ings owned or buildings leased by the United States in the District of Columbia, with the exception of the Executive Mansion and office of the President, Capitol Building, the Senate and House Office Buildings, the Capitol power plant, the buildings under the jurisdiction of the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and the Congressional Library Building, and shall from time to time assign and allot, for the use of the several activities of the Government, all such space.

The appropriation for the Public Buildings Administration, Federal Works Agency, contained in the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1944, Public Law 90, approved June 26, 1943, 57 Stat. 176, provides in express terms for "the repair, preservation, and upkeep of all completed public buildings under the control of the Federal Works Agency" including "buildings operated by the Treasury and Post Office Departments in the District of Columbia." Thus, funds were appropriated to the Federal Works Agency for the specific purpose of painting and otherwise maintaining the New Post Office Building, Washington, D. C., and necessarily, of course, for the purchase of materials incident to such work. But, as pointed out in your letter, the appropriation for the Federal Communications Commission contained in the same act—that is, the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1944-authorizes the use of funds appropriated therein for the "improvement and care of grounds and repairs to buildings, not to exceed $5,000."

The fact that the Commission has the desired paint available in stock in the instant situation is of no material significance, since, presumably, it was purchased under authority of law. That is to say, the question still is whether the funds of the Commission properly may be expended in connection with the upkeep and repair of space occupied in a building under the jurisdiction and control of the Federal Works Agency. And, of primary concern in the determination of that question, is the provision of law which requires that—

Except as otherwise provided by law, 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. (Section 3678, Revised Statutes, 31 U. S. C. 628.)

It is well settled that where an appropriation is available for a specific object, another appropriation cannot be used for the same work unless it clearly appears that it was the intention of the Congress that such other appropriation should be available in addition to the specific appropriation. 20 Comp. Gen. 272; 23 id. 481. And it would seem that such intent should be unmistakably clear where both involved appropriations are contained in the same act, as in the instant case. Were the executive offices in the New Post Office Building the only space occupied by the Federal Communications Commission, it well might be argued that the Congress must have intended the funds of the Commission to be available for repairs to such premises, as otherwise the appropriation provision for "repairs to buildings" would be

meaningless. But, it being understood that the Commission occupies space in many buildings outside the District of Columbia in connection with its activities in the field, there appears no reasonable basis for such an argument in this instance.

Also, it has been held that where certain repairs are made necessary by reason of the specialized work of the agency occupying the premises, the expense thereof properly is chargeable to the appropriation for the activity to be benefited rather than to the public building appropriation. See 16 Comp. Gen. 816, and cases cited therein. However, it would appear that ordinary painting and renovating of premises from time to time is work which would be necessary for the occupancy thereof by any Government office force. Cf. 17 Comp. Gen. 1050.

While it may be, as indicated by your letter, that the Federal Works Agency presently is using paint of an inferior grade in the upkeep of the building involved, and that the use of such paint is uneconomical from a practical standpoint, nevertheless, the selection of the type of paint to be used in the maintenance and repair of the building has been left by the Congress to the discretion and judgment of the officials of the Federal Works Agency, and the fact that the agency occupying the building may prefer a different paint is no justification for using appropriated funds or paint purchased with such funds— which otherwise are not available for the object desired.

In view of the foregoing, it must be concluded that having appropriated funds to the Federal Works Agency for the specific purpose of painting and renovating public buildings under its control, including space occupied by the Federal Communications Commission in the New Post Office Building, Washington, D. C., the Congress could not have intended that the funds of the Commission-or paint purchased with such funds-be used for such work, and that, therefore, either of the arrangements proposed in your letter is prohibited by section 3678, Revised Statutes, supra.

(B-40965)

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS ASSIGNED TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES-CASH ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE, ETC., DURING PERIOD OF ABSENCE ON FURLOUGH

As the commuted allowance paid to conscientious objectors assigned by the Director of Selective Service to the Weather Bureau on "work of national importance" is not considered or paid as compensation, but rather, to cover sundry subsistence and maintenance expenses incurred in connection with utilizing the services of qualified conscientious objectors on such work, conscientious objectors who are assigned to such work may be paid said allowance during periods of absence on furloughs duly authorized under proper rules and regulations.

Comptroller General Warren to Leonard B. Corwin, Department of Commerce, April 4, 1944:

Reference is made to your letter of March 18, 1944, as follows:

The undersigned is in charge of a project conducted by the Weather Bureau at Mt. Weather, Va., under the appropriation "1345914.004, Working Fund, Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1944, (Advance from '1741502.4 Aviation, Navy, 1944.)'” The work is being performed by Selective Service Assignees.

By Comptroller General's Decision it was determined that an allowance covering "food, lodging, medical care, clothing, toilet articles and miscellaneous personal needs" was deemed to be appropriate and legal.

The question has been raised as to the legality of payment of this allowance for periods of furlough absence.

For the month of January payments have been made only for those days when assignees were not on furlough. The attached voucher covers payments for those periods of furlough. Attached are copies of letters received from another Federal agency utilizing the services of Selective Service Assignees and paying them an allowance in a similar fashion to the situation at Mt. Weather.

Your decision is respectfully requested as to whether or not the expenses covered by this voucher are legally payable from the appropriation referred to above.

It would appear that the referred-to Selective Service assignees are of the class commonly known as conscientious objectors certain allowance for which was the subject of decisions of April 27, 1943, 22 Comp. Gen. 995, and September 1, 1943, 23 Comp. Gen. 153. In the former decision it was held that funds made available to the Weather Bureau for carrying out its otherwise proper functions could be used for the payment of maintenance expenses (such as for food, shelter, work clothes, medical care, transportation, etc.) necessarily incurred in connection with utilizing the services of qualified conscientious objectors who might be assigned to the Weather Bureau to aid in the accomplishment of work of the nature described in the applicable appropriation act. In the latter decision it was held that if, as a matter of administrative expediency, it would be preferable to commute sundry subsistence and maintenance items of expense in the form of a small cash allowance, this office would not object to the payment of such allowance to conscientious objectors from otherwise available appropriations. Also, it was stressed that the allowance contemplated was not to be considered or paid as in the nature of compensation.

In that view of the matter there would appear to be no direct relationship between the amount of the allowance and the services actually rendered. That is to say, the allowance is not computed upon the basis of so much for so many hours or days of work performed, but rather, such allowance apparently is based upon an estimate of the needs of the conscientious objectors or assignees during the particular period they are under the supervision or control of the agency to which assigned. Accordingly, in the absence of administrative provision otherwise, absence of the assignees here involved on furloughs duly authorized under proper rules and regulations primarily an administrative matter-would have no effect

upon such administratively approved allowances. Hence, the submitted vouchers, if otherwise correct, may be certified for payment. The vouchers are returned herewith.

(B-40496)

SUBSISTENCE-PER DIEMS-PERSONS "EMPLOYED BY" GOVERNMENT WITHOUT COMPENSATION WHILE SERVING AWAY FROM THEIR HOMES

A person appointed to serve without compensation as deputy chairman and executive director of the War Manpower Commission under the statutory authority to pay actual transportation and other necessary expenses, and not to exceed $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence, of persons serving in an advisory capacity to or employed by any constituent agency under the Office for Emergency Management without other compensation from the United States is an officer or employee of the United States within the meaning of section 10 of the act of March 3. 1933, prohibiting payment to officers and employees of actual expenses of travel in excess of the lowest first-class rate for the transportation facility used.

Where the statutory authority to pay actual transportation and other necessary expenses and not to exceed $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence of persons serving in an advisory capacity to or employed by any constituent agency under the Office for Emergency Management without other compensation from the United States is limited to periods during which they are away from their homes, a person employed by any such agency under said authority whose home is in Glen Ridge, New Jersey-a part of the metropolitan district of New York City-is entitled to per diem computed from the time he left New York to the time of his arrival back in New York, rather than from and to Glen Ridge, New Jersey.

Comptroller General Warren to Harold Dotterer, War Manpower Commission, April 5, 1944:

Reference is made to your letter of March 1, 1944, as follows:

The attached voucher covering travel performed by Lawrence A. Appley, who is serving without compensation as Deputy Chairman and Executive Director of the War Manpower Commission, has been submitted to me for certification and payment by the Division of Disbursements of the Treasury Department. Mr. Appley was appointed to serve without compensation under the following provision of Public Law 139, 78th Congress, approved July 12, 1943:

and actual transportation and other necessary expenses, and not to exceed $10 (unless otherwise specified) per diem in lieu of subsistence, of persons serving while away from their permanent homes or regular places of business in an advisory capacity to or employed by any of such agencies without other compensation from the United States,"

The letter of appointment from the Chairman of the War Manpower Commission to Mr. Appley states that his services will be without compensation but, "You will be reimbursed for actual transportation and other necessary expenses and you will be allowed $10.00 per diem, in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with provisions of the National War Agencies Appropriation Act, 1944, when you are away from home (Glen Ridge, New Jersey) on official business connected with the War Manpower Commission."

Travel Order WMC-2028 dated December 31, copy of which is attached, authorizes Mr. Appley to travel from Glen Ridge, N. J. to any and all points within the. continental limits of the United States and the Dominion of Canada and return to Glen Ridge, N. J., visiting these points in such order and as often as may be necessary. On this travel order all reference to the Standardized Government Travel Regulations and the fiscal regulations of the War Manpower Commission has been eliminated.

An examination of this voucher indicates that Mr. Appley in traveling from Glen Ridge, N. J. to Washington, D. C. and return has used accommodations other than standard lower berths. In view of the fact that Mr. Appley is traveling under the provision which allows "actual transportation and other necessary expenses," and under a travel order which eliminates all reference to the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, am I as Certifying Officer authorized to approve such travel or should a deduction be made from the voucher for the difference between standard and superior accommodations?

The voucher also discloses that Mr. Appley claims per diem from the time of leaving his home, Glen Ridge, N. J., until his return. Glen Ridge is 16 miles from New York City and it requires approximately one hour to travel from Glen Ridge, N. J. to New York City. In view of the distance from New York City and the travel time involved, I am inclined to believe that Glen Ridge, N. J. should not be considered as a part of the metropolitan area of New York City. If my assumption is correct, then per diem should be allowed Mr. Appley from the time of his departure from Glen Ridge, N. J. (his home) until his return there. However, I am aware of 22 C. G. 512; id. 129 and before certifying the voucher for payment would like to know whether per diem should be allowed as claimed or only from the time Mr. Appley leaves New York City.

Section 10 of the act of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1516, provides:

Whenever by or under authority of law actual expenses for travel may be allowed to officers or employees of the United States, such allowances, in the case of travel ordered after the date of enactment of this Act, shall not exceed the lowest first-class rate by the transportation facility used in such travel.

It is stated in your letter that Mr. Appley holds the position of deputy chairman and executive director of the War Manpower Commission, and that statement is corroborated by the fact that Mr. Appley has signed the voucher in said capacity. In other words, it appears that he is "employed by" the War Manpower Commission in that capacity and that he is not one of the "persons serving while away from their permanent homes or regular places of business in an advisory capacity" (quoting from the appropriation provision quoted in your letter). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Appley is one of the "officers or employees of the United States" authorized to receive reimbursement of actual expenses for travel to whom section 10 of the act of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1516, is directed. In that connection, see decision of October 27, 1941, 21 Comp. Gen. 377, 378, holding as follows (quoting from the syllabus):

A nonsalaried National Defense Mediation Board member is not entitled to engage superior rail accommodations, such as a bed room, the prohibition in section 10 of the act of March 3, 1933, against paying officers and employees of the United States actual expenses of travel in excess of the lowest first-class rate for the transportation facility used being for application to such members.

Accordingly, referring to your first question, there should be deducted from the voucher the difference between the cost of a lower berth and the cost of superior accommodations actually used by the traveler. In decision of August 8, 1942, 22 Comp. Gen. 129, cited in your letter, it was held (quoting from the syllabus):

Where the statutory authority to pay actual transportation and other expenses, and not to exceed $10 per diem in lieu of subsistence of persons serving in an advisory capacity without other compensation from the Uuited States is limited to periods during which they are away from their homes, a person serving in such an advisory capacity whose home is at Bethesda, Md.-a place generally