B-70933 March 1, 1948

B-70933 March 1, 1948

Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency.

My dear Mr. Foley:

Reference is made to your letter of January 21, 1948, requesting reconsideration of Office decision dated December 11, 1947, B-70933, in which there was considered the effect of the proviso appearing in the authorization for expenditure of $11,500,000 for administrative expenses of the Federal Public Housing Authority (now the Public Housing Administration), as contained in "The Government Corporations Appropriation Act, 1948," Public Law 268, approved July 30, 1947, 61 Stat. 579.

The above referred-to proviso reads as follows:

"That $175,000 shall be available only for the audit and revision of past accounting records."

It was held in the referred-to decision of December 11, 1947, that the language of the foregoing proviso limited the amount that might be expended for the audit and revision of past accounting records of the Authority to $175,000 and that the cost of such audit and revision over and above that amount could not be charged to the regular administrative expense funds. Such holding followed the general rule that, where there is a specific appropriation for a purpose, a general appropriation which otherwise might be charged is not available therefor in whole or in part.

You now state that the amount of $175,000 is insufficient to complete the audit and revision of past accounting records; that substantial progress has been made on certain items which, if not completed, would make the work already performed useless, resulting in a loss of the funds expended to date for such work; and that the published hearing s do not present a full reflection of the intention of the Congress. You contend that the proviso in question was intended to insure that funds in at least the amount stated would not be committed for other activities of the Public Housing Administration, rather than as a maximum limitation on the amount to be expended for the purpose designated.

Upon further consideration of the matter there is seen some basis for the interpretation of the proviso as contended for by your Agency. The limitation refers to the purpose or object for which the amount of $175,000 may be expended and reasonably may be said as intended to insure that, if the specified amount is not expended for the designated purpose, it may not be expended for other purposes. Under such view, if more than the specified amount is required to complete the audit and revision of past accounting records, the regular administrative funds would be available for such purpose.

Since the proviso is susceptible of two interpretations, and in the absence of a clear intent of the Congress as to which should prevail--the published legislative history of the proviso furnishing no aid in this respect--and in view of the administrative statements that the purpose of the limitation was to insure that $175,000 would be used for the designated purpose and not to limit the expenditure therefor to said sum-- which statements have been verified by representatives of this Office--the interpretation given to the proviso in the decision of December 11, 1947, will not be insisted upon.

Accordingly, I have to advise that the limitation prescribed in Accounts and Procedures Letter No. 11849, dated August 6, 1947, may be regarded as a minimum rather than a maximum limitation.

Respectfully,

Lindsay C. Warren Comptroller General of the United States.