Rescission of District of Columbia Courts Appropriations, B-284566.2, August 9, 2000

B-284566.2 Aug 09, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Stating that the federal government and the District of Columbia are separate legal entities. Courts discretionary accounts is reasonable. Education Appropriations Act for FY 2000: "(b) Sense of the Senate-It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should ensure that the fiscal year 2000 appropriations measures do not result in an on-budget deficit (excluding the surpluses generated by Social Security trust funds) by adopting an across-the-board reduction of all discretionary appropriations sufficient to eliminate such deficit if necessary." /1/ Senator Nickles indicated that approximately a 1- percent across-the-board reduction to all discretionary appropriations would eliminate the overage. /2/ Unlike a reduction issued under the President's sequestration order. View Decision Subject: Rescission of District of Columbia Courts Appropriations File: B-284566.2 Date: August 9, 2000 Ms. Anne Wicks Acting Executive Officer District of Columbia Courts 500 Indiana Avenue Washington, D.C. 20001 Dear Ms. Wicks: This completes our response to a January 20, 2000 letter from the former Executive Officer, District of Columbia Courts (D.C. Courts). The former Executive Officer asked a number of questions concerning the proper accounting for certain payments, which we addressed in B-284566, April 3, 2000. The former Executive Officer also asked about the applicability to the D.C. Courts of the .38 percent rescission of discretionary budget authority made by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-113, Division B Sec. 1005(a)(5), 113 Stat. 1501, 1535 (November 29, 1999). Specifically, the rescission applies to "discretionary budget authority provided . . . for fiscal year 2000 in this or any other Act for each department, agency, instrumentality, or entity of the Federal Government." The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) applied the rescission to two D.C. Courts appropriation accounts. The former Executive Officer questioned whether the rescission applies to D.C. Courts, stating that the federal government and the District of Columbia are separate legal entities. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that OMB's application of the rescission to the D.C. Courts discretionary accounts is reasonable. Background During Congress's consideration of the fiscal year 2000 federal budget, OMB warned that discretionary spending limits might be exceeded and a sequestration of discretionary spending might be required. See OMB Sequestration Update Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2000, April 25, 1999. Rather than relying on a possible sequestration order, Senator Nickles offered the following amendment to S. 1650, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations Act for FY 2000: "(b) Sense of the Senate-It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should ensure that the fiscal year 2000 appropriations measures do not result in an on-budget deficit (excluding the surpluses generated by Social Security trust funds) by adopting an across-the-board reduction of all discretionary appropriations sufficient to eliminate such deficit if necessary." /1/ Senator Nickles indicated that approximately a 1- percent across-the-board reduction to all discretionary appropriations would eliminate the overage. /2/ Unlike a reduction issued under the President's sequestration order, which would only apply to the discretionary spending category causing a breach, /3/ the Senator proposed a reduction that would apply to all discretionary appropriations. However, the Senate did not include the proposal in S. 1650. Thereafter, the Conference Committee Report on H.R. 3064 (the second District of Columbia and Labor, HHS, Education Appropriation Act) included an across-the-board .97 percent rescission of budget authority provided in any discretionary account (or obligation limitation) in any fiscal year 2000 appropriation. /4/ However, the President vetoed H.R. 3064 on November 3, 1999. The President's veto message to Congress cited the across-the-board cut as one of the reasons for vetoing the bill. The President objected to the "indiscriminate cuts" to areas such as national defense and security, education, environmental programs and law enforcement. /5/ The President's message, however, makes no specific reference to the effect of such cuts on the District's appropriations, but does commend the Congress for providing "essential funding for the District Courts and Corrections" and other federal funds he requested for the District. Shortly thereafter, on November 17, 1999, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young of Florida, introduced H.R. 3425, a bill making miscellaneous appropriations for fiscal year 1999. Section 301(a) of H.R. 3425 provided for a .38 percent rescission.