From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6387b9e2d0a6e58a,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Revised AFMC intepretation of Ada law Date: 1996/08/23 Message-ID: <321DF7BA.3278@lmtas.lmco.com> X-Deja-AN: 176093213 content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) Date: 1996-08-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Subject: Re: FYI: AFMC position on Ada Law Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:33:38 -0400 From: John Walker On 1 August, Ken Garlington posted a 16 July memo from Marilyn Corbin of the Air Force Materiel Command, commenting on the status of the Congressional Ada mandate. In brief, it said the Congressional mandate was interpreted to be permanent. The AdaIC has found that, on 5 August, after pursuing the question further, Ms Corbin revised her memo with one that, in brief, said that the Congressional wording was interpreted to be *non-permanent* and limited to only the years in which it appeared in the DoD Appropriations bill. She requests that any copies of the 16 July memo be removed or destroyed. Following is a copy of her 5 August memo. Please feel free to contact if you have any questions on this. John Walker AdaIC, 800/232-4211, 703/681-2466, fax: 703/681-2869 direct dial: 703/681-2472 (DSN: 761- ) DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Ohio 5 Aug 96 MEMORANDUM FOR HQ AFMC/ENPP FROM: HQ AFMC/JAQ SUBJECT: Ada and Public Law 1. You asked for our advice on "whether the DoD's use of the computer language Ada is still mandated by law." A statute mandating Ada first appeared in Section 8092 of the FY 91 DoD Appropriations Act and was subsequently included in Section 8073 of the FY 92 Appropriations Act and Section 9070 of the FY 93 DoD Appropriations Act. As discussed below, the history of these Ada statutes, as well as the statutory language, reveals that none of the statutes were permanent legislation. Instead, each of the statutes mandating Ada is solely applicable to the act in which it was contained. 2. Since an appropriation act is made for a particular fiscal year, the starting presumption is that everything contained in the act is effective only for the fiscal year covered. This presumption can be overcome if the statutory language used or the nature of the provision makes it clear that Congress intended it to be permanent. The starting point in ascertaining Congress' intent is the language of the statute. The first statute mandating Ada "after June 1, 1991" and "where cost effective" appeared in Section 8092 of the FY 91 DoD Appropriations Act. The same mandate was included in Section 8073 of the FY 92 DoD Appropriations Act. Section 9070 of the FY 93 DoD Appropriations Act contained the identical Ada language minus the June 1, 1991 starting date. The repeated inclusion of a provision in annual appropriation acts indicates that it is not considered or intended by Congress to be permanent. 3. Another indication that the Ada statutory mandate is not permanent is the language of the statute. If the statutory language uses "words of futurity" and is not changed by Congress in a subsequent statute, it is considered "permanent" legislation. "Words of futurity" usually encompass such wording as "hereafter," "after the date of approval of this act," or a specific starting date. Thus, the statutory wording in the FY 91 and 92 Appropriation Acts appears to be permanent legislation due to the inclusion of the starting date of June 1, 1991. However, the repeated inclusion in the FY 92 and FY93 Appropriation Acts of essentially the same Ada mandate appearing in the FY91 Appropriation Act indicates that the language is not considered or intended by Congress to be permanent. In addition, the last statute containing the Ada mandate (i.e., FY 93 DoD Appropriations Act) do not contain any "words of futurity." 4. Note the statutory Ada mandate in all three Appropriation Acts contain the words "notwithstanding any other provision of law," and is not tied directly to the appropriating language for the fiscal year. These factors, however, do not indicate that Congress intended to make the provisions permanent. (See GAO/OGC-91-5 Appropriations Law-Vol 1 for numerous Comptroller General decisions supporting this opinion.) 5. In summary, Congress, by repeating essentially the same Ada mandate in different appropriation acts, indicated that the provisions were not to be construed as permanent. In addition, the FY 93 DoD Appropriation Act, which is the last appropriation act containing the Ada mandate, contain no "words of futurity." This, also, indicates that the legislation is only tied to the funds for that fiscal year and is not permanent legislation. Note, however, that DoD policy requires that a waiver (or special exemption) be obtained for when Ada is not to be used for the programming language. A waiver need not be obtained for those applications described in paragraph F2 of DoDD 3405.1, Computer Programming Language Policy. 6. If you need more information, you may contact me at 7-5727 or through E-Mail using CorbinM. MARILYN CORBIN Attorney-Advisor Acquisition Law Directorate Office of the Staff Judge Advocate