from outside sources without specific statutory authority. When Congress

makes an appropriation, it also is establishing an authorized program level.

In other words, it is telling the agency that it cannot operate beyond the

level that it can finance under its appropriation. To permit an agency to

operate beyond this level with funds derived from some other source

without specific congressional sanction would amount to a usurpation of

the congressional prerogative. Restated, the objective of the rule against

augmentation of appropriations is to prevent a government agency from undercutting the congressional power of the purse by circuitously

exceeding the amount Congress has appropriated for that activity. As one

recent decision put it:

“When Congress establishes a new program or activity, it

also must decide how to finance it. Typically it does this by

appropriating funds from the U.S. Treasury. In addition to

providing necessary funds, a congressional appropriation

establishes a maximum authorized program level, meaning

that an agency cannot, absent statutory authorization,

operate beyond the level that can be paid for by its

appropriations. An agency may not circumvent these

limitations by augmenting its appropriations from sources

outside the government. One of the objectives of these

limitations is to prevent agencies from avoiding or usurping

Congress’ ‘power of the purse.”

B-300248, Jan. 15, 2004 (citations omitted).

There is no statute which, in those precise terms, prohibits the

augmentation of appropriated funds. The concept does nevertheless have

an adequate statutory basis, although it must be derived from several

separate enactments. Specifically:

• 31 U.S.C. § 3302(b), the “miscellaneous receipts” statute.

• 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a), restricting the use of appropriated funds to their

intended purposes. Early Comptroller of the Treasury decisions often

based the augmentation prohibition on the combined effect of 31 U.S.C.

§§ 3302(b) and 1301(a). See, e.g., 17 Comp. Dec. 712 (1911); 9 Comp.

Dec. 174 (1902).

• 18 U.S.C. § 209, which prohibits the payment of, contribution to, or

supplementation of the salary of a government officer or employee as

compensation for his or her official duties from any source other than

the government of the United States.

The augmentation concept manifests itself in a wide variety of contexts.

One application is the prohibition against transfers between appropriations

without specific statutory authority. An unauthorized transfer is an

improper augmentation of the receiving appropriation. E.g., 23 Comp.

Gen. 694 (1944); B-206668, Mar. 15, 1982. In B-206668, a department received a General Administration appropriation plus separate

appropriations for the administration of its component bureaus. The

unauthorized transfer of funds from the bureau appropriations to the

General Administration appropriation was held to be an improper

augmentation of the latter appropriation. Likewise, the Department of

Labor illegally augmented its departmental management account by

“pooling” funds from component appropriations in order to purchase

computer equipment where the costs borne by the components far

exceeded the value of the equipment they received. 70 Comp. Gen. 592

(1991). The Comptroller General rejected the Department’s

characterization of this transaction as a “reprogramming,” viewing it

instead as an unauthorized transfer among appropriations.

As with the transfer prohibition itself, however, the augmentation rule has

no application at the agency allotment level within the same appropriation

account. 70 Comp. Gen. 601 (1991). It also should be apparent that the

augmentation rule is related to the concept of purpose availability. A very

early case pointed out that charging a general appropriation when a

specific appropriation is exhausted not only violates 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) by

using the general appropriation for an unauthorized purpose, but also

improperly augments the specific appropriation. [1] Bowler, First Comp.

Dec. 257, 258 (1894). However, the augmentation rule is most closely

related to the subject of this chapter—availability as to amount—because it

has the effect of restricting executive spending to the amounts

appropriated by Congress. In this respect, it is a logical, perhaps

indispensable, complement to the Antideficiency Act.

For the most part, although the cases are not entirely consistent, GAO has

distinguished between receipts of money and receipts of services, dealing

with the former under the augmentation rule and the latter under the

voluntary services prohibition (31 U.S.C. § 1342).150 For example, in

B-13378, Nov. 20, 1940, a private organization was willing to donate either

funds or services. Since the agency lacked statutory authority to accept

gifts, acceptance of a cash donation would improperly augment its

appropriations. Acceptance of services was distinguished, however, and

addressed in relation to the limits on acceptance of voluntary services set

forth in 31 U.S.C. § 1342. GAO drew the same distinction in B-125406,

Nov. 4, 1955. See also B-287738, May 16, 2002, distinguishing between agency acceptance of money as compensation for damage to government

property, which would constitute an augmentation if retained in agency

appropriations, and acceptance of actual repairs to the property, which

would be permissible.151

In apparent conflict with these cases, however, is B-211079.2, Jan. 2, 1987,

which stated that, without statutory authority, an agency would improperly

augment its appropriations by accepting the uncompensated services of

“workfare” participants to do work which would normally be done by the

agency with its own personnel and funds. Logic would seem to support the

formulation in B-211079.2. Certainly, if I wash your car without charge or if

I give you money to have it washed, the result is the same—the car gets

washed and your own money is free to be used for something else. Be that

as it may, the majority of the cases support limiting the augmentation rule

to the receipt of money. In the final analysis, the distinction probably

makes little practical difference. In view of 31 U.S.C. § 1342, limiting the

augmentation rule to the receipt of funds does not mean that the rule can

be negated by the unrestricted acceptance of services.152

In a 1991 case, 70 Comp. Gen. 597, GAO concluded that the then Interstate

Commerce Commission (ICC) would not improperly augment its

appropriations by permitting private carriers to install computer equipment

at the ICC headquarters, to facilitate access to electronically filed rate

tariffs. Installation was viewed as a reasonable exercise of the ICC’s

statutory authority to prescribe the form and manner of tariff filing by

those over whom the agency has regulatory authority. Somewhat similar inconcept to the workfare case, however, the decision suggests that use of

the equipment for other purposes, such as word processing by ICC staff,

would be an improper augmentation, and advised the ICC to establish

controls to prevent this. See also B-277521, July 31, 1997 (granting the

Radio and TV Correspondents Association a permit to locate equipment in

the Capitol in order to broadcast events would not constitute an

augmentation of congressional appropriations since the equipment is not

for official business use of the government).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5201464&forum_id=2#45247047)

NASA is ofc not a clothing brand, and is not bothered that its iconic mark is most represented by ghetto hustlers. is it just an accident of nerd culture? is it people wanting to signal, “hey I know I look like a thug (lol I am) BUT I’m ALSO an autoadmit for any institution and nothing will prevent me from becoming your pilot, civil engineer, eye surgeon soon”?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5201464&forum_id=2#45247500)

without anyone saying it Americans knew NASA represented the very best, most exceptional assembly of minds. (true or not, this was the general attitude, just like the Olympics re physical exceptionalism) when people hear “American exceptionalism” they think of an American flag planted on the lunar surface, they think of Buzz Aldrin, for the longest time they thought of WASPy Chuck Yeager but at some point (I’ll say ‘80) it was wrongheaded for a strong and blonde and blue eyed gentile to sport a NASA bomber jacket. https://ibb.co/B40MxB6 should be ashamed of himself, however Koreans and Haitians in NASA bomber jackets is cool af *soyface* I think it’s a caste mark but can’t help but think the trend is more calculated than simple humiliation and affiliate marketing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5201464&forum_id=2#45247798)

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88104main_H-1391.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5201464&forum_id=2#45248045)

Granted, now he is at big pharma, so it mostly reinforces your point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5201464&forum_id=2#45248132)