

55 



Congressional intent is expressed or when it can be reasonably inferred from 

 legislative history and implicit approval of administrative practice. 



(2) The Saltonstall-Kennedy fund ivas established as a source of supple- 

 mental funding, to be applied at the discretion of administrators who are re- 

 sponsible for fisheries research. The Comptroller General's rule is not applicable 

 In tJiis source of discrctionanj and supplemental funds. 



Section 713C-3(a) (3) is a clear expression of Congressional intent that 

 Saltonstall-Kennedy funds be used to, among other things, "'conduct any bio- 

 logical, technological, or other research pertaining to American fisheries." These 

 objectives are further clarified by the legislative history. In support of this 

 Section during floor debates, Senator Duff outlined the types of research en- 

 visioned by the bill's sponsors. He included: "biological-oeeanographic research," 

 "a statistical program necessary for maintenance of authentic records of land- 

 ings * * * for use of industry and as an aid to the biologist," and "exploratory 

 fishing and gear development * * * to improve methods of detecting and cap- 

 turing fish." 100 Cong. Rec. 6582 (1954). The necessary tuna-porpoise research 

 program includes many of the elements to which Seantor Duff made reference, 

 and undeniably comes within the general purpose for which the funds were 

 established — to enhance the viability of American fisheries industries by means 

 of research and development. U.S. Code Cong, and Admin. News, 83d Cong. 2d 

 Sess. 2479 (1954). 



An examination of the legislative history reveals that creation of the 

 Saltonstall-Kennedy fund was a conscious decision to vest substantial discretion 

 in the administrators who develop and implement fisheries research, and it 

 escaped no one's attention that creation of such a discretionary fund was a 

 serious departure from the detailed fiscal control and review of proposed 

 expenditures which is usually exercised by Congress and safeguarded by the 

 Comptroller General's rule. 



Several times, the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget argued that 

 "the * * * method of financing this program is contrary to sound budgetary 

 practice * * * because it removes the program from review by the President 

 and the Congress as a part of the annual budget process * * *" [U.S. Code 

 Cong, (uid Admin. News, <S3d Cong., 2d Sess., 2482 (letters of 27 August 1953 

 and 25 February 1954), 2984 (letters of 27 August 1953) (1954).] Senator 

 Aiken forcefully argued against creation of the fund because it "[did] not 

 show up in the appropriation figures each year, and the public [was] unaware 

 of what the amount [was]." He urged that, instead of utilizing a portion of 

 the 30% of tariff receipts on fish imports (at that time going to agricultural 

 research activities), fisheries research be financed out of the remaining 70% by 

 means of a specific appropriation over which control could be exercised. 100 

 Cong. Rec. 6585 (1954). Congress chose to establish the fund despite these 

 arguments, and in so doing, elected to vest administrative officials with sub- 

 stantial discretion, theretofore exercised by Congress itself through the annual 

 appropriations process, to control expenditures for fisheries research. The fol- 

 lowing colloquy is illustrative of the discussions in the Senate on this subject 

 and reflects the intent to establish a source of discretionary, supplemental funds 

 which would not be subject to the ordinary Congressional appropriations 

 process : 



"Mr. Aiken. I wonder whether the Senator can tell us what the advantage 

 is of an indirect appropriation over a direct appropriation for the purpose of 

 conducting fishery research. What is the advantage, instead of making a direct 

 appropriation for fishery research — and I am sure there would be no objection 

 on my part to increasing the amount to whatever may be needed — of having 

 the money appropriated to the Department of Agriculture and then transferred 

 to fisheries? 



"Mr. Duff. I may say to the Senator from Vermont that in the case of agri- 

 culture the system has been very successful in connection with the funds 

 which have been made available to the Department of Agriculture, and it is 

 our hope that fisheries may likewise be benefited. In other words, what is good 

 for the goose is good for the gander. 



******* 



"Mr. Magnuson. The advantage is that fishery research may take, in some 

 cases. 3 or 4 years. Such research is a long-time project. The advantage is that 

 we will know there will be available a small amount of money with which to 



