B-175155 anticipated operating deficit irrespective of a Northeast Corridor acquisition in either form. See, e.g., H. R. Rep. No. 94-331, 31-32 (1975); S. Rep. No. 94-291, 28 (1975). In Pub. L. No. 94-252, supra, Congress appropriated an additional amount for grants to Amtrak which was designed to cover its expenses for Northeast Corridor operations. However, this amount was needed whether Amtrak bought or leased the Corridor. Cong. Rec., March 25, 1976 (daily ed.), H2385 (remarks of Congressman McFall). While the Senate-added amount for purchase of the Corridor was ultimately deleted, this action did not legally preclude the purchase. It is also noted that the amount appropriated did not include funds for the cost of a leasing arrangement, which DOT had advocated, or any other means of effecting the acquisition mandated for April 1, 1976. In view of the foregoing, the terms of any spending plans for the existing appropriations seem to be essentially neutral factors with respect to acquisition of the Corridor. Pub. L. No. 94-134 appropriated a total of $428.5 million for Amtrak's operating losses, and Pub. L. No. 94-25Z appropriated an additional $26.5 million for Amtrak's operating expenses incident to the Northeast Corridor. In no event can DOT make operating expense grants to Amtrak in excess of these amounts for the period ending September 30, 1976. To the extent that Amtrak's operations would require these total amounts, irrespective of any impact from the purchase agreement, it appears that the full grant amounts could be paid consistent with existing spending plans. Moreover, this would seem to be the likely result since, as discussed above, assistance needs envisioned under these appropriations do not relate to Corridor acquisition costs. In this regard, DOT's withholding of grant payments based on constructive Amtrak revenues (i.e., ConRail's trackage fees) seems particularly anomalous. Apart from the fact that such revenues apparently were not anticipated under the current appropriations, had Amtrak followed DOT's suggestion and leased the Corridor on April 1, 1976, it would presumably have incurred leasing costs likewise unanticipated under the current appropriations. Finally, even if the purchase agreement could somehow be considered to affect Amtrak's compensable operating costs, we know of no "spending plan" under the 1976 and transition appropriations which would be violated. The requirement in 45 U.S.C. § 601 that grant funds be paid by DOT to Amtrak "in accordance with spending plans approved by Congress at the time of appropriation" was added by the Amtrak Improvement Act of 1973, approved November 3, 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-146, § 12, 87 Stat. 548, 553. There was no statutory definition of the term "spending plan" nor does the legislative history of the section indicate that any specific document was intended to constitute the "plan." On the contrary, it appears that the "spending plans" referred to could be found in an amalgam of materials, such as statements and instructions in committee reports, and other indicia of congressional intent, developed during the appropriations process. The B-175155 fundamental purpose of the section 601 provision was to give Amtrak greater flexibility in applying grant funds, particularly, vis-a-vis the Department of Transportation. Thus the Senate Commerce Committee report on the legislation enacted as Pub. L. No. 93-146 observes, S. Rep. No. 93-226, 5 (1973): "This subsection specifically provides that the sums shall Similarly, the conference report, H.R. Rep. No. 93-587, 20-21 (1973) states: "The conference substitute also assures that appro- In any event, in our opinion, the statutory requirement in section 601 that expenditures by the Corporation be in accordance with spending plans approved by the Congress at the time of the appropriation may be considered to have been met. This conclusion is based on the fact that the Congress at the time it enacted a supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 1976-providing grant funds for Amtrak--was aware that the Final System Plan, B-175155 had been submitted and approved as required by statute, and contained the required designation of the Northeast Corridor properties to be purchased, leased, or otherwise acquired by Amtrak. The conference report, on the supplemental railroad appropriations, discussed supra, specifically acknowledged that the parties involved--Amtrak and ConRail--were to resolve the question of lease or purchase themselves stipulating only that in the event of a purchase, neither party "should be required to pay any funds or properties to the present owners of the Northeast Corridor rail properties for acquisition of such properties." Finally, we would again point out that while DOT apparently would have accepted a leasing arrangement for the Corridor, there is, to our knowledge, no more specific authorization in existing spending plans for lease payments by Amtrak to ConRail than there is for the purchase. Consequently, DOT's reliance on the absence of specific spending plans to preclude a purchase but not a lease seems somewhat inconsistent. We also note that 45 U.S.C. § 601 makes grant payments subject to "general guidelines established annually by the Secretary [of Transportation].' However, it is clear that the Secretary's guidelines are subordinate to congressionally approved spending plans. In sum, we conclude that the arrangement between Amtrak and ConRail for purchase of the Northeast Corridor is not legally objectionable. We further conclude that, subject to our understanding of the factual situation as described herein, neither the Antideficiency Act nor any other statutory provision provides a legal basis for DOT to deny or withhold operating grant payments to Amtrak because of the purchase agreement. Sincerply yours, Temer R. Aris Comptroller General of the United States NITED B-115398 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES March 21, 1977 To the President of the Senate and the This letter reports a deferral of Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, budget authority that has not yet been reported to the Congress pursuant to the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Section 1015(a) of the Impoundment Control Act requires the Comptroller General to report to the Congress whenever he finds that the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States or any other officer or employee of the United States has ordered, permitted, or approved the establishment of a reserve or deferral of budget authority and the President has failed to transmit a special message with respect to such reserve or deferral. This report is submitted in accordance with the requirement imposed by section 1015(a) and, consequently has the same effect as if it were a deferral message transmitted by the President. In the Public Works for Water and Power Development and Energy Research Appropriation Act, 1977, Public Law 94-355, July 12, 1976, Congress appropriated to the Corps of Engineers almost $1.5 billion for river and harbor, flood control, shore protection, and related projects under the heading Construction, General. Of this amount, the conferees on the appropriation act earmarked $9.5 million for construction activities at the Meramec Park Lake, Missouri. See H.R. Rep. (Conf.) No. 94-1297, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 23 (1976). In reviewing the budget documents disclosing the Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 1977 plans for use of its current appropriation, we have identified $2,665,000 in budget authority that has not been made available for obligation. These funds were intended for use in construction activities for the Meramec Park Lake project. While this budgetary reserve was only recently established (March 14, 1977) and we understand that OMB is processing a special message on the deferred funds, it, nevertheless, is uncertain when such a report will ultimately reach the Congress. Therefore, under the circumstances, we conclude that exercise of our authority under section 1015(a) is appropriate to avoid any delays in notifying the Congress of the impoundment. 35-533 07942 (Pt. 2) Comptroller General OGC-77-13 THE B-115398 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES July 28, 1977 To the President of the Senate and the This letter reports a deferral of Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) budget authority that should have been, but was not, reported to the Congress by the President pursuant to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The Intense Neutron Source Facility (INSF) project (consisting of a device with associated buildings, laboratories, and equipment) is a Federal effort to study the effects of high-level neutron irradiation on metals and insulators. ERDA has indicated that obtaining an understanding of these effects is essential to the development of magnetic confinement fusion as a practical energy source. Public Law 94-187, approved December 31, 1975, authorized $22.1 million to be appropriated for the INSF project. (Another $3.2 million was requested by the Administration for authorization in fiscal year 1977, but was not provided by the Congress.) Total project costs--excluding operating expenses and preconstruction research and development costs --were estimated by ERDA to be $25.4 million. Funds were first appropriated for the INSF project in fiscal year 1977 when ERDA was provided $14.4 million in Public Law 94-355, approved July 12, 1976. These funds will remain available until expended; i.e., "no-year" budget authority. Although ERDA requested an additional $10.9 million in its initial fiscal year 1978 budget, presidential budget cuts deleted this amount from the revised fiscal year 1978 budget. ERDA informed us that this deletion, if approved by the Congress, would have required termination of the project. Notwithstanding the President's request, both Houses of Congress reinstated the $10.9 million. Prior to the congressional reinstatement, however, ERDA placed $13.4 million of unobligated project funds (about $1 million had been obligated for architecture and engineering studies) in an ERDA reserve OGC-77-23 |