District of Columbia Courts/Criminal Justice Act, File: B-283599, Date: September 15, 1999

B-283599 Sep 15, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights You advise that CJA claims will have exhausted available fiscal year 1999 appropriations on September 10. Express concern that the Courts may have to suspend approving CJA vouchers to avoid violating the Antideficiency Act. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations act also provided that funds appropriated for CJA cases were available for obligations incurred in prior years. 112 Stat. 2681-127. Your letter states that if the vouchers are not approved in fiscal year 1999. CJA funding was not separately appropriated but subsumed in the lump sum appropriation for the "Federal Payment to the District of Columbia-Criminal Justice System." /1/ In fiscal year 1999. The issue is whether the overobligations were attributable to spending generally or specifically to CJA (and similar) cases. View Decision Subject: District of Columbia Courts/Criminal Justice Act File: B-283599 Date: September 15, 1999 Mr. Ulysses Hammond Executive Officer District of Columbia Courts Dear Mr. Hammond: This responds to your letter dated September 3, 1999, which we received on September 7, requesting our views on how the District of Columbia Courts may respond for the remainder of fiscal year 1999 to attorney claims under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA). You advise that CJA claims will have exhausted available fiscal year 1999 appropriations on September 10, 1999, and express concern that the Courts may have to suspend approving CJA vouchers to avoid violating the Antideficiency Act. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, provided that of the amounts appropriated as a Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts, not to exceed $25,036,000 shall be for CJA cases. Pub. L. No. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681-122, 2681-123 (1998). The fiscal year 1999 appropriations act also provided that funds appropriated for CJA cases were available for obligations incurred in prior years. 112 Stat. 2681-127. A committee of conference has reported H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000. As reported in H.R. Rep. No. 106-299, H.R. 2587 would, if enacted, authorize the Courts to use up to $1.2 million in interest for fiscal year 1999 obligations, but would not otherwise continue to authorize the Courts to use current, in this case fiscal year 2000, appropriations for prior year obligations. As a preliminary matter, your letter presents as an issue whether the Antideficiency Act in the context of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation act and the fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill precludes the Courts from approving CJA vouchers in fiscal year 1999. In this vein, your letter states that if the vouchers are not approved in fiscal year 1999, those vouchers would not be eligible for payment pursuant to the fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill, which if enacted would authorize using $1.2 million in interest to pay fiscal year 1999 obligations. These statements reflect a view that the Courts' approval of the voucher dictates the timing of the obligation. As you know, we disagree with that view. In D.C. Courts Planning and Budgeting Difficulties During Fiscal Year 1998, GAO/AIMD/OGC–99-226, September 16, 1999, we discuss our opinion that upon the submission of a CJA claim, DC courts cannot delay the recognition of an obligation by withholding the voucher's approval. We now turn to the effect of CJA obligations exceeding the limitation contained in the fiscal year 1999 appropriation act. The change in the Courts' appropriation for CJA cases from fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 significantly affects the analysis of whether an overobligation constitutes a violation of the Antideficiency Act. In fiscal year 1998, CJA funding was not separately appropriated but subsumed in the lump sum appropriation for the "Federal Payment to the District of Columbia-Criminal Justice System." /1/ In fiscal year 1999, Congress similarly provided funds for CJA cases as part of a lump sum appropriation for the "Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts," but also capped the amount of the Federal Payment available for CJA cases at $25,036,000. /2/ In fiscal year 1998, the Courts overobligated the amount appropriated as the "Federal Payment to the District of Columbia-Criminal Justice System." For Antideficiency Act purposes, the issue is whether the overobligations were attributable to spending generally or specifically to CJA (and similar) cases. As our report discusses in detail, the cause of the Courts' overobligation is critical to whether the Courts violated the Antideficiency Act. An overobligation entirely attributable to a mandatory spending program, such as CJA, would be an overobligation authorized by law and, therefore, not in violation of the Antideficiency Act. See 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 (a)(1)(A), (B).