Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1669472
label
1976/08/19 HR1402 Relief of John W Hollis
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1669472
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1976/08/19 HR1402 Relief of John W Hollis
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1669472
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-08-31
month
8
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-08-01
month
8
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2708afa7aa7c62b1
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 54, folder "8/19/76 HR1402 Relief of John W
Hollis" of the White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
APPROVED AUGIS 9 1976
88/19/46
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
Last Day: August 23
August 17, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE PRESIDENT
Posted
FROM:
JIM CANNON
8/21/76
SUBJECT:
H.R. 1402 - For the Relief of
John W. Hollis
aschwis
Attached for your consideration is H.R. 1402, sponsored by
Representative Ichord.
8/23/76
The enrolled bill authorizes and directs payment to John
Hollis of $4,114.45 in settlement of his claim for relocation
and travel expenses in connection with transfers of his
official duty station from New Mexico to Saigon and then
to Missouri in 1969.
A detailed discussion of the provisions of the enrolled
bill is provided in OMB's enrolled bill report at Tab A.
The Department of the Army recommends disapproval of
the enrolled bill because it would accord preferential
treatment to the claimant and afford him relief which
has been denied other employees.
OMB, Max Friedersdorf, Counsel's Office (Lazarus) and I
recommend approval of the enrolled bill.
RECOMMENDATION
That you sign H.R. 1402 at Tab B.
Approve
7
Disapprove
Sign veto message at Tab C
which has been cleared by
the White House Editorial
Office (Friedman)
FORD - LIBRARY
TS
1010
Digitized from Box 54 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
OF THE
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SECUTIVE
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 16 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 1402 - For the relief of
John W. Hollis
Sponsor - Rep. Ichord (D) Missouri
Last Day for Action
August 23, 1976 - Monday
Purpose
Authorizes and directs payment to Mr. John W. Hollis
of $4,114.45 in settlement of his claim for relocation
and travel expenses in connection with transfers of his
official duty station from New Mexico to Saigon and then
to Missouri in 1969.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of the Army
Disapproval (Veto
message attched)
General Services Administration
No objection
Discussion
In June 1968, Mr. Hollis, a civilian employee of the
Army at Sandia Base, New Mexico, was selected for assign-
ment in Saigon, Vietnam. He sold his residence in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and moved his dependents and
household goods to Springfield, Illinois, and arrived
in Saigon on January 16, 1969. On the following day,
he received a request to accept an assignment in St.
Louis, Missouri, and on February 4, 1969, he was reassigned
to St. Louis.
Mr. Hollis moved from Vietnam to St. Louis, Missouri,
in March 1969, and moved his dependents and household
2
goods from their residence in Springfield, Illinois,
to a newly-purchased residence in St. Louis. Mr. Hollis
submitted claims for his expenses for relocation of his
household and travel and these claims were paid to the
maximum extent authorized by applicable regulations.
Under Government travel regulations, certain expenses
incurred by employees when they change their duty
stations--such as expenses for real estate transac-
tions--are reimbursed only when both the old and new
duty stations are located in the United States and certain
of the territories. These and certain other expenses
that Mr. Hollis claimed were barred from reimbursement
because of the circumstances surrounding his two transfers,
each involving a duty station outside the United States.
The effect of the enrolled bill would be to reimburse
Mr. Hollis to the maximum extent that would have been
possible if he had been transferred directly from
Albuequerque to St. Louis. This approach and the amount
in the bill, $4,114.45, were recommended by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) in its reports on predecessor
legislation in the 93rd Congress.
The Department of the Army recommends that the enrolled
bill be disapproved because it would accord preferential
treatment to Mr. Hollis denied to other employees, and
because it finds no clear grounds of equity to justify
an exception to the statutory provisions that bar reimburse-
ment of his claims. Army also finds no evidence of
erroneous representations by any Government officials,
and believes that an employee of the claimant's grade
(GS-15) and experience should have considered all the
circumstances involved before volunteering for the two
transfers.
We concur with the conclusion of the GAO that since the
period intervening between Mr. Hollis' two transfers
was only a few days, it would have no objection to appro-
priate relief in his case. We believe that the circum-
stances of Mr. Hollis' case are sufficiently unusual
to warrant an exception to the applicable Government
regulations, and do not believe it serves the interest
of equity to penalize him for his brief transfer to Saigon.
Accordingly, we recommend approval of the enrolled bill.
James Assistant Director
for
Legislative Reference
Enclosures
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 1402,
for the relief of John W. Hollis.
The purpose of the act is to pay John W. Hollis the
sum of $4,114.45 in full settlement of all his claims
against the United States for losses he sustained through
the purchase and sale of residences and for travel and for
other expenses which failed to qualify for reimbursement,
which he and his family incurred as a result of changes in
his official station from Sandia Base, New Mexico, to
Saigon, Republic of Vietnam in January 1969, and from
Saigon to St. Louis, Missouri, on March 10, 1969, while
he was employed by various agencies of the Department of
Defense.
In order to reimburse the claimant for the expenses
incurred in connection with the two real estate transactions,
it would be necessary to make an exception to the clearly
expressed statutory language of section 5724a(4), title 5,
United States Code, which limits reimbursements to cases
involving changes of duty stations within the United States.
The Administration is of the opinion that this act
would accord preferential treatment to the claimant and
afford him relief denied to other employees. The
Administration does not oppose making exceptions to
statutory provisions if one is warranted on clear grounds
of equity. There is no evidence, for example, that any
erroneous representations were made by Government officials
that the claimant would be reimbursed for any expenses in-
curred in connection with either of the two real estate
2
transactions or that he would be authorized travel, family
separation and transportation allowances in excess of the
entitlements of others similarly situated. There is no
equitable basis for exceptional action in the case of this
claimant.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
8-16-76
EXECUTIVE
THAS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
AUG 16 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill H.R. 1402 - For the relief of
John W. Hollis
Sponsor - Rep. Ichord (D) Missouri
Last Day for Action
August 23, 1976 - Monday
Purpose
Authorizes and directs payment to Mr. John W. Hollis
of $4,114.45 in settlement of his claim for relocation
and travel expenses in connection with transfers of his
official duty station from New Mexico to Saigon and then
to Missouri in 1969.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Approval
Department of the Army
Disapproval (Veto
message attched)
General Services Administration
No objection
Discussion.
In June 1968, Mr. Hollis, a civilian employee of the
Army at Sandia Base, New Mexico, was selected for assign-
ment in Saigon, Vietnam. He sold his residence in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and moved his dependents and
household goods to Springfield, Illinois, and arrived
in Saigon on January 16, 1969. On the following day,
he received a request to accept an assignment in St.
Louis, Missouri, and on February 4, 1969, he was reassigned
to St. Louis.
Mr. Hollis moved from Vietnam to St. Louis, Missouri,
in March 1969, and moved his dependents and household
Attached document was not scanned because it is duplicated elsewhere in the document
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I return herewith, without my approval, H. R. 1402, For the relief of John W.
Hollis.
The purpose of the act is to pay John W. Hollis the sum of $4,114.45 in full
settlement of all his claims against the United States for losses he
sustained through the purchase and sale of residences and for travel and for
other expenses which failed to qualify for reimbursement, which he and his
family incurred as a result of changes in his official station from Sandia
Base, New Mexico, to Saigon, Republic of Vietnam in January 1969, and from
Saigon to St. Louis, Missouri, on March 10, 1969, while he was employed by
various agencies of the Department of Defense.
In order to reimburse the claimant for the expenses incurred in connection
with the two real estate transactions, it would be necessary to make an
exception to the clearly expressed statutory language of section 5724a(4),
title 5, United States Code, which limits reimbursements to cases involving
changes of duty stations within the United States.
The Administration is of the opinion that this act would accord preferential
treatment to the claimant and afford him relief which has been consistently
denied other employees. The Administration does not oppose making exceptions
to statutory provisions if one is warranted on clear grounds of equity.
There is no evidence, for example, that any erroneous representations were
made by Government officials that the claimant would be reimbursed for any
expenses incurred in connection with either of the two real estate trans-
actions or that he would be authorized travel, family separation and
transportation allowances in excess of the entitlements of others similarly
situated. Noreover, an employee of the claimant's grade (CS 15) and
experience should have considered all the circumstances involved before
volunteering for the two transfers. Accordingly, there is no equitable
basis for exceptional action in the case of this claimant.
THE WHITE HOUSE
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date: August 17
Time: 920 am
FOR ACTION: Max Friedersdorf
CC (for information):
Jack Marsh
Ken Lazarus
Jim Cavanaugh
Ed Schmults
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: August 17
Time: 1100am
SUBJECT:
H.R. 1402 - for the relief of John W. Hollis
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
K. R. COLE, JR.
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF DETENSE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310
UNITED STATES.O OF AMERICA
13 AUG 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Dear Mr. Lynn:
The Department of Army recommends that the President withhold his approval
from enrolled enactment H. R. 1402, 94th Congress, "For the relief of
John W. Hollis."
The reasons for this recommendation are in the draft of a Veto Message
inclosed for the signature of the President, should he approve the
proposed action.
If approved, the cost of the act would be $4,114.45.
Sincerely,
Incl
11
Hadlai A. Hull
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Financial Management)
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I return herewith, without my approval, H. R. 1402, For the relief of John W.
Hollis.
The purpose of the act is to pay John W. Hollis the sum of $4,114.45 in full
settlement of all his claims against the United States for losses he
sustained through the purchase and sale of residences and for travel and for
other expenses which failed to qualify for reimbursement, which he and his
family incurred as a result of changes in his official station from Sandia
Base, New Mexico, to Saigon, Republic of Vietnam in January 1969, and from
Saigon to St. Louis, Missouri, on March 10, 1969, while he was employed by
various agencies of the Department of Defense.
In order to reimburse the claimant for the expenses incurred in connection
with the two real estate transactions, it would be necessary to make an
exception to the clearly expressed statutory language of section 5724a(4),
title 5, United States Code, which limits reimbursements to cases involving
changes of duty stations within the United States.
The Administration is of the opinion that this act would accord preferential
treatment to the claimant and afford him relief which has been consistently
denied other employees. The Administration does not oppose making exceptions
to statutory provisions if one is warranted on clear grounds of equity.
There is no evidence, for example, that any erroneous representations were
made by Government officials that the claimant would be reimbursed for any
expenses incurred in connection with either of the two real estate trans-
actions or that he would be authorized travel, family separation and
transportation allowances in excess of the entitlements of others similarly
situated. Moreover, an employee of the claimant's grade (GS-15) and
experience should have considered all the circumstances involved before
volunteering for the two transfers. Accordingly, there is no equitable
basis for exceptional action in the case of this claimant.
THE WHITE HOUSE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
#
*
#
4
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
1
*
WASHINGTON, DC 20405
*
*
GENERAL SERVICES
# ADMIRES TRATION
* ** A
August 13, 1976
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of
Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn:
By letter of August 11, 1976, you requested the views of the General
Services Administration on enrolled bill H.R. 1402, "For the relief
of John W. Hollis."
We have reviewed the subject legislation and have no objection to
Presidential approval.
Sincerely,
TERRY CHAMBERS Chanibas
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
Keep Freedom in Your Future With U.S. Savings Bonds
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
August 17
Time: 920am
FOR ACTION: Max Friedersdorf
CC (for information):
Jack Marsh
Ken Lazarus
Jim Cavanaugh
David Lissy
Ed Schmults
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: August 17
Time: 1100am
SUBJECT:
H.R. 1402 - for the relief of John W. Hollis
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
Recommend approval for the reasons set forth by OMB.
Ken Lazarus
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
/
delay in submitting the required material, please
James M. Cannon
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
August 17
Time: 920am
FOR ACTION: Max Friedersdorf
cc (for information):
Jack Marsh
Ken Lazarus
Jim Cavanaugh
David Lissy
Ed Schmults
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: August 17
Time: 1100am
SUBJECT:
H.R. 1402 - for the relief of John W. Hollis
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
No objection will
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
James M. Cannon
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
August 17
Time: 920am
FOR ACTION: Max Friedersdorf RKW cc (for information): Jack
Marsh
Ken Lazarus
Jim Cavanaugh
David Lissy
Ed Schmults
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: August 17
Time: 1100am
SUBJECT:
H.R. 1402 - for the relief of John W. Hollis
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
-
delay in submitting the required material, please
James M. Cannon
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 1402,
for the relief of John W. Hollis.
The purpose of the act is to pay John W. Hollis the
sum of $4,114.45 in full settlement of all his claims
against the United States for losses he sustained through
the purchase and sale of residences and for travel and for
other expenses which failed to qualify for reimbursement,
which he and his family incurred as a result of changes in
his official station from Sandia Base, New Mexico, to
Saigon, Republic of Vietnam in January 1969, and from
Saigon to St. Louis, Missouri, on March 10, 1969, while
he was employed by various agencies of the Department of
Defense.
In order to reimburse the claimant for the expenses
incurred in connection with the two real estate transactions,
it would be necessary to make an exception to the clearly
expressed statutory language of section 5724a(4), title 5,
United States Code, which limits reimbursements to cases
involving changes of duty stations within the United States.
The Administration is of the opinion that this act
would accord preferential treatment to the claimant and
afford him relief denied to other employees. The
Administration does not oppose making exceptions to
statutory provisions if one is warranted on clear grounds
of equity. There is no evidence, for example, that any
erroneous representations were made by Government officials
that the claimant would be reimbursed for any expenses in-
curred in connection with either of the two real estate
2
transactions or that he would be authorized travel, family
separation and transportation allowances in excess of the
entitlements of others similarly situated. There is no
equitable basis for exceptional action in the case of this
claimant.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
94TH CONGRESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPORT
2d Session
No. 94-970
JOHN W. HOLLIS
MARCH 29, 1976.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and
ordered to be printed
Mr. MOORHEAD of California, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 1402]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 1402) for the relief of John W. Hollis, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon with amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Page 1, line 6, Strike "$5,148.55" and insert "$4,114,45".
PURPOSE
The purpose of the proposed legislation, as amended, is to pay John
W. Hollis, of Ballwin, Missouri, $4,114.45 in settlement of his claims
for losses sustained in the purchase and sale of residences and for travel
and other expenses which he and his family incurred as a result of
transfer in his official station from Sandia Base, New Mexico, to
Saigon, Republic of Vietnam in January 1969, and from Saigon to
St. Louis, Missouri, on March 10, 1969, while he was employed by mili-
tary departments within the Department of Defense.
STATEMENT
The Comptroller General in a report on an earlier bill outlined the
basis of the various elements of the claim and concluded that it would
have no objection to reimbursement for expenses which he as a Federal
employee would have been entitled in a permanent change of station
from Albuquerque, New Mexico to St. Louis, Missouri, as if there had
not been an intervening brief assignment to Siagon. In a subsequent
communication on that bill on November 30, 1972, the Comptroller
General recommended the amendment reducing the amount to be paid
to $4,114.45, the amount stated in the committee amendment.
57-007
GRAMY
3
2
The above regulations are based upon regulations issued by the Of-
situation giving rise to this claim began on June 24, 1968 when to
fice of Management and Budget (Circular No. A-56) as well as sub-
The W. Hollis was advised of his selection for and assignment on Decem-
section 5724a(4) of title 5 of the United States Code in pertinent part
Mr. John Military Assistance Command, Saigon, change of
as follows:
Headquarters, ber 21, was issued travel orders authorizing his permanent
§ 5724a. Relocation expenses of employees transferred or
station. sold his residence in Albuquerque and relocated his Viet- fam-
reemployed
ily Springfield, arrived in Saigon on January 16, 1969, and Army Avia-
Mr. to Hollis Illinois, for the duration of his assignment the following to day
(a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe
nam. He to accept an assignment with the February U.S. 4, 1969,
and to the extent considered necessary and appropriate,
received a request Command in St. Louis, Missouri. On released him
as provided therein, appropriations or other funds available
tion Systems Military Assistance Command, Saigon, St. Louis.
to an agency for administrative expenses are available for the
Headquarters, service obligation and reassigned him to Springfield,
reimbursement of all or part of the following expenses of
from Incident his to one-year that reassignment he moved residence. his family from
an employee for whom the Government pays expenses of
travel and transportation under section 5724(a) of this title:
to St. Louis, where was reimbursed he purchased expenses a new to which he was entitled which under
*
*
*
*
applicable reimbursed and which constitute the $5,148.35, based the on the fol-
Mr. Hollis regulations incident to each assignment. Expenses amount of
(4) Expenses of the sale of the residence (or the settle-
ment of an unexpired lease) of the employee at the old
were his original not claim as stated in the bill H.R. 1402, as
station and purchase of a home at the new official station
required to be paid by him when the old and new official
lowing items:
(1) Expenses in connection with the Louis sale of residence in Albuquerque
$3, 252. 85
stations are located within the United States, its territo-
ries or possessions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
(2) and purchase of diem residence and subsistence in St. expenses in connection transfer with the to
Canal Zone.
*
*
*
dependent's Travel, per move to Springfield, and the employee's
539. 26
Because the employee was transferred twice, the transfer in each
(3) Saigon Mileage from and Albuquerque per diem expenses in Louis connection with relocation of de-
96. 24
case involving one duty station outside of the United States or other
(4) pendents Temporary from quarters Springfield subsistence to St. expenses for dependents and self
prescribed area, he is not entitled to reimbursement of real estate in
1,260,00
connection with either transaction. Had he been transferred directly
incident to relocation in St. Louis
5, 148. 35
from Albuquerque to St. Louis, he would have been entitled to reim-
bursement for certain of the real estate expenses which he has claimed.
Total in connection with the sale of Mr. residence Hollis' former in St.
His decision to accept the reassignment to St. Louis did not however
Real estate Albuquerque, expenses and the purchase of a new of the Joint
nullify the intermediate transfer to Vietnam or otherwise create a
residence were in disallowed on the basis that paragraph C8350 1, 1968,
basis for reimbursement of real estate expenses.
Louis. Volume II (JTR), revised January change re- of
The itemization of real estate expenses as stated by the GAO to be
Travel reimbursement Regulations, for real estate expenses incident to a duty sta-
submitted by Mr. Hollis is as follows:
stricts station to situations where both the old and new of Puerto
Expenses in connection with sale of Albuquerque residence, Janu-
permanent located within the United States, Commonwealth pertinent part
ary 1, 1969
tions Rico, are or the Canal Zone. Paragraph C8350 provides in
Brokerage fee
$1,948.60
Attorney's fee
10.40
Sale or transfer tax; mortgage tax
77.94
as follows:
C8350 GENERAL
Escrow fee
30. 16
Miscellaneous expenses
197. 50
required at his old duty station; the purchase of settlement
An employee to be paid by him in connection with the a residence
will be entitled to reimbursement for sale expenses of his
Total
2,264.60
Expenses in connection with purchase of St. Louis residence, June
residence duty station; or in connection with the station,
25, 1969
at his new lease for his residence at his old duty and
Appraisal or inspection fee
$35. 00
of after an he unexpired has signed the required transportation agreement
Lender's loan or origination fee
630. 00
Recording fees
13.25
provided that:
Title examination and instrument preparation
175. 00
change of station is authorized or within approved the
Mortgage title policy
160. 00
1. a permanent old and new duty stations are located the Canal
Miscellaneous expenses
75. 00
United and the States, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
Total
988. 25
Zone;
H.R. 970
H.R. 970
5
Since the period intervening between the employee's two transfers was
occupying what he asserts were temporary quarters. He. has been
only. a few days, that GAO sees no objection to allowing him real estate
reimbursed $260, representing 30 days subsistence expenses in con-
expenses as though he had transferred directly from Alburquerque to
nection with his own occupancy of temporary quarters in St. Louis
St. Louis. However, it believes the items labeled "miscellaneous ex-
penses" should be deducted in the absence of an explanation as to what
prior to his family's arrival from Springfield. Paragraph C8251-3a,
JTR, revised August 1, 1968, provides as to reimbursement of tem-
is covered thereby so as to permit a determination of whether they are
porary quarters subsistence expenses as follows:
otherwise allowable under the regulations.
That portion of Mr. Hollis' claim for expenses incident to moving
3. TIME ALLOWABLE
his dependents from Albuquerque to Springfield and in connection with
his travel to Saigon consists of $8.51 for additional mileage, $114.75
a. General, Except as provided herein, temporary quarters
for additional per diem for his family while traveling, and $416.00
subsistence expenses may be authorized or approved for the
for subsistence expenses for his dependents and himself while in
period of occupancy of temporary quarters, but not to exceed
Springfield. The claim for additional mileage and per diem results
30 days. When an employee is transferred to or from Hawaii,
from the fact that in the course of traveling from Albuquerque to
Alaska, the territories and possessions, the Commonwealth of
Springfield, the employee and his family traveled by way of St. Louis,
Puerto Rico, or the Canal Zone, temporary quarters subsist-
rather than by the usually traveled route. He has explained that this
ence expenses may be authorized or approved for an addi-
detour was made for the purpose of picking up orders and a passport
tional period not to exceed 30 days. The length of time al-
in St. Louis. That travel, however, was authorized and there is no
lowed for occupancy of temporary quarters at Government
showing that this was necessary. Consequently he was limited to the
expense under the 30- or 60-day limitations specified herein,
mileage and per diem which would have been allowable had he pro-
will begin to run for the employee and his dependents when
ceededi directly from Albuquerque to Springfield. We see no equity
the employee, the spouse, or any other dependent starts to
in allowingchim the additional mileage and per diem.
occupy such quarters and the time will run concurrently. If
The $416.00 amount claimed in connection with the move to Spring-
employee occupies temporary quarters at one location while
field is for subsistence expenses for 8. days while locating a residence
the spouse and/or other dependents occupy temporary quar-
in Springfield. That item was disallowed on the basis that temporary
ters at another location, the time will terminate for the em-
quarters subsistence expenses is authorized únder 5 U.S.C. 5724a only
ployee and dependents when any one of them moves into-per-
when the new duty station is located within the United States, its
manent residence quarters or when the allowable time limit
territories or possessions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the
Canal Zone. However, we note that had Mr. Hollis been transferred
expires, whichever occurs first. The use of temporary quarters
directly from Albuquerque to St. Louis he would have been entitled
for subsistence expense purposes under these provisions may
under the applicable regulations to the expenses of a househunting
begin as soon as the employee's transfer has been authorized,
trip to St. Louis with per diem in lieu of subsistence limited to 6 days
the required written agreement has been signed, and perma-
for himself and wife (including travel time). Thus, the allowance of
nent quarters at the old duty station have been vacated. Also
see prohibitions in par. C8253.
6 days additional per diem would, not appear unreasonable. At the
rates then in effect this would amount to $28 per day or $168.
Subsistence expenses for the employee's family for the first 30 days
The $96.24 amount claimed by Mr. Hollis for additional expenses
were disallowed under the above-quoted regulation. Since the 30-day
upon his return from Saigon in connection with moving his family
period of entitlement runs concurrently for the employee and for his
from Springfield to St. Louis consists of $6.24 for mileage and $90.00
dependents, Mr. Hollis' occupancy of temporary quarters in St. Louis
for per diem. The additional mileage is attributable to travel between
determined the running of that period. During those 30 days the fam-
the motel in which the employee and his family stayed while awaiting
ily remained in occupancy of their residence in Springfield. Although
delivery of their household goods and their new residence in St. Louis.
temporary quarters subsistence expenses may be reimbursed where an
The additional per diem claimed is for time spent in such motel. Re-
employee and his dependents occupy temporary quarters at separate
imbursement of the additional mileage was not allowable because the
locations, occupancy by the dependents of the permanent type resi-
regulations make no provisions for this type of expense and the addi-
dence quarters in which they were residing at the time of the transfer
tional per diem was not allowable on the basis that the time spent in
does not constitute occupancy of temporary quarters. Paragraph
a motel awaiting delivery of household effects ordinarily is a part of
C8250, JTR, revised August 1, 1968, provides in this regard as
the temporary subsistence allowance which he was entitled to for a
follows:
maximum of 30 days as hereina: fter explained. Had he been transferred
C8250 GENERAL
directly to St. Louis from Albuquerque this additional expense would
not have been allowable. Therefore, GAO does not believe it should
When it is necessary to occupy temporary quarters incident
be included in the bill.
to the employee's transfer to a new duty station, temporary
The remaining $1,260.00 portion of Mr. Hollis' claim (after return
quarters subsistence expenses will be authorized, subject to the
from Saigon) is for 60 days subsistence expenses for his family while
conditions in this Part, for the purpose of defraying the ex-
H.R. 970
H.R. 970
6
7
penses of the employee and his dependents. Temporary quar-
We indicated in our report that the items of "miscellaneous ex-
ters refers to lodging obtained temporarily after a transfer
pense" claimed by Mr. Hollis should be deducted in the absence of an
has been authorized or approved and after the employee and/
explanation as to the specific items included therein. Mr. Hollis has
or his dependents vacate the residence quarters in which they
now furnished a statement, together with supporting documentation,
were residing at the time of the transfer, until the employee
that the item of $197.50 claimed as a miscellaneous expense in con-
or his dependents move, within the allowable period of en-
nection with the sale of his Albuquerque, New Mexico, residence was
titlement, into permanent residence quarters. Temporary
for a title insurance reissue fee, and that the $75 claimed as a mis-
quarters must, in fact, be a temporary place of residence.
cellaneous expense in connection with the purchase of his St. Louis,
Quarters occupied upon initial arrival at a new duty station
Missouri, residence was for a survey fee.
location which factually are permanent type residence quar-
Both of those items of expense may properly be reimbursed under
ters into which an employee moves his household goods and
section 4 of Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-56 in
continues occupancy indefinitely will not be considered tem-
an appropriate situation. We therefore recommend, if favorable con-
porary quarters for which expense reimbursement is allow-
sideration is to be given to this bill, that the $5,148.35 amount be
able. Such quarters occupied temporarily within the allowable
reduced to $4,114.45 rather than to the $3,841.95 amount indicated in
time limit may be considered temporary quarters when their
our report.
need is due to the fact that the permanent quarters for which
Sincerely yours,
the employee has made arrangements
*
*
ROBERT F. KELLER,
That GAO has computed the maximum ($693.60) which is the
Deputy Comptroller General of the United States.
amount to which Mr. Hollis would have been entitled to under the
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
regulations had his dependents been regarded as occupying temporary
Washington, D.C., October 5, 1972.
quarters in Springfield. Since the family would in all likelihood have
B-176779
occupied temporary quarters had Mr. Hollis been transferred directly
Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,
from Albuquerque to St. Louis, that GAO would have no objection to
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
the payment of that amount.
House of Representatives.
The claim for additional subsistence expenses in the amount of
$506.40 for a second 30-day period was disallowed under paragraph
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of August 15, 1972, requests our
report on H.R. 16140, 92d Congress, 2d Session. The bill would author-
8551-3a, supra, inasmuch as the authority for payment of temporary
ize payment to Mr. John W. Hollis of Ballwin, Missouri, in the amount
quarters subsistence expenses is limited to a period not to exceed 30
of $5,148.35, in settlement of his claim for reimbursement of travel and
days, except in cases involving transfers to or from certain prescribed
subsistence expense for himself and his family, and for real estate
areas, of which neither Saigon nor St. Louis is one. Since Mr. Hollis
would not have been entitled to subsistence expenses for an additional
expenses in connection with his transfers of official statistics from San-
dia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Headquarters, Military Assist-
30 days if transferred directly from Albuquerque to St. Louis, we see
ance Command, Saigon, Republic of Vietnam, and from there to the
no particular equity in his claim for expenses which other employees
United States Army Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Missouri.
under similar circumstances are not entitled to.
The employee's claim was presented to our Office and disallowed by
In view of the recommendations and conclusions detailed in the
Settlement Certificate dated February 14, 1972, copy enclosed. The rec-
report of the General Accounting Office, the committee has determined
ord indicates that on June 24, 1968, following notice of an impending
that this is an appropriate matter for legislative relief. It is recom-
reduction in force at Sandia Base, the employee was advised of his
mended that the bill, amended to pay the reduced amount $4,114.45
selection for assignment to Headquarters, Military Assistance Com-
suggested in the supplemental report of that office dated November 30,
mand, Saigon, and on December 21, was issued travel orders authoriz-
1972, be considered favorably.
ing his permanent change of station.
Mr. Hollis sold his residence in Albuquerque and relocated his
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
family to Springfield, Illinois, for the duration of his assignment to
Washington, D.C., November 30, 1972.
Vietnam. He arrived in Saigon on January 16, 1969, and the following
B-176779
day received a request to accept an assignment with the U.S. Army
Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,
Aviation Systems Command in St. Louis, Missouri. On February 4,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
1969, Headquarters, Military Assistance Command, Saigon, released
House of Representatives.
him from his one-year service obligation and reassigned him to St.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We refer further to your letter of August 15,
Louis. Incident to that reassignment he moved his family from Spring-
1972, and to our report, B-176779 dated October 5, 1972, in regard to
field, to St. Louis, where he purchased a new residence.
H.R. 16140, 92d Congress, 2d session, a bill "For the relief of John W.
Mr. Hollis was reimbused expenses to which he was entitled under
Hollis."
applicable regulations incident to each assignment. Expenses which
H.R. 970
H.R. 970
8
were not reimbursed and which constitute the $5,148.35 which is the
Because the employee was transferred twice, the transfer in each
subject of H.R. 16140 are as follows
case involving one duty station outside of the United States or other
(1) Expenses in connection with the sale of residence in Albuquerque
prescribed area, he is not entitled to reimbursement of real estate ex-
and purchase of residence in St. Louis
$3, 252. 85
penses in connection with either transaction. Had he been transferred
(2) Travel, per diem and subsistence expenses in connection with
the dependent's move to Springfield, and the employee's transfer
directly from Albuquerque to St. Louis, he would have been entitled
to Saigon from Albuquerque
539. 26
to reimbursement for certain of the real estate expenses which he has
(3) Mileage and per diem expenses in connection with relocation
claimed. His decision to accept the reassignment to St. Louis did not
of dependents from Springfield to St. Louis
96. 24
however nullify the intermediate transfer to Vietnam or otherwise
(4) Temporary quarters subsistence expenses for dependents and self
incident to relocation in St. Louis
1,260.00
create a basis for reimbursement of real estate expenses.
The itemization of real estate expenses submitted by Mr. Hollis is
Total
5, 148. 35
as follows:
Real estate expenses in connection with the sale of Mr. Hollis' former
Expenses in connection with sale of Albuquerque residence, Janu-
residence in Albuquerque, and the purchase of a new residence in St.
ary 1, 1969:
Louis, were disallowed on the basis that paragraph C8350 of the Joint
Brokerage fee
$1, 948. 60
Attorney's fee
10.40
Travel Regulations, Volume II (JTR), revised January 1; 1968, re-
Sale or transfer tax; mortgage tax
77.94
stricts reimbursement for real estate expenses incident to a change
Escrow fee
30. 16
of permanent station to situations where both the old and new duty
Miscellaneous expenses
197.
stations are located within the United States, Commonwealth of Puerto
Total
Rico, or the Canal Zone. Paragraph C8350 provides in pertinent part
2,264 60
as follows:
Expenses in connection with purchase of St. Louis residence,
June 25, 1969
C8350 GENERAL
Appraisal or inspection fee
$35.00
Lender's loan or origination fee
680.
An employee will be entitled to reimbursement for expenses required
Recording fees
13.25
to be paid by him in connection with the sale of his residence at his old
Title examination and instrument preparation
175. 00
duty station; the purchase of a residence at his new duty station or in
Mortgage title policy
160.00
connection with the settlement of an unexpired lease for his residence
Miscellaneous expenses
75.00
at his old duty station, after he has signed the required transportation
Total
988. 25
agreement and provided that
Since the period intervening between the employee's two transfers
"1. a permanent change of station is authorized or approved and
was only a few days, we see no objection to allowing him real estate
the old and new duty stations are located within the United States,
expenses as though he had transferred directly from Albuquerque to
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Canal Zone;
St. Louis. However, we believe the items labeled "miscellaneous ex-
The above regulations are based upon regulations issued by the Office
penses" should be deducted in the absence of an explanation as to what
of Management and Budget (Circular No. A-56) as well as subsection
is covered thereby SO as to permit a determination of whether they are
5724a (4) of title 5 of the United States Code in pertinent part as
otherwise allowable under the regulations.
follows:
That portion of Mr. Hollis' claim for expenses incident to moving
5724a. Relocation expenses of employees transferred or reem-
his dependents from Albuquerque to Springfield and in connection
ployed
with his travel to Saigon consists of $8.51 for additional mileage,
(a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe and to
$114.75 for additional per diem for his family while traveling, and
the extent considered necessary and appropriate, as provided therein,
$416.00 for subsistence expenses for his dependents and himself while
appropriations or other funds available to an agency for administra-
in Springfield. The claim for additional mileage and per diem results
tive expenses are available for the reimbursement of all or part of the
from the fact that in the course of traveling from Albuquerque to
following expenses of an employee for whom the Government pays ex-
Springfield, the employee and his family traveled by way of St. Louis,
penses of travel and transportation under section 5724 of this title
rather than by the usually traveled route. He has explained that this
*
*
*
*
*
*
detour was made for the purpose of picking up orders and a passport
in St. Louis. That travel, however, was not authorized and there is no
(4) Expenses of the sale of the residence (or the settlement of an
showing that this was necessary. Consequently he was limited to the
unexpired lease) of the employee at the old station and purchase of a
mileage and per diem which would have been allowable had he pro-
home at the new official station required to be paid by him when the
old and new official stations are located within the United States. its
ceeded directly from Albuqueque to Springfield. We see no equity
in allowing him the additional mileage and per diem.
territories or possessions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
Canal Zone.
*
*
**
The $416.00 amount claimed in connection with the move to Spring-
field is for subsistence expenses for 8 days while locating a residence
H.R. 970
H.R. 970
10
11
in Springfield. That item was disallowed on the basis that temporary
terminate for the employee and dependents when any one of them
quarters subsistence expenses is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 5724a only
moves into permanent residence quarters or when the allowable time
when the new duty station is located within the United States, its
limit expires, whichever occurs first. The use of temporary quarters
territories or possessions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the
for subsistence expense purposes under these provisions may begin
Canal Zone. However, we note that had Mr. Hollis been transferred
as soon as the employee's transfer has been authorized, the required
directly from Albuquerque to St. Louis he would have been entitled
written agreement has been signed, and permanent quarters at the
under the applicable regulations to the expenses of a househunting
old duty station have been vacated. Also see prohibitions in par.
trip to St. Louis with per diem in lieu of subsistence limited to 6 days
C8253."
for himself and wife (including travel time). Thus, the allowance of
Subsistence expenses for the employee's family for the first 30 days
6 days additional per diem would not appear unreasonable. At the
were disallowed under the above-quoted regulation. Since the 30-day
rates then in effect this would amount to $28 per day or $168.
period of entitlement runs concurrently for the employee and for his
The $96.24 amount claimed by Mr. Hollis for additional expenses
dependents, Mr. Hollis' occupancy of temporary quarters in St. Louis
upon his return from Saigon in connection with moving his family
determined the running of that period. During those 30 days the
from Springfield to St. Louis consists of $6.24 for mileage and $90.00
family remained in occupancy of their residence in Springfield. Al-
for per diem. The additional mileage is attributable to travel between
though temporary quarters subsistence expenses may be reimbursed
the motel in which the employee and his family stayed while awaiting
where an employee and his dependents occupy temporary quarters
delivery of their household goods and their new residence in St. Louis.
at separate locations, occupancy by the dependents of the permanent
The additional per diem claimed is for time spent in such motel. Re-
type residence quarters in which they were residing at the time of
imbursement of the additional mileage was not allowable because the
the transfer does not constitute occupancy of temporary quarters.
regulations make no provisions for this type of expense and the ad-
Paragraph C8250, JTR, revised August 1, 1968, provides in this
ditional per diem was not allowable on the basis that the time spent
regard as follows:
in a motel awaiting delivery of household effects ordinarily is a part
8250 GENERAL
of the temporary subsistence allowance which he was entitled to for a
maximum of 30 days as hereinafter explained. Had he been trans-
"When it is necessary to occupy temporary quarters incident to the
ferred directly to St. Louis from Albuquerque this additional expense
employee's transfer to a new duty station, temporary quarters sub-
would not have been allowable. Therefore, we do not believe it should
sistence expenses will be authorized, subject to the conditions in this
be included in the bill.
Part, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the employee and
The remaining $1,260.00 portion of Mr. Hollis' claim (after re-
his dependents. Temporary quarters refers to lodging obtained tem-
turn from Saigon) is for 60 days subsistence expenses for his family
porarily after a transfer has been authorized or approved and after
while occupying what he asserts were temporary quarters. He has been
the employee and/or his dependents vacate the residence quarters in
reimbursed $260, representing 30 days subsistence expenses in connec-
which they were residing at the time of the transfer, until the employee
tion with his own occupancy of temporary quarters in St. Louis prior
or his dependents move, within the allowable period of entitlement,
to his family's arrival from Springfield. Paragraph C8251-3a, JTR,
into permanent residence quarters. Temporary quarters must, in fact,
revised August 1, 1968, provides as to reimbursement of temporary
be a temporary place of residence. Quarters occupied upon initial
quarters subsistence expenses as follows:
arrival at a new duty station location which factually are permanent
type residence quarters into which an employee moves his household
TIME ALLOWABLE
goods and continues occupancy indefinitely will not be considered tem-
porary quarters for which expense reimbursement is allowable. Such
"a. General. Except as provided herein, temporary quarters sub-
quarters occupied temporarily within the allowable time limit may be
sistence expenses may be authorized or approved for the period of
considered temporary quarters when their need is due to the fact
occupancy of temporary quarters, but not to exceed 30 days. When
that the permanent quarters for which the employee has made
an employee is transferred to or from Hawaii, Alaska, the territories
arrangements
*
*
and possessions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Canal
We have computed the maximum amount ($693.60) to which Mr.
Zone, temporary quarters subsistance expenses may be authorized
Hollis would have been entitled to under the regulations had his de-
or approved for an additional period not to exceed 30 days. The length
pendents been regarded as occupying temporary quarters in Spring-
of time allowed for occupancy of temporary quarters at Government
field. Since the family would in all likelihood have occupied temporary
expense under the 30- or 60-day limitations specified herein, will
quarters had Mr. Hollis been transferred directly from Albuquerque to
begin to run for the employee and his dependents when the employee,
St. Louis, we would have no objection to the payment of that amount.
the spouse, or any other dependent starts to occupy such quarters
The claim for additional subsistence expenses in the amount of
and the time will run concurrently. If the employee occupies tempo-
$506.40 for the second 30-day period was disallowed under paragraph
rary quarters at one location while the spouse and/or other depend-
8551-3a, supra, inasmuch as the authority for payment of temporary
ents occupy temporary quarters at another location, the time will
quarters subsistence expenses is limited to a period not to exceed 30
H.R. 970
H.R. 970
12
days, except in cases involving transfers to or from certain prescribed
areas, of which neither Saigon nor St. Louis is one. Since Mr. Hollis
would not have been entitled to subsistence expenses for an additional
30 days if transferred directly from Albuquerque to St. Louis, we see
no particular equity in his claim for expenses which other employees
under similar circumstances are not entitled to.
If favorable consideration is to be given to the bill on Mr. Hollis'
behalf, we recommend that the $5,148.35 amount be reduced to $3,841.95
to provide for reimbursement of expenses to which he probably would
have been entitled if he had been transferred directly from Albuquer-
que to St. Louis, as discussed above.
Sincerely yours,
PAUL G. DEMBLING,
(For the Comptroller General of the United States).
H.R. 970
Calendar No. 1060
94TH CONGRESS
SENATE
REPORT
2d Session
No. 94-1125
JOHN W. HOLLIS
AUGUST 5, 1976.-Ordered to be printed
Mr. HRUSKA, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 1402]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill,
(H.R. 1402), for the relief of John W. Hollis, having considered the
same, reports favorably thereon, without amendment, and recommends
that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the bill, is to pay John W. Hollis, of Ballwin,
Missouri, $4,114.45 in settlement of his claims for losses sustained in
the purchase and sale of residences and for travel and other expenses
which he and his family incurred as a result of transfer in his official
station from Sandia Base, New Mexico, to Saigon, Republic of Viet-
nam in January 1969, and from Saigon to St. Louis, Missouri, on
March 10, 1969, while he was employed by military departments within
the Department of Defense.
STATEMENT
The facts of the case are contained in the House report as follows:
The Comptroller General in a report on an earlier bill out-
lined the basis of the various elements of the claim and con-
cluded that it would have no objection to reimbursement for
expenses which he as a Federal employee would have been
entitled in a permanent change of station from Albuquerque,
New Mexico, St. Louis, Missouri, as if there had not been an
57-010
2
3
intervening brief assignment to Saigon. In a subsequent com-
settlement of an unexpired lease for his residence at his old
munication on that bill on November 30, 1972, the Comptroller
duty station, after he has signed the required transportation
General recommended the amendment reducing the amounts
agreement and provided that:
to be paid to $4,114.45, the amount stated in the committee
"1. a permanent change of station is authorized or approved
amendment.
and the old and new duty stations are located within the
The situation giving rise to this claim began on June 24,
United States, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Canal
1968, when Mr. John W. Hollis was advised of his selection
Zone;"
for assignment to Headquarters, Military Assistance Com-
The above regulations are based upon regulations issued
mand, Saigon, and on December 21, was issued travel orders
by the Office of Management and Budget (Circular No.
authorizing his permanent change of station.
A-56) as well as subsection 5724a (4) of title 5 of the United
Mr. Hollis sold his residence in Albuquerque and relocated
States Code in pertinent part as follows:
his family to Springfield, Illinois, for the duration of his
assignment to Vietnam. He arrived in Saigon on January 16,
5724a. Relocation expenses of employees transferred or
1969, and the following day received a request to accept an
reemployed
assignment with the U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command
in St. Louis, Missouri. On February 4, 1969, Headquarters,
"(a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe
Military Assistance Command, Saigon, released him from his
and to the extent considered necessary and appropriate, as
one-year service obligation and reassigned him to St. Louis.
provided therein, appropriations or other funds available
Incident to that reassignment he moved his family from
to an agency for administrative expenses are available for the
Springfield, to St. Louis, where he purchased a new residence.
reimbursement of all or part of the following expenses of
Mr. Hollis was reimbursed expenses to which he was en-
an employee for whom the Government pays expenses of
titled under applicable regulations incident to each assign-
travel and transportation under section 5724 (a) of this title:
ment. Expenses which were not reimbursed and which
*
*
*
*
*
constitute the $5,148.35, the amount of his original claim as
stated in the bill H.R. 1402, as based on the following items:
"(4) Expenses of the sale of the residence (or the settle-
(1) Expenses in connection with the sale of residence in
ment of an unexpired lease) of the employee at the old
Albuquerque and purchase of residence in St. Louis
$3,252.85
station and purchase of a home at the new official station
(2) Travel, per diem and subsistence expenses in connection
required to be paid by him when the old and new official
with the dependent's move to Springfield, and the employee's
transfer to Saigon from Albuquerque
539. 26
stations are located within the United States, its territories
(3) Mileage and per diem expenses in connection with reloca-
tion of dependents from Springfield to St. Louis
96.24
Canal Zone.
or possessions, * * the *") Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
(4) Temporary quarters subsistence expenses for dependents
Because the employee was transferred twice, the transfer
and self incident to relocation in St. Louis
1,260.00
in each case involving one duty station outside of the United
Total
5,148.35
States or other prescribed area, he is not entitled to reimburse-
Real estate expenses in connection with the sale of Mr.
ment of real estate in connection with either transaction.
Hollis' former residence in Albuquerque, and the purchase of
Had he been transferred directly from Albuquerque to
a new residence in St. Louis, were disallowed on the basis that
St. Louis, he would have been entitled to reimbursement for
paragraph C8350 of the Joint Travel Regulations, Volume II
certain of the real estate expenses which he has claimed. His
(JTR), revised January 1, 1968, restricts reimbursement for
decision to accept the reassignment to St. Louis did not how-
real estate expenses incident to a change of permanent station
ever nullify the intermediate transfer to Vietnam or other-
to situations where both the old and new duty stations are
wise create a basis for reimbursement of real estate expenses.
located within the United States, Commonwealth of Puerto
The itemization of real estate expenses as stated by the
Rico, or the Canal Zone, Paragraph C8350 provides in per-
GAO to be submitted by Mr. Hollis is as follows:
tinent part as follows:
Expenses in connection with sale of Albuquerque residence,
January 1, 1969
Brokerage fee
"C8350 GENERAL
Attorney's fee
$1,948.60
10. 40
Sale or transfer tax; mortgage tax
"An employee will be entitled to reimbursement for
Escrow fee
77.94
Miscellaneous expenses
30.16
expenses required to be paid by him in connection with the
197.50
sale of his residence at his old duty station; the purchase of a
Total
residence at his new duty station; or in connection with the
2,264.60
S.R. 1125
S.R. 1125
4
5
Expenses in connection with purchase of St. Louis residence,
mileage is attributable to travel between the motel in which
June 25, 1969:
Appraisal or inspection fee
35. 00
the employee and his family stayed while awaiting delivery
Lender's loan or origination fee
630. 00
of their household goods and their new residence in St. Louis.
Recording fees
13. 25
The additional per diem claimed is for time spent in such
Title examination and instrument preparation
175. 00
motel. Reimbursement of the additional mileage was not
Mortgage title policy
160. 00
Miscellaneous expenses
75. 00
allowable because the regulations make no provisions for this
type of expense and the additional per diem was not allowable
Total
988. 25
on the basis that the time spent in a motel awaiting delivery
Since the period intervening between the employee's two
of household effects ordinarily is a part of the temporary
transfers was only a few days, that GAO sees no objection to
subsistence allowance which he was entitled to for a maxi-
allowing him real estate expenses as though he had trans-
mum of 30 days as hereinafter explained. Had he been trans-
ferred directly from Albuquerque to St. Louis. However, it
ferred directly to St. Louis from Albuquerque this additional
believes the items labeled "miscellaneous expenses" should
expense would not have been allowable. Therefore, GAO does
be deducted in the absence of an explanation as to what is
not believe it should be included in the bill.
covered thereby SO as to permit a determination of whether
The remaining $1,260.00 portion of Mr. Hollis' claim (after
they are otherwise allowable under the regulations.
return from Saigon) is for 60 days subsistence expenses for
That portion of Mr. Hollis' claim for expenses incident to
his family while occupying what he asserts were temporary
moving his dependents from Albuquerque to Springfield and
quarters. He has been reimbursed $260, representing 30 days
in connection with his travel to Saigon consists of $8.51 for
subsistence expenses in connection with his own occupancy
additional mileage, $114.75 for additional per diem for his
of temporary quarters in St. Louis prior to his family's ar-
family while traveling, and $416.00 for subsistence expenses
rival from Springfield. Paragraph C8251-3a, JTR, revised
for his dependents and himself while in Springfield. The
August 1, 1968, provides as to reimbursement of temporary
claim for additional mileage and per diem results from the
quarters subsistence expenses as follows:
fact that in the course of traveling from Albuquerque to
Springfield, the employee and his family traveled by way of
"3. TIME ALLOWABLE
St. Louis, rather than by the usually traveled route. He has
explained that this detour was made for the purpose of pick-
"a. General. Except as provided herein, temporary quarters
ing up orders and a passport in St. Louis. That travel, how-
subsistence expenses may be authorized or approved for the
ever, was not authorized and there is no showing that this was
period of occupancy of temporary quarters, but not to exceed
necessary. Consequently he was limited to the mileage and
30 days. When an employee is transferred to or from Hawaii,
per diem which would have been allowable had he proceeded
Alaska, the territories and possessions, the Commonwealth of
directly from Albuquerque to Springfield. We see no equity
Puerto Rico, or the Canal Zone, temporary quarters subsist-
in allowing him the additional mileage and per diem.
ence expenses may be authorized or approved for an addi-
The $416.00 amount claimed in connection with the move
tional period not to exceed 30 days. The length of time al-
to Springfield is for subsistence expenses for 8 days while lo-
lowed for occupancy of temporary quarters at Government
cating a residence in Springfield. That item was disallowed on
expense under the 30- or 60-day limitations specified herein,
the basis that temporary quarters subsistence expenses is
will begin to run for the employee and his dependents when
authorized under 5 U.S.C. 5724a only when the new duty sta-
the employee, the spouse, or any other dependent starts to
tion is located within the United States, its territories or
occupy such quarters and the time will run concurrently. If
possessions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Canal
employee occupies temporary quarters at one location while
Zone. However, we note that had Mr. Hollis been transferred
the spouse and/or other dependents occupy temporary quar-
directly from Albuquerque to St. Louis he would have been
ters at another location, the time will terminate for the em-
entitled under the applicable regulations to the expenses of a
ployee and dependents when any one of them moves into per-
househunting trip to St. Louis with per diem in lieu of sub-
manent residence quarters or when the allowable time limit
sistence limited to 6 days for himself and wife (including
expires, whichever occurs first. The use of temporary quarters
travel time). Thus, the allowance of 6 days additional per
for subsistence expense purposes under these provisions may
diem would not appear unreasonable. At the rates then in
begin as soon as the employee's transfer has been authorized,
effect this would amount to $28 per day or $168.
the required written agreement has been signed, and perma-
The $96.24 amount claimed by Mr. Hollis for additional
nent quarters at the old duty station have been vacated. Also
expenses upon his return from Saigon in connection with
see prohibitions in par. C8253."
moving his family from Springfield to St. Louis consists of
Subsistence expenses for the employee's family for the first
$6.24 for mileage and $90.00 for per diem. The additional
30 days were disallowed under the above-quoted regulation.
S.R. 1125
S.R. 1125
6
7
Since the 30-day period of entitlement runs concurrently for
no particular equity in his claim for expenses which other
the employee and for his dependents, Mr. Hollis' occupancy
employees under similar circumstances are not entitled to.
of temporary quarters in St. Louis determined the running
In view of the recommendations and conclusions detailed
of that period. During those 30 days the family remained in
in the report of the General Accounting Office, the committee
occupancy of their residence in Springfield. Although tempo-
has determined that this is an appropriate matter for legis-
rary quarters subsistence expenses may be reimbursed where
lative relief. It is recommended that the bill, amended to pay
an employee and his dependents occupy temporary quarters
the reduced amount $4,114.45 suggested in the supplemental
at separate locations, occupancy by the dependents of the per-
report of that office dated November 30, 1972, be considered
manent type residence quarters in which they were residing
favorably.
at the time of the transfer does not constitute occupancy of
temporary quarters. Paragraph C8250, JTR, revised August
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
1, 1968, provides in this regard as follows:
Washington, D.C., November 30, 1972.
B-176779
"C8250 GENERAL
Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
"When it is necessary to occupy temporary quarters inci-
House of Representatives.
dent to the employee's transfer to a new duty station, tempo-
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We refer further to your letter of
rary quarters subsistence expenses will be authorized, subject
August 15, 1972, and to our report, B-176779 dated October 5,
to the conditions in this Part, for the purpose of defraying
1972, in regard to H.R. 16140, 92d Congress, 2d session, a bill
the expenses of the employee and his dependents. Temporary
"For the relief of John W. Hollis."
quarters refers to lodging obtained temporarily after a trans-
We indicated in our report that the items of "miscellaneous
fer has been authorized or approved and after the employee
expense" claimed by Mr. Hollis should be deducted in the
and/or his dependents vacate the residence quarters in which
absence of an explanation as to the specific items included
they were residing at the time of the transfer, until the em-
therein. Mr. Hollis has now furnished a statement, together
ployee or his dependents move, within the allowable period
with supporting documentation, that the item of $197.50
of entitlement, into permanent residence quarters. Temporary
claimed as a miscellaneous expense in connection with the
quarters must, in fact, be a temporary place of residence.
sale of his Albuquerque, New Mexico, residence was for a title
Quarters occupied upon initial arrival at a new duty station
insurance reissue fee, and that the $75 claimed as a miscella-
location which factually are permanent type residence quar-
neous expense in connection with the purchase of his St.
ters into which an employee moves his household goods and
Louis, Missouri, residence was for a survey fee.
continues occupancy indefinitely will not be considered tem-
Both of those items of expense may properly be reimbursed
porary quarters for which expense reimbursement is al-
under section 4 of Office of Management and Budget Circular
lowable. Such quarters occupied temporarily within the
No. A-56 in an appropriate situation. We therefore recom-
allowable time limit may be considered temporary quarters
mend, if favorable consideration is to be given to this bill,
when their need is due to the fact that the permanent quar-
that the $5,148.35 amount be reduced to $4,114.45 rather than
ters for which the employee has made arrangements * * "
to the $3,841.95 amount indicated in our report.
That GAO has computed the maximum ($693.60) which
Sincerely yours,
is the amount to which Mr. Hollis would have been entitled
ROBERT F. KELLER,
to under the regulations had his dependents been regarded as
Deputy Comptroller General of the United States.
occupying temporary quarters in Springfield. Since the fam-
ily would in all likelihood have occupied temporary quarters
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
had Mr. Hollis been transferred directly from Albuquerque
Washington, D.C., October 5, 1972.
to St. Louis, that GAO would have no objection to the pay-
B-176779
ment of that amount.
The claim for additional subsistence expenses in the amount
Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,
of $506.40 for a second 30-day period was disallowed under
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
paragraph 8551-3a, supra, inasmuch as the authority for pay-
House of Representatives.
ment of temporary quarters subsistence expenses is limited
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter of August 15, 1972, re-
to a period not to exceed 30 days, except in cases involving
quests our report on H.R. 16140, 92d Congress, 2d Session.
transfers to or from certain prescribed areas, of which neither
The bill would authorize payment to Mr. John W. Hollis of
Saigon nor St. Louis is one. Since Mr. Hollis would not have
Ballwin, Missouri, in the amount of $5,148.35, in settlement
been entitled to subsistence expenses for an additional 30 days
of his claim for reimbursement of travel and subsistence
if transferred directly from Albuquerque to St. Louis, we see
expense for himself and his family, and for real estate ex-
penses in connection with his transfers of official statistics
S.R. 1125
S.R. 1125
8
9
from Sandia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, to Head-
residence at his old duty station the purchase of a residence
quarters, Military Assistance Command, Saigon, Republic
at his new duty station; or in connection with the settlement
of Vietnam, and from there to the United States Army
of an unexpired lease for his residence at his old duty station,
Aviation Systems Command, St. Louis, Missouri.
after he has signed the required transportation agreement
The employee's claim was presented to our Office and dis-
and provided that:
allowed by Settlement Certificate dated February 14, 1972,
"1. a permanent change of station is authorized or ap-
copy enclosed. The record indicates that on June 24, 1968,
proved and the old and new duty stations are located
following notice of an impending reduction in force at
within the United States, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Sandia Base, the employee was advised of his selection for
or the Canal Zone;
assignment to Headquarters, Military Assistance Command,
The above regulations are based upon regulations issued by
Saigon, and on December 21, was issued travel orders au-
the Office of Management and Budget (Circular No. A-56)
thorizing his permanent change of station.
as well as subsection 5724a (4) of title 5 of the United States
Mr. Hollis sold his residence in Albuquerque and relocated
Code in pertinent part as follows:
his family to Springfield, Illinois, for the duration of his
assignment to Vietnam. He arrived in Saigon on January 16,
"§ 5724a. Relocation expenses of employees transferred or
1969, and the following day received a request to accept an
reemployed
assignment with the U.S. Army Aviation Systems Command
(a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe
in St. Louis, Missouri. On February 4, 1969, Headquarters,
and to the extent considered necessary and appropriate, as
Military Assistance Command, Saigon, released him from his
provided therein, appropriations or other funds available to
one-year service obligation and reassigned him to St. Louis.
an agency for administrative expenses are available for the
Incident to that reassignment he moved his family from
reimbursement of all or part of the following expenses of an
Springfield, to St. Louis, where he purchased a new residence.
employee for whom the Government pays expenses of travel
Mr. Hollis was reimbursed expenses to which he was en-
and transportation under section 5724 (a) of this title
titled under applicable regulations incident to each assign-
*
*
*
*
*
*
ment. Expenses which were not reimbursed and which
(4) Expenses of the sale of the residence (or the settlement
constitute the $5,148.35 which is the subject of H.R. 16140 are
as follows:
of an unexpired lease) of the employee at the old station and
purchase of a home at the new official station required to be
(1) Expenses in connection with the sale of residence in Al-
paid by him when the old and new official stations are located
buquerque and purchase of residence in St. Louis
$3, 252. 85
within the United States, its territories or possessions, the
(2) Travel, per diem and subsistence expenses in connec-
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the Canal Zone. *
*
*")
tion with the dependent's move to Springfield, and the
employee's transfer to Saigon from Albuquerque
539. 26
Because the employee was transferred twice, the transfer in
(3) Mileage and per diem expenses in connection with re-
location of dependents from Springfield to St. Louis
96. 24
each case involving one duty station outside of the United
(4) Temporary quarters subsistence expenses for dependents
States or other prescribed area, he is not entitled to reimburse-
and self incident to relocation in St. Louis
1,260.00
ment of real estate expenses in connection with either transac-
Total
tion. Had he had transferred directly from Albuquerque to St.
5, 148. 35
Louis, he would have been entitled to reimbursement for cer-
Real estate expenses in connection with the sale of Mr.
tain of the real estate expenses which he has claimed. His de-
Hollis' former residence in Albuquerque, and the purchase of
cision to accept the reassignment to St. Louis did not however
a new residence in St. Louis, were disallowed on the basis that
nullify the intermediate transfer to Vietnam or otherwise
paragraph C8350 of the Joint Travel Regulations, Volume
create a basis for reimbursement of real estate expenses.
II (JTR), revised January 1, 1968, restricts reimbursement
The itemization of real estate expenses submitted by Mr.
for real estate expenses incident to a change of permanent sta-
Hollis is as follows:
tion to situations where both the old and new duty stations are
located within the United States, Commonwealth of Puerto
Expenses in connection with sale of Albuquerque residence,
January 1, 1969:
Rico, or the Canal Zone. Paragraph C8350 provides in per-
Brokerage fee
$1, 948. 60
tinent part as follows:
Attorney's fee
10. 40
Sale or transfer tax; mortgage tax
77. 94
Escrow fee
30. 16
C8350 GENERAL
Misscellaneous expenses
197. 50
An employee will be entitled to reimbursement for expenses
Total
2, 264. 60
required to be paid by him in connection with the sale of his
S.R. 1125
S.R. 1125
10
11
Expenses in connection with purchase of St. Louis residence,
June 25, 1969
$6.24 for mileage and $90.00 for per diem. The additional
Appraisal or inspection fee
35.00
mileage is attributable to travel between the motel in which
Lender's loan or origination fee
630. 00
the employee and his family stayed while awaiting delivery
Recording fees
13. 25
of their household goods and their new residence in St. Louis.
Title examination and instrument preparation
175. 00
Mortgage title policy
160. 00
The additional per diem claimed is for time spent in such
Miscellaneous expensess
75. 00
motel. Reimbursement of the additional mileage was not
allowable because the regulations make no provision for this
Total
988. 25
type of expense and the additional per diem was not allowable
Since the period intervening between the employee's two
on the basis that the time spent in a motel awaiting delivery of
transfers was only a few days, we see no objection to allowing
household effects ordinarily is a part of the temporary sub-
him real estate expenses as though he had transferred directly
sistence allowance which he was entitled to for a maximum of
from Albuquerque to St. Louis. However, we believe the items
30 days as hereinafter explained. Had he been transferred di-
labeled "miscellaneous expenses" should be deducted in the
rectly to St. Louis from Albuquerque this additional expense
absence of an explanation as to what is covered thereby SO as
would not have been allowable. Therefore, we do not believe
to permit a determination of whether they are otherwise
it should be included in the bill.
allowable under the regulations.
The remaining $1,260.00 portion of Mr. Hollis' claim (after
That portion of Mr. Hollis' claim for expenses incident to
return from Saigon) is for 60 days subsistence expenses for
moving his dependents from Albuquerque to Springfield and
his family while occupying what he asserts were temporary
in connection with his travel to Saigon consists of $8.51 for
quarters. He has been reimbursed $260, representing 30 days
additional mileage, $114.75 for additional per diem for his
subsistence expenses in connection with his own occupancy of
family while traveling, and $416.00 for subsistence expenses
temporary quarters in St. Louis prior to his family's arrival
for his dependents and himself while in Springfield. The
from Springfield. Paragraph C8251-3a, JTR, revised August
claim for additional mileage and per diem results from the
1, 1968, provides as to reimbursement of temporary quarters
fact that in the course of traveling from Albuquerque to
subsistence expenses as follows:
Springfield, the employee and his family traveled by way of
"3. TIME ALLOWABLE
St. Louis, rather than by the usually traveled route. He has ex-
plained that this detour was made for the purpose of picking
"a. General. Except as provided herein, temporary quarters
up orders and a passport in St. Louis. That travel, however,
subsistence expenses may be authorized or approved for the
was not authorized and there is no showing that this was
period of occupancy of temporary quarters, but not to exceed
necessary. Consequently he was limited to the mileage and per
30 days. When an employee is transferred to or from Hawaii,
diem which would have been allowable had he proceeded di-
Alaska, the territories and possession, the Commonwealth of
rectly from Albuquerque to Springfield. We see no equity in
Puerto Rico, or the Canal Zone, temporary quarters subsist-
allowing him the additional mileage and per diem.
ance expenses may be authorized or approved for an addi-
The $416.00 amount claimed in connection with the move to
tional period not to exceed 30 days. The length of time
Springfield is for subsistence expenses of 8 days while locat-
allowed for occupancy of temporary quarters at Government
ing a residence in Springfield. That item was disallowed on
expense under the 30- or .60-day limitations specified herein,
the basis that temporary quarters subsistence expenses is au-
will begin to run for the employee and his dependents when
thorized under 5 U.S.C. 5724a only when the new duty station
the employee, the spouse, or any other dependent starts to
is located within the United States, its territories or posses-
occupy such quarters and the time will run concurrently. If
sions, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or the Canal Zone.
the employee occupies temporary quarters at one location
However, we note that had Mr. Hollis been transferred di-
while the spouse and/or other dependents occupy temporary
rectly from Albuquerque to St. Louis he would have been
quarters at another location, the time will terminate for the
entitled under the applicable regulations to the expenses of a
employee and dependents when any one of them moves into
househunting trip to St. Louis with per diem in lieu of sub-
permanent residence quarters or when the allowable time limit
sistence limited to 6 days for himself and wife (including
expires, whichever occurs first. The use of temporary quarters
travel time). Thus, the allowance of 6 days additional per
for subsistence expense purposes under these provisions may
diem would not appear unreasonable. At the rates then in
begin as soon as the employee's transfer has been authorized,
effect this would amount to $28 per day or $168.
the required written agreement has been signed, and perma-
The $96.24 amount claimed by Mr. Hollis for additional
nent quarters at the old duty station have been vacated. Also
expenses upon his return from Saigon in connection with
see prohibitions in par. C8253."
moving his family from Springfield to St. Louis consists of
Subsistence expenses for the employee's family for the first
30 days were disallowed under the above-quoted regulation.
S.R. 1125
S.R. 1125
12
13
Since the 30-day period of entitlement runs concurrently for
penses for an additional 30 days if transferred directly from
the employee and for his dependents, Mr. Hollis' occupancy
Albuquerque to St. Louis, we see no particular equity in
of temporary quarters in St. Louis determined the running
his claim for expenses which other employees under similar
of that period. During those 30 days the family remained in
circumstances are not entitled to.
occupancy of their residence in Springfield. Although tem-
If favorable consideration is to be given to the bill on
porary quarters subsistence expenses may be reimbursed where
Mr. Hollis' behalf, we recommend that the $5,148.35 amount
an employee and his dependents occupy temporary quarters
be reduced to $3,841.95 to provide for reimbursement of
at separate locations, occupancy by the dependents of the per-
expenses to which he probably would have been entitled if
manent type residence quarters in which they were residing at
he had been transferred directly from Albuquerque to St.
the time of the transfers does not constitute occupancy of tem-
Louis, as discussed above.
porary quarters. Paragraph C8250, JTR, revised August 1,
Sincerely yours,
1968, provides in this regard as follows:
PAUL G. DEMBLING,
(For the Comptroller General of the United States).
"C8250 GENERAL
The Committee believes the bill is meritorious and recommends it
"When it is necessary to occupy temporary quarters incident
favorably.
to the employee's transfer to a new duty station, temporary
O
quarters subsistence expenses will be authorized, subject to
the conditions in this Part, for the purpose of defraying the
expenses of the employee and his dependents. Temporary
quarters refers to lodging obtained temporarily after a trans-
fer has been authorized or approved and after the employee
and/or his dependents vacate the residence quarters in which
they were residing at the time of the transfer, until the em-
ployee or his dependents move, within the allowable period
of entitlement, into permanent residence quarters. Temporary
quarters must, in fact, be a temporary place of residence.
Quarters occupied upon initial arrival at a new duty station
located which factually are permanent type residence quarters
into which an employee moves his household goods and
continues occupancy indefinitely will not be considered tem-
porary quarters for which expense reimbursement is allow-
able. Such quarters occupied temporarily within the
allowable time limit may be considered temporary quarters
when their need is due to the fact that the permanent quarters
for which the employee has made arrangements * * *"
We have computed the maximum amount ($693.60) to
which Mr. Hollis would have been entitled to under the
regulations had his dependents been regarded as occupying
temporary quarters in Springfield. Since the family would
in all likelihood have occupied temporary quarters had Mr.
Hollis been transferred directly from Albuquerque to St.
Louis, we would have no objection to the payment of that
amount.
The claim for additional subsistence expenses in the
amount of $506.40 for the second 30-day period was dis-
allowed under paragraph 8551-3a, supra, inasmuch as the
authority for payment of temporary quarters subsistence
expenses is limited to a period not to exceed 30 days, except
in cases involving transfers to or from certain prescribed
areas, of which neither Saigon nor St. Louis is one. Since
Mr. Hollis would not have been entitled to subsistence ex-
S.R. 1125
S.R. 1125
H. R. 1402
Minety-fourth Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the nineteenth day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six
An Act
For the relief of John W. Hollis.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secre-
tary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to John W. Hollis,
of Ballwin, Missouri, the sum of $4,114.45 in full settlement of all
his claims against the United States for losses he sustained through
the purchase and sale of residences and for travel and other expenses
which failed to qualify for reimbursement, which he and his family
incurred as a result of changes in his official station from Sandia Base,
New Mexico, to Saigon, Republic of Vietnam in January 1969, and
from Saigon to St. Louis, Missouri, on March 10, 1969, while he was
employed by various agencies of the Department of Defense.
SEC. 2. No part of the amount appropriated in the first section of
this Act in excess of 10 per centum thereof shall be paid or delivered
to or received by any agent or attorney on account of services rendered
in connection with this claim. Any person violating the provisions of
this section shall be fined not more than $1,000.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.