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

Subject: District of Columbia Courts/Criminal Justice Act

File: B-283599

Date: September 15, 1999

B-283599

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. sect.1341
(a)(1)(A), (B). For the Courts to attribute its overobligations in fiscal
year 1998 to mandatory spending and not spending generally, the Courts had
the burden of demonstrating that it took appropriate actions to manage
discretionary spending in response to what it believed to be a budgetary
shortfall. In the report cited above, we concluded that the Courts did not
satisfy that burden for fiscal year 1998.

This does not appear to be an issue for fiscal year 1999. Your inquiry does
not indicate that the Courts will exceed the lump sum appropriation for the
"Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts," only the capped amount
for CJA cases. Because attorney representation in CJA cases is a mandatory
expense, obligations for this purpose may be incurred and may exceed the
capped amount without violating the Antideficiency Act. [3] Accordingly, the
Courts should continue to review and approve vouchers representing attorney
claims for payment in CJA cases without considering the overobligations to
violate the Antideficiency Act.

This does not mean that the vouchers may be paid upon approval. The Courts
must have an available funding source to liquidate any authorized
overobligations incurred for fiscal year 1999. If enacted in its current
form, H.R. 2587 would make available for paying fiscal year 1999 CJA
obligations up to $1.2 million in interest the Courts earned on the fiscal
year 1999 Federal Payment.

As you know, H.R 2587 would provide that the $1.2 million may be used if
"the Comptroller General certifies that the amount of obligations lawfully
incurred for [CJA] payments during fiscal year 1999 exceeds the obligational
authority otherwise available for making such payments ." So that we may
quickly make the appropriate certification should H.R. 2587 be enacted, we
encourage the Courts to begin working with our audit staff to provide the
documentation necessary to demonstrate that the Courts' fiscal year 1999 CJA
obligations exceed the $25,036,000 limitation established in the fiscal year
1999 appropriation act.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

Notes

1. Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2161 (1997).

2. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill would further segregate the
funding for CJA cases from amounts for court operations generally by
establishing two separate accounts, one for "Defender Services in District
of Columbia Courts" and another for the "Federal Payment to the District of
Columbia Courts."

3. Relevant legal principles and supporting authorities are discussed and
cited in D.C. Courts Planning and Budgeting Difficulties During Fiscal Year
1998 , GAO/AIMD/OGC–99-226, September 16, 1999, p. 11-13.