Budget Issues: Compliance Report Required by the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990 (Letter Report, 01/13/95, GAO/AIMD-95-66).
As required by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, this compliance
report covers reports issued by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) during the session of
Congress ending December 1, 1994. In GAO's opinion, the OMB and CBO
reports substantially complied with the act. Although these issues do
not, in GAO's judgment, represent compliance issues, GAO does discuss
some implementation matters involving differences in cost estimates in
appropriation acts and the dissimilar budget treatment for the Federal
Crop Insurance Reform Act. OMB and CBO estimates for outlays from
appropriations acts varied because they used (1) different approaches to
scoring emergency and contingent emergency appropriations and (2)
different assumptions about the timing of outlays. The differences in
cost estimates were due primarily to different methodological and
technical assumptions by OMB and CBO about the programs involved. OMB
and CBO cost estimates were similar for the newly created Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund. GAO describes the different approaches OMB and CBO
used to estimate the costs of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act
because it was the only pay-as-you-go legislation with significant
outlay variance.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: AIMD-95-66
TITLE: Budget Issues: Compliance Report Required by the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990
DATE: 01/13/95
SUBJECT: Allocation (Budget Act)
Budget outlays
Budget administration
Budget controllability
Spending legislation
Budget authority
Future budget projections
Cost analysis
General fund appropriation accounts
IDENTIFIER: Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
*******************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
*******************************************************************************
Cover
========================================================================== COVER
Report to the President and the Congress
January 1995
BUDGET ISSUES - COMPLIANCE REPORT
REQUIRED BY THE BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT
OF 1990
GAO/AIMD-95-66
Budget Issues
Abbreviations
========================================================================= ABBREV
BEA - Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, as amended
CBO - Congressional Budget Office
CCC - Commodity Credit Corporation
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHA - Federal Housing Administration
GNMA - Government National Mortgage Association
HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
OBRA90 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
OBRA93 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
PAYGO - pay-as-you-go
VA - Department of Veterans Affairs
Letter
========================================================================= LETTER
B-259444
January 13, 1995
The President
The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
As required by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990,\1 which amended the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, we hereby submit our
compliance report covering reports issued by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) during the session of
the Congress ending December 1, 1994. We are required to issue this compliance
report 45 days after the end of a session of the Congress.
In our opinion, the OMB and CBO reports substantially complied with the act.
Although these issues do not, in our judgment, represent compliance issues, we
discuss in appendix II some implementation issues related to differences in
cost estimates in appropriations acts and the dissimilar budget treatment for
the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act. OMB and CBO estimates for outlays from
appropriations acts varied because they used (1) different approaches to
scoring emergency and contingent emergency appropriations and (2) different
assumptions about the timing of outlays. The differences in cost estimates
were due primarily to different methodological and technical assumptions by OMB
and CBO about the programs involved. OMB and CBO cost estimates were similar
for the newly created Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. We described the
different approaches OMB and CBO used to estimate the costs of the Federal Crop
Insurance Reform Act of 1994 because it was the only pay-as-you-go (PAYGO)
legislation with a significant outlay variance.
To determine compliance with the Budget Enforcement Act, we reviewed OMB and
CBO reports issued under the act to determine if they reflected all of the
act's requirements. We interviewed cognizant OMB and CBO officials to obtain
explanations for differences between reports. Background information on the
various reports required by the act and details concerning our objectives,
scope, and methodology are in appendix I.
Copies of this report are being provided to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and the
Members of the Congress. Copies will be made available to other interested
parties on request.
This report was prepared under the direction of Susan Irving, Associate
Director, Budget Issues, who may be reached at (202) 512-9142 if you or your
staffs have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix III.
Charles A. Bowsher
Comptroller General
of the United States
--------------------
\1 The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, as amended by the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993, is referred to in this report as BEA.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
===================================================================== Appendix I
BACKGROUND
The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA) changed the deficit reduction process
by establishing three major budgetary points of control--dollar limits on
discretionary spending, a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO)\1 requirement for direct
spending\2 and receipts legislation, and adjustable maximum deficit targets for
fiscal years 1991 through 1995. For fiscal years 1991 through 1993,
discretionary spending was divided into three categories--defense, domestic,
and international--but it was consolidated into a single discretionary category
for fiscal years 1994 and 1995. The act requires OMB and CBO to issue Preview,
Update, and Final Sequestration reports at specified times during the year.
Each report is to include (1) a discretionary sequestration report, (2) a
pay-as-you-go sequestration report, and (3) a deficit sequestration report.
These topics correspond to the three major points of control established by the
act. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) extended the
discretionary and PAYGO provisions through fiscal year 1998 but did not extend
the sequestration provision for enforcing deficit targets beyond fiscal year
1995.
In their final sequestration reports, both CBO and OMB calculate whether a
sequester is necessary. However, as stipulated in BEA, the OMB report is the
sole basis for determining whether any end-of-session sequestration is
required. If OMB determines that a sequester is required, the President must
issue an order implementing it. For fiscal year 1995, neither CBO's report,
issued December 9, 1994, nor OMB's report, issued December 16, 1994, called for
a sequestration.
In addition, as soon as practicable after the Congress completes action on any
appropriation involving discretionary spending, CBO is required to report to
OMB the estimated amount of new budget authority and outlays provided by the
legislation. Five days after an appropriation is enacted, OMB must report its
estimates for these amounts, using the same economic and technical assumptions
underlying the administration's most recent budget submission. It also must
include the CBO estimates and an explanation of any differences between the two
sets of estimates. OMB and CBO have requirements similar to those described
above to report their estimates for any direct spending or receipts
legislation.
Furthermore, CBO and OMB must issue Within-Session Sequestration Reports 10 and
15 days, respectively, after enactment of any appropriation that causes the
spending limits for the year in progress to be exceeded if this appropriation
is enacted after the Congress adjourns to end a session for that budget year
but before July 1 of that fiscal year. On the same day that the OMB report is
issued, the President must issue an order implementing any sequestrations set
forth in that OMB report.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322)
established the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The act provided that
specified amounts of budget authority shall be transferred to the trust fund
from the general fund in each fiscal year from 1995 through 2000. The act
provided that appropriations from the trust fund are not to be counted in
determining compliance with the discretionary spending limits of BEA. Thus,
the act established a special category of discretionary spending.
Discretionary budget authority and spending limits now are divided into two
parts: (1) general purpose appropriations and (2) the crime trust fund. The
crime trust fund is subject to sequestration if estimated outlays from the fund
exceed annual spending limits specified in the act.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The objective of our review was to determine whether the OMB and CBO reports
complied with the requirements of BEA. To accomplish this, we reviewed the OMB
and CBO Preview, Update, and Final Sequestration reports to determine if they
complied with all of the technical requirements specified in BEA, such as (1)
estimates of the discretionary spending limits, (2) explanations of any
adjustments to the limits, (3) estimates of the amount of net deficit increase
or decrease, (4) estimates of the maximum deficit amount, and (5) in the event
of a sequester, the sequestration percentages necessary to achieve the required
reduction.
We reviewed BEA, its accompanying Joint Statement of Managers,
OBRA 90, and OBRA 93. We also reviewed the pertinent appropriations acts and
their related Conference Reports. We examined the OMB and CBO reports on the
13 regular appropriations acts, the supplemental appropriations acts passed in
1994, and the 80 pay-as-you-go reports on direct spending and receipts
legislation enacted by the Congress and signed by the President before the date
of OMB's Final Sequestration Report. We compared each OMB and CBO report and
obtained explanations for differences of $500 million or more in total bill
estimates for the appropriation and PAYGO reports. We compared estimates for
the discretionary spending limits, the maximum deficit amounts, and the
adjustments to the spending limits and the maximum deficit amounts in the
Preview, Update, and Final Sequestration reports. We examined differences in
CBO's and OMB's approaches to (1) estimating the costs of emergency and
contingent emergency appropriations and (2) spendout rates for certain programs
and how these differences affected scoring of appropriations acts and
pay-as-you-go legislation.
During the course of our work, we interviewed OMB and CBO officials. Our work
was conducted in Washington, D.C., from July 1994 through January 1995.
--------------------
\1 The Budget Enforcement Act, as amended, requires that any legislation that
increases direct spending or decreases receipts be deficit neutral (that is,
not increase the deficit) in the aggregate within any fiscal year from fiscal
year 1992 through fiscal year 1998.
\2 Direct spending (commonly referred to as mandatory spending) means
entitlement authority, the food stamp program, and any budget authority
provided by law other than in appropriations acts.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
==================================================================== Appendix II
We identified several implementation issues related to difficulties in
estimating cost and differences in program assumptions used by OMB and CBO, as
discussed below. This appendix is divided into three main parts. The first
two sections deal with scoring of the 13 appropriations acts. In the first
section, we describe differences between OMB and CBO cost estimates for general
purpose appropriations and then, in the second section, we discuss estimates of
budget authority and outlays for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. In
the final section, we describe a PAYGO issue--OMB's and CBO's dissimilar
scoring of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act.
DIFFERENCES IN OMB AND CBO OUTLAY
ESTIMATES FOR GENERAL PURPOSE
APPROPRIATIONS IN APPROPRIATIONS ACTS
There were significant differences between OMB and CBO estimates of general
purpose outlays for fiscal year 1995 appropriations acts. As shown in table
II.1, the net difference totaled about $3.2 billion based on OMB's and CBO's
Final Sequestration reports. This compares to estimates of outlays in the
fiscal year 1994 appropriations for which the net difference was $3.4 billion.
However, this year, these differences were slightly more concentrated. They
exceeded $100 million for 8 of the 13 appropriations acts, 2 fewer than the
prior year. OMB and CBO estimates of budget authority did not differ
significantly. In 1994, three appropriations acts differed by more than $1.5
billion in outlays. There were fewer such large differences this year.
Estimate differences attributable to spendout rates and program assumptions
varied greatly for only one act--the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies (VA/HUD) Appropriations
Act. This $912 million difference accounted for 106 percent of the net
difference for all appropriations acts.\1
Table II.1
Comparison of OMB and CBO Scoring of
General Purpose Appropriations in Fiscal
Year 1995 Appropriations Acts
(Dollars in millions)
Outlays
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Differences attributed
to:
----------------------
Emergency
& Spendout &
Appropriation Difference contingenc assumption
s act OMB CBO \a y s
------------- ------------- -------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Agriculture 15,224 14,955 269 255 14
Commerce 24,726\b 24,541\b 185 319 -134
Defense 250,737 250,681 56 196 -140
District of 712 714 -2 0 -2
Columbia
Energy/Water 20,664 20,884 -220 35 -255
Foreign 13,681 13,768 -87 0 -87
Operations
Interior 14,017 14,240 -223 -103 -120
Labor/HHS\c/ 69,949\b 70,406\b -457 -470 13
Education
Legislative 2,419 2,380 39 0 39
Branch
Military 8,520 8,525 -5 0 -5
Construction
Transportatio 37,026 36,513 513 779 -266
n
Treasury/ 12,138\b 12,408\b -270 0 -270
Postal
VA\d/HUD\e/ 76,417 73,023 3,394 2,482 912
Independent
Agencies
================================================================================
Total Enacted 546,230 543,038 3,192 3,493 -301
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a A positive number means that OMB's estimate was higher than CBO's.
\b Excludes Crime Trust Fund.
\c Department of Health and Human Services.
\d Department of Veterans Affairs.
\e Department of Housing and Urban Development.
OMB and CBO outlay estimates differed for two main reasons: (1) treatment of
emergency and contingent emergency appropriations and (2) assumptions about the
timing of outlays (also called the spendout rate).
--------------------
\1 As table II.1 shows, there were both positive and negative differences
between OMB and CBO cost estimates, which resulted in a lower (net) difference.
The $912 million positive variation in OMB and CBO cost estimates for the
VA/HUD Appropriations Act exceeds 100 percent because it is partially offset by
negative differences attributable to other appropriations acts.
OMB AND CBO SCORING OF EMERGENCY
AND CONTINGENT EMERGENCY
APPROPRIATIONS DIFFERS
---------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.1
OMB and CBO have different estimates of the budget authority and outlays
related to emergency and contingent emergency appropriations. CBO scores
budget authority for emergency appropriations when the appropriation is
enacted. OMB scores emergency appropriations only when the President has
designated the funds for release. As a result of this difference in timing,
CBO attributed more budget authority and outlays to the emergency
appropriations and less to the release of contingent funds than did OMB. Table
II.1 shows that estimates of the outlays from emergency and contingent
emergency appropriations represented 109 percent of the $3,192 million
difference\2 between OMB and CBO scoring.
--------------------
\2 As table II.1 shows, the $3,493 million difference in scoring emergencies
and contingent emergencies is partially offset by $301 million from dissimilar
spendout and program assumptions. Therefore, scoring differences attributable
to emergency and contingent emergency appropriations exceeds 100 percent of the
total.
DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE
TIMING OF OUTLAYS AND PROGRAM
CHARACTERISTICS CAUSED ESTIMATING
VARIATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.2
The Congress appropriates budget authority to programs as a statement of
policy. The rate at which budget authority becomes outlays is called the
spendout rate and it varies across the budget.\3 To estimate the outlays that
would result from any legislation, including appropriations acts, OMB and CBO
must estimate spendout rates for the various parts of the act. These estimates
are determined through a variety of techniques--from a simple analysis of
outlay histories to complex computer models involving multiple program
assumptions and outlay data.\4
OMB and CBO made different assumptions about how quickly appropriations would
be spent. We examined the reasons for outlay estimate variations for the
VA/HUD Appropriations Act because it was the only appropriations act with a
total net estimating difference exceeding $500 million. We also reviewed
outlay differences greater than $150 million, which we identified from OMB and
CBO scorekeeping reports for all appropriations acts.
--------------------
\3 For example, budget authority for salaries and expenses generally is
"outlayed" in the fiscal year for which it was appropriated. In contrast,
construction appropriations generally are spent more slowly. Therefore, the
spendout rate for salaries and expenses would be expected to be closer to 100
percent than would the spendout rate for construction.
\4 See Budget Process: Issues Concerning the 1990 Reconciliation Act
(GAO/AIMD-95-3, October 7, 1994) for additional information about OMB and CBO
estimates.
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
AND HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT
AGENCIES
---------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.3
OMB's estimate of fiscal year 1995 outlays for the VA/HUD Appropriations Act
was about $912 million higher than CBO's. As shown in table II.2, this was
largely due to differences in outlays for seven programs.
Table II.2
Comparison of OMB and CBO Scoring of
Outlays for the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Dollars in millions)
Outlay
difference
Program \a Reason for difference
----------------------- ---------- -----------------------
VA\b--Medical Care 425 Spendout rates
HUD\c--Home Block Grant 298 Spendout rates
EPA\d--Water 278
Infrastructure Spendout rates
Financing
GNMA\e 253 Program assumptions
EPA\d--Hazardous 235
Substance Superfund Spendout rates
FEMA\f--Disaster Relief -161 Spendout rates
HUD\c--Subsidized -593 Program assumptions
Housing
Other programs 177 Other outlay
differences
============================================================
Total 912
------------------------------------------------------------
\a A positive number means that OMB's estimate was higher than CBO's.
\b Department of Veterans Affairs.
\c Department of Housing and Urban Development.
\d Environmental Protection Agency.
\e Government National Mortgage Association.
\f Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The largest single difference was for HUD's subsidized housing program. CBO's
estimate was $593 million higher than OMB's. This difference occurred because
CBO assumed that more housing units would receive rent subsidies than did OMB.
OMB's estimate for outlays from VA's Medical Care program was $425 million
higher than CBO's because OMB assumed that outlays for purchases of medical
equipment scheduled for 1994 would be delayed until 1995. A difference of $298
million for the HUD Home Block Grant program was due to OMB's assumption that
management efforts, such as simplifying program requirements and more rapidly
approving and targeting technical assistance, would accelerate spendout.
The OMB outlay estimate for EPA's Water Infrastructure Financing program was
$278 million higher than CBO's because CBO gave greater weight to the recent
slower spendout history. OMB and CBO have a continuing difference in
approach\5 to the Government National Mortgage Association's credit program
which causes OMB's outlay estimates to be $253 million higher than CBO's. OMB
assumes that the program receipts will equal administrative and program subsidy
costs because the program was designed to break even while CBO estimates higher
receipt levels.
CBO's model for estimating outlays from the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund
assumed more construction activity (which typically has a slower spendout) than
salaries and expenses. Thus, OMB's estimate was $235 million higher than
CBO's. OMB's outlay estimate for the FEMA Disaster Relief program was $161
million lower than CBO's because OMB assumed a slower spendout of prior
appropriations.
--------------------
\5 See Budget Issues: Compliance Report Required by the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990 (GAO/AIMD-94-66, January 10, 1994) and Credit Reform: Appropriation of
Negative Subsidy Receipts Raises Questions (GAO/AIMD-94-58, September 26,
1994).
SPENDOUT DIFFERENCES CAUSED MOST
OF THE LARGER OUTLAY SCORING
VARIATIONS IN APPROPRIATIONS ACTS
---------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.4
Differences in spendout rates accounted for 10 of the 13 outlay estimate
differences greater than $150 million that we identified in appropriations acts
using OMB and CBO scorekeeping reports.\6
These 10 programs or accounts, and the reasons for the divergent
Table II.3
Comparison of Cost Estimate Differences
Due to Different Assumptions About
Spending Patterns in Fiscal Year 1995
Appropriations Acts
(Dollars in millions)
Outlay
Program or difference
account \a Reason for difference
---------------- ---------- ------------------------------
VA\b--Medical 425 OMB factored in delays in 1994
Care purchases of medical
equipment
HUD\c\\--Home 298 OMB assumed management efforts
Block Grant would accelerate spendout
EPA\d--Water 278 CBO weighted recent slower
Infrastructure spendout history more
Financing heavily; OMB used past 8
years
EPA\d-- 235 CBO model assumed more
Hazardous construction, which has
Substance slower spendout
Superfund
HHS\e--Social 224 OMB included outlays for
Security Trust administrative expenses; CBO
Fund did not
Administration
Education-- 207 OMB estimated that outlays
Special from prior appropriations
Education would be slower than
initially projected
FEMA\f-- -161 OMB used 3-year spendout; CBO
Disaster Relief used a 6-year rate. Program
assumptions differed as well
Energy--General -162 OMB assumed a slower spendout
Science and based on Department of Energy
Research projections
Foreign Military -209 OMB estimated less fiscal year
Financing 1994 country-program outlays
Grants will be carried forward than
did CBO
GSA\g --Federal -233 OMB estimated less spending
Buildings Fund from prior appropriations for
construction and repair
------------------------------------------------------------
\a A positive number means that OMB's estimate was higher than CBO's.
\b Department of Veterans Affairs.
\c Department of Housing and Urban Development.
\d Environmental Protection Agency.
\e Department of Health and Human Services.
\f Federal Emergency Management Agency.
\g General Services Administration.
We did not find a pattern to these differences--neither agency's estimates were
consistently higher than the other's. OMB's estimates were higher than CBO's
estimates six times; CBO's were higher four times.
Making outlay estimates often is difficult because it requires predicting a
number of variables including the mix of activities and participation rates.
In our report on the budget reconciliation process,\7 we concluded that OMB and
CBO staff used the best available information and often complex methodologies.
However, predicting the future is difficult and assumptions may reasonably
differ. Thus, some differences between OMB and CBO estimates would be
expected. The differences shown in table II.3 generally represented a small
percentage of estimated total outlays for these programs. For example, the
estimating differences for VA Medical Care and HUD Home Block Grant were less
than 3 percent of estimated outlays for those programs. Estimating variances
for the two EPA programs and FEMA disaster relief represented 11.4 percent, 15
percent, and 11 percent of estimated program outlays respectively.
OMB AND CBO ESTIMATES FOR THE VIOLENT
CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND WERE SIMILAR
OMB and CBO estimates of the outlays for the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
were similar for fiscal year 1995. Table II.4 shows the appropriations of
budget authority and the related outlay estimates from 1995 appropriations acts
compared to the act's 1995 limits.
Table II.4
Fiscal Year 1995 Limits, Appropriations,
and Outlays for the Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund
(Dollars in millions)
Outlays
-----------------------------
Appropriation Budget
s act authority OMB CBO
------------- -------------- ------------- --------------
Commerce 2,345 666 667
Labor 38 7 7
Treasury 39 30 28
============================================================
Total Enacted 2,422 703 702
============================================================
Limits on 2,423 703 703
Trust Fund
Spending
------------------------------------------------------------
OMB and CBO staff reported that there is no need for a discretionary spending
sequestration because outlays were estimated to be below the statutory limits.
OMB'S AND CBO'S VIEWS DIFFERED ON
SCORING OF THE FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE
REFORM ACT
In each of the past 4 fiscal years, disaster assistance to farmers without
federal crop insurance has been provided through ad hoc supplemental
appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations. The availability of
this disaster assistance, at no cost to farmers, and the fact that farmers
received the same payment whether they were insured or not were said to be
disincentives to participation in the federal crop insurance program. The
Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 changed this by requiring farmers who
enroll in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs or use the Farmers Home
Administration's loan programs to obtain basic coverage under the crop
insurance program. The act also eliminated the Secretary of Agriculture's
discretion to provide disaster assistance through the CCC and the authorization
for appropriated disaster assistance which had been used in recent years as the
basis for disaster assistance supplementals. Participating acreage is expected
to increase from 34 percent under the old program to 85 percent by 1999 because
some farmers were required by the act to obtain insurance coverage and others
are expected to realize that disaster assistance would no longer be provided if
they were uninsured.
OMB staff said that the Secretary of Agriculture had statutory authority to
provide disaster assistance to program crops and that, under BEA rules, this
authority provided a basis for including disaster assistance for program crops
in the direct spending baseline. OMB then scored savings associated with the
reformed crop insurance program against this baseline. The baseline specified
by the Budget Committees as the basis for the fiscal year 1995 budget
resolution was consistent with OMB's estimate of the disaster assistance under
existing authority.
CBO agreed that the Secretary of Agriculture had authority under then current
law to provide disaster assistance for program crops, but CBO did not include
any spending stemming from this authority in its baseline. CBO estimated zero
spending from this authority because the authority has never been exercised to
deal with previous disasters. If OMB had used a zero estimate in its baseline,
the savings attributed to the repeal of the Secretary's disaster assistance
authority would have been eliminated and the net costs of the legislation would
have been higher.
--------------------
\6 We also found two outlay variances greater than $150 million in the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1994. These differences, of $471
million in the Federal Emergency Management Agency and -$176 million for Air
Force Operations and Maintenance, were both attributable to different spendout
assumptions used by OMB and CBO.
\7 See pages 16-19 of GAO/AIMD-95-3.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=================================================================== Appendix III
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Margaret T. Wrightson, Assistant Director
Carolyn L. Litsinger, Evaluator-in-Charge
Maria Boyreau, Evaluator
Joseph Heisler, Evaluator
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Charles Roney, Assistant General Counsel
Carlos Diz, Attorney-Adviser
*** End of document. ***