Mr. KELLER. That is right. From an auditor's standpoint, when he is examining a problem, there may be 200 documents dealing with the problem. It is very difficult for him, unless he had a lead, for example: "I want to see a letter from the Director of the AID mission to the Assistant Secretary of State involving this particular thing."

Often we take the position that we want access to all the records pertaining to a particular subject. Now, the department might say, "You are just on a fishing expedition." I don't look at it that way. Nobody hands you information. You have got to dig it out, and you try to find the documents that will be helpful to you in solving the problem one way or other.

Also, it is very important that we don't let the departments tell us what the scope of our review ought to be. We can't carry out our responsibilities in that fashion and be responsible to the Congress for the work we do.

Senator ERVIN. As I understand it, the General Accounting Office was created by Congress to have someone exercise oversight on the carrying out of the programs initiated by Congress for which Congress has appropriated money and to get it done without the necessary-I don't like to use the word "bias," but that is the only word that occurs to me at the moment-bias. Congress was concerned that if it depended exclusively upon the executive departments and agencies for the information, it would be likely to encounter delays and might not receive all the information necessary for proper oversight over Government activities.

Mr. KELLER. Yes. Mr. Chairman. Congress set the office up in 1921 as an agent of Congress to carry out the duties you have mentioned.

Senator ERVIN. Any questions?

Professor WINTER. I don't have any questions. But I think that your testimony shows that the main problem seems to be to depend on appropriate statutes and regulations rather than the scope of some abstract constitutional principles.

Mr. KELLER. I have thought a lot about Senator Fulbright's bill and I had some question about whether Congress should recognize executive privilege as such in the law. However, the more I thought about it the more I favored an approach of this type, because at least from our viewpoint it would cut out the delaying tactics, and the decisions not to disclose records being made at a lower level. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Keller, you did not outline in your statement all of the instances where you have been refused information, did you? Mr. KELLER. No, sir, I did not, but I will be happy to furnish a statement for the record. I attempted to just cover some of the more recent cases which I thought would be of interest to the committee.

[The following information was subsequently furnished the Subcommittee.]

SUMMARY LISTING OF SIGNIFICANT ACCESS TO RECORDS PROBLEMS
IN RECENT YEARS

REVIEW OF U.S. ASSISTANCE IN THE SUPPORT OF THE FREE WORLD
MILITARY FORCES IN VIETNAM

The General Accounting Office (GAO) was denied access by the Department of Defense (DOD) to documents and financial records defining the details of

United States support of Thailand's participation in Vietnam, including a "Scope" document prepared and implemented by DOD which describes the terms of the U.S. commitments as they related to reimbursement rates and procedures. The review is still in process and its conclusion has been delayed by the denial of pertinent records.

In addition, GAO was denied physical access by Department of State and DOD to the Thai Army installation at Camp Bearcat, Vietnam, and the Korean Base Camp at Qui Nhon, Vietnam. These visits were necessary to visually observe what U.S. logistic support was, in fact, being rendered and effectively used at the installations and at the same time talk with U.S. military representatives stationed there.

Those refusals by the Department of State and DOD to allow GAO auditors to examine certain records or to visit Thai and Korean military installations, at which U.S. liaison personnel are located and which are supported by U.S.-provided facilities and equipment, has made it impossible for our auditors to determine with a substantial degree of certainty the extent of U.S. participation or the manner in which the programs were being carried out. As an example, without the "Scope" document, it was difficult to substantiate the basis on which expenses were to be reimbursed to Thailand by the United States in support of Thai activities. GAO auditors repeatedly requested the release of this document; however, DOD officials refused stating that the scope document was an unofficial draft internal working paper not considered suitable for release to the GAO. We understand that the draft working document is serving as the basis for approval of reimbursement claims.

Documents used as a basis for expenditures of United States funds are subject to our review and evaluation, and we fail to understand how such documents can be categorized unofficial when related to the disposition of U.S. funds for official transactions.

In connection with the proposed visits to the Thai and Korean military installations, GAO has traditionally visited foreign military installations for many years as part of our military assistance review as a means of physically observing and inspecting the maintenance and utilization of equipment provided by the United States.

In a January 1971 meeting with Ambassador Winthrop G. Brown, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, our representatives explained our difficulties in visiting U.S.-supported Thai and Korean installations in Vietnam, and the inconsistency with our past access to host government installations. Ambassador Brown subsequently wrote our representatives indicating that such arrangements would be made through the Embassy, Vietnam, wherever feasible and wherever not prohibited by mutual agreements existing between a host country and the United States. Despite this DOD informed the Department of State in March 1971 that GAO's request to visit the Korean Base Camp was not approved and referred to a previous message suggesting that U.S. military personnel stationed at the Korean Base Camp could be interviewed at some U.S. camp away from the Korean Base Camp.

In our opinion, conducting interviews without being able to test the validity of the statements by examination of records and visual on-site inspection of facilities, is so restrictive that we would be unable to determine and report to the Congress the actual prevailing conditions.

Not only have the denials of access to records and visits to military units impaired our review, but delays in either granting or denying our requests for information have disrupted our attempts to complete our audit in a timely manner. For example, on February 24, 1971, in a letter to the Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, we requested permission for our representatives to visit a Korean free world force command at Nha Trang, Vietnam, to examine property record books, make tests of physical inventories and to discuss procedures and controls over U.S.-owned equipment with responsible officials. We were advised that the Command would have to obtain approval of higher authority before granting or denying our request.

As of March 24, 1971, one month after our letter to the Command, permission from higher authority had not yet been requested by the Command.

REVIEW OF U.S. OCCUPATION COSTS IN BERLIN, GERMANY

The Department of State has denied the GAO the right to examine, review, or audit records relating to U.S. occupation costs in Berlin, Germany. Accordingly, we are unable to carry out an examination scheduled as a part

of our continuing audit responsibility pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.

Our objective in this review was to examine into the U.S. costs incurred in the occupation of Berlin and the system of accounts and controls administered by the U.S. Army, to assure ourselves and the Congress that the U.S. financial interests are being properly protected. In our requests for access to this information, we informed Department of State officials that our review would be limited solely to U.S. occupation costs based on records available in the U.S. agencies.

In a December 1970 letter to the Secretary of State, the Comptroller General noted the delays by the Department in Washington and the Embassy in Bonn as an example of our increased difficulties in obtaining access to records from the Department of State. The letter stated that our request to review U.S. occupation cost data was made in May 1970, and that six months later our office had not received any decision from the Department.

After repeated requests and meetings concerning our access problems in this review, the Department, in March 1971, advised us that GAO would not be permitted to examine the records pertaining to U.S. occupation costs in Berlin. In its refusal, the Department did not state that records were denied as a result of the President invoking his right of executive privilege. We believe that in the absence of the exercise of executive privilege, the Department of State has no valid basis or authority to deny us the right to examine, review or audit records necessary for conducting the examination. These denials prohibited GAO from carrying out its statutory responsibilities as assigned by the Congress. We are of the opinion that the seriousness of the loss of our free and unrestricted access to needed records is of such significance as to warrant the attention of the Congress.

REVIEW OF U.S. MILITARY OPERATIONS AND COMMITMENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES GAO was denied access by DOD and the Department of State to certain documents and data on military operations and activities in the Philippines, and time-consuming delays and receipt of censored versions of documents were experienced on other requests, which hampered our ability to perform a complete review and issue a report to Congress without qualification. Some examples of the documents and data our representatives requested were data on the missions of U.S. military installations in the Philippines; scheduled dates for negotiating agreement changes; U.S. alternatives in the event of loss of base rights; military sales agreements with the Philippine Government; and the U.S. position on military purchases by the Philippine Government from other foreign countries. Although we subsequently discussed our access to records problems and the type of information needed for our review with State Department officials in Washington, we were not provided with the specific documents requested. It is necessary that we examine documents showing information and data on these matters if we are to comprehensively review U.S. programs and assess their efficiency, economy, and effectiveness.

Refusals and delays by DOD and the Department of State hampered our ability to fully review these programs and in no instance were we furnished evidence that the President invoked executive privilege to withhold the documents we were denied.

REVIEW OF U.S. ASSISTANCE TO PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE
PHILIPPINE CIVIC ACTION GROUP

DOD did not permit auditors to examine records essential to the review, and other essential information we requested from DOD and the Department of State was not provided in a manner which allowed completion of our work and reporting to Congress within a reasonable time.

For example, we were not granted access, under the unilateral ground rules established by DOD, to records on the regular military assistance program for the Philippines, rendering us uncertain that we examined all the support given to the Philippines by the United States during the period covered in our review. In addition, time consuming record screening processes by DOD and Department of State seriously hampered and delayed our review efforts. These access to records problems required us to significantly reduce the scope of our review. As a result of this action we were unable to issue an unqualified report on the results of our work.

We requested DOD to release this information to our representatives and all the documents necessary for our review, however, the restrictive limitations placed on our work were not removed and were justified by a DOD official as dealing with matters outside the scope of our review and sensitive documents which are traditionally withheld from GAO and even Committees of the Congress.

The refusals of access to documents we requested were reported in June 1970 to Senator Symington who had asked us to perform work on this assignment. (Report to the Subcommittee on U.S. Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Review of U.S. Assistance to the Philippine Civic Action Group, B-168501, dated June 1, 1970).

REVIEW OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE-REPUBLIC OF CHINA

DOD denied the GAO access to information that was pertinent to our review of the Military Assistance Program in the Republic of China. Some of the information that we requested was contained in a document which concerned the military planning and rationale used in meeting overall U.S. military objectives. The planning outlines existing and potential threats, both internal and external, the related equipment and manpower needed to meet a variety of situations and contingencies, and the priorities established for the U.S. support of recipient country forces.

DOD's explanation of our denial of access to this type of information was that it was sensitive information concerning military contingencies and war plans.

Other information denied us by DOD concerned a military air defense study of the Republic of China. Studies of this type should contain a wealth of information concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the air defense system, the problems being encountered and the actions being taken to resolve the problems. DOD informed us that this study was an internal working document that could not be released to us.

As a result of DOD denying us access to this information, the progress of the review was slowed and we could not complete it in a timely manner. The U.S. Embassy in the Republic of China also restricted our access to files and records of the Embassy by a time-consuming screening process. Even when the files were released to us we had no way of knowing how complete the information was that was provided to us.

REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

We were denied access by DOD to various evaluation and inspection reports, factual information, and records relating to the training program in several countries. The denials prevented GAO from fully discharging its audit responsibilities, delayed the progress of the reviews and generally impaired our evaluation of the effectiveness of the training program.

As an example of our access problems, we requested from DOD officials in China, Korea, and Thailand data on recipient country force capability and operational readiness status. This information would have provided a measure of the effectiveness of the training programs for these countries. After repeated requests, delays, and referrals DOD at the conclusion of our review had not granted access to most of these reports and records.

A further example of the restrictions placed on GAO's access to records in reviewing the training program occurred when GAO formally requested that it be allowed to review military command program evaluation reports, the internal management reviews of military assistance activities in Korea, Thailand, and China. GAO auditors were denied access to the reports by DOD and as a later substitute, were given briefings and general information screened by DOD. Our auditors advised DOD that the briefings and information furnished did not meet our needs and that they required complete access to these reports in order to evaluate the efficiency of DOD's management of training programs.

In February 1971, GAO reported the access to records problems encountered in this review to Senator J. W. Fulbright, at whose request the review was performed. We expressed our belief in the report that the access to records problem involves a matter critically affecting our future ability to conduct,

on behalf of the Congress, thorough and complete reviews of military assistance activities. (Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Problems in Administration of the Military Assistance Training Program, B-163582, dated February 16, 1971).

REVIEW OF THE USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES
IN THE MILITARY ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES

DOD denied the GAO access to information relative to MAP-supported units in Greece. Some of the information we requested was contained in a document which concerned military planning and rationale used in meeting overall U.S. military objectives. The planning outlines existing and potential threats, both internal and external, the related equipment and manpower needed to meet various continguencies, and the priorities established for U.S. support of Greek forces.

Other information denied us was contained in trip reports of U.S. military advisory group personnel who visited Greek military installations and evaluated the effectiveness of the units as well as making updated appraisals of requirements for U.S. support.

Information of the type is required if GAO is to objectively review and evaluate the justification for an computation of equipment, supplies, and other material requirements which may be met in part or full, from excesses under the military assistance program.

We met with DOD officials and requested release of the records denied to our field staff in Greece, inasmuch as the information is essential for our review.

A joint DOD/Department of State message was issued in March 1971, which provided guidelines to help alleviate this problem, however, the guidelines were worded in such a way that in most cases documents could not be released to GAO representatives until cleared at the Washington level. As a result of the problems GAO faced in gaining access to records considered pertinent to the review GAO withdrew its audit staff from Greece in late March 1967 pending resolution of the problem. The staff returned to Greece in late May 1971 to obtain as much information as was possible under restrictions imposed. However, GAO feels that the restrictions will ultimately be reflected in a report qualified as to the adequacy of records examined.

Mr. EDMISTEN. I noticed one here: Some correspondence with Senator Fulbright indicating that GAO attempted to get information. regarding the expenditure of money in Germany.

Mr. KELLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. EDMISTEN. You were attempting to learn about our occupational forces in Berlin. I wonder if you have that information yet? Mr. KELLER. No, sir; we do not. I understand that this question. came up again with Senator Proxmire's subcommittee on the Senate. Appropriations Committee a couple of weeks ago. And I think the State Department did respond that they would look into it again. and if there was any change in this position they would advise him. It does not sound too encouraging.

I want to explain that we are only asking to look at the U.S. records, not records of other countries. And as I understand it, and correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Duff-the military department did not have any problem with it, but somewhere between the DOD, the State Department, and the Ambassador, there was a problem. We don't have the records at the present time.

Mr. EDMISTEN. In your investigations, say, with our offices in foreign countries, do lower level people immediately refuse to give the documents to you, or do they say: "Let's wait until we can check with Washington?"