material has been re duced to only two single-spaced typewritten pages. I believe this separation of classified and unclassified matter will prove to be convenient for all concerned since it avoids marking the entire statement secret. I trust that the material which you receive will serve yo purposes. Sincerely yours,




Washington, November 7, 1958. B-107366 B-134192 The Honorable the SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of October 30, 1958, in further response to our request for a copy of a report prepared by the inspector general of the Air Force titled "Survey of Management of the Ballistic Missiles Program.” Your letter transmitted a statement of the facts contained in the report, but specifically omitted "opinions, conclusions, recommendations and other advisory matter contained in the report."

We appreciate the spirit of cooperation which prompted the transmittal of this additional information. However, it seems quite evident that some misunderstanding exists as to our need for access to complete reports of the various internal reviews performed within the Department of the Air Force, as well as the basic data from which the reports are prepared. Perhaps an amplification of our position will assist you in understanding our needs for access to, and the right to examine, any books, documents, papers, or records of the Department of the Air Force.

As you know, an internal control system takes many forms in different areas; but in all cases a satisfactory system of internal control must include such things as a plan of organization, clearly defined policies and procedures, adequately trained personnel, effective and timely reporting and analysis, and a strong internal review system. A thorough review and evaluation of the effectiveness of an internal control system is an essential part of any meaningful review of the efficiency and economy of activities. The need for such a review and evaluation is universally accepted by professional groups engaged in this type of work and was emphasized by the Congress when it enacted legislation requiring this Office to give due consideration to existing systems of internal audit and control in conducting our reviews of agency activities.

The function of internal review may be comprised of internal audits, inspections, surveys, or special management studies at all levels. Whatever it is called and irrespective of the type of organization or unit assigned the responsibility for it, it is a necessary management mechanism and from our point of view one of the more important ones.

In the Department of the Air Force, the internal review or inspection system is diffused through many organizations. The inspector general, in addition to his other duties, conducts inspections of Air Force activities in order to provide the Secretary, the Chief of Staff, and the commanders "with a management tool to promote the effectiveness and economy of the Air Force.” The Auditor General, in addition to contract audits, performs internal audits "to provide those responsible for management at all levels with an independent, objective, and constructive evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency with which financial responsibilities are being carried out.” In addition to these prescribed internal reviews, special studies are made by groups from the various commands in connection with specific management problems. The work of all of these groups comprises a segment of the internal control system by which operating management can determine whether established policies are being followed, whether approved programs are accomplishing their purposes, and whether functions are being carried out effectively, efficiently, and economically.

In conducting our reviews, we must appraise the performance of this very important segment of the total internal control system in the Air Force. In making this appraisal, we must be intimately familiar with the scope of work undertaken by these groups, the depth of their study, the extent of the review, the conclusions drawn, the recommendations made, and the actions taken on findings and recommendations.

The material submitted in lieu of the report is described in your letter as a "statement of the facts contained in the report.” Analysis of this material indicates that some of the "facts” are actually conclusions. In order to evaluate the facts and determine the reasonableness of these conclusions, additional information is needed.

For example, the statement is made on page 6 (par. d) that, “Test pro grams were integrated with minimum duplicate testing of components and maximum use of test facilities.” Two instances are cited as illustrations in support of this statement. However, the extent of the survey which led to the conclusions stated is not disclosed.

Similarly, under the "Budgeting and funding" section of the report, the "statement of facts” reports on page 15 (last paragraph) that “throughout the entire period of this survey, no individual interviewed could state that funds had not been available to support the approved annual program.” Without knowledge of the scope of the survey and extent of verification, we cannot appraise the significance of this statement.

Also, under the “Procurement" section the material submitted contains many instances of deficiencies in procurement practices but does not indicate the actions proposed or implemented to correct these deficiencies or recoup the additional costs incurred. We are, therefore, unable to ascertain the effectiveness of this survey or determine that prompt corective action has been taken.

The specific items cited above illustrate that the material submitted is not an adequate substitute for our access to the full report and the data in support of the report. Because of the importance of this matter and the congressional interest in any denial or delay in making available information required by us in carrying out our responsibilities, we must insist that we have access to the report of the Inspector General and all supporting data.

In addition, we urge that appropriate instructions be issued eliminating restrictions as to information required in the performance of our work so as to avoid any other unnecessary incidents of this nature. Your prompt consideration and action will be appreciated. Sincerely yours,

JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States.



Washington, September 9, 1958. B-134192 The Honorable the SECRETARY OF THE Navy.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The Defense Accounting and Auditing Division of this Office is making a review of selected activities, including procurement, of the Military Sea Transportation Service (MSTS). Our basic objective is to review the effectiveness of policies, procedures, and management controls established to assure the economical and efficient administration of MSTS operations.

The Procurement Review Group, Procurement Division, Office of Naval Mate rial, has prepared a report entitled "Review of Procurement Activities in the Military Sea Transportation Service," October 1957. In view of our current survey of the management aspects of procurement activity, a representative of our office informally requested the Procurement Division, Office of Naval Mate. rial, in June 1958, to furnish us a copy of the report for our review. At that time it was agreed we would receive a copy as soon as additional copies were printed. Subsequently, after considerable discussion between representatives of our respective offices, we were informally advised that the Procurement Division was without authority to make tbe report available to us, and it was suggested that we obtain a report from higher authority. By letter dated July 24, 1958, the Assistant Director in Charge (Navy Group), Defense Accounting and Auditing Division, requested the Assistant Secretary, Navy (Material) to furnish a copy of the subject report. Again further discussion followed in regard to our need for the material. On August 27 it was informally suggested by the Office of Naval Material that a formal request be made to you for the report.

The effectiveness and economy of the procurement activities of MSTS are of interest and concern to the General Accounting Office in the performance of its statutory responsibilities. The legislative history of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 made it clear that our examination of “all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and application of public funds" as provided in section 312(a) contemplated that we would consider and report on the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of agency activities. See also section 206 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 which authorizes and directs the Comptroller General to make an expenditure analysis of each agency in the executive branch of the Government which, in the opinion of the Comptroller General, will enable the Congress to determine whether public funds have been economically and effectively administered and expended. In order to carry out such work, section 313 of the 1921 act provides :

"All departments and establishments shall furnish to the Comptroller General such information regarding the powers, duties, activities, organization, financial transactions, and methods of business of their respective offices as he may from time to time require of them; and the Comptroller General, or any of his assistants or employees, when duly authorized by him, shall, for the purpose of securing such information, have access to and the right to examine any books, documents, papers, or records of any such department or establishment * * * "

In our opinion all reports of the type here involved are subject to review by this Office.

We cannot fully discharge our statutory responsibilities without access to the reports resulting from internal reviews of administrative practices and activities made by Inspector General, Office of Assistant Comptroller, Audit, and other management review groups. The congressional policy is set forth in section 111(d) of the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 which provides that our audit will be directed, among other things, to determining the adequacy of the agencies’ internal financial control over operations. Also, the reports on internal

- of activities are clearly a part of "internal audit and control” within


« PreviousContinue »