COMPILATION OF GAO ACCESS TO RECORDS PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN MAKING AUDITS OF FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 29, 2002
• Sequence Number: 83
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
COMPILATION OF GAO ACCESS TO RECORDS PROBLEMS
ENCOUNTERED IN MAKING AUDITS OF FOREIGN
OPERATIONS AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
In response to the requeat.stf ,._tha _Chairman, Senate ,_Foreign Relations
Cmmo,te..Februaryy 25 1971, we have made an analysis of the access to
records_groblem, including a compilation of,-specified .atencea_where the,
ggacr _.Account ng_Office.(GAO).has been denied access or delayed in
0-ti 4ng access to Executive Branch records or materials during recent
3Cesa~s.
We have cited examples of denials of information and delaying or
iindering_actions that have taken place during eight overseas reviews
ducted by GAO's International Division during approximately the last
two years. Five of the reviews were_ conducted at the request of your
Cttee and the remaining three were initiated by GAO.
We believe the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as reinforced
bX_Eecent expressions of intent by congressional committees, leaves no
doubt but that Congress and GAO are expected to have access to all
records documents, or papers necessary to'effectively evaluate the
various p 9grams of . the. Executive Branch.
However, the Departments of State and Defense have in many
instances taken the position that certain information is not releasable
to GAO and the Congress. Information has been denied our auditors both
in the field and at the Washington level and in certain cases,
information has been supplied only after time consuming reviews by
successively higher organizational levels within the Departments.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4 -1
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
The time-consuming processes employed by the Departments in many cases
have hampered our auditors in the discharge of their duties to the point
that audit teams in the interest of our economical use of manpower resources
had to be withdrawn from the audit site prior to a decision being made
by the Departments as to whether our request to examine documents would
be approved or denied. In other cases, information was provided on a
piecemeal basis and certain documents were withheld which would have
provided the continuity of Departmental actions necessary in our evalua-
tion of the overall program under review.
In our opinion, the delays result in a de facto denial of records
which should be made available in accordance with our legislative
authority and the intent of Congress.
Following is a list of types of information that we believe are
necessary in the conduct of an audit but have not been provided in a
timely manner or refused outright:
1. future planning information and documents, both formal
and informal;
2. internal working papers and staff recommendations relating
to programs planned or in process;
3. negotiation documents, papers, memorandums, and working
papers, before, during and after negotiations, regardless of
whether or not the information is considered sensitive;
4. management reports including recommendations or conclusions
reached, whether approved or unapproved by higher authority,
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
6. access to all United States supported bases and installations
regardless of the geographical location.
Following is a discussion of GAO's authority under the Budget and
field trip reports, observations, and records of conversations
pertinent to the matters under review;
5. access to records, documents or papers originated or directly
related to foreign governments but in the possession of United
States agencies, when they relate to programs in which the
United States has a direct interest; and
,Accounting Act of 1921, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961;
Department of State and Department of Defense (DOD) and their various
organizational elements, regulations, directives, or messages on GAO's
right of access to information; and examples of denials and delays of
information by the Departments of State and Defense.
General Accounting Office Authority
The position of GAO is that full and complete access to all records
pertaining to the subject matter of an audit or review is rwired. This
is required in order that GAO can fully carry out its duties and
responsibilities. The intent of the various laws assigning authority
and responsibility to the GAO is clear on this point. This policy does
not admit the.-propriety of any restrictions on GAO's legal authority
other than that specifically contained in law. The right of generally
unrestricted access to needed records is not only based on laws
-3-
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
ILLEGIB
enacted by the Congress but is inherent in the nature of the duties
responsibilities of the GAO.
The basic authority governing GAO's access to records of Government
agencies is contained in section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act,
1921, (31 U.S.C. 54) as follows:
"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 more important factors underlying the laws and GAO'a policy
of insisting on generally unrestricted access to pertinent records of
agencies and contractors in making GAO audits and reviews are
sumo:arized below:
1. The making of an adequate, independent. and objective
examination contemplates obtaining a comprehensive under-
standing of all ortant factors underlying the decisions
actions of the agency or contractor management relating
the Bub act of GAO examinaticros.
2. i htened mane ement directJ,on _nd_,execnton?of a program
must necessarily consider the opinions, conclusions, and recom-
mendatians of individuals directly engaged inprograms that are
gn ,essential and integral part.of operational knowledge of this
types is Just as important in making an independent review as it
is in making the basic management decisions.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
-4-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
3. Jdittiholding information could permit concealment of adverse
conditions by responsible officials. The denial of information
developed in an internal review to higher authority, or any other
official properly concerned, hampers the external review and
independent consideration of the effectiveness and efficiency of
the activities, and necessitates a duplication of effort and
increased costs.
4. Internal reviews on behalf of agency management are highly
desirable. Such reviews represent one of the.-methods by which
management can keep informed of how large and complex activities
are being carried out. Management should take vigorous corrective
action on any deficiencies disclosed. However, the effectiveness
of a program of self-evaluation and management improvement is'not
dependent upon restricting the information developed to the
individuals or departmental level responsible for the activity
under examination." Such information is of great importance to
higher administrative levels of review having a legitimate interest
or concern in the subject. The effectiveness with which internal
review activities are carried out and the effectiveness with which
corrective action is implemented is clearly of interest and concern
to the GAO in the performance of its statutory responsibilities
and reporting to the Congress.
5. There is no basis in law or to is for a_di~tnctiom between
factual information and internal opinions, conclusions, and
re nit one insofar as our authority and need for information
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
is concerned. A sharp distinction between these categories
is not only difficult to make but physical segregation of them
is impractical.
6. -,,he disclosure to the GAO of frankly stated internal
opinions, conclusions, and recommendations is not contrary to
thfLpublic interest. The system of management control which
results in such internal communications should be properly
conceived, administered, and dedicated to efficient and
effective operations rather than oriented toward a defense of
possible criticism. Under these circumstances, the requirement
of disclosure should tend to improve the caliber of the internal
opinions, conclusions, and recommendations rather than impair
their usefulness to the management because of softened criticism,
avoidance of doubtful matter, and general restraint.
7i, books, documents ?~papers, and other records relating to
t gpats borne by the United States are records relating directly
o the financial interest of the United States. Such records
are not limited to formal agreements or contracts and the supporting
data, but i=lude all underlying data concerning-the,.need,
_utilization., and disposition of funds-which afford_ the basis for
or..Wre involved in any way with the incurrence of costa try the
ted.States. Pertinent records may include, but are not limited
to records in support of (a) future plans and programs, (b) internal
working papers, observations and trip reports of advisers and
(o) evaluations, recommendations and conclusions of internal
evaluation groups.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
-6-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
A remedy bearing on our access to records of Government agencies
is contained in section 634c of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
as amended. Section 634c states that:
"None of the funds made available pursuant to the
provisions of this Act shall be used to carry out
any provision of this Act in any country or with
respect to any project or activity, after the
expiration of the thirty-five-day period which
begins on the date the General Accounting Office
or. any committee of the Congress charged with
considering, legislation, appropriations or expendi-
tures under this Act, has delivered to the office
of the head of any agency carrying out such pro-
vision, a written request that it be furnished any
document, paper, communication, audit, review,
finding, recommendation, report, or other material
in its custody or control relating to the adminis-
tration of such provision in such country or with
respect to such project or activity,unless and
until there has been furnished to the General
Accounting Office, or to such committee, as the
case may be, (1) the document, paper, communication,
audit, review, finding, recommendation, report, or
other material so requested, or (2) a certification
by the President that he has forbidden the furnishing
thereof pursuant to request and his reason for so doing."
The above section applies only to funds appropriated under the
Foreign Assistance Act; it is not applicable to the military service
appropriations.
Department of Defense and Department of State
Restrictive Regulations
Both the Departments of Defense and State and their various
organizational elements recognize GAO's rights to documents, records
and papers as contained in the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, but
at the same time the Departments have directed that certain types of
information not be furnished to GAO. Normally these regulations or
directives and implementing messages do not state that GAO cannot
be furnished the information, but rather that their personnel in
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
the field can not furn.Lsh the information unless authorization is received
from higher authority; this normally means officials of the Departments
in Washington.
Following are pertinent excerpts from regulations, directives, and
implementing messages of the Departments of State and Defense and their
various organization elements restricting GAO's right to records.
Department of Defense
The Department of Defense's basic policy guidance on cooperation
with GAO and access to records is contained in DOD Directive Number
7650.1, dated July 9, 1958. Although the directive was not agreed to
by us, it sets forth the working arrangement under which we have
operated. That directive contains three categories of information
that DOD considers to be essentially nonreleasable to GAO--those are
(1) budgets for future years' programs, (2) reports of non-Department
of Defense agencies, and (3) reports of Inspector General and criminal
investigation organizations.
However, in some cases implementing messages from DOD and regulations
by the military services and major commands have placed additional
restrictions on GAO's access to records. The restrictions vary somewhat
among the military services and commands. We believe the following two
illustrations demonstrate the restrictions imposed by DOD on access to
records necessary for GAO to make effective evaluation of DOD programs.
1. U.S. European Command Headauarters, Directive Number 50-5
dated June 18, 1971
The appendix to the above directive contains a listing of documents
and categories of information which the chiefs of Military Assistance
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
Advisory Groups and missions may not release to GAO without approval
from higher authority. They are as follows:
a. Recommended changes to force objectives.
b. Host country replies to NATO questionnaires and related
MAAG analyses.
c. Information relating essentially to military or international
planning considerations and pertaining to matters of strategy,
such as war plans or memorandums leading to the formulation of
such plans.
d. The Military Assistance Five Year Plan for a particular country
except data included in the military assistance program which has
been initially justified before the Congress.
e. The quantity and projected delivery of items and services
included in a specific fiscal year military assistance program
prior to the initial justification of the program before the
Congress.
f. Operational status reports concerning tactical effectiveness
of host country forces. (Factual data, such as personnel strengths
and allowances and equipment inventories and allowances, may be
extracted from these reports and furnished the GAO in response to
a specific request for such data from the GAO.) Note: This restriction
excludes combat capability ratings assigned by chiefs of Air Force
sections of the MAAGs.
g. Reports of the Inspector General., Foreign Assistance,
Department of State.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
h. USEUCOM command Inspection reports (Factual data specifically
related to the area of the GAO audit may be extracted from these
reports and furnished in response to a specific request for such
data from the GAO)
i. Documents related to intelligence collection and analysis
j. Host country documents, reports, and data
20 Joint State-Aaencv for International Development-Defense
Message dated December 18, 1970
This message, which was drafted by DOD, was directed to the
American Embassies in Bangkok, Manila, Saigon, and Seoul,, and the.Paoifio
Command in Hawaii. It stated, missions and commands should not,without
specific Washington authority, allow GAO personnel to consult or
otherwise have access to the following:
a. Documents relating to war plans, future military assistance
service funded or U.S. military operations budgets and-.:planning
data.
b. Confidential correspondence exchanged between heads of State.
c. Presidential memoranda.
d. Reports of the Inspector General.
e. Performance Evaluation Reports.
f. Internal executive branch working papers and memoranda.
g. Telegrams,memoranda or other documents revealing sensitive
information about the,-.conduct of United States negotiations with
participating countries or South Vietnam.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
he Other material which the Ambassador or major military component
commanders consider may be sensitive and could, if revealed, have
a serious adverse effect on the conduct of United States Government
relations with the participating countries or with other
countries or might otherwise prejudice the national interests
of the United States.
The message also contained a statement that GAO representatives will
have no need to consult participating country or Government of
Vietnam officials or agencies for purposes of present review since
such contacts could have adverse consequences.
In reviewing the military service regulations it is interesting to
note that the military service regulations were revised between July and
September 1970 which allows GAO access to planning estimates for specific
programs. This revision, however, has not been incorporated in DOD
regulations and implementing instructions.
Department of State
The Department of State's basic overall policy guidance for making
documents available to GAO is contained in their Foreign Affairs Manual,
(FAM), Volume 4, Section 934. The FAM quotes the pertinent part of section
313 of the Budget and Accounting Act, and states it is the State
Department's policy to cooperate by making available to GAO representatives
their documents.
However, the FAM further states that Department of State approval
is to be obtained first when in the opinion of the ambassador or bureau
head any document requested by GAO is of such significance that:
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
1. Its disclosure would seriously impair relations between the
United States and other countries in the conduct of foreign
affairs, or otherwise prejudice the best interests of the United
States.
2. It is a document directed to the President, the National
Security Council, or a similar White House board.
3. It is a document relating to formulation of sensitive
substantive policy (as distinguished from a statement of or
implementation of policy).
4. It is a document that is generally restricted, such as
personnel security files, records,relating to citizenship of
individuals, Foreign Service inspectors' reports, visa records,
intelligence and investigative records, and classified material of
other agencies except in accordance with the applicable regulations
and consent of the originating agency.
In a November 17, 1970, message from the Department of State to
all diplomatic and consular posts, the State Department restated their
guidance on the release of information and documents to GAO. The
message emphasized that while GAO has a statutory basis for requesting
information and access to documents, the President at the same time,
enjoys the historic privilege of withholding certain information the
dislosure of which would be incompatible with the public interest.
The message enumerated the restrictions on GAO's access to records
as contained in the FAM and also stated that sensitive information about
the conduct of United States negotiations with foreign countries may
-12-
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
come within the category of information restricted to GAO. The message
also stated that should GAO representatives indicate an intention to
approach the host government, they should be discouraged from doing so,
unless contrary guidance is received from the State Department.
In a letter dated December 16, 1970, the Comptroller General requested
the Secretary of State to rescind the additional restrictions placed
on GAO's access to records as contained in the November 17, 1970,
message from the Department of State. The Comptroller General noted
in his letter that the new instructions would compound the problems that
GAO has been experiencing in obtaining access to records pertinent to
our reviews. A copy of the Comptroller Generalts letter was also
forwarded to the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs on December 19, 1970, in view of the fact that the Secretary
of State's message was cleared by the White House prior to release.
On January 22, 1971, the State Department replied to the Comptroller
General that it was not the intention of the State Department to issue
more restrictive regulations regarding GAO's-request in the field for
access to documents, but rather to remind their overseas locations of
the existing procedures as contained in the FAM on access to sensitive
documents.
At the request of the Comptroller General, the State Department
informed all diplomatic and consular posts on February 16, 1971, that
it was...not the intention of the November 17, 1970, message to impose
additional restrictions on GAO's access to records.
The Assistants ~resi denypr Nit; ona? +ri f"
replied on Februar~r27~ 19'?'l~ to .the_ Ootro Is 19T?~ 0 ,.+~ta ed that the poliop_As the tt tti~nn~ _ ane . of the
Approved For Release 2004/11/29: CI-RDP73BOA0~2DUU5~..
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
Lest eaQ,peration w3.th r ongreas_and kith the GAO. The letter,
however, noted that in regard to the requirement for United States
missions in the field to refer sensitive decisions back to Washington,
that this seems a reasonable administrative procedure, and that it
remains incumbent upon the departments to assure that such referrals
are handled with dispatch here in Washington.
Based upon the delays that occurred in GAO's gaining access to
records during our reviews, we believe that the implementing restrictions
of November 17, 1970, to the FAM did in effect result in additional
restrictions on GAO's access to records. Examples are included in
the following section.
Examples of Delays and Denials of Information by
the Departments of Defense and State
The Departments by their regulations, directives, and implementing
messages have established hierarchic systems which have seriously
restricted their field organizations in responding to requests for
certain types of information. In many instances, after long delays
occasioned by the referral of GAO requests to Washington, the
information requested was received. However, by that time our field
auditors were no longer at the site and were not in a position to
properly evaluate the information in conjunction with other material
at the site and could not readily obtain the.:views of the personnel
most familiar with the information.
In addition to these delaying tactics, which hindered an effective
timely evaluation of United States programs overseas, we were also
denied other pertinent and significant information needed to properly
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
carry out our statutory responsibilities. In one instance we were
denied the right to conduct a review, while in two other instances
we were denied the right to visit United States supported military
bases in Vietnam.
Shown below are a few examples of the denials and delaying
tactics encountered by GAO during eight overseas reviews conducted
during the last two years.
Departments of Defense and State refusal to allow GAO
to visit U.S. supported bases in Vietnam
The Departments of Defense and State have denied permission to
GAO to visit the Thai and Korean camps in Vietnam. q=-reasons for
requesting the visits were to observe-the large amount of United
States equipment and supplies provided to the Thai and Korean troops
and to talk with United States military liaison personnel stationed
at the oamps as to their duties and responsibilities. An additional
reason for our requests to visit the camps was the fact that we had
observed during a visit to the Thai Overseas Replacement Training
Center in Thailand on September 18,1970, what appeared to be large
counts of excess equipment.
On September 21, 1970, we verablly requested permission from the
Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, to visit Camp
Bearcat, location of the Thai contingent. We were informed by the
Commander on September 23, 1970, that the visit would not be authorized
without prior clearance from higher- headquarters and that our request
should be submitted in writing which we did on September 25, 1970.
While our request stated 'hat we did not intend to talk to any Thai
personnel during the visit to the camp, nevertheless, United States
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
military officials in v- ,nam, with concurrence of Unit States
Embassy officials in Bangkok and Saigon, denied us permission to visit
the installation at that time without clearance from higher authority.
The reason cited for denying our request was that GAO should have no
need to consult host country officials or agencies and that such contacts
could have adverse consequences.
The Department of State sent a message dated November 17, 1970,
to all of its diplomatic and consular posts which provided guidance to
the posts for handling GAO examinations. Among other things, the guidance
stated that GAO representatives should be discouraged from consulting host
country officials or agencies, unless contrary guidance was received
from the Department. A joint State-Agency for International Development-
Defense message, dated December 18, 1970, reaffirmed this guidance. (See page 10)
The Comptroller General, in a letter to the Secretary of State,
dated December 16, 1970, pointed out that GAO has regularly made visits
to host government installations to see how assistance financed by the
United States is being used. He stated that such inspections are essential
if GAO is to carry out its responsibilities for evaluating the effective-
ness and improving the management of United States programs. He further
stated that any contacts GAO might have with host country officials are
arranged through United States country team channels, and that we know of no
problem that has arisen as a result of this phase of our reviews.
On February 5, 1971, our office in Saigon requested. permission from
the Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, to visit the
Korean Base Camp at Qui Nhon, Vietnam. As with the Thai base camp
request, our office stated that we did not intend to contact
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4 -16-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
Korean personnel or review Korean records, but that we wished to make
some visual observations of the condition and utilization of United States
provided facilities and equipment. However, on March 6, 1971, a message
from the Secretary of Defense to Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC)
stated that the requested GAO visit was disapproved, and that GAO should
be satisfied to interview United States military liaison personnel at
some U.S. facility, other than Qui Nhon.
Contrary to DOD's opinion, the proposal was not satisfactory for
purposes of auditing. It would not enable us to make a first hand
observation of the existence, condition, and utilization of United
States property provided the Korean forces for their use. We believe
that the disapprovals of our requests to visit the Thai and Korean
base camps in Vietnam, were not justified. Furthermore, the disapprovals
effectively prevented GAO from exercising its statutory responsibilities.
Refusal of the State Department to Allow
GAO to Conduct an Overseas Review
In March 1971, 13 months after GAO informed the United States
Embassy in Germany that we planned to conduct a review of United States
occupation costs in Berlin, we were informed by the Department of State
that we would not be permitted to do so.
Our proposed review was designed to assure ourselves and the
Congress that the United States occupation costs in Berlin which
are properly chargeable to the Federal Republic of Germany are in fact
borne by them, and that U.S..Government financial interests are
being properly protected. Accordingly, in February 1970, we
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
-17-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
informed the United States Embassy in Germany and U.S. Armor officials
of our plan to review the United States occupation costs in Berlin.
At the time, U.S. Army officials interposed no objections to our
examination of their records and processes. However, a United States
Embassy official expressed a reservation that the basic audit agreement
on Berlin did not permit an independent review by any of the7-:powers'
supreme audit organizations. In our discussion with Embassy and
Department of State officials, we emphasized that our review would be
limited solely to United States occupation costs and would be based on
records available in the United States agencies.
In our attempt to resolve the issue, an official of our Office,
in May 1970, formally requested that the Department of State authorize
access to the pertinent records so that we could proceed with our review.
In June 1970, we were advised by the Deputy Under Secretary for
Administration and the Assistant Secretary for European Affairs,
Department of State, that we could anticipate a reply to our request
soon. After we had pressed for an answer over a period of nine months
through letters, telephone calls, and meetings, we were officially
advised in March 1971 that access was denied.
In denying us access, the response by the Department of State made
no reference to invoking executive privilege; the Department of State
does not have authority to deny us the right to examine the records or
to conduct the review.
The General Accounting Office has the authority and responsibility
to audit United States records relating to expenditures and receipts
of the United States. Refusal on the part of the Department of State
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
-18-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
to permit our staff to review the necessary records concerning
occupation costs in Berlin precludes us from carrying out our
responsibility for audits as provided by the Congress under Section 305
of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921. This section states that%
"All claims and demands whatever by the Government
of the United States or against it, and all accounts
whatever in which the Government of the United States
is concerned, either as debtor or creditor, shall be
settled and adjusted in the General Accounting Office."
Thus, the right of the General Accounting Office to unrestricted access
to pertinent records is not only based on laws enacted by the Congress
but is also inherent in the nature of the duties and responsibilities
assigned by the Congress to the General Accounting Office.
In the latter part of April 1971, we reported this matter to eight
committees of the Congress as well as to the Secretary of State.
Following issuance of the report, the Chairman, Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations addressed a letter to the Secretary of State requesting
an explanation of the matter. As of June 1971 GAO has not been
advised of a Department of State response.
Management Reports. Trig Reports, and So-Called
Internal Working Papers Denied to GAO
The GAO during its review and evaluation of United States programs,
whenever possible, utilizes the various reports prepared by Executive
Branch personnel to avoid duplication of effort, and to ascertain the
degree of internal management control exercised by Executive Branch
personnel over the various programs involving United States expenditures.
The denial of these reports to GAO, including the recommendations
and conclusions reached by personnel preparing the reports, seriously
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4 -19-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
hinders the GAO from being responsive to Congressional requests in a
timely manner, and results in duplication of effort and expenditure.
Following are a few examples of this type of information denied to GAO.
Management reports
In connection with our review of the administration of the military
assistance training program, we requested access to CINCPAC Personnel
Evaluation Group reports for Korea, Thailand, and China. These Performance
Evaluation Group reports are a product of a CINCPAC evaluation group
responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the Military Assistance
Program and the various military assistance organizations in the Pacific
Command. Therefore, in order for us to ascertain any program weaknesses
and duplications of effort,the reports prepared by this internal
management group were essential.
In March 1969 CINCPAC denied us access to the evaluation reports
for Korea. We made a formal request to the Secretary of Defense for
reports pertaining to Korea, Thailand, and China. Four months after
our request, the Secretary of Defense, in a letter dated August 4, 1969,
informed us that the reports were not releasable at that time. The
Secretary of Defense gave approval on November 25, 1969, for CINCPAC
to furnish briefings on the "salient training facts" in the evaluation
reports. On December 16,1969, our Far East Branch received a
CINCPAC briefing covering the Military Assistance Program training data
reportedly contained in the 1969 reports for Korea.. China, and Thailand.
We advised the DOD personnel briefing us that the general
information provided in the briefing was of little
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
-value to us in performing our review due to lack of detailed data. We
were told that CINCPAC policies and instructions prevented the release
of necessary portions of the evaluation reports involving opinions,
evaluations, and future planning data.
Trim Reports
In connection with our review of the use of Department of Defense
excess defense articles in military assistance activities, we were
denied access to official trip reports by DOD officials in Greece.
The reason for our request was that trip reports, in addition to the
factual matters contained in the reports, also contain opinions,
observations, and recommendations submitted by subordinates making
field inspections. Unless we receive access to the factual information
and related interpretations we are inhibited in identifying problem
areas.
Because of this need,, our European Branch representatives requested
copies of the Arm advisors' trip reports on March 8, 1971. On March 11,
1971, the Joint United States Military Advisory Group, Greece, agreed
to try and extract for our use, certain portions of the trip reports.
Headquarters, U.S. European Command Directive 50-5 permits the release
of trip reports after opinions, observations and reoommendations,which
do not represent final actions, have been removed. However, on March 19,
1971, on the basis of a cable received from the Department of Defense
providing guidance on GAO access, the Joint United States Military
Advisory Group, Greece, informed us that they would not provide any
portion of the trip reports that we had requested.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
Contents of the DOD cable which established this guidance for the
Joint United States Military Advisory Group, Greece, was not made
available to us.
Internal Work in Pacers
In connection with our review of United States assistance to
Thailand in conedereton of their, deployment of forces to Vietnam,
the Departments of Defense and State have refused us access to a document
41 iniOz_the criteria for payments to the Thai Government. The
document is referred to as the "Scope" document. I
that this doctaent..aats__prth the financial framework within which the
United States and Thailand operate and the specific commitments and
activities the United States engage in relative to support of Thai
tro ps_participating in the Free World Military Assistance Program
3 Vietnam.
The Department of Defense refused us access to the Scope document
on the basis that it was an internal working agreement, and the
Department of State on the basis that the document did not originate
with them.
The Scope document according to information provided to us in
Thailand, has been used by a United States Committee in Thailand to
evaluate claims for reimbursement submitted by the Thai Government
in connection with their forces serving in Vietnam. In our opinion
we must know the criteria used by the Committee as established in the
Scope document if we are to determine that the Committee is properly
evaluating the Thai claims.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
We first requested the Scope document from military officials
in Thailand on July 21, 1970. On August 11, 1970, our on-site
auditors were informed by the Military Assistance Command, Thailand,
that decision on release of the Scope document has been referred to
higher authority. We were also informed verbally that the United
States Embassy in Bangkok was objecting to the release of the document.
We contacted State Department officials on August 26, 1970, and they
stated they had the document,but that since it was a DOD document
they could not release it to us.
On September 1, 1970, we verbally requested that DOl) furnish us
a copy of the Scope document and on September 9, 1970, we made the
request in writing. In reply to our request DOD on November 4, 1970,
stated the following:
"The Scope document is a draft?internal working
agreement betwn-te~Urt~~ 3ttesV aD`t~ya1
G9verru~pent (RTG) concernin_ reimbursement
rates and .procedures, which is still underrnegotia-
t, i o n . ~ ' h g r e f o r e , since .i has no officia s alb`s
the "Scope' document is not considered suitable for
release to the GAQ,?
In our opinion the Scope document was clearly a working document
needed in our review and should have been made available to us. It
is interesting to point out that the DOD refusal as quoted above
was classified when initially transmitted to us by DOD, and was not
declassified until we specifically requested DOD to declassify the
statement.
Pertinent Planning Data not Provided to GAO
GAO., in its reviews of overseas programs, very often needs to
know the future planning information of the Departments of Defense and
State to properly evaluate the effectiveness of current programs. This
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
planning data often shows the justification or rationale for current
programs, and,-the planned methods or programs to solve deficiencies
or shortfalls.
For example, during our review of the use of DOD excess defense
articles in Greece, which began in Greece on February 17, 1971, we
requested data used by the Joint United States Military Advisory
Group in programming excess material for Greece under the Military
Assistance Program. Some of the data requested included Military
Assistance Program force objectives, annual future year planning
data, equipment authorization documents, and assets and delivery data
to support requirements. The information requested was required in
order to properly validate the basis upon which the requirements for
excess materials were computed and to evaluate the utilization of the
material by the recipient country.
GAO was subsequently denied the requested planning data although
some consolidated requirements and asset data was provided. The
accuracy of the limited data provided could not be verified because
Military Assistance Program supported listings and equipment authori-
zation documents were not made available.
Due to restricted access, the GAO field team suspended its
review efforts in Greece on March 27, 1971, pending resolution of the
access problems. At the time of its departure from Greece, 24 written
requests for information which had been submitted by the staff to the
Joint United States Military Advisory Group, Greece, were still unanswered.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4 -2
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
The termination of the work in Greece was followed by a series of
discussions and correspondence between the GAO field staff and the U.S.
European Command in an attempt to reach an agreement on the access
problem. The GAO staff in Washington also requested the assistance of
the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs. Throughout these discussions, the withholding of
information from GAO was defended by DOD officials primarily because
it was (1) closely related to Joint Chiefs of Staff objectives which
were not releasable to GAO, (2) host country developed data which could
be released only with country concurrence, or (3) North Atlantic Treaty
Organization information not releasable by the Joint United States
Military Advisory Group, Greece.
On May 5, 1971, an understanding was reached as to the additional
information which would be made available to GAO in both Greece and
Turkey. The extent of the additional information to be released was
not-acceptable to GAO, since it represented abstracted data which could
not be verified against source documentation. Moreover, the release
of much of the supporting data for requirements computations which was
to be provided, remained subject to the approval of the host countries,
and under the ground rules established by the U.S. European Command,
virtually no evaluative data would be made available. However, in
order to obtain as much information as possible on the use of excess
material, the GAO field staff returned to Greece on May 24, 1971, to
resume the review work which had been suspended almost two months earlier.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
At the request of the Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, GAO, in January 1969,undertook a major review of the
Military Assistance Training Program in ten countries? including
China and Thailand. In the initial phases of the review GAO had a
number of problems in obtaining information necessary for the review.
As a result, the Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, in
a letter to the Secretary of Defense, dated May 21, 1969, requested
that the Secretary of Defense insure that GAO be given access to
planning information and all other pertinent information.
-Oh...,hms--2fi6, 1969, the Secretary of Defense replied to Chairman
lbrightIa letter of May 211 1969. The. Secretary of Defense stated
.that. the .formal Five, Year P.=_ for. the Military Assistance Program
..,h?ad not, in the past, been made available to GAO or to the Chairman,
j QQee_Committee on Foreign Affairs, because the Plan is regarded as a
staff study, an entirely tentative planning document at the staff
level, and is usually extensively adjusted when the size of the
budget submission is decided on by the President. The Secretary of
Defense also stated that he,,.in order to ful y coo orate with the
.committee, would have DOD officials give detailed briefings on the
1 An _.a _.it.. relates.to training., to,,. anyone. designated. by Senator
Fulbright.
On August 4, 1969, the Secretary of Defense sent it message to
the Unified Commands, stating that GAO could be briefed on the Military
Assistance Program five-year training program, comprising for the most
-26-
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
part five-year dollar projections. The message further stated that
this guidance was based on the Secretary of Defense reply to Senator
F'ulbrightts May 1969 inquiry as to the release of information to GAO.
In a message dated September 21, 1969, CINCPAC informed the
Secretary of Defense that the GAO representatives in China and
Thailand had requested access to the Military Assistance Program
Planning Reference Books for those countries. The messages stated
that CINCPAC, in accordance with DOD guidance, would advise CINCPAC
representatives in those countries to provide narratives of the books,
provided that extensive editing would not be required to eliminate
future-,.planning information. The message concluded by requesting that
the Secretary of Defense formally refuse GAOts request for the books
because only the Secretary of Defense could properly do so, in accordance
with a DOD directive.
On September 26, 1969, the Secretary of Defense advised CINCPAC
that the guidance furnished on August 4, 1969, still applied, and that
if GAO representatives requested additional future planning information
beyond that authorized, the request should be made to DOI) through GAO
in Washington, since only the Secretary of Defense can deny such a
request.
A month later, October 27, 1969, the Military Assistance Command,
Thailand, received approval from CINCPAC to release edited versions of
the Military Assistance Program planning books.
In our ovinion receipt of information which has 1? edited and
hen rovded GAO__in briefings does-nt_providethe substantive
in-depth information-required for_ our-vyalu tive p irposeo. We believe
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0200050083-4
that the unexpurgated versions of narrative sections of the plan should be
made available to us so that we can review and analyze the reasoning and
justification of actions taken or proposed with background data that DOD
had reference to on making their judgments and decisions.
In our review of military assistance to the Republic of China in
1970, we were denied access by the DOD to a military air defense study
for the island of Taiwan (as well as the Joint Strategic Objectives Plan
for the Republic of China). We were told by DOD that the two documents
contained contingency war plans as well as future year planning and were
internal management working documents; therefore, they could not be
released to us. This denial inhibited our evaluation of the integration,
coordination, and contribution of DOD's planning to the achievement of
overall United States objectives.
Delaying Tactics of the Departments of Defense and State
The Departments of Defense and State have instructed their field
personnel not to provide sensitive information to our field auditors,
but to refer the request to Washington. The Departments in their
guidance provided examples of some categories of information, such
as negotiation documents, and agreements with foreign governments which
are to be considered sensitive,,but the decision on the c]a ssification
of documents as sensitive in respect to non-releasability to GAO
apparently rests with appropriate responsible officials in the field.
As a result of this guidance, our auditors have been unable to obtain
needed information when requested. Documents classified as sensitive
have been subject to many levels of reviews, and often before a decision
was reached in Washington many months elapsed and our field
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0200050083-4 -28-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
auditors had left the field site when a decision to release the
information had finally been reached. For Instance:
In early 1970, we undertook a review of the U.S. assistance to
the Philippine Government in support of the Philippine Civic Action
Group at the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on U.S. Security
Agreements and Commitments Abroad, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate. 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.
Members of our staff were required to wait for periods of two
weeks to two months to look at some documents they had requested and
frequently the documents proved to be of little value for our purposes.
We were also restricted by ground rules established unilaterally by
the Departments that effectively limited our review in the field to the
Departments' very narrow interpretation of what it 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 audit 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. By early May 1970, only four of 12 documents
which were requested by our staff members on January228, 1970, had been
released to them in Manila.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
In our review involving United states assistance to Thailand, our
Far East Branch requested on July 30, 1970, certain adjutant general
documents and message logs from the Military Assistance Coimnand, Thailand.
The message logs were requested in order to identify documents, records, or
messages pertinent to our review. The Military Assistance Command advised
us in the latter part of August 1970, that it had been necessary to
request guidance from higher authority as to releasability of the informa-
tion and suggested that GAO, also, contact such authority at the Washington,
D.C., level. Following their suggestion, we addressed our request to
the Department of Defense in Washington on September 9, 1970. We
learned that following our request in August, the Military Assistance
Command officials had referred our request to the Embassy in Bangkok,
who in turn referred the request to the State Department on. August 31, 1970.
The Department had informed the Embassy in Bangkok that they had no
basic objection to the release of the logs; however, since they had not
seen the logs, the Embassy would have to decide as to whether to release
the logs. In a letter dated November 4, 1970 to GAO the Department of Defense
stated that their decision was that access to the logs was authorized,
provided the contents were releasable in accordance with existing
guidance. However, by this point in time, the GAO audit staff had left
the audit site where the logs were located. Thus, the purpose in
examining the logs was as effectively defeated by the delays encountered
as if an outright denial by the Departments had been made initially.
In connection with Thailand's involvement with free world forces
in,Vietnam, we requested information from the Department of the Army on
October 6, 1970, concerning the computations by which they had arrived
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0200050083-4
at certain amounts shown in quarterly reports to the Congress. This
request was made in order that we might evaluate the validity and accuracy
of the amounts shown in the quarterly reports submitted by the Department
of Defense to the Congress. Although this information was prepared by
October 23, 1970, it was not released until March 19, 1971. In a
similar request for data made on October 12, 1970, the response was not
furnished until March 25, 1971,even though we had made repeated attempts
to elicit the information.
In connection with our current review of utilization of excess
defense articles in MAP, we requested a country-to-country agreement
between the 'United States and Australia on March 31, 1971. The agreement
involves the overseas procurement transaction for the acquisition of
trucks and trailers in Australia for delivery to Cambodia. The
purpose for the request was to enable us to ascertain why the arrange-
ment was made in lieu of alternatives available and whether, in fact,
the agreement was a form of consideration to the Australian Government
for their participation in the support of our efforts in Vietnam.
We first made our request for the agreement to the Department of
State on March 31, 1971. On the same date the Department of State
informed us that the agreement was dated March 4, 1971, and that they
believed the document was unclassified but that our request should be
channeled to the Department of Defense, rather than to them. Upon
addressing our request to the Department of Defense on April 6, 1971,
they referred us back to the State Department because State clearance
was necessary for release of the agreement. The Department of State
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0200050083-4
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
advised us on the same day that they were unable to release the document
until they acquired clearance from the Australian Government through the
Australian Embassy. On April 14, 1971, the State Department advised us
that the Department of Defense had sought this clearance from the
Embassy, however, on the same date, we received a denial from the
Department of Defense of any such communication with the Australian
Embassy. On April 15, 1971, the State Department informed us that
the Department of Defense had received the Australian Government's
clearance but that the Department of Defense must first present a written
request for State Department clearance. On the same date? April 15,
the Department of Defense told us the Australian clearance was still
pending. Four days later, the Department of Defense told us that more
internal coordination was necessary before a release was possible. In a
follow-up concerning the status of our request, on April 28, 1971, the
Department of Defense official whom we had contacted stated he had forgotten
our request.
Finally, on May 5, 1971, DOD provided the agreement as requested.
The agreement provided to GAO was classified although the agreement on
file in the legal section of DOD was not so classified. In our opinion,
the material included in the agreement does not appear to be of such a
nature that the interests of the United States would be adversely
affected if its contents were released to the public.
During our review of financial and material assistance provided
to the Thai Government by the United States, our Far East Branch
representatives requested, on July 21 and July 28, 1970, sixteen messages
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
-32-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
from the Military Assistance Command, Thailand, that were not received
until January 27, 1971. The messages were originated by the Commanders,
United States Military Assistance Commands, Thailand and Vietnam, the
Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Army, and the Joint Chiefs
of Staff during the latter part of 1967 and early 1968. Each of these
messages was vital to our effective evaluation of United States assis-
tance to the Thai government. Their contents dealt with pertinent
areas of our review, such as a HAWK missile system which the United States
agreed to provide to the Thais, training and equipping of Thai forces,
U.S. support related to a Thai Army Division and its deployment to South
Vietnam, and the possibilities of further Thai contributions to free
world forces in Vietnam.
As of August 28, 1970, the messages had not been received or made
available for our review. Military Assistance Command, Thailand officials
advised us that they had requested guidance from higher authority as to
the releasability of the messages, and suggested we contact such
authority at the Washington, D.C., level."
On September 9, 1970, we readdressed our request for the messages
to the Department of Defense. Nearly two months later, on November 4,
1970, DOD responded, advising us that only two of the subject messages
had been located. DOD stated that the two messages had been authorized
to be released to our Far East representatives.
Finally, on January 27, 1971, DOD provided copies of the 16 requested
messages. We believe that the 6 -month delay, before we finally obtained
all of the messages, was inexcusably long and seriously impeded our review.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
-33-
 - e
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4
On December 11, 1970, our representatives in Korea requested from
the Provisional Military Assistance Advisory Group, Korea, the
Provisional Military Assistance Advisory Group, Korea Military Assistance
Plan Fact Book for 1969 Defense Ministers Conference. Since our
representatives in Korea did not receive the document, a similar request
was addressed to the Department of Defense in Washington on January 26,
1971. On January 29, 1971, our representatives in Korea were formally
informed that the subject request had been referred to higher authority
for determination as to releasability.
The document was provided to us in Washington on April 9, 1971,
by the Department of Defense. Due to the delay of approximately four
months involved in our acquisition of the document and the fact that
our representatives had departed from the. audit site by the time of
receipt, we were denied the opportunity to analyze and discuss the
material with appropriate host country officials.
-34-
Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000200050083-4