Not unexpectedly, Comptroller McCarl's expansionist and independent activities raised objections, especially during the New Deal period. Referred to as the "watchdog of the Treasury," 26/ McCarl, whose 15-year term lasted until 1936, On two occasions, incurred the wrath of the Democratic Administration. President Roosevelt attempted to limit the Comptroller General's powers through reorganization but those efforts failed. Following McCarl's retirement, the office's responsibilities were handled for three years by Acting Comptroller General Richard Elliott, an Indiana Republican, much in the same mold as McCarl. The disputes between the GAO and the newly-formed TVA became legendary, prompting TVA's own comptroller, E.L. Kohler, to criticize the GAO, its powers and methods: It has long been recognized that the Comptroller General A review of his report (1934) and frequent contact this In mid-1939, Fred Brown, a former Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, was appointed Comptroller General. Brown had served on a joint congressional committee investigating the GAO operations regarding the TVA and participated Statement made in 1939 in Congressional testimony, recorded in Brown. op. cit. P. 21. in recommending changes in methods and investigatory personnel, some of 28/ The next appointment of Comptroller General occurred in December, 1954. President Eisenhower nominated Joseph Campbell (who was eventually confirmed by the Senate), who served as treasurer of Columbia University while Eisenhower was president of the university and who was a member of the Atomic Energy Commission. The difficulties Campbell experienced in the confirmation hearings appear to have been confined to the Dixon-Yates controversy. Rep. Holifield, then a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, advised that Campbell, as Comptroller General, "should disqualify himself when the Dixon-Yates contract came before the GAO on the question of payments under the contract, because they would be payments he (Campbell) 'has been sponsoring.'"29/ 28/ no. 29/ Gerald Schulsinger. The General Accounting Office: Two Glimpses. 35, Inter-University Case Program Series. University of Alabama. Case 1956. Congressional Quarterly Almanac. 1954. P. 551. - 19 The current Comptroller General, Elmer B. Staats, had served in the executive counterpart to the GAO, the Bureau of the Budget, from 1939 to 1953 and from 1958 to 1966, the latter years as Deputy Director. For part of the interim he served with the NSC. The appointment of Staats evidenced general support. Although this is but a cursory review of the appointments of the Comptrollers General, it is evident that at the time of nomination and confirmation there was little opposition to the nominees and few attempts to intrude upon their independence. When such attempts were most likely, following the McCarl and (Acting Comptroller General) Elliott tenure, 19211940, President Roosevelt nominated a former Senator who had been one of the critics and proponents of reform of the GAO. The most intense controversy surrounded Joseph Campbell due to the Dixon-Yates dispute. One possible reason for the limited criticism of the nominees appears to be the partisan configuration at the time of the appointments. At the time of each of the five appointments of Comptrollers General, coincidently, the same party occupied both the White House and Capital. Thus, inter-party conflict would not have exacerbated the potential conflict inherent in the appointments to an office which investigates the executive at the behest of the legislature. Other factors, such as the background and experience of the nominees, have undoubtedly been important considerations in muting which has experienced the ramifications of the Comptroller General's independence criticism of a nominee. On the issue of independence, it is the executive / (from executive /departments). Congress as an institution has been less concerned in debate with the office's independence (from the Congress) and has enhanced the Comptroller General's independence (from the executive) throughout the years. Frederick M. Kaiser Analyst, American National Government Government and General Research Division September 26, 1975 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20540 THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Congressional Research Service By Stuart Glass, Legislative ANALYSIS OF S. 2268, THE "GENERAL ACCOUNTING This is in response to your request of September 10, 1975, for an analysis of S. 2268, entitled the "General Accounting Office Act of 1975." This memorandum will be in two major sections: a section-bysection narrative analysis of the bill, and an analysis of the legal aspects of the authority which would be delegated by the bill to the Comptroller General. An appendix will contain present provisions in law creating Congressional oversight over executive functions. I. Section-by-Section Analysis The bill generally would authorize the Comptroller General to bring suit for declaratory relief against any employee or officer of the United States to prevent the unlawful expenditure, obligation, or authorization of public funds; would provide procedural remedies to assist the Comptroller General in gaining access to records of non-federal persons and organizations regarding federal contracts; would provide a procedural remedy to assist the Comptroller General in enforcing access to records CRS-2 of federal departments and establishments regarding federal financial activities; and would authorize the Comptroller General to conduct a profits study of contractors having contracts with the federal government. Title I.--Title I of S. 2268 would amend the Budget and Account ing Act of 1921, as amended, 31 U.S.C. §§42, et. seq., by adding a new section 320, which would permit the Comptroller General of the United States to institute a civil action for declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia whenever he: ...in the performance of any of his functions $320 (b), S. 2268, §101. Section 320 (b) of the Act, as proposed to be amended, would further authorize the Attorney General, if in disagreement with the Comptroller General, to represent the defendant official in any such action. Other parties, including the prospective payee or obligee, would be allowed to intervene, or could be impleaded as otherwise provided by law. Such other parties would be entitled to be served with notice or process. Beyond the territorial limits of the District of Columbia, process would be permitted to be served by certified mail. Section 320 (c) would permit the payment of interest at the rate of six per centum per annum upon any payment for goods or services actually |