B-169300 September 6, 1972
Highlights
Which concerns the dispute between the General Accounting Office and the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board which was the subject of an editorial in the New York Times of May 7. It has been the position of the Board that there is nothing in the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act. The main thrust of the Board's position was that congressional review of loan guarantee matters is carefully spelled our in the Guarantee Act. The GAO is directed to audit the borrower and report its findings to the Board and to the Congress. That the Board is directed to make a "full report" of its operations to the Congress. It has been the position of GAO that as an agency of Government the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board is clearly subject to audit examination by GAO.
B-169300 September 6, 1972
The Honorable Pierre S. duPont, IV House of Representatives
Dear Mr. duPont:
In your letter to our Office of June 2, 1972, you enclosed a copy of a letter for Professor J. Joseph Huthmacher, which concerns the dispute between the General Accounting Office and the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board which was the subject of an editorial in the New York Times of May 7, 1972. You ask that you be advised of the position of our Office with respect to this matter.
Pursuant to the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, Pub. L. 92-70, approved August 9, 1971, 85 Stat. 178, the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board--chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury--has the authority, on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, to guarantee or make commitments to guarantee lenders against loss of principal or interest on loans that meet the requirements of Pub. L. 92-70. Such a guarantee has been make in connection with a loan made to the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation.
The GAO sought to review the Board's activities including decisions of the Board in approving, executing, and administering any guaranteed loans, the provisions of the Guarantee Loan Agreements established between the Board and the borrower; and the audit of the borrower. It has been the position of the Board that there is nothing in the Emergency Loan Guarantee Act, or its legislative history which would provide for a GAO review of Board activities and that Congress might need to pass additional legislation to make it clear that GAO has this authority. The main thrust of the Board's position was that congressional review of loan guarantee matters is carefully spelled our in the Guarantee Act; the GAO is directed to audit the borrower and report its findings to the Board and to the Congress; and that the Board is directed to make a "full report" of its operations to the Congress. It has been the position of GAO that as an agency of Government the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board is clearly subject to audit examination by GAO, and that the records of the Board are required to be made available to GAO under section 313 of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921, and other basic GAO authorities. With regard to these GAO authorities, Congress has never felt is necessary to repeat them in every new statute.
In his letter Professor Huthmacher requested that if the dispute has been resolved in some way since the editorial of May 7 he would appreciate your advising him of the outcome. We are pleased that we can advise that through negotiations with the present Chairman of the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board an agreement has been reached and that the records sought have been made available to our Office.
We appreciate your interest in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
R. F. KELLER Acting Comptroller General of the United States