Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2009 Appropriations

Financial Services and General Government
(FSGG): FY2009 Appropriations
Updated November 19, 2008
Garrett L. Hatch
Coordinator
Government and Finance Division



The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to one of the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees. This report summarizes the status of the bills, their scope,
major issues, funding levels, and related congressional activity. This report is updated as
events warrant and lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered as well as related
CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at [http://apps.crs.gov/cli/cli.aspx?
P RDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=221& f r om=3&f romId=73].



Financial Services and General Government (FSGG):
FY2009 Appropriations
Summary
The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill
includes funding for the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the
President (EOP), the judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 22 independent
agencies. Among the independent agencies funded by the bill are the General
Services Administration (GSA), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the
Small Business Administration (SBA), and the United States Postal Service (USPS).
On September 30, 2008, the President signed the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (FY2009 CR, P.L.
110-329). Division D of the act provides funding for most accounts in the Financial
Services and General Government appropriations bill at the same rate appropriated
in P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. The FY2009
continuing resolution (CR) provides funds though March 9, 2009.
The President had requested $44.1 billion for FSGG agencies for FY2009, an
increase of $550 million over FY2008 enacted appropriations. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $44.27 billion for FSGG agencies and
programs for FY2009, an increase of $725 million over FY2008 enacted
appropriations and $175 million more than the President’s request. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended FY2009 appropriations of $44.75 billion
for the agencies funded in the Senate bill, an increase of $1.1 billion over FY2008
enacted appropriations and $524 million more than the President’s request.
FSGG appropriations encompass a number of potentially controversial issues,
some of which are identified below.
!Department of the Treasury. Is the proposed funding for
enforcement, taxpayer services, and business systems modernization
at the Internal Revenue Service adequate for lowering the federal tax
gap?
!Executive Office of the President (EOP). Should Congress accept
the President’s proposals to (1) consolidate EOP budget accounts
into a single appropriation, (2) expand the authority of the EOP to
transfer funds among separate appropriations accounts, and (3)
centralize funding for administrative services provided throughout
the EOP in the Office of Administration?
!The Judiciary. What level of funding should Congress provide for
judicial security enhancements and other administrative issues, such
as pay increases for judges, hiring of additional staff, and creation of
additional judgeships to meet the demands of rising caseloads?
This report will be updated to reflect major congressional action.



Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseName Div.Telephone
Department of the Treasury
Treasury, Internal Revenue ServiceGary GuentherG&F7-7742
Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President
Executive Office of the PresidentBarbara SchwemleG&F7-8655
The Judiciary
JudiciaryLorraine TongG&F7-5846
JudiciarySteve RutkusG&F7-7162
District of Columbia
District of ColumbiaEugene BoydG&F7-8689
Other Independent Agencies
GenerallyGarrett HatchG&F7-7822
Commodity Futures Trading CommissionMark JicklingG&F7-7784
Consumer Product Safety CommissionBruce MulockG&F7-7775
Election Assistance CommissionKevin ColemanG&F7-7878
E-Government Fund in GSAHarold RelyeaG&F7-8679
Federal Communications CommissionPatty FigliolaRSI7-2508
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: OIGPauline SmaleG&F7-7832
Federal Election CommissionR. Sam GarrettG&F7-6443
Federal Labor Relations AuthorityGerald MayerDSP7-7815
Federal Trade CommissionBruce MulockG&F7-7775
General Services AdministrationGarrett HatchG&F7-8674
Merit Systems Protection BoardBarbara SchwemleG&F7-8655
National Archives and Records AdministrationHarold RelyeaG&F7-8679
National Credit Union AdministrationPauline SmaleG&F7-7832
Office of Personnel ManagementBarbara SchwemleG&F7-8655
Office of Special CounselBarbara SchwemleG&F7-8655
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight BoardHarold RelyeaG&F7-8679
Securities and Exchange CommissionMark JicklingG&F7-7784
Selective Service System David BurrelliFDT7-8033
Small Business AdministrationEric WeissG&F7-6209
U.S. Postal Service Kevin KosarG&F7-3968
General Provisions, Government-Wide
Government-wide General ProvisionsBarbara SchwemleG&F7-8655
Competitive SourcingL. Elaine HalchinG&F7-0646
CubaMark SullivanFDT7-7689
DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division
FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
G&F = Government and Finance Division
RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................2
Overview of FY2009 Appropriations..................................3
Key Issues...................................................4
Department of the Treasury..........................................4
Department of the Treasury Budget and Key Issues...................5
Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding the IRS)................6
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)..............................10
Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President....14
The Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Issues..........15
Consolidation Proposal....................................16
Transfer Authority Proposal.................................17
Enterprise Services Proposal................................18
Administrative Support for the Presidential Transition............18
The Vice President........................................18
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).....................19
Committee Recommendations...................................20
White House Office (WHO)................................20
Office of Policy Development (OPD).........................20
Office of Administration (OA)..............................20
Federal Drug Control Programs..............................21
The Judiciary....................................................22
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues.............................23
Cost Containment Initiatives................................24
Judicial Security..........................................25
Workload ...............................................25
Judgeships ..............................................26
Judicial Pay.............................................27
House and Senate Budget Hearings...............................28
FY2009 Request and Congressional Action....................28
Supreme Court...........................................29
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...................29
U.S. Court of International Trade............................29
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services.....30
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)..............31
Federal Judicial Center....................................31
United States Sentencing Commission........................31
Judiciary Retirement Funds.................................31
General Provision Changes.................................31
District of Columbia..............................................33
The District of Columbia Budget and Key Issues....................35



House Appropriations Committee............................36
Senate Appropriations Committee............................36
General Provisions........................................38
Independent Agencies.............................................39
Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).............41
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).................41
Election Assistance Commission (EAC).......................42
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)...................43
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): OIG.............44
Federal Election Commission (FEC)..........................45
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)............................46
General Services Administration (GSA).......................47
Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management.........48
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).....................49
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)......................50
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)......................50
Office of Special Counsel (OSC).............................52
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)..........53
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).................54
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)............55
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)...................56
Selective Service System (SSS)..............................56
Small Business Administration (SBA)........................57
United States Postal Service (USPS)..........................57
United States Tax Courts (USTC)............................61
General Provisions Government-Wide................................61
Competitive Sourcing.........................................65
Cuba Sanctions...............................................66
Background on U.S. Sanctions..............................67
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2009 Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations...............................2
Table 2. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations,
FY2008-FY2009 ..............................................4
Table 3. Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2008 to FY2009......5
Table 4. Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated
to the President, FY2008 to FY2009..............................14
Table 5. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2008 to FY2009...............22
Table 6. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2008 to FY2009:
Special Federal Payments......................................33
Table 7. Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2008 to FY2009...........................................39
Table 8. Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management
Appropriations, FY2008 to FY2009..............................49



Financial Services and General Government
(FSGG): FY2009 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On September 30, 2008, the President signed the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (FY2009 CR, P.L.
110-329). Division D of the act provides funding for most accounts in the Financial
Services and General Government appropriations bill at the same rate appropriated
in P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. The FY2009
continuing resolution (CR) provides funds though March 9, 2009.
The Administration’s FY2009 budget request had included $44.10 billion for
the agencies and programs funded through the Financial Services and General
Government (FSGG) appropriations bill, an increase of $550 million over FY2008
enacted appropriations.1 The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$44.27 billion for FSGG agencies and programs for FY2009, an increase of $725
million over FY2008 enacted appropriations and $175 million more than the2
President’s request. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended FY2009
appropriations of $44.75 billion for the agencies funded in the Senate bill, an increase
of $1.1 billion over FY2008 enacted appropriations and $524 million more than the
President’s request.3 Table 1, below, will be updated to reflect major congressional
action.


1 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, FY2009, committee print, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.,
(Washington: GPO, 2008).
2 Ibid.
3 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations, FY2009, report to accompany S. 3260, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.,
S.Rept. 110-417. The Senate bill includes funding for the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC), which is funded through the Agriculture appropriations bill in the
House. Comparisons of Senate FY2009 recommendations to the President’s FY2009 budget
request and FY2008 enacted appropriations include CFTC funding. Aggregate funding
levels cited for FY2008 enacted appropriations and the President’s FY2009 request
therefore differ between the House and the Senate.

Table 1. Status of FY2009 Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations
Subco mmit t ee
Markup House House Sena t e Sena t e Co nf. Passage Public
Repo rt Passage Repo rt Passage Repo rt La w
H o use Sena t e H o use Sena t e
H.Rep t. S.Rep t.
06/17/08 07/09/08 (Draft) 110-417
06/25/08 07/14/08
Introduction
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their
subcommittee structures in early 2007. Each chamber created a new Subcommittee
on Financial Services and General Government (FSGG). In the House, the
jurisdiction of the FSGG Subcommittee was formed primarily of agencies that had
been under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies, commonly referred to as “TTHUD.”4 In addition, the House
FSGG Subcommittee was assigned four independent agencies that had been under
the jurisdiction of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies5
Subcommittee.
In the Senate, the jurisdiction of the new FSGG Subcommittee was a
combination of agencies from the jurisdiction of three previously existing
subcommittees. The District of Columbia, which had its own subcommittee in the
109th Congress, was placed under the purview of the FSGG Subcommittee, as were
four independent agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.6 Additionally, most of the
agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies


4 The agencies previously under the jurisdiction of the TTHUD Subcommittee that did not
become part of the FSGG subcommittee were the Department of Transportation, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, the National Transportation
Safety Board, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, and the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness.
5 The agencies are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
6 The agencies are the FCC, FTC, SEC, and SBA.

were assigned to the FSGG Subcommittee.7 As a result of this reorganization, the
House and Senate FSGG Subcommittees have nearly identical jurisdictions.8
Overview of FY2009 Appropriations
On September 30, 2008, the President signed the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (FY2009 CR, P.L.
110-329). Division D of the Act provides funding for most accounts in the Financial
Services and General Government appropriations bill at the same rate appropriated
in P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. Provisions of the CR
that affect specific FSGG accounts are noted in the relevant agency section of this
report. The CR provisions relating to the federal civilian employee pay raise are in
the General Provisions Government-Wide section. The FY2009 CR provides funds
though March 9, 2009.
The Administration’s FY2009 budget request had included $44.10 billion for
FSGG agencies and programs, an increase of $550 million over FY2008 enacted
appropriations.9 The FY2009 request would have increased funding for the
Department of the Treasury by about $200 million, the Executive Office of the
President by over $15 million, the judiciary by $475 million, and the District of
Columbia by $57 million. Independent agencies, collectively, would have received
$197 million less in FY2009 than they are receiving in FY2008. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $44.27 billion for FSGG agencies and
programs, an increase of $725 million over FY2008 enacted appropriations, and $175
million more than the President’s request. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $44.75 billion for the agencies funded in the Senate bill, an increase
of $1.1 billion over FY2008 enacted appropriations, and $524 million more than the
President’s request. Table 2 lists the enacted amounts for FY2008, and the
President’s request and the House Appropriations Committee’s recommendation for
FY2009.


7 The agencies that did not transfer from TTHUD to FSGG were Transportation, HUD, the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the Federal Maritime
Commission, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation, and the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.
8 The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is under the jurisdiction of the
FSGG Subcommittee in the Senate but not in the House.
9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, FY2009, committee print, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.,
(Washington: GPO, 2008).

Table 2. Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations, FY2008-FY2009
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008FY2009HouseSenate FY2009
EnactedRequestCommitteeCommittee Enacted
Department of the Treasury $12,263$12,463$12,578$12,699
Executive Office of the President680696697748
The Judiciary6,2466,7216,5256,518
District of Columbia 610667 712722
Independent Agencies23,74823,55123,76024,064
Total$43,547$44,097$44,272$44,751
Source: Budget authority figures, other than FY2009 Senate Committee figures, provided by House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Senate Committee
figures are taken from S.Rept. 110-417. Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
Key Issues
The wide scope of FSGG appropriations — which provide funding for two of
the three branches of the federal government, a city government, and 22 independent
agencies with a range of functions — encompasses a number of potentially
controversial issues, some of which are identified below.
!Department of the Treasury. Is the proposed funding for
enforcement, taxpayer services, and business systems modernization
at the Internal Revenue Service adequate for lowering the federal tax
gap?
!Executive Office of the President (EOP). Should Congress accept
the President’s proposals to (1) consolidate EOP budget accounts
into a single appropriation, (2) expand the authority of the EOP to
transfer funds among separate appropriations accounts, and (3)
centralize funding for administrative services provided throughout
the EOP in the Office of Administration?
!The Judiciary. What level of funding should Congress provide for
judicial security enhancements and other administrative issues, such
as pay increases for judges, hiring of additional staff, and creation of
additional judgeships to meet the demands of rising caseloads?
Department of the Treasury10
This section examines FY2009 appropriations for the Treasury Department and
its operating bureaus, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Table 3 shows


10 This section was written by Gary Guenther, Analyst in Industry Economics, Government
and Finance Division.

the enacted amounts for FY2008, as well as the Bush Administration’s budget
request for FY2009 and congressional action to date on that request.
Table 3. Department of the Treasury Appropriations,
FY2008 to FY2009
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Program or AccountEnactedRequestCommittee Committee Enacted
Salaries and Expenses (non-IRS)$248$274$275$274
Department-wide Systems and19272727
Capital Investments
Office of Inspector General18191919
Treasury Inspector General for Tax141146146146
Ad mi ni str a tio n
Community Development Financial9429105100
Institutions Fund
Financial Crimes Enforcement86919191
Netwo r k
Financial Management Service299a239239239
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade94979799
Bureau
Bureau of the Public Debt173177177177
Payment of Losses in Shipment1222
Internal Revenue Service, Total11,095b11,36211,39811,525
Taxpayer Services2,150c2,1502,2102,213
Enfo rcement 4 ,780 5,117 5,117 5,117
Operations Support3,680d3,8563,8333,897
Business Systems Modernization267223223282
Health Insurance Tax Credit15151515
A d min i stra tio n
Total: Department of the Treasury$12,263e$12,463$12,578$12,699
Source: Budget authority figures, other than FY2009 Senate Committee figures, provided by House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Senate Committee
figures are taken from S.Rept. 110-417. Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
a. Includes $64.2 million emergency appropriation received under the provisions of P.L. 110-185.
b. Includes $202.1 million emergency appropriations received under the provisions of P.L. 110-185.
c. The taxpayer services account received an additional $50.7 million emergency appropriation under
the provisions of P.L. 110-185.
d. The operations support account received an additional $151.4 million emergency appropriation
under the provisions of P.L. 110-185.
e. The Department of Treasury total includes $266.3 million in emergency appropriations.
Department of the Treasury Budget and Key Issues
The Treasury Department performs a variety of governmental functions. They
can be summarized as protecting the nation’s financial system against a host of illicit
activities (e.g., money laundering and terrorist financing), collecting tax revenue,



enforcing tax laws, managing and accounting for federal debt, administering the
federal government’s finances, regulating financial institutions, and producing and
distributing coins and currency.
At its most basic level of organization, Treasury consists of departmental offices
and operating bureaus. In general, the offices are responsible for formulating and
implementing policy initiatives and managing Treasury’s operations, while the
bureaus perform specific duties assigned to Treasury, mainly through statutory
mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus have accounted for over 95% of the
agency’s funding and work force.
With one possible exception, the bureaus can be divided into those engaged in
financial management and regulation and those engaged in law enforcement. In
recent decades, the Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, Financial Management Service (FMS), Bureau of the Public Debt,
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), and Office of Thrift
Supervision have undertaken tasks related to the management of the federal
government’s finances or the supervision and regulation of the U.S. financial system.
By contrast, law enforcement has been the central focus of the tasks handled by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center; U.S. Customs Service; Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (FinCEN); and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Since the advent of the
Department of Homeland Security in 2002, Treasury’s direct involvement in law
enforcement has shrunk considerably. The possible exception to this simplified
dichotomy is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), whose main duties encompass both
the collection of tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and regulations.
Treasury Offices and Bureaus (Excluding the IRS). Funding for many
bureaus comes largely from annual appropriations. This is the case for the IRS,
FMS, Bureau of Public Debt, FinCEN, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,
Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration (TIGTA), and the CDFI. By contrast, the Treasury Franchise Fund,
U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision finance their operations largely from
the fees they charge for services and products they provide.
In FY2008, Treasury is receiving $12.263 billion in appropriated funds
(including emergency appropriations), or 5% more than it received in FY2007. As
usual, most of these funds are being used to finance the operations of the IRS, which
is receiving $11.094 billion in FY2008. The remaining $1.169 billion is distributed
among Treasury’s other appropriations accounts in the following amounts:
departmental offices (which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence — or TFI — and the Office of Foreign Assets Control) are receiving
$248 million; department-wide systems and capital investments, $19 million; OIG,
$18 million; TIGTA, $140 million; CDFI, $94 million; FinCEN, $86 million; FMS,
$298 million; Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATB), $93 million; and
Bureau of the Public Debt, $173 million.
FY2009 Budget Proposal. For FY2009, the Bush Administration asked
Congress to approve $12.463 billion in funding for Treasury, or 1.6% more than the



amount enacted for FY2008. Under the proposal, the IRS would have received
$11.361 billion (or 91% of the total). The remaining $1.102 billion would have been
distributed among Treasury’s other appropriations accounts in the following
amounts: departmental offices would have received $274 million; departmental
systems and capital investments, $27 million; OIG, $19 million; TIGTA, $146
million; CDFI, $29 million; FinCEN, $91 million; FMS, $239 million; ATB, $97
million; and Bureau of the Public Debt, $177 million. All major accounts except for
FMS and CDFI would have been funded at the same level as or higher levels than the
amounts enacted for FY2008.
Under the Administration’s budget proposal, total full-time equivalent
employment (direct and reimbursable) at Treasury could have risen from an estimated
107,912 in FY2008 to a projected 109,597 in FY2009.11 Nearly 98% of the gain in
full-time jobs of 1,685 would have stemmed from an increase in full-time jobs at the
IRS of 1,826 and a decrease in such jobs at the FMS of 179.
According to Treasury’s budget documents, its proposed budget for FY2009
was crafted to provide the resources needed to “effectively manage the government’s
finances, promote economic opportunity through sound fiscal policy, work towards
entitlement reform, strengthen trade and investment policies, and maximize voluntary
tax compliance.”12 In evaluating the merit of the budget request, Congress may wish
to consider the extent to which it would allow the Administration to achieve these
objectives.
The following Treasury appropriations accounts (excluding the IRS) would have
received the largest increases in funding under the FY2009 budget proposal:
department-wide systems and capital investments (44.2%), departmental offices
(10.3%), and FinCEN (6.4%).
Additional spending on department-wide systems and capital investments would
serve multiple purposes. These include remedying “critical building deficiencies in
the Treasury Annex Building,” furthering the use of a newly developed computer-
based system known as the Enterprise Content Management System, securing the
Treasury Secure Data Network, and improving Treasury’s performance in meeting
the requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act.13
In seeking more funding for Treasury’s departmental offices, the Administration
is hoping to improve the department’s debt management systems and its ability to
“perform timely legal reviews” for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States, construct an Operations Center to respond to domestic and
international financial crises, expand the department’s capability to administer


11 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Congressional Justification FY2009 (Washington:

2008), p. 11.


12 Ibid., p. 3.
13 Ibid., pp. 7-8.

sanctions against “terrorist groups and their sponsors,” and enhance its “internal
counterintelligence and security capabilities.”14
Foremost among FinCEN’s functions is administering the Bank Secrecy Act
(BSA). The Administration asked Congress to increase funding for FinCEN from
$86 million in FY2008 to $91 million in FY2009. Most of the added funds would
have been used to improve the agency’s management and analysis of BSA data.
For the third straight year, the Administration asked Congress to slash funding
for the CDFI in FY2009. The proposed reduction would have totaled 70%. Most of
it would have stemmed from ending funding for the Bank Enterprise Award Program
and the Native Initiatives programs and cutting funding for the CDFI Program by $34
million.
Congressional Consideration of the President’s FY2009 Budget
Proposal.
Action in the House. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$12.578 billion in appropriated funds for the Treasury Department in FY2009. This
amount was $115 million more than the amount requested by the Bush
Administration and $315 million above the amount enacted for Treasury in FY2008.
Under the measure, the IRS would have received $11.398 billion; departmental
offices, $276 million; department-wide systems and capital investments, $27 million;
OIG, $19 million; TIGTA, $146 million; FinCEN, $91 million; FMS, $239 million;
ATB, $97 million; Bureau of Public Debt, $177 million; and CDFI, $105 million.
Nearly the entire difference between the total amount recommended in the measure
and the Administration’s budget request lay in proposed funding for the CDFI and
the IRS: the measure would have given $76 million more to the former and $37
million more to the latter.
In its report on the measure, the committee directed Treasury to submit an
operating plan addressing its expected use of the appropriated funds for each of its
offices and bureaus in FY2009 within 60 days of the enactment of an appropriations
bill. It also recommended that the department receive $700,000 more than the
Administration requested to spend on initiatives to combat predatory lending and
improve the financial education of students in elementary and high schools. In
addition, the committee endorsed a proposal to spend $62 million (or $300 million
more than the Administration requested) on the activities overseen by TFI, without
commenting on how the additional funds should be used — though it did specify that
at least $300,000 of the $62 million should be used by OFAC to reduce its current
backlog of Freedom of Information requests.
The report expresses some concern that OFAC is devoting too much staff time
to investigating alleged violations of the trade embargo against Cuba and urges the
agency to base its decisions on resource allocation on the “most pressing national
security threats facing the United States.” To underscore this concern, the committee


14 U.S. Department of the Treasury, The Budget in Brief: Fiscal Year 2009 (Washington:

2008), p. 11.



directs Treasury to submit a report within 60 days of the enactment of an
appropriations bill describing the steps it is taking to “assess OFAC’s allocation of
resources.”
Action in the Senate. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
that the Treasury Department receive $12.699 billion for FY2009. That amount is
$237 million more than the amount requested by the Administration and $121
million more than the amount recommended by the House Appropriations
Committee. Relative to the Administration’s budget request, S. 3260 would have
granted $71 million more in funding to CDFI and $163 million more in funding to
the IRS. Most of the difference in funding between S. 3260 and the appropriations
bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee was accounted for by
proposed funding for the IRS: S. 3260 would give the IRS an additional $127
million.
Under S. 3260, the IRS would have received $11.525 billion in appropriated
funds; departmental offices, $274 million; FMS, $239 million; Bureau of Public
Debt, $177 million; TIGTA, $146 million; CDFI, $100 million; ATB, $99 million;
FinCEN, $91 million; department-wide systems and capital investments, $27 million;
and OIG, $19 million.
In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee endorsed the
Administration’s request that Treasury’s budget for terrorism and financial
intelligence be increased from $56.8 million in FY2008 to $61.7 million in FY2009.
More specifically, it recommended that an additional $1.4 million be spent to
upgrade OFAC’s capacity to administer economic sanctions on “State sponsors of
terrorism, such as Iran and Sudan, as well as terrorists, terrorist groups, and their
support networks.”15 The committee also directed Treasury to channel an additional
$3.4 million into OIA in order to address “current and emerging threats affecting the
Department’s national security mission” and improve the “Department’s coordination
of global finance intelligence issues with the intelligence community.”
The report also expressed concern about problems with suspicious activity
reports (SARs) filed with FinCEN under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). These
problems were brought to light in a recent TIGTA report. To address the problems,
the committee urged the agency to make an effort to improve the “consistency” of
SARs. It recommended that FinCEN receive an additional $1.1 million to support
its efforts to implement the provisions of the BSA over which it has jurisdiction, and
an additional $865,000 to upgrade its capacity to work with “other Financial
Intelligence Units around the world regarding international anti-money laundering
and terrorist financing.”
In addition, the report expressed opposition to the Administration’s request to
decrease funding for CDFI. It recommended that $8.3 million be set aside in FY2009
for grants, loans, technical assistance, and training programs intended to benefit


15 U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2009, report to accompany S. 3260, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.,
S.Rept 110-417 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 9.

“Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native Hawaiian communities.” In the
committee’s view, the agency should place a higher priority on improving its
measurement of the extent to which programs funded through CDFI “leverage other
non-Federal funds for CDFIs across the country.”16
Under the CR, each Treasury departmental office and operating bureau will
receive through March 9, 2009, the prorated amount that was appropriated for each
in FY2008. Only current programs will be funded until then, or until an FY2009
appropriations measure covering the Treasury Department is enacted.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). To help finance its operations and
multitude of spending programs, the federal government levies individual and
corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes,
customs duties, and miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal agency responsible
for administering and collecting these taxes and fees (except for customs duties) is
the Internal Revenue Service. In discharging this responsibility, the IRS receives and
processes tax returns, related documents, and tax payments; disburses refunds;
enforces compliance through audits and other procedures; collects delinquent taxes;
and provides a host of services to taxpayers with the aim of enabling them to
understand their rights and responsibilities under the federal tax code and resolving
problems without litigation. In FY2006, the agency collected $2.537 trillion before
refunds, the largest component of which was individual income tax revenue of
$1.236 trillion.
The IRS receives funding for its operations from three sources: appropriated
funds, user fees, and so-called reimbursables, which are payments the IRS receives
from other federal agencies and state governments for services it provides. In
FY2008, appropriated funds account for 97% of IRS’s operating budget, user fees for

2%, and reimbursables for the remaining 1%.


Appropriated funds are distributed among five accounts:
!(1) taxpayer services, which provides resources for pre-filing
taxpayer assistance, filing and account services, administrative
services for IRS employees, and senior IRS management;
!(2) enforcement, which covers the cost of compliance services,
research and statistical analysis, and administration of the earned
income tax credit;
!(3) operations support, which addresses the improvement and
maintenance of the agency’s information and management systems;
!(4) business systems modernization (or BSM), which provides
funds for developing new information systems for tax administration
and acquiring the hardware and software needed to integrate them
into IRS’s operations; and


16 Ibid., p. 19.

!(5) health insurance tax credit administration, which covers the
cost of administering the refundable tax credit for health insurance
established by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of

2002.


In FY2008, the IRS is receiving $11.095 billion (including emergency
appropriations) in appropriated funds, or 4.7% more than it received in FY2007. Of
this amount, $2.200 billion is designated for taxpayer services, $4.780 billion for
enforcement, $3.831 billion for operations support (including emergency
appropriations), $267 million for the BSM program, and $15 million for
administration of the health insurance tax credit.
The Bush Administration asked Congress to appropriate $11.362 billion for IRS
operations in FY2009, or 2.4% more than the amount enacted for FY2008. Of this
amount, $2.150 billion (2% less than FY2008) was to be used for taxpayer services,
$5.117 billion (7% more than FY2008) for enforcement, $3.856 billion (0.6% more
than FY2008) for operations support, $223 million (17% less than FY2008) for the
BSM program, and about $15 million (the same amount as FY2008) for
administering the health insurance tax credit. Under the budget proposal, total full-
time equivalent employment (direct and reimbursables) at the IRS is projected to rise17
from an estimated 91,746 in FY2008 to 93,572 in FY2009, a gain of 2%.
Budget documents indicated that the FY2009 budget proposal for the IRS was
intended to support three strategic goals: (1) improve service to taxpayers; (2)
enhance enforcement of federal tax laws; and (3) modernize the IRS by investing in
people, processes, and technology.
In addition, the Administration requested that Congress pass a number of
legislative proposals aimed at improving taxpayer compliance and reducing the
federal tax gap. The Administration claimed (without providing documentary18
support) they could raise $36 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. Some
proposals would have expanded information reporting; others would have targeted
tax compliance by firms of all sizes; and one would have penalized the failure to
comply with the requirements for electronic filing of tax and information returns.19
In assessing the Administration’s budget proposal for the IRS, lawmakers may
want to consider whether proposed funding for enforcement, taxpayer service, and
the BSM can be judged adequate in light of the difficult challenges facing the agency.
Foremost among those challenges are improving compliance rates among individuals
and businesses without sacrificing recent gains in taxpayer service, generating more
detailed and reliable estimates of the rates of non-compliance among business
taxpayers, increasing the share of tax returns filed electronically, upgrading the
agency’s computer systems, managing the agency’s private tax debt collection
program so that it at once respects taxpayer rights and is cost-effective, and hiring


17 Ibid., p. 11.
18 Ibid., p. 60.
19 Ibid., p. 61.

and training sufficient numbers of enforcement agents to replace those who have
retired or quit in recent years.
Congressional Consideration of the Bush Administration’s FY2009
Budget Proposal.
Action in the House. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
providing the IRS with $11.398 billion in appropriated funds for FY2009, or $304
million more than the amount enacted for FY2008 and $37 million more than the
amount requested by the Bush Administration. Of this total, $2.210 billion ($60
million more than the amount requested) was to go to taxpayer services, $5.117
billion (the same amount as requested) to enforcement, $3.833 ($23 million less than
requested) to operations support, $223 million (the same amount as requested) to
BSM, and $15 million (the same amount as requested) for administration of the
health insurance tax credit established by the Trade Act of 2002.
In the report accompanying the bill, the committee specified that the
recommended $60 million in funding for taxpayer service above the Administration’s
budget request was to be used for the following purposes: (1) $47 million to educate
taxpayers about their rights and responsibilities before they file, improve the IRS
1-800 help line, and assist taxpayers at walk-in centers around the country; (2) $10.5
million to bolster the capabilities of the IRS Taxpayer Advocate to assist taxpayers
who have disputes with the IRS; (3) $1 million to expand the Tax Counseling
Program for the Elderly; and (4) $1.5 million to increase grants to Low-Income
Taxpayer Clinics.
The bill included a provision that could have become a source of controversy
when the full House considers the measure. It would have barred the IRS from using
any appropriated funds to “enter into, renew, extend, administer, implement, enforce,
or provide oversight of any qualified tax collection contract” under the IRS’s private
tax debt collection program. The report cited as the major reason for taking this step
the repeated statements by senior IRS officials in the past two years that the IRS
could collect the same delinquent tax debt targeted by the program at less expense.
In its budget request, the Administration noted that it would need $12 million to
manage the program in FY2009.
Action in the Senate. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
that the IRS receive $11.525 billion in FY2009. That amount was $163 million more
than the amount requested by the Administration and $127 million more than the
amount endorsed by the House Appropriations Committee. Of the amount
recommended by the committee, $2.213 billion was allocated to taxpayer services (or
$63 million more than the amount requested by the Administration and $3 million
more than the amount approved by the House Appropriations Committee); $5.117
billion to enforcement (or the same amount recommended by the Administration and
the House Appropriations Committee); $3.897 to operations support (or $40 million
more than the amount requested by the Administration and $64 million more than the
amount recommended by the House Appropriations Committee); $282 million to the
BSM (or $59 million more than the amount recommended by both the
Administration and the House Appropriations Committee); and $15 million for the
administration of the health care tax credit (or the same amount recommended by
both the Administration and the House Appropriations Committee).



In its report on S. 3260 (S.Rept. 110-417), the committee maintained that one
of the biggest challenges facing the IRS is reducing the federal tax gap. It also noted
that the agency could make significant progress toward that objective if it was “given
additional resources and is able to improve its operational capabilities (most notably
through the Business Systems Modernization program).”20 At the same time, the
committee expressed the concern that the 16 legislative reforms aimed at reducing
the tax gap proposed by the Administration in its budget request for FY2009 would
lack the needed forcefulness to make sizable reductions in the gap and would yield
a meager return on investment of “slightly more than a penny on the dollar.”
Of the recommended funding for taxpayer services, the committee directed the
IRS to spend not less than $4 million on the tax counseling for the elderly program,
$9 million on grants for low-income taxpayer clinics, and $8 million (to be made
available for two years) for the newly created volunteer income tax assistance
matching grant program. It also expressed disagreement with the Administration’s
decision to decrease funding for taxpayer assistance centers and pre-filing taxpayer
assistance and education. The committee included language in the bill that would
have required the IRS to fund pre-filing assistance and education at an amount not
less than the $645 million enacted for this purpose in FY2008.
The committee expressed strong support for the ongoing efforts by the IRS to
deepen its understanding of the scope and causes of taxpayer non-compliance
through the National Research Program (NRP). In a bid to improve the NRP, the
committee directed the IRS in FY2009 to collect information on the “causes of
noncompliance, including inadvertent noncompliance, the type of return preparation
method (self, volunteer, paid preparer, or IRS preparer), whether the taxpayer was
represented during the examination, and the extent to which the taxpayer sought and
received IRS services.”21
Moreover, in recommending that funding for the BSM be increased by about
$15 million in FY2009 over the amount enacted for FY2008, the committee endorsed
the support for the BSM expressed by the IRS Oversight Board in its report to
Congress on the IRS’s proposed budget for FY2009 and expressed opposition to the
cutback in funding requested by the Administration. It also directed the IRS to spend
at least $78 million on the continued development of the Customer Account Data
Engine, $35.5 million on Accounts Management Services, and $35 million on
Modernized e-File.
As approved by the committee, S. 3260 also contained the same controversial
provision dealing with the IRS’s private tax debt collection program that was
included in the appropriations bill for the IRS approved by the House Appropriations
Committee. Specifically, Section 106 of the bill would have barred the IRS from
using appropriated funds in FY2009 to “enter into, renew, extend, administer,


20 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2009, report to accompany S. 3260, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.,
S.Rept. 110-417 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 21.
21 Ibid., p. 27.

implement, enforce, provide oversight of, or make any payment related to any
qualified tax collection contract.”22
Under the continuing resolution, the IRS will be funded through March 6, 2009,
at the prorated amount it received ($11.094 billion) in FY2008. The CR gives the
agency an additional $68 million under the taxpayer services account to continue
meeting its obligations under the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. As the CR funds
current IRS programs only, congressional opponents of the IRS’s private tax debt
collection program will probably have to wait until sometime in 2009 to attempt to
pass legislation that would curtail or end it.
Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President23
All but three offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) are funded
in the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill.24
Table 4 shows appropriations enacted for FY2008, amounts requested by the
President for FY2009, and amounts recommended by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Table 4. Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President, FY2008 to FY2009
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Office Ena c t e d Request C o mmi t t e e C o mmi t t e e Ena c t e d
The White House (total)$174,505$190,528$181,642$181,942
Compensation of the450450450450
President
The White House Office51,65652,49953,89952,499
(salaries and expenses)
Executive Residence, White12,81413,36313,36313,363
House (operating expenses)
White House Repair and1,6001,6001,6001,600
Restoratio n
Council of Economic4,1184,1184,1184,118
A d v i se rs
Office of Policy Development3,4823,5503,5505,250


22 Ibid., p. 31.
23 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.
24 Of the three exceptions, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of
Environmental Quality are funded in the House and Senate Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Office of Science and Technology Policy and
the Office of the United States Trade Representative are funded in the House and Senate
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Office Ena c t e d Request C o mmi t t e e C o mmi t t e e Ena c t e d
Privacy and Civil Libertiesa2,000
Oversight Board
National Security Council8,6409,0299,0299,029
Office of Administration91,745105,91995,63395,633
Office of Management and78,00072,80079,97280,172
Budget
Federal Drug Control Programs421,702418,382422,011472,150
(total)
Office of National Drug26,40223,69726,01127,900
Control Policy
High Intensity Drug230,000200,000230,000235,000
Trafficking Areas Program
Other Federal Drug Control164,300189,685165,000204,250
Programs
Counterdrug Technology1,0005,0001,0005,000
Assessment Center
Unanticipated Needs1,0001,0001,0001,000
Presidential transition 8,0008,0008,000
administrative support
Office of the Vice President4,4324,4964,4964,496
(salaries and expenses)
Official Residence of the Vice320323323323
President (operating expenses)
Total: EOP and Funds$679,959$695,529$697,444$748,083
Appropriated to the President
Sources: Budget authority table provided by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial
Services and General Government, Presidents FY2009 budget request, S.Rept. 110-417, and U.S.
Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington:
February 2008). Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
a. The $2 million for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is not included in the White
House and EOP totals because the Board has been reconstructed as an independent agency.
Section 801(a) of P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2007, enacted on August 3, 2007, authorizes the following appropriations for the Board:
$5,000,000 (FY2008); $6,650,000 (FY2009); $8,300,000 (FY2010); $10,000,000 (FY2011);
and such sums as may be necessary (FY2012 and each subsequent fiscal year).
The Executive Office of the President Budget and Key Issues
The Administration’s FY2009 budget requested an appropriation of $695.5
million for the EOP and funds appropriated to the President, a 2.3% increase above
the almost $680 million appropriated for FY2008. Within the request, funding for
all “White House” accounts, discussed under “Consolidation Proposal” below, would
have increased by 9.2%. As for the four accounts under federal drug control
programs, increased appropriations were proposed for Other Federal Drug Control
Programs (+15.4%) and the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC)
(+400%), and reduced funding was proposed for the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (-10.2%) and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (-13%).



Consolidation Proposal. For the eighth consecutive fiscal year, the
President’s FY2009 budget proposed to consolidate and financially realign eight
salaries and expenses accounts that directly support the President into a single annual
appropriation, called “The White House.” The consolidated appropriation would
have a full-time equivalent (FTE) level of 904. The accounts that would have been
included in the consolidated appropriation were the following (with FTEs noted):
!Compensation of the President,
!White House Office (WHO) — 446,
!Executive Residence at the White House — 95,
!White House Repair and Restoration — 0,
!Office of Administration — 222,
!Office of Policy Development — 35,
!National Security Council — 71, and25
!Council of Economic Advisers — 35.
This consolidated appropriation would have totaled $190.5 million in FY2009
for the accounts proposed to be consolidated, an increase of 9.2% from the $174.5
million appropriated in FY2008. The appropriations requested for three of the eight
accounts within the White House — Compensation of the President, White House
Repair and Restoration, and Council of Economic Advisers — were the same as the
FY2008 funding. Increased funding is requested for these five accounts: White
House Office (+1.63%), Executive Residence (+4.28%), Office of Policy
Development (+1.95%), National Security Council (+4.5%), and Office of
Administration (+15.45%). According to the EOP budget submission, the increased
appropriations would have “offset payroll inflationary increases and maintain26
operations at current levels.” Additionally, the proposed expansion of the Enterprise
Services Initiative (discussed below) underlies some of the increased funding
requested for the Office of Administration.
The budget submission stated that consolidation “presents the best means for the
President to realign or reallocate the resources and staff available in response to27
changing and emerging needs and priorities.” The conference committees on the
FY2002 through FY2007 appropriations acts decided to continue with separate
appropriations for the EOP accounts to facilitate congressional oversight of their
funding and operation. This practice continued for FY2008 under P.L. 110-161, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008. The House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations recommended that separate appropriations for the EOP accounts
be continued in FY2009 as well.


25 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the
United States Government Fiscal Year 2009, Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2008), pp.

1055-1056. (Hereafter referred to as FY2009 Budget, Appendix.)


26 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Budget
Submission (Washington: February 2008), pp. EOP-4 - EOP-5. (Hereafter cited as EOP
Budget Submission.)
27 EOP Budget Submission, p. EOP-12.

Transfer Authority Proposal. As in the FY2008 budget proposal, the
FY2009 budget requested a general provision in Title VII to continue and expand the
authority for the EOP to transfer 10% of the appropriated funds among several
accounts under the EOP. The proposal was included under the government-wide
general provisions at Section 733 and would have covered the following accounts in
FY2009:
!The White House28
!Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
!Office of National Drug Control Policy
!Special Assistance to the President (Vice President) and the Official
Residence of the Vice President (transfers would be subject to the
approval of the Vice President)
!Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental
Quality
!Office of Science and Technology Policy29
!Office of the United States Trade Representative
The OMB Director (or such other officer as the President designates in writing)
would have been able, 15 days after notifying the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, to transfer up to 10% of any such appropriation to any other such
appropriation. The transferred funds would have been merged with, and available
for, the same time and purposes as the appropriation receiving the funds. Such
transfers could not increase an appropriation by more than 50%. According to the
EOP budget submission, the transfer authority would “provide the President with
flexibility and improve the efficiency of the EOP” and would “significantly improve
the President’s flexibility and effectiveness in meeting the needs across the EOP.”
The authority was “not intended to be used for new missions or programs, but to
address emerging priorities, shifting demands, and administrative efficiencies within
the currently funded programs.”30
P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (Section 533,
Title V, Division H) authorized transfers of up to 10% of FY2005 appropriated funds
among the accounts for the White House Office, Office of Management and Budget,
Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Special Assistance to the President (Vice
President), and the Official Residence of the Vice President. For FY2006, P.L. 109-

115, the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,


the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
(Section 725) authorized transfers of up to 10% among the accounts for the White
House, the Special Assistance to the President (Vice President), and the Official
Residence of the Vice President. P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act


28 The accounts under the White House are Compensation of the President, White House
Office, Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and Restoration,
Office of Administration, Office of Policy Development, National Security Council, and
Council of Economic Advisers.
29 FY2009 Budget, Appendix, p. 1056.
30 EOP Budget Submission, pp. EOP-12 - EOP-13.

for FY2008, at Section 201, continued this practice. The House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations recommended that the current practice be continued.
Enterprise Services Proposal. The FY2009 budget request also included
a proposal to expand the enterprise services initiative. The initiative was designed
“to efficiently manage common services throughout the EOP and to ensure that the
management of GSA [General Services Administration] space rent is consistently
administered throughout the EOP.” It was expected to reduce “redundant processes
in administering” Enterprise Services across the EOP. Under the proposal, funding
for the rent that the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) pay to GSA would have been moved into the
Enterprise Services fund of the Office of Administration account. Specifically,
almost $10.3 million would have been moved to this account: almost $7.2 million
from OMB and $3.1 million from ONDCP.
GSA space rent funding for the White House Office, Office of Policy
Development, National Security Council, Council of Economic Advisers, Office of
Science and Technology Policy, Council on Environmental Quality, and the United
States Trade Representative is already included in the Office of Administration’s
Enterprise Services fund. Services that will be assumed by the fund in FY2009 are
transit subsidies, Flexible Savings Account administrative fees, health unit
operations, and Federal Protective Service (FPS) rent-based fees.31
Neither the House Committee on Appropriations nor Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended adoption of this proposal and both provided that the
OMB and ONDCP funding for rental payments to GSA will continue under their
respective “Salaries and Expenses” accounts.
Administrative Support for the Presidential Transition. The FY2009
budget included a request for $8 million to fund “an orderly presidential transition.”
The appropriation would have covered the cost of processing the President’s and
Vice President’s records, under the Presidential Records Act, and other expenses
related to the transition to a new administration. There are no FTEs associated with
this account. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations recommended
the same funding as the President requested. Division A, Section 133 of P.L. 110-
329 provides an appropriation of $8 million for the transition and states that the
monies may be transferred to other accounts that fund the offices within the EOP and
the Office of the Vice President.
The Vice President. An appropriation of $4.5 million and an FTE level of
24 is requested for the Special Assistance to the President (Vice President) account
for FY2009. The funding was 1.44% above the $4.4 million provided for FY2008,
while the FTE total remained the same. As for the Official Residence of the Vice
President account, an FY2009 appropriation of $323,000, 0.94% above the $320,000
provided for FY2008, was requested. There was one FTE associated with this
account for FY2009, the same as in the previous fiscal year. The House and Senate


31 EOP Budget Submission, p. EOP-13.

Committees on Appropriations recommended the same funding as the President
requested.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The FY2009 budget
requested an appropriation of $72.8 million for OMB, 6.67% less than the $78
million provided for FY2008. The FTE level requested would have remained at 489.
The decreased funding request resulted from moving OMB’s monies for space rent
to the Office of Administration, as discussed above under the “Enterprise Services
Initiative.” The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations recommended that
the OMB funding for rental payments to GSA continue under the “Salaries and
Expenses” account. An appropriation of almost $80 million, almost $7.2 million
above the President’s request, was recommended by the House committee for OMB.
The draft House report included several directives for OMB as follows:
!The incoming Administration was strongly urged to refocus the
efforts of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy on oversight.
!OMB and the agencies were directed to “work directly with the
pertinent appropriations subcommittees in advance of transferring
funds relating to E-Government or Lines of Business.”
!Within 60 days of the act’s enactment, OMB was to report to the
committee “on actions taken to implement GAO’s recommendations
and improve purchase card internal controls.”
!OMB was expected to provide printed copies of the President’s
budget to Congress.32
The Senate committee recommended an appropriation of $80.2 million, almost
$7.4 million above the President’s request, for OMB. The funding included
$200,000 for the printing of paper copies of the President’s annual budget request.
Section 205 of the Senate bill, as reported, provided that the OMB appropriation
support the printing of a sufficient number of copies of the budget for submission to
Congress. In the Senate report, the committee urged the President to establish the
Task Force on International Cooperation for Clean and Efficient Technologies and
reminded OMB of the March 1, 2009, deadline for reporting to Congress on “the
extent to which executive departments and agencies that administer directed funding
allocate the designated amounts to intended recipients at a level less than specified
in any enacted bill or accompanying report.” A general provision at Section 751 of
the Senate bill as reported would have directed departments and agencies “to include
information in the fiscal year 2010 budget justifications ... regarding redirection of33


congressionally directed funding.”
32 Draft House report, p. 40.
33 S.Rept. 110-417, p. 38.

Committee Recommendations
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations recommended funding
at the levels requested by the President for each of the EOP accounts, with the
following exceptions (in addition to the OMB funding mentioned above):
White House Office (WHO). An appropriation of $53.9 million, or $1.4
million above the President’s request, was recommended for the WHO. The
additional funding was for a White House Office on National AIDS Policy. In its
draft report that accompanies the House draft bill, the House Committee on
Appropriations
calls on the new Administration to develop and implement a National AIDS
Strategy that engages multiple sectors in strategy development, is comprehensive
across Federal agencies, sets timelines and assigns responsibility for
implementing changes, identifies targets for improved prevention and treatment
outcomes and reduced racial disparities, and mandates annual reporting on
progress.
Office of Policy Development (OPD). An appropriation of $5.2 million,
$1.7 million above the President’s request, was recommended by the Senate
committee for the OPD. The funding included $1.4 million for OPD “to coordinate
a government-wide effort to develop and implement a domestic AIDS strategy, [with]
targets for improved prevention and treatment outcomes.” OPD was directed to
report to the Committee on Appropriations within 180 days of the act’s enactment
on the Administration’s activities to develop the strategy. The appropriation also
included $300,000 “to support international symposiums to discuss ways to improve
the relationship between faith and science.” Participating in the symposiums would
have been some “30 internationally-renowned scientists and theologians, equally
divided.” The symposiums would have been open to the public and would have
produced a written record that would have been available on the Internet at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov]. The Senate committee also “urges the President to
send the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to the Senate for ratification.”34
Office of Administration (OA). An appropriation of $95.6 million, almost
$10.3 million below the President’s request, was recommended by both the House
and Senate committees for the OA. The committees recommended that OMB’s and
ONDCP’s funding for rent continue under their respective “Salaries and Expenses”
accounts and not be transferred to the OA. In the draft House report, the committee
“strongly urges the incoming Administration to establish comprehensive policies and
procedures for the preservation of all Presidential records, in keeping with the
Presidential Records Act, the Federal Records Act, and other pertinent laws.”
Furthermore, the committee directed the new Administration to report to the
committee by June 30, 2009, on “actions it is taking to implement such policies and
procedures ... [and] the estimated costs, by program, activity, and fiscal year, of new
systems, staff, or other resources needed to ensure the preservation of electronic


34 S.Rept. 110-417, pp. 35-36.

Presidential records.”35 The Senate report stated the committee’s support of the
efforts of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) “to make all
appropriate electronic records public regardless of original formatting,” and
expressed concern about “the lack of information from the White House on the
format and volume of records to be transferred for the current administration.” The
OA was directed “to work closely to meet NARA requirements and deadlines so that
a complete record is available.”36 Division A, Section 132 of P.L. 110-329 provides
an appropriation of $5.7 million for the electronic mail restoration activities.
Federal Drug Control Programs. The House committee recommended
increased appropriations for the ONDCP, and the HIDTA, and decreased
appropriations for the CTAC, and Other Federal Drug Control Programs. Funding
of $26.0 million ($2.3 million above the President’s request) and $230 million ($30
million above the President’s request) would have been provided for ONDCP and
HIDTA, respectively. Of the ONDCP total, $500,000 was for policy research and
evaluation and $3.1 million was for rental payments to GSA that would have
remained with the account rather than being transferred to OA. Included in the
HIDTA total was almost $12 million in discretionary funding.
Appropriations of $1 million ($4 million below the President’s request) and
$165 million (almost $25 million below the President’s request) would have been
provided for the CTAC and the Other Federal Drug Control Programs, respectively.
The committee did not explain the reduced funding for the CTAC. The funding for
the Other Federal Drug Control Programs would have been allocated as follows:
!Drug Free Communities — $90 million
!Training and technical assistance for drug court professionals —
$1.5 million
!National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws — $1,250,000
!National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign — $60 million
!United States Anti-Doping Agency — $10.1 million
!World Anti-Doping Agency dues — $1.9 million
!National Drug Control Program performance measures — $250,000
The Senate committee recommended increased appropriations for the ONDCP,
the HIDTA, and Other Federal Drug Control Programs. Funding of $27.9 million,
$4.2 million above the President’s request, was recommended for the ONDCP. Of
the total, $3.1 million was for rental payments to GSA that would have remained
with the account rather than being transferred to OA, and $500,000 was provided for
an independent review of ONDCP’s grant-based programs by the National Academy
of Public Administration. The study was to be completed by the end of FY2009.
The Senate report included the committee’s prohibition against the reorganization of
three of ONDCP’s 12 components.
An appropriation of $235 million, $35 million above the President’s request was
recommended for the HIDTA. Included in the total is funding of up to $2.1 million


35 Draft House report, p. 39.
36 S.Rept. 110-417, p. 37.

for auditing services and associated activities and up to $250,000 “to ensure the
continued operation and maintenance of the Performance Management System.” In
addition, the committee suggested that $500,000 could be provided for the
establishment of new counties “if the need is warranted and the criteria has been
met.”37
The Senate committee recommended an appropriation of $204.2 million, $14.6
million above the President’s request, for the Other Federal Drug Control Programs.
The funding would have been allocated as the House committee recommends, except
as follows:
!Training and technical assistance for drug court professionals — $2
million
!National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign — $100 million
!United States Anti-Doping Agency — $9.6 million
!National Drug Control Program performance measures — $500,000
With regard to the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC), the
Senate report stated that “the lackluster performance of, and lack of confidence in,
the current director” precluded the committee from providing higher levels of
funding to this program. The report also expressed the committee’s hope that the
FY2010 “budget will reinvigorate the CTAC program with additional requested
funds and new leadership.”38
The Judiciary39
As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary presents its budget to the
President, who transmits it to Congress unaltered. Table 5 shows appropriations for
the judiciary as enacted for FY2008, as requested for FY2009, and as recommended
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Table 5. The Judiciary Appropriations,
FY2008 to FY2009
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009HouseSenateFY2009
Budget Groupings and AccountsEnactedRequestCommitteeCommitteeEnacted
Supreme Court (total)$78.7$88.2$88.2$88.2*
Salaries and Expenses66.569.869.869.8*
Building and Grounds12.218.418.418.4


37 Ibid., p. 41.
38 S.Rept. 110-417, p. 41.
39 This section was written by Lorraine Tong, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.

FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009HouseSenateFY2009
Budget Groupings and AccountsEnactedRequestCommitteeCommitteeEnacted
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal27.132.430.431.5
Cir c uit
U.S. Court of International Trade16.619.619.619.6*
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and5,942.56,380.96,189.56,181.4
Other Judicial Services (total)
Salaries and Expenses 4,619.34,963.14,830.14,832.8
Court Security410.0439.9430.0428.0
Defender Services835.6911.4863.0854.2
Emergency Defender Services10.5
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners63.162.262.262.2
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust4.14.34.34.3
Fund
Administrative Office of the U.S.76.082.079.079.0
Co ur ts
Federal Judicial Center24.225.825.725.5
United States Sentencing Commission15.516.316.216.2
Judicial Retirement Funds65.476.176.176.1
Total: The Judiciary$6,246.1$6,721.2$6,524.8$6,517.6
Sources: Budget authority figures, other than FY2009 Senate Committee figures, provided by House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Senate Committee
figures are taken from S.Rept. 110-417. Columns may not equal total due to rounding.
*This figure is rounded and slightly lower than the FY2009 requested amount (which is also rounded);
details are available below under the relevant account).
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues
Appropriations for the judiciary — about two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire
federal budget — are divided into budget groups and accounts. Two accounts that
fund the Supreme Court (the salaries and expenses of the Court and the expenditures
for the care of its building and grounds) together make up about 1.2% of the total
judiciary budget. The structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court building,
and care of its grounds, are the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol. The rest
of the judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal courts and for
related judicial services. The largest account, about 75% of the total budget — the
Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and
Other Judicial Services — covers the salaries of circuit and district judges (including
judges of the territorial courts of the United States), justices and judges retired from
office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims,
bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the
federal judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts; it also covers the
necessary expenses of the courts. The judiciary budget does not fund three “special
courts” in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces,



the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Federal
courthouse construction also is not funded within the judiciary’s budget.
The judiciary also uses non-appropriated funds to offset its appropriations
requirement. The majority of these non-appropriated funds are from fee collections,
primarily from court filing fees. The fees are used to offset expenses within the
Salaries and Expenses account. In some instances, the judiciary also has funds which
may carry forward from one year to the next. These funds are considered
“unencumbered” because they result from savings from the judiciary’s financial plan
in areas where budgeted costs did not materialize. According to the judiciary, such
savings are usually not under its control (e.g., the judiciary has no control over the
confirmation rate of Article III judges and must make its best estimate on the needed
funds to budget for judgeships, rent costs based on delivery dates, and technology
funding for certain programs).
The judiciary also has “encumbered” funds — no-year authority funds for
specific purposes, used when planned expenses are delayed, from one year to the next
(e.g., costs associated with space delivery, and certain technology needs and
projects). 40
In her March 12, 2008, written testimony submitted to the House and Senate
subcommittees on the judiciary’s FY2009 budget request, Judge Julia S. Gibbons,
United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and chair of the
Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States,41 stated, “We
recognize the fiscal constraints Congress is facing. Through our cost-containment
efforts and information technology innovations we have significantly reduced the
Judiciary’s appropriations requirements without adversely impacting the
administration of justice.”42
Cost Containment Initiatives. According to Judge Gibbons, the Judicial
Conference has endeavored, through cost containment policies, to reduce costs and
increase productivity in the federal judiciary. For example, to limit the growth of the
court rental fees paid to the General Services Administration (GSA), the judiciary has
been working collaboratively with GSA. Through rent validation and rent capping
initiatives, Judge Gibbons said that the previously projected rent costs of $1.2 billion
for FY2009, has been reduced by $200 million dollars, with a new projection of $1.0
billion (or 17% below the pre-cost containment projection). She cited the


40 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional
Budget Summary (Washington: February 2008), pp. 34-35. Hereafter cited as Judiciary
FY2009 Congressional Budget Summary.
41 The Judicial Conference of the United States is the principal policymaking body for the
federal courts system. The Chief Justice is the presiding officer of the conference, which
comprises the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12
geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade.
42 Statement of Honorable Julia S. Gibbons, Chair, Committee on the Budget of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government of the Committee on Appropriations of the United States Senate,
March 12, 2008, p.17. Hereafter cited as Judge Gibbons’s March 12, 2008, Statement.

identification of GSA rent overcharges, which totaled $30 million over three years,
and a more recent finding of an additional $22.5 million in overcharges. The Judicial
Conference also approved a cap of 4.9% on the average annual rate of growth for
courthouse rent to be paid in FY2009 through FY2016. Under the rent cap, the
circuit judicial councils are responsible for keeping their respective circuits within
the caps for space needs through managing and prioritizing such needs.43
The Judicial Conference, at its September 2007 meeting, approved
recommendations to slow the growth in personnel costs throughout the judiciary.
Expected savings of up to $300 million from FY2009 through FY2017 would be
gained by restricting annual salary step increases, limiting the number of law clerks,
and other measures governing the classification and grading of judiciary staff
nationwide.
Other cost containment initiatives include using information technology (e.g.,
consolidating computer servers around the country) to increase efficiency and cost-
effectiveness. According to Judge Gibbons, savings and cost avoidances amounting
to $55.4 million through FY2012 are expected to be achieved through the
consolidation of services for the judiciary’s national accounting system in FY2008.
Judicial Security. Judicial security — the safe conduct of court proceedings
and the security of judges in courtrooms and off-site — continues to be an issue of
concern. The 2005 Chicago murders of family members of a federal judge; the
Atlanta killings of a state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy at a
courthouse; and the 2006 sniper shooting of a state judge in the judge’s office in
Reno spurred efforts to enhance judicial security. Early in the 110th Congress, the
chairmen of Senate and House Judiciary Committees introduced companion bills (S.

378 and H.R. 660, respectively), the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, to44


strengthen security. The legislation was amended and approved in December 2007,
and the president signed the bill into law on January 7, 2008 (P.L. 110-177). Judicial
security continues to be an issue of critical importance. As a result of concerns the
judiciary raised about perimeter security the Federal Protective Service (FPS)
provides, some functions at selected courthouses will be transferred to the U.S.
Marshals Service (USMS). Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L.
110-161), Congress authorized USMS to monitor the exterior of seven courthouses
and assume control of FPS monitoring equipment in a pilot program. The 18-month
pilot will begin in the fourth quarter of FY2008, and an evaluation of the pilot is
expected to be provided to congressional subcommittees. The estimated annualized
cost of the pilot is $5 million, which would be offset by expected reductions in FPS
billings.
Workload. Judge Gibbons, in written testimony submitted to the House and
the Senate on March 12, 2008, noted that Congress provided the judiciary with
funding for staff in the past two years to enable the courts to address the workload


43 Ibid., pp. 7-8.
44 For details about the enacted legislation and other legislative proposals to enhance judicial
security, see CRS Report RL33464, Judicial Security: Responsibilities and Current Issues,
by Lorraine H. Tong.

in the short term, but that the additional judgeships and courthouse are needed. She
referred to the increased workload expected from the southwest border due to
immigration-related cases, and stressed that the President’s request for additional
border patrol agents would bring the border patrol, when fully staffed, to a total of
about 20,000 — doubling its size since 2001. Judge Gibbons stated that, “The
district courts on the southwest border have not received any new district judgeships
since 2002” although the Judicial Conference requested additional judgeships in
2003, 2005, and 2007 for a total of 32 judgeships. She also urged Congress to
support the additional $110 million included in the President’s FY2009 budget to
fund fully a new federal courthouse in San Diego, California.45
Judge Gibbons summarized the judiciary’s projection of the courts’ workload,
and noted that FY2009 staffing needs are based on 2008 caseload projection. “Our
projections indicate that caseload will increase slightly in probation (+1%) and
pretrial services (+3%) and increase substantially for bankruptcy filings (+23%). For

2008 we are projecting small declines in appellate (-3%) and criminal (-3%)


caseload, and a steeper decline in civil filings (-8%).”46
Judgeships. The Judicial Conference voted on March 13, 2007, to ask
Congress to create 67 new federal judgeships — 15 for the courts of appeals (13
permanent, 2 temporary) and 52 for the district courts (38 permanent, 14 temporary)
— to make permanent five temporary judgeships, and to extend another temporary
judgeship for five years. According to the judiciary, since the 1990 omnibus
judgeship bill, the number of courts of appeals judges has remained the same, while
federal appellate court case filings increased by 55% over the same 17-year period.
According to the judiciary, the number of district court judgeships increased by 4%,47
while case filings increased by 29%, over the same period of time.
Subsequent to the conference’s recommendation, on September 10, 2007,
Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr., introduced H.R. 3520, the Federal
Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2007. Among other things, the bill
would authorize the appointment of an additional nine permanent and three
temporary federal circuit judges, and an additional 44 permanent and 12 temporary
district judges; establish a judicial district in the Virgin Islands; and provide for
additional bankruptcy judgeships. In addition, the bill would amend the federal
judicial code to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit into the Ninth Circuit (to be
composed of California, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and the
Twelfth Circuit (to be composed of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, and Washington). On October 12, 2007, the bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, and the
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. No further action has been
taken on H.R. 3520.


45 Judge Gibbons’s March 12, 2008, Statement, pp. 5-6.
46 Ibid., p.10.
47 U.S. Courts, News Release, “Federal Judiciary Says New Judgeships Needed,” March 13,

2007, at [http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/judconf031307.html].



On March 13, 2008, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
introduced (for himself, and Senators Orrin G. Hatch, Dianne Feinstein, and Charles
E. Schumer) S. 2774, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2008. The legislation would
provide for the appointment of additional federal circuit and district judges: 12
permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 permanent district court judgeships, and the
conversion of five existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. In
addition, 14 temporary district court judgeships, two temporary circuit judgeships,
and one existing temporary district court judgeship would be extended. The bill was
referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. On May 15, 2008, the committee
ordered S. 2774 reported favorably without amendment by a vote of 15-4.48
Judicial Pay. Another key issue being discussed is the judiciary’s advocacy
for a significant increase in judicial pay. John G. Roberts Jr., Chief Justice of the
United States, stated in his 2006 End-of-the-Year Report on the Federal Judiciary
that judges’ pay has not kept pace with inflation over the years and has led to judges
leaving the bench in increasing numbers. According to the Chief Justice, retaining
and attracting the best talent to the courts is a serious concern. He stated that failure
to raise judicial salaries has reached the level of a “constitutional crisis that threatens
to undermine the strength and independence of the federal Judiciary.”49 On June 15,
2007, Senator Leahy introduced S. 1638, the “Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act
of 2008,” that, before markup, would have provided a 50% pay adjustment for
justices and judges.50 Representative John Conyers Jr., chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee, introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3753, “Federal Judicial
Salary Restoration Act of 2007,” on October 4, 2007. The House bill, before
markup, would have provided for a 41.3% pay adjustment. As amended in markup,
and ordered to be reported by the respective committees, both bills, S. 1638 and H.R.

3753,51 would authorize pay increases of 28.7% to 28.8%.52


On November 14, 2007, Senator Richard J. Durbin introduced S. 2353, the Fair
Judicial Compensation Act of 2007, to authorize a 16.5% increase in the annual


48 The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of S. 2774, released on June 18, 2008, is
available at [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/94xx/doc9470/S2774.pdf].
49 U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice’s “2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,”
(Washington: 2007), at [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/

2006year-e ndreport.pdf].


50 Last year, on January 8, 2007, Senator Leahy introduced S. 197, legislation to authorize
a 1.7% salary increase for federal justices and judges for FY2007. The Senate had approved
the bill by unanimous consent on the same day, and it was referred to the House Judiciary
Committee. On February 2, 2007, S. 197 was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property. No further action has been taken.
51 The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for S. 1638 is at
[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9092/s1638.pdf]. For the cost estimate for H.R.

3753, see [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8957/hr3753.pdf].


52 For further details about these bills and judicial pay issues, see CRS Report RL34281,
Judicial Salary: Current Issues and Options for Congress, by Kevin M. Scott; and also CRS
Report RS20388, Salary Linkage: Members of Congress and Certain Federal Executive and
Judicial Officials, and CRS Report RL33245, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Officials:
Process for Adjusting Pay and Current Salaries, both by Barbara L. Schwemle.

salaries of the Chief Justice of the United States, Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, courts of appeals judges, district court judges, and judges of the United States
Court of International Trade, and to increase fees for bankruptcy trustees. S. 2353
is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
For FY2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a salary
adjustment for justices and judges under Section 310 (S.Rept. 110-417).
House and Senate Budget Hearings
On March 12, 2008, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial
Services and General Government held a hearing on the FY2009 federal judiciary
budget request. The subcommittee heard testimony from Judge Julia S. Gibbons, and
James C. Duff, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC).
Among issues raised at the hearing were judicial security, rent paid to GSA, and
workload. Later that same day, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Financial Services and General Government also held a hearing on the FY2009
budget request and heard testimony from Judge Gibbons and Director Duff. The
Senate subcommittee heard testimony on some of the same issues that were discussed
at the House hearing.
In prepared testimony on the FY2009 judicial budget request, Judge Gibbons
stated
The goal of our fiscal year 2009 request is to maintain staffing levels in the
courts at the level Congress funded in fiscal year 2008, as well as to obtain
funding for several much needed program enhancements. As I noted earlier in my
testimony, we are not requesting additional staff for our clerks or probation
offices. We believe the requested funding level represents the minimum amount
required to meet our constitutional and statutory responsibilities. While this may
appear high in relation to the overall budget request submitted by the
Administration, I would note that the Judiciary does not have the flexibility to
eliminate or cut programs to achieve budget savings as the Executive Branch
does. The Judiciary’s funding requirements essentially reflect basic operating53
costs of which more than 80 percent are for personnel and space requirements.
On the following day, the House subcommittee heard Supreme Court Justices
Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas give testimony on the Supreme Court
budget request for FY2009. Issues raised at the hearing included the Supreme Court
building modernization project, caseload, minority clerk hiring, and televising
Supreme Court proceedings.
FY2009 Request and Congressional Action.54 For FY2009, the judiciary
requested $6.721 billion in total appropriations, a $475 million (7.6%) increase over
the $6.246 billion enacted for FY2008. According to the judiciary, about 85.6% of


53 Judge Gibbon’s March 12, 2008, Statement, p. 13.
54 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2008 Congressional
Budget Summary (Washington: February 2007). Hereafter cited as Judiciary FY2008
Congressional Budget Summary.

the increase was to provide for pay adjustments, inflation, and other adjustments
necessary to maintain current services. The FY2009 request included funding for
33,591 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions — an increase of 300 FTE positions over
the estimated 33,291 FTE positions funded for FY2008.55 The committee
recommended a total of $6.525 billion for FY2009.
The following are highlights of the FY2009 judiciary budget request, FY2008
enacted amount, and the recommendations of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.56
Supreme Court. For FY2009, the total request for the Supreme Court
(salaries and expenses plus buildings and grounds) was $88.2 million, a $9.5 million
(12.1 %) increase over the FY2008 appropriation of $78.7 million. The total request
comprised two accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses — $69.8 million was requested,
an increase of $3.3 million (4.9%) over the $66.5 million enacted for FY2008; and
(2) Care of the Building and Grounds — $18.4 million was requested, an increase of
$6.2 million (51.2%) over the $12.2 million enacted for FY2008. The increase in the
second account included repairs to the roof of the Supreme Court building and
exterior property renovation and landscaping. The overall request reflected increases
in salary and other inflationary costs. The House committee recommended the full
amount requested for both Supreme Court accounts. The Senate committee
recommended $69.776 million for Salaries and Expenses ($1,000 less than
requested), and the full amount requested for Care and Building Grounds.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court, consisting of
12 judges, has nationwide jurisdiction and reviews, among other things, certain lower
court rulings in patent and trademark, international trade, and federal claims cases.
The FY2009 request for this account was $32.4 million — a $5.3 million (19.5%)
increase over the $27.1 million appropriated for FY2008. The request included six
FTE positions for 12 law clerks, one for each of the judges. According to the budget
submission, the need for more law clerks was due to the increase in caseload and the
complicated nature of the cases. The House committee recommended $30.4 million.
The Senate recommended $31.5 million.
U.S. Court of International Trade. This court has exclusive jurisdiction
nationwide over the civil actions against the United States, its agencies and officers,
and certain civil actions brought by the United States (import transactions and
enforcement of federal customs and international trade laws). The FY2009 request
was $19.6 million — a $3.0 million (18.0%) increase over the FY2008 appropriation
of $16.6 million. The judiciary budget submission ascribed the increase primarily
to rent paid to GSA. The House committee recommended $19.590 million. The
Senate committee recommended $19.605 million.


55 Judiciary FY2009 Congressional Budget Summary, p. 5.
56 Data are rounded, which may result in slight differences when figures are added or
subtracted. Percentages are based on data prior to rounding and may result in very minor
differences.

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services.
This budget group includes 12 of the 13 courts of appeals and 94 district judicial
courts located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Totaling about 95% of the
judiciary budget, the four accounts in the group — salaries and expenses, court
security, defender services, and fees of jurors and commissioners — fund most of the
day-to-day activities and operations of the federal circuit and district courts. For this
budget group, the FY2009 request was $6.381 billion, a $438 million (7.4%) increase
over the FY2008 enacted amount of $5.943 billion. The House committee
recommended $6.189 billion for this budget group. The Senate committee
recommended $6.181 billion.
The total of this budget group comprised the following accounts:
Salaries and Expenses. The FY2009 request for this account was $4.963
billion, a $344 million (7.4%) increase over the FY2008 level of $4.619 billion.
According to the budget request, this increase was needed for inflationary and other
adjustments to maintain the courts’ current services. According to the FY2009
budget submission, the request included $308.8 million for standard pay and other
inflationary increases, and other adjustments to maintain FY2008 service levels. The
House committee recommended $4.830 billion. The Senate committee
recommended $4.833 billion.
Court Security. This account provides for protective guard services, security
systems, and equipment for courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure the
safety of judicial officers, employees, and visitors. Under this account, a major
portion of the funding is transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), to pay for
court security officers under the Judicial Facility Security Program. The FY2009
request was $439.9 million — a $29.9 million (7.3 %) increase over the FY2008
appropriation of $410.0 million. This increase was reportedly driven by pay and
benefit adjustments and other adjustments needed to maintain current services. The
FY2009 request to pay the Federal Protective Service (FPS) $72.9 million was also
covered under this account. Funding requested included 9 FTE positions for USMS.
The House committee recommended $430.0 million. The Senate committee
recommended $428.0 million.
Defender Services. This account funds the operations of the federal public
defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation,
reimbursement, and expenses of private practice panel attorneys appointed by the
courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of federal crimes.
The FY2009 request was $911.4 million — a $65.3 million (7.7 %) increase over
the FY2008 appropriation of $846.1 million (which included $10.5 million in
emergency funding). The House committee recommended $863.0 million. The
Senate committee recommended $854.2 million.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners. This account funds the fees and
allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and the compensation of jury and land
commissioners. The FY2009 request was $62.2 million — a $0.9 million (1.4%)



decrease over the FY2008 appropriation of $63.1 million. Both the House and
Senate committees recommended the full amount requested.
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. Established to address a
perceived crisis in vaccine tort liability claims, the Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program is a federal no-fault program that protects the availability of vaccines in the
nation. The FY2009 request for this account was $4.3 million, a slight increase of
$0.2 million (3.8%) above the FY2008 enacted amount of $4.1 million. Both the
House and Senate committees recommended the full amount requested.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). As the central
support entity for the judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of administrative,
management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts. The
AOUSC also provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and
implements conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The
FY2009 request for this account was $82.0 million — a $6.0 million (7.8%) increase
over the FY2008 level of $76.0 million. The increase was reportedly for pay
increases and other inflationary adjustments to maintain FY2008 service levels. The
AOUSC also receives non-appropriated funds from fee collections and carry-over
balances to supplement its appropriations requirements. Both the House and Senate
committees recommended $79.0 million for this account.
Federal Judicial Center. As the judiciary’s research and education entity,
the center undertakes research and evaluation of judicial operations for the Judicial
Conference committees and the courts. In addition, the center provides judges, court
staff, and others with orientation and continuing education and training. The center’s
FY2009 request was $25.8 million — a $1.6 million (6.5%) increase over the
FY2008 appropriation of $24.2 million. The House committee recommended $25.7
million. The Senate committee recommended $25.5 million.
United States Sentencing Commission. The commission promulgates
sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal criminal justice system.
The FY2009 request was $16.3 million — a $0.8 million (5.0%) increase over the
FY2008 appropriation of $15.5 million. Both the House and Senate committees
recommended $16.23 million.
Judiciary Retirement Funds. This mandatory account provides for three
trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy and magistrate judges, retired
Court of Federal Claims judges, and spouses and dependent children of deceased
judicial officers. The FY2009 request was $76.1 million — a $10.7 million (16.4%)
increase over the FY2008 appropriation of $65.4 million. According to the budget
submission, the appropriation requirements were calculated by an enrolled actuary
as mandated by law. Both the House and Senate committees recommended the full
amount requested.
General Provision Changes. According to the budget request submission,
the judiciary proposed the following new language under general provisions:
!Sec. 306, which would have granted the judiciary the same tenant
alteration authorities as the executive branch.



!Sec. 308, which would have deleted a provision related to
establishing Vancouver, Washington, as a place of holding court in
the Western District of Washington.
!Sec. 309, which would have deleted a one-year provision extending
the temporary judgeships in the Districts of Kansas and the District
of Northern Ohio through FY2008.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended the following provisions:
!Sec. 301, which would have continued language to permit funding
in the bill for salaries and expenses to employ experts and consultant
services (as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109).
!Sec. 302, which would have continued language to permit the
transfer of up to 5% of any available FY2008 appropriations
between judiciary appropriations accounts, provided that no
appropriation shall be decreased by more than 5% or increased by
more than 10% by any such transfer except in certain circumstances.
The language also provides that any such transfer shall be treated as
a reprogramming of funds under Section 608 of the bill and shall not
be available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance with
procedures in that section.
!Sec. 303, which would have continued language to authorize official
reception and representation expenses, not to exceed $11,000,
incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
!Sec. 304, which would have continued language to require a
financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days of enactment of this
act.
!Sec. 305, which would enable the judiciary to contract for repairs
under $100,000.
!Sec. 306, which would have authorized a court security pilot
program.
!Sec. 307, which would have provided equal treatment for federal
judges regarding life insurance premiums.
!Sec. 308, which would have allowed the Director of AOUSC to
expend funds for the purposes of the Second Chance Act, and directs
the AOUSC to report to the committee on the parameters that define
eligible expenses before the program is implemented.
!Sec. 309, which would have removed a sunset date from certain
procurement authorities.
!Sec. 310, which would have extended temporary judgeships in Ohio
and Kansas.



The Senate committee recommended the same provisions the House recommends for
Sections 301 through Section 309, but Section 310 differs. The Senate
recommended the following:
!Sec. 310, which would have allowed for a salary adjustment for
justices and judges.
District of Columbia57
The authority for congressional review and approval of the District’s budget is
derived from the Constitution and the District of Columbia Self-Government and58
Government Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home Rule Act). The Constitution gives
Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever”
pertaining to the District of Columbia. In 1973, Congress granted the city limited
home rule authority and empowered citizens of the District to elect a mayor and city
council. However, Congress retained the authority to review and approve all District
laws, including the District’s annual budget. As required by the Home Rule Act, the
city council must approve a budget within 50 days after receiving a budget proposal
from the mayor. The approved budget must then be transmitted to the President, who59
forwards it to Congress for its review, modification, and approval.
Both the President and Congress may propose and approve of financial
assistance to the District in the form of special federal payments in support of
specific activities or priorities. Table 6 shows details of the District’s federal
payments — the FY2008 enacted amounts, the amounts included in the President’s
FY2009 budget request, and the amounts recommended by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees.
Table 6. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2008 to FY2009:
Special Federal Payments
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Enacted RequestCommitteeCommitteeEnacted
Resident Tuition Support$33.0$35.1$35.1$35.1
Emergency Planning and3.415.015.315.4


Security
57 This section was written by Eugene Boyd, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division, and David Smole, Specialist in Education Policy,
Domestic Social Policy Division.
58 See Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198,

87 Stat. 801.


59 87 Stat. 801.

FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Enacted RequestCommitteeCommitteeEnacted
District of Columbia223.9223.9248.4251.6
Co ur ts
Defender Services48.048.052.552.5
Court Services and
Offender Supervision190.3202.5202.5203.5
Agency
Public Defender Service32.735.735.735.7
Criminal Justice1.31.81.81.8
Coordinating Council
Water and Sewer8.014.014.016.0
Autho r ity
Anacostia Waterfront __ a 0.0 0.00.0
I nitiative
Office of the Chief5.5b0.0 4.55.0d
Financial Officer
Executive Office of the5.00.0 0.03.5
Mayor
Anacostia River Water1.00.0 0.00.0
Quality Initiative
Public Education2.00.0 0.00.0
I n itia tive
Marriage Initiative___c0.0 0.01.2
Matching Funds
Marriage Development___c0.0 0.01.2
Accounts
Pediatric Health Care1.00.0 0.00.0
Initiative
Historic Preservation1.00.0 0.00.0
School Improvement40.854.054.054.0
Public Schools13.018.021.220.0
Public Charter Schools13.018.018.020.0
Education Vouchers14.818.014.814.0
Jump Start Public School0.020.020.020.0
Re fo r m
Consolidated Laboratory5.05.021.021.0


Facility

FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Enacted RequestCommitteeCommitteeEnacted
Central Library and9.07.07.07.0
B r anches
FBI Reimbursement4.05.00.00.0
Special Federal$609.9$667.0$711.8$722.0
Payments (total)
Sources: Budget authority figures, other than FY2009 Senate Committee figures, provided by House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Senate Committee
figures are taken from S.Rept. 110-417. Columns may not equal total due to rounding.
a. This activity will be funded as a $1 million award to the Executive Office of the Mayor.
b. The conference report accompanying H.R. 2764 (P.L. 110-161) directs the CFO to award funds
to 17 specific organizations and activities: ARISE Foundation — $282,000; Barracks Row
$500,000; Bright Beginnings $100,000; Catalyst HOPE VI $132,000; Center for Inspired
Teaching — $52,500; Earth Conservation Corps — $282,000; Marriage Development Account
— $1,800,000; Eastern Market — $131,000; Everybody Wins — $100,000; Excel Institute
$300,000; Congressional Cemetery $625,000; Community-based Dental Education
$52,500; International Youth Service and Development Corps $600,000; MenzFit Career
Development $23,500; Sitar Arts Center $22,500; Southeastern University $300,000;
STEED Youth Program $150,000.
c. Marriage Initiative is included as a $1.8 million award administered by the CFO.
d. Includes $3 million for the Childrens National Medical Center.
The District of Columbia Budget and Key Issues
President’s Request. The Administration’s proposed FY2009 budget
included $668.0 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia. The
funding request for the courts and criminal justice system (court operations, defender
services, offender supervision, and criminal justice coordinating council) was $511.9
million, or 76.8%, of the request. The President’s budget also requested $109.1
million in special federal payments for specific education initiatives, including $35.1
million for college tuition assistance, $38 million for public school enhancements
and reforms, $18 million for public charter schools, and $18 million for the school
choice (school voucher) program, which awards grants to eligible students to attend
private schools.
In addition to recommending $667million in federal payments to the District of
Columbia, the President’s budget also contains general provisions, including a
number of so-called “social riders.” The President’s budget request would have
!prohibited the use of federal and District funds to finance or
administer a needle exchange program intended to reduce the spread
of AIDS and HIV among intravenous drug abusers and their
partners;
!prohibited the use of both federal and District funds to provide
abortion services except in instances of rape or incest, or when the
health of the mother is threatened;



!prohibited the city from decriminalizing the use of marijuana for
medical purposes;
!prohibited the use of federal funds to implement the Health Care
Benefits Act;
!limited the payment of fees to no more than $4,000 to attorneys
representing a party in an action brought against the District under
the Individuals with Disabilities Act; and
!limited the city’s ability to use District funds to lobby for
congressional voting representation or statehood.
House Appropriations Committee. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $711.8 million in special federal assistance to the District of
Columbia. This was $101.9 million more than appropriated last year and $44.8
million more than requested by the Administration. The additional funding included
assistance for public safety, criminal justice and court operations, and education
activities. The committee recommended $15.3 million for emergency planning and
security activities — $11.9 million more than appropriated for FY2008, and
$300,000 more than requested by the Administration. The committee also
recommended $561.9 million for criminal justice and court operations activities,
including $16 million more than requested by the Administration for construction
of a consolidated bioterrorism and forensic laboratory facility, and $24.5 million
more for court operations. The bill would have provided $109 million for education
initiatives, including an additional $20 million to support the mayor’s public school
reform.
Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $722.0 million in special federal assistance to the District
of Columbia. This is $112.1 million more than appropriated last year, $55 million
more than requested by the Administration, and $10.2 million more than
recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. The additional funding
included assistance for public safety, criminal justice and court operations, and
education activities. The committee recommended $15.4 million for emergency
planning and security activities — $12 million more than appropriated for FY2008,
and $400,000 more than requested by the Administration. The committee also
recommended $561.9 million for criminal justice and court operations activities,
including $21 million for construction of a consolidated bioterrorism and forensic
laboratory facility, and $27.7 million more for court operations than requested by the
Administration. The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would have
appropriated $109 million for education initiatives, including an additional $20
million to support the mayor’s public school reform.
Resident Tuition Support. The District of Columbia Tuition Access Grant
(DCTAG) program provides tuition support through grants to institutions of higher
education (IHEs) for eligible residents of the District of Columbia by paying the
difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition (up to $10,000) at public IHEs;
and up to $2,500 per year for tuition at private non-profit IHEs that are either located
in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, or are Historically Black Colleges and



Universities (HBCUs). Funding has been provided for the DCTAG program
annually since FY2000. For FY2009, the Administration proposed an appropriation
of $35.1 million for the DCTAG program, of which $1.3 million would have been
available for administrative expenses. The House Appropriations Committee and the
Senate Appropriations Committee both recommended the appropriation of $35.1
million for the DCTAG program. As in prior years, the proposed appropriations
language specified that awards made under the DCTAG program may be prioritized
on the basis of a resident’s academic merit, the need of eligible students, and other
factors as may be authorized.
School Improvement. Since FY2004, a federal payment for school
improvement in the District of Columbia has been provided annually to be allocated
between the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) for the improvement of
public education; the State Education Office (SEO) for the expansion of public
charter schools; and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for the DC School
Choice Incentive program (also known as the Opportunity Scholarship program).
The Opportunity Scholarship program was enacted under the D.C. School
Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-199) and is authorized through FY2008.
Under the program, the Secretary of Education may award grants to eligible entities
for a period of not more than five years to make opportunity scholarships to eligible
individuals. The program enables children from families with incomes not exceeding
185% of the poverty line to apply to receive opportunity scholarships valued at up to
$7,500 to cover the costs of tuition, fees, and transportation expenses associated with
attending participating private elementary and secondary schools located in the
District of Columbia. Scholarship recipients remain eligible to continue to
participate in the program in subsequent years, so long as their family income does
not exceed 300% of the poverty level. FY2008 (school year 2008-2009) is the final
year of the initial grant awarded to the Washington Scholarship Fund.
For FY2009, the Administration has proposed the appropriation of $54 million
for school improvement in the District of Columbia. Of this amount, $18 million
would have been provided to DCPS for school improvement, $18 million would have
been provided to the SEO for public charter schools, and $18 million would have
been provided to ED for the Opportunity Scholarship program. Of the $18 million
that would have been provided for the Opportunity Scholarship program, $1 million
would have been available for the administration and funding of assessments. In
addition, the Administration proposed amending the D.C. School Choice Incentive
Act of 2003 to establish annual limits on opportunity scholarship awards for school
year 2009-2010 in the amounts of $7,500 for kindergarten through grade 8, and
$12,000 for grades 9 through 12; and to provide for adjustments to annual award
limits in future years by indexing them to the consumer price index for all urban
consumers (CPI-U). The Administration also proposed extending the authorization
of appropriations for the Opportunity Scholarship program at the amount of $18
million for FY2009, and such sums as may be necessary for FY2010 through
FY2013.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended the appropriation of $54
million for school improvement in the District of Columbia — the same amount
proposed by the Administration. However, the committee recommended that $21.2



million be provided to DCPS for school improvement, that $18 million be provided
to the SEO for public charter schools, and that $14.8 million be provided to ED for
the Opportunity Scholarship program, of which $1 million would be available to
administer and fund assessments. In S. 3260, the Senate Appropriations Committee
also recommended $54 million in funding for school improvement, but with $20
million provided to DCPS to improve public school education, $20 million provided
to the SEO to expand public charter schools, and $14 million to ED for the
Opportunity Scholarship program, of which $1 million would have been available to
administer and fund assessments.
The House Appropriations Committee did not recommend the amendments to
the D.C. School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 proposed by the Administration. In
S. 3260, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended that funds provided for
the Opportunity Scholarship program may not be used to support the enrollment of
students in schools participating in the program unless the school has a valid
certificate of occupancy and the teachers of core subjects hold four-year
baccalaureate degrees.60 S. 3260 also specified that after school year 2009-2010,
funds for the Opportunity Scholarship program be available only upon the
reauthorization of the program by Congress and the adoption of legislation by the
District of Columbia approving reauthorization.
Federal Payment to Jump Start Public School Reform. In addition to
funding provided for school improvement in the District of Columbia, the
Administration proposed, and both the House Appropriations Committee and the
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended, the appropriation of $20 million
to “jump start” the reform of public education in the District of Columbia. Of the
$20 million that would have been made available, $3.5 million would have been
provided for the recruiting, development, and training of principals and other school
leaders; $7 million would have been provided for the development of optimal school
programs, and for intervention in low-performing schools; $7.5 million would have
been provided for a student performance data reporting and accountability system,
and for parental and community outreach; and $2 million would have been provided
for data reporting associated with the DCPS teacher incentive program. Of the total
amount appropriated, the lesser of $500,000 or 10% would have been available for
transfer from one activity to another.
General Provisions. The House and Senate bills would have
!prohibited the use of federal funds to finance or administer a needle
exchange program intended to reduce the spread of AIDS and HIV
among intravenous drug abusers and their partners;


60 It appears that these provisions are specified in response to concerns identified in U.S.
Government Accountability Office, District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program:
Additional Policies and Procedures Would Improve Internal Controls and Program
Operations, GAO-08-9, Nov. 2007.

!prohibited the use of both federal and District funds to provide
abortion services except in instances of rape or incest, or when the
health of the mother is threatened;
!prohibited the city from decriminalizing the use of marijuana for
medical purposes;
!prohibited the use of federal funds to implement the Health Care
Benefits Act; and
!prohibited the use of federal funds to lobby for congressional voting
representation or statehood.
Section 134 of the CR grants congressional approval of the District of Columbia
General Fund budget for FY2009. This allows the District to spend $10 billion in
local source revenues and federal grants, including $1.1 billion for capital projects
and $8.9 billion for operating expenses. FY2009 special federal payments for the
District of Columbia would be frozen at the FY2008 appropriations level. However,
there is one exception. Section 135 of the act appropriates $15 million in special
federal payments for emergency planning and security activities. This is a significant
increase above the $3.4 million appropriated for FY2008, and will most likely be
used to cover expenses related to the activities surrounding the inauguration of the
next President of the United States.
Independent Agencies
In FY2009, a collection of 22 independent entities are slated to receive funding
through the FSGG appropriations bill. Table 7 lists appropriations as enacted for
FY2008, as requested by the President for FY2009, and as recommended by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Table 7. Independent Agencies Appropriations,
FY2008 to FY2009
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Agency Ena c t e d Request C o mmi t t e e C o mmi t t e e Ena c t e d
Commodity Futures Tradinga$111$130$ — $157
C o mmi s s i o n
Consumer Product Safety808010095
C o mmi s s i o n
Election Assistance Commission1421713517
Federal Communicationsb111
C o mmi s s i o n
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation: Office of Inspectorc(27)(27)(27)(27)
General (by transfer)
Federal Election Commission59646464



FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Agency Ena c t e d Request C o mmi t t e e C o mmi t t e e Ena c t e d
Federal Labor Relations Authority24232323
Federal Trade Commissionb82697069
General Services Administrationd 175536311674
Merit Systems Protection Board40414141
Morris K. Udall Foundation6166
National Archives and Records400392424430
Ad mi ni str a tio n
National Credit Union1111
Ad mi ni str a tio n
Office of Government Ethics12131313
Office of Personnel Management21,11020,35820,35820,362
(total)
Salaries and Expenses102939393
Government Payments for
Annuitants, Employee Health8,8849,5339,5339,533
Ben e fits
Government Payments for
Annuitants, Employee Life41464646
I n su ra n c e
Payment to Civil Service11,94110,55010,55010,550
Retirement and Disability Fund
Office of Special Counsel17171717
Postal Regulatory Commissione 141414
Privacy and Civil Libertiesf2212
Oversight Board
Securities and Exchangeg843871879890
C o mmi s s i o n
Selective Service System22222222
Small Business Administration569659880766
United States Postal Service118322351351
United States Tax Court45484848
Total: Independent Agencies$23,748$23,551$23,760$24,064
Sources: Budget authority figures, other than FY2009 Senate Committee figures, provided by House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government. Senate Committee
figures are taken from S.Rept. 110-417. Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
a. The CFTC is funded in the House through the Agriculture appropriations bill. CFTC funding is
included in total funding only for the Senate Committee column.
b. The amounts listed in Table 7 for the FCC and the FTC represent only direct appropriations and
do not include fees collected by the agencies that are also used to fund agency activities.
c. Budget authority transferred to FDIC is not included in total appropriations for Title V; it is
counted as part of the budget authority in the appropriation account from which it came.
d. Budget authority for GSA is calculated as the net value of appropriations, including limitations on
the availability of revenues, plus the redemption of debt payments, minus anticipated revenues
from rents paid into Federal Buildings Fund.
e. FY2009 is the first year the PRC has been funded through the FSGG appropriations bill. Funding
for the PRC is discussed in the United States Postal Service section.



f. In FY2008, the PCLOB was considered a component of the Executive Office of the President and
was funded through EOP appropriations. The PCLOB has since been established as an
independent agency, and the President has requested a separate appropriation for the agency for
FY2009.
g. The amounts listed in Table 7 for the SEC include fees collected by the agency. This is not
consistent with the treatment of fees for the FCC and the FTC, but it follows the source
documents for Table 7.
Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The CFTC is the
independent regulatory agency charged with oversight of derivatives markets. The
CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading on the futures exchanges, registration
and supervision of futures industry personnel, prevention of fraud and price
manipulation, and investor protection. Although most futures trading is now related
to financial variables (interest rates, currency prices, and stock indexes),
congressional oversight remains vested in the agriculture committees because of the
market’s historical origins as an adjunct to agricultural trade.
In the Senate, FY2008 CFTC appropriations were proposed in H.R. 2829. In
the House, FY2008 CFTC appropriations were proposed in H.R. 3161, the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2008, the CFTC was funded in Division A, Agriculture and Related Agencies. The
FY2008 appropriation was $111.3 million.
For FY2009, the Administration requested $130.0 million. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $157.0 million, an increase of 24.3% over
the Administration’s request, and 41.1% over the FY2008 appropriation. The
increase was related to concerns over the CFTC’s ability to monitor the futures
markets, particularly those in energy commodities.
In the House, CFTC appropriations will be included in the agriculture
appropriations bill.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).61 The CPSC is an
independent federal regulatory agency whose enabling legislation is the Consumer
Product Safety Act of 1972. The Commission’s primary responsibilities include
protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer
products; developing uniform safety standards for consumer products and minimizing
conflicting state and local regulations; and promoting research and investigation into
the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
For FY2009, the Administration requested $80 million in funding for the CPSC,
the same amount Congress provided for FY2008, but $16.75 million more than
requested last year ($63.25 million). The House Committee on Appropriations
recommended $100 million, $20 million above the Administration’s request. The
committee stated that the additional funding is necessary for the agency to meet the
increased responsibilities envisioned by the CPSC reform legislation (discussed


61 This section was written by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Business and Government
Relations, Government and Finance Division.

below), including the implementation of an Import Safety Initiative, upgrades to
information technology and databases, and modernization of CPSC’s testing
laboratory.62 In the Senate, the Committee on Appropriations recommended $95
million, $5 million less than its House counterpart, but $15 million above the
Administration’s request.
Last year, the House approved the Appropriation Committee’s recommendation
of $66.8 million, $3.6 million above the Administration’s request. Subsequently, the
Senate recommended $70 million for CPSC for FY2008. In the end, however,
following widespread publicity about unsafe exports from China, particularly
dangerously defective toys, the consolidated appropriations bill provided the agency
with $80 million.
A steady stream of televison and print media stories throughout 2007 about
unsafe imported consumer products generated strong congressional interest
concerning the agency. Conferees, concluding months of negotiations over
differences between House and Senate CPSC reform bills (H.R. 4040 and S. 2663,
respectively), sent what is generally regarded as the strongest consumer protection
legislation in decades to the President for his signature. The new law, P.L. 110-314,
substantially increases the authority of and funding for the CPSC. Major provisions
of the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act of 2008 include the creation of
a publicly accessible consumer complaint database, increased civil penalties that the
agency can assess against violators, the protection of whistleblowers who report
product safety defects, mandatory testing of toys, and banning certain phthalates in
children’s products.63
Election Assistance Commission (EAC).64 The EAC provides grant
funding to the states to meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act
(HAVA), provides for testing and certification of voting machines, studies election
issues, and promulgates voluntary guidelines for voting systems standards and issues
voluntary guidance with respect to the requirements in the act. The commission was
not given express rule-making authority under HAVA, although the law transferred
responsibilities for the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) from the Federal
Election Commission to the EAC; these responsibilities include NVRA rule-making
authority. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcement responsibility.
For FY2008, funding for the EAC and election reform programs was provided
by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. The act provided $16.53 million for
the EAC, of which $3.25 million was for NIST, and $200,000 was for the high


62 See CRS Report RS22821, Consumer Product Safety Commission: Current Issues, by
Bruce K. Mulock.
63 For an examination of the issues surrounding the roughly dozen chemicals known as
phthalates that are used to make the plastics found in thousands of consumer products, see
CRS Report RL34572, Phthalates in Plastics and Possible Human Health Effects, by Linda-
Jo Schierow and Margaret Mikyung Lee.
64 This section was written by Kevin Coleman, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.

school mock election program. It also provided $115 million for requirements
payments and $10 million for data collection grants to selected states.
The President’s budget request for FY2009 included $16.7 million for EAC
salaries and expenses. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $18.6
million for EAC salaries and expenses, of which $4 million was to be transferred to
NIST, $1.3 million was for the college pollworker training program, and $400,000
was for the high school mock election program. The committee also recommended
$110 million for requirements payments to the states, $5 million for voting
technology improvement grants, and $1 million for a pilot grant program to conduct
pre- and post-election testing for voting systems. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $16.7 million for EAC expenses, of which $4 million was
to be transferred to NIST for the development of voluntary voting systems guidelines.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC).65 The Federal
Communications Commission, created in 1934, is an independent agency charged
with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire,
satellite, and cable. The FCC is also charged with promoting the safety of life and
property through wire and radio communications. The mandate of the FCC under the
Communications Act is to make available to all people of the United States a rapid,
efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communications service. The
FCC performs five major functions to fulfill this charge: spectrum allocation,
creating rules to promote fair competition and protect consumers where required by
market conditions, authorization of service, enhancement of public safety and
homeland security, and enforcement. The FCC obtains the majority of its funding
through the collection of regulatory fees pursuant to Title I, Section 9, of the
Communications Act of 1934; therefore, its direct appropriation is considerably less
than its overall budget. For FY2008, the President signed a budget of $313 million
(a direct appropriation of $1 million and the remainder to be collected through
regulatory fees).66
For FY2009, the Senate committee recommended a budget of $341.875 million,
$28.875 million above the FY2008 enacted level and $3 million more than the House
recommendation of $338.875 million. While the House committee recommended
a direct appropriation of $1 million and the remainder to be collected through
regulatory fees, the Senate committee recommended that the entire budget be
collected through regulatory fees.
The Senate committee budget would provide funding to support the FCC’s
continued efforts to facilitate the nationwide transition of broadcast television signals
from analog to digital on February 17, 2009 and $3 million for a competitive grant
program for state broadband data and development (Section 503).


65 This section was written by Patricia Moloney Figliola, Specialist in Internet and
Telecommunications Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
66 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161).

The committee expressed continued concern about the declining standards of
broadcast television and the impact this decline is having on America’s children and
the FCC’s lack of proper oversight over the USF programs.
The committee would direct the Commission to issue a report to the Committee
on Appropriations and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
within 180 days of enactment on commercial proposals for broadcasting radio or
television programs for reception on school buses operated by, or under contract
with, local public educational agencies. The study would examine the nature of the
material proposed to be broadcast and whether it is age appropriate for the
passengers; the amount and nature of commercial advertising to be broadcast; and
whether such broadcasts for reception by public school buses are in the public
interest.
The committee also expressed concern that emergency personnel and first
responders along the northern border have had difficulty securing licenses for the
appropriate communications frequency from the Commission. The committee would
direct the Commission to work with Canadian officials and applicants to devise a
strategy for ensuring that licensing along the northern border proceeds without delay.
The committee would direct the Commission, in coordination with the Department
of Homeland Security, to issue a report to the Committee on Appropriations no later
than 270 days after enactment that evaluates the federal guidance provided to states
working to establish interoperable first responder communications networks,
describes the degree to which the guidance is coordinated with the Canadian
government, and identifies methods to avoid future coordination problems.
The committee included language (sec. 501) to extend FCC’s exemption from
the Anti-deficiency Act (ADA) until December 31, 2009, and language (sec. 502)
that would prohibit the FCC from enacting certain recommendations regarding
universal service that were made to it by the Joint Board of FCC members and State
Utility Commissioners. The recommendation would limit universal support to one
telephone line. This would be harmful to small businesses, especially in rural areas,
which need a second line for a fax or for other business purposes.
The continuing resolution provides the FCC with $20,000,000, for consumer
education associated with the transition to digital television occurring on February

17, 2009.


Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): OIG.67 The FDIC’s
Office of the Inspector General is funded from deposit insurance funds; the OIG has
no direct support from federal taxpayers. Before FY1998, the amount was approved
by the FDIC Board of Directors; the amount is now directly appropriated (through
a transfer) to ensure the independence of the OIG.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided for a
FY2008 budget of $27 million for the OIG, which was a 13% decrease from the


67 This section was written by Pauline Smale, Economic Analyst, Government and Finance
Division.

FY2007 appropriation of $31 million. The President requested, and both the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations recommended, $27.5 million for FY2009.
Federal Election Commission (FEC).68 The FEC administers, and
enforces civil compliance with, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) and
campaign finance regulations. The agency does so through educational outreach,69
rulemaking, and litigation, and by issuing advisory opinions. The FEC also
administers the presidential public financing system.70 Between January and June
2008, the FEC lacked a quorum necessary to make major policy decisions. With the
June 24, 2008, Senate confirmations of five FEC nominees, the agency now stands71
at full capacity of six commissioners.
The President’s FY2009 budget request included an appropriation of $63.6
million for the FEC, a 7.4% increase above the enacted FY2008 appropriation of
$59.2 million. The House Appropriations Committee also recommended an
appropriation of $63.6 million for FY2009. Although the FEC requested no
additional staff in FY2008, the FY2009 budget justification requested funding for 12
additional full-time positions.72 Most of the FY2009 request emphasized maintaining73
current services and funding technology upgrades.
Like its House counterpart, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$63.6 million in FY2009 funding for the FEC. The Senate committee report also
directed the FEC, within 270 days of the appropriations bill’s enactment, to provide
the committee with an estimate of the feasibility of gathering and making public data74
about media costs in campaigns. Campaign media costs have been of recent
interest to Congress, particularly in the Senate. The topic was the subject of a June

2007 Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing, and the Senate


68 This section was written by Sam Garrett, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
69 FECA is 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq. The FEC can refer criminal cases to the Justice
Department.
70 The Treasury Department and IRS also have administrative responsibilities for
presidential public financing. However, Congress does not appropriate funds for the
program. For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL34534, Public Financing of
Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.
71 See CRS Report RS22780, The Federal Election Commission (FEC) With Fewer than
Four Members: Overview of Policy Implications, by R. Sam Garrett.
72 On the FY2008 request, see Federal Election Commission, Fiscal Year 2008 Performance
Budget for the Federal Election Commission, February 5, 2007, at [http://www.fec.gov/
pages/budget/fy2008/fy2008cbj_final.pdf], p. 3. On the FY2009 request, see Federal
Election Commission, Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Budget Justification, February 4,

2008, at [http://www.fec.gov/pages/budget/fy2009/CJ_final_1_31_08.pdf].


73 See, for example, Federal Election Commission, Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Budget
Justification, pp. 18-24.
74 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2009, report to accompany S. 3260, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.,
S.Rept. 110-471 (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 78.

Appropriations Committee report on the FY2008 FSGG appropriations bill directed
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to provide information on “the 10-year
trend in the cost of House and Senate campaigns as well as the percentage of those
costs that are incurred due to rising broadcast advertising rates.”75 The FY2009
continuing resolution (P.L. 110-329) contained no changes to the funding levels
discussed above and did not otherwise address FEC issues.
In the past, Congress has chosen to use the appropriations process to extend the
FEC’s Administrative Fine Program (AFP), which was scheduled to expire at the end
of 2008. In October 2008, however, President George W. Bush signed a stand-alone
bill (H.R. 6296, which became P.L. 110-433) that will extend authority for the
program until 2013.76
In recent years, FEC appropriations have generally been noncontroversial and
subject to limited debate in committee or on the floor. For FY2009, the House
Appropriations Committee noted that it had “recently approved a significant
reprogramming” of the FEC’s FY2008 appropriation and that it intended to
“carefully monitor the resource needs of the FEC during the coming months and may
consider adjustments to [the agency’s] fiscal year 2009 budget in the final
appropriations bill.”77 That reprogramming came in response to a significant drop
in FEC salary expenses between January and June 2008, when four commissioners
and some staff were out of office, and when the agency reportedly had difficulty
recruiting career staff.78 Now that the Commission is back at full operating capacity,
provided that career staff recruiting improves, salary needs will presumably return
to normal levels. The Senate report did not mention the reprogramming. It also was
not addressed in the continuing resolution.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC).79 The Federal Trade Commission
(Commission or FTC) is an independent agency. It seeks to protect consumers and


75 The June 2007 hearing also covered congressional public financing legislation; the
hearing record has not yet been published. A transcript is available on the Senate Rules and
Administration Committee website at [http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2007/

062007correctedTranscript.pdf]. For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL33814,


Public Financing of Congressional Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.
On the FY2008 report language, see U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2008, report tothst
accompany H.R. 2829, 110 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 110-129 (Washington: GPO, 2007), pp.

72-73.


76 For additional discussion of the AFP, see CRS Report RL34324, Campaign Finance:
Legislative Developments and Policy Issues in the 110th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett, p.

7.


77 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2009, committee print, 110th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington:
GPO, 2008), p. 64.
78 Duane Pugh, director, legislative affairs, FEC, provided information on the
reprogramming (telephone consultation with R. Sam Garrett, July 2, 2008).
79 This section was written by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Business and Government
Relations, Government and Finance Division.

enhance competition by eliminating unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
marketing of goods and services and by ensuring that consumer markets function
competitively. For FY2009, the Administration requested a program level for the
FTC of $256.2 million, an increase of $12.4 million, or 5%, over the agency’s present
(FY2008) level of funding. Of the total amount provided, $168 million was to be
derived from pre-merger filing fees, $19.3 million from Do-Not-Call fees, and the
remaining amount — $68.9 million — was to be provided by a direct appropriation.
The request represents an increase of $12.3 million from the FTC’s FY2008 budget
appropriations level.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the same program level
as requested by the Administration, including the same breakdown of fees and direct
appropriation, as noted above. For its part, the House Committee on Appropriations
recommended an FTC program level of $259.2 million, $3 million more than the
Administration’s request. More specifically, the committee assumed $170.5 million
from pre-merger filing fees, $21 million from Do-Not-Call fees, and a direct
appropriation of $70.2 million. The committee recommendation assumed an increase
of $3 million over the Administration’s request to provide additional support for
consumer protection activities, including subprime lending and other financial
services investigations, as well as activities to fight spam, spyware, and Internet fraud
and deception.
For FY2008, the Consolidated Appropriations Act provided the FTC with a total
program level of $243.9 million. More specifically, $139 million was to come from
pre-merger filing fees, and $23 million from Do-Not-Call fees, with a direct
appropriation of $81.9 million.
General Services Administration (GSA). The General Services
Administration administers federal civilian procurement policies pertaining to the
construction and management of federal buildings, disposal of real and personal
property, and management of federal property and records. It is also responsible for
managing the funding and facilities for former Presidents and presidential transitions.
Typically, only about 1% of GSA’s total budget is funded by direct appropriations.
For FY2009, the President requested $56.6 million for government-wide policy
and $71.8 million for operating expenses, $54 million for the Office of Inspector
General (OIG), $2.9 million for allowances and office staff for former presidents,
$8.5 million for presidential transition expenses, and $36.6 million to be deposited
into the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund (FCICF). The House Committee
on Appropriations recommended $56.2 million for government-wide policy, $71.2
million for operating expenses, $51.8 million for the OIG, $2.9 million for
allowances and office staff for former presidents, $8.5 million for presidential
transition expenses, and $36.1 million to be deposited into the FCICF. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $54.6 million for government-wide policy,
$69.3 million for operating expenses, $54 million for the OIG, $2.9 million for
allowances and office staff for former presidents, $8.5 million for presidential
transition expenses, and $36.6 million for the FCICF. The CR provided $8.25
million for presidential transition expenses, and $2.68 million for allowances and
office staff for former presidents.



Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Most GSA spending is financed through
the Federal Buildings Fund. Rent assessments from agencies paid into the FBF
provide the principal source of its funding. Congress may also provide direct funding
into the FBF. Congress directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on spending
of funds from the FBF in provisions found accompanying GSA’s annual
appropriations.
For FY2009, the President requested that an additional amount of $525 million
be deposited in the FBF, which would have been an increase of $441 million from
the amount enacted in FY2008. The President further requested that $620 million
remain available until expended for new construction projects from the FBF. The
House Appropriations Committee recommended that an additional amount of $309
million be deposited in the FBF, and $454 million be made available for new
construction, both less than the President’s request. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended that an additional amount of $672 million be deposited in
the FBF, and $767 million be made available for new construction, both more than
the President’s request.
Electronic Government Fund (E-Gov Fund).80 Originally unveiled in
advance of the President’s proposed budget for FY2002, the E-Gov Fund and its
appropriation have been a somewhat contentious matter between the President and
Congress. The President’s initial $20 million request was cut to $5 million, which
was the amount provided for FY2003, as well. Funding thereafter was held at $3
million for FY2004, FY2005, FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008. Created to support
interagency e-gov initiatives approved by the Director of OMB, the fund and the
projects it sustains have been subject to close scrutiny by, and accountability to,
congressional appropriators. As he did for FY2008, the President requested $5
million for the fund for FY2009. Noting that, as of March 2008, the e-gov account
had a little over $7 million still unspent from prior years, including the entire FY2008
appropriation, House appropriators recommended no additional funding for the
account for FY2009. Senate appropriators recommended $1 million for the fund.
The consolidated continuing appropriations act temporarily returns the E-Gov Fund
to a $3 million appropriation for FY2009.
Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management. The
FY2008 budget included information on the portfolios of each of the agencies
involved in personnel management functions: the Federal Labor Relations Authority
(FLRA), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Table 8 shows
appropriations as enacted for FY2008, as requested for FY2009, and as
recommended by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, for each of
these agencies.


80 This section was written by Harold Relyea, Specialist in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.

Table 8. Independent Agencies Related to Personnel
Management Appropriations, FY2008 to FY2009
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009 FY2009
FY2008 FY2009 House Sena t e FY2009
Agency Ena c t e d Request C o mmi t t e e C o mmi t t e e Ena c t e d
Federal Labor Relations Authority$23.6$22.7$22.7$22.7
Merit Systems Protection Board 40.141.441.441.4
(total)
Salaries and Expenses37.538.838.838.8
Limitation on Administrative2.62.62.62.6
Expenses
Office of Personnel Management21,110.320,357.920,358.420,362.5
(total)
Salaries and Expenses101.892.892.892.8
Limitation on Administrative123.9118.1118.1118.1
Expenses
Office of Inspector General1.51.51.52.1
(salaries and expenses)
Office of Inspector General
(limitation on administrative17.116.517.020.4
expenses)
Government Payments for
Annuitants, Employee Healtha8,884.09,533.09,533.09,533.0
Ben e fits
Government Payments for
Annuitants, Employee Lifea41.046.046.046.0
I n su ra n c e
Payment to Civil Servicea11,941.010,550.010,550.010,550.0
Retirement and Disability Fund
Office of Special Counsel$17.5$17.5$17.5$17.5
Sources: Budget authority table provided by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial
Services and General Government, S.Rept. 110-417, and the Presidents FY2008 budget request;
FY2009 Budget, Appendix, pp. 1097-1108, 1179-1180, 1190-1191, and 1215.
a. The annual appropriations act provides such sums as may be necessary” for the health benefits, life
insurance, and retirement accounts. The Office of Personnel Managements Congressional
Budget Justification for FY2009 states the FY2009 amounts for these accounts as $9,595.0
million (health benefits), $46 million (life insurance), and $10,172.0 million (retirement) at pp.
129-131. The FY2009 Budget Appendix, at pp. 1100-1101, states the same amounts as the
budget justification.
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).81 The FLRA is an
independent federal agency that administers and enforces Title VII of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978. Title VII gives federal employees the right to join or
form a union and to bargain collectively over the terms and conditions of
employment. Employees also have the right not to join a union that represents


81 This section was written by Gerald Mayer, Analyst in Public Finance, Domestic Social
Policy Division.

employees in their bargaining unit. The statute excludes specific agencies (e.g., the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency) and gives the
President the authority to exclude other agencies for reasons of national security.
The FLRA consists of a three-member authority, the Office of General Counsel,
and the Federal Services Impasses Panel (FSIP). The authority resolves disputes over
the composition of bargaining units, charges of unfair labor practices, objections to
representation elections, and other matters. The General Counsel’s office conducts
representation elections, investigates charges of unfair labor practices, and manages
the FLRA’s regional offices. The FSIP resolves labor negotiation impasses between
federal agencies and labor organizations.
The President’s FY2009 budget proposed an appropriation of $22.7 million for
the FLRA, almost $1.0 million below the agency’s FY2008 appropriation of $23.6
million. The House recommended an appropriation of $22.7 million for FY2009,
which is the same as the President’s request. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations approved funding of $22.7 million, the same amount as
recommended by the House.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).82 The President’s budget
requested an FY2009 appropriation of almost $41.4 million for the MSPB, 3.25%
above the FY2008 funding of $40.1 million. The agency’s full-time equivalent
(FTE) employment level would remain at 236 for FY2009. The House committee
recommended the same appropriation as the President requests to provide “funding
for mandatory pay raises, increased rent payments, and other non-personnel cost
increases.” The Senate also recommended the same appropriation as the President
requests. MSPB issued 8,105 decisions in FY2007 (actual), and its budget
submission projects that 8,400 decisions will be issued in FY2008 (estimate).
The authorization for the agency expired on September 30, 2007. Legislation
that would reauthorize the MSPB for three years and enhance the agency’s reporting
requirements is currently pending in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Senator Daniel Akaka and Representative Danny Davis introduced the Federal Merit
System Reauthorization Act of 2007, S. 2057 and H.R. 3551, on September 17, 2007,
and it was referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The President’s budget
requested an FY2009 appropriation of $92.8 million for salaries and expenses for
OPM, an amount that is 8.8% less than the $101.6 million provided for salaries and
expenses for FY2008. This amount included funding of $5.8 million for the
Enterprise Human Resources Integration project and more than $1.3 million for the
Human Resources Line of Business project. The agency’s full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment level would have been 4,940 for FY2009, 48 less than the 4,988 for
FY2008.


82 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.

Among the initiatives stated in OPM’s budget submission are these: a
legislative proposal has been submitted to Congress to offer a third benefit option
under the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and to broaden the
types of health plans offered by the FEHBP, continued development of market-
sensitive pay systems, the transitioning of the personnel and payroll records for 1.8
million active federal employees into the modernized, electronically accessible
federal retirement system, and improving the federal hiring process, by, among other
things, streamlining the application process.
The House committee recommended the same funding as requested by the
President for the OPM accounts, except for the “limitation on transfers from the trust
funds” account of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), for which the committee
recommended an additional $500,000. The Senate committee did likewise, except
for the OIG salaries and expenses and “limitation on transfers from the trust funds”
accounts for which the committee recommends additional amounts of $598,000, and
almost $4 million, respectively. The Senate report stated that the funding “will help
restore the OIG’s budget to previous levels and permit additional audits and
investigations.”83
Several directives for OPM were included in the draft House report or the
Senate report as follows:
!The Government Accountability Office was directed “to assess the
impact of the stop work [on a major contract] order on OPM’s plans
for developing (including testing) and implementing RetireEZ,” the
program to modernize the federal government’s retirement
systems.84 (House draft report and Senate report)
!OPM was directed to continue to make publicly available, “in a
consistent and consolidated format, and in a timely manner” data
from the Federal Human Capital Survey. (House draft report)
!OPM was encouraged “to develop approaches that agencies can use
to attract the best and brightest talent; match employee skills and
abilities with specific agency missions and goals; ensure that
talented employees are engaged and empowered to use their talent;
improve leadership development; and ensure high performance from
the workforce.” (House draft report)
!OPM was urged to review the findings of a study group on Hispanic
employment in the federal government (formed by several agencies,
including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
Social Security Administration) “for possible approaches to improve
Hispanic recruitment, retention, and advancement government-
wide.” (House draft report)


83 S.Rept. 110-417, p. 103.
84 Draft House report, p. 85, and S.Rept. 110-417, p. 99.

!OPM was directed to lead an “effort to encourage individual agency
human resource offices to ... [recruit from] the talent pool that exists
in the U.S. territories.”85 (House draft report)
!Within 45 days after the act’s enactment, OPM was directed to
report to the committee on time lines, including start and
completion dates for activities related to dependent care programs,
including a marketing campaign for an open season for enrollment,
development of ways to encourage agencies to educate employees
about enrollment, outreach to groups with similar interests in
dependent care, advertising the availability of tuition assistance to
offset enrollment costs, and establishing a link on child care
subsidies on the OPM homepage. (Senate report)
!OPM was directed to advise the committee as improvements in the
agency’s efforts to foster the employment of individuals with
disabilities are made. (Senate report)
!Within 120 days after the act’s enactment, OPM was directed to
report to the committee on the use of the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act Mobility Program to alleviate the shortage of nurses
and the steps taken to encourage nurses employed by the federal
government to teach at accredited colleges of nursing. (Senate
report)
!OPM was directed to review federal employment policies and
consider whether any changes may be necessary to foster the
employment of individuals who are blind. The committee would
welcome a report from OPM on this issue that would include the
views of federal employee labor organizations. The report was to be
submitted by July 15, 2009.86 (Senate report)
Office of Special Counsel (OSC).87 The President’s budget requested an
FY2009 appropriation of $17.5 million for the OSC, the same level of funding that
was enacted in FY2008. The agency’s full-time equivalent (FTE) employment level
would have increased by one, to 111, for FY2009. OSC’s budget submission
projected a continued increase in the number of prohibited personnel practices cases
and disclosure cases received and notes that strategic management and cross-training
of employees is being emphasized to ensure the maximum use of agency resources.
The House and Senate committees recommended the same funding as the President
requests. The draft House report stated that the OSC “must refocus its efforts” to
carry out its “fundamental missions of protecting federal employees from prohibited
personnel practices, providing a safe channel for whistleblower disclosures, and
enforcing the Hatch Act and the Uniformed Services Employment and


85 Ibid., pp. 85-86.
86 S.Rept. 110-417, pp.99-101.
87 Ibid.

Reemployment Rights Act.”88 In its report, the Senate committee “strongly urges the
OSC to work with whistleblower advocacy organizations to promote the highest level
of confidence in the Whistleblower Protection Act and the OSC” and acknowledges
that the agency’s caseload continues to grow.89
The authorization for the agency expired on September 30, 2007. The Federal
Merit System Reauthorization Act of 2007, S. 2057 and H.R. 3551, is currently
pending in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The legislation,
introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka and Representative Danny Davis, would
reauthorize the OSC for three years and includes provisions to enhance the agency’s
reporting requirements.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).90 As indicated
in Table 7, the President’s FY2009 request for NARA was $392 million, which was
about $8 million less than the $400 million appropriated for FY2008. Of this
requested amount, almost $328 million was sought for operating expenses, an
increase of $13 million over the FY2008 appropriation for this account. For the
electronic records archive, $67 million was sought, a $9 million increase over the
previous fiscal year allocation; for repairs and restoration, a little more than $9
million was sought, which is much below the FY2008 appropriation of over $28
million; and for the NHPRC, no appropriation was requested, which was the
President’s request for the previous two fiscal years, although Congress allocated $7
million for FY2007 and over $9 million for FY2008.
The President’s budget also attempted to deny funding for the recently created
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) established within NARA by
amendments to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which were signed into law
by the President on December 31, 2007.91 The OGIS was established to (1) review
agency compliance with FOIA policies, (2) recommend policy changes to Congress
and the President, and (3) offer mediation services between FOIA requesters and
agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. The OGIS is authorized to issue
advisory opinions if mediation fails to resolve a dispute. The President’s budget
proposed no funding for the OGIS and having the Department of Justice carry out the
responsibilities of the office using funds from its general administration account.92
Amending language would have to be included in appropriations legislation in order
to fully effectuate this proposed arrangement.
House appropriators recommended almost $424 million for NARA for FY2009,
an increase of almost $32 million over the requested amount. Of this recommended


88 Draft House report, p. 89.
89 S.Rept. 110-417, p. 105.
90 This section was written by Harold Relyea, Specialist in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
91 121 Stat. 2524.
92 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2009 — Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 239.

amount, $330 million was proposed for operating expenses, an increase of a little
more than $2 million above the budget request. Specified allocations from this
account included slightly more than half a million dollars to increase archivist staff,
$1 million for the OGIS, and over half a million dollars for review and
declassification of U.S. government records on the Nazi and Japanese Imperial
governments. Other allocations from the recommended amount for NARA included
$67 million for the electronic records archive, almost $27 million for repairs and
restoration, and $12 for the NHPRC. Appropriators indicated they were “greatly
concerned about the preservation of official Presidential records, including the
revelations that the White House cannot account for hundreds of days of e-mails
processed between 2003 and 2005. They urged NARA “to continue to work
diligently to ensure that the records of the outgoing Administration are located and
preserved” and “to work with the incoming Administration to establish and
implement policies and procedures to ensure the preservation of electronic
Presidential records.”93
Senate appropriators recommended almost $430 million for NARA, about $38
million more than the President’s request and $6 million more than the amount
recommended by House appropriators. Of this recommended $430 million, almost
$331 was proposed for operating expenses, with $1 million allocated for the
continuance of public research hours at NARA and $1 million for the OGIS. Other
allocations from the recommended amount for NARA included $67 million for the
electronic records archive, a little more than $33 million for repairs and restoration,
and $10.5 million for the NHPRC.
The consolidated continuing appropriations act temporarily returns NARA
funding to its FY2008 funding level of $400 million for FY2009.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).94 The NCUA is an
independent federal agency funded entirely by the credit unions that the agency
charters, insures, and regulates. Two entities managed by the NCUA are addressed
by the Financial Services and General Government bill. One of these, the
Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF), makes low-interest loans and
technical assistance grants to low-income credit unions. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) appropriated $975,000 for FY2008. The
President requested, and both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
recommended, $1 million for FY2009.
The other entity managed by NCUA, the Central Liquidity Facility (CLF),
provides a source of seasonal and emergency liquidity for credit unions. The CLF
can finance loans using its assets, and it can also borrow from the Federal Financing
Bank. Provisions in the appropriations bill set a borrowing limit for the CLF each
fiscal year. Congress also determines the level of CLF operating expenses, which are
not funded through appropriations, but by earned income. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-161) provided a $1.5 billion limitation on


93 Draft House report, p. 80.
94 This section was written by Pauline Smale, Economic Analyst, Government and Finance
Division.

direct loans from the CLF for FY2008. The President requests, and both committees
recommend, that the $1.5 billion cap remain unchanged for FY2009. P.L. 110-329
increases the cap to the amount authorized by the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1795f(a)(4)(A)) of 12 times the subscribed capital stock and surplus of the
CLF. This increase would equate to a cap of about $41 billion.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).95 Originally
established by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 as an96
agency within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the PCLOB was
reconstituted as an independent agency within the executive branch by the97
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. The board
assumed its new status on January 30, 2008; its FY2009 appropriation will be its first98
funding as an independent agency. Among its responsibilities, the five-member
board is to (1) ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and civil liberties are
appropriately considered in the implementation of laws, regulations, and executive
branch policies related to efforts to protect the nation against terrorism; (2) review
the implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to
efforts to protect the nation from terrorism, including the implementation of
information sharing guidelines; and (3) analyze and review actions the executive
branch takes to protect the nation from terrorism, ensuring that the need for such
actions is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties. The board
advises the President and the heads of executive branch departments and agencies on
issues concerning, and findings pertaining to, privacy and civil liberties. The board
provides annual reports to Congress detailing its activities during the year, and board
members appear and testify before congressional committees upon request.
As indicated in Table 7, the President’s FY2009 request for the PCLOB was $2
million, which was the same amount appropriated for the board for FY2008 when it
was an EOP agency. House appropriators recommended $1 million for the PCLOB
for FY2009. In their report, appropriators expressed strong support for the mission
of the board, and indicated they would “consider additional funding as necessary at
the appropriate time.” They noted that the board has not been fully reconstituted as
an independent agency and, therefore, “the new entity’s funding requirements have
not been firmly established or justified to the Committee [on Appropriations].” The
board was urged, “once reconstituted, to present the Committee with a detailed
budget justification as quickly as possible.”99
Senate appropriators recommended $2 million for the PCLOB, the amount
requested by the President.


95 This section was written by Harold C. Relyea, Specialist in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.
96 118 Stat. 3638 at 3684.
97 121 Stat. 266 at 352.
98 See CRS Report RL34385, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: New
Independent Agency Status, by Harold C. Relyea.
99 H.Rept. 110- , p. 90.

The consolidated continuing appropriations act temporarily returns PCLOB
funding to its FY2008 funding level of $2 million for FY2009.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).100 The SEC administers
and enforces federal securities laws to protect investors from fraud, to ensure that
sellers of corporate securities disclose accurate financial information, and to maintain
fair and orderly trading markets. The SEC’s budget is set through the normal
appropriations process, but funds for the agency come from fees that are imposed on
sales of stock, new issues of stocks and bonds, corporate mergers, and other
securities market transactions. When the fees are collected, they go to a special
offsetting account available to appropriators, not to the Treasury’s general fund. The
SEC is required to adjust the fee rates periodically in order to make the amount
collected approximately equal to the agency’s budget.
For FY2008, the SEC received $906.0 million, of which $63.3 million was to
come from prior year unobligated balances, and the remainder from current-year
collections. There was no direct appropriation from the general fund.
For FY2009, the President requested $913.0 million for the SEC, an increase of
0.8% over FY2008. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $928.0
million, 2.4% above the FY2008 appropriation and 1.6% above the Administration’s
FY2009 request. Of this amount, $879.4 million was to come from current year fee
collections, the remaining $48.6 million from unobligated balances from prior year
collections. There would have been no direct appropriation from the general fund.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $938.0 million for
FY2009, or 2.7% over the Administration’s request. Of the amount, $890 million
would have come from new fee collections, and the remaining $48 million from prior
year balances. There would have been no direct appropriation from the general fund.
Selective Service System (SSS).101 The SSS is an independent federal
agency operating with permanent authorization under the Military Selective Service
Act (50 U.S.C. App. §451 et seq.). It is not part of the Department of Defense, but
its mission is to serve the emergency manpower needs of the military by conscripting
personnel when directed by Congress and the President.102 All males ages 18 through
25 and living in the United States are required to register with the SSS. The
induction of men into the military via Selective Service (i.e., the draft) terminated in
1972. In January 1980, President Carter asked Congress to authorize standby draft
registration of both men and women. Congress approved funds for male-only
registration in June 1980.


100 This section was written by Mark Jickling, Specialist in Public Finance, Government and
Finance Division.
101 This section was written by David Burrelli, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign
Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.
102 See [http://www.sss.gov/].

Since 1972, Congress has not renewed any President’s authority to begin
inducting (i.e., drafting) anyone into the armed services. In 2004, an effort to provide
the President with induction authority was rejected.103
Funding of the Selective Service has remained relatively stable over the last
decade. For FY2008, the enacted amount, $22 million, was the same as the House
approved, the Senate reported, and the President requested. For FY2009, the
President again requested, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
recommended, $22 million.
Small Business Administration (SBA).104 The SBA is an independent
federal agency created by the Small Business Act of 1953. Although the agency
administers a number of programs intended to assist small firms, arguably its three
most important functions are to guarantee — principally through the agency’s Section
7(a) general business loan program — business loans made by banks and other
financial institutions; to make long-term, low-interest loans to small businesses,
nonprofits, and households that are victims of hurricanes, earthquakes, other physical
disasters, and acts of terrorism; and to serve as an advocate for small business within
the federal government.
The Senate Appropriations committee recommended $765.8 million in new
budget authority compared to the House Appropriations Committee recommendation
of $880.3 million and the Administration’s request of $658.5 million. The Senate
committee’s recommendation would have been an increase of $196.8 million over
FY2008’s enacted $569.0 million.
The Senate and House committees would have both reduced the
Administration’s request of $174.4 million for the disaster loan program to $160.1
million by eliminating $14.3 million in direct loan subsidies; in FY2008 the disaster
loan program received no new funding. Excluding the disaster loan program
account, the Senate committee recommended $605.7 million and the House
committee recommended $720.2 million for the SBA for FY2009, compared to the
Administration’s request of $484.1 million. The Senate committee’s recommendation
would have increased the SBA non-disaster budget by $36.7 million.
Lending authority would stay the same for all loan programs.
United States Postal Service (USPS).105 The U.S. Postal Service generates
nearly all of its funding — about $75 billion annually — by charging users of the


103 See H.R. 163, October 5, 2004, failed by Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 2 402 (Roll no.

494).


104 This section was written by Eric Weiss, Analyst in Economics, Government and Finance
Division.
105 This section was written by Kevin Kosar, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division. Also see CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue
Forgone Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues, by Kevin Kosar.

mail for the costs of the services it provides.106 However, Congress does provide an
annual appropriation to compensate the USPS for revenue it forgoes in providing free
mailing privileges to the blind107 and overseas voters.108 Appropriations for these
purposes were authorized by the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993 (RFRA).109
This act also authorized Congress to provide the USPS with a $29 million annual
reimbursement until 2035 to pay for the costs of postal services provided at below-
cost rates to not-for-profit organizations in the early 1990s.110 Funds appropriated to
the USPS are deposited in the Postal Service Fund, a revolving fund at the U.S.
Department of the Treasury.
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), which was enacted
on December 20, 2006, first affected the postal appropriations process for FY2009.111
While the PAEA did not authorize any additional appropriations to the Postal Service
Fund, it did alter the budget submission process for the USPS’s Office of Inspector
General (USPSOIG) and the Postal Rate Commission (PRC). In the past, the
USPSOIG and the PRC submitted their budget requests to the USPS’s Board of
Governors. Accordingly, past presidential budgets did not include funding proposals
for the USPSOIG and the PRC. Under the PAEA, both the USPSOIG and the PRC
— which the PAEA renamed the Postal Regulatory Commission — must submit
their budget requests to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget (120
Stat. 3240-3241), and they are to be paid from the off-budget Postal Service Fund.
The law further requires USPSOIG’s budget submission to be treated as part of
USPS’s total budget, while the PRC’s budget, like the budgets of other independent
regulators, is treated separately.
For FY2009, the USPS requested a $117.7 million appropriation to the Postal
Service Fund.112 Of this amount, $88.7 million would be for revenue forgone, and
$29 million would be for the annual RFRA reimbursement. This amount is $0.2
million less than USPS’s FY2008 appropriation (P.L. 110-161, Title V).


106 U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Annual Report 2007 (Washington:
USPS, 2007), p. 3.
107 84 Stat. 757; 39 U.S.C. 3403. See also USPS, Mailing Free Matter for Blind and
Visually Handicapped Persons: Questions and Answers, Publication 347 (Washington:
USPS, May 2005), available at [http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/pubs/pub347.pdf].
108 Members of the Armed Forces and U.S. citizens who live abroad are eligible to register
and vote absentee in federal elections under the provisions of the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-ff-6). See CRS Report RS20764,
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Background and Issues, by
Kevin J. Coleman.
109 107 Stat. 1267, 39 U.S.C. 2401(c)-(d).
110 See CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview and
Current Issues, by Kevin R. Kosar.
111 P.L. 109-435; 120 Stat. 3198. On PAEA’s major provisions, see CRS Report RS22573,
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, by Kevin R. Kosar.
112 USPS, “Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriation Request,” Dec. 11, 2007, available at
[http://www.usps.com/financial s/_pdf/Appropriations2009_Final.pdf].

The USPSOIG requested a $241.3 million appropriation,113 and the PRC
requested a $14 million appropriation.114
The President’s FY2009 budget proposes a $321.4 million total appropriation
to USPS. It includes an $82.8 million appropriation to USPS for revenue forgone,
no funds for the annual RFRA reimbursement,115 and a $239.4 million transfer of
funds from the Postal Service Fund to the USPSOIG. Separately, the President’s
budget proposes a $14.0 million “transfer of funds” from the USPS’s Postal Fund to
the PRC.116
The House Committee on Appropriations recommends a total appropriation of
$351.2 million, which includes $111.8 for USPS — $82.8 million for revenue
forgone, $29 million for the RFRA reimbursement — and $239.4 million for the
USPSOIG. Separately, the committee recommends a $14.0 million transfer of funds
from the Postal Service Fund to the PRC. The committee also approved an
amendment offered by Representative Jack Kingston that would require the USPS
to provide a “report on the cost effectiveness of and fuel consumption of a five-day
delivery system and the efficiency and consumer demand of Saturday delivery
servi ces.”
On July 10, 2008, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 3260
(S.Rept.110-417), which would provide funding in the same amounts as the House’s
proposal: $111.8 million for USPS, and $14.0 million and $239.4 million in transfers
from the USPS’s Postal Fund for the PRC and the USPSOIG. In its report, the
committee declared that it
believes that 6-day mail delivery is one of the most important services provided
by the Federal Government to its citizens. Especially in rural and small town
America, this critical postal service is the linchpin that serves to bind the Nation117
together.
The committee also encouraged the USPS
to expedite its efforts to assess service needs, reestablish postal facilities,
improve mail delivery, and enhance product and service offerings to customers
in New Orleans and other Louisiana communities affected by Hurricanes Katrina


113 U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, FY 2009 Budget (Washington: 2008),
p. 1.
114 Postal Regulatory Commission, Performance Budget Plan Fiscal Year 2009
(Washington: PRC, 2008), p. 3.
115 The Administration also did not propose funds for the annual RFRA reimbursement in
its FY2005, FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008 budgets. Congress, however, has provided $29
million for the annual RFRA reimbursement each fiscal year since FY1994.
116 The USPS’s budget request did not include this transfer of funds because the PRC is a
regulatory agency that is independent of USPS.
117 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2009, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 110-417 (Washington:
GPO, 2008), p. 115.

and Rita .... to seek additional savings resulting from lower [paper] waste
disposal costs which accompany increased [paper] recycling .... [and] to
routinely examine the cost, feasibility, and mission compatibility of other
opportunities to fulfill its commitment to minimize the agency’s impact on every
aspect of the environment and demonstrate its commitment to environmental118
stewardship.
Additionally, the committee directed the USPS
not to proceed with the Sioux City, Iowa AMP until after the [Government
Accountability Office (GAO)] has reported to Congress and the Committee has
had an opportunity to review GAO’s findings .... [and] to keep the Committee
promptly and regularly informed on its [mail biohazard] treatment processes and
to consult with the Committee on its future plans for securing mail irradiation119
services, including costs.
Congress’s decision to enact a continuing resolution presented, as the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) put it, a “conundrum” for the USPOIG120
and the PRC. As mentioned above, Section 603 of the PAEA requires the
USPOIG and the PRC to receive their funding through congressional appropriation.
Additionally, the law makes these agencies’ expenditures “subject to the availability
of the amounts appropriated.” A continuing resolution would extend the past year’s
appropriation law (P.L. 110-161), which did not provide an appropriation for either
the USPOIG or the PRC. (Again, under the pre-PAEA law, the USPS’s Board of
Governors funded the USPOIG and the PRC.) Thus, the enactment of a continuing
resolution might have required the USPOIG and the PRC to shut down operations on
October 1, 2008, the start of FY2009.
To avert this situation, Congress included two provisions in the continuing
resolution (P.L. 110-329) that fund the USPOIG and the PRC for the duration of the
continuing resolution:
SEC. 140. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are provided to carry out
section 504(d) of title 39, United States Code, as amended by section 603(a) of
the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law 109 — 435), at a
rate for operations of $14,043,000, to be derived by transfer from the Postal
Service Fund;” and
SEC. 141. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are provided to carry out
section 8G(f)(6) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), as added
by section 603(b)(3) of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public
Law 109 — 435), at a rate for operations of $233,440,000, to be derived by
transfer from the Postal Service Fund.


118 Ibid., p. 116.
119 Ibid., pp. 116-117.
120 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Decision: United States Postal Service Office
of Inspector General — Implementation of Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act
Section 603, Part 1,” B-317022, Sept. 25, 2008, p. 5.

United States Tax Courts (USTC).121 A court of record under Article I of
the Constitution, the United States Tax Court is an independent judicial body that has
jurisdiction over various tax matters as set forth in Title 26 of the United States Code.
The court is headquartered in Washington, DC, but its judges conduct trials in many
cities across the country.
The President requested, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
recommended, $48.5 million for USTC for FY2009, an increase of $3.2 million over
the agency’s FY2008 enacted appropriation.
General Provisions Government-Wide122
The Financial Services and General Government appropriations language
includes general provisions which apply either government-wide or to specific
agencies or programs. There also may be general provisions at the end of an
individual title within the appropriations act which relate only to agencies and
accounts within that specific title. The Administration’s proposed language for
government-wide general provisions were included in the FY2009 Budget,
Appendix.123 Most of the provisions continue language that has appeared under the
General Provisions title for several years. For various reasons, Congress has opted
to reiterate the language rather than making the provisions permanent. Presented
below are some of the government-wide general provisions that were included in P.L.
110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008, but that were not
included in the FY2009 budget proposal. (The section numbers refer to the
provisions as they appeared in P.L. 110-161.) The recommendations of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations with regard to the provisions are stated.
!Section 709, which would have prohibited payment to political
appointees who are filling positions for which they have been
nominated, but not confirmed.
!Section 717, which would have prohibited the payment of any
employee who prohibits, threatens, prevents, or otherwise penalizes
another employee from communicating with Congress. Section 714
of the draft House bill and the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 718, which would have prohibited the obligation or
expenditure of appropriated funds for employee training that (1)
does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities
bearing directly upon the performance of official duties; (2) contains
elements likely to induce high levels of emotional response or


121 This section was written by Garrett Hatch, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
122 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.
123 FY2009 Budget, Appendix, pp. 9-16.

psychological stress in some participants; (3) does not require prior
employee notification of the contents and methods to be used in the
training and written end of course evaluation; (4) contains any
methods or contents associated with religious or quasi-religious
belief systems or “new age” belief systems; or (5) is offensive to, or
designed to change, participants’ personal values or lifestyle outside
the workplace. Section 715 of the draft House bill and the Senate
bill as reported.
!Section 719, which would have prohibited the use of appropriated
funds to implement or enforce employee non-disclosure agreements
if they do not contain whistleblower protection clauses. Section 716
of the draft House bill and the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 722, which would have required the approval of the
Committees on Appropriations for the release of any “non-public”
information, such as mailing or telephone lists, to any person or any
organization outside the federal government. Section 719 of the
draft House bill and the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 733, which stated that Congress recognizes the United States
Anti-Doping Agency as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic,
Pan American, and Paralympic sports in the United States. Section

729 of the draft House bill and the Senate bill as reported.


!Section 735, which would have prohibited the use of appropriated
funds to implement or enforce restrictions or limitations on the
Coast Guard Congressional Fellowship Program or to implement
OPM’s proposed regulations limiting the detail of executive branch
employees to the legislative branch. Section 731 of the draft House
bill and the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 737, which would have required agencies to provide
information on e-government initiatives, including lines of business,
in their FY2009 budget justifications. Section 733 of the draft
House bill and the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 738, which would have required appropriate executive
department and agency heads either to transfer funds to, or
reimburse, the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure the
uninterrupted, continuous operation of the Midway Atoll airfield.
Section 734 of the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 739, which would have prohibited the use of funds to
convert an activity or function of an executive agency to contractor
performance if more than 10 federal employees perform the activity,
unless the analysis reveals that savings would exceed 10% of the
most efficient organization’s personnel-related costs for performance
of the activity or function by federal employees, or $10 million,



whichever is lesser. Section 734 of the draft House bill and Section

736 of the Senate bill as reported.


!Section 742, which would have precluded contravention of the
Privacy Act. Section 739 of the draft House bill and section 740 of
the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 744, which would have required OMB to submit a crosscut
budget report on restoration activities for the Great Lakes. Section
741 of the draft House bill and Section 742 of the Senate bill as
reported.
!Section 745, which would have prohibited funds to be used for
federal contracts with expatriated entities. Section 742 of the draft
House bill and Section 743 of the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 747, which would have prohibited the expenditure of funds
on public-private competitions under OMB Circular A-76 or direct
conversions related to the Human Resources Line of Business
initiative until 60 days after OMB submits a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations addressing issues of concern.
Section 745 of the Senate bill as reported.
!Section 748, which would have required OMB to establish a pilot
program to develop and implement an inventory to track the cost and
size of service contracts, particularly those that have been performed
poorly, in at least three cabinet-level departments. Section 746 of
the Senate bill as reported.
The FY2009 budget proposed a new Section 734 to provide a 2.9% pay (annual
and locality pay combined) adjustment for federal civilian employees. The draft
House bill included the provision at Section 737(a), and the Senate bill, as reported,
included the provision at Section 738(a) and would have provided a 3.9% pay
adjustment.
Division A, Section 142(a) of P.L. 110-329 provides a 3.9% pay adjustment for
federal civilian employees, including employees in the Department of Homeland
Security. The pay increase will become effective on the first day of the first
applicable pay period beginning after January 1, 2009. The pay adjustment for blue-
collar workers in most locations is no less than the increase received by white-collar
General Schedule (GS) employees in that location. Blue-collar workers in Alaska,
Hawaii, and certain other non-foreign areas receive a pay adjustment that is no less
than the increase received by GS employees in the Rest of the United States (RUS)
pay area (Section 142(b)). The law provides that the pay raise will be paid from the
appropriations for salaries and expenses made to each department and agency for
FY2009 (Section 142(c)). These provisions apply notwithstanding any other
provision of the joint resolution (Section 142(d)).
The President will allocate the pay raise between an annual (basic) adjustment
and a locality pay adjustment. (Individuals who are paid under the schedules for



senior-level (SL) and scientific or professional (ST), and Senior Executive Service
(SES) positions do not receive locality pay.) Because he did not submit an alternative
plan to Congress on the annual adjustment, that portion of the pay increase must be
2.9%. Any alternative plan on the locality pay adjustment must be submitted to
Congress by the President by November 30, 2008. The Federal Salary Council, in
its October 14, 2008, report to the Pay Agent recommended “that funds allocated for
locality pay raises be distributed so that locations with the largest pay gaps receive
the largest increases and that employees in each locality pay area receive at least
some portion of the locality pay funds, after payment of an across-the-board increase
of at least 2.9%.”124 OPM advised CRS on October 3, 2008, that the allocation of the
increase may not be publicly available until the President’s executive order on pay,
which has generally been issued at the end of December each year.
Among new general provisions that were recommended by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations were these:
!Public or private institutions of higher education could have
provided, to federal or District of Columbia employees who are
current or former students, student loan repayments or forbearance
of such a repayment. Section 744 of the draft House bill and Section

747 of the Senate bill as reported.


!OPM, or any other agency, would have been prohibited from using
funds to implement regulations that would change competitive areas
under reductions-in-force affecting federal employees. Section 745
of the draft House bill and Section 749 of the Senate bill as reported.
!Funds would have been prohibited from being used to implement the
provisions on Regulatory Policy Officers in Executive Order

13422.125 Section 746 of the draft House bill.


!The federal government would have been expected to conduct its
business “in an environmentally, economically, fiscally sound and
scientifically defensible manner” in carrying out Executive Order

13423.126 Section 747 of the draft House bill.


!Federal employees would have maintained their federal salary when
called up to active duty in the National Guard and Reserve, with
their agencies making up the difference between their military pay
and their federal salary. Section 750 of the Senate bill as reported.


124 U.S. Federal Salary Council, Memorandum for the President’s Pay Agent, Level of
Comparability Payments for January 2010 and Other Matters Pertaining to the Locality
Pay Program, October 14, 2008, pp. 10-11.
125 For an analysis of the Executive Order, see CRS Report RL33862, Changes to the OMB
Regulatory Review Process by Executive Order 13422, by Curtis W. Copeland. See also,
CRS Report RL34354, Congressional Influence on Rulemaking and Regulation Through
Appropriations Restrictions, by Curtis W. Copeland.
126 Draft House report, p. 108.

!Each executive branch department and agency would have been
required to submit a report to the OMB Director that would state the
total size of its workforce, including the number of civilian, military,
and contract workers as of December 31, 2008. The report would
have to be submitted within 120 days after the act’s enactment. The
OMB Director would have been required to submit a
“comprehensive statement” to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations on the workforce data of the departments and
agencies and aggregate totals of civilian, military, and contract
workers, within 180 days after the act’s enactment. Section 753 of
the Senate bill as reported.
Competitive Sourcing127
Section 736 of S. 3260, which had language identical to that found in Section
734 of the FY2009 House bill, would have expanded the applicability of Section
739(a)(1) (Division D) of P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2008, to all public-private competitions. Section 739(a)(1) of the act, which would
have established certain requirements for public-private competitions, applied only
to competitions that involve more than 10 federal government employees. A
summary of Section 739 may be found in CRS Report RL32833, Competitive
Sourcing Statutes and Statutory Provisions.
With one exception, which is noted below, Section 735 of S. 3260 and Section
735 of the House bill included the same language. Section 735, by replacing the
language found in Section 739(b) (Division D) of P.L. 110-161, would have
elaborated on the guidelines for insourcing new functions and agency functions
performed by the private sector sources. In this context, the term “insourcing”
referred to considering using federal employees “to perform new functions and
functions that are performed by contractors and could be performed by Federal
employees.”128 Public-private competitions that involve work performed by
contractors are rare. Most public-private competitions involve work performed by
agency employees. Opponents of the proposed revision may maintain that the
feasability, and hence the implications, of Section 735 are unclear. The requirement
to consider using federal employees for new functions and for functions currently


127 This section was written by L. Elaine Halchin, Analyst in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.
128 The term “new functions” is not defined in the House bill. However, Circular A-76
includes a definition for “new requirement,” and the term “new functions” might be a
synonym for “new requirement.” A new requirement is “[a]n agency’s newly established
need for a commercial product or service that is not performed by (1) the agency with
government personnel; (2) a fee-for-service agreement with a public reimbursable source;
or (3) a contract with the private sector. An activity that is performed by the agency and is
reengineered, reorganized, modernized, upgraded, expanded, or changed to become more
efficient, but still essentially provides the same service, is not considered a new requirement.
New ways of performing existing work are not new requirements.” (U.S. Office of
Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76 (Revised), May 29, 2003, available at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a076/a76_rev2003.pdf], p. D-7.)

being performed by contractors might be affected by, for example, the availability of
resources. That is, an agency might not have sufficient personnel to staff the new
function, and it might not be able to obtain additional personnel. Potential critics
may argue that if a function under consideration for insourcing is currently being
performed by contractor personnel and an A-76 competition is required, an agency
might not have sufficient resources to perform the tasks associated with a public-
private competition. Section 735 was similar to Section 324 of P.L. 110-181, and a
summary of Section 324 may be found in CRS Report RL32833, Competitive
Sourcing Statutes and Statutory Provisions.
In Section 735 of S. 3260, the deadline for the Government Accountability
Office to submit a report to congressional committees regarding the implementation
of insourcing guidelines was 210 days after the date of enactment. In the House bill,
the deadline was 120 days after the date of enactment.
If enacted, Section 737 of S. 3260, which had language identical to that found
in Section 736 of the House bill, would have prohibited using funds appropriated by
this or any other act for the announcement or commencement of a public-private
competition or study that involves activities currently being performed by federal
employees. In its report on this bill, the House Committee on Appropriations
explained that the “one-year moratorium on new A-76 studies” would have provided
“the new [presidential] Administration ... an opportunity to review and develop
Federal workforce policies.” In the absence of additional information, the meaning
of “Federal workforce policies” is unclear in this context. Nevertheless, a
moratorium could provide, for example, an opportunity for reviewing the definition
of “inherently governmental”; gathering data on the disposition of federal employees
whose work was outsourced as a result of public-private competitions; or conducting
an independent study of the savings and costs associated with public-private
competitions. Opponents of this provision may assert that the moratorium might
adversely affect the amount of savings that results from completed competitions.
Cuba Sanctions129
Since 2000, either one or both houses have approved provisions in the annual
Treasury Department appropriations bill that would ease U.S. economic sanctions on
Cuba (especially on travel and on U.S. agricultural exports), but none of these
provisions has ever been enacted. The Bush Administration has regularly threatened
to veto legislation if it included any provision weakening sanctions on Cuba. In
2007, both the House-passed and Senate Appropriations Committee-reported
versions of the FY2008 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
bill, H.R. 2829, contained language that would have eased Cuba sanctions, but
ultimately Congress dropped these provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for FY2008 (P.L. 110-161).


129 This section was written by Mark Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign
Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division. For additional information, see CRS Reportth
RL33819, Cuba, Issues for the 110 Congress, and CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S.
Restrictions on Travel and Remittances, by Mark P. Sullivan.

In 2008, the draft House Appropriations Committee version of the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations bill for FY2009 contains three
provisions in Title VI that would ease restrictions on the sale of U.S. agricultural
exports and on family travel. Section 621 would prohibit funds in the act from being
used to administer, implement, or enforce new language in the Cuban embargo
regulations added on February 25, 2005 (31 CFR Part 515.533) that requires that U.S.
agricultural exports must be paid for before they leave U.S. ports. With regard to
family travel, Section 622 would allow for such travel once a year (instead of the
current restriction of once every three years), while Section 623 would expand such
travel by a person to visit an aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, or first cousin (instead of the
current restriction limiting such travel to visit a spouse, child, grandchild, parent,
grandparent, or sibling). The committee’s draft report to the bill requires the
Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to provide detailed
information on OFAC’s Cuba-related licensing and enforcement actions.
The Senate version of the FY2009 Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations bill, S. 3260, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on
July 14, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-417), includes three provisions easing Cuba sanctions.
Section 618 (identical to Section 621 in the House version of the bill) would prohibit
funds in the act from being used to restrict payment terms for the sale of agricultural
goods to Cuba. Section 619 would ease restrictions on travel relating to the
commercial sale of agricultural and medical goods to Cuba by allowing for such
travel under a general license (as opposed to the current practice that requires a
specific license). Section 620 would prohibit funds from being used to administer,
implement, or enforce family travel restrictions that were imposed by the Bush
Administration in June 2004.
Ultimately none of these Cuba provisions in S. 3260 or the House draft bill were
included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2009 (P.L. 110-329).
Background on U.S. Sanctions. Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward
communist Cuba has consisted largely of efforts to isolate the island nation through
comprehensive economic sanctions, including prohibitions on U.S. financial
transactions — the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR) — that are
administered by the Treasury Department’s OFAC.
Restrictions on travel have been a key and often contentious component of U.S.
efforts to isolate the Cuban government by denying it access to U.S. currency. The
regulations do not ban travel itself, but place restrictions on any financial transactions
related to travel to Cuba. Over the years, there have been numerous changes to the
CACR regarding family travel. In March 2003, the regulations were eased to allow
such travel to visit relatives within three degrees of relationship to the traveler (e.g.,
great-grandparents and second cousins). In June 2004, however, the restrictions were
tightened to allow family travel only to visit immediate family once every three years
for a period not to exceed 14 days. Permission from OFAC is required through a
specific license, which OFAC reviews and grants on a case-by-case basis.
Previously, OFAC allowed family travel under a general license, which meant that
there was no need to obtain special permission from OFAC.



Under U.S. sanctions, some U.S. commercial agricultural exports to Cuba have
been allowed since 2001 pursuant to the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000, or TSRA (Title IX of P.L. 106-387). However, there are
numerous restrictions and licensing requirements for these exports. For instance,
exporters are denied access to U.S. private commercial financing or credit, and all
transactions must be paid for in cash in advance or with financing from third
countries. As noted above, the Administration tightened sanctions on Cuba in
February 2005 by further restricting how U.S. agricultural exporters may be paid for
their product. OFAC amended the CACR to clarify that the term “payment of cash
in advance” for U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba means that the payment is to be
received prior to the shipment of the goods. This differs from the practice of being
paid before the actual delivery of the goods, a practice that had been utilized by most
U.S. agricultural exporters to Cuba since such sales were legalized in late 2001. U.S.
agricultural exporters and some Members of Congress strongly objected to this
“clarification” on the grounds that the action constituted a new sanction that violated
the intent of TSRA, and could jeopardize millions of dollars in U.S. agricultural sales
to Cuba. OFAC Director Robert Werner maintained that the clarification “conforms
to the common understanding of the term in international trade.”130
Since 2001, Cuba has purchased more than $2.4 billion in agricultural products
from the United States. Overall U.S. exports to Cuba rose from about $7 million in
2001 to $404 million in 2004. U.S. exports to Cuba declined in 2005 and 2006 to
$369 million and $340 million, respectively, but increased to $447 million in 2007.
In the first seven months of 2008, U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba rose to $476
million, already surpassing the amount exported in 2007, in part because of the rise
in food prices.131 Moreover, U.S. food exports to Cuba are expected to rise
considerably in the remainder of 2008 because of increased Cuban needs in the
aftermath of several hurricanes and tropical storms that severely damaged Cuba’s
agricultural sector.


130 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Testimony of Robert Werner, Director, OFAC, before
the House Committee on Agriculture, March 16, 2005.
131 World Trade Atlas. Department of Commerce Statistics.