Order Code RL31302
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office
of the President, and General Government
Updated July 29, 2002
Sharon S. Gressle, Coordinator
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government. It
summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels,
and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues
covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
Appropriations for FY2003: Treasury, Postal Service,
Executive Office of the President,
and General Government
Summary
On February 4, 2002, President George W. Bush submitted his FY2003 budget
to Congress. The budget documents show, for accounts funded through the
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations bill, a proposed
FY2003 discretionary budget authority of $18.7 billion, an increase over FY2002
estimates by just under $1 billion. Realistically, the FY2002 estimates offered earlier
in the year may no longer be current. Several of the covered accounts fund activities
have been affected either directly by, or by the response to, the September 11 attacks.
H.R. 5120, as passed by the House July 24, 2002, would provide $18.5 billion
in discretionary funding. The total for the bill would be $35.1 billion. This would
represent a 3.1% increase over FY2002, including supplemental and emergency
funding. After scorekeeping adjustments including $745 million associated with the
Administration’s accrual funding proposal, the Committee’s mark is $147.6 million
above FY2002 appropriations and $207.8 million below the Administration request.
S. 2740, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, would provide
a total of $34.8 billion to fund the accounts. Discretionary funding under the
reported measure would be $18.5 billion.
The Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General
Government FY2002 appropriation, P.L. 107-67, totaled $32.4 billion.
Congressional Budget Office scorekeeping put the totals at $32.8 billion ($15.7
billion mandatory and $17.1 billion discretionary). Several of the accounts within
the bill are also receiving funding through the Emergency Response Fund under P.L.
107-38 and P.L. 107-117. There is also a further supplemental appropriation pending
in Congress. The tables in this report reflect totals from all measures as calculated
by the House Committee on Appropriations.
Accounts in the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Secret Service, and the General Services
Administration usually receive funding for functions related to countering terrorism.
Emergency Response Fund allocations, as provided by P.L. 107-38, the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on the United States, FY2001, have gone to accounts in the Department of
the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, and the General Services
Administration.
Three major functions covered by the Treasury and General Government
appropriation are likely to be transferred to the proposed Department of Homeland
Security. Those are the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Customs Service, and the
Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration.
This report will track the FY2003 funding proposals through the legislative
process and will be updated as events dictate.
Key Policy Staff
(For topics as discussed in this report)
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Division
Tel.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
William Krouse
DSP
7-2225
Council of Economic Advisers
Pauline Smale
G&F
7-7832
Customs Service
William Krouse
DSP
7-2225
Department of the Treasury
Gary Guenther
G&F
7-7742
Debt Management
James Bickley
G&F
7-7794
E-Government
Harold Relyea
G&F
7-8679
Executive Office of the President
Barbara
G&F
7-8655
Schwemle
Federal Child Care
Melinda Gish
DSP
7-4618
Federal Election Commission
Joseph Cantor
G&F
7-7876
Federal Employee Health Care Policy
Health Section
DSP
7-5863
Federal Employee Pension Policy
Patrick Purcell
DSP
7-7571
Federal Employee Workmen’s
Edward
Compensation (FECA)
Rappaport
DSP
7-7740
General Services Administration
Stephanie Smith
G&F
7-8674
Homeland Security
Sharon Gressle
G&F
7-8677
Independent Agencies
Sharon Gressle
G&F
7-8677
Internal Revenue Service
Gary Guenther
G&F
7-7742
National Archives
Harold Relyea
G&F
7-8679
Office of Government Ethics
Mildred Amer
G&F
7-8304
Office of Personnel Management
Barbara
G&F
7-8655
Schwemle
Postal Service
Nye Stevens
G&F
7-0208
Presidential Salary
Sharon Gressle
G&F
7-8677
Procurement
Stephanie Smith
G&F
7-8674
Real Estate Brokerage Regulation
William Jackson
G&F
77834
Secret Service
Stephanie Smith
G&F
7-8674
Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy; G&F = Government and Finanace.
Contents
Most Recent Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Performance Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Status and Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
House Committee Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Committee Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
House Rules Committee and Floor Action on Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
House Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Senate Committee Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Treasury and General Government Appropriations, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Budget and Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Department of the Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Customs Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
U. S. Secret Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
U.S. Postal Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to
the President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
EOP Offices Funded Through Treasury and
General Government Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Compensation of the President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Office of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
White House Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Executive Residence (White House) and White House Repair
and Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Special Assistance to the President (Office of the
Vice President) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Official Residence of the Vice President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Office of Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
National Security Council (NSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Office of Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Electronic Government Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Election Administration Reform and Related Expenses . . . . . . . 25
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC) . . . . 25
Federal Drug Control Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
The Special Forfeiture Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Unanticipated Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Independent Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Federal Election Commission (FEC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
General Services Administration (GSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Electronic Government Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) . . . . . . . . . . 32
Office of Government Ethics (OGE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Counterterrorism Activity Funding — OMB Annual Report . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Federal Personnel Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Federal Wage System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Members of Congress, Judges, and Other Officials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Federal Employee Benefit Programs Pre-funding Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Federal Retirement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Federal Employees Workmen’s Compensation Program (FECA) . . . 50
Federal Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Information Resources Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Overlapping Cyber-Security Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Government Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Government Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
E-Government Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Cuba Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Glossary of Budget Process Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2003 Appropriations for the Treasury, Postal Service,
Executive Office of the President, and General Government . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. Title VI Governmentwide General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Table 3. Appropriations for the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office
of the President, and General Government, FY1998 to FY2002 . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 4. Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General
Government Appropriations, FY2003, by Title and Major Accounts . . . . . 57
Table 5. Department of the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office
of the President, and General Government Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Appropriations for FY2003: Treasury,
Postal Service, Executive Office of the
President, and General Government
Most Recent Events
On July 18, H.Res. 488, the resolution providing for consideration of H.R. 5120,
was agreed to. The House began debate on July 23 and passed the bill July 24,
2002.
On July 17, 2002, Senator Byron Dorgan introduced S. 2740, “Making
appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal Service, the
Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.” It was reported from the
House Committee on Appropriations under S. Rept. 107-212.
On July 15, 2003, Representative Ernest J. Istook, Jr. introduced H.R. 5120,
“Making appropriations for the Treasury Department, the United States Postal
Service, the Executive Office of the President, and certain Independent Agencies, for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes.” It was reported
from the House Committee on Appropriations under H.Rept. 107-575.
Introduction
The President, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is
required to submit to Congress annually the Budget of the United States
Government. The FY2003 budget was submitted to Congress on February 4, 2002.1
In late February 2001, the President and the Office of Management Budget had
released A Blueprint for New Beginnings, A Responsible Budget for America’s
Priorities.2 It is intended to present a 10-year budget plan and provides more of an
overview than details on specific accounts.3 In summary, the FY2003 proposed
1U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2003, Feb. 4,2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002). Hereafter the budget documents will be
cited as FY2002 Budget with the specific document noted.
2U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, A Blueprint for
New Beginnings, A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities (Washington: GPO, 2001),
207 p. Available at [http://www.gpo.gov/usbudget/index.html].
3For discussion of the accounts in the FY2002 Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of
the President, and General Government appropriations, see CRS Report RL31002,
(continued...)
CRS-2
budget would fund the accounts in the Treasury and General Government
appropriations legislation at $18.7 billion (discretionary).4 This is just under $1
billion over the estimated FY2002 funding levels, not taking into consideration the
supplemental funding subsequently enacted. Additionally, it must be kept in mind
that terrorist and security events since early September 2001 have had enormous
impact on planning, spending, and funding for the federal government. All
comparison of figures between the fiscal years should take these circumstances into
account.
The House passed H.R. 5120 on July 24, 2002, on a vote of 308-121. The bill,
as passed, would fund the discretionary accounts at $18.5 billion, for a total of $35.1
billion. The House Committee on Appropriations had presented its
recommendations in H.Rept. 107-575.5
The Senate Committee on Appropriations issued a report to accompany S. 2740.
S.Rept. 107-212 shows that the bill, as reported, would fund the discretionary
accounts at $18.5 billion, for a total of $34.8 billion.6
Usually under the budget procedures, Congress adopts a concurrent resolution
establishing the congressional budget for the government and setting forth budgetary
levels for several years in the future. The House and Senate Appropriations
Committees then allocate the discretionary funding levels (302(b)) allocations to
each of the subcommittees. Those allocations are subject to change. The House and
Senate have yet to reach agreement on such a congressional budget resolution for
FY2003.
Appropriations for the Department of the Treasury, in addition to funding the
operations of the department, fund the work of a group of law enforcement
organizations, which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; the
Customs Service; the Secret Service; the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network;
and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Treasury appropriations also
cover the Internal Revenue Service, the Financial Management Service, and the
Bureau of the Public Debt.
For the most part, the U.S. Postal Service operates outside federal funding
support. Federal contributions are normally limited to payments to the Postal
Service Fund to compensate for revenues forgone (e.g., free postal service for the
blind.) However, the Postal Service is receiving significant funding during the
3(...continued)
Appropriations for FY2002: Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and
General Government, coordinated by Sharon S. Gressle.
4FY2003 Budget, Budget, Table S-8, p. 402.
5U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-575, July 15,
2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002).
6U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Treasury and General Government
Appropriation Bill, 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 107-212, July 17, 2002
(Washington: GPO, 2002).
CRS-3
FY2002 period to support recovery costs subsequent to the terrorist attacks,
including the anthrax attacks.
Appropriations for the Executive Office of the President provide salaries and
expenses for the White House Office, operations of the residences of the President
and Vice President, and most other agencies within the Executive Office of the
President (EOP). Organizations such as the Council of Economic Advisers, the
National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) are funded through these provisions.
Specific funding for drug control initiatives is appropriated for distribution to other
entities by the ONDCP. In FY2003, the Office of Homeland Security is a new entity
in this category.
Among the independent agencies financed through this appropriation are the
Federal Election Commission, the General Services Administration, the National
Archives and Records Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the
Office of Special Counsel, and the United States Tax Court.
The Treasury and General Government appropriation always has at least two
titles in addition to the four covering the funding for specific agencies. These
general titles apply restrictions or “rules of the road” governmentwide and, quite
often, contain authority for defined actions. For example, each year, there is standard
language which prohibits the use of any appropriated funds for the purpose of
employing individuals who are not U.S. citizens or citizens of nations either
specified in that section of the act or on the State Department list of nations covered
by treaties; which requires that all agencies maintain drug-free workplaces; and
which authorizes the expenditure of funds appropriated under any act to be used to
pay the travel expenses of immediate family members if a federal employee serving
overseas has died or has a life-threatening illness.7
Performance Plans
The funding decisions for agencies are increasingly referencing the performance
plans, goals, and measures set by the agencies. Specific goals and measures can be
found in the Budget Appendix for some of the agency accounts. For example, the
Internal Revenue Service sets out a substantial series of “Key Operational Measures
and Performance Indicators” and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
provides the information under “Performance and Workload Measures.” These are
organized by FY2001 actual, the FY2002 Performance Plan, and the FY2003
President’s Budget.8
7The Administration’s proposed “Government-Wide General Provisions” can be found at
FY2003 Budget, Appendix, pp. 9-15.
8FY2003 Budget, Appendix, p. 832 and 821, respectively.
CRS-4
The FY2002 funding levels in the text and tables in this report were provided
by the House Appropriations Committee, adjusted to reflect supplemental funding.
The FY2003 funding levels in the text and tables are, unless otherwise noted,
those provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. These figures, rather
than those found in the budget submission, are used because they are the basis on
which appropriators make their decisions and provide the most recent updated
information.
The Budget documents provided by the Office of Management and Budget
and the appropriations bills do not necessarily follow the same organization of
accounts. For example, not all of the agencies which are organizationally within
the Executive Office of the President, as found in the budget, are funded through
the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government appropriations legislation.
Also, the FY2003 and FY2002 individual account data in this report do not reflect
scorekeeping by the Congressional Budget Office.
See the glossary for definitions of discretionary and mandatory spending. In
some instances, the mandatory levels drive up the percent of increase represented
in the appropriation. The appropriators are bound by those entitlements under
permanent law and control only the discretionary spending levels. The data in the
tables and the funding levels provided in the text, unless otherwise noted, reflect
the mandatory and discretionary funding combined.
FTE, or full-time equivalent, is a budgetary term and does not represent the
number of personnel employed by, or the number of actual positions allowed in,
a department or agency. The FTE number is calculated by dividing the total
number of staff hours worked in a given 12-month period (usually the fiscal year)
by the total number of hours in a workyear (2080). The number of on-board
personnel at any given time and the total number of people working in the
organization during the course of the year are two entirely different statistical
results. Seasonal employment and part-time employment are two factors which
make the FTE and actual employment figures differ.
Status and Legislative History
Bills are introduced in the House and Senate when the Committees on
Appropriations have completed markup on the provisions. Usually the
subcommittees draft legislation and the accompanying reports. The full committees
use these documents as a basis for discussion and mark up. From the time legislation
is introduced, and through enactment, the status will be noted in Table 1.
Hearings. Hearings in the House subcommittee began February 27, with nine
scheduled between then and April 23.9 The Senate hearing schedule was
unavailable as of this writing.
9The House subcommittee’s hearing schedule can be found at
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations/hearings/hear03tp.htm].
CRS-5
House Committee Action. On June 26, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, by voice vote, approved a
spending measure. The full House Committee on Appropriations, also by voice vote,
approved the measure on July 9, 2002. H. Rept. 107-575 was filed July 15, 2002 to
accompany H.R. 5120.
Committee Amendments. There were four major amendments, as noted in
the Committee’s press release:10
Chairman Young: Requires OMB to submit a letter to the Committee taking
responsibility for their recent violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Rep. Northup: Prohibits funds in the bill to be used to issue regulations
relating to the determination that real estate brokerage is an activity that
is financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity.11
Rep. DeLauro: Prohibits funds in the bill for payment on any new federal
contract to a subsidiary of a publicly traded corporation if the corporation
is incorporated in a tax haven country but the United States is the principal
market for the public trading of the corporation’s stock.
Rep. Pastor: Provides $2 million for the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation.
House Rules Committee and Floor Action on Rule. On July 17, 2002,
the House Committee on Rules issued a special rule for the consideration of H.R.
5120. H.Rept. 107-58512 is a report to accompany H.Res. 488. The rule waives all
points of order against bill provisions, with three exceptions noted. The rule also
included an amendment, related to travel to Cuba, as being part of the bill and waives
points of order against that amendment. (See discussion of Cuban travel below.)
Points of order can be brought against the provision withholding funds for any
transfer of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms during FY2003, some
language in Sec. 605 related to federal employment of foreign nationals, Sec. 615
relating to construction of law enforcement training facilities, and Sec. 646 relating
to corporate expatriates.
During floor consideration of the rule, the discussion centered on allowing
points of order against Sec. 646. The minority position was that the provision will
10See [http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/107_2/03tpofull.htm].
11For further information, see CRS Report RS21104, Should Banking Powers Expand Into
Real Estate Brokerage and Management?, by William D. Jackson.
12U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5120,
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept.
107-585, July 17, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002).
CRS-6
be defeated because it will not be protected under the rule.13 The rule was adopted
on a vote of 224-188. (See discussion under “Department of the Treasury,” below.)
House Floor Action. The House took up H.R. 5120 and began debate and
amendment on July 23, 2002.14 Consideration continued on July 24 with passage on
a final vote of 308-121 (Roll no. 341).15
There were numerous amendments offered to the legislation:
Agreed to —
Rep. Mike Rogers (H.Amdt. 548) — An amendment that prohibits the use of
funds in the bill by the Customs Service to permit the importation of
municipal solid waste originating in Canada for deposit in Michigan.
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (H.Amdt. 549) — An amendment that
reserves $600,000 of the bill’s $250 million appropriation for the National
Archives and Records Administration for the preservation of the records
of the Freedmen’s Bureau.
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (H.Amdt. 550) — An amendment to strike the section
that exempts health insurance companies that have contracts with the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program from complying with the cost
accounting standards that apply to other federal contracts.
Rep. Jeff Flake (H.Amdt. 552) — An amendment to prohibit funds in the bill
from being used for administration or enforcement of part 515 of title 31,
Code of Federal Regulations, with respect to any travel or travel-related
transaction; and to provide that the limitation established shall not apply
to the issuance of general or specific licenses for travel or travel-related
transactions, and shall not apply to transactions in relations to any business
travel covered by such regulations.
Rep. Jeff Flake (H.Amdt 553) — An amendment to prohibit funds in the bill
from being used to enforce any restriction on remittances to nationals of
Cuba covered by the Code of Federal Regulations.
Rep. Jerry Moran (H.Amdt. 554) — An amendment to prohibit the use of any
funding to implement sanctions imposed by the United States on private
13Providing for Consideration of H.R. 5120, Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily edition, July 18, 2002 (Washington:
GPO, 2002), pp. H4909-H4916.
14Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily
edition, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 148, July 23, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. H5229-
H5273, H5291-H5306.
15Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily
edition, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., vol. 148, July 24, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. H5322-
H5346, H5352.
CRS-7
commercial sales of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical
supplies to Cuba.
Rep. James Moran (H.Amdt. 556) — An amendment to prohibit any funding
to be used to establish or enforce any numerical goal or quota for
subjecting the employees of an agency to public-private competitions or
converting the employees or the work they perform to private contractor
performance under OMB Circular A-76 or any other administrative
regulation, directive, or policy (Roll No. 336: 261-166).
Rep. Bernard Sanders (H.Amdt. 562) — An amendment to prohibit any funding
to be used by the Internal Revenue Service for activities that contravene
current tax, Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) pension
or age discrimination statutes (Roll No. 339: 308-121).
Rep. Bob Barr (H.Amdt. 563) — An amendment to prohibit the use of national
anti-drug media campaign funding to pay any amounts pursuant to a
specific contract with a company currently under investigation.
Rejected —
Rep. Porter Goss (H.Amdt. 551) — An amendment to require the President to
certify to Congress that the government of Cuba does not possess
biological weapons, is not developing or providing terrorist states or
terrorist organizations the technology to develop biological weapons, and
is not providing support or sanctuary to international terrorists before any
limitation on funding is applied to the enforcement and administration of
travel restrictions to Cuba (Roll No. 330: 182-247).
Rep. Charles Rangel (H.Amdt. 555) — An amendment to prohibit use of any
funding to implement, administer, or enforce the economic embargo of
Cuba (Roll No. 333: 204-226).
Rep. Joel Hefley (H.Amdt. 559) — An amendment to reduce funding for the
allowance and office staff for former presidents by $339,000 (Roll No.
337: 165-265).
Rep. Joel Hefley (H.Amdt. 559) — An amendment to reduce each amount
appropriated or otherwise made available by 1% (Roll No. 338: 147-282).
Other amendments, withdrawn, would have prohibited any funding to be used
to enforce or implement discounts for the statistical value of a human life estimated
during regulatory reviews through implementation of OMB Circular A-94;
prohibited any funding to be used to prevent the rehabilitation of urban and rural post
offices; prohibited any funding to be used by entities unless specifically identified
by name as a recipient in the Act; established a centralized reporting system to
enable agencies to generate reports on efforts regarding both contracting out and
contracting in; and prohibited any funding to be used by the Customs Service to
require reports on repairs to U.S. flag vessels on the high seas.
CRS-8
Senate Committee Action. On July 11, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Treasury and General Government, by voice vote, approved the FY2003 spending
provisions. S. 2740 was introduced and the Committee report, S. Rept. 107-212,
filed July 17, 200216. The committee communications did not include information
on amendments to the subcommittee’s recommendations.
Table 1. Status of FY2003 Appropriations for the Treasury,
Postal Service, Executive Office of the President,
and General Government
(See Table 5 for breakdown of accounts within bills)
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
House Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Public Law
July 24
June
July
July 15
vote:
July 17
26
11
107-575 308-121 107-212
-
-
-
-
-
Treasury and General Government Appropriations,
FY2003
Budget and Key Policy Issues
Department of the Treasury
The Department of the Treasury performs four basic functions: (1) formulating,
recommending, and implementing economic, financial, tax, and fiscal policies; (2)
serving as the financial agent for the federal government; (3) enforcing federal
financial, tax, tobacco, alcoholic beverage, and gun laws; and (4) producing all
postage stamps, currency, and coinage. Viewed at its most basic level, the
department consists of two components: departmental offices and operating bureaus.
The departmental offices are responsible for the formulation and implementation of
policy and the management of the department as a whole, while the operating
bureaus carry out specific duties assigned to the department. The bureaus accounted
for 98% of Treasury Department employment and 97% of its funding in FY2001.
With one exception, the bureaus can be separated into those having financial duties
and those engaged in law enforcement. Financial duties are handled by the
Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Financial
Management Service, Bureau of Public Debt, Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund, and Office of Thrift Supervision. Law enforcement is done 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, and Treasury Forfeiture Fund. The sole exception to this dichotomy is the
16U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Appropriations, Treasury and General Government
Appropriation Bill, 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 107-212, July 17, 2002
(Washington: GPO, 2002).
CRS-9
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which performs both financial functions and law
enforcement through its administration of federal tax laws.
On July 9, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee approved by unanimous
consent a bill (H.R. 5120) funding the Treasury Department in FY2003. The
appropriations measure would give Treasury a total of $16.168 billion, or about $523
million more than the amount appropriated in FY2002 and $303 million more than
the amount requested by the Bush Administration for FY2003. Of the amount
approved for FY2003, $9.899 billion would go to the IRS, $3.128 billion to the U.S.
Customs Service, and $1.021 billion to the U.S. Secret Service. The committee
adopted several amendments to the bill, including a controversial one (section 646
of the bill) that would deny federal government contracts to a subsidiary of any
publicly traded corporation that is incorporated in a country deemed a tax haven but
whose stock is traded mainly through exchanges in the United States.
The full House passed H.R. 5120 by a vote of 308 to 121 on July 24, 2002.
Hanging over the debate on the measure was an effort by the Bush Administration
to create a new Department of Homeland Security. Under the Administration’s
proposal, the Customs Service and the Secret Service would be transferred to the
new department. The House made no changes in the amounts appropriated for
Treasury bureaus approved by the Appropriations Committee. It did, however,
reject, on a point of order, the amendment that would have barred publicly traded
corporations that are incorporated in nations designated as tax havens but whose
stock is traded mainly on U.S. exchanges from winning federal government
contracts.17
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar measure (S. 2740) on
July 16, 2002. It would fund Treasury operations at a level of $16.304 billion in
FY2003, or $1.262 billion more than the amount appropriated for FY2002 and $438
million more than the amount requested by the Bush Administration. The biggest
chunk by far would go to the IRS, which would receive $9.995 billion, followed by
the Customs Service at $3.141 billion and the Secret Service at $1.020 billion.
Funding for the Treasury Department in FY2003 would be $135 million greater
under S. 2740 than under H. 5120. Nearly 71% of this difference is accounted for
by appropriations for the IRS. The Senate bill would permit the agency to spend
more on tax law enforcement, business system modernization, and an initiative to
improve taxpayer compliance with the rules for the earned income tax credit.
Under P.L. 107-67, funding for Treasury operations in FY2002 totals $15.042
billion, which is about $1 billion more than the department received in FY2001.
Perpetuating a longstanding trend, the IRS constitutes the single largest account in
the department’s FY2002 budget, accounting — as it did in FY2001 — for 63% of
total enacted funding. Other major accounts are the budgets for the Customs Service
(18% of total funding), Secret Service (6%), and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
17The House, in passing H.R. 5005 on July 26, 2002, did include this provision. It will be
a matter of discussion in the conference committee which will eventually meet to work
through the differences between that bill and S. 2452, the proposals to create a Department
of Homeland Security.
CRS-10
Firearms (5%). Compared to FY2001, the largest percentage increase in funding is
for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCen), whose budget is 41%
greater. Large increases have also been enacted for the Customs Service (18%
greater), Secret Service (11% greater), and Treasury Department Systems and
Capital Investments Programs (11% greater). Part of the year-to-year increase in
funding for FinCen is to cover expenses related to its involvement in security
planning and operations for the 2002 Winter Olympics. Several Treasury
Department accounts are being funded at reduced levels in FY2002 compared to
FY2001. The largest percentage cuts are for spending on the Expanded Access to
Financial Services (or First Accounts) program (80% smaller), the Counterterrorism
Fund (17% smaller), and the Financial Management Service (17% smaller). The
First Accounts program is intended to make it easier for low- and middle-income
individuals to gain access to a variety of financial services.
The Treasury Department plays an important role in federal efforts to combat
terrorism through its statutory missions and law enforcement responsibilities.
Treasury bureaus are responsible for protecting the President; designing and
implementing security at special events like the 2002 Winter Olympics; investigating
incidents involving arson and the use of explosives and firearms; monitoring and
analyzing the financing of terrorist activities; preventing weapons of mass
destruction from entering the country; and implementing sanctions against terrorist
organizations. With one exception, however, none of the bureaus has an
appropriation account designated specifically for counterterrorism. That exception
is the Counterterrorism Fund, which is intended mainly to respond to unanticipated
emergencies by covering costs related to efforts to counter, investigate, or prosecute
domestic or foreign terrorism, and to rebuild the operational capabilities of federal
offices, facilities, or other properties damaged or destroyed as a result of terrorist
incidents. The Fund can be used only with the advance approval of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees. While the exact size of the department’s budget
for counterterrorism in FY2002 is unclear, it is thought to be at least $419 million
(see Table 2). (See the section on “Terrorism” for further details on funding for
counterterrorism within the Treasury Department.)
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have triggered several developments
that promise to expand the department’s involvement in counterterrorism. On
September 14, 2001, the Bush Administration announced that the Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) is leading an interagency
group devoted to disrupting fundraising by foreign terrorists. On October 25, 2001,
a multi-agency effort to investigate the financing of terrorist groups known as
Operation Green Quest was launched, and some of the agencies involved are the
IRS, Customs Service, FinCen, Secret Service, and OFAC. And in October 2001,
Congress passed and President Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (P.L.
107-56), which expands the power of the Treasury Department to combat money
laundering and investigate suspicious foreign financial transactions.
In early February 2002, the Bush Administration unveiled its budget request for
the Treasury Department in FY2003. It calls for spending $16.903 billion at the
program level, or about $400 million more than the amount appropriated in FY2002.
These figures exclude the imputed cost of accrued pension and health benefits under
the Federal Employee Retirement System and the old Civil Service Retirement
CRS-11
System. Of this amount, $10.418 billion (or about 60%) would go to the IRS, $2.869
billion (or 17%) to the U.S. Customs Service, and $1.0 billion (or 6%) to the U.S.
Secret Service. According to budget documents released by the administration,
requested funding for the Department reflects two priorities in particular: (1) an
increase in the resources available for strengthening “security at home and abroad,
as an outgrowth of the events of September 11, 2001; and (2) an increase in funding
for efforts to modernize the Customs Service and the business information systems
at the IRS. Other important objectives in FY2003 include upgrading the capabilities
and raising the productivity of the Department’s workforce, expanding the electronic
services offered by Treasury bureaus, better integrate bureau performance goals into
budgetary decision-making, and improving customer service and compliance
enforcement at the IRS.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The ATF is a law
enforcement agency that regulates the manufacture, importation, and distribution of
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. The ATF also enforces federal laws
related to arson. ATF’s mission is focused on three goals: (1) reducing crime, (2)
collecting revenue, and (3) protecting the public. Among ATF’s activities, the
regulation and enforcement of laws related to firearms commerce and possession
have been the most controversial.18 In FY2000, ATF collected $14,100,000,000 in
taxes, penalties, fines, and other related revenues. From FY1992 to FY2001,
Congress increased ATF’s direct appropriations from $336,040,000 to $772,673,000,
an 130% increase. For FY2002, Congress appropriated $854,747,00019 in direct
funding for ATF, an 11% increase over the agency’s FY2001 appropriation. The
FY2002 appropriation supports 5,106 full time equivalents.20
The Administration’s FY2003 budget request includes $883,775,000 for ATF,
a 3% increase over the agency’s FY2002 appropriation. The Administration’s
request anticipates reductions in non-recurring costs and other savings in the base
budget of $27,797,000 that would partially offset increases over the agency’s base
budget of $30,836,000 and 77 additional full time equivalents. Among other things,
this budget increase includes (1) $9,136,000 to cover costs associated with
annualizing new positions provided by Congress in the FY2002 emergency
supplemental and other adjustments associated with World Trade Center bombings,
(2) $10,700,000 for the construction of a new ATF National Headquarters and
improved security for the agency’s workforce, and (3) $11,000,000 to increase the
Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy/Youth Crime Interdiction Initiative.
18For further information on gun control-related legislation and issues, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10071, Gun Control Legislation in the 107th Congress, by William Krouse.
19This amount includes $823,316,000 provided by the FY2002 Treasury-Postal
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-67) and $31,431,000 in FY2002 emergency supplemental
funding allocated in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117).
20One full time equivalent is equal to 2,080 hours worth of funding, or the amount of funding
necessary to fund one position over the course of a single year. Usually, newly funded
positions are only funded at one-half a full time equivalent, since those positions will not be
filled for the entire year, and hiring will occur incrementally over the course of that year.
CRS-12
The House-passed bill would provide ATF with $891,034,000, or $7,259,000
more than the Administration’s FY2003 request for certain non-pay inflation costs
associated with a proposal (that has not been enacted) to integrate Federal Employees
Compensation Act administrative and benefit costs. The Senate-reported bill would
provide ATF with $899,753,000, or $66,006,000 more than the Administration’s
request. Among other things, this amount includes $13,000,000 to continue the
Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program, part of the Integrated
Violence Reduction Strategy. To improve regulation of explosives, it also includes
an increase of $10,000,000 for the creation of explosives enforcement teams to work
with state and local law enforcement.
Customs Service. The U.S. Customs Service, the federal government’s
oldest revenue collecting agency, is responsible for regulating the movement of
persons, carriers, merchandise, and commodities between the United States and other
countries. In FY2001, Customs collected $22,325,323,000 in trade-related duties,
taxes, and fees.21 From FY1992 to FY2001, Congress has increased direct
appropriations for the U.S. Customs Service from $1,454,337,000 to $2,314,500,000,
a 59% increase. In addition to appropriated funding, the Customs Service collects
COBRA fee receipts that are available to the agency for expenditure ($305,251,257
in FY2001). For FY2002, Congress appropriated $3,116,729,00022, supporting
18,595 full time equivalents. This amount represents a 35% increase over the
agency’s FY2001 appropriation.
The Administration’s FY2003 request includes $2,834,113,000 for the Customs
Service. This amount included: (1) $2,224,952,000 for the salaries and expenses
account, (2) $170,829,000 for the air and marine interdiction account, (3)
$435,332,000 for the automation modernization account, and (4) $3,000,000 from
the harbor maintenance fee account. While this request represents a net decrease of
10% in funding as compared to the agency’s FY2002 appropriation, the
Administration anticipates that raising the COBRA air passenger inspection fee from
$5 to $11 dollars will generate an additional $249,750,000 in offsetting revenues.
With these new revenues and a complicated series of reductions in non-recurring
costs and other offsets, the Administration’s request envisions $158,239,000 in
FY2003 budget enhancements for Customs. These budget enhancements include (1)
$77,797,000 and 114 full-time equivalent positions to secure the northern border and
increase terrorism-related investigations, (2) $57,991,000 and 148 full-time
equivalent positions to provide greater maritime port security, (3) $8,651,000 and 52
full-time equivalent positions for the southwest border, and (4) $13,800,000 for
communication systems replacement and upgrades.
21U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Customs Service: America’s Frontline, FY2001 Annual Report,
(Washington, July 2002), p. 70.
22This amount includes the FY2002 emergency supplemental appropriation of $392,603,000
allocated in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117). It also includes
monies appropriated into four accounts: 1) $2,501,297,000 in salaries and expenses account,
2) $184,600,000 in air and marine interdiction program account, 3) $427,832,000 in
automation modernization account, and 4) $3,000,000 in the harbor maintenance fee
account.
CRS-13
The House-passed bill would provide Customs with $3,128,497,000, or
$294,384,000 more than the Administration’s FY2003 request. This amount
includes: (1) $2,496,165,000 for the salaries and expenses account, (2) $190,000,000
for air and marine interdiction, (3) $439,332,000 for the automation modernization
account, and (4) $3,000,000 for the harbor maintenance fee account. For salaries and
expenses, the House bill would provide $104,213,000 more than the
Administration’s request. Among other things, this increase includes funding for
base operations that the Administration proposed funding through an increase in the
COBRA air passenger inspection fee. House report language addresses multiple
concerns about Customs operations that include northern border staffing and
infrastructure, personnel search procedures, enforcement of U.S. trade law pertaining
to steel, the sea cargo container security initiative, and automated cargo manifests.
The Senate-reported bill would provide Customs with $3,141,614,000, or
$307,501,000 more than the Administration’s FY2003 request. This amount
includes: (1) $2,525,453,000 for the salaries and expenses account, (2) $177,829,000
for the air and marine interdiction account, (3) $435,332,000 for the automation
modernization account, and (4) $3,000,000 for the harbor maintenance fee account.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill assumes an increase in two unspecified fees
that will provide Customs with an additional $250,000,000 for the agency’s day-to-
day operations. According to the Senate Appropriations Committee press release,
however, Congress has yet to authorize those fee increases. The Senate bill would
also provide Customs with an increase of $18,000,000 for the sea cargo container
security initiative. Senate report language addresses many of the same concerns as
in the House report language.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The federal government levies
individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate
and gift taxes, customs duties, and other miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal
agency mainly responsible for administering these taxes and fees is the IRS. In
carrying out that responsibility, it receives and processes tax returns and other related
documents, processes payments and refunds, enforces compliance through audits and
other methods, collects delinquent taxes, and provides a variety of services to
taxpayers in an effort to help them understand their responsibilities and resolve
problems. In FY2001, the IRS collected $2,129 billion before refunds, the largest
component of which was individual income tax revenue of $1,178 billion.
On July 9, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee approved by unanimous
consent a measure (H.R. 5120) providing funding for the IRS in FY2003. It would
give the agency $9.899 billion, or $429 million above the amount enacted for
FY2002 but $16 million below the amount requested by the Bush Administration.
Of this total, $3.956 billion would be allocated to tax processing, assistance, and
management; $3.729 billion to tax law enforcement; $1.632 billion to information
systems; $146 million to the EITC compliance initiative; and $436 million to the
business systems modernization effort known as PRIME. Most of the difference
between the Administration’s budget request and the funding level endorsed by the
committee relates to funding for PRIME: the committee approved $14 million less
than the Administration requested, mainly out of a concern about the ability of the
IRS to manage the program efficiently.
CRS-14
In its report to the full House on the measure (H.Rept. 107-575), the Committee
expressed concern about recent widely reported declines in compliance activity by
the IRS and the agency’s priorities in combating taxpayer fraud and errors. It noted
that the “IRS recently testified that the amount of revenue lost due to tax errors and
fraud is about $250 billion a year.” The Committee also directed the IRS to
accelerate its efforts to collect reliable data under the national research program on
tax compliance among corporations and partnerships, two categories of tax revenue
“in which the highest noncompliance rates occur each year.”
On July 24, 2002, the full House passed H.R. 5120. It made no changes in the
appropriation amounts for the IRS approved by the Appropriations Committee.
During the debate on the bill, the House did approve one amendment related to the
IRS. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Bernie Sanders, is intended to curtail age
discrimination in the conversion of employee defined benefit pension plans to cash-
balance plans. It would do this indirectly by preventing the IRS from altering
guidance it has already issued (Notice 96-8) that generally requires the hypothetical
account balance in a cash-balance pension plan to grow at a rate no greater than the
rate of interest on 30-year Treasury bills. Currently, the IRS has declared a
moratorium on issuing rulings on whether or not cash-balance plan conversions are
qualified under current law, pending further guidance.
One week later, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a similar
measure (S. 2740). It would give the IRS $9.995 billion in FY2003, or $524 million
more than the amount enacted for FY2002 and $79 million more than the amount
requested by the Bush Administration. Of this total, $3.985 would go to processing,
assistance, and management; $3.774 to tax law enforcement; $1.639 billion to
information systems; $147 million to the EITC compliance initiative; and $450
million to PRIME. Most of the difference between the Administration’s budget
request and the amount endorsed by the committee relates to processing and
assistance and to tax law enforcement: in both cases, the committee wants a larger
budget than the Administration requested. In the report accompanying H.R. 5120
(S.Rept. 107-212), the committee directed the IRS to devote $4.3 million to a
program to assist low-income taxpayers in filing their tax returns known as the
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, $9 million to a program to assist low-income
taxpayers in resolving disputes with the IRS known as Low-Income Taxpayer
Clinics, and $10 million to an enhanced effort to investigate and combat “abusive tax
shelters.”
Under P.L. 107-67, the IRS is funded at $9.437 billion in FY2002, or $548
million more than it received in FY2001. With this increase, the agency has the
authority to add 600 individuals to its staff in FY2002. Of the total amount
appropriated, $3.798 billion is for tax processing, assistance, and management;
$3.538 billion for tax law enforcement; $1.563 billion for information systems; and
$146 million for the earned income tax credit (EITC) compliance initiative. In
addition, the IRS is receiving $391.6 million for its Information Technology
Investment Account (ITIA) through September 30, 2004. Funds can be drawn from
the account only with the prior approval of the House and Senate Appropriations
Committee, and they are allocated on a project or milestone basis. In June 2001, the
committees authorized the release of $128 million from the ITIA to enable the IRS
to continue its program to modernize its information system. No additional money
CRS-15
is being provided for the Staffing Tax Administration for Balance and Equity
initiative (STABLE) in FY2002, however, contrary to the wishes of the Bush
Administration. STABLE is intended to improve the IRS’s customer service and
bolster its capability to enforce federal tax laws; Congress approved initial funding
for the initiative in FY2001. P.L. 107-67 also gives the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration $123.7 million in FY2002. It specifies that $500,000 of this
amount is to be used for bimonthly audits of IRS taxpayer assistance centers.
P.L. 107-67 directs the IRS to improve its customer service by increasing its
staffing of its toll-free help-line service, and to take steps to further safeguard the
confidentiality of taxpayer information. Moreover, the act expresses concern about
the ability of the IRS to coordinate and integrate its spending on business system
modernization projects with its “development-related” investments in information
systems.
The Bush Administration is requesting that the IRS be funded at a level of
$10.418 billion in FY2003. This amount includes imputed costs for accrued pension
and health benefits for IRS retirees and is $482 million (or nearly 5%) greater than
its budget in FY2002. The proposed funding would be allocated as follows: $4.150
billion for processing, assistance, and management; $3.988 billion for tax law
enforcement; $1.676 billion for information systems; $450 million for the ITIA; and
$154 million for the EITC compliance initiative. With the funding increase, the IRS
expects to hire an additional 1,179 employees in FY2003, increasing total agency
employment to 101,080 individuals. It is estimated that nearly 70% of the IRS
budget is devoted to personnel costs. Concealed by these budget figures is a
significant reallocation of resources under the IRS’s new strategic planning process.
In the coming fiscal year, the administration proposes to spend another $260 million
on enhancing customer service and combating taxpayer fraud. More than half of this
amount ($158 million) would result from cost savings achieved through increased
use of technology, a reduction in the processing of the innocent-spouse workload, a
transfer of some regular staff from customer service to compliance enforcement, and
the hiring of lower-paid added staff to perform some customer-service functions.
A key player in the budget-approval process for the IRS is the IRS Oversight
Board. By law, it is required to review the IRS budget request and make
recommendations to Congress. The Oversight Board is recommending that the IRS
be funded in FY2003 at a level that is $92 million above what the Bush
Administration requested. It is concerned that if the Administration’s request is
enacted, the agency will be unable to make desired progress in the enforcement of
existing tax laws and regulations. Several considerations underlie this concern. The
cost of postage and security at IRS offices in FY2003 is rising faster than the
Administration originally anticipated. In addition, the unfunded portion of the
calendar year 2002 pay raise for federal civilian employees will add $43.5 million
to IRS personnel costs in FY2003, and the agency could end up bearing up to an
additional $70 million in personnel costs in FY2003 if the Congress approves a pay
raise for federal civilian employees in calendar year 2003 that exceeds the 2.6% raise
requested by the Bush Administration. In the Board’s estimation, these added costs
could keep the IRS from hiring 800 enforcement personnel at a time when the agency
is under growing pressure inside and outside the Congress to improve its
performance in auditing individual tax returns and collecting unpaid taxes.
CRS-16
U. S. Secret Service. The U.S. Secret Service is mandated by statute to carry
out two distinct missions: the protection of designated government officials and
individuals, and criminal investigations. It is also responsible for the enforcement
of laws relating to counterfeiting.
H.R. 5120, as passed, would authorize an appropriation of $1,017,892,000, of
which $1,633,000 shall be available for forensic support of investigations of missing
and exploited children, and $4,000,000 to be made available as a grant for activities
related to missing and exploited children. Up to $18,000,000 is provided for
protective travel until Sept. 30, 2004, and $3,519,000 for necessary construction and
repair expenses. H.R. 5120, as introduced and reported, authorized an appropriation
of $1,017,892,000, which is an increase of $7,457,000 above the President’s request.
This increase included $6,824,000 for non-pay inflation; $991,000 in additional
support to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It also reflected
a reduction of $358,000 for the administrative costs associated with the Federal
Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA).
S. 2740, as introduced and reported, would authorize an appropriation of
$1,016,947,000. This would be an increase of $6,475,000 above the President’s
request for pay parity, and an additional $395,000 for the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children.
For FY2003, the President requested $1,044,070,000 for salaries and expenses
related to protective functions, research and development, and the purchase of
vehicles, an increase of $123,455,000 over FY2002 enacted. Of this total,
$1,633,000 was to be available for support of investigations of missing and exploited
children, and $3,009,000 to be available as a grant for activities related to
investigations of exploited children. Up to $18,000,000 was provided for protective
travel to remain available until September 30, 2004. Funds appropriated in this
account were also be made available to the Director of the Secret Service for the
training of federal, Postal Service, state and local law enforcement officers, as well
as private sector security officials on a space-available basis.
Under P.L. 107-38, an additional $104,769,000 is to remain available until
expended for emergency salaries and expenses associated with the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks.
U.S. Postal Service
The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) generates nearly all of its funding through the
sale of products and services. It does receive a regular appropriation from Congress,
however, to compensate for revenue it forgoes in providing, at congressional
direction, free mailing privileges for the blind and visually impaired and for
overseas voting. Under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993, Congress is
required to reimburse USPS $29 million each year until 2035, for services performed
but not paid for in the 1990s. (See also, CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue
Forgone Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues.) The terrorist attacks in the
fall of 2001, however, including use of the mail for bio-terroristic delivery of anthrax
spores to congressional and media offices, generated new funding needs that USPS
argues should be met through appropriations.
CRS-17
In FY2002, USPS received a revenue forgone appropriation of $76,619,000,
including $47,619,000 for revenue forgone in FY2002 but not payable until October
1, 2003, and the $29 million due annually under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act
of 1993. In addition, USPS received a total of $675,000,000 to compensate it for
extraordinary expenses arising from the terrorist attacks. The President allocated
$175,000,000 from the Emergency Response Fund authorized by P.L. 107-38, the
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery From and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States, FY2001. Another $500,000,000 was
allocated to USPS by the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Act, Division B of P.L.
107-117, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002. The conference
report explaining this appropriation noted that “the Postal Service has not received
a direct appropriation for operations for nearly two decades.... In providing these
emergency funds, the conferees do not intend to set a precedent for operational
subsidies ... [and] continue to support current law requirements that the Postal
Service operate on a self-sustaining basis.” Obligation of the $500,000,000 was to
be withheld until USPS submitted to its oversight and appropriations committees an
emergency preparedness plan to combat the threat of biological and chemical
substances in the mail. USPS issued its plan on March 6, 2002.23
In its FY2003 Budget, the Administration proposed an appropriation of
$48,999,000 for revenue forgone in fiscal 2003, and $29 million for the FY2003
installment under the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993, reduced by $17,985,000
as a reconciliation adjustment to reflect actual versus estimated free mail volume in
2000, for a total of $60,014,000. The $48,999,000 is proposed as an advance
appropriation, payable on October 1, 2003. However, USPS will also have available
for obligation during FY2003 the $47,619,000 provided for revenue forgone in fiscal
2002, for a total of $76,619,000. In its FY2002 Budget, the Bush Administration had
proposed to “reverse the misleading budget practice of using advance appropriations
simply to avoid [annual] spending limitations.” The Senate agreed to this proposal,
but the House and the conferees did not. The Administration did not renew the
proposal in its FY2003 Budget.
In its detailed justification of its FY2003 budget request, USPS asked for an
additional $928,174,000 (above the OMB proposal of $60,014,000) as an accelerated
payment of the amounts due for FY1994 through FY2035 under the revenue Forgone
Reform Act of 1993. The postmaster general, in his statement at the March 13, 2002
House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on its budget, said the extra funds
would be used for facilities improvements, which have been frozen for two years.24
Neither the Administration’s FY2003 Budget nor the USPS detailed
justification included any funds for emergency preparedness. The Budget does
reflect, however, in the column on FY2002 appropriations, the $500,000,000
appropriated to USPS by P.L. 107-117. The March 6, 2002 emergency preparedness
plan did identify substantial needed appropriations in addition to the $675,000,000
23See [http://www.usps.com/news/2002/press/pr02_pmg0313.htm ], visited July 19, 2002.
24Statement can be found at [http://www.usps.com/news/2002/epp/welcome.htm], visited
July 19, 2002.
CRS-18
already appropriated: $87,000,000 as a supplemental for FY2002; $799,800,000 for
FY2003; and $897,500,000 for FY1994. Apparently USPS expects these needs to
be discussed in the context of a broader supplemental appropriations request for
homeland security. H.R. 4775, the FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill for
Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks, does provide the $87
million that the USPS plan says it needs in FY2002.
Both the House bill as passed on July 25 (H.R. 5120), and the Senate
Appropriations Committee’s version (S. 2740) of the FY2003 Act, would appropriate
$76,619,000 to USPS. This is exactly what is contained in the Bush Administration’s
budget request, with nothing added to accelerate payments under the Revenue
Forgone Reform Act as requested by USPS. The bills differ in the timing of the
appropriation, however. H.R.5120 would make the $31,014,000 for FY2003 revenue
forgone an advance appropriation to be paid in FY2004. S.2740 does not propose
an advance appropriation, but would have the whole amount paid in FY2003. Thus
the Senate report (107-212) recommends a total of $107,633,000 to be paid in
FY2003: $29,000,000 for past revenue forgone, $31,014,000 for net revenue forgone
in FY2003, and $47,619,000 appropriated in the FY2002 Act as an advance
appropriation.
Both the House and Senate bills continue two provisions that the postmaster
general had asked to be removed as impediments to the “Transformation Plan” USPS
issued in March to put it on a sounder financial footing. One provision requires
USPS to maintain six-day delivery at the level that prevailed in 1983. The other
provides that none of the funds shall be used to consolidate or close small post
offices.
Executive Office of the President and
Funds Appropriated to the President
The Treasury and General Government appropriations act funds all but three
offices in the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Of the three exceptions, the
Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Environmental Quality, and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy are funded under the Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies appropriations; and the
Office of the United States Trade Representative is funded under the Commerce,
Justice, State, and the Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriations.
The President’s FY2003 budget proposes to consolidate 12 annual EOP salaries
and expenses appropriations into a single annual appropriation which would total
$336,228,000 in FY2003. This would be an increase of 21.5% over the
$276,819,00025 appropriated in FY2002 for these programs. The 12 programs
included in the consolidated account would be:
25The EOP Budget Submission for FY2003 states the total amount appropriated for the 12
programs as $276,820,000 because the submission states the FY2002 appropriation for
Special Assistance to the President (Office of the Vice President) as $3,926,000. P.L. 107-
67 states the amount appropriated for this program as $3,925,000. U.S. Executive Office of
the President, Fiscal Year 2003 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: GPO, Feb.
2002), p. 8. (Hereafter referred to as EOP Budget Submission.)
CRS-19
! Compensation of the President/White House Office
! Executive Residence/White House Repair and Restoration
! Special Assistance to the President (Office of the Vice President)/Official
Residence of the Vice President
! Council of Economic Advisers
! Office of Policy Development
! National Security Council
! Office of Administration/Capital Investment Plan
! Office of Management and Budget
! Office of National Drug Control Policy (Salaries and Expenses)
! Council on Environmental Quality
! Office of Science and Technology Policy
! U.S. Trade Representative
Resources for common acquisition-related goods and services would be
consolidated into the Office of Administration. A separate appropriation would be
continued for Unanticipated Needs.
According to the Budget, “This proposal would give the President maximum
flexibility in allocating resources and staff in support of his office and is intended to:
permit a more rapid response to changing needs and priorities; allow the President
to address emergent national needs; produce greater economies of scale and other
efficiencies in procuring goods and services; and enhance accountability for
performance.” Additionally, the budget states that “this initiative would enable the
President to effectively manage and align EOP resources consistent with decision
making in an efficient and straightforward manner, while enhancing the accuracy of
the financial systems and significantly reducing the administrative volume and cost
of processing transactions through the United States Treasury.”26
The Administration proposed the consolidation of 10 accounts into one account
in the FY2002 budget, but the conference committee for the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2002, H.R. 2590, agreed to continue with separate
accounts for the EOP programs.
As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations and passed by the
House, H.R. 5120 would retain separate accounts within the Executive Office of the
President. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also approved retaining
separate accounts.
EOP Offices Funded Through Treasury and General Government
Appropriations. As noted in H.Rept. 107-575 and S.Rept. 107-212, the amount
of money requested for FY2003 for EOP programs and funds appropriated to the
President, under the Treasury and General Government appropriations is $786
million an increase of 1.5% less than the $797.6 million appropriated in FY2002.
The requested and House recommended funding for specific programs
discussed below are taken from H.Rept. 107-575. The Senate recommended funding
is from S.Rept. 107-212.
26FY2003 Budget, Appendix, p. 927.
CRS-20
Compensation of the President. The amount of money requested for
FY2003 is $450,000, which includes an expense allowance of $50,000. This is the
same amount as was appropriated in FY2002. The salary of the President is
$400,000 per annum, effective January 20, 2001.
Office of Homeland Security. The House committee recommended and the
House passed an appropriation of $24,061,000, $783,000 less than the $24,844,000
requested by the President. The Office would be directed to submit a report
identifying estimated obligations for each function assigned to the office to the
House Committee on Appropriations no later than November 1, 2002. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of $25,301,000. (See
section on Homeland Security below.)
White House Office. This account provides the President with staff
assistance and administrative services.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $84,595,000, an increase of
54.8% over the $54,651,000 appropriated in FY2002. The budget also proposes a
gain of 46 positions, as measured by full-time equivalent (FTE) employment,27 for
the White House Office in FY2003. According to the EOP budget submission, “The
bulk of the funding increase and 40 of the additional FTE are directly related to the
establishment of the Office of Homeland Security created in the wake of the terrorist
attack on September 11, 2001.” The submission also states that “Increased funding
and 6 additional FTE are also requested for the newly established U.S. Freedom
Corps Office that will promote public service opportunities for all Americans.”28
The House committee recommended and the House passed an appropriation of
$50,715,000, $33,880,000 less than the President’s request. Of this total, $8,650,000
would be available for reimbursements to the White House Communications
Agency.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$60,212,000.
Executive Residence (White House) and White House Repair and
Restoration. This account provides for the care, maintenance, and operation of the
Executive Residence.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $13,428,000 for this account,
a decrease of 33.9% from the $20,320,000 appropriated in FY2002. For the
executive residence, the budget proposes an appropriation of $12,228,000, an
increase of 4.6% over the $11,695,000 appropriated in FY2002. For repair and
27Full-time equivalents (FTEs) are an estimate of the total number of work years required by
an agency over the course of a fiscal year. They are calculated by adding up the total
number of hours worked by all employees (not including overtime or holiday hours) and
then dividing that total by 2,080, the number of hours in a work year. One FTE equals 2,080
hours. An employee working 40 hours per week for 52 weeks in the year equals one FTE.
Two part-time employees, each working 1,040 hours, equals one FTE.
28EOP Budget Submission, p. 3.
CRS-21
restoration of the White House, the budget proposes an appropriation of $1,200,000,
a decrease of 86.1% from the $8,625,000 appropriated in FY2002. The EOP budget
submission states that the decrease in repair and restoration “is attributed to less
costly projects scheduled for FY2003.”29
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
the same appropriation as the President.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$12,339,000.
Maintenance and repair costs for the White House are also funded by the
National Park Service as part of that agency’s responsibility for national monuments.
Entertainment costs for state functions are funded by the Department of State.
Reimbursable political events in the Executive Residence are to be paid for in
advance by the sponsor, and all such advance payments are to be credited to a
Reimbursable Expenses account. The political party of the President is to deposit
$25,000 to be available for expenses relating to reimbursable political events during
the fiscal year. Reimbursements are to be separately accounted for and the
sponsoring organizations billed, and charged interest, as appropriate. The staff of the
Executive Residence must report to the Committees on Appropriations, after the
close of each fiscal year, and maintain a tracking system on the reimbursable
expenses.
Special Assistance to the President (Office of the Vice President).
This account funds the Vice President in carrying out the responsibilities assigned
to him by the President and by law.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $4,066,000 for salaries and
expenses, an increase of 3.6% over the $3,925,000 appropriated in FY2002.30 The
EOP budget submission states that the increase is for “increased per diem costs of
staff accompanying the Vice President following the terrorist attack on September
11, 2001.”31
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $3,160,000, $906,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$4,093,000.
Official Residence of the Vice President. This account provides for the
care and operation of the Vice President’s official residence and includes the
operation of a gift fund for the residence.
29EOP Budget Submission, p. 5.
30The EOP Budget Submission states the FY2002 appropriation for this account as
$3,926,000 (p. 37).
31EOP Budget Submission, p. 3.
CRS-22
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $324,000 for the operating
expenses of the Official Residence, an increase of 1.9% over the $318,000
appropriated in FY2002.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
the same appropriation as the President.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$325,000.
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA). The three-member council was
created in 1946 to assist and advise the President in the formulation of economic
policy. The council analyzes and evaluates the national economy, economic
developments, federal programs, and federal policy to formulate economic advice.
The council assists in the preparation of the annual Economic Report of the President
to Congress.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $4,405,000, an increase of 4.6%
over the $4,211,000 appropriated in FY2002. According to the EOP budget
submission, “The increase provides funding to attract and retain top-quality
professional economists.” The submission states: “Current salary levels for CEA
economists are lower than comparable positions both in other government agencies
and in the academic community. This increase will provide an equivalent salary
level and allow CEA’s job offers to be competitive with those of other Government
agencies.”32
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $3,763,000, $642,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$4,444,000.
Office of Policy Development. The Office supports the National Economic
Council and the Domestic Policy Council in carrying out their responsibilities to
advise and assist the President in formulating, coordinating, and implementing
economic and domestic policy. The Office also supports other domestic policy
development and implementation activities.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $4,221,000, an increase of 1.9%
over the $4,142,000 appropriated in FY2002.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $3,251,000, $970,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$4,254,000.
32EOP Budget Submission, p. 4.
CRS-23
National Security Council (NSC). The NSC advises the President on
integrating domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $9,525,000, an increase of
27.1% over the $7,494,000 appropriated in FY2002. The budget also proposes a
gain of 11 positions, as measured by FTE employment, for the NSC in FY2003. The
EOP budget submission states that “Both funding and FTE increases are attributed
to the ongoing operations of the new Office of Combating Terrorism created in
response to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.”33
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $7,803,000, $1,722,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$9,600,000.
Office of Administration. The Office of Administration provides
administrative services, including financial, personnel, library and records services,
information management systems support, and general office services, to the
Executive Office of the President.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $70,128,000, a decrease of
27.7% over the $96,995,000 appropriated in FY2002. Of the total, $53,353,000 is
for salaries and expenses and $16,775,000 is for the Capital Investment Plan. (In
FY2002, the salaries and expenses appropriation was $35,180,000 and the Capital
Investment Plan appropriation was $11,775,000.) The budget also proposes a gain
of 20 positions, as measured by full-time equivalent (FTE) employment, for the
Office of Administration in FY2003. According to the EOP budget submission:
Of the $23.2 million increase, $21 million and all of the additional FTE are
directly attributed to the ongoing costs of the numerous security measures taken
in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. These ongoing
costs include the GSA rent for the EOP offices that were relocated outside of the
White House complex, increased telephone service, information systems disaster
recovery measures including the addition of a remote data center, expanded mail
service and additional personnel to support the dispersed offices. The remaining
$2.2 million increase is for start up costs for a new 5 year facilities contract and
EOP common software maintenance to upgrade operating systems.34
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $92,681,000, $22,553,000 more than the President’s request. Of
this total, $17,495,000 would remain available until expended for the Capital
Investment Plan for continued modernization of the information technology
infrastructure within the Executive Office of the President. The EOP would be
directed to submit a report to the House Committee on Appropriations that would be
reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget and reviewed by
the General Accounting Office. The report would include a current description of
33EOP Budget Submission, p. 4.
34EOP Budget Submission, pp. 3-4.
CRS-24
the Enterprise Architecture, the Information Technology (IT) Human Capital Plan,
the capital investment plan for implementing the Enterprise Architecture, and the IT
capital planning and investment control process.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$70,338,000.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB assists the President
in discharging budgetary, management, and other executive responsibilities. The
agency’s activities include preparing the budget documents; examining agency
programs, budget requests, and management activities; preparing the government-
wide financial management status report and five-year plan (with the Chief Financial
Officer Council); reviewing and coordinating agency regulatory proposals and
information collection requirements; and promoting economical, efficient, and
effective procurement of property and services for the executive branch.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $70,752,000. This is the same
amount as was appropriated in FY2002. The budget also proposes the loss of 17
positions, as measured by full-time equivalent employment, at OMB in FY2003.
The EOP budget submission states that the proposal “holds spending to last year’s
levels, while funding new initiatives including emphasis on government-wide
information technology and E-government, and maintains resources to fund OMB’s
responsibilities.”35
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $61,492,000, $9,260,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$71,370,000.
Electronic Government Fund. This account supports interagency projects
that enable the federal government to expand its ability to conduct activities
electronically, through the development and implementation of innovative uses of
the Internet and other electronic methods. The House Committee on Appropriations
recommended that the account be moved from the General Services Administration
account to “more closely associate the funding with the decision-making mechanism
for these funds,” and would appropriate $5,000,000. The House-passed amount is
the same. These funds could be transferred to federal agencies to carry out the
purposes of the fund. The Senate Committee recognized the expanded role of OMB
but kept the funding under GSA. (For further discussion, see the GSA section
below.)
Election Administration Reform and Related Expenses. An account
would be established to implement election administration reform. The House
Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed an appropriation
of $200,000,000. The OMB director would be required to transfer funds to federal
entities specified by the legislation on election administration reform which is
35EOP Budget Submission, p. 4.
CRS-25
pending. The only mention of this account in the Senate report is an entry in the
summary table showing no funding requested or recommended.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). The ONDCP
develops policies, objectives, and priorities for the National Drug Control Program.
The account also funds general policy research to support the formulation of the
National Drug Control Strategy.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $25,458,000 for salaries and
expenses, an increase of 0.8% over the $25,263,000 appropriated in FY2002.
According to the EOP budget submission, “The increase reflects the realignment of
the National Alliance of Model State Drug Laws from Salaries & Expenses (S&E)
to the Special Forfeiture Fund,” resulting in a $1 million dollar reduction in S&E.
The submission also states that “The operations portion of the S&E budget has
increased by $1.2 million and will fund higher graded staff supporting the ONDCP
Director.”36
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $24,458,000, $1,000,000 less than the President’s request. Of
this total, $2,350,000 would remain available until expended, consisting of
$1,350,000 for policy research and evaluation, and $1,000,000 for the National
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$26,605,000.
The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC). The
CTAC is the central counterdrug research and development organization for the
federal government.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $40,000,000, a decrease of 5.4%
from the $42,300,000 appropriated in FY2002. Of the total, $18,000,000 is for
counternarcotics research and development projects (which shall be available for
transfer to other federal departments or agencies) and $22,000,000 is for the
continued operation of the technology transfer program.37
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $55,800,000, $15,800,000 more than the President’s request. Of
this total, $26,064,000 would be for counternarcotics research and development
projects and would be available for transfer to other federal departments or agencies,
and $29,736,000 would be for the continued operation of the technology transfer
program.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$40,000,000.
36EOP Budget Submission, p. 4.
37FY2003 Budget, Appendix, p. 1127.
CRS-26
Federal Drug Control Programs. The High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas (HIDTA) program provides assistance to federal, state, and local law
enforcement entities operating in those areas most adversely affected by drug
trafficking. Funds are disbursed at the discretion of the director of ONDCP for joint
local, state, and federal initiatives.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $206,350,000, a decrease of
8.8% from the $226,350,000 appropriated in FY2002. No less than 51% of the total
shall be transferred to State and local entities for drug control activities, which shall
be obligated within 120 days of enactment of the Treasury appropriations act. Up
to 49% of the total shall remain available until September 30, 2004 and may be
transferred to federal agencies and departments at a rate to be determined by the
director of which not less than $2,100,000 shall be used for auditing services and
associated activities, and at least $500,000 of the $2,100,000 shall be used to develop
and implement a data collection system to measure the performance of the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program. 38
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $246,350,000, $40,000,000 more than the President’s request.
No less than 51% of this total would be transferred to State and local entities for drug
control activities, which would be obligated within 120 days of the act’s enactment.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$226,350,000.
The Special Forfeiture Fund. The Fund, administered by the director of
ONDCP, supports high-priority drug control programs. The funds may be
transferred to drug control agencies or directly obligated by the ONDCP director.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $251,300,000, an increase of 5%
over the $239,400,000 appropriated in FY2002. Of the total, $180,000,000 is to
support a national media campaign, as authorized by the Drug-Free Media Campaign
Act of 1998; $60,000,000 is for a program of assistance and matching grants to local
coalitions and other activities, as authorized in chapter 2 of the National Narcotic
Leadership Act of 1988, as amended; $6,000,000 is for the Counterdrug Intelligence
Executive Secretariat; $2,000,000 is for evaluations and research related to National
Drug Control Program performance measures; $1,000,000 is for the National Drug
Court Institute; $1,000,000 is for the United States Anti-Doping Agency for anti-
doping activities; $800,000 is for the United States membership dues to the World
Anti-Doping Agency; and $500,000 is for the National Alliance for Model State
Drug Laws. 39
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $240,800,000, $10,500,000 less than the President’s request.
38FY2003 Budget, Appendix, pp. 1125-1126.
39FY2003 Budget, Appendix, pp. 1126-1127.
CRS-27
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$172,700,000.
Unanticipated Needs. The account provides funds for the President to meet
unanticipated needs in furtherance of the national interest, security, or defense.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $1,000,000. This is the same
amount as was appropriated in FY2002.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
the same appropriation as the President. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
also recommended the same appropriation.
Independent Agencies
Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC administers federal
campaign finance law, including overseeing disclosure requirements, limits on
contributions and expenditures, and the presidential election public funding system;
the agency retains civil enforcement authority for the law. The Office of Election
Administration, which serves as a clearinghouse for information on voting laws and
procedures for state and local election officers, is another part of the FEC .
The Administration requested $45,244,000 for the FEC in FY2003, a $1.6
million increase over the $43,689,000 appropriated for FY2002. Of the requested
amount, no less than $5,128,000 was slated for internal automated data processing
systems and no more than $5,000 for reception and representational expenses. The
budget called for a full-time equivalent staffing authorization of 362, the same as for
FY2002.
The initial request in the President’s January budget submission ($46.7 million)
and the proposed staffing levels were the same as those proposed by the FEC in its
initial, separate submission to OMB and Congress. As the FEC noted, the initial
request represented a continuation of the FY2002 funding level for core programs,
as adjusted for inflation and salary and benefits, with no additional funds or staff for
new programs or initiatives. That request included $1,673,000 to account for a new
method of providing for federal retirees under the Civil Service Retirement Program
(CSRS), which the Administration has proposed for all government agencies.
In the wake of enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-155), the FEC submitted an amended request, calling for an additional
$5,366,200 to implement the new law. Taking this into account, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended an appropriation of $49,426,000, including
$4,198,000 to implement the new law. This amount reflects a decrease of
$1,168,200 from the FEC ‘s amended request but $4,182,000 above the
Administration’s request. The House adopted the $49,426,000 appropriation
recommended by its Committee, with additional designations of no less than
$5,866,700 for internal automated data processing systems and no more than $5,000
for reception and representation expenses.
CRS-28
The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, recommended an
appropriation of $45,668,000, which does not take into account the amended request
by the FEC for implementing the new statute. The Senate figure reflects the
Administration’s request, plus $224,000 for pay parity, and allows no more than
$5,000 for reception and representational expenses.
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The agency serves as a
neutral party in the settlement of disputes that arise between unions, employees, and
agencies on matters outlined in the Federal Service Labor Management Relations
Statute; decides major policy issues; prescribes regulations; and disseminates
information appropriate to the needs of agencies, labor organizations, and the public.
The FLRA also engages in case-related interventions and training and facilitates
labor-management relationships. It has three components: the Authority which
adjudicates labor-management disputes; the Office of the General Counsel which,
among other duties, investigates all allegations of unfair labor practices filed and
processes all representation petitions received; and the Federal Service Impasses
Panel which resolves impasses which occur during labor negotiations between
federal agencies and labor organizations.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $28,684,000 for the FLRA, an
increase of 8.1% over the $26,524,000 appropriated in FY2002.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $28,677,000, $7,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$28,950,000.
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.
The President’s FY2003 budget request for GSA includes the largest requests to date
to renovate and improve security measures in federal buildings.
H.R. 5120, as introduced, reported, and passed, would authorize $65,995,000
for policy and citizen services; $77,904,000 for operating expenses (two new
accounts to replace policy and operations); $37,617,000 for the Office of Inspector
General; and $3,339,000 for allowances and office staff for former presidents.
S. 2740, as reported, would authorize an appropriation of $75,304,000 for
salaries and expenses; $87,674,000 for operating expenses; $37,916,000 for the
Office of Inspector General; $45,000,000 for electronic government; and $3,344,000
for allowances and office staff for former presidents. S. 2740, as introduced, would
authorize $75,304,000 for policy and citizen services; $87,674,000 for operating
expenses; $45,000,000 for the electronic government fund; and $3,344,000 for
allowances and office staff for former presidents.
CRS-29
The President’s FY2003 budget contained a request of $143,139,000 for policy
and operations, of which $25,887,000 would remain available until expended;
$39,587,000 for the Office of Inspector General, $3,441,000 for allowances and
office staff for former Presidents; $45,000,000 for interagency electronic government
initiatives; and $12,681,000 to be deposited into the Federal Consumer Information
Center Fund.
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Revenue to the FBF is the principal source
of funding. Congress, however, directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on
spending of funds.
H.R. 5120, as introduced, reported, and passed, would authorize a direct
appropriation of $325,711,000 into the Federal Buildings Fund. An amount of
$646,385,000 from the FBF would be made available until expended for new
construction, which includes 11 new courthouse projects totaling $309,349,000. In
addition, $978,529,000 would be made available until expended for repairs and
alternations, including three courthouses totaling $44,192,000. Also included is
$8,000,000 for a chlorofluorocarbons program, $20,000,000 for a glass
fragmentation program, and $10,000,000 for terrorism. A total of $178,960,000 is
to be made available for installation acquisition payments, $3,153,211,000 for rental
of space, and $1,925,160,000 for building operations.
S. 2740, as reported, would authorize $653,913,000 to be made available for the
construction and acquisition account. The Senate Committee also recommended new
obligational authority of $995,589,000 for repairs and alterations. S. 2740, as
introduced, would authorize that $6,952,703,000 remain available until expended:
$653,913,000 for construction and design, and $995,589,000 for repairs and
alterations.
Of the $6,885,375,000 deposited in the FBF, the President’s FY2003 budget
requested that $276,400,000 remain available until expended for the operation,
maintenance, and protection of federally owned and leased buildings, and that
$556,574,000 remain available until expended for construction and design services
(approximately $260,000,000 for courthouse projects). The President’s budget also
requested that $986,029,000 from the FBF be made available for repairs and
alterations of federal buildings, an increase of $117,000,000 over FY2002 enacted.
Of this total, $367,340,000 would be used to fund costs associated with
implementing security improvements to federal buildings; $20,000,000 to implement
a glass fragmentation program; $8,000,000 to implement a chlorofluorocarbons
program; and $10,000,000 for antiterrorism efforts.
Electronic Government Fund. As it was last year, the Electronic
Government Fund continues to be a somewhat contentious matter between the
President and Congress. In advance of his proposed budget for FY2002, the
President released, on February 28, 2001, A Blueprint for New Beginnings: A
Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities. Intended as a 10-year budget plan, the
Blueprint, among other innovations, proposed the establishment of an electronic
government account, seeded with “$10 million in 2002 as the first installment of a
fund that will grow to a total of $100 million over three years to support interagency
electronic Government (e-gov) initiatives.” Managed by OMB, the fund was
CRS-30
foreseen as supporting “projects that operate across agency boundaries,” facilitating
“the development of a Public Key Infrastructure to implement digital signatures that
are accepted across agencies for secure online communications,” and furthering “the
Administration’s ability to implement the Government Paperwork Elimination Act
of 1998, which calls upon agencies to provide the public with optional use and
acceptance of electronic information, services and signatures, when practicable, by
October 2003.”40 About one month later, on March 22, OMB Deputy Director Sean
O’Keefe announced that the Bush Administration had decided to double the amount
to be allocated to the e-gov fund, bringing it to $20 million.41
As included in the President’s budget, the fund was established as an account
within the General Services Administration (GSA), to be administered by the
Administrator of General Services “to support interagency projects, approved by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, that enable the Federal
Government to expand its ability to conduct activities electronically, through the
development and implementation of innovative uses of the Internet and other
electronic methods.” The President’s initial request for the fund was $20 million, to
remain available until September 30, 2004. Congress, however, appropriated $5
million for the fund for FY2002, to remain available until expended. Appropriators
specified that transfers of monies from the fund to federal agencies could not be
made until 10 days after a proposed spending plan and justification for each project
to be undertaken using such monies had been submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations. Expressing general support for the purposes of the fund, they also
recommended, and both chambers agreed, that the administration work with the
House Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs to clarify the status of its authorization.
The President’s budget for FY2003 “recognizes GSA as operator of the official
federal portal for providing citizens with one-stop access to federal services via the
Internet or telephone” and, therefore, a key agency in implementing the President’s
e-gov vision, which will “require cross-agency approaches that permit citizens,
businesses, and state and local governments to easily obtain services from, and
electronically transact business with the federal government.” In this regard, an
administration interagency Quicksilver E-Gov Task Force, according to the budget,
has “identified 23 high priority Internet services for early development.” Seeking
$45 million for the e-gov fund, the budget acknowledged that this amount was “a
significant increase over the $20 million requested in 2002,” but noted that the
request “is supported by specific project plans developed by the Quicksilver Task
Force.”42 Furthermore, according to the fund account statement, these monies
“would also further the Administration’s implementation of the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998, which calls upon agencies to provide
40U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, A Blueprint for
New Beginnings, pp. 179-180.
41William Matthews, “Bush E-gov Fund to Double,” Federal Computer Week, vol. 15, Mar.
26, 2001, p. 8.
42U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2003 Budget of the U.S. Government,
pp. 386-387.
CRS-31
the public with optional use and acceptance of electronic information, services, and
signatures, when practicable, by October 2003.”
The House Appropriations Committee again rejected the amount requested by
the President and recommended $5 million for the fund, reiterating, as previously,
that transfers of monies from the fund to federal agencies could not be made until 10
days after a proposed spending plan and justification for each project to be
undertaken using such monies had been submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations. The committee also declined to recommend an appropriation for the
fund as a GSA account, but did fund it as an account under the jurisdiction of the
Office of Management and Budget within the Executive Office of the President.43
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the full $45 million
requested by the President. Their report states that OMB “would control the
allocation of the fund and direct its use for information systems projects and affect
multiple agencies and offer the greatest improvements in access and service.”44
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The MSPB serves as guardian
of the federal government’s merit-based system of employment. The agency carries
out its mission by hearing and deciding appeals from federal employees of removals
and other major personnel actions. MSPB also hears and decides other types of civil
service cases, reviews OPM regulations, and conducts studies of the merit systems.
The agency’s efforts are to assure that personnel actions taken involving employees
are processed within the law and that actions taken by OPM and other agencies
support and enhance federal merit principles.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $31,790,000 for the MSPB, an
increase of 4% over the $30,555,000 appropriated in FY2002.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $31,788,000, $2,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$32,027,000.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The
custodian of the historically valuable records of the federal government since its
establishment in 1934, NARA also prescribes policy and provides both guidance and
management assistance concerning the entire life cycle of federal records. It also
administers the presidential libraries system; publishes the laws, regulations, and
presidential and other documents; and assists the Information Security Oversight
Office (ISOO), which manages federal security classification and declassification
policy; and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC),
43U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, a report to accompany H.R. 5120, 107th
Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-575 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 64, 83.
44S.Rept. 107-212, p. 77.
CRS-32
which makes grants nationwide to help nonprofit organizations identify, preserve,
and provide access to materials that document American history.
On July 24, the House passed H.R. 5120 without amending provisions related
to the NARA accounts, as reported. The House Appropriations Committee had
recommended $267,189,000 for NARA, $12,202,000 less than the President’s
$279,391,000 budget request, which was a $10,435,000 decrease from the
$289,826,000 appropriated for, and requested by the President for, NARA for
FY2002. Of the total amount requested, $2.3 million, according to the President’s
budget, “will enable NARA to continue leading the Electronic Records Management
project.”45 The committee recommended $249,731,000 for NARA operating funds,
which is $14,202,000 less than the $263,933,000 requested (the requested amount
being a $19,686,000 increase over the FY2002 allocation of $244,247,000). The
committee report explained that the “reduction from the President’s request is for the
initiative to train state and local personnel in the handling of classified and sensitive
homeland security data.” It was felt that “funding this effort in this account is
premature” because the “directive for addressing sensitive homeland security
information has not been issued, the specific state and local needs for training have
not been determined, training options have not been fully developed, and the portion
of the initiative aimed at ensuring that Federal agencies have appropriate authorities
is unknown.”46 For repairs and restoration, the requested amount of $10,458,000 was
recommended. This is a $28,685,000 decrease compared to the FY2002
appropriation of $39,143,000 for this account. Furthermore, the recommended
amount is provided in accordance with the dedication of funds specified in the
President’s request: $1,250,000 for Military Personnel Records Center design studies
and $3,250,000 for repair of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library plaza.
For the NHPRC, $7 million was recommended, $2 million more than requested (the
requested $5 million being a $1,436,000 reduction compared to the FY2002
appropriation).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended funding the NARA
accounts at $265 million. Of this amount, $249.9 million is recommended for
operations, $14.2 million for repairs and restoration, and $8 million for NHPRC.
Office of Government Ethics (OGE). The Office of Government Ethics,
a small agency within the executive branch, was established by the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978. Originally part of the Office of Personnel Management,
OGE became a separate agency on October 1, 1989, as a result of the Office of
Government Ethics Reorganization Act of 1988. The Office of Government Ethics
exercises leadership in the executive branch to prevent conflicts of interest on the
part of government employees, and to resolve those conflicts of interest that do
occur. In partnership with executive branch agencies and departments, OGE fosters
high ethical standards for employees and strengthens the public’s confidence that the
government’s business is conducted with impartiality and integrity.
45U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2003 Budget of the U.S. Government,
p. 388.
46U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, a report to accompany H.R. 5120, 107th
Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-575 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 86.
CRS-33
The funding request for FY2003 is $10,488,000, a 3.3% increase over the
enacted FY2002 amount of $10,117,000.
The House passed the recommended funding at the requested level of
$10,488,000. The Senate Committee, however, has recommended $10,557,000. The
Senate report states that the increase is for pay parity.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The budget for OPM is
comprised of budget authority for both permanent and current appropriations. This
report discusses the budget authority for current appropriations. The agency is
responsible for administering personnel management functions. Among the
activities OPM engages in are helping agencies develop merit-based human
resources management accountability systems to support their missions; developing,
implementing, and monitoring employment policies for agencies in the areas of
workforce planning, recruiting, selecting, promoting, reassigning, downsizing, and
reshaping; administering the retirement, health benefits, and life insurance programs
for current and retired federal employees; developing and implementing policies on
pay and leave administration and evaluating the effectiveness of alternative
compensation systems; and developing governmentwide policies, issuing guidance,
and providing assistance to agencies on employee relations issues. The Office of
Inspector General (OIG) conducts audits, investigations, evaluations, and inspections
throughout the agency and may issue administrative sanctions related to the
operation of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is as follows: Discretionary
funding of $128,804,000 for salaries and expenses and $1,498,000 for OIG salaries
and expenses. It also includes mandatory funding of $6,853,000,000 for the
government payment for annuitants of the employees health benefits program,
$34,000,000 for the government payment for annuitants of the employee life
insurance program, and $9,410,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement
and disability fund. The request is 29.3% more than the $99,636,000 appropriated
in FY2002 for salaries and expenses; the same as the $1,498,000 for OIG salaries
and expenses; 11.8% more than the $6,129,000,000 for the government payment for
annuitants of the employees health benefits program; the same as the $34,000,000
for the government payment for annuitants of the employee life insurance program;
and 2% more than the $9,229,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement and
disability fund.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
the following appropriation: Discretionary funding of $128,986,000 for salaries and
expenses, ($182,000 more than the President’s request) and $1,498,000 for OIG
salaries and expenses (the same amount as the President’s request). It also includes
mandatory funding in the same amounts as the President’s request. Of the
$128,986,000 appropriated for salaries and expenses, $20,800,000 would fund the
Human Resources Data Network, $5,800,000 would fund the electronic government
initiatives, $2,500,000 would fund the governmentwide payroll modernization
initiatives, and $500,000 would establish a telecommuting training program.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$129,686,000 for salaries and expenses; $1,519,000 for OIG salaries and expenses;
CRS-34
$6,853,000,000 for health benefits; $34,000,000 for life insurance; and
$9,410,000,000 for the civil service retirement and disability fund.
Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The agency investigates federal
employee allegations of prohibited personnel practices and, when appropriate,
prosecutes matters before the Merit Systems Protection Board; provides a channel
for whistle blowing by federal employees; and enforces the Hatch Act. In carrying
out the latter activity, the OSC issues both written and oral advisory opinions. The
OSC may require an agency to investigate whistleblower allegations and report to
the Congress and the President as appropriate.
The amount of money requested for FY2003 is $12,434,000 for the OSC, an
increase of 4.6% over the $11,891,000 appropriated in FY2002. According to the
budget, “This request will enable OSC to continue to reduce its long-standing case
processing backlogs.” The number of pending prohibited personnel practice cases
older than 240 days were reduced by 15% in 2001.47
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
an appropriation of $12,432,000, $2,000 less than the President’s request.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended an appropriation of
$12,449,000.
General Provisions
This section of the report discusses, briefly, general provisions such as
governmentwide guidance on basic infrastructure-like policies. Examples would be
provisions related to the Buy America Act, drug-free federal workplaces, and
authorizing agencies to pay GSA bills for space renovation and other services which
are annually incorporated into the Treasury and General Government appropriations
legislation. Quite frequently, additionally, there will be provisions which relate to
specific agencies or programs. For both Title V and VI, with noted exceptions, the
sections discussed here will be those which are new or contain modified policies.
H.R. 5120, as passed by the House, has dropped the requirements (formerly Sec.
513) that read: “The costs accounting standards promulgated under section 26 of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422) shall
not apply with respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program established under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.” There was
considerable floor debate related to whether there would be negative impact on the
federal employees who subscribe to the program if the carriers are required to be
subject to these cost accounting standards.48
47FY2003 Budget, Appendix, p. 1167.
48Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 148, July 23, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. H5229, at H. 5260-H5263.
CRS-35
The Administration’s proposed language for general provisions in Title VI is
found the Appendix.49 The House and Senate amendments adopted and rejected
during House consideration and passage will be presented in the section of the report
entitled “Status and Legislative History.” Table 2 provides a comparison of the
disposition of those sections under discussion.
49FY2003 Budget, Appendix, pp. 9-15.
CRS-36
Table 2. Title VI Governmentwide General Provisions50
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
Sec. 605. This section limits payment of
compensation, as employees of the
government, for non-citizens of the
United States. The online version of the
section, as passed, does not contain the
provisions relating to the required
affidavits and to the applicable penal
clause.
Repeats recommendation elimination Sec. 609. Continue the provision
Sec. 609. Continue a provision
of the provision (section 609, FY2002)
prohibiting payments to persons filling
prohibiting the use of appropriated funds
which prohibits payment to political
positions for which they have been
to pay the salary of any nominee after the
appointees functioning in jobs for which
nominated after the Senate has voted not
Senate voted not to approve the
they have been nominated, but not
to approve the nomination.
nomination.
confirmed. This provision has been in the
bill for at least 20 years. The previous
administration also recommended its
elimination.
50See H. Rept. 107-575, pp. 95-98 and S. Rept. 107-212, pp. 93-95.
CRS-37
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
Recommended elimination of the
Sec. 612. Continue the provision
Sec. 612. Continue a provision
provision (section 612, FY2002) which
prohibiting the use of funds for enforcing
prohibiting the use of appropriated funds
prohibits use of funds to “implement,
regulations disapproved in accordance
for enforcing regulations disapproved in
administer, or enforce any regulation”
with the applicable law of the United
accordance with the applicable law of the
which has been disapproved through
States.
U. S.
statutorily authorized means. If the
provision were eliminated, conceivably
the executive could continue regulatory
activities which Congress had
disapproved, through resolution of
disapproval or the Congressional Review
Act. The provision, in the bill since the
early 1980s, had been recommended for
elimination in FY2002 and by the
previous administration also.
CRS-38
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
Recommends, elimination of
Sec. 621. Continue the provision
Sec. 621. Continue a provision which
provision (section 621, FY2002) which
prohibiting federal training not directly
prohibits training not directly related to
requires that no funds may be obligated or related to the performance of official
the performance of official duties.
expended for employee training not
duties.
directly related to the employee’s official
duties; that may induce high levels of
emotional response or psychological
stress in some participants; that fails to
inform re course content or post-course
evaluation; that contains methods or
content “associated with religious or
quasi-religious belief systems or ‘new
age’ belief systems;” and that is offensive
to, or designed to change, participants’
personal values or lifestyles away from
the workplace. Elimination of language
in the bill since the mid-1990s, was
requested last year by the Bush
Administration and previously by the
Clinton Administration.
Section 622 (FY2002) prohibits the
Sec. 622. Continue the provision
Sec. 622. Continue provision prohibiting
use of funds to require and execute
prohibiting the expenditure of funds for
the expenditure of funds for the
employee non-disclosure agreements
implementation of agreements in non-
implementation of agreements in certain
without those agreements having whistle-
disclosure policies unless certain
nondisclosure policies unless certain
blower protection clauses. The Bush
provisions are included.
provisions are included in the policies.
proposal repeats their FY2002 request for
elimination of that provision, which has
been in the bill for over ten years.
CRS-39
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
Section 625 (FY2002) requires
Sec. 625. Continue the provision
Sec. 625. Continue a provision which
approval by the Committees on
prohibiting funds to be used to provide
prohibits the use of appropriated funds to
Appropriations of release of any “non-
non-public information such as mailing or
provide nonpublic information such as
public” information such as mailing or
telephone lists to any person or
mailing or telephone lists to any person or
telephone lists to any person or any
organization outside the government
organization outside of the Government.
organization outside the federal
without the approval of the Committee on
government. The Bush Administration is
Appropriations.
repeating their request for its elimination.
Federal employees in executive
Sec. 627. Continue the provision
Sec. 627. Continue a provision directing
agencies are required (section 627,
directing agency employees to use official agencies employees to use official time in
FY2002) to “use official time in an honest time in an honest effort to perform
an honest effort to perform official duties.
effort to perform official duties.” That
official duties.
requirement, in the bill since FY1999, has
been slated for elimination by both the
Bush and Clinton budget proposals. The
argument has been that the ethics statutes,
in fact, place that same requirement on all
federal personnel.
The Bush proposal would repeal the
No repeal provision.
No repeal provision.
provisions relating to federal child care
enacted as Section 630 of the FY2002
appropriation.
Section 637 (FY2002), referencing 3
No repeal provision
No repeal provisions.
U.S.C. 112 (reimbursement of detailees in
executive departments), would be
repealed.
CRS-40
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
One new section is proposed by the
No similar provision.
No similar provision.
Administration. Section 632 would
amend provisions of the Federal
Employees Compensation Act (FECA)
which relates to workmen’s compensation
available to federal employees. (See
discussion below under “Federal
Employee Pre-Funding Proposal”
section.)
-
Sec. 638. New provision to require each
-
agency to submit a report, at the time the
President’s budget is submitted, on the
use of official time within such agency
during the previous year.
-
Sec. 639. New provision to require each
-
agency to annually review all programs
and activities that it administers and
identify all such programs and activities
that may be susceptible to significant
improper payments.
-
Sec. 640. New provision to make a
-
technical correction to the 1994 Pay Act
for Federal Law Enforcement Officers for
certain series 1811 criminal investigators.
-
Sec. 641. New provision to make a
-
technical correction to the Law
Enforcement Pay Equity Act of 2000
regarding locality pay for the Uniformed
Division of the Secret Service and the
U.S. Park Police.
CRS-41
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
-
Sec. 642. New provision regarding the
-
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearm’s policy on releasing law
enforcement data base information.
-
Sec. 643. New provision to require that
Sec. 637. New provision regarding
the adjustment in rates of basic pay for
federal employee pay adjustment. Would
the statutory pay systems that takes effect
provide a 4.1% adjustment.
in fiscal year 2003 shall be an increase of
4.1%.
-
-
Sec. 638. New provision extending the
expiration date of certain government
information security requirements.
-
Sec. 644. New provision to amend Title
-
5, U.S. Code to make Senior Executive
Service employees of the IRS eligible for
the same level of pay bonuses as all other
federal employees.
-
Sec. 645. New provision to prohibit
-
funds in the bill from being used to issue
regulations relating tot he determination
that real estate brokerage is an activity
that is financial in nature or incidental to a
financial activity.
CRS-42
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
-
Sec. 646. New provision to prohibit
-
funds in the bill from being used for
payment on any new federal contract to a
subsidiary or a publicly traded
corporation if the corporation is
incorporated in a tax haven country but
the U.S. is the principal market for the
public trading of the corporation’s stock.
(See also discussion under the
Department of the Treasury above.)
Section as reported, fell to a point of
order.
-
“SEC. 646. None of the funds made
available in this Act may be used to
implement any sanction imposed by the
United States on private commercial sales
of agricultural commodities (as defined in
section 402 of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954)
or medicine or medical supplies (within
the meaning of section 1705(c) of the
Cuban Democracy Act of 1992) to Cuba
(other than a sanction imposed pursuant
to agreement with one or more other
countries).”
CRS-43
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
-
“SEC. 647. (a) None of the funds made
available in this Act may be used to
administer or enforce part 515 of title 31,
Code of Federal Regulations (the Cuban
Assets Control Regulations) with respect
to any travel or travel-related transaction
and (b) the limitation established in
subsection (a) shall not apply to the
issuance of general or specific licenses for
travel or travel-related transactions, and
shall not apply to transactions in relation
to any business travel covered by section
515.560(g) of such part 515.”
“SEC. 648. None of the funds made
available in this Act may be used to
enforce any restriction on remittances to
nationals of Cuba covered by section
515.570(a)(1)(i), (a)(2), (b)(1)(i), or (b)(2)
of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.”
“SEC. 649. None of the funds made
available in this Act under the heading
`Special Forfeiture Fund (Including
transfer of funds)’ to support a national
media campaign shall be used to pay any
amount pursuant to contract number
N00600-02-C-0123.”
CRS-44
Administration Proposals
H.R. 5120, as passed
S. 2740, as reported
“SEC. 650. None of the funds made
Sec. 640. New provision regarding
available in this Act may be used by an
numerical quotas for contracting out.
executive agency to establish, apply, or
enforce any numerical goal, target, or
quota for subjecting the employees of the
agency to public-private competitions or
converting such employees or the work
performed by such employees to private
contractor performance under Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 or
any other administrative regulation,
directive, or policy.”
“SEC. 651. None of the funds
appropriated by this Act may be used by
the Internal Revenue Service for any
activity that is in contravention of Internal
Revenue Service Notice 96-8 issued on
January 18, 1996, section 411(b)(1)(H)(i)
or section 411(d)(6) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, section
204(b)(1)(G) or 204(b)(1)(H)(i) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, or section 4(i)(1)(A) of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
of 1967.”
CRS-45
Homeland Security
Prior to the terrorist attacks of last fall, the Office of Management and Budget
had identified several accounts under this appropriation (Department of the
Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S. Customs Service, U.S.
Secret Service, and the General Services Administration) as being funded for
functions related to countering terrorism. With the exception of the Counterterrorism
fund account within the Department of the Treasury, none of the agencies carried a
line account specifically funding counterterrorism, or terrorism responses.
Subsequent to the attacks, certain accounts have been allocated funds from
the Emergency Response Fund established through P.L. 107-38. Also, under the
provisions of P.L. 107-38, a further supplemental appropriation is authorized. The
Administration submitted detailed information for the allocation of funds under such
an emergency supplemental and through P.L. 107-117 funds were appropriated.51
There has been established, within the Executive Office of the President, an
Office of Homeland Security.52 Funding for this activity was requested in the
consolidated account for the Executive Office of the President. Both the House and
Senate committees recommended funding of $24,061, 000. H. Rept. 107-575 states
that the activity is of a high priority and should be funded as a separate activity. The
report goes on to explain that in “creating a new Office of Homeland Security within
the Executive Office of the President, the Committee seeks to better highlight and
isolate those costs directly associated with the operations of this office.”53 The
Committee further explains its position:
Despite its strong belief that the Committee should have received
testimony from the Director of the office of Homeland Security within the
regular Committee hearing process, the Committee accommodated the
executive branch by conducting a more informal briefing. The committee’s
decision to focus on cooperation rather than confrontation does not diminish
its belief that a regular hearing with testimony should have been agreed to
by the executive branch.
It is the expectation of the Committee that, by establishing anew
account for this function, information related to the operations of and
funding for this office will be more readily available. Witnesses who testify
before the Committee on behalf of this account are expected to be fully
prepared to answer questions about the functions and operations of the
Office of Homeland Security.54
51For further detail on accounts covered by Treasury and General Government
appropriations, see CRS Report RL31002, Appropriations for FY2002: Treasury, Postal
Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Government, by Sharon S. Gressle.
52See CRS Report RL31148, Homeland Security: The Presidential Coordination Office, by
Harold C. Relyea.
53H.Rept. 107-575, p. 53.
54Ibid.
CRS-46
Among the legislative measures introduced for the purpose of organizing the
federal government to address homeland security are H. R. 5005,55 as passed by the
House on July 26, and S. 2452, a bill reported by the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs,56 Among the units recommended for transfer to a new
department are the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Secret Service, as well as the
GSA’s Federal Protective Service and the Federal Computer Incident Response
Center.57
The role of the Department of the Treasury relates to both its statutory
missions and the capabilities of its law enforcement groups. Although the Federal
Bureau of Investigation is the lead agency for several functions, the Customs Service
has the lead in preventing terrorists from entering the United States; the Secret
Service is responsible for protection of officials and facilities and has the lead in
providing security plans to prevent terrorist incidents at National Special Security
Events, such as the 2002 Olympics; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms is the lead on firearms and explosives. The Department itself has a general
responsibility for the support and security of the nation’s financial structure.
The General Services Administration has the responsibility for the
management and oversight of federal buildings and federal real property. Under the
Government Information Security Reform Act of 2000, (P.L. 106-398) the GSA is
directed to assist agencies in fulling their responsibility to maintain procedures for
detecting, reporting, and responding to security incidents. In this latter regard, GSA
operates the Federal Computer Incident Response Center (FedCIRC), whose purpose
it is to ensure that the government has a central focal point for handling computer
security related incidents, can withstand or quickly recover from attacks against its
information systems, and has a centralized computer security information-sharing
program.
Counterterrorism Activity Funding — OMB Annual Report
The Office of Management and Budget is required to submit an Annual
Report on Combating Terrorism.58 (Note to reader, it is our understanding that the
most recent version of this report is in release. We will update this section as soon
as it is in hand.)
55U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Select Committee on Homeland Security,
Homeland Security Act of 2002, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-609, Part 1, July 24,
2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002).
56U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, National Homeland Security
and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 107-175, June 24,
2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002). On July 19, Senate Lieberman filed an amendment in the
nature of a full substitute.
57For an overview of the departmental proposals, see CRS Report RL31393, Homeland
Security: Department Organization and Management, by Harold C. Relyea.
58See CRS Report RL31002 for further detail.
CRS-47
Federal Personnel Issues
Pay
General. Under the Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA),
federal white collar employees, paid under the General Schedule and related salary
systems, are to receive annual adjustments based on two separate mechanisms. The
first is the adjustment to base pay which is based on changes in private sector salaries
as reflected in the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The rate of pay adjustment is
supposed to be the percentage rate of change in that element of the ECI, minus .5.
Under that formula, for January 2003, the base pay adjustment would be 3.1%.
The President’s budget proposes a federal civilian pay increase of 2.6% in
January 2003.59 However, the proposal does not indicate how the pay increase would
be split between basic pay and locality-based payments for the General Schedule and
related pay systems.
Both the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on
Appropriations support an overall federal civilian pay adjustment of 4.1%, which
would put it in parity with the projected military pay adjustment. The House-passed
version includes the 4.1% adjustment but stipulates that the adjustment would be
absorbed by the agencies. The Senate committee increase salaries and expenses
accounts in the bill to fund the pay parity provision. If there is no amendment to the
provision during floor consideration, the conferees will not have it as a point of
difference for their discussion.
Federal Wage System. The Federal Wage System (FWS) is designed to
compensate the federal blue collar, or skilled labor, force at rates prevailing in local
wage areas for like occupations. If the statutory system were allowed to be managed
as planned, the wage rates and the rates of adjustment in the over 130 wage areas
would vary, according to the labor costs and compensation in the private sector. For
the last several years, Congress has limited the rates of adjustment, based on the rates
of adjustment for the General Schedule (P.L. 107-67, Section 613). Part of the
rationale for that decision is that, in certain high cost areas, some FWS wages would
exceed the salaries paid to General Schedule supervisors. Wages in lower cost areas
will be allowed to increase according to the findings of the wage surveys but the high
cost area wages will be capped.
P.L. 107-117 extends the Monroney Amendment out-of-area survey
application to Department of Defense personnel.
Members of Congress, Judges, and Other Officials. Under the
Ethics Reform Act of 1989, as amended, pay adjustments for federal officials,
including Members of Congress and judges, are also based on ECI calculations, but
for a different 12-month period. The ECI calculations dictate a pay adjustment in
January 2003 of 3.3%. However, the statute limits those adjustments to the rate of
adjustment for base pay of the General Schedule. Therefore, hypothetically, if
59FY2003 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 23.
CRS-48
General Schedule base pay were adjusted at the rate of 3.2% or below, that would
have been the maximum rate of adjustment in salaries of federal officials for January
2003.
Unlike that for Members of Congress and executive branch officials, the
annual pay increase must be specifically authorized for judges. The authorization
for the January 2002 pay increase was in the Commerce, State, Justice and Judiciary
appropriation (P.L. 107-77, section 305). At no time, since the authorization was
required, have the judges received lower adjustments than the other officials.
Because the mechanism described above is automatic, there is no bill
language necessary to establish the pay adjustment for January 2003. During debate
on the Treasury bill rule and provisions there was very brief discussion about
whether the bill would allow an increase in pay for Members.60
President. Pursuant to the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-58), effective noon, January 21, 2001, the
President receives a salary of $400,000 per annum. Since 1969, Presidents had been
paid a salary of $200,000. No further action on presidential pay is expected. Former
Presidents receive a pension equal to the rate of pay for Cabinet Secretaries
(currently $161,200) and the pension is adjusted automatically as those pay rates are
changed.61
Federal Employee Benefit Programs Pre-funding Proposal
In its report, the House Committee addresses the funding strategies of the
Administration with regard to the accrual funding proposals set out in S. 1612, the
Managerial Flexibility Act:62
The President’s Budget included a legislative proposal under the
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government Reform to charge to
individual agencies, starting in fiscal year 2003, the fully accrued costs
related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees
and retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget also
requested an additional dollar amount in each affected discretionary account
to cover these accrued costs.
Without passing judgement on the merits of this legislative
proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the president’s
request shown in the “Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority”
60See also, CRS Report RL30014, Salaries of Members of Congress: Current Procedures
and Recent Adjustments and CRS Report 97-1011, Salaries of Members of Congress:
Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2001, both by Paul E. Dwyer. Also see, CRS
Report RS20388, Salary Linkage: Members of Congress and Other Federal Officials; CRS
Report RS20278, Judicial Salaries: Current Situation; and CRS Report 98-53, Salaries of
Federal Officials, by Sharon S. Gressle.
61See CRS Report RS20114, Salary of the President Compared with That of Other Federal
Officials, by Sharon S. Gressle.
62H.Rept. 107-575, p. 4.
CRS-49
and other tables in this report to exclude the accrual funding proposal. The
disposition by Congress of the legislative proposal is unclear at this time.
Should the proposal be passed by Congress and enacted, the Committee
will make appropriate adjustments to the President’s request to include
accrual amounts.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations joined with the House Committee
in admonishing the Administration for adjusting the funding data in the budget
request to reflect a pending legislative proposal rather than waiting to adjust the
figures after enactment. Since the Senate “authorizing committee has not acted on
this legislation ... the Senate Appropriations Committee has reduced the dollar
amounts of the President’s request ... to exclude the accrual funding proposal.”63
Federal Retirement Program. Pensions for federal employees are funded
through contributions by employees and the federal government to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF). Under the Federal Employees’
Retirement System (FERS), which covers federal employees hired since 1984,
employee pensions are fully “pre-funded” by contributions from employees and their
employing agencies and interest on those contributions. Pensions under the Civil
Service Retirement System (CSRS), which covers only federal employees who were
hired before 1984, are not fully pre-funded. Contributions from employees and their
employing agencies and the interest on those contributions do not cover the full cost
of the pension benefits that employees in the CSRS accrue each year. The CSRS
therefore has a substantial unfunded liability, and it accrues additional unfunded
liability each year. Part of this unfunded liability is paid for by annual transfers from
the general revenues of the U.S. Treasury to the CSRDF. The part of the unfunded
liability that is not paid for by these transfers eventually will be paid for through
additional transfers to the CSRDF from the general revenues of the Treasury.
Subtitle A of Title II of S. 1612, the Managerial Flexibility Act, would
require each federal agency to make additional contributions to the CSRDF on behalf
of employees covered by CSRS.64 These additional contributions would be made
from the salary and expense accounts appropriated annually by Congress to each
agency. Whether the agencies’ salary and expense accounts would be increased by
the amount of the additional contributions would be determined by the Congress.
The additional contributions would prevent further unfunded liability from accruing
to the CSRS. They would not amortize (pay off) the unfunded liability that already
has accrued under the CSRS. Increasing agency contributions to the CSRDF
requires legislation and could not be done under the existing regulatory authority of
the Office of Personnel Management, which administer the Civil Service Retirement
System.
In the FY2003 Budget documents, the primary account presentations, for
Salaries and Expenses Accounts, factor in the pre-funding proposals. Alternative
tables are also provided.
63S.Rept. 107-212, p. 4.
64An analysis of the proposal can be found in: U.S. Congressional Budget Office, The
President’s Proposal to Accrue Retirement Costs for Federal Employees, June 2002
(Washington: CBO, 2002).
CRS-50
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Under the
Administration’s pre-funding proposal, the health plans covering federal retirees
would also be affected. The current program and the possible effects of the proposal
on the program are discussed in a CRS congressional distribution memorandum by
Carolyn Merck, entitled Pre-Funding Federal Retiree Health Insurance (February
13, 2002).
H.R. 5120, as passed by the House, has dropped the requirements (formerly
Sec. 513) that read: “The costs accounting standards promulgated under section 26
of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422)
shall not apply with respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.” There
was considerable floor debate related to whether there would be negative impact on
the federal employees who subscribe to the program if the carriers are required to be
subject to these cost accounting standards.65
Federal Employees Workmen’s Compensation Program (FECA).
The Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) provides workers compensation
benefits for injured Federal employees. Under current law (5 U.S.C. Sect. 8147), the
direct costs of these benefits are reimbursed via transfers from the budgets of each
Federal agency to the Labor Department, which administers the program and
disburses the benefits. The costs of administration are covered by appropriation
directly to the Labor Department.
The proposed legislation would charge administrative costs in the same
manner as benefit costs, i.e. through the budgets of each employing agency. The
stated intention is to make each agency explicitly bear the full cost of their
employees’ claims, thus “bolstering their incentive to improve workplace safety.”
Based on recent experience, the administrative surcharge would be around 4.5% of
benefit costs. (For example, in FY2000 this would have represented $92 million in
administrative costs related to $2,025 million in program benefits.) Most of the
surcharge would be paid by the two agencies that account for more than 60% of
FECA claims: the U.S. Postal Service and the Defense Department. (However, the
Postal Service already pays its share pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8147(c).)
The Senate Committee on Appropriations addressed the proposal.66
The authorizing committee has not acted on this legislation; therefore, the
Senate Appropriations Committee will continue to fund this administrative
cost through the Department of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration Salaries and Expenses Account.
Federal Child Care
The Bush administration has proposed elimination of the provisions found
at Section 630 of P.L. 107-67. The provisions authorize use of appropriated funds
65Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2003, Congressional Record, daily
edition, vol. 148, July 23, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. H5229, at H. 5260-H5263.
66S.Rept. 107-212, p. 5.
CRS-51
(salaries and expenses accounts) to provide child care in a federally owned or leased
facility, either directly or through contract, for civilian employees of the agency. The
funds used are to be applied so as to improve affordability of the service for lower
income personnel. The Committees on Appropriations are to be notified before
implementation. P.L. 107-67 also added language authorizing payment to licensed
or regulated child care providers “in advance of services rendered, covering agreed
upon periods, as appropriate.”
Unlike the Bush Administration, the House and Senate bills (H.R. 5120 and
S. 2740) do not propose to repeal the aforementioned provisions found in Section
630 of P.L. 107-67. (For more information on child care issues in the 107th
Congress, see CRS Report RL30944.)
Information Resources Management
Overlapping Cyber-Security Initiatives. In its report, the House
Committee on Appropriations indicated that it was “concerned about redundancies
in developing and implementing governmental cyber-security initiatives for the
protection of government information technology” and directed OMB to submit a
report within 90 days of the enactment of the appropriation bill detailing “the cyber-
security initiatives undertaken by the various government departments and agencies,”
specifying “total costs, as of the date of the report, by department or agency for
cyber-security, an identification of those initiatives that are being shared between
departments or agencies, an identification of those initiatives that respond to unique
requirements, and an identification of initiatives that satisfy requirements of more
than one department or agency yet are not being shared.”67
Government Web Sites. Concerned “about the lack of uniformity of
standards and user friendliness that affect usability of the various department and
agency web sites,” the House Committee on Appropriations, in its report, encouraged
“the adoption by the Administration of uniform standards that can lead to more user
friendly and usable government web sites.”68
Government Printing. The House Committee on Appropriations took
issue with a recent OMB proposal for “disregarding the statutory requirement of
Title 44, U.S. Code, Section 501, that Executive-branch agencies produce or procure
their printing through the Government Printing Office.”69 In a May 3, 2002,
memorandum to the heads of all executive branch departments and agencies, OMB
Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., set forth new policy with respect to the use of GPO
in handling departmental and agency printing and duplicating needs. The new policy
allowed that, 44 U.S.C. 501 not withstanding, “Executive Branch departments and
agencies should not be required to select GPO when more efficient and cost-
67U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, a report to accompany H.R. 5120, 107th
Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 107-575 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 62.
68Ibid.
69Ibid., p. 64.
CRS-52
effective options are available through the private sector or other avenues.”
Continuing, the memorandum specified that “Executive Branch departments and
agencies should select printing and duplicating services based upon the best quality,
cost, and time of delivery.” The memorandum implied that this change in policy was
effective immediately, and stated that guidance would be forthcoming from OMB’s
Office of Federal Procurement Policy and that a proposal would be made for
amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation to reflect the new policy.70
Noting that prior “examinations of such proposals have questioned whether
such a policy could result in significant increases in the cost of printing government-
wide and could substantially impair public access to government information
through the Federal Depository Library Program,” the House committee directed
OMB to report within 30 days on how its proposal “(1) improves economy and
efficiency in federal printing; (2) improves public access to government information;
and (3) comports with the concern that unless and until Title 44 is changed by a
constitutional process, Executive-branch officials responsible for printing are legally
bound to uphold it.”71
E-Government Initiatives. In its report, the House committee expressed
concern “about the establishment of government’s proper role in providing digital
services.” Noting that “the federal government’s investment in information
technology is estimated to be $50 billion for fiscal year 2003 and rife with
inefficiencies and redundancies,” the report indicated that “the Administration is to
be strongly encouraged to leverage related government business processes to
improve productivity, eliminate redundant systems, and significantly improve the
quality of government services,” but added that “its E-government plans must be
carefully evaluated and monitored to ensure that they do not support government
competition with market-based private providers of digital services.” Furthermore,
the committee report expressed concern “that the government needs a new blueprint
for guiding e-government initiatives.” Consequently, the committee directed OMB
to provide within 90 days after the enactment of the appropriations bill a report
detailing the blueprint used by the e-government task force in its review and
adoption of the e-government initiatives mentioned in the President’s budget.72
Other matters to be addressed in the report include “The process used by the Task
Force to consider, and adopt or reject E-Government initiatives; the evaluations of
those and other E-Government initiatives that were already provided for, or were
requested by an agency or from the private sector; the reviews undertook [sic] by the
Task Force for establishing and deciding which digital activities and services are
inherently governmental and should be pursued as an E-Government initiative and
which are non-governmental and therefore fall under private provider’s domain; and
the support and guidance from the private sector used by the Task Force in its work.”
70U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Procurement of Printing and Duplicating
Through the Government Printing Office,” Memorandum for Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, M-02-07 (Washington: May 3, 2002) (emphasis in original).
71U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, p. 64.
72U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2003 Budget of the U.S. Government,
pp. 386-387.
CRS-53
Cuba Sanctions
Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward Cuba has consisted largely of
efforts to isolate the communist government of Fidel Castro through comprehensive
economic sanctions, including a near total trade embargo and prohibitions on U.S.
financial transactions with Cuba. The Bush Administration has continued this policy
of isolating Cuba. Restrictions on travel to Cuba have been a key and often
contentious component of the sanctions, as have restrictions on agricultural exports
to Cuba. The 106th Congress passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title IX), which allows for one-year export
licenses for shipping agricultural exports to Cuba, although no U.S. private
commercial financing is allowed.
Numerous initiatives have been introduced to ease U.S. sanctions toward
Cuba, including efforts to ease restrictions on travel and the prohibition against
private commercial financing for agricultural products. In the first session of the
107th Congress, the House debated two amendments to the FY2002 Treasury
Department appropriations bill, H.R. 2590, that would ease U.S. sanctions on Cuba,
approving one, which would prohibit spending for administering Treasury
Department regulations restricting travel to Cuba, by a vote of 240-186 (H.Amdt.
241, offered by Representative Flake) and rejecting the second, which would prohibit
Treasury Department funds from administering the overall U.S. embargo on Cuba,
by a vote of 201-227 (H.Amdt. 242, offered by Representative Rangel). Ultimately,
however, the provision regarding Cuba travel restrictions was not included in final
congressional action on the bill. In the second session, the Senate approved its
version of the 2002 “Farm Bill,” H.R. 2646, on February 13, 2002, which included
a provision (Section 335) that would have eliminated the prohibition on U.S. private
commercial financing for agricultural sales to Cuba. The House version had no such
provision, and it was not included in the conference report on the bill.
The issue of whether to ease Cuba sanctions has been part of the debate
during consideration of the FY2003 Treasury Department appropriations measure
(H.R. 5120 and S. 2740). Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of the
Treasury Paul O’Neill have said they would recommend that the President veto
legislation that includes a loosening of restrictions on travel to Cuba or the
prohibition on private financing for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. The White
House also indicated that President Bush would veto the Treasury Department
appropriations bill if it had such provisions.
In July 23, 2002 floor action on H.R. 5120, the House approved three Cuba
sanctions amendments and rejected two. The House approved a Flake amendment
(H.Amdt. 552), by a vote of 262-167, that would provide that no funds could be used
to administer or enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to travel
to Cuba. The Flake amendment would not prevent the issuance of general or specific
licenses for travel to Cuba. The House also approved a second Flake amendment,
(H.Amdt. 553), by a vote of 251-177, that would prohibit funds from being used to
enforce any restriction on remittances to nationals of Cuba. Current regulations
allow remittances, but these are limited to $300 per quarter. Finally, the House
approved a Moran (Kansas) amendment (H.Amdt. 554), by voice vote, that would
CRS-54
provide that no funds could be used to implement any sanction on private
commercial sales of agricultural commodities or medicines. Some suggest that the
practical effect of this amendment would be to prevent the Treasury Department’s
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) from ensuring that sales to Cuba do not
include private financing.73 Some observers have also raised the issue of whether the
effect of all three of these amendments would be limited since the underlying
embargo regulations would remain unchanged; enforcement action against violations
of the relevant embargo regulations could potentially take place in future years when
the Treasury Department appropriations measure did not include the funding
limitations on enforcing the Cuba embargo.74
The House also rejected two Cuba amendments during consideration of H.R.
5120. A Rangel amendment (H.Amdt. 555), rejected by a vote of 204-226, would
have prevented any funds in the bill from being used to implement, administer, or
enforce the overall economic embargo of Cuba. A Goss amendment (H.Amdt. 551),
rejected by a vote of 182-247, would have provided that any limitation on the use of
funds to administer or enforce regulations restricting travel to Cuba or travel-related
transactions would only apply after the President certified to Congress that certain
conditions were met regarding biological weapons and terrorism. The rule for the
bill’s consideration, H.Res. 488 (H.Rept. 107-585), had provided that the Goss
amendment would not be subject to amendment.
The Senate version of the Treasury Department appropriations measure, S.
2740, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations (S.Rept. 107-212),
includes a provision, in Section 516, that is similar although not identical to the Flake
amendment described above regarding travel. It provides that no funds may be used
to enforce the Treasury Department regulations with respect to any travel or travel-
related transactions, but would not prevent OFAC, which implements the travel
regulations, from issuing general and specific licenses for travel to Cuba. In
addition, Section 124 of the Senate bill stipulates that no Treasury Department funds
for “Departmental Offices, Salaries, and Expenses” may be used by OFAC, until
OFAC has certain procedures in place regarding license applications for travel to
Cuba.
For further information, see CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions
on Travel and Legislative Initiatives in the 107th Congress; CRS Issue Brief
IB10061, Exempting Food and Agricultural Products from U.S. Economic
Sanctions: Status and Implementation; and CRS Report RL30806, Cuba: Issues for
the 107th Congress.
Major Funding Trends
The FY2003 funding cycle is unusual in that the House and Senate generally
agree upon a congressional budget resolution which sets a ceiling for overall
73“House Approves Limits on Treasury Enforcement of Cuba Embargo,” Inside U.S. Trade,
July 26, 2002.
74Ibid.
CRS-55
spending. The respective Committees on Appropriations then allocate to the
subcommittees what their spending limits are for the funding cycle. There has not,
as yet, been agreement on such a resolution. The House Committee on
Appropriations issued so-called 302(b) allocations for the House subcommittees on
June 21, 2003.75
The House Committee on Appropriations filed a report to accompany H.R.
5120. H.Rept. 107-575 shows that the bill, as reported, would fund the discretionary
accounts at $18.5 billion, for a total of $35.1 billion.76
The following summaries appeared in the press release from the House
Appropriations Committee following their July 9, 2003 mark up:77
The Subcommittee recommends $18.5 billion in support of fiscal year 2003
operations of programs under its jurisdiction. This recommendation is
above the President’s request by $538 million and is consistent with the
Subcommittee’s 302(b) spending allocation. The Committee includes $200
million for election administration reform and makes the availability of
these funds subject to authorization. Excluding election administration
reform, the Subcommittee’s recommendation is $338 million above the
President’s request and $51 million below the fiscal year 2002 enacted
levels.
The Subcommittee rejects the President’s proposal to fund $250 million in
base operations of the Customs Service through an increase in passenger
processing fees – estimated to generate only $167 million in new revenue.
Instead, the Subcommittee funds base operations thru a direct appropriation,
which accounts for most of the increase above the president’s request. The
Committee provides approximately $4.2 billion in support of homeland
security efforts; $246.4 million for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas program; $439 million for Customs Service Automation
Modernization, including $316.9 million to continue modernization of the
antiquated Automated Commercial System; $646 million for GSA’s
construction program, including $309 million for site acquisition, design
and/or construction of 11 courthouse; and $436 million for continued
upgrades to IRS’s information technology systems.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations filed S.Rept. 107-212 to
accompany S. 2740. The report shows that the accounts would be funded at
$34,766,450,000 (mandatory and discretionary), which exceeds the request of
$34,276,277,000, an increase of almost $500 million. It appears that a significant
amount of the increase reflects the committee’s recommendation that the pay parity
provision be funded.
75“House Appropriations Sets 302(b) Allocations,” Congress Daily E-Mail Alert for June 21,
2003 and “Reluctant Appropriators Approve FY03 Spending Allocations,” Congress Daily
AM, June 25, 2003.
76U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Treasury, Postal Service, and
General Government Appropriations Bill, 2003, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., H. Rept. 107-575,
July 15, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002).
77See [http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/107_2/03tpofull.htm].
CRS-56
Table 3. Appropriations for the Treasury, Postal Service,
Executive Office of the President, and General Government,
FY1998 to FY2002
(in billions of current dollars) a
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
25.585
27.122
28.257
30.8
34.027
Source for FY2002: U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations.
a These figures, in current dollars, include CBO adjustments for permanent budget authorities,
rescissions, and supplementals, as well as other elements factored into the CBO scorekeeping process.
For a brief presentation on CBO scorekeeping see: U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Maintaining
Budgetary Discipline: Spending and Revenue Options (Washington: GPO, 1999). The appendix
beginning on p. 281 provides the “Scorekeeping Guidelines,” as found in the conference report to the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Also available at [http://www.cbo.gov/].
Table 4. Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the
President, and General Government Appropriations, FY2003, by
Title and Major Accounts
(In millions, without CBO scorekeeping)
FY2002
FY2003
House
Senate
FY2003
Title
Enacted
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
I. Treasury
$15,646.2
$15,865.4
$16,168.8
$16,303.6
-
II. USPS
596.1
107.6
107.6
107.6
-
III. EOP
797.6
786.0
1,034.5
730.6
-
IV. Agencies
16,674.0
17,517.2
17,510.5
17,624.6
-
Total
$33,713.9
$34,276.3
$34,821.5
$34,718.8
-
Source: House Committee on Appropriations, provided July 26, 2002. FY2002 figures include
supplemental appropriations and emergency funding. H. Rept. 107-575 and S. Rept. 107-212.
CRS-57
Table 5. Department of the Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President,
and General Government Appropriations
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2002
Enacted
Bureau or
Including
Agency
Supplemental
FY2003
House
Senate
Account
Funding
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Title I: Department of the Treasury, Selected Accounts
Department Offices
177,142
191,914
187,241
195,100
-
Department-wide Systems and
Capital Investments Programs
68,828
68,828
68,828
68,828
-
Office of Inspector General
35,424
35,428
35,424
35,736
-
Inspector General for Tax
Administration
125,778
123,962
123,962
125,011
-
Air Transportation Stabilization
Program
–-
6,041
6,041
6,041
-
Treasury Building Repair and
Restoration 28,932
32,932
32,932
32,932
-
Expanded Access to Financial
Services
2,000
2,000
4,000
2,000
-
Counterterrorism Fund
(emergency funding)
40,000
40,000
33,000
40,000
-
Financial Crimes Enforcement Net-
work
47,537
50,517
51,444
50,825
-
Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center 170,614
145,722
184,751
166,450
-
Interagency Crime and Drug
Enforcement
107,576
107,576
110,594
108,532
-
Financial Management Service ,
Salaries and Expenses
212,850
220,712
220,664
222,078
-
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms - Salaries and Expenses
841,747
870,775
878,034
886,753
-
GREAT grants
13,000
13,000
13,000
13,0000
-
U.S. Customs Service
3,087,352
2,834,113
3,129,197
3,141,614
-
Bureau of the Public Debt
186,9533
191,119
168,673
192,068
-
Payment of government losses in
shipment
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
-
Internal Revenue Service, Total 9,470,604
9,915,853
9,898,593
9,995,221
-
Processing, Assistance,
and Management
3,810,880
3,958,337
3,955,077
3,985,151
-
Tax Law Enforcement
3,542,,891
3,729,072
3,729,072
3,774,121
-
Earned Income Tax Credit
Compliance Initiative
146,000
146,000
146,000
147,233
-
Information Systems
1,579,240
1,632,444
1,632,444
1,638,716
-
Business Systems Modernization
391,593
450,000
436,000
450,000
-
U.S. Secret Service
1,028,841
1,013,954
1,021,411
1,020,466
-
Total, Treasury
15,646,178
15,865,446
16,168,789
16,303,655
-
Appropriations
15,041,918
15,865,446
16,168,789
16,303,655
-
Emergency Funding
604,260
–-
–-
-
CRS-58
FY2002
Enacted
Bureau or
Including
Agency
Supplemental
FY2003
House
Senate
Account
Funding
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Title II: U.S. Postal Service
Payment to Postal Service Fund
29,000
29,000
29,000
60,015
-
Advance Appropriation,
FY2002/2003
67,093
47,619
47,619
60,014
-
Emergency Funding
500,000
–-
–-
–-
-
Total FY2002/2003
596,093
76,619
76,619
47,619
-
Advance Appropriation, FY2004: Not in Committee total: 31,014
31,014
-
Total, Postal Service
596,093
76,619
107,633
107,633
-
Title III: Executive Office of the President (EOP) and Funds Appropriated to the President
Compensation of the President
450
450
450
450
-
The White House Office
(salaries and expenses)
54,651
84,595
50,715
60,212
-
Office of Homeland Security
—
—
24,061
25,301
-
Executive Residence at the White
House (operating expenses)
11,695
12,228
12,228
12,339
-
White House Repair and
Restoration
8,625
1,200
1,200
1,200
-
Office of the Vice President
(salaries and expenses)
3,925
4,066
3,160
4,093
-
Official Residence of the Vice
President (operating expenses)
318
324
324
325
-
Council of Economic Advisers
4,211
4,405
3,763
4,444
-
Office of Policy Development
4,142
4,221
3,251
4,254
-
National Security Council
7,494
9,525
7,803
9,600
-
Office of Administration
96,995
70,128
92,681
70,338
-
Office of Management
and Budget
70,752
70,752
61,492
71,370
-
E-Government Fund (from GSA)
—
—
5,000
–-
-
Election Administration Reform
—
—
200,000
–-
-
Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP)
Salaries and Expenses
25,263
25,458
24,458
26,605
-
ONDCP Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center
42,300
40,000
55,800
40,000
-
Federal Drug Control Program,
High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas Program (HIDTA)
226,350
206,350
246,350
226,350
-
Federal Drug Control Program,
Special Forfeiture Fund
239,400
251,300
240,800
172,700
-
Funds Appropriated to the
President - Unanticipated Needs
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
-
Total, EOP and Funds
Appropriated to the President
797,571
786,002
1,034,536
730,581
-
CRS-59
FY2002
Enacted
Bureau or
Including
Agency
Supplemental
FY2003
House
Senate
Account
Funding
Request
Passed
Reported
Enacted
Title IV: Independent Agencies
Committee for Purchase from
People Who Are Blind or Severely
Disabled
4,629
4,629
4,629
4,658
-
Federal Election Commission
43,689
45,244
49,426
45,668
-
Federal Labor Relations Authority
26,524
28,684
28,677
28,950
-
General Services Administration
598,593
516,614
510,566
620,727
–
Federal Buildings Fund
410,912
276,400
325,711
371,489
Policy and Operations
143,139
—
–-
–-
-
Policy and Citizen Services
—
65,995
65,995
75,304
-
Operating Expenses
—
88,263
77,904
87,674
-
Office of Inspector General
36,346
7,617
37,617
37,916
-
Electronic Government (E-GO)
(move to Exec. Off. Of President)
5,000
45,000
–-
45,000
-
Allowances and Office Staff for
Former Presidents
3,196
3,339
3,339
3,344
-
Merit Systems Protection Board
(salaries and expenses)
30,555
31,790
31,788
32,027
-
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National
Environmental Policy Foundation
-
Morris K. Udall Trust Fund
1,996
1,996
1,996
1,996
-
Environmental Dispute Resolution
Fund
1,309
1,309
1,309
1,309
-
National Archives and Records
Administration 285,814
265,003
260,003
264,897
-
Operating Expenses
245,847
256,731
249,731
249,875
–
Reduction of Debt
-6,612
-7,186
-7,186
-7,186
-
Repairs and Restoration
40,143
10,458
10,458
14,208
-
National Historical Publications
and Records Commission:
Grants Program
6,436
5,000
7,000
8,000
-
Office of Government Ethics
10,117
10,488
10,486
10,557
-
Office of Personnel Management
15,619,078
16,558,859
16,559,041
16,560,856
-
Salaries and Expenses
99,636
128,804
128,986
129,686
-
Office of Inspector General
1,498
1,498
1,498
1,519
-
Government Payment for
Annuitants, Employees Health
Benefits
6,129,000
6,853,000
6,853,000
6,853,000
-
Government Payment for
Annuitants, Employees Life
Insurance
34,000
34,000
34,000
34,000
-
Payment to Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund
9,229,000
9,410,000
9,410,000
9,410,000
-
Office of Special Counsel
11,891
12,434
12,432
12,449
-
United States Tax Court
37,305
37,305
37,305
37,611
-
White House Commission on the
National Moment of Remembrance
500
250
250
250
-
Total, Independent Agencies
16,674,020
17,517,199
17,510,502
17,624,581
-
Sources: FY2002 and FY2003 House data provided in H.Rept. 107-575, pp. 102-111. FY2002 enacted includes supplementals and
emergency funding. FY2003 Senate data provided in S.Rept. 107-212, pp. 100-106.
CRS-60
Glossary of Budget Process Terms
The following definitions are selected from the “Glossary of Budgetary Terms,” as
found in CRS Report 98-720, Manual on the Federal Budget Process, by Robert
Keith in consultation with Alan Schick.
Account. A control and reporting unit for budgeting and accounting.
Appropriation. A provision of law providing budget authority that permits federal
agencies to incur obligations and to make payments, of the Treasury for specified
purposes. Annual appropriations are provided in appropriations acts; most
permanent appropriations are provided in substantive law.
Authorization. A provision in law that authorizes appropriations for a program or
agency.
Budget Authority. Authority provided by law to enter into obligations that
normally result in outlays. The main forms of budget authority are appropriations,
borrowing authority, and contract authority.
Budget Resolution. A concurrent resolution passed by both Houses of Congress,
but not requiring the signature of the President, setting forth the congressional budget
for at least the next five fiscal years. The budget resolution sets forth various budget
totals and functional allocations, and may include reconciliation instructions, to
designated House or Senate committees.
Continuing Resolution. An act (in the form of a joint resolution) that provides
budget authority to agencies or programs whose regular appropriation has not been
enacted after the new fiscal year has started. A continuing resolution usually is a
temporary measure that expires on a specified date or is superseded by enactment of
the regular appropriations act. Some continuing resolutions, however, are in effect
for the remainder of the fiscal year and are the means of enacting regular
appropriations.
Direct Spending. Budget authority, and the resulting outlays, provided in laws other
than annual appropriations acts. Appropriated entitlements are classified as direct
spending. Direct spending is distinguished by the Budget Enforcement Act from
discretionary spending and is subject to the PAGO rules. It is also referred to as
“mandatory spending.”
Discretionary Spending. Budget authority, and the resulting outlays, provided in
annual appropriations acts, but not including appropriated entitlements.
Federal Funds. All monies collected and spent by the federal government other
than those designated as trust funds. Federal funds include general, special, public
enterprise, and intragovernmental funds.
Mandatory Spending. See “Direct Spending.”
CRS-61
Obligation. A binding agreement (such as through a contract or purchase order) that
will require payment.
Outlays. Payments made (generally through the issuance of checks or disbursement
of cash) to liquidate obligations. Outlays during a fiscal year may be for payment
of obligations incurred in prior years or in the same year.
PAGO (Pay-as-You-Go) Process. The procedure established by the Budget
Enforcement Act to ensure that revenue and direct spending legislation does not add
to the deficit or reduce the surplus. PAGO requires that any increase in the deficit
or reduction in the surplus due to legislation be offset by other legislation or
sequestration. PAGO is enforced by estimating the five-year budgetary effects of all
new revenue and direct spending laws.
Reconciliation Process. A process established in the Congressional Budget Act by
which Congress changes existing laws to conform tax and spending levels to the
levels set in a budget resolution. Changes recommended by committees pursuant to
a reconciliation instruction are incorporated into a reconciliation bill.
Revolving Fund. An account or fund in which all income derived from its
operations is available to finance the fund’s continuing operations without fiscal year
limitation.
Scorekeeping. Procedures for tracking and reporting on the status of congressional
budgetary actions affecting budget authority, receipts, outlays, the surplus or deficit,
and the public debt limit.
Supplemental Appropriation. Budget authority provided in an appropriations act
in addition to regular or continuing appropriations already provided. Supplemental
appropriations acts sometimes include items not included in regular appropriations
acts for lack of timely authorization.
Trust Funds. Accounts designated by law as trust funds for receipts and
expenditures earmarked for specific purposes.
User Fees. Fees charged to users of goods or services provided by the federal
government. In levying or authorizing these fees, Congress determines whether the
revenue should go into the U.S. Treasury or should be available to the agency
providing the goods or services.