B-98483, NOVEMBER 28, 1950, 30 COMP. GEN. 207

B-98483: Nov 28, 1950

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

ON FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COAST GUARD FOR EXPENSES OF RESERVE TRAINING DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF ALL PERSONNEL WHO MAY BE ENGAGED ON DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE OVER-ALL RESERVE PROGRAM BUT ONLY TO THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THOSE WHOSE PRIMARY DUTY IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM. THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT PERSONNEL ARE ASSIGNED DUTIES PRIMARILY IN ADMINISTERING THE RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM IS ONE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION BY THE COAST GUARD. 1950: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 28. YOU STATE THAT THIS APPROPRIATION IS THE FIRST THAT HAS BEEN MADE FOR TRAINING PERSONNEL OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE BUT THAT IN PREVIOUS YEARS A RESERVE AND AUXILIARY DIVISION HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AT HEADQUARTERS AND THAT A RESERVE DIRECTOR WITH ONE OR TWO ENLISTED MEN AS ASSISTANTS HAVE BEEN CARRIED ON THE DISTRICT COMMANDER'S STAFF.

B-98483, NOVEMBER 28, 1950, 30 COMP. GEN. 207

APPROPRIATIONS - LIMITATIONS - COAST GUARD - RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM THE LIMITATION CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT, 1951, ON FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COAST GUARD FOR EXPENSES OF RESERVE TRAINING DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF ALL PERSONNEL WHO MAY BE ENGAGED ON DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE OVER-ALL RESERVE PROGRAM BUT ONLY TO THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THOSE WHOSE PRIMARY DUTY IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM, AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT PERSONNEL ARE ASSIGNED DUTIES PRIMARILY IN ADMINISTERING THE RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM IS ONE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION BY THE COAST GUARD.

ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL YATES TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, NOVEMBER 28, 1950:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1950, RELATIVE TO THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT, 1951, APPROVED SEPTEMBER 6, 1950, PUBLIC LAW 759, 64 STAT. 639, UNDER THE HEADING " COAST GUARD, OPERATING EXPENSES," READING AS FOLLOWS:

* * * THAT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000 SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR EXPENSES OF RESERVE TRAINING, INCLUDING PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF REGULAR AND RESERVE PERSONNEL ON ACTIVE DUTY ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM, AND INCLUDING DRILL PAY AT RATES NOT TO EXCEED THOSE PRESCRIBED BY OR PURSUANT TO LAW FOR THE NAVAL RESERVE * * *.

YOU STATE THAT THIS APPROPRIATION IS THE FIRST THAT HAS BEEN MADE FOR TRAINING PERSONNEL OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE BUT THAT IN PREVIOUS YEARS A RESERVE AND AUXILIARY DIVISION HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AT HEADQUARTERS AND THAT A RESERVE DIRECTOR WITH ONE OR TWO ENLISTED MEN AS ASSISTANTS HAVE BEEN CARRIED ON THE DISTRICT COMMANDER'S STAFF. THE EXPENSES OF BOTH THE HEADQUARTERS AND THE FIELD ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN MET FROM THE REGULAR COAST GUARD APPROPRIATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 14 U.S.C. 894 WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:

THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES OF AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE COAST GUARD SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES OF THE RESERVE AND THE AUXILIARY.

YOU FURTHER STATE THAT WHILE BOTH THE HEADQUARTERS AND THE FIELD ORGANIZATIONS WERE ENGAGED IN SOME TRAINING ACTIVITIES, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THEY WERE ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF ANY RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM BUT WERE CONCERNED PRIMARILY WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE IN ITS VARIOUS PHASES OTHER THAN TRAINING, SUCH AS THE KEEPING OF PERSONNEL RECORDS, RENEWAL OF COMMISSIONS, RECRUITING, CLASSIFICATION OF OFFICERS, ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICIES THROUGH REGULATIONS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS DEALING WITH MATTERS OTHER THAN TRAINING, AND SIMILAR CLASSES OF WORK WHICH TOOK UP THE MAJOR PART OF THEIR TIME IN ADMINISTERING THE RESERVE.

YOU INDICATE THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY, IN CARRYING OUT THE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR WHICH FUNDS ARE NOW AVAILABLE, TO GREATLY ENLARGE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION; THAT THE ENLARGED ORGANIZATION WILL ADMINISTER THE ENTIRE RESERVE PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE TRAINING OF RESERVISTS; AND THAT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOME PRESENT PERSONNEL NOT NOW ENGAGED IN TRAINING ACTIVITIES WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THOSE DUTIES WHILE SOME WILL BE ASSIGNED DUTIES INVOLVING OTHER THAN DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRAINING PROGRAM, OR BOTH.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, YOU REQUEST DECISION AS FOLLOWS:

(1) CAN IT BE ASSUMED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LANGUAGE LIMITATION, THAT THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION--- NAMELY, AS IT EXISTED ON JULY 1, 1950, WILL CONTINUE TO ADMINISTER THE COAST GUARD RESERVE PROGRAM OTHER THAN IN ITS TRAINING ACTIVITIES, AND THAT THE PAY, ALLOWANCES AND SALARIES OF NEW PERSONNEL ADDED (AND TO BE ADDED) TO THE ORGANIZATION ONLY AS A RESULT OF INAUGURATING THE TRAINING PROGRAM MADE POSSIBLE BY THE TRAINING FUND MAY BE CHARGED TO SUCH FUND?

(2) MUST THE PAY, ALLOWANCES, AND SO FORTH, OF ALL THE PERSONNEL, PRESENT AND FUTURE, COMPRISING THE ORGANIZATION FOR ADMINISTERING THE COAST GUARD RESERVE PROGRAM (INCLUDING TRAINING) BE MET FROM THE TRAINING FUND?

(3) IF QUESTIONS (1) AND (2) ARE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, WHAT CRITERIA MUST BE USED TO DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF DUTY COMPREHENDED WITHIN THE PHRASE "PRIMARILY IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM," AND MUST THAT CRITERIA BE APPLIED TO EACH INDIVIDUAL IN THE RESERVE ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION?

THIS OFFICE HAS EXAMINED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY WHICH RESULTED IN ENACTMENT OF THE QUOTED PROVISO AND NOTHING IS FOUND THEREIN WHICH WOULD FURNISH A CONCLUSIVE BASIS THAT THE LIMITATION IN QUESTION WAS INTENDED TO BE THE EXCLUSIVE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR CARRYING OUT ALL PURPOSES OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE PROGRAM, AS MAY HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORIGINAL PROVISION SUBMITTED BY THE COAST GUARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,100,000. THIS LATTER SUGGESTED PROVISION, IT IS UNDERSTOOD, WAS IN ADDITION TO THE SUM OF $135,000,000 UNDER " OPERATING EXPENSES" PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO BY THE HOUSE. HOWEVER, THE $1,000,000 LIMITATION OFFERED AS AN AMENDMENT AND APPROVED AFTER CONSIDERABLE DEBATE ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS COUPLED WITH A PROVISION WHICH INCREASED THE TOTAL APPROPRIATION TO $136,000,000.

IN THAT CONNECTION, IT IS FOUND FROM COMMENTS BY THE MEMBER WHO INTRODUCED THE AMENDMENT THAT THE WORDING OF THE PROVISO CONTAINING THE $1,000,000 LIMITATION WAS SUGGESTED BY OFFICIALS OF THE COAST GUARD IN LIEU OF THEIR PREVIOUS JUSTIFICATION WHICH WOULD HAVE CARRIED THE LARGER SUM OF $4,100,000 AND, INASMUCH AS THE WORDING OF THE PROVISO AS FINALLY ENACTED DIFFERS SO MATERIALLY FROM THE ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED PROVISION, I THINK IT MAY NOT BE SAID THAT THE SAME OVER-ALL PURPOSE WERE CONTEMPLATED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PROVISO. IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THAT $1,000,000 WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO START THE RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM. THE DRILL PAY PROVISION THEREIN PRESENTS NO DIFFICULTY AS TO THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF THE LIMITATION; THE DIFFICULTY ARISES WITH REFERENCE TO THAT PART OF THE PROVISO "FOR EXPENSES OF RESERVE TRAINING, INCLUDING PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF REGULAR AND RESERVE PERSONNEL ON ACTIVE DUTY ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN ADMINISTRATION OF THE RESERVE TRAINING PROGRAM.'

THERE SEEMS TO BE NO QUESTION THAT MONEYS APPROPRIATED UNDER " COAST GUARD, OPERATING EXPENSES," WHICH INCLUDE PAY AND ALLOWANCES GENERALLY, HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE COAST GUARD RESERVE, PRESUMABLY UNDER THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN 14 U.S.C. 894, SUPRA. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH VIEW SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, PAGE 293 OF THE HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 81ST CONGRESS, 2D SESSION, ON TREASURY DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1951, WHERE THE FOLLOWING APPEARS:

MR. CANFIELD. MR. CHAIRMAN, POINTING UP WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THIS PROBLEM BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, WHEN WE CONSIDERED THE REGULAR TREASURY DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL FOR 1950, THIS LAST YEAR, I QUESTIONED CAPTAIN RICHMOND OF THE COAST GUARD ON THE STATUS OF THE RESERVE PROGRAM, AND HE STRESSED THE FACT HE DID NOT HAVE FUNDS. AND I SAID:

" MR. CANFIELD. CAPTAIN, YOU STRESS THE FACT THAT YOU DON-T HAVE THE FUNDS. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE ASKED FOR FUNDS AND HAVE BEEN DENIED FUNDS? OR IS THERE SOME LEGISLATIVE HURDLE?

" CAPTAIN RICHMOND. NO; THERE IS NO LEGISLATIVE HURDLE. STRICTLY SPEAKING, I MUST BE FRANK WITH THE COMMITTEE, THERE ISN-T A THING IN THE WORLD TO PROHIBIT OUR TAKING ANYTHING IN " PAY AND ALLOWANCES" THAT NOW EXISTS AND SPENDING IT ON RESERVE, BUT WE HAVE SUBMITTED OUR ESTIMATE ON THE BASIS THAT IT WILL DO SO MUCH. IT WILL PROVIDE SO MANY REGULAR OFFICERS AND SO MANY MEN. IT IS THE OLD STORY THAT WE CAN DO JUST SO MUCH. IF WE WENT AND SPEND "X" MILLION DOLLARS ON THE RESERVE, THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE MEN THAT WE HAVE INDICATED BECAUSE WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY THEM. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.'

IN THE HEARINGS ON THE 1950 TREASURY DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATION BILL REFERRED TO BY CONGRESSMAN CANFIELD, IT IS FOUND THAT THE SAME COAST GUARD OFFICER PREVIOUSLY HAD TESTIFIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS (PAGE 120 OF THE HEARINGS, BEFORE THE SAME SUBCOMMITTEE):

* * * ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PUT THE RESERVE ON A GOING BASIS, BUT RIGHT NOT IT IS PRACTICALLY A STATIC ORGANIZATION. HAVE NO FUNDS AND HAVE HAD NO FUNDS FOR THE TRAINING OF RESERVES, EITHER NEW MEMBERS OR REFRESHER COURSES FOR THE MEMBERS. * * *

WE, HOWEVER, HAVE NO MONEY FOR TRAINING. WE HAVE CALLED ONE OR TWO RESERVE OFFICERS TO ACTIVE DUTY, AND WE HAVE SET UP IN OUR DISTRICTS RESERVE DIRECTORS. WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUR RECORDS IN ORDER IN THE SENSE OF KNOWING WHO ARE RESERVE OFFICERS AND WHERE THEY ARE PRESENTLY LOCATED.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OF THE REPRESENTATIONS CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER, I BELIEVE IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE CONGRESS, IN REFUSING TO APPROVE THE SUBAPPROPRIATION FOR " RESERVE TRAINING" IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,100,000, DID NOT INTEND THAT THE $1,000,000 LIMITATION SHOULD APPLY TO EXPENSES OR SERVICES NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF THE RESERVE FAIRLY OUTSIDE THE TERM " RESERVE TRAINING" IN THE PROVISO AND OF A CHARACTER FOR WHICH THE REGULAR COAST GUARD APPROPRIATIONS PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN USED IN THAT RESPECT.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE LIMITATION CONTAINED IN THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE COAST GUARD FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1951, HEREINBEFORE QUOTED, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF ALL PERSONNEL WHO MAY BE ENGAGED ON DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE OVER-ALL RESERVE PROGRAM BUT ONLY TO THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THOSE WHOSE PRIMARY DUTY IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM. THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THAT IS THEIR PRIMARY DUTY IS MORE PROPERLY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION AND SUCH DETERMINATIONS WOULD NOT ORDINARILY BE QUESTIONED BY THIS OFFICE UNLESS IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THEY ARE AT VARIANCE WITH THE ACTUAL FACTS. CF. 26 COMP. DEC. 195; 1 COMP. GEN. 70; AND DECISION OF APRIL 19, 1943, B-30910, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.