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
135838846
label
JGR/Portal-to-Portal (2 of 14)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
135838846
contentType
document
title
JGR/Portal-to-Portal (2 of 14)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
135838846
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
61d210fe112f5742
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: JGR/Portal-to-Portal
(2 of 14)
Box: 36
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
J2R
SUBJECT:
Portal to Portal Transportation
You asked that I prepare a memorandum to Baker, Meese,
Deaver, and Darman -- copy to Oglesby -- on the portal to
portal issue, recommending that it be discussed in a
legislative strategy meeting. A draft is attached.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN MEESE III
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT
JAMES A. BAKER, III
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
CHIEF OF STAFF
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Portal to Portal Transportation
Last summer the General Accounting Office issued an opinion
adopting an interpretation of the statute governing use of
Government vehicles for transportation between home and work
far more stringent than that prevailing in most Federal
agencies. The so-called Portal to Portal statute, 31 U.S.C.
§ 1344, specifies that Government vehicles may be used only
for official purposes and that an official purpose "does not
include transporting officers or employees of the Government
between their domiciles and places of employment." The
statute does not apply to vehicles for the official use of
the President, the heads of Executive departments listed in
5 U.S.C. § 101 (the twelve Cabinet departments), or
principal diplomatic and consular officials. The GAO
analysis rejected arguments advanced over time by various
Federal agencies permitting portal to portal service for
officials other than the President and the twelve Cabinet
department heads. For example, under the GAO interpre-
tation, no one in the Executive Office of the President
would be permitted portal to portal service.
GAO recognized that its interpretation of the statute was a
departure not only from earlier GAO opinions but also from
the established practice apparently acquiesced in by
Congress. Accordingly, GAO announced that it would not seek
reimbursement based on its new reading of the statute for
past misuse of Government vehicles for portal to portal
- 2 -
service, and would apply its new interpretation only after
the close of the current session of Congress. GAO noted
that existing law, as interpreted by it, may be too
restrictive, and urged Congress to consider meliorative
legislation during the "grace period." That period ends
when Congress adjourns, probably by early October.
We need to consider whether to seek legislation overriding
the GAO view, which GAO itself has indicated may be
desirable. If no legislation is passed and we continue
current portal to portal practices, there is the danger that
GAO may seek reimbursement from prominent Administration
officials on the eve of the election. Seeking legislation
also raises concerns, since it will likely be perceived and
attacked as an effort by the Administration to expand the
availability of portal to portal service. If no legislation
is passed, we will either have to alter existing portal to
portal practices by the time Congress adjourns, or commit to
a challenge to GAO's reading of the law at a very sensitive
time.
I recommend that this matter be discussed in a legislative
strategy meeting at the earliest opportunity.
CC: M.B. Oglesby, Jr.
Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
FFF:JGR:aea 1/24/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chron
ID #. 202708 CU
JV
WHITE HOUSE
WH009-02
o . OUTGOING
CORRESPONDENCE TRACKING COPY WORKSHEET
H INTERNAL
I INCOMING
Date Correspondence
Received (YY/MM/DD)
/
/
from ORM
Name of Correspondent:
Mike Horowitz
MI Mail Report
User Codes: (A)
(B)
(C)
Subject: Proposed Portal - to Portal
TRansportation Bilb / Draft
ROUTE TO:
ACTION
DISPOSITION
Tracking
Type
Completion
Action
Date
of
Date
Office/Agency
(Staff Name)
Code
YY/MM/DD
Response
Code
YY/MM/DD
DDU
CUHOLL
ORIGINATOR 84,02,07
C 84,02 JV
Referral Note:
CUAT18
D 84,02,07
C84,02,14 JV
Referral. Note:
CUFIEL
II 84/02/14
C.84 02,14 JV
Referral Note: John Bobeite MAME too IT
/
/
/
/
-
Referral Note:
/
/
/
/
Referral Note:
ACTION CODES:
DISPOSITION CODES:
A Appropriate Action
I . Info Copy Only/No Action Necessary
A Answered
C Completed
C - Comment/Recommendation
R - Direct Reply w/Copy
B - Non-Special Referral
S Suspended
D Draft Response
S For Signature
F - Furnish Fact Sheet
X Interim Reply
to be used as Enclosure
FOR OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE:
Type of Response = Initials of Signer
Code = "A"
Completion Date = Date of Outgoing
Comments: Copy of Jan 24 84 memo JV attached
SeeID 18364/cu
Keep this worksheet attached to the original incoming letter.
Send all routing updates to Central Reference (Room 75, OEOB).
Always return completed correspondence record to Central Files.
Refer questions about the correspondence tracking system to Central Reference, ext. 2590.
5/81
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 14, 1984
I+II
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Portal-to-Portal
By memorandum dated January 24, 1984 you requested a meeting
of the legislative strategy group to consider the portal-to-
portal "crisis" precipitated by last summer's Comptroller
General opinion. You will recall that the opinion strictly
interpreted the Portal-to-Portal statute, 31 U.S.C. § 1344,
in a manner that makes much currently provided portal-to-
portal service illegal. In order to give Congress time to
enact corrective legislation, the Comptroller General
announced that he would not enforce the new, strict inter-
pretation of the statute until the current Congress ended
its session -- around late October. Mike Horowitz, who has
been involved with this issue, considers it imperative to
obtain corrective legislation at the earliest opportunity.
In my memorandum to you of January 9, 1984, I noted the
political costs attendant upon seeking expanded limousine
service for Administration officials in an election year,
and suggested that the issue could be held in abeyance until
after the election (with more limited use of portal-to-
portal by officials after October).
Horowitz has now submitted a draft bill he would like to
have approved as a "going-in position." It would expand the
authorization for portal-to-portal service beyond the heads
of Cabinet Departments to include deputy heads, the heads of
AID, NASA, VA, CEA, OSTP, USIA, EPA, CIA, FAA, NSF, OPM, the
Federal Highway Administration, the Chiefs of Staff, the
Undersecretaries of Defense and State and the State
Department Counsellor, and no more than four Assistants to
the President (53 people in all). The draft bill also
contains an expanded physical safety exception to the
general portal-to-portal prohibition.
I have no objection to the draft bill as a starting
position, but I do not think the decision has yet been made
to seek legislation of this sort. As noted in your
January 24 memorandum, that question should be considered by
the legislative strategy group. Mr. Hauser advises me that
he is setting up a meeting between you and Joe Wright to
discuss this issue.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 24, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR EDWIN MEESE III
COUNSELLOR TO THE PRESIDENT
JAMES A. BAKER, III
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
CHIEF OF STAFF
MICHAEL K. DEAVER
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
RICHARD G. DARMAN
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT
DEPUTY TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF
FROM:
FRED F. FIELDING Orig. signed by FFF
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT:
Portal to Portal Transportation
Last summer the General Accounting Office issued an opinion
adopting an interpretation of the statute governing use of
Government vehicles for transportation between home and work
far more stringent than that prevailing in most Federal
agencies. The so-called Portal to Portal statute, 31 U.S.C.
$ 1344, specifies that Government vehicles may be used only
for official purposes and that an official purpose "does not
include transporting officers or employees of the Government
between their domiciles and places of employment." The
statute does not apply to vehicles for the official use of
the President, the heads of Executive departments listed in
5 U.S.C. § 101 (the twelve Cabinet departments), or
principal diplomatic and consular officials. The GAO
analysis rejected arguments advanced over time by various
Federal agencies permitting portal to portal service for
officials other than the President and the twelve Cabinet
department heads. For example, under the GAO interpre-
tation, no one in the Executive Office of the President
would be permitted portal to portal service.
GAO recognized that its interpretation of the statute was a
departure not only from earlier GAO opinions but also from
the established practice apparently acquiesced in by
Congress. Accordingly, GAO announced that it would not seek
reimbursement based on its new reading of the statute for
past misuse of Government vehicles for portal to portal
- 2 -
service, and would apply its new interpretation only after
the close of the current session of Congress. GAO noted
that existing law, as. interpreted by it, may be too
restrictive, and urged Congress to consider meliorative
legislation during the "grace period." That period ends
when Congress adjourns, probably by early October.
We need to consider whether to seek legislation overriding
the GAO view, which GAO itself has indicated may be
desirable. If no legislation is passed and we continue
current portal to portal practices, there is the danger that
GAO may seek reimbursement from prominent Administration
officials on the eve of the election. Seeking legislation
also raises concerns, since it will likely be perceived and
attacked as an effort by the Administration to expand the
availability of portal to portal service. If no legislation
is passed, we will either have to alter existing portal to
portal practices by the time Congress adjourns, or commit to
a challenge to GAO's reading of the law at a very sensitive
time.
I recommend that this matter be discussed in a legislative
strategy meeting at the earliest opportunity.
CC: M.B. Oglesby, Jr.
Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs
FFF: JGR:aea 1/24/84
bcc: FFFielding/JGRoberts/Subj/Chror
STATE OFFICE OF TRE OF RESIDENT STATES & UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MEMORANDUM
February 3, 1984
To:
Dick Hauser
From:
Mike Horowitz
MY
202708
Subject:
Portal to Portal
1. Per our conversation, here's the draft. For your
information, the agencies covered by Section 3(c) are*AID, NASA,
VA, CEA, OSTP, USIA, EPA, CIA, FAA, NSF, OPM and the Federal
Highway Administration. a
2. As indicated, Socolar acknowledges the enormous and
unintended problems created by an end-of-session deadline, but
does not want to commit to a later date until we send over
(however unofficially) some draft bill. If matters are to move,
therefore, you will need to review the attached draft to see if
it is an acceptable going-in position.
3. Let me know of your thoughts.
CC: Joe Wright
5.50
DRAFT
Proposed Portal-to-Portal Transportation Bill
5 U.S.C. 1344 (b) is hereby amended by deleting subsection (2)
thereof, renumbering subsection (3) as subsection (2), and
inserting the following subsections:
" (3) (a) No more than 4 persons with the rank of Assistant
to the President, to be designated by the President;
(b) the heads and deputy heads of the Executive Depart-
ments listed in section 101 of title 5 and the Office of
Management and Budget;
(c) the heads of all other establishments in the Exec-
utive Branch, except those specified in section 3502 (10) of
title 44, whose positions are classified at level II of the
Executive Schedule in section 5313 of title 5;
(d) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Chiefs of Staff of the Army and the Air Force, the Chief of
Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the
Under Secretaries of Defense, and the Under Secretaries and
Counsellor of the Department of State; and
(4) Employees whose physical and personal safety
is subject to significant threat, where the provision of
such transportation will afford protection not otherwise
DRAFT
Section-by-Section Analysis
This bill would authorize the provision of portal-to-portal
transportation for certain of the most senior officials of
the Executive Branch. The persons holding these offices
discharge a heavy burden of official responsibilities and
also bear substantial official representation responsibil-
ities outside normal business hours. Provision of such
transportation is in the interest of the effective perform-
ance of the government's obligations.
The bill would authorize provision of such transportation to
53 people. Many of these officials currently are provided
such transportation but, according to an opinion issued
recently by the Comptroller General, only the heads of the
eleven (11) Cabinet agencies will be entitled to such
transportation beginning in 1985. The bill would provide an
explicit statutory basis for such transportation.
The bill also would codify longstanding interpretations of
the existing law which permit such transportation to be
provided senior government officials when their physical
safety is threatened.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 14, 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR FRED F. FIELDING
FROM:
JOHN G. ROBERTS
SUBJECT:
Portal-to-Portal
By memorandum dated January 24, 1984 you requested a meeting
of the legislative strategy group to consider the portal-to-
portal "crisis" precipitated by last summer's Comptroller
General opinion. You will recall that the opinion strictly
interpreted the Portal-to-Portal statute, 31 U.S.C. § 1344,
in a manner that makes much currently provided portal-to-
portal service illegal. In order to give Congress time to
enact corrective legislation, the Comptroller General
announced that he would not enforce the new, strict inter-
pretation of the statute until the current Congress ended
its session -- around late October. Mike Horowitz, who has
been involved with this issue, considers it imperative to
obtain corrective legislation at the earliest opportunity.
In my memorandum to you of January 9, 1984, I noted the
political costs attendant upon seeking expanded limousine
service for Administration officials in an election year,
and suggested that the issue could be held in abeyance until
after the election (with more limited use of portal-to-
portal by officials after October).
Horowitz has now submitted a draft bill he would like to
have approved as a "going-in position." It would expand the
authorization for portal-to-portal service beyond the heads
of Cabinet Departments to include deputy heads, the heads of
AID, NASA, VA, CEA, OSTP, USIA, EPA, CIA, FAA, NSF, OPM, the
Federal Highway Administration, the Chiefs of Staff, the
Undersecretaries of Defense and State and the State
Department Counsellor, and no more than four Assistants to
the President (53 people in all). The draft bill also
contains an expanded physical safety exception to the
general portal-to-portal prohibition.
I have no objection to the draft bill as a starting
position, but I do not think the decision has yet been made
to seek legislation of this sort. As noted in your
January 24 memorandum, that question should be considered by
the legislative strategy group. Mr. Hauser advises me that
he is setting up a meeting between you and Joe Wright to
discuss this issue.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date
2.16.84
Suspense Date
MEMORANDUM FOR: John
FROM:
DIANNA G. HOLLAND
ACTION
Approved
Please handle/review
For your information
For your recommendation
For the files
Please see me
Please prepare response for
signature
As we discussed
Return to me for filing
COMMENT
LAW
BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
Report To The Congress
OF THE UNITED STATES
Use Of Government Vehicles For
Home-To-Work Transportation
GAO studied various federal departments'
and agencies' use of chauffeur-driven gov-
ernment vehicles for home-to-work trans-
portation of federal employees in the Wash-
ington, D.C., metropolitan area. The results
are presented in this study.
On June 3, 1983, GAO issued a decision on
home-to-work transportation. In that deci-
sion, GAO concluded that government pas-
senger motor vehicles are only available for
transportation on official business. By stat-
ute, the Congress has declared that, except
for the heads of cabinet-level departments
and certain other specified individuals,
transportation between an officer's or an
employee's home or work station may not
be considered to be official business. There
is little room for the exercise of discretion by
agency heads in permitting such transpor-
tation except in the kind of emergency
situations set forth in GAO decisions.
However, the law may be unduly restrictive.
The decision recommended that consider-
ation be given to amendatory legislation to
broaden the scope of the exceptions to the
prohibition in appropriate cases.
UNITED STATES
GENERAL
OFFICE
GAO/NSIAD-83-3
SEPTEMBER 28, 1983
ACCOUNTING
Request for copies of GAO reports should be
sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
Document Handling and Information
Services Facility
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, Md. 20760
PROPERTY OF
Telephone (202) 275-6241
LIBRARY
The first five copies of individual reports are
free of charge. Additional copies of bound
audit reports are $3.25 each. Additional
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
copies of unbound report (i.e., letter reports)
THE PRESIDENT
and most other publications are $1.00 each.
There will be a 25% discount on all orders for
100 or more copies mailed to a single address.
Sales orders must be prepaid on a cash, check,
or money order basis. Check should be made
out to the "Superintendent of Documents".
INSURED
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON D.C. 20548
OF
UNITED
B-210555
To the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives
The House Conference Report that accompanied House Joint
Resolution 631 1/ making further continuing appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1983, directed the General
Accounting Office to study the various federal departments' and
agencies' use of government automobiles and chauffeurs for
transportation of federal employees between their homes and
places of employment.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Our objectives were to obtain information on how often and
to whom home-to-work transportation is being provided and the
circumstances under which services were provided as well as to
identify the legal decisions and/or rationale for providing
home-to-work transportation. We selected our sample of agencies
to obtain a mix in terms of the amount of home-to-work trans-
portation provided, agency size, and whether the agency had
cabinet- or noncabinet-level status. We limited the scope of
our study by studying only the use of government vehicles and
chauffeurs for home-to-work transportation provided to headquar-
ters officials at 13 selected executive branch departments and
agencies in the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
The departments and agencies reviewed were
--Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the
President;
--Department of Defense, including the Departments of the
Army, Navy, and Air Force;
1/House Joint Resolution 631 became the Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 1983, Public Law 97-377, 96 Stat. 1830
(1982).
2/H. Rept. No. 980, 97th Cong., 2d sess. 197 (1982).
B-210555
Department of Health and Human Services;
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Department of Justice;
Department of Transportation;
Central Intelligence Agency;
Civil Aeronautics Board;
Environmental Protection Agency;
Federal Communications Commission;
Federal Home Loan Bank Board;
Federal Trade Commission; and
National Science Foundation.
In January 1983, we sent letters to the 13 selected depart-
ments and agencies requesting that they provide information on
the home-to-work transportation services provided for the period
October through December 1982. We verified the information at
the National Science Foundation, one of three agencies that
reported no use of government vehicles or chauffeurs for home-
to-work transportation. We also verified the information pro-
vided by the Department of Defense's Office of the Secretary of
Defense executive motor pool and the Pentagon (Army) and Navy
motor pools because the Department reported a relatively high
amount of such usage. This verification involved examining dis-
patch logs and vehicle records to determine the usage of motor
pool vehicles and chauffeurs as well as reviewing applicable
regulations and procedures. We found no discrepancies between
what was reported to us and these agencies' records.
We did not obtain agency comments on this study because we
received the data on the use of home-to-work transportation from
the departments and agencies and reported it directly as
received.
AUTHORITY FOR PROVIDING HOME-
TO-WORK TRANSPORTATION
The basic authority governing the use of government-owned
vehicles to transport federal employees between their homes and
places of employment is 31 U.S.C. 1344, formerly 31 U.S.C.
638a (c) (2)- This authority generally prohibits providing such
transportation except for the heads of the cabinet-level depart-
ments and certain other specified individuals. (See P. 10 of
B-210555
app. I.) In addition to this basic authority, departments and
agencies, as part of their respective appropriations acts, are
subject to specific statutory provisions regarding the use of
home-to-work transportation.
In a June 3, 1983, decision, B-210555 (see app. I), we
recognized that many agencies were uncertain about who was
authorized home-to-work transportation or they believed,
erroneously, that provision of such transportation was a matter
for the discretion of the agency head. We made it clear that
the Congress has stated, unequivocally, that except as specifi-
cally provided in the statute, home-to-work transportation may
not be considered "official business" and may not be authorized
by any official, including the agency head. The decision
described certain limited emergency situations in which we have
ruled that an exception could be made.
We recognized that the rigidity of the present law may lead
to many hardships and inequities. We, therefore, ecommended in
the decision that the Congress consider amendatory legislation
to relax the restrictions on providing home-to-work transporta-
tion in the case of special situations. We also suggested that
the Congress may wish to reconsider the rationale for exempting
only the heads of executive departments from the general
prohibitions in 31 U.S.C. 1344 (b) and expand the present
exemption to include the heads of all agencies and perhaps their
principal deputies.
CHAUFFEURED GOVERNMENT VEHICLE
USE BY DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
Among the 13 departments and agencies (see app. II)
responding, three agencies reported that they did not provide
any home-to-work transportation service. These agencies were
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board, and the National Science Foundation. The remaining 10
departments and agencies reported that they provided daily or
occasional home-to-work transportation to senior-level
officials. Specifically,
25. officials were provided daily home-to-work chauffeured
transportation. Five of these officials were heads of
cabinet-level departments.
-42 senior-level officials occasionally received
home-to-work transportation.
3
B-210555
--4 officials of the Department of Justice were provided
government vehicles that they drove between home and work
on a regular basis without using a chauffeur.
Appendix II provides a listing by department and agency of the
specific officials receiving home-to-work transportation.
The justifications and the circumstances cited by the
departments and agencies for providing home-to-work
transportation are shown in appendixes III and IV, respectively.
We are sending copies of this report to the Director,
Office of Management and Budget, and to the heads of the federal
departments and agencies covered in the report.
Comptroller General
of the United States
4
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
THE
STATE
WASHINGTON D.C. 20548
WHITED
June 3, 1983
B-210555
The Honorable Jack Brooks
Chairman, Committee on Government
Operations
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your letter of January 10, 1983,
in which you asked us to review two legal memoranda which
represent the positions of the Departments of State and
Defense with respect to the use of Government vehicles and
drivers for the provision of transportation for officials
and employees of those Departments between their homes and
places of employment. You requested our opinion on whether
the policies of those two Departments, as discussed in the
official memoranda which you supplied to us, are consistent
with the meaning and intent of 31 U.S.C. § 1344.
Enclosed is a copy of our decision of today in which we
explain how and why we conclude that the determinations of
the Departments of State and Defense concerning the provi-
sion of home-to-work transportation are not consistent with
the law.
However, we would like to take this opportunity to
reiterate some recommendations we have made to the Congress
over a period of years whenever new or amended language has
been proposed to deal with this subject. (See, e.c., the
"Limousine Limitation Act of 1975, S. 615, 94th Congress,
and more recently, section 614 of H.R. 7158, the House version
of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriation Act for FY 1983.) The fact that none of this
legislation has passed (although restrictions on home-to-work
transportation for a few specific agencies were enacted)
has added to general agency uncertainty about Congressional
intent. Did these proposals fail to pass because the Congress
no longer wishes to apply the title 31 restrictions so
strictly, or because a new Act was thought to be unnecessary
in view of the continued viability of 31 U.S.C. 1344 (b) (2)
5
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
The legislative history is silent or, at best inconclusive.
This fact, coupled with the continued approval of limousines
and other passenger vehicles during the appropriations process
without restrictions on their use continues to confuse a
number of agencies about the Congress' wishes on this subject.
Again, we recommend that clarifying legislation be
enacted to resolve the troubling questions about the scope
of an agency head's discretion to relax the restriction in
the case of emergencies and similar situations.
Finally, the Congress may wish to reconsider the rationale
for exempting only heads of executive departments from the
restriction. It is not clear to us how a cabinet officer's
needs differ from those of the heads of other major agencies,
such as the General Services Administration, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and so forth. In addi-
tion, the law does not take into account any special require-
ments or needs of the principal officer of each agency. By
"principal officer, " we have in mind the individual who occupies
the number two position in each agency, and who shares most of
the same responsibilities as the agency head. Finally, we note
that there are no provisions for handicapped personnel, or for
transportation to and from evening meetings where alternative
transportation is not available or, generally, where there is
no other way to accomplish official business without the use
of chauffeur-driven automobiles. The Congress may wish to
have a Government-wide canvas of special needs prior to deciding
whether to broaden the exceptions presently in the law. We
will, of course, be glad to help in this endeavor.
Sincerely yours,
Shilton J.Aocolan
Acting Comptroller General
of the United States
Enclosure
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
CONTROLLER
THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
DECISION
OF THE UNITED STATES
OF THE UNITED STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20548
FILE: B-210555
DATE: June 3, 1983
MATTER OF: Use of Government vehicles for
transportation between home and
work.
DIGEST:
1. GAO disagrees with the legal determi-
nations of officials of the Departments
of State and Defense that it is proper
under 31 U.S.C. S 1344(b) for agency
officials and employees (other than the
Secretaries of those departments, the
Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force, and those persons who have been
properly appointed or have properly
succeeded to be heads of Foreign Service
posts) to receive transportation between
their home and places of employment
using Government vehicles and drivers.
GAO construes 31 U.S.C. 5 1344 (b) to
generally prohibit the provision of such
transportation to agency officials and
employees unless there is specific
statutory authority to do SO.
2.
GAO disagrees with the Legal Advisor of
the Department of State and the General
Counsel of the Defense Department who
have interpreted the phrase "heads of
executive departments," contained in 31
U.S.C. S 1344 (b) (2), to be synonymous
with the phrase "principal officers of
executive departments." Congress has
statutorily defined the "heads" of the
executive departments referred to in 31
U.S.C. S 1344 (b) (2) (including the
Departments of State and Defense) to be
the Secretaries of those departments.
3. GAO disagrees with the State Depart-
ment's Legal Advisor and the General
Counsel of the Defense Department who
have construed the phrase "principal
diplomatic and consular officials,"
contained in 31 U.S.C. $ 1344 (b) (3), to
7
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
include those high ranking officials whose
duties require frequent official contact
on a diplomatic level with high ranking
officials of foreign governments. GAO
construes 31 U.S.C. § 1344, (b) (3) to only
include those persons who have been pro-
perly appointed, or have properly succeeded,
to head a foreign diplomatic, consular, or
other Foreign Service post, as an ambassador,
minister, charge d'affaires, or other similar
principal diplomatic or consular official.
4. The State Department's reliance on the GAO
decision in 54 Comp. Gen. 855 (1975) to
support the proposition that the use of
Government vehicles for home-to-work trans-
portation of Government officials and employees
lies solely within the administrative discretion
of the head of the agency was based on some
overly broad dicta in that and several previous
decisions. Read in context, GAO decisions,
including the one cited by the State Depart-
ment's Legal Advisor, only authorize the
exercise of administrative discretion to provide
home-to-work transportation for Government
officials and employees on a temporary basis
when (1) there is a clear and present danger
to Government employees or an emergency
threatens the performance of vital Government
functions, or (2) such transportation is
incident to otherwise authorized use of the
vehicles involved.
5. Because so many agencies have relied on apparent
acquiescence by the Congress during the appropria-
tions process when funds for passenger vehicles
were appropriated without imposing any limits
on an agency's discretion to determine the scope
of "official business," and because dicta in
GAO's own decisions may have contributed to
the impression that use of cars for home-to-work
transportation was a matter of agency discretion,
GAO does not think it appropriate to seek
recovery for past misuse of vehicles, (except
for those few agencies whose use of vehicles
was restricted by specific Congressional
enactments). This decision is intended to apply
prospectively only. Moreover, GAO will not
question such continued use of vehicles to
transport heads of non-cabinet agencies
and the respective seconds-in-command of
both cabinet and non-cabinet agencies
until the close of this Congress.
8
APPENDIX I.
APPENDIX I
B-210555
We have been asked by the Chairman of the House Committee
on Government Operations to review a Department of State,
July 12, 1982 legal memorandum and an earlier Department of
Defense legal opinion which interpret the exemptions in
31 U.S.C. un 1344 (b) (formerly 31 U.S.C. § 638a (c) (2) from the
prohibition in 31 U.S.C. § 1344 (a) against using appropriated
funds to transport Government officials between their homes
and places of employment. Relying on these interpretations.
the Department of State has expanded its internal list of
officials for whom such transportation is authorized. The
Chairman seeks our opinion on whether that action is in accordance
with the meaning and intent of the law. As explained below,
it is our opinion that the determination of the State Department
(and that of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense,
Legal Opinion No. 2, October 12, 1953, upon which the State
Department action is based) is not in accordance with the law.
Notwithstanding these conclusions, we recognize that the
use of Government-owned or leased automobiles by high ranking
officials for travel between home and work has been a common
practice for many years in a large number of agencies. (See,
for example, our report to the Senate Committee on Appropriations
on "How Passenger Sedans in the Federal Government are Used and
Managed," B-158712, September 6, 1974.) The justification advanced
for this practice is the apparent acquiescence by the Congress
which regularly appropriate funds for limousines and other
passenger automobiles knowing, in many instances, the uses to
which they will be put but not imposing limits on the discretion
of the agencies in determining what uses constitute "official
business."
In addition, the General Accounting Office may, itself,
have contributed to some of the confusion. As we studied our
past decisions in order to respond to the Chairman's request,
we recognized that in some instances, we may have used overly
broad language which implied exceptions to the statutory pro-
hibition we did not intend. (This will be discussed in more
detail later.) For these reasons, we do not think that it is
appropriate to seek recovery from any officials who have benefited
from home-to-work transportation to date. Our interpretation
of the law is intended to apply prospectively only.
Finally, we note that the General Accounting Office has made
several legislative recommendations to the Congress over a period
of years to clarify its intent about the scope of the prohibition.
Among other things, we suggested that the Congress consider
expanding the present exemption to include the heads of all
agencies and perhaps their principal deputies. This decision,
therefore, need not be considered effective with respect to
agency heads and their principal deputies until the end of the
present Congress in order to allow the Congress sufficient time
to consider our suggestions. (This does not, of course, include
any agency whose use of motor vehicles has been the subject of
a specific Congressional restriction.)
9
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
The Law
Section 1344 of title 31 of the United States Code
states:
W (a) Except as specifically provided by law, an
appropriation may be expended to maintain, operate, and
repair passenger motor vehicles or aircraft of the United
States Government that are used only for an official
purpose. An official purpose does not include transporting
officers or employees of the Government between their
domiciles and places of employment except
(1) medical officers on out-patient
medical service; and
(2) officers or employees performing field
work requiring transportation between their
domiciles and places of employment when the
transportation is approved by the head of the
agency.
(b) This section does not apply to a motor vehicle or
aircraft for the official use of--
(1) the President;
(2) the heads of executive departments listed in
section 101 of title 5; or
(3) principal diplomatic and consular officials.
Since vehicles may not be operated with appropriated
funds except for an "official purpose" and the term,
"official purpose" does not include transportation between
home and work, (except as otherwise specifically provided),
we regard subsection (a), above, as constituting a clear
prohibition which cannot be waived or modified by agency
heads through regulations or otherwise.
While the law does not specifically include the employ-
ment of chauffeurs as part of the prohibition in subsection
(a), GAO has interpreted this section, in conjunction with
other provisions of law, as authorizing such employment only
when the officials being driven are exempted by subsection
(b) from the prohibition. B-150989, April 17, 1963.
10
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
The State Department Determination
After researching and considering the provisions of
section 1344, the State Department's Legal Advisor informed
the State Department's Under Secretary for Management (in a
memorandum dated July 12, 1982) that there is "no legal
impediment" to authorizing the State Department's Under
Secretaries and Counselor to use Government vehicles and
drivers for transportation between their homes and places of
employment. (Previous to that opinion, the State Department
had restricted such transportation to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary.) The Legal Advisor founded his determina-
tion upon several bases.
For his first basis, the Legal Advisor relied upon an
October 12, 1953, opinion by the General Counsel of the
Defense Department which concluded that the phrase "heads of
executive departments" contained in 31 U.S.C. S 1344 (b) (2)
(then referred to as section 16 (a) (c) (2) of the Act of
August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 810) "is not limited to Cabinet
Officers or Secretaries of executive departments, but
includes also the principal officials of executive
departments appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate." Applying the DOD General Counsel's
conclusion, the State Department's Legal Advisor found that
the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries, and
Counselor (whom he refers to as the "Seventh Floor Princi-
pals") may be regarded as "heads of departments" for the
purposes of section 1344 (b) (2), and are therefore eligible
to use Government vehicles and drivers for home-to-work
transportation.
Secondly, the Legal Advisor determined that home-to-
work transportation for the Seventh Floor Principals is. also
authorized based upon his construction of the exemption in
section 1344 (b)(3) for "principal diplomatic and consular
officials." The Legal Advisor stated in his memorandum that
the Seventh Floor Principals "all share in discharge of the
Secretary's diplomatic responsibilities in much the same way
as ambassadors abroad; and the [State] Department * * * is
uniquely qualified to determine what diplomatic functions
are and who performs them." In his interpretation, the
restriction on home-to-work transportation in section
1344 (a) would not apply to the Seventh Floor Principals
because they are all "principal diplomatic * * * officials." .
For his final basis, the Legal Advisor cited our deci-
sion in 54 Comp. Gen. 855 (1975). That decision, according
to the Legal Advisor, "holds that where there is a clear and
11
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX I
B-210555
present danger, use of Government vehicles to transport em-
ployees to and from home is not proscribed.' The Legal
Advisor also quoted the following passage from that
decision:
"In this regard we have long held that use
of a Government vehicle does not violate the
intent of the cited statute where such use is
deemed to be in the interest of the Govern-
ment. We have further held that the control
over the use of Government vehicles is pri-
marily a matter of administrative discretion,
to be exercised by the agency-concerned with-
in the framework of applicable laws. 25
Comp. Gen. 844 (1946). 54 Comp. Gen. at 857.
Based upon that passage, the Legal Advisor concluded that
GAO's decisions support the proposition that home-to-work
transportation is permissible whenever there is an adminis-
trative determination by the head of the agency that this
would be in the interest of the Government, and not merely
for the personal convenience of the employee or official
concerned.
The Legal Advisor then referred to the Foreign Affairs
Manual (FAM) to demonstrate that the Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Counselor "share in dis-
charging the substantive responsibilities of the Secretary,"
and have been placed by law in the order of succession to be
Acting Secretary of State. According to the Legal Advisor
those officials "constitute a management group--the Seventh
Floor Principals." The Legal Advisor noted that those
officials have "heavy after hours official representation
responsibilities and a heavy load of other official respon-
sibilities which requires virtually around the clock acces-
sability * * *." The Legal Advisor concluded that these
considerations "would support an administrative determina-
tion that it is in the interest of the United States, not
personal convenience," to provide home-to-work transporta-
tion for the Seventh Floor Principals. In his opinion, such
a determination would satisfy the requirements of GAO's
decisions.
Discussion
We disagree with the analysis and conclusions of the
Legal Advisor. With regard to the Legal Advisor's first
basis, we have reviewed the October 12, 1953 Legal Opinion
No. 2 of the General Counsel of the DOD, upon which the
12
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX =
B-210555
Legal Advisor relied. (We have been informally advised that
DOD has never overturned or modified that opinion although,
as a matter of internal policy it has, over a period of
years, curtailed the use of_ Government vehicles for such
transportation.) We do not agree with the DOD General
Counsel's conclusion that the exemption in subsection
1344 (b) (2) for "the heads of executive departments listed in
section 101 of title 5" includes the "principal officers of
executive departments appointed by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate." The term "heads" of
executive departments is not synonymous with the term
"principal officers," particularly when the "head" of each
of the 13 "executive departments"- listed in section 101 of
title 5 is explicitly designated in other statutory
provisions. For example, 10 U.S.C. S-133 provides that
"[t]here is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the
Department of Defense * * *.*1/ In 22 U.S.C. § 2651, it is
provided that [t] here shall be at the seat of government an
executive department to be known as the Department of State,
and a Secretary of State, who shall be the head thereof.'
(The State Department's own regulations provide that the
Secretary of State "is the head of the Department of State."
1 FAM 110 (June 18, 1976).) Similar designations of the
"head" of each of the other "executive Departments" may also
1 / There is one statutory exception for the Department of
Defense. When the Department of Defense was created by the
National Security Act Amendments of 1949, Pub. L. No.
81-216, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 63 Stat. 578, 591-92 (1949),
Congress expressly provided in subsection (g) that,
despite the consolidation of the three military departments
into the DOD, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force continue to be vested with the statutory authority
which was vested in them when they enjoyed the status of
Secretaries of executive departments, See e.c., S. Rep. No.
366, 81st Cong. 25 (1949). That authority is to be
exercised subject to the discretion and control of the
Secretary of Defense. Id. For this reason, the Secretaries
of the Army, Navy, and Air Force may also be regarded 25
heads of the executive departments, even though their
respective agencies are not listed in 5 U.S.C. $ 101.
13
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
be found in the United States Code. 49 U.S.C. S 1652
(Transportation) ; 42 U.S.C. S 3532 (Housing and Urban Deve-
lopment) ; 29 U.S.C. S 551 (Labor); 15 U.S.C. S 1501
(Commerce) 43 U.S.C. S 1451 (Interior) ; 31 U.S.C. S 301
(Treasury); 42 U.S.C. S 7134 (Energy); 42 U.S.C. S 3501n.,
as amended bv 20 U.S.C. S 3508 (Health and Human Services);
28 U.S.C. S 503 (Justice); 7 U.S.C. S 2202 (Agriculture) 20
U.S.C. S 3411 (Education). Therefore, we construe subsec-
tion (b) (2) of section 1344 to refer strictly to those
officers who are appointed (or who duly succeed) to the
positions designated by law to be "the heads of executive
departments" as listed in 5 U.S.C. S 10.1.
Moreover, the legislative history upon which the
General Counsel relied does not support his conclusions.
For example, the General Counsel cited the Act of March 3,
1873, 17 Stat. 485, 486, and the debate on that Act in the
Congressional Globe, 42d Cong., 3rd Sess. 2104 (1873), for
the proposition that "when Congress wanted to limit the
expression [heads of executive departments] specifically to
Cabinet Officers, it did so in precise terms and added after
'heads of executive departments' the qualification 'who are
members of the President's Cabinet. However, our exami-
nation of the cited Act and debates failed to reveal the use
of either phrase in the Act or the legislative debates. On
the contrary, from our examination, it appears that the Act
and the debates on it explicitly and repeatedly distinguish
between the heads of the executive departments, and the
"persons next in rank to the heads of Departments. See
Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 3rd Sess. 2100-2105 (1873); Act of
March 3, 1873, 17 Stat. 485, 486.
As his second basis for concluding that the "Seventh
Floor Principals" may be authorized to receive home-to-work
transportation, the State Department Legal Advisor construed
subsection (b) (3) of section 1344 (which exempts "principal
diplomatic and consular officials" from the restrictions on
home-to-work transportation) to include the "principal
officers of this [State] Department." (Emphasis added.)
According to the Legal Advisor, the "principal officers" of
the State Department are the Seventh Floor Principals. We
do not concur in that construction of subsection
1344 (b) (3). For similar reasons we also disagree with the
DOD General Counsel who concluded in his 1953 opinion (as
cited and relied upon by the State Department Legal Advisor)
that the phrase "principal diplomatic and consular offi-
cials" includes "those principal officers of the Government
14
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
whose duties require frequent official contact upon a diplo-
matic level with ranking officers and representatives of
foreign governments." (Emphasis added.)
Although the Congress has not defined the term "princi-
pal diplomatic and consular officials" as used in section
1344, it has defined "principal officer" as that term is
used in the context of performing diplomatic or consular
duties. In 22. U.S.C. § 3902, it is provided that the term
"principal officer" means "the officer in charge of a diplo-
matic mission, consular mission * * *, or other Foreign Ser-
vice post." Consistent with that statute, the State
Department's Foreign Affairs Manual also defines a "princi-
pal officer" to mean the person who "is in charge of an
embassy, a legation, or other diplomatic mission, a consu-
late general or consulate of the United States, or a U.S.
Interests Section." 2 F.A.M. un 041 (i) (October 11, 1977).
See also 3 F.A.M. 030 (Nov. 27, 1967) (similar definition of
"principal officer"). Our reading of these statutory and
regulatory definitions, in conjunction with the plain mean-
ing of subsection (b) (3) of section 1344 leads us to con-
clude that neither the Legal Advisor's definition, nor that
of the DOD General Counsel, is correct. In our view the
term "principal diplomatic and consular officials" only
encompasses those individuals who are properly designated
(or succeed) to head a foreign diplomatic, consular DI other
similar Foreign Service Post.
Purthermore, examination of the original enactment
which was later codified as section 1344 by Pub. L. No.
97-258, 96 Stat. 877 (1982) also supports the conclusion
that the Congress intended to limit the meaning of the
phrase "principal diplomatic and consular officials" to the
officers in charge of foreign posts. Section 16 (a) (c) (2) of
the Act of August 2, 1946, Chapt. 744, 60 Stat. 810-811
provided, in pertinent part:
"The limitations of this paragraph [now
contained in section 1344 (a) shall not apply
to any motor vehicles or aircraft for
official use of the President, the heads of
the executive departments enumerated in 5
U.S.C. 1, ambassadors, ministers, charges
d'affaires, and other principal diplomatic
and consular officials.' (Emphasis added.)
As the underlined language makes clear, Congress intended
the term "principal diplomatic and consular officials" to
15
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
include ambassadors, ministers, charges d'affaires and other
similar officials. The codification of title 31 was not
intended to make any substantive changes in the law. See
H.R. Rep. No. 97-651, 97th Eong., 2d Sess. 69 (1982)
Compare also, 2 F.A.M. SS 041 (i), 043 (October 11, 1977)
(principal officers are ambassadors, ministers, charges
d'affaires, and other similar officers who are in charge of
Foreign Service Posts; each such person is the "principal
diplomatic representative of the United States * * * to the
government to which he is accredited"). Therefore, we
conclude that the Seventh Floor Principals are not "prin-
cipal diplomatic and consular officials" who may legally
receive home-to-work transportation
In arguing the third basis for his determination, the
Legal Advisor relied specifically on our decision in 54
Comp. Gen. 855 (1975). That case concerned the provision
of home-to-work transportation for DOD employees who were
stationed in a foreign country where, according to the
DOD submission, there was serious danger to the employees
because of terrorist activities. As the Legal Advisor
initially acknowledged, our decision in that case holds
that where there is a "clear and present danger" to Govern-
ment employees and the furnishing of home-to-work transporta-
tion in Government vehicles will afford protection not other-
wise available, then the provision of such transportation
is within the exercise of sound administrative discretion.
54 Comp. Gen. at 858.
The Legal Advisor then quotes the second passage from
the decision (set forth earlier) which, as the reference
indicates, was taken from 25 Comp. Gen. 844 (1946). That
passage has been repeated a number of times as dicta in
other Comptroller General decisions. (See, for example,
B-181212, August 15, 1974, or B-178342, May 8, 1973.)
Standing alone, it certainly implies that what constitutes
official business is a determination that lies within the
discretion of the agency head, and it is not surprising
that many agencies chose to act on that assumption. However,
all decisions must be read in context. The seminal decision,
25 Comp. Gen. 844 (1946), denied a claim for cab fare between
an employee's home and the garage where a government car
was stored, prior to beginning official travel, on the
general principle that an employee must bear his own com-
muting expenses. The decision then said, in passing,
that if an agency decided that it was more advantageous
16
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
to the Government for official travel to start from an
employee's home rather than from his place of business
OI, presumably, from the gazage, "[S]uch use of a
Government automobile is within the meaning of 'official
purposes' as used in the act."
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Leon Ulman, Depart-
ment of Justice, wrote a memorandum opinion on this topic
for the Counsel to the President on August 27, 1979. After
quoting the above-mentioned generalization about administra-
tive discretion to authorize home-to-work transportation,
Ulman concluded:
"But this sweeping language has been applied
narrowly by both the Comptroller General and
this Department * * We are aware of nothing
that supports a broad application of the exception
implied by the Comptroller General. That exception
may be utilized only when there is no doubt that
the transportation is necessary to further an
official purpose of the Government. As we view
it, only two truly exceptional situations
exist: (1) where there is good cause to believe
that the physical safety of the official requires
his protection, and (2) where the Government
temporarily would be deprived of essential
services unless official transportation is provided
to enable the officer to get to work. Both.
categories must be confined to unusual factual
circumstances."
Moreover, even under the circumstances discussed in
the terrorist activities case relied on by the State
Department Legal Adviser, we pointed out that section 1344
does not expressly authorize either the exercise of such
discretion OI the provision of such transportation. We
then stated:
"the broad scope of the prohibition in [what is
now section 1344], as well as the existence of
specific statutory exceptions thereto, strongly
suggests that specific legislative authority for
such use of vehicles should be sought at the
earliest possible time, and that the exercise of
administrative discretion in the interim should
be reserved for the most essential cases."
54 Comp. Gen. at 858 (footnote omitted).
17
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-210555
Thus, it was the need to protect Government employees
from a clear and present danger (not simply an admin-
istrative determination of the Government's interest)
which led us to authorize the interim provision of
home-to-work transportation until specific legislative
authority for such transportation could be obtained.
Subsequent Comptroller General's decisions have
not relied upon an administrative determination of the
Government's interests as the sole basis for either
approving or disapproving home-to-work transportation. 2/
We have, however, somewhat broadened the concept of an
emergency situation to include temporary bus service
for essential employees during a public transportation
strike. 54 Comp. Gen. 1066 (1975) Cf. 60 Comp. Gen. 420
(1981)
There is one other narrow exception to the prohibition
which should be mentioned. When provision of home-to-work
transportation to Government employees has been incident
to otherwise authorized use of the vehicles involved, i.e.,
was provided on a "space available" basis, and did not
result in additional expense to the Government, we have
raised no objection. See, e.c., B-195073, November 21,
1979, in which additional employees were authorized to
go home with an employee who was on field duty and there-
fore was exempt from the prohibition.
Unless one of the these exceptions outlined above
applies, agencies may not properly exercise administrative
discretion to provide home-to-work transportation for their
officers and employees, unless otherwise provided by
statute. (See e.c., 10 U.S.C. § 2633 for an example of a
statutory exemption for employees on military installations
and war plants under specified circumstances.)
2/ An audit report which was primarily concerned with misuse
of federal employees as personal aides to Federal officials,
GAO/FPCD-82-52 (B-207462, July 14, 1982) may have created a
contrary impression. It, too, quoted our 1975 decision,
without fully describing the limited context in which the
exercise of administrative discretion might be permissible.
The error was inadvertent.
18
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX I
B-220555
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that, unless
one of the exceptions outlined above applies, the Deputy
Secretary of State, the Under Secretaries, and the Counselor
may not be authorized under 31 U.S.C. 8 1344 (b) to use
Government vehicles or drivers for transportation between
their homes and places of employment, nor may any other
official or employee of the Departments of State and Defense
(other than the Secretaries of those two Departments, and
the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force)- be so
authorized under that subsection, unless that person has
been properly appointed (or has succeeded) to be the head
of a foreign diplomatic, consular, or other Foreign Service
post as an ambassador, minister, charge d'affaires, or
another similar principal diplomatic or consular official.
Shilton I
Acting Comptroller General
of the United States
19
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX II
INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING
HOME-TO-WORK TRANSPORTATION
Of the 13 departments and agencies reviewed, 10 provided
home-to-work transportation during the period of our study. The
three that did not provide such transportation were the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Home Loan Bank
Board, and the National Science Foundation.
In a February 15, 1983, letter to GAO responding to our
request for information, the Assistant Attorney General for
Administration, Department of Justice, stated that the Acting
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; the Witness
Security Duty Officer and the headquarters driver, United States
Marshals Service; and the Director, Bureau of Prisons were
provided government vehicles that they drove between home and
work without using a chauffeur. Also, the Assistant Secretary
for Administration, Department of Transportation, in an
April 21, 1983, letter, informed us that the Vice-Commandant of
the United States Coast Guard rides to and from work with the
Commandant in his chauffeured vehicle.
The following table shows the use of chauffeured transpor-
tation as reported by each. of the selected departments or agen-
cies. For example, the Department of Defense defines occasional
use as whenever officials "determine this [home-to-work] trans-
portation to be essential to the successful accomplishment of
their duties for that day, but not on a daily or routine basis." as
20
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX II
Frequency
Departments/agencies
Dailv
Occasionally
Office of Management
Director
Deputy Director
and Budget
Department of Defense:
Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Office of the
Deputy Secretary
of Defense
Secretary of
Under Secretary
(International
Defense
of Defense for
Security Affairs)
Policy
Assistant Secretary
Under Secretary
of Defense
of Defense for
(International)
Research and
Security Policy)
Engineering
Assistant Secretary
Chairman, Joint
of Defense
Chiefs of Staff
(Comptroller)
Assistant Secretary
of Defense
(Manpower, Reserve
Affairs and
Logistics)
Assistant Secretary
of Defense
(Public Affairs)
Assistant Secretary
of Defense
(Health Affairs)
Assistant Secretary
of Defense
(Legislative
Affairs)
Department of De-
fense General
Counsel
21
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX II
Frequency
Departments/agencies
Daily
Occasionally
Department of the
Secretary of the
Under Secretary of
Army
Army
the Army
Chief of Staff,
Vice Chief of Staff,
Army
Army
Assistant Secretary
of the Army
(Civil Works)
Assistant Secretary
of the Army
(Installations,
Logistics and
Financial Manage-
ment)
- Assistant Secretary
of the Army
(Manpower and
Reserve Affairs)
Assistant Secretary
of the Army
(Research, Devel-
opment and
Acquisition)
Commander, Army
Materiel Develop-
ment and Readiness
Command
Department of the
Secretary of the
Under Secretary of
Navy
Navy
the Navy
Chief of Naval
Vice Chief of Naval
Operations
Operations
Commandant of the
Assistant Commandant
Marine Corps
of the Marine
Corps
Assistant Secretary
of the Navy
(Manpower and
Reserve Affairs)
Assistant Secretary
of the Navy
(Shipbuilding and
Logistics)
Assistant Secretary
of the Navy
(Research, Engi-
neering and
Systems)
Chief, Navy Material
22
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX II
Frequency
Departments/agencies
Daily
Occasionally
Department of the
Secretary of the
Under Secretary
Air Force
Air Force
of the Air Force
Chief of Staff,
Vice Chief of Staff,
Air Force
Air Force
Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force
(Manpower, Reserve
Affairs and
Installations)
Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force
(Financial Manage-
ment)
Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force
( Research,
Development and
Logistics)
Commander, Air Force
Systems Command
Department of Health
Secretary
Commissioner of the
and Human Services
Social Security
Administration
Administrator,
Health Care Fi-
nancing Administra-
tion
Department of Housing
Secretary
Under Secretary
and Urban Develop-
(note a)
ment
Department of Justice
Attorney General
Solicitor General
Deputy Attorney
General
Director, Federal
Bureau of
Investigation
a/The Under Secretary is provided home-to-work transportation
when he serves as the Acting Secretary.
23
APPENDIX II
APPENDIX II
Frequency
pepartments/agencies
Dailv
Occasionally
Department of
Secretary
Transportation
Commandant of
the United
States Coast
Guard
Vice-Commandant
of the United
States Coast
Guard
Central Intelligence
Director
Agency
Deputy Director
Director, Intel-
ligence Com-
munity Staff
Civil Aeronautics
Chairman
Board
Four board members
Environmental Protection
Agency (note b)
Federal Communications
Chairman
Commission
Federal Home Loan Bank
Board (note b)
Federal Trade Commission
Chairman
Three commissioners
National Science
Foundation (note b)
-
-
Total
25
42
5/These agencies reported that they did not provide any home-to-
work transportation service to officials in the Washington, D.C.,
metropolitan area.
24
APPENDIX III
APPENDIX III
JUSTIFICATIONS CITED FOR PROVIDING
HOME-TO-WORK TRANSPORTATION
Five departments and one agency cited their interpretations
of 31 U.S.C. 1344 as the justification for providing daily
home-to-work transportation to a total of 21 officials.
The justifications given by the departments and agencies for
providing home-to-work transportation were as follows:
Departments/agencies
Justification
Office of Management
Interpretation of decisions
and Budget
of the Comptroller
General and the Attorney
General
Department of Defense
Department or agency general
Department of Housing
counsel's interpretation
and Urban Development
of 31 U.S.C. 1344
Federal Communications
(formerly 31 U.S.C.
Commission
638a(c)(2)) (note a)
Department of Health
Interpretation of 31 U.S.C.
and Human Services
1344
Department of Justice
Department of Transportation
Interpretation of 31 U.S.C.
1344, 5 U.S.C. 101, and
Comptroller General
decisions 25 Comp. Gen.
844 (1946) and 54 Comp.
Gen. 855 (1975)
a/31 U.S.C. 638a (c) (2) was codified into 31 U.S.C. 1344 (b) and
1349 (b) by Public Law 97-258, 96 Stat. 877, 924 (1982).
25
APPENDIX III
APPENDIX III
Departments/agencies
Justification
Central Intelligence
Interpretation of section 8
Agency
of the Central Intelligence
Agency Act of 1949, as
amended (50 U.S.C. 403j)
Civil Aeronautics Board
No authority cited
(occasional home-to-work
transportation provided the
chairman or other board
members for reasons of per-
sonal safety and the infre-
quency of public transporta-
tion at night)
Federal Trade Commission
No authority cited
( infrequent home-to-work
transportation was provided
to the chairman ano the three
commissioners when atten-
dence was required at offi-
cial meetings or functions
outside of regular business
hours)
26
APPENDIX IV
APPENDIX IV
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR
PROVIDING HOME-TO-WORK
TRANSPORTATION
Some of the circumstances surrounding the duties and
responsibilities of those persons provided home-to-work
transportation cited by the departments and agencies were as
follows:
Departments/agencies
Circumstances
Department of Defense
Personal safety/security
Department of Justice
Central Intelligence Agency
Civil Aeronautics Board
Department of Defense
Security for classified
Department of Justice
documents
Central Intelligence Agency
Office of Management and
Capability of maintaining
Budget
constant communication
Department of Defense
with official
Department of Justice
Department of Transportation
Central Intelligence Agency
Federal Communications Com-
mission
Department of Defense
Infrequency of public trans-
Civil Aeronautics Board
portation or parking for
Federal Trade Commission
privately-owned vehicles
unavailable or unaccessible
within a reasonable distance
we did not evaluate the circumstances cited and are presenting
them solely as a matter of information.
(943562)
27