Appendix C

Correspondence on the Right of Access to Information by the General Accounting Office

November 12, 1958

Hon. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, President of the United States, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I just returned to Washington for a hearing of the Government Information Subcommittee. The subcommittee, I understand, will inquire into the matter of General Accounting Office access to Air Force Inspector General’s reports. In that context, my attention has been directed to your press conference comments of November 5, and to some newspaper speculation about those comments.

The text of your remarks to which I refer is as follows:

“Q. (Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register). Mr. President, you have mentioned the spending in the Defense Department here as one of the important issues, and the General Accounting Office, which is the watchdog on frauds and extravagance in the various agencies, has been barred from reports over in the Air Force and the Defense Department generally, and on this they claim that they have authority from you to withhold reports any time it is ‘inexpedient to do so.’

“I wonder if you have given that authority and if you feel that the GAO should have a full rein to go in and investigate all indications of fraud and extravagance.

“The PRESIDENT. You are obviously talking about some special thing that I would have to study before I could make—give an answer.

“I have stated this time and again: I believe that every investigating committee of the Congress, every auditing office, like the GAO, should always have an opportunity to see official records if the security of our country is not involved.

“Q. (Clark R. Mollenhoff, Des Moines Register). Well, they claim this, Mr. President, under executive privilege.

“The PRESIDENT. No, that’s all I have to say—I told you that is all I had to say for the moment.”

While this question-and-answer exchange did not identify Inspector General reports, and while you did preface your comment by saying this obviously referred to some special thing you would have to study before giving an answer, I would nevertheless like to ask this: Did you mean to imply by your comments that the complete text of Inspector General reports, including recommendations, be made available to Congress and the General Accounting Office?

Respectfully, CLARE E. HOFFMAN

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, November 12, 1958.

Hon. CLARE E. HOFFMAN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you for your letter inquiring about comments in my November 5 press conference.

I believe, of course, that the public, the Congress, and such auditing units as the General Accounting Office should have all the information departments and agencies can properly make available. However, the public interest also demands order and efficiency in the operation of these departments and agencies. And in my judgment the public interest is not necessarily served by divulging the advice, suggestions, or recommendations which subordinate employees periodically make to their superiors. In this connection, recommendations of inspectors general have been a most useful advisory tool in administering the military departments; and historically, recommendations and other advisory matter in such reports have not been released. I think this practice is a correct one, and is in the best interest of the Nation. At the same time, I want to add that the facts are distinct from advice and recommendations in these reports. It is my understanding that all the facts developed in the inspector general’s report to which you refer are being made available at the request of the General Accounting Office.

Sincerely, DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, D.C., November 4, 1958.

MEMORANDUM ON RIGHT OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO ACCESS TO A REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE AIR FORCE ENTITLED “SURVEY OF MANAGEMENT OF THE BALLISTIC MISSILES PROGRAM”

The basic statutory authority of the Comptroller General for access to records of departments and agencies is set forth in section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 54). Section 313 provides:

“All departments and establishments shall furnish to the Comptroller General such information regarding the powers, duties, activities, organization, financial transactions, and methods of business of their respective offices as he may from time to time require of them; and the Comptroller General, or any of his assistants or employees, when duly authorized by him, shall, for the purpose of securing such information, have access to and the right to examine any books, documents, papers, or records of any such department or establishment. The authority contained in this section shall not be applicable to expenditures made under the provisions of section 291 of the Revised Statutes.”

It will be noted that the only exception in section 313 relates to expenditures made under section 291, Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 107), which authorizes the Secretary of State to account for certain confidential expenditures in connection with intercourse or treaties with foreign nations by certificate where, in his judgment, he may think it advisable not to specify the details of such expenditure. Since that is the only exception stated and following the legal maxim that the specific setting forth of one type of exception precludes others from arising, it seems clear that the Comptroller General may require, and the departments are required to furnish, documents, etc., as to any other transaction or activity. Also, the language of section 313 itself [except as to the expenditures under 291 R. S.] in requiring the departments to furnish such information as the Comptroller General “may require of them” and its requirement that he be given access to any documents of the departments, clearly gives him access to all such documentation. If he has access to any document, he has access to all. The legislative background of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, makes no qualification as to what records can be required; the provision itself apparently being considered sufficiently specific. The legislative reports do bring out that one of the principal functions of the Comptroller General is to enable the Congress to be kept advised as to expenditures of the Government, and that the Comptroller General is expected to criticize extravagance, duplication, and inefficiency in executive departments. There is no doubt, in passing the act, the Congress did not intend that the executive agencies could, or would, withhold any books, documents, papers, or records needed by the Comptroller General. Otherwise, the very purpose of the act would be nullified.

The authority and duty of the Comptroller General was amplified by section 206 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (31 U.S.C. 60), which authorized and directed him to make expenditure analyses of each agency in the executive branch of the Government which “will enable Congress to determine whether public funds have been economically and efficiently administered and expended” and to make reports thereon from time to time to the Committees on Government Operations, and Appropriations and other committees having jurisdiction over legislation relating to the operation of the agencies involved. The work of the Comptroller General, together with the activities of the Committees on Government Operations, were to serve as a check on the economy and efficiency of administrative management. See pages 6 and 7, Senate Report No. 1400 on the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946.

The Congress has also directed that the Comptroller General in performing his duties give full consideration to the administrative reports and controls of the departments and agencies. The Government Corporation Control Act specifically provides in