Surplus agricultural commodities Agreements for the sale of surplus agricultural commodities to friendly countries for foreign currencies are executed pursuant to section 101 of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act (Public Law 480) and section 402 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended. These agreements generally provide for the commodities to be furnished, the method of payment, and the purposes for which local currencies accruing from these sales will be utilized. Redistributable property Under section 511 (c) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, appropriate arrangements are to be made with each recipient country for the return of unneeded equipment or materials to the United States for salvage or scrap, or for such other appropriate disposition as may be deemed to be in the interest of mutual security. Erempt taxes Agreements are entered into with recipient countries to obtain appropriate local tax exemption incident to mutual assistance operations within such countries. Jlutual weapons development program The conditions under which United States funds are granted to aid in the development of new, promising weapons are set out in detail in agreements with participating countries. In particular, the rights of the United States and NATO to use of the developed item, together with technical drawings, etc., are preserved by agreement. Patents Mutual defense assistance agreements usually provide for the later negotiation of arrangements respecting patents and technical information. The extent of military procurement within a particular foreign country determines the necessity for negotiation of patent agreements. Generally, foreign government owned patents or technical information are made available for the production of military end items without contract charge to the United States. Facilities assistance No statutory requirement exists for the execution of agreements. However, as in other special programs, understandings have been reached with the foreign countries which contemplate supplementary agreements covering specific projects. Technical cooperation Agreements with underdeveloped countries cover technical cooperation programs as enumerated in section 302 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, and contain the Presidential determinations made under section 303 of the act which are prerequisite to the furnishing of assistance to the recipient country. Europe: Austria Yugoslavia Afghanistan X X X X X xxxx XXXXXXXXXX х Distribution of fiscal year 1957 mutual-security authorization by region, country, title, and function Mr. MONTGOMERY. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. report on the history, organization, and operations of the European Branch of the General Accounting Office. I notice that in the first group you have reports which have been submitted to congressional committees. You tell me that these are reports which originated in the European Branch, but the decision to submit them to congressional committees was made in Washington. Mr. Blair. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. The next group is that of reports submitted to departmental headquarters in the continental United States. You have quite a large group there, beginning on page 4, and then, on page 6 of the exhibit, or page 53 of the report, you have reports being processed in the Washington office of the General Accounting Office. What is the difference between reports submitted to departmental headquarters in the continental United States and reports being processed ? Mr. BLAIR. Reports being processed in Washington is an earlier step in the procedures in releasing the report. Mr. Fascell. This group, entitled “Reports Submitted to Depart FASCELL mental Headquarters," is a list of reports which has actually been finalized in the European Branch after you have turned them loose? Mr. BLAIR. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Any further handling of it is strictly up to the Washington office? Mr. BLAIR. That is right. The Washington office has processed it and sent it over to the departmental headquarters for the purpose of determining the accuracy of the report. That is, whether there were any factors that might affect the decision that we did not develop in the course of our examination. Upon receipt of a reply from the Department, consideration is then given by the office as to the necessity of submitting this report, for additional action, to the Congress. Mr. FASCELL. Wait a minute. Let me see if I understand that right. You are talking about reports submitted to departmental headquarters! Mr. Blair. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. This group of reports by the Washington office is then submitted to the agency involved for any additions or suggestions or recommendations that they may have, and then the Washington office decides what action they will take on those additions, suggestions, or recommendations? Mr. BLAIR. That is right, sir. In other words, there is not an automatic Mr. FASCELL. I understand that, but what I am getting at is that your report originates here, and then somebody in Washington decides what agency ideas are going to be incorporated or forgotten? Is that a correct statement of the facts? Mr. BLAIR. That is right. In other words, we conduct an examination, for example, at Chateauroux. We clear it with the commanding general there, and we submit the report to the Little Pentagon, you might say, here. We clear it with the AMC Headquarters in Europe. Mr. FASCELL. What is AMC? Mr. FASCELL. With respect to that particular operation at Chateauroux ? Mr. BLAIR. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, you submit your report here to the highest agency in Europe responsible and get the benefit of their comments and suggestions and whatnot? Mr. BLAIR. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Then you make a decision locally as to whether you want to incorporate them or not? Mr. BLAIR. There is an automatic transmission from here of whatever they tell us. Mr. FASCELL. The review officer in Washington has the benefit of what your original report is, together with the comments or suggestions of the highest agency in Europe dealing with that report? Mr. Blair. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. They take it over there and submit it to the next highest level? Mr. BLAIR. If it is warranted, it will go up to AMC for final action. In cost cases, it is. Then General Rawlins responds and maybe the problem is resolved. It will only serve an information purpose then, but, even so, they may feel Congress is sufficiently interested. Mr. FASCELL. "It is at that point, after it has been submitted by the General Accounting Office in Washington to the highest command in the United States, that the report becomes finalized. It does not come back to the European branch? Mr. ROSENBERGER. On a few occasions after they have gotten the departmental headquarter's comments and incorporated those in the report, they will send that report back to us for our consideration. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, if the review officer there feels they are too far apart and something is amiss, he will send it back to the originating agency to take another look? Mr. ROSENBERGER. That is correct. The whole thing is to get an accurate report developing all of the facts. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Could you give any idea as to the time lag, from the time you finish an audit and the final report? Mr. BLAIR. I can with respect to the European branch. We recently made a study to determine how we could improve our operation. We have cut the processing time from the completion of the fieldwork until we can release the report to Washington down to 2 months. That takes in the preparation of the report, submission of the report to the agency headquarters, and getting the answer back. Mr. MONTGOMERY. Are you getting timely responses from the headquarters? Mr. BLAIR. We have had material improvement in that area with greater cooperation from the military. We recently worked out a liaison agreement with EUCOM headquarters where they are asking subordinate commands to submit responses to our reports within 30 days. We have developed an expedited procedure in the sense that when a man has completed his fieldwork at the site, he is supposed to write up a draft report within a week after the work has been completed. The commanding general and his staff are given the opportunity of a week or 10 days—whatever is required—to review that report and then discuss it and develop additional information. Mr. FASCELL. Let me ask you a question on that point. At the point where the draft report is submitted to the military commander of the installation, who decides whether or not as a result of the military commander's review, suggestions or observations will or will not be made a part of the draft? Mr. BLAIR. In the final analysis, I do. Mr. FASCELL. The point is, Who gets the draft report back after it has been submitted to the military commander? That is the thing I want to know. It is the man who made the investigation, is it not? Mr. BLAIR. That is right. The party leader and then it is reviewed by the program supervisor. Mr. FASCELL. Does the party leader have the authority to write up and submit a draft report in such a manner as he may see fit or deem |
Get this book in print