B-13900 December 17, 1940

B-13900: Dec 17, 1940

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Sir: I have your letter of December 9. The language usually adopted is for an additional amount for (name of appropriation) including the objects and subject to the limitations specified in the appropriation under this head (or for this purpose) for the fiscal year _____.". Are sufficient to express the intent and therefore. That the words including the objects' are unnecessary for the reason that an additional amount would naturally be for the same objects. The words 'subject to the limitations' are unnecessary and add nothing to the clause. Unless the amount of the original appropriation be subject to limitations making certain amounts available only for spacified purposes and the additional appropriation is to increase such limitations requiring a further expression by the Congress.

B-13900 December 17, 1940

The Director, Bureau of the Budget.

Sir:

I have your letter of December 9, 1940, as follows:

"In the submission of supplemental estimates of appropriation, the language usually adopted is for an additional amount for (name of appropriation) including the objects and subject to the limitations specified in the appropriation under this head (or for this purpose) for the fiscal year _____."

"Having in mind the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 623, it occurs to me that the words for an additional amount for (name of appropriation)," without qualification, are sufficient to express the intent and therefore, that the words including the objects' are unnecessary for the reason that an additional amount would naturally be for the same objects. It would also seem that, unless it be intended to change the limitations specified in the annual appropriation, the words 'subject to the limitations' are unnecessary and add nothing to the clause. With these words or without them, the amount limitations, such, for example, as the amount specified for authomobiles, printing and binding or travel, would be unchanged notwithstanding the increase in the basic amount.

"It would seem desirable in the interest of simplification of appropriation language to make this change, but before proceeding I would appreciate your views as to the effect of the elimination of the words quated in the preceding paragraph."

Title 31, section 623, U. S. Code, referred to in your letter, provides:

"The Bureau of the Budget shall, as nearly as may be practicable, eliminate from all estimates unnecessary words and make uniform the language commonly used in expressing purposes or conditions of appropriations. (June 23, 1913, c. 3, Sec. 3, 38 Stat. 75; June 10, 1921, c. 18 Secs. 204, 207, 42 Stat. 21, 22.)"

Generally speaking, a supplemental or additional appropriation referring specifically to the original appropriation, without any specific provision that it shall be used for the objects and subject to the limitations specified in the original appropriation, would, nevertheless, be for use and expenditure in the same manner, for the same objects and on the same basis as the funds under the said original appropriation. Accordingly, unless the amount of the original appropriation be subject to limitations making certain amounts available only for spacified purposes and the additional appropriation is to increase such limitations requiring a further expression by the Congress, or unless there exist other exceptional circumstances not now foreseen, there would seem to be no objection to the simplification of the language of supplemental estimates of appropriation as you propose.

Respectfully,

Comptroller General of the United States