[House Report 104-358]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-358
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                         ARTHUR A. CARRON, JR.

                                _______


 November 28, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


 Mr. Hyde, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 418]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 418) for the relief of Arthur A. Carron, Jr., having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                purpose

    H.R. 418 would waive the time limitation of section 3702(b) 
of Title 31, United States Code, with respect to a claim by 
Arthur A. Carron, Jr., for amounts due to him from the 
Department of the Navy in connection with checks issued to him 
by the Department in 1966 and 1971, but which were not 
presented for payment by Mr. Carron until after the checks were 
cancelled in accordance with law.

                               background

    Mr. Arthur A. Carron, Jr. has three checks that are at 
issue:
          (1) Treasury check 2,831,843, dated 18 October 1966, 
        in the amount of $10,850.74, for a cash savings 
        account;
          (2) Treasury check 70,445,856, dated 29 January 1971, 
        in the amount of $1,361.00, for salary and expenses; 
        and
          (3) Treasury check 71,681,041, dated 1 April 1971, in 
        the amount of $562.25, for retired pay.
    The three checks were initially received by Mr. Carron's 
wife while he was at sea, and were retained by her without his 
knowledge. He only recently came into possession of the checks. 
Under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3702(b), a claim against the Government 
which is not presented to the General Accounting Office, or the 
agency whose activities give rise to the claim, within six 
years after the claim accrues is barred. Because Mr. Carron's 
claims accrued in 1966 and 1971, and were not presented within 
the statutory period, they are barred under section 3702(b). 
Given these circumstances, the Department of the Navy is 
without legal authority to issue replacement checks to Mr. 
Carron. The effect of H.R. 418 would be waive the statutory bar 
to payment of these claims.

                             agency report

    In a September 9, 1994, letter to the House Judiciary 
Committee, the Department of the Navy stated that generally the 
Department of Defense opposes private relief legislation of 
this type, which has the effect of waiving the statute of 
limitations in a preferential manner. The letter noted, 
however, that a primary reason for a claims statute of 
limitations is to ensure that claims are presented in a timely 
manner so that the facts incident to the claim can be obtained 
and evaluated with the assurance that they are accurate. In 
this case, Mr. Carron has physical possession of all three 
checks, and while the Department has been unable to ascertain 
whether payment was ever made with respect to the 18 October 
1966 and 29 January 1971 checks due to loss of Mr. Carron's pay 
records, the Department was able to determine that payment was 
never made for the 1 April 1971 check, which was his first 
check for retired pay. Under these circumstances, the 
Department determined that it is reasonable to conclude that 
payment has not previously been made with respect to any of the 
three checks. Accordingly, under the unique circumstances of 
this case, the Department does not oppose the proposed 
legislation.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    During the 103d Congress, the Subcommittee on 
Administrative Law and Governmental Relations held a markup on 
H.R. 3917. A reporting quorum was not present for a final vote. 
This bill was identical to the now-pending H.R. 418. The full 
Committee, by unanimous consent, ordered H.R. 3917 reported to 
the House, which passed it on October 7, 1994 (H. Rpt. 103-
837). The Senate did not act on H.R. 3917 before adjournment of 
the 103d Congress.
    In the 104th Congress, on July 13, 1995, the Subcommittee 
on Immigration and Claims favorably recommended the bill H.R. 
418, to the Judiciary Committee.
    On October 24, 1995, the Committee on the Judiciary 
favorably ordered reported by voice vote H.R. 418.

                      COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 1315, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 6, 1995.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 418, a bill for the relief of Arthur J. Carron, 
Jr., as ordered reported by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary on October 24, 1995. The bill would require the 
Secretary of the Treasury to make a payment of about $13,000. 
We expect this outlay would occur in fiscal year 1996. Because 
the bill would result in new direct spending, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would apply.
    Enactment of H.R. 418 would not affect the budgets of state 
or local governments.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R. 
Righter.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.

                              agency views

    The report of the Department of the Navy concerning the 
claim of Arthur J. Carron, Jr., is as follows:

                            Department of the Navy,
                             Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                 Washington, DC, September 9, 1994.
Hon. Jack Brooks,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to present the views of the 
Department of Defense with respect to H.R. 3917, 103rd 
Congress, a bill ``For the relief of Arthur A. Carron, Jr.''
    The purpose of H.R. 3917 is to waive the time limitation of 
section 3702(b) of title 31, United States Code, with respect 
to a claim by Arthur A. Carron, Jr., for amounts due to him 
from the Department of the Navy in connection with checks 
issued to Mr. Carron by the Department of the Navy in 1966 and 
1971, but which were not presented for payment by Mr. Carron 
until after the checks were cancelled in accordance with law.
    The checks in issue are as follows:
          (1) Treasury check 2,831,843, dated 18 October 1966, 
        in the amount of $10,850.74, for a cash savings 
        account;
          (2) Treasury check 70,445,856, dated 29 January 1971, 
        in the amount of $1,361.00, for salary and expenses; 
        and
          (3) Treasury check 71,681,041, dated 1 April 1971, in 
        the amount of $562.25, for retired pay.
    Mr. Carron has advised that the three checks were initially 
received by his wife and were retained by her without his 
knowledge, and that only recently did he come into possession 
of the checks. Under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3702(b), a claim against 
the government which is not presented to the General Accounting 
Office, or the agency whose activities gave rise to the claim, 
within six years after the claim accrues is barred. Because Mr. 
Carron's claims accrued in 1966 and 1971, and were not 
presented within the statutory period, they are barred under 
section 3702(b). Given these circumstances, the Department of 
the Navy is without legal authority to issue replacement checks 
to Mr. Carron. The effect of H.R. 3917 would be to waive the 
statutory bar to payment of these claims.
    The Department of Defense generally opposes private relief 
legislation of this type, which has the effect of waiving the 
statute of limitations in a preferential manner. It is noted, 
however, that a primary reason for a claims statute of 
limitations is to ensure that claims are presented in a timely 
manner so that the facts incident to the claim can be obtained 
and evaluated with the assurance that they are accurate. In 
this case, Mr. Carron has physical possession of all three 
checks, and while the Department has been unable to ascertain 
whether payment was ever made with respect to the 18 October 
1966 and 29 January 1971 checks due to loss of Mr. Carron's pay 
records, we were able to determine that payment was never made 
for the 1 April 1971 check, which was his first check for 
retired pay. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to 
conclude that payment has not previously been made with respect 
to any of the three checks. Accordingly, under the unique 
circumstances of this case, the Department does not oppose the 
proposed legislation.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the 
standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
objection to the presentation of this report for the 
consideration of the Committee.
            Sincerely,
                                                       R.J. Natter.