54 



recent District Court decision and oilier decisions affecting appropriations. In 

 light of the continuing need and the fact that significant funds have not become 

 available from other sources, we have reexamined your response of 24 No- 

 vember 1975 to our recommendation that the National Marine Fisheries Service 

 apply Saltonstall-Kennedy funds to the solution of the tuna-porpoise problem. 

 We disagree with your determination that such funds are not legally available 

 for this purpose. 



We believe, for the reasons set forth in the enclosed memorandum, that the 

 law and the administrative practice, of which we are aware, support applica- 

 tion of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds to the solution of the tuna-porpoise problem. 

 We would, therefore, be grateful if you would once again review your decision 

 in this light. We hope that this will open another source of potential funding 

 for this very serious problem. 

 Sincerely, 



John R. Twiss, Jr., 



Executive Director. 



Enclosure. 



Memorandum 



Question. Is the use of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, available pursuant to 15 

 U.S.O. §713C-3(a), to support tuna-porpoise research for which appropriations 

 have been made under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, proscribed by the 

 Comptroller General's rule that "the existence of a specific appropriation for 

 an object precludes the use of a more general appropriation which would other- 

 wise be available"? 



Conclusion. No, the Comptroller General's rule does not prevent use of 

 Saltonstall-Kennedy funds for research aimed at solving the tuna-porpoise prob- 

 lem. The determination of the National Marine Fisheries Service, expressed in 

 Mr. Schoning's letter of 24 November 1975, and based on a series of decisions 

 cited at pages 8-9 of the GAO. Office of General Counsel's Manual, that the rule 

 prevents such a use of the fund is contrary to the intent and purpose of the 

 rule, ignores the Congressional intent in establishing the fund, and is incon- 

 sistent with the early practice in administering it which is available for review. 



DISCUSSION 



(1) The Comptroller General's rule is appropriately applied only when Con- 

 gressional intent is not apparent. 



In general, the opinions cited in the excerpt from the Office of General Coun- 

 sel's Manual do establish the principle that funds from general appropriations 

 may not be used to supplement funds provided by a specific appropriation 

 which has been made available for a particular purpose. 



Underlying the rule stated in each of the cited opinions is the basic admoni- 

 tion of 31 U.S.C. §628 (previously. Section 3678. Revised Statutes) that: 



"All sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the public 

 service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively 

 made, and for no others." 



20 Comp. Gen. 272. 274. The rule announced in each of these opinions is 

 designed to prevent abuse of the appropriations process by ensuring that, con- 

 sistent with the prohibition of Section 628, funds made available by a general 

 appropriation are not utilized for purposes which were not approved by Con- 

 gress, and that appropriations are not applied to objects for which they were 

 not made. The Comptroller General's rule serves as a guide by which to deter- 

 mine, or infer. Congressional intent with respect to whether or not a general 

 appropriation is available for a specific purpose when that intent is not other- 

 wise apparent. The rule of construction is based upon the rationale that in 

 specifically appropriating funds to be applied to a particular object, Congress 

 is presumed to have made general appropriations for purposes other than that 

 particular object. This rationale is similar to that of the well known rule of 

 statutory interpretation— cjpressio unius est cxclusio altcrius (the expression 

 of one thing is the exclusion of another). 



Resort to this rule is obviously necessary and appropriate only when there 

 is some question as to whether or not Section 628 would be violated, and when 

 Congressional intent with respect to the purposes for which an appropriation 

 was made is not apparent. The rule is unnecessary and not applicable when 



