elements within and between these departments. These delays occur in the screening of records and in making decisions as to whether such records are releasable to the General Accounting Office. It is not unusual for our auditors to request access to a document at an overseas location and be required to wait several weeks while such documents are screened up the channels from the overseas posts and through the hierarchy of those departments.

Our experience in making a study of the military assistance training program-this was within the last year-at the request of the Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is a good example of the problems we have encountered in obtaining access to information. In our February 1971 report on this study we summarized our problems with access to records and set forth conclusions which we believe point up the problems of access and the effect these problems have on our ability to carry out effective reviews.

The Department of Defense denied access to records which contained future planning information; routine reports prepared by personnel which were evaluative in nature; and program evaluation group reports.

It was and is our position that it is essential for us to have access to all information available to DOD personnel who make program decisions in order that we can determine how decisions were made and whether all pertinent data was considered in reaching decisions. With regard to evaluation material, we regularly make use of internal audit reports and other internal evaluations and perform such independent tests of such material as we feel justified under the circumstances.

If we are permitted extensive use of internal audits and other evaluative reports, we are able to concentrate a greater part of our efforts in determining whether action has been properly taken by responsible officials to correct identified program weaknesses. This also helps to eliminate duplication and overlapping in audit effort, and promotes full utilization of existing audit and investigative data.

In order for the GAO to carry out its responsibilities to review DOD programs it is essential that we have access to and make appropriate review and analyses of all DOD reports and records which evidence the expenditure of appropriated funds.

In commenting on a draft of this report I just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs, in a letter dated September 25, 1970, stated:

** * the Department of Defense cannot permit to go unchallenged that section of the report concerning complaints that the GAO auditors were hindered and delayed in their efforts because the Department of Defense had denied them access to 5 year MAP planning data and to inspection and evaluation reports known as PEG reports. Apart from the fact that custom, tradition and precedent have decreed that information of such internal nature will not be disclosed outside the Executive Branch in order to preserve the confidentiality of the relationship of superior and subordinate, an understanding was also reached a number of years ago between the General Accounting Office and the Department of Defense whereby planning data and inspector type reports would not be provided. The Department is, therefore, both surprised and chagrined over the fact that the GAO would endeavor to make such an issue over these specific categories, an issue which had been resolved years ago.

A copy of this Department of Defense letter was sent to the chairman of the committee by the department.

In making his report to the chairman, the Comptroller General took note of this Department of Defense letter and advised as follows:

In regard to the Department's position concerning the access-to-records matters discussed in the report, the General Accounting Office has never reached such an understanding with the Department of Defense. To the contrary, we have always maintained that we are entitled by law to have access to, and the right to examine, all records of the Department of Defense and its component commands that we consider pertinent to the matter or subject under review.

The inspection and evaluation reports referred to in the Department of Defense letter are management reports prepared by a program valuation group of the Unified Command Headquarters. We have always regarded complete access to reports of this type as necessary in order for us to carry out the responsibilities we have to the Congress.

I might mention at this point, Mr. Chairman, that the General Accounting Office has, in recent years, broadened the scope of its work a great deal. We are placing more emphasis on the evaluation of program results as distinguished from strictly financial type audits. I don't think any new authority was needed for this change in work, but the Congress, when enacting the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, included a provision in that act so providing. It is section 204, which reads:

The Comptroller General shall review and analyze the results of the government programs and activities carried out under existing law, including the making of cost-benefits studies, when ordered by either House of Congress, or upon his own initiative, or when requested by any committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, or any joint committee of the two Houses having jurisdiction over such programs and activities.

This was a recognition by the Congress that they wanted this type of work done by the General Accounting Office. And I think very obviously you cannot do reviews of programs evaluations of programs without a great deal more material and backup data than you would have in strictly a financial audit.

And I would state again, that for the most part, we had very good success in obtaining necessary documents and records from most of the departments and agencies. I don't say that we don't have difficulties now and then but we are usually able to work them out satisfactorily to both sides. But in the area of foreign affairs, it has been very difficult for us.

Mr. Chairman, in early 1970, we undertook a review of the U.S. Assistance to the Philippine Government in support of the Philippine civil action group at the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on U.S. Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The Departments of State and Defense delayed our work on this assignment to the extent that we had to curtail the scope of our review and qualify our report to the chairman. Our work was seriously hampered and delayed because in general we were given access to only those documents, papers, and records which we were able to specifically identify and request and as to those records we were given access only after time-consuming screening at various levels within the Departments.

We were restricted by ground rules established by the Departments. These rules effectively limited our reviews in the field to the very narrow departmental interpretations of what, in their opinion, was judged to be the scope of our review. This was perhaps the most restrictive limitation placed on our work, and it completely frustrated our attempts to review assistance to the Philippines that was not funded in the military functions appropriations.

Our staff members in the field were advised that documents which they requested that were releasable to us under the restrictions of the so-called ground rules had to be dispatched to Washington for departmental clearance. As a consequence, by early May 1970, only four of the 12 documents which were requested by our staff members on January 28, 1970, had been released to them in Manila.

Following our review in the Philippines we initiated a study of U.S. assistance to the government of Thailand. In an attempt to avoid the conditions previously experienced, the Comptroller General on June 26, 1970, wrote to the Secretaries of Defense and State citing the problems experienced in the Philippines review, requesting that they eliminate the necessity for the lengthy screening process, citing the scope and authority for our review as follows:

*** the scope of our review will be broad enough to permit our representatives to investigate all matters concerning the receipt, disbursement, and application of public funds related in any way to our relations with the Government of Thailand. Pursuant to the authority of Section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, 31 U.S.C. 54, representatives of the General Accounting Office will be requesting officials in your Department for access to, and when we consider necessary, copies of any books, documents, papers, or records in the custody or control of your Department which we believe may contain information regarding the powers, duties, activities, organization, financial transactions, and methods of business related to the scope of the review.

Unfortunately, we have experienced similar problems in obtaining access to documents required for our review of assistance to Thailand. The policy of the executive branch, with respect to release of information to the Congress, was set forth by the President in a Memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies, on March 24, 1969, as follows:

The policy of this Administration is to comply to the fullest extent possible with Congressional requests for information. While the Executive Branch has the responsibility of withholding certain information the disclosure of which would be incompatible with the public interest. This Administration will invoke this authority only in the most compelling circumstances and after a rigorous inquiry into the actual need for its exercise. For those reasons Executive privilege will not be used without specific Presidential approval.

Although the Departments of State and Defense indicated in their directives that it is their policy to provide maximum cooperation and assistance to the General Accounting Office, we have found it quite difficult to obtain the information which we need to conduct our reviews relating to foreign assistance activities.

In our discussions with departmental officials, they have frequently stated that the documents or information being withheld are not releasable to the GAO because of one or more of the following reasons:

(1) Review, examination, or disclosure would seriously impair relations between the United States and other countries, or otherwise prejudice the best interest of the United States;

(2) Access to documents including information and debates used in formulating policy decisions would seriously hamper a candid exchange of views within the agency; and

(3) Access to information on future planning would not be appropriate because it has not received the approval of the President or been presented to the Congress.

We have characterized our current problems over access to records as being those of frustrations and delays in carrying out our statutory responsibilities rather than those attending outright refusal of access on a claim of executive privilege. We do not know how close our experience parallels that of the congress and its committees. We would however point out that insofar as they may be similar, enactment of S. 1125 should put an end to delays in appearance and reluctance to testify without invoking "executive privilege." Under S. 1125 those requested to appear must appear and the exercise of the privilege is restricted to the President. Under this procedure, if the privilege is to be exercised by the President there should be no delays in the hearing processes and if the privilege is not to be claimed there is no basis remaining that we can see which could justify failure to testify.

Leaving aside the legal arguments pro and con as to the constitutional basis for executive privilege, S. 1125 assumes the fact of its existence and realistically makes an effort to restrict its exercise to the President or by his written direction. The bill, if enacted, should result in a freer flow of information to the Congress and its committees except in those cases where the President himself has decided that disclosure shall be precluded on the ground of executive privilege.

This concludes our statement Mr. Chairman, and we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Senator ERVIN. Is the statute giving the General Accounting the power of access to information quite broad?

Mr. KELLER. It is quite broad. There is one slight restriction which wasn't in my quote. It does not apply to funds spent by the Department of State on the certificate of the Secretary of State. We have interpreted that, I believe properly, to apply to the emergency funds which appear in the Department of State appropriation and which can be spent without specifying the purpose over the certification of the Secretary of State.

Senator ERVIN. There is no warrant or procedure for accounting for those funds at all, is there?

Mr. KELLER. No, sir. It is, in effect, a confidential fund. The Congress has recognized or given the authority for the fund to be spent on the certificate of the Secretary.

I might add that confidential funds are not unusual in a number of departments. Those also may be spent on the certificate of the head of the department.

Senator ERVIN. That is a practice which, perhaps of necessity, must be followed in this very precarious world in which we live?

Mr. KELLER. Yes, sir. And as far as the State Department's concerned, I think it is in the neighborhood of $2 million a year, which is a lot of money to me, but is a small amount as far as our government is concerned.

Senator ERVIN. Yes. Especially in the Department of Defense in that we are accustomed in modern times to talking about appropriations of billions of dollars.

The statute seems to me to be susceptible only to the construction— leaving out the exceptions that you have just mentioned-that it is the General Accounting Office which has the final determination as to what information and what documents the office is entitled to receive in order to supervise and evaluate the programs for which Congress appropriates money duties imposed upon the GAO by Congress.

Mr. KELLER. I think that is quite true and I think is is inherent where the Congress has given the Comptroller General the responsibility for looking into all expenditures of government departments, not only for their legality, but also for economy and efficiency in operations. And I think by granting the Comptroller General the right of access to records in the 1921 act, the Congress meant the records the Comptroller General thinks are necessary for him to perform his duties, rather than those the department thinks are necessary for him to have.

The Attorneys General, I find, have differed over the years, but there is one instance of an Attorney General's opinion-I believe it was in 1925-where the Comptroller General asked for certain records. These records did not pertain to foreign affairs matters but pertained to a contract. The Department didn't want to give the information to the Comptroller and the matter was submitted to the Attorney General. The Attorney General took the view that it was the Comptroller General's decision as to what records he needed and he interposed no objection to giving the information.

Senator ERVIN. I infer from what you have said that with the exception of programs involving foreign nations or military operations the General Accounting Office in recent years has received at least reasonable cooperation from the departments, with rare exceptions.

Mr. KELLER. I think that is a fair statement, Mr. Chairman, and I don't want to gloss it over because we do, from time to time, have our problems. But, if the problems can't be worked out on a lower level, Mr. Staats and I get in touch with our counterparts in the department and see if we can't work it out. We have had pretty good luck on that score.

There are certain agencies where anything in the department is open to us, whether it is an evaluation report, a source selection board report, an internal staff memo, or some other document. Others get a little more sticky. I have tried to emphasize in my statement that the one area we are having a problem with at the present time is the area of foreign assistance and relations with foreign countries.

Senator ERVIN. And in that field the chief impediment to the performance of the duties imposed upon the General Accounting Office by the Congress has been either interminable delay rather than outright refusal or restricting the documents granted to those specifically requesting them. I assume there are also problems where the General Accounting Office is not aware of the existence of the documents?