а

necessary to the program supervisor? He obviously could not operate any other way?

Mr. BLAIR. He is given guidelines. Looking at it from the standpoint of whether he will exclude information,

he has to report what he develops. His working papers will contain it.

Mr. FASCELL. In other words, the working papers will indicate all of the recommendations, observations and suggestions of the local military commander and the program supervisor, if he deemed it necessary, could make a comparison of the working papers and the draft report to determine what judgment was exercised by the party leader in putting things in the report suggested by the military commander or leaving them out?

Mr. BLAIR. The program supervisor has the authority, if he is in disagreement, over the party leader and then it goes to Mr. Rosenberger and he can disagree and then it comes to my desk for decision.

Mr. FASCELL. Have you had any problems that have come to your attention with respect to matters included or excluded that originated from a military commander?

Mr. BLAIR. As to whether or not the military commander's viewpoint should or should not be considered?

Mr. FASCELL. Yes.
Mr. BLAIR. Well, it is the policy of the office

Mr. FASCELL. What I am trying to get at, is this a major problem, no problem, a daily problem, or what?

Mr. BLAIR. It is no problem. You report what the man tells you. You are not evaluating it at that point. If the man tells you that it is black, you report that he said it's black.

The policy of the office is to report what that commanding officer tells you. You are not there to tell him whether he is telling you the truth or not. The subsequent evaluation of the facts will show that.

Mr. FASCELL. What we are trying to determine is the effect, if any, that a local military commander would have on the report submitted by the European Branch. That depends on the effect he has on the first draft report. Does he have any ?

Mr. BLAIR. I would say no, Mr. Chairman. In other words, in developing the facts, you try to get the full story. He presents whatever story he wants. If something is black and he wants to call it white, he can go ahead. You will see the facts, his comments, our evaluation of them and then you make the decision, or whoever reviews it. It is just a matter of getting his side of the story. He has the opportunity, if he disagrees, to say so, or if we have made an erroneous reporting of the facts, or if we have not developed all of the facts he can call

it to our attention. Mr. FASCELL. How about findings and recommendations which are developed subsequent to the recommendations of the party leader?

Mr. BLAIR. We have disagreements on that. We have received comments where they disagree with our evaluation.

Mr. FASCELL. Findings and recommendations are not submitted to the local military commander, are they; or are they?

Mr. BLAIR. Your recommendations will in the final analysis be made at that particular stage. If the man comes through with facts

Mr. FASCELL. If I understand you correctly, the party leader begins in a rough shape to finalize the recommendations of an eventual report right on the spot? Mr. BLAIR. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Those are refined and modified as you go along?

Mr. BLAIR. That is right. In other words, when the draft report is submitted to a commanding officer, he will have the benefit of our factual findings and what the fieldman's opinion is. He may recommend a certain course of action. The purpose of that interview is not to clear that finally but to air the facts. He can agree or disagree with the findings. "If he disagrees we will say so.

Mr. FASCELL. Have you had any difficulty obtaining information from any agency? By that I mean either directly or indirectly which would indicate a lack of cooperation?

Mr. BLAIR. We have had instances where the work has been impeded by virtue of existing regulations or security regulations. For instance, in the Air Force, with respect to gaining access to reports of the Inspector General and reports of the Office of Special Investigations. Reports of the Inspector General are considered internal reports of a privileged nature.

Mr. FASCELL. That is ridiculous, as far as I am concerned. That is, that the reports of the Inspector General would not be made available post haste to the General Accounting Office. Has that been resolved!

Mr. BLAIR. The problem of access to Army Audit Agency reports and working papers was recently resolved.

Mr. FASCELL. There, again, that is an internal working matter? Mr. BLAIR. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. You say that is resolved? Mr. BLAIR. That was resolved between Mr. Campbell and the Secretary of Defense. The Department of the Army had previously issued a directive which required clearance with Washington to gain access to their work.

Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me for laughing. I know it is not a funny matter, but it is amazing to me that it would be necessary for the General Accounting Office to have to talk to the Secretary of Defense to get clearance on something made available to an auditing team of the United States Government. Maybe there is a good reason for it.

Mr. BLAIR. Under their previous regulations if we wanted to gain access to the Army audit's review of an Army installation, it would be necessary for them to write back to the Secretary of the Army to get authority to let us have access to their working papers.

Mr. FASCELL. Has this same problem been resolved with respect to the Air Force and the Navy?

Mr. Blair. No, as to OSI and IG reports. We have no problem with Navy. The regulation is still on the books requiring clearance with the Washington office to gain access to a particular report. What we have done is to get summaries of OSI reports.

Mr. FASCELL. They want you to duplicate again the effort of investigation and what not? Is that the effect of this?

Mr. BLAIR. If we cannot gain access, that is the effect of it.

Mr. FASCELL. You then spend the money all over again to get the facts that have already been developed ?

Mr. BLAIR. That problem, to my knowledge, is not being discussed with the Air Force, but with respect to Army it is still necessary on necessary to the program supervisor? He obviously could not operate any other way?

Mr. BLAIR. He is given guidelines. Looking at it from the standpoint of whether he will exclude information, he has to report what he develops. His working papers will contain it.

Mr. FASCELL. In other words, the working papers will indicate all of the recommendations, observations and suggestions of the local military commander and the program supervisor, if he deemed it necessary, could make a comparison of the working papers and the draft report to determine what judgment was exercised by the party leader in putting things in the report suggested by the military commander or leaving them out!

Mr. BLAIR. The program supervisor has the authority, if he is in disagreement, over the party leader and then it goes to Mr. Rosenberger and he can disagree and then it comes to my desk for decision.

Mr. FascELL. Have you had any problems that have come to your attention with respect to matters included or excluded that originated from a military commander?

Mr. Blair, Ås to whether or not the military commander's viewpoint should or should not be considered?

Mr. FASCELL. Yes.
Mr. BLAIR. Well, it is the policy of the office

Mr. FASCELL. What I am trying to get at, is this a major problem, no problem, a daily problem, or what?

Mr. Blair. It is no problem. You report what the man tells you. You are not evaluating it at that point. If the man tells you that it is black, you report that he said it's black.

The policy of the office is to report what that commanding officer tells you. You are not there to tell him whether he is telling you the truth or not. The subsequent evaluation of the facts will show that.

Mr. FASCELL. What we are trying to determine is the effect, if any, that a local military commander would have on the report submitted by the European Branch. That depends on the effect he has on the first draft report. Does he have any?

Mr. BLAIR. I would say no, Mr. Chairman. In other words, in developing the facts, you try to get the full story. He presents whatever story he wants. If something is black and he wants to call it white, he can go ahead. You will see the facts, his comments, our evaluation of them and then you make the decision, or whoever reviews it. It is just a matter of getting his side of the story. He has the opportunity, if he disagrees, to say so, or if we have made an erroneous reporting of the facts, or if we have not developed all of the facts he can call it to our attention.

Mr. FASCELL. How about findings and recommendations which are developed subsequent to the recommendations of the party leader?

Mr. BLAIR. We have disagreements on that. We have received comments where they disagree with our evaluation.

Mr. FASCELL. Findings and recommendations are not submitted to the local military commander, are they; or are they?

Mr. Blar. Your recommendations will in the final analysis be made at that particular stage. If the man comes through with facts

Mr. FASCELL. If I understand you correctly, the party leader begins in a rough shape to finalize the recommendations of an eventual report right on the spot ? Mr. BLAIR. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Those are refined and modified as you go along? Mr. BLAIR. That is right. In other words, when the draft report is submitted to a commanding officer, he will have the benefit of our factual findings and what the fieldman's opinion is. He may recommend a certain course of action. The purpose of that interview is not to clear that finally but to air the facts. He can agree or disagree with the findings. If he disagrees we will say so.

Mr. FASCELL. Have you had any difficulty obtaining information from any agency? By that I mean either directly or indirectly which would indicate a lack of cooperation?

Mr. BLAIR. We have had instances where the work has been impeded by virtue of existing regulations or security regulations. For instance, in the Air Force, with respect to gaining access to reports of the Inspector General and reports of the Office of Special Investigations. Reports of the Inspector General are considered internal reports of a privileged nature.

Mr. FASCELL. That is ridiculous, as far as I am concerned. That is, that the reports of the Inspector General would not be made available post haste to the General Accounting Office. Has that been resolved?

Mr. BLAIR. The problem of access to Army Audit Agency reports and working papers was recently resolved.

Mr. FASCELL. There, again, that is an internal working matter? Mr. BLAIR. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. You say that is resolved? Mr. BLAIR. That was resolved between Jr. Campbell and the Serretary of Defense. The Department of the Army had previously is und a directive which required clearance with Washington to gain access to their work.

Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me for laughing. I know it is not a funny matter, but it is amazing to me that it would be fleressary for this General Accounting Office to have to talk to the Steary of Imus to get clearance on something made available to an and try tram of the United States Government. Maybe there is a good reas for it.

Mr. Blair. Under their previous regulation if we warind un pain access to the Army audit's review of an Army installation it die necessary for them to write back to the Secretary of the Army tr, gut authority to let us have access to their working pers.

Mr. FASCELL. Has this same problem bees reserved that to the Air Force and the Navy?

Mr. Blair. Xo, as to OSI and IG reports Welate LOPE with Navy. The regulation is still on the besmr2r7 with the Washington office to gain access to a par 22 :: we have done is to get summaries of OSI reporter

Mr. FASCELL. They want you to duplicate 22:. vestigation and what not? Is that the effect of

Mr. Blair. If we cannot gain access that

Mr. FASCELL. You then spend the money a.**22 ***** facts that have already been developed?

Mr. Blair. That problem, to my knowledus. with the Air Force, but with respect to Arms

CD or certain IG reports to go back to fishington to gain access to those reports. In ouer worris, we can get i summary.

Hr. FISCELL. Tell you tell this committee wilt relationship should pang init n order for you to carry out your responsibilities in this Branch #tit respect to this problem?

Vi Blair. Jr. Chairman, if I may correct a possible misimpression, our working relationship with, not only trny Judit, but the Air porre ludit, and Vary Audit. flus been most excelent. It was not a matter of meir atten.pring to impede our work. We have to work arely ingether. I am happy to sur that we do enjoy excellent relationships with them. However, tie departmental directives that precudert release of reports locally kils not been a material impedance to our rork here.

You can work across the table with the man and get information Som nim, but the regılations will teü him no. that you cannot do it. (hir men have been rery suctessful in tirs area.

Vr. Ffurfli. This is all to the credit of the enthusiasm, initiative, 3,10 aouty of your men. It does not change the basie problem?

Vr. Blir. Correre. I would like to point out that I hare been

in the office since 1972 and Mr. Wooctva a rises that back in 1951, (stralier Cereral Warren agreed with the chen Secretary of the tir fornp when this problem came up. He agreed to their issuing $1,4 pouvation; that when the General Secounting Office wanted an Osi report that they would obtain tùe prior authority of the Defrather...

Mr. WEITOX. It was a Secretary of the lir Force decision.

Vr. Brair. It woull appear that the regulation now on the books of the Air Force was entered with the consent of the Comptroller (general. It was part of an effort to solve a problem of access to ruords that arose when the Comptroller General broadened the scope of his examinations,

Mr. F A CELL. We appreciate the explanation and the fact that times change and perhaps that makes changes advisable. However, we get back to the basic problem. We want you to be etfective in your work and unobstructed as possible. If there is a regulation, ruling, or agreement in effect which either causes duplication of work or wasted fotfort, we want to know about it and we want somebody to do something about it.

Mr. Blair. There is no question that regulations of that type, in my opinion, have no justification in being on the books. We may be drawing a check from a different agency, but all of us have a common interest in the overall problem of effecting improvement in governmental operations. It only serves to impede our work and slow it ip

vir. FASCELL. Let us turn this thing around, Mr. Blair.

If you have run across a matter in a military installation in which you have completed your work, would you not make that all available to the military commander for such action as he may see fit, for disciplinary or alministrative reasons, or otherwise? You would not pivo him a summary and force him to reinvestigate the entire matter To me if fraud had been committed, regulations violated, or some administrative procedure violated? You would not keep him guessing; would you! You would lay it all out for him so that he would