31 U.S.C. § 701

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar

In this chapter—(1) “agency” includes the District of Columbia government but does not include the legislative branch or the Supreme Court.(2) “appropriations” means appropriated amounts and includes, in appropriate context—(A) funds;(B) authority to make obligations by contract before appropriations; and(C) other authority making amounts available for obligation or expenditure.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 887.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
701(1)	31:2(1st–4th pars.).	June 10, 1921, ch. 18, § 2(1st–5th pars.), 42 Stat. 20; Apr. 3, 1939, ch. 36, § 201, 53 Stat. 565; July 31, 1953, ch. 302, § 101(1st proviso in par. under heading “Bureau of the Budget”), 67 Stat. 299.
701(2)	31:2(last par.).	June 10, 1921, ch. 18, 42 Stat. 20, § 2(last par.); added Sept. 12, 1950, ch. 946, § 101, 64 Stat. 832.

In clause (1), “agency” (which is defined for purposes of this title in section 101 to mean a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States) is coextensive with and substituted for the term “department or establishment” which was defined in 31:2 as in part meaning “any executive department, independent commission, board, bureau, office, agency, or other establishment of the Government, including any independent regulatory commission or board”. This definition merely restates and continues, and does not in any way change or expand, the definition in 31:2. Under that definition, entities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority that have been interpreted to be outside the purview of the definition will continue to be outside the purview in the same manner and to the same extent that they were under 31:2. The words “includes the District of Columbia government” are used because of existing law but the inclusion of these words is not to be interpreted as construing the extent to which the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganizational Act (Pub. L. 93–198, 87 Stat. 774) supersedes the provisions codified in this title. The words “of the United States” are omitted as surplus. The text of 31:2 (2d–4th pars.) is omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement. The text of section 2 (3d par.) of the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (ch. 18, 42 Stat. 20), is omitted as obsolete because of section 501 of the revised title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title of 2024 Amendment

Pub. L. 118–131, § 1, Nov. 25, 2024, 138 Stat. 1641, provided that: “This Act [amending section 705 of this title] may be cited as the ‘GAO Inspector General Parity Act’.”

Short Title of 2017 Amendment

Pub. L. 115–3, § 1, Jan. 31, 2017, 131 Stat. 7, provided that: “This Act [enacting section 721 of this title and amending sections 716 and 720 of this title] may be cited as the ‘GAO Access and Oversight Act of 2017’.”

Short Title of 2008 Amendment

Pub. L. 110–323, § 1(a), Sept. 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 3539, provided that: “This Act [enacting section 705 of this title, amending sections 731 to 733, 735, and 3521 of this title and section 109 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–521, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 705, 732, and 3523 of this title, and repealing provisions set out as a note under section 3523 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Government Accountability Office Act of 2008’.”

Short Title of 2004 Amendment

Pub. L. 108–271, § 1(a), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 811, provided that: “This Act [see Tables for classification] may be cited as the ‘GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004’.”

Short Title of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–316, § 1, Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3826, provided that: “This Act [see Tables for classification] may be cited as the ‘General Accounting Office Act of 1996’.”

Short Title of 1988 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–426, § 1, Sept. 9, 1988, 102 Stat. 1598, provided that: “This Act [amending sections 703, 732, 751, 752, 755, 771 to 774, 776, and 777 of this title and section 5349 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 755 and 772 of this title] may be cited as the ‘General Accounting Office Personnel Amendments Act of 1988’.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases, 1973–2007 · leading case: Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989). · cites it 2× “, 31 U. S. C. § 701 et seq. (General Accounting Office).”

Core Concepts of Florida, Inc. v. United States, 327 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 4× “Third, Core Concepts asserts that all “revolving” funds, including the Prison Industries Fund, are appropriations in view of 31 U.S.C. §§ 701 (2)(C) and 1101(2)(C) as well as the Appropriations Clause, U.”

State of Connecticut, & State of California, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. Richard S. Schweiker, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 684 F.2d 979 (D.C. Cir. 1982). · cites it 4× “The requested restraining order and preliminary injunction were designed to prevent the remaining fiscal year 1981 funds from reverting to the general Treasury on October 1, 1981, as would otherwise occur by operation of 31 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2) (1976). 15 The appellees filed a…”

Ains, Inc. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 522 (Fed. Cl. 2002). · cites it 3× “” 31 U.S.C. § 701 (2)(c) (2000). Hence, a revolving fund amounts to a continuing appropriation.”

Jacksonville Port Auth., a Body Politic & Corp. of the State of Florida v. Brock Adams, as Sec'y of Transp. of the United States, 556 F.2d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “MOOTNESS Some of the impoundment cases 2 faced a similar argument raised by the federal defendants — that even if funds were wrongfully impounded, they could not be disbursed after the end of the fiscal year for which they had been appropriated by virtue of the lapse provision…”

Ains, Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “This analytic framework rests upon the statutes defining an “appropriation” as congressionally delegated statutory “authority [to] mak[e] amounts available for obligation or expenditure,” 31 U.S.C. § 701 (2)(C), and requiring that an appropriation be explicit, n'ot implicit in…”

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Weinberger, 367 F. Supp. 1378 (D.D.C. 1973). · cites it 4× “This Court finds that the proviso of 31 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2) indicates that funds are available to require “Adjustment” of the obligated amount up to $53 million.”

Nat'l Ass'n of Reg'l Councils v. Costle, 564 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “Weinberger that even assuming no congressional extension of the availability of the disputed funds, nonetheless they would not be beyond the court’s power because 31 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2) provides that so much of the unobligated balance of an expired appropriation which an agency…”

State of Louisiana v. Weinberger, 369 F. Supp. 856 (E.D. La. 1973). · cites it 3× “Defendants oppose the State of Louisiana’s motion for leave to maintain a class action on three grounds: (1) that the class is not so numerous that members could not have been joined; (2) that it is undesirable to concentrate litigation in this forum; and (3) that the funds…”

State High. Comm'n of Missouri v. Volpe, 479 F.2d 1099 (8th Cir. 1973). · cites it 2× “If Congress expected full expenditure of funds, it obviously would appear unnecessary to include such a provision.”

Nat'l Council of Cmty. Mental Health Centers, Inc. v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp. 897 (D.D.C. 1973). “§ 200 to prevent all unobligated and unspent funds for the first-year grant programs from lapsing at the end of fiscal 1973, and thus returning to the general treasury fund pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2). Before turning to the merits, the issues raised by defendants’ motion…”

MDB Commc'ns, Inc. v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 245 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “” 31 U.S.C. § 701 (2)(c) (2000). Hence, a revolving fund amounts to a continuing appropriation.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.