[House Report 104-360]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-360
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                               KRIS MURTY

                                _______


 November 28, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 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. 1315]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1315) for the relief of Kris Murty having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommend that the bill do pass.

                                purpose

    H.R. 1315 would deem Kris Murty to be an employee whose 
transfer and relocation expenses were authorized for his 
transfer from one official station of the United States 
Department of the Army to another station for permanent duty in 
1985 so that his reimbursement for relocation expenses in the 
amount of $4,636.50 may be paid by the Government.

                               background

    In January of 1985, Kris Murty was living in Houston, Texas 
and employed in the private sector when he accepted a job offer 
from the Department of the Army for a manpower shortage 
category position as an electrical engineer in Fort Bliss, 
Texas. He received orders authorizing reimbursement for 
miscellaneous expenses, unexpired lease expenses, and temporary 
quarters subsistence expense. Based upon these conditions, Mr. 
Murty accepted the position. Upon his relocation to Fort Bliss, 
Mr. Murty was awarded a travel advance in the amount of $4,824.
    Several months later, after Mr. Murty filed his travel 
voucher, he was notified that the Army had erred. It was 
determined that, as a manpower shortage appointee, Mr. Murty 
was only authorized mileage, travel per diem, and shipment of 
his household goods by Government Bill of Lading. This resulted 
in Mr. Murty being reimbursed only $187.50 against his travel 
advance and the creation of a debt due to the Army in the 
amount of $4,636.50. At that time, Mr. Murty was instructed 
that he must make restitution for the Army's mistake. 
Subsequently, his wages were garnished, and he paid the 
$4,636.50 in full.
    Mr. Murty acted in good faith with the Department of the 
Army based on the representations made to him. His acceptance 
of the position was based on the Army's assurances that it 
would cover his expenses.

                             agency report

    In a March 25, 1993, letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, the Comptroller General of the United States 
recommended that the Congress enact legislation that would 
treat Mr. Murty as though he had been an employee of the 
Federal Government transferred in the interest of the 
Government without a break in service from one duty station to 
another permanent duty station. The letter stated that he acted 
in good faith reliance on the erroneous representations of 
agency officials and that the travel authorization issued to 
him contained erroneous information consistent with those 
representations. The Comptroller stated that, in these 
circumstances, collection action and nonpayment of the 
additional amounts would be against equity and good conscience 
and not in the best interests of the United States.

                            committee action

    During the 103d Congress, the Subcommittee on 
Administrative Law and Governmental Relations considered H.R. 
2793 and recommended it to the full Committee. This bill was 
identical to the now-pending H.R. 1315. The full Committee 
reported this bill to the House, which passed it on June 21, 
1994 (H. Rpt. 103-605). The Senate did not act on H.R. 2793 
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. 
1315, to the Judiciary Committee.
    On October 24, 1995, the Committee on the Judiciary 
favorably ordered reported by voice vote H.R. 1315.
    On the basis of facts and equities presented in this 
matter, the Committee favorably recommends H.R. 1315 to the 
House and recommends that the House pass the bill.

                      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. 1315, a bill for the relief of Kris Murty, as 
ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 
October 24, 1995. The bill would require the federal government 
to make a payment of about $5,000. 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. 1315 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 General Accounting Office concerning the 
claim of Kris Murty is as follows:

                                Comptroller General
                                      of the United States,
                                    Washington, DC, March 25, 1993.
Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3702(d) (1988) 
we have the honor to transmit our report and recommendation to 
the Congress concerning the claim of Mr. Kris Murty. We 
recommend that he be reimbursed relocation expenses as though 
he had been an employee of the federal government transferred 
in the interest of the government from one duty station to 
another for permanent duty.
    In essence, this claim involves a person living in Houston, 
Texas, and employed in the private sector, who accepted a job 
offer from the Department of the Army for a manpower shortage 
category position at Ft. Bliss, Texas. He was provided 
erroneous information by agency officials regarding his 
relocation expense entitlements which was reiterated in his 
travel authorization. Based on those representations, he 
accepted the position in good faith and incurred significant 
travel expenses, which, but for the fact he was a new employee, 
would have been reimbursed. For the reasons stated in our 
enclosed report, we believe the claim deserves the favorable 
consideration of the Congress.
    An identical report is being transmitted to the President 
of the Senate.
            Sincerely yours,
                                          Milton J. Socolar
                (For the Comptroller General of the United States).
                                ------                                

                                Comptroller General
                                      of the United States,
                                    Washington, DC, March 25, 1993.
To the Congress of the United States:
    Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3702(d) (1988), we submit the 
following report on the claim of Mr. Kris Murty, a resident of 
Houston, Texas, who was appointed from the private sector to a 
manpower shortage position as an Electrical Engineer, GS-11, 
with the Department of the Army for duty at Fort Bliss, Texas, 
beginning in February 1985.
    Mr. Murty was informed by agency personnel that the agency 
would pay relocation expenses, including temporary quarters 
subsistence expenses, unexpired lease expenses, and 
miscellaneous expense allowances. That information was 
reiterated in the travel authorization issued to him and he 
received a travel advance in the amount of $4,824. According to 
correspondence in the file, Mr. Murty accepted the position 
with the expectation that he would receive full reimbursement 
for those expenses.
    Following issuance of the travel authorization and 
performance of travel, Mr. Murty filed a travel voucher. The 
Army discovered the error and determined that as a manpower 
shortage appointee he was only authorized mileage, travel per 
diem, and shipment of his household goods by Government Bill of 
Lading. This resulted in Mr. Murty being reimbursed only 
$187.50 against his travel advance and the creation of a debt 
due the United States in the amount of $4,636.50, representing 
the excess travel advance given him. We understand that he has 
repaid that amount.
    In September 1988, a request for waiver of that 
indebtedness was received in our Claims Group. By settlement Z-
2892098, Sept. 23, 1988, the request for waiver was disallowed 
because, although the waiver statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584, had 
been amended by Pub. L. No. 99-224, Dec. 28, 1985, 99 Stat. 
1741, to include erroneous travel and transportation payments, 
its enactment postdated the payments to Mr. Murty and does not 
apply to them.
    As a manpower shortage category appointee, Mr. Murty's 
relocation expense entitlement is limited to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5723 
(1988) to travel and transportation expenses and movement of 
household goods. Section 5723 does not allow reimbursement for 
temporary quarters subsistence expenses, lease breaking costs, 
or a miscellaneous expense allowance.
    Based on the foregoing facts, we believe that this claim 
deserves the consideration of Congress as a meritorious claim. 
Mr. Murty acted in good faith reliance on the erroneous 
representations of agency officials and the travel 
authorization issued to him which contained erroneous 
information consistent with those representations. See John H. 
Teele, 65 Comp. Gen. 679 (1986).
    Provided the Congress concurs with our recommendation on 
this matter, we believe that enactment of a statute in 
substantially the following language will accomplish the relief 
recommended:
    ``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that 
Kris Murty, an employee of the Department of the Army, is 
deemed to have been transferred from one official station to 
another for permanent duty in the interest of the government 
without a break in service incident to his relocation travel 
from Houston, Texas, to Fort Bliss, Texas, in February 1985, 
for the purpose of permitting reimbursement for expenses 
incurred as authorized by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5724 and Sec. 5724a.''

                                          Milton J. Socolar
                (For the Comptroller General of the United States).