[Letter], B-278121, November 7, 1997

B-278121 Nov 07, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 000 is to remain available until expended for acquisition of books. This appropriation is available only for fiscal year 1998. You have suggested an alternative. 000 earmark is a maximum only. 000 is to remain available until expended for acquisition of library materials as proposed by the Senate instead of $8. The language employed by the Congress is straightforward and does not contain any qualifying terms. 000 is to remain available until expended for acquisition of books . . . and all other materials". We think it would have so stated in the law. Because the language of the law is clear. We have no basis to resort to assumptions or inferences drawn from inexplicit statements contained in the conference report. View Decision B-278121 November 7, 1997 DIGEST John D. Webster Director, Financial Services Library of Congress Dear Mr. Webster: This responds to your request of September 22 for our opinion regarding the 1998 Salaries and Expenses Appropriation for the Library of Congress (Library). You question, given the language of the applicable conference report, the amount of the Library's Salaries and Expenses Appropriation that must be used for the acquisition of library materials. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1998 appropriates money to the Library of Congress, under the heading "Library of Congress, Salaries and Expenses", as follows: "For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not otherwise provided for. . . $227,016,000 . . . Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, $9,619,000 is to remain available until expended for acquisition of books, periodicals, newspapers, and all other materials . . . ." Other than the $9,619,000 earmark and two other earmarks not relevant here, this appropriation is available only for fiscal year 1998. Because the Library had sought only $8,845,000 of the $227,016,000 total for the acquisition of materials, to accommodate a $9,619,000 earmark, the Library must reduce its spending on other programs and activities by $774,000 (representing the amount by which the Congress increased the Library's request for funding for acquisition of materials) and use $774,000 of its fiscal year money to cover the difference. Instead of reading the $9,619,000 earmark for acquisition of materials as both the minimum and maximum amount available for this purpose, you have suggested an alternative. After reviewing the conference committee report (H.R. Rep. No. 105-254), you believe that the conferees intended to authorize the Library to fund "up to" $9,619,000 for materials, but not to require that level of spending. In other words, the $9,619,000 earmark is a maximum only. The relevant language in the conference report reads as follows: "Provides $227,016,000 for salaries and expenses, Library of Congress instead of $223,507,000 as proposed by the House and $229,904,000 as proposed by the Senate. Of this amount, $9,619,000 is to remain available until expended for acquisition of library materials as proposed by the Senate instead of $8,845,000 as proposed by the House". H.R. Rep. No. 105-254, at 30. You point out that the conferees agreed to the House proposed funding level ($223,507,000) with two exceptions that taken together represent an increase of $3,509,000 over the House level. This, taken in concert with the fact that the conference report makes no mention of a $774,000 reduction in fiscal year money, indicates that the Congress intended no other change to the total fiscal year amount generally available, such as would be required by a mandated $9,619,000 level of funding. Accordingly, you suggest that the Congress necessarily intended the $9,619,000 to represent the maximum amount, not the minimum and maximum, available for this purpose. We think the language of the appropriation requires the Library to set aside $9,619,000 from its fiscal year money for the acquisition of library materials. The language employed by the Congress is straightforward and does not contain any qualifying terms. It provides simply that "$9,619,000 is to remain available until expended for acquisition of books . . . and all other materials". On its face, this language makes the entire amount available only for the acquisition of books and materials. If the Congress had intended the $9,619,000 to be a discretionary maximum level of expenditure, we think it would have so stated in the law. See 53 Comp.Gen. 695 (1974). Because the language of the law is clear, we have no basis to resort to assumptions or inferences drawn from inexplicit statements contained in the conference report.