[FmHA Employee's Claim for Relocation Expenses]
Highlights
The Department of Agriculture's National Finance Center requested a decision on whether the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) properly denied an employee's claim for real estate purchase expenses incident to her transfer to a new duty station. GAO held that FmHA properly denied the employee's claim, since: (1) the settlement on her house occurred more than 2 years after she reported for duty at her new duty station; (2) she did not provide evidence of any extenuating circumstances that prevented her from completing the purchase of her home; and (3) her voluntary transfer to a second, nearby duty station prior to the purchase of her house nullified her entitlement for relocation expenses that accrued from her original transfer. Accordingly, the claim was denied.
B-169491 L/M, JUN 16, 1980
PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE
DALE BUMPERS, UNITED STATES SENATE:
THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST FOR OUR INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 150 OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978 (STAA), PUBLIC LAW NO. 95-599, 92 STAT. 2689, 2715, NOVEMBER 6, 1978. SPECIFICALLY YOU ASKED US WHETHER SECTION 150 OF THE STAA REQUIRES 100 PERCENT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE THREE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY THAT SECTION, OR WHETHER THE STATES IN WHICH THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ARE TO BE LOCATED ARE REQUIRED TO CONTRIBUTE 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COST, WITH THE FEDERAL SHARE LIMITED TO 75 PERCENT. IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE ACT REQUIRES FEDERAL FUNDING OF 100 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
SECTION 150 OF THE STAA AUTHORIZES THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION TO CARRY OUT "ACCESS CONTROL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS" IN EACH OF THREE STATES ON HIGHWAYS ON THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SYSTEMS. WITH REGARD TO FUNDING, IT PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
"(C) THERE IS AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED TO CARRY OUT THIS SECTION, OUT OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND, NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1979, AND $20,000,000 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1980.
"(D) FUNDS AUTHORIZED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF SUCH FUNDS WERE APPORTIONED UNDER CHAPTER I OF TITLE 23, UNITED STATES CODE."
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT), IN RESPONSE TO OUR REQUEST FOR ITS VIEWS, WROTE THAT SECTION 150 SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING A 75- 25 FEDERAL-STATE RATIO OF COST SHARING FOR THESE PROJECTS. DOT STATES:
"BY PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACCESS CONTROL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS ARE TO BE CARRIED OUT ON HIGHWAYS ON THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SYSTEM AND STATING THAT FUNDS SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF THEY WERE APPORTIONED UNDER CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 23, U.S.C. WE BELIEVE THE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE DEPARTMENT APPLY THE COST-SHARING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 OF TITLE 23. FUNDS AUTHORIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAYS ON THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY OR SECONDARY SYSTEM ARE APPORTIONED UNDER SECTION 104(B) OF TITLE 23. BARRING A SPECIFIC PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY, FUNDS APPORTIONED FOR SUCH HIGHWAYS UNDER SECTION 104(B) OF TITLE 23 ARE NORMALLY MADE AVAILABLE SUBJECT TO PROVISIONS IN SECTION 120 OF TITLE 23 THAT LIMIT THE FEDERAL SHARE TO AN AMOUNT LESS THAN 100 PERCENT. THERE BEING NOTHING IN SECTION 150 CALLING FOR A CONTRARY CONCLUSION, THE LANGUAGE QUOTED ABOVE FROM SECTION 150(D) SHOULD BE READ TO REQUIRE THE APPLICATION OF 23 U.S.C. SEC. 120 AS IT PERTAINS TO PROJECTS ON THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEMS.
"IN CONCLUSION, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT SECTION 150 OF THE STAA REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A STATE CONTRIBUTION TO MEETING THE COSTS OF THE AUTHORIZED DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. IN THIS SITUATION, THE FEDERAL SHARE IS LIMITED TO 75 PERCENT OR THE AMOUNT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE FORMULA IN SECTION 120(A) APPLICABLE TO PUBLIC LAND STATES."
IT IS ESSENTIALLY DOT'S POSITION THAT A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SHOULD RECEIVE 100 PERCENT FEDERAL FUNDING IF NEITHER THE STATUTE NOR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SPECIFIES A SMALLER FEDERAL SHARE. HOWEVER, WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SECTION 150 DOES NOT SPECIFY SUCH A SMALLER FEDERAL SHARE, DOT THINKS THAT SECTION 150(D) HAS THE EFFECT OF INCORPORATING THE COST-SHARING PROVISIONS OF 23 U.S.C. SEC. 120(A), WHICH PROVIDES FOR A 75 PERCENT FEDERAL SHARE FOR THE PROJECTS FINANCED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION.
WE AGREE WITH DOT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION IN THE STATUTE OR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT THE FEDERAL SHARE PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT IS TO BE LIMITED TO A SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE, DOT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 100 PERCENT FINANCING OF THE PROJECT. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER SUBSECTION 150(D) WAS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE FEDERAL SHARE TO LESS THAN 100 PERCENT.
IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE LANGUAGE IN SECTION 150(D) HAS AN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT PURPOSE FROM THAT SUGGESTED BY DOT, ONE UNRELATED TO FEDERAL SHARE OF THESE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS. LITERALLY, SUBSECTION 150(D) REFERS ONLY TO THE AVAILABILITY FOR OBLIGATION OF THE $30 MILLION IN HIGHWAY TRUST FUND MONIES AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED BY SECTION 150(C). IT PROVIDES THAT THOSE FUNDS SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS IF APPORTIONED UNDER CHAPTER I OF TITLE 23.
THE APPLICABLE PROVISION IN CHAPTER I OF TITLE 23, CONCERNING AVAILABILITY OF THE SUMS APPORTIONED UNDER THAT CHAPTER, IS SECTION 118, AND NOT SECTION 120(A). (SECTION 104 OF TITLE 23 ALSO RELIED ON BY DOT, DEALS WITH THE PROCESS OF APPORTIONMENT AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL SHARE PAYABLE FOR A PROJECT FUNDED THEREUNDER WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF 23 U.S.C. SEC. 120.) SECTION 118, ENTITLED "AVAILABILITY OF SUMS APPORTIONED" STATES:
"(A) ON AND AFTER THE DATE THAT THE SECRETARY HAS CERTIFIED TO EACH STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT THE SUMS APPORTIONED TO EACH FEDERAL AID SYSTEM OR PART THEREOF PURSUANT TO AN AUTHORIZATION UNDER THIS TITLE, OR UNDER PRIOR ACT, SUCH SUMS SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR EXPENDITURE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE."
AS IS APPARENT, THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 118 IS IN MANY RESPECTS SIMILAR TO THAT CONTAINED IN SECTION 150(D) OF THE STAA. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT THE PURPOSE OF 23 U.S.C. SEC. 118 IS TO PROVIDE CONTRACT AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO FUNDS APPORTIONED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER I OF TITLE 23. B-164497(3), JUNE 6, 1979. THAT IS, AFTER THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION CERTIFIES PURSUANT TO THE APPORTIONMENT RULES OF 23 U.S.C. SEC. 104(E), THE AMOUNTS HE HAS APPORTIONED TO EACH STATE, AND PROJECTS SUBMITTED BY THE STATES ARE APPROVED PURSUANT TO 23 U.S.C. SEC. 106, THE UNITED STATES' SHARE OF THE PROJECTS BECOMES A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION EVEN THOUGH THE APPROPRIATION BY THE CONGRESS OF THE SUMS INVOLVED HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE.
WE THINK THAT THE PARALLEL LANGUAGE IN SECTION 150(D) WAS SIMILARLY INTENDED TO CREATE CONTRACT AUTHORITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCESS CONTROL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY THAT SECTION RATHER THAN TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER I OF TITLE 23, INCLUDING THE COST-SHARING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120(A).
IN ADDITION TO THE SPECIFIC WORDING OF SECTION 150(D), WHICH, AS EXPLAINED ABOVE, SUPPORTS OUR POSITION RATHER THAN THE INTERPRETATION URGED BY DOT, WE THINK OUR INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT FOR SEVERAL OTHER REASONS. FIRST, A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SEVERAL PROVISIONS IN THE STAA - SECTIONS 147 AND 154 - WHICH CONTAIN PHRASEOLOGY VERY SIMILAR TO THAT USED IN SECTION 150(D), SUGGESTS THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND THE "AVAILABILITY FOR OBLIGATION" CLAUSE TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE FEDERAL SHARE PAYABLE FOR A PROJECT. DOT MAINTAINS THAT THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 154, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A 90 PERCENT FEDERAL SHARE, SUPPORTS ITS VIEW THAT WHENEVER LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THAT CONTAINED IN SECTION 150(D) IS USED IN A STATUTE WITHOUT ANY QUALIFYING LANGUAGE CONCERNING COST-SHARING PERCENTAGES, THE 75 PERCENT FEDERAL SHARE PROVISION OF 23 U.S.C. SEC. 120(A) SHOULD BE APPLIED. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN SECTION 154 OR ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY TO INDICATE THAT THE 90 PERCENT LANGUAGE WAS INTENDED TO INCREASE THE FEDERAL SHARE FROM THE 75 PERCENT DOT ARGUES IT WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN, RATHER THAN TO LOWER THE FEDERAL SHARE FROM 100 PERCENT, AS WE THINK TO BE THE CASE.
FURTHER SUPPORT FOR OUR INTERPRETATION CAN BE FOUND IN THE HOUSE REPORT ON PUBLIC LAW NO. 96-106, 93 STAT. 796, APPROVED NOVEMBER 9, 1979, WHICH AMENDED THE STAA (ALTHOUGH NOT SECTION 150 SPECIFICALLY):
"SECTION 150 OF THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1978 AUTHORIZED A PROGRAM TO DEMONSTRATE ACCESS CONTROL PROJECTS WHICH EXPEDITE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC BY ACQUIRING THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO SUCH HIGHWAYS. THE PROVISION WAS BASICALLY ADOPTED FROM THE HOUSE BILL AND AUTHORIZED A LIMITED 2-YEAR PROGRAM. IT WAS THE INTENT OF THE CONFEREES THAT THE FUNDS FOR THE PROGRAM BE OBLIGATED IN THE SAME MANNER AS THOSE FOR OTHER PROGRAMS IN CHAPTER I OF TITLE 23. THIS INCLUDED 100 PERCENT FUNDING FOR THE PROGRAM AS HAS BEEN TRADITIONAL WITH OTHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED FROM THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 23. THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO REAFFIRM ITS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FUNDS PROVIDED FOR THIS DEMONSTRATION ARE TO BE OBLIGATED BY THE SECRETARY AT THE 100-PERCENT FEDERAL SHARE RATIO." S. REP. NO. 96-333, 4 (1979).
ORDINARILY, COMMENTS ON INTENT BY PARTICIPANTS IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS MADE AFTER ENACTMENT ARE NOT GIVEN MUCH WEIGHT IN DETERMINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT. HOWEVER, WHERE THE EXPLANATION BY THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE THAT HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE 1978 ACT IS SO DIRECTLY IN POINT AND IS SET FORTH IN ITS REPORT ON A BILL ENACTED ONLY ONE YEAR LATER TO AMEND THE ACT IN QUESTION, THE COMMITTEE'S VIEWS ARE RELEVANT AND ENTITLED TO SOME CONSIDERATION, AT LEAST AS AN EXPERT OPINION, CONCERNING THE PROPER STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL SHARE PAYABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 150 OF PUBLIC LAW NO. 95-599 SHOULD BE 100 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT COST. WE TRUST THAT THE FOREGOING HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO YOUR REQUEST.