Page images
PDF
EPUB

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.

THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., August 2, 1967

Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 7113, to increase the maximum rate of per diem allowance for employees of the Government traveling on official business.

The proposed legislation would increase the maximum per diem rate for travel within the continental United States from $16 to $25 and the maximum amount per day on an actual subsistence expense basis from $30 to $45. For travel outside the continental United States, it would increase the maximum allowable per day on an actual expense basis from $10 to $18 above the normal per diem rate for the locality involved. However, agencies would retain their authority to set limits within the maximums allowed.

The Treasury Department believes that some increases are justified in view of the increased cost of meals, lodgings, and incidental expenses. We defer to the Bureau of the Budget, which we understand is reviewing the adequacy of present maximum per diem allowances, for comments on the specific rates proposed by H.R. 7113.

The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration's program to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

FRED B. SMITH,

General Counsel.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DONALD RUMSFELD, HON. CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR., HON. JACK EDWARDS, AND HON. PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR.

We agree with the need to raise the legally authorized maximum per diem allowance for Government employees traveling on official business and believe the specific rates proposed in sections 1, 2, and 4 of H.R. 13738 are appropriate.

However, with respect to section 3 of the bill, we find ourselves in somewhat of a dilemma because the committee has failed to observe the proprieties of the legislative process.

Sections 1 and 2 would amend sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code, and to that extent the bill is properly under the aegis of the Committee on Government Operations.

Sections 3 and 4 of the bill, on the other hand, would amend sections 3581 (d) of title 39 and 867 (a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, thus coming properly within the jurisdiction of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee and the Armed Services Committee respectively. True, the chairmen of the two other committees involved had indicated their willingness to relinquish jurisdiction over the matters in question. But, while this action may have satisfied the requirements of comity, it did not transfer any expertise in a specialized area to the Committee on Government Operations. This may pose no particular problem with respect to section 4 of the bill which applies to the three judges of the Court of Military Appeals. We see no reason why the per diem allowances of these judges should not be comparable to that of other Federal judges. However, Post Office employees on road duty present a unique problem.

Section 3 of the bill would amend 39 U.S.C. 3581(d) so as to increase the maximum allowance for Post Office employees on road duty from $9 to $15 a day, an increase of 77 percent. This is in contrast to the increase from $16 to $20 proposed for general travelers in section 1, an increase of 25 percent.

The reasons for some disparity in dollar amounts are clear enough. In contrast to the situation faced by the occasional traveler, trip schedules for Post Office employees on road duty are prepared months in advance. Knowing what is expected of them, road employees can work out advantageous lodging and board arrangements on a longterm basis. Moreover, they normally do not have the business demands to meet as does the occasional traveler which may require lodging at a specific location or with certain hotel accommodations. This difference in the needs of travelers has been recognized through the years in the laws relating to the general Government traveler and the road duty postal employee.

What disturbs us is the question of an appropriate ratio between the per diem allowances of the two groups. Granting that the road duty personnel do not require a per diem allowance as great as the general traveler, we are confronted with the need for determining an equitable relationship between the two groups.

Other than the proposal of the United Federation of Postal Clerks for a more than 77 percent increase from $9 to $16, we have the experience of four mobile employees, who have incurred expenses of $14.35 to $16.65 a day while away from home, and this indecisive reasoning from the Post Office Department as the basis for the increase:

* The best we can do is deal in averages and recognizes that a straight line, fixed relationship between road duty and general travelers may be appropriate when one level of per diem is proposed but something different when another level of per diem is proposed. That is why Postmaster General O'Brien said in his letter of October 13, 1967, that if the per diem for general travelers should be increased from $16 to $20, then the three-fourths ratio should apply for road duty personnel. This would raise the road duty per diem from $9 to $15.

However, if the current $16 rate for general travelers is not changed, then we recommend a $12 rate for road personnel; $12 being three-fourths of $16. On the other hand, if general travelers should be granted a new maximum of $25, then we would not wish to apply a fixed ratio to the $25 amount unless ample and clear authority is given the Postmaster General to establish a lesser rate as may be justified under the circumstances then prevailing.

The picture was not clarified when the Post Office Department witness added that $12 was currently considered appropriate.

While everyone appears to endorse the need for an increase in the per diem allowance authorized for road duty personnel, no one can have confidence in the amounts specified in this bill. By its testimony, the Post Office Department has tied a Gordian knot that can only be untied by those intimately acquinted with the circumstances of the road worker's lot. The per diem rates for these employees have traditionally been established by the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. Although we of the Government Operations Committee have accepted responsibility for this legislation in the interests of equity, we should confess that we don't know enough about the subject to make an equitable decision.

We have no plans to vote against the bill but feel that the Members of the House should be aware of the background of ignorance from which at least one aspect of this measure was reported and it is entirely possible that we have, out of that ignorance, been unfair to one group or to the other.

DONALD RUMsfeld,
CLARENC, J. BROWN, Jr.,
JACK EDWARDS,

PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, Jr.

90-760 O 74 - 38

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DONALD RUMSFELD, HON. CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR., AND HON. PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, JR.

It is worth observing that this legislation permits Government employees a maximum domestic per diem allowance which is more than double the amount the administration would permit American taxpayers to spend daily in overseas travel without the 15-percent tax penalty which has been proposed to the Ways and Means Committee for its consideration. While the Federal employee allowance for overseas travel is set by administrative action, presumably this administrative action would be influenced by the liberalized domestic allowances provided in this legislation.

This double standard was also evidenced in the testimony and discussion on the bill before the committee when it was established that the original request for a $25 maximum allowance was considerably higher than the daily average subsistence expense of under $20 incurred in domestic travel in 1966 by the American taxpayer, according to data presented by hotel accounting firms.

(26)

DONALD RUMSFELD,
CLARENCE J. BROWN, Jr.,
PAUL N. MCCLOSKEY, Jr.

90TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session

{

REPORT No. 1145

PROVIDING FOR INCREASED PARTICIPATION BY THE UNITED STATES IN THE INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

March 5, 1968.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. PATMAN, from the Committee on Banking and Currency, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 15364]

The Committee on Banking and Currency, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 15364) to provide for increased participation by the United States in the Inter-American Development Bank, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendment is as follows:

On page 1, line 4, strike "2831" and insert "283m".

I. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The participation of the United States in the Inter-American Development Bank (hereafter referred to as the "Bank") was authorized by the Inter-American Development Bank Act (Public Law 86-147), approved August 7, 1959. This bill amends the act to authorize the U.S. Governor of the Bank-the Secretary of the Treasury-to vote in favor of a $1 billion increase in the authorized callable capital stock of the Bank and to agree on behalf of the United States to subscribe its proportionate share of the increase $411,760,000.

1

This bill also authorizes appropriation, without fiscal year limitation, of $411,760,000, for use by the Secretary of the Treasury in subscribing to the increase. Two equal appropriations of $205,880,000 each will be sought, the first in 1968 and the second in 1970, as called for in

1 Callable subscriptions are contingent liabilities of the member governments in the nature of guarantees that enable the Bank to raise needed resources by borrowing in various private capital markets. The Bank uses the funds it raises in this manner for lending in Latin America for development purposes on banking terms reflecting the cost of the funds it borrows. Callable subscriptions are not paid in cash at the time of subscription and can be called only when needed to make good on the Bank's bonds or on guarantees it may issue. The Bank has not needed to call any of its present callable capital and the funds appropriated for the U.S. share have remained with the U.S. Treasury.

85-081 O

« PreviousContinue »