Financial Services and General Government
(FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations
Garrett Hatch, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
September 4, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40801
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Summary
The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill includes funding for
the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the judiciary, the
District of Columbia, and 26 independent agencies. Among the independent agencies funded by
the bill are the General Services Administration (GSA), the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Security and Exchange Commission
(SEC), and the United States Postal Service (USPS).
On May 7, 2009, the Obama Administration delivered its FY2010 budget request to Congress.
The Administration requested $46.439 billion for FSGG agencies and programs, a 4.2% increase
from FY2009 enacted appropriations, excluding emergency and supplemental appropriations. On
July 16, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, FY2010. The House bill would provide $46.389 billion for FSGG programs
and agencies, a 4.1% increase from FY2009 enacted appropriations and $50 million less than the
Administration requested. On July 9, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S.
1432, which would provide $46.479 billion for FSGG programs and agencies. This represents a
4.3% increase from FY2009 enacted appropriations and $40 million more than the Administration
requested. No further action has been taken on S. 1432.
In FY2009, FSGG agencies received an additional $6.889 billion in emergency funding through
P.L. 111-5, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, 2009, and P.L. 111-32, the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009.
The wide scope of FSGG appropriations—which provide funding for two of the three branches of
the federal government, a city government, and 26 independent agencies with a range of
functions—encompasses a number of potentially controversial issues, some of which are
identified below.
• Department of the Treasury. Is the proposed funding for enforcement, taxpayer
services, and business systems modernization at the Internal Revenue Service
adequate for lowering the federal tax gap?
• Executive Office of the President (EOP). Should Congress consider proposals
from the Obama Administration to combine the White House Office and the
Office of Policy Development accounts, and to increase National Security
Council funding and staff levels under the EOP appropriation?
• The Judiciary. What level of funding should Congress provide for judicial
security enhancements and other administrative issues, such as hiring of
additional staff to meet the demands of rising workloads due to increases in
bankruptcy filings and criminal cases, and increasing the hourly rates paid to
public defenders?
• United States Postal Service. In light of the U.S. Postal Service’s financial
challenges, should Congress consider removing the six-day delivery requirement
that has appeared in annual appropriations laws?
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Overview of FY2010 Appropriations........................................................................................... 2
Key Issues ............................................................................................................................ 3
Department of the Treasury ......................................................................................................... 3
Department of the Treasury: Budget and Policy Issues........................................................... 5
Overview of FY2009 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus ........................... 5
FY2010 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus ............................................... 6
Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President................................ 18
President’s Budget Request and Key Issues ......................................................................... 20
Committee Recommendations ....................................................................................... 21
The Judiciary ............................................................................................................................ 27
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues .................................................................................. 28
Cost Containment Initiatives ......................................................................................... 29
Judicial Security............................................................................................................ 30
Workload ...................................................................................................................... 31
Judgeships .................................................................................................................... 31
Judicial Pay................................................................................................................... 32
House Budget Hearings....................................................................................................... 32
FY2010 Request and Congressional Action ................................................................... 33
Supreme Court .............................................................................................................. 34
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ................................................................ 34
U.S. Court of International Trade .................................................................................. 34
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ..................................... 34
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund ...................................................................... 36
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) ...................................................... 36
Federal Judicial Center.................................................................................................. 36
United States Sentencing Commission........................................................................... 37
Judiciary Retirement Funds ........................................................................................... 37
General Provision Changes ........................................................................................... 37
District of Columbia.................................................................................................................. 38
The District of Columbia Budget and General Provisions .................................................... 41
The President’s Budget Request .................................................................................... 41
District’s Budget ........................................................................................................... 41
Congressional Action .......................................................................................................... 42
House Bill..................................................................................................................... 42
Senate Bill .................................................................................................................... 43
Independent Agencies ......................................................................................................... 44
Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ...................................................... 46
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)............................................................. 47
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) ........................................................................ 47
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)................................................................ 48
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): OIG..................................................... 49
Federal Election Commission (FEC) ............................................................................ 49
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ................................................................................. 50
Congressional Research Service

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

General Services Administration (GSA) ........................................................................ 50
Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management.............................................. 52
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) .................................................................. 53
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ..................................................................... 54
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)....................................................................... 54
Office of Special Counsel (OSC)................................................................................... 57
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) ............................................... 58
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)............................................................. 59
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).................................................. 59
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)................................................................. 60
Selective Service System (SSS)..................................................................................... 61
Small Business Administration (SBA) ........................................................................... 61
United States Postal Service (USPS) ............................................................................. 62
United States Tax Courts (USTC) ................................................................................. 65
General Provisions Government-Wide....................................................................................... 66
Competitive Sourcing.......................................................................................................... 68
Selective Moratorium on Competitive Sourcing ............................................................ 68
Inventory of Services Contracts..................................................................................... 69
Cuba Sanctions ................................................................................................................... 71
Background .................................................................................................................. 71
Legislative Action ......................................................................................................... 72

Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2010 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations............... 1
Table 2. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, FY2009-FY2010 .............. 2
Table 3. Department of the Treasury Appropriations, FY2009 to FY2010 ................................... 4
Table 4. Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President,
FY2009 to FY2010 ................................................................................................................ 19
Table 5. Other Federal Drug Control Programs: FY2010 Appropriations for Accounts ............... 25
Table 6. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2009 to FY2010 ....................................................... 27
Table 7. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2009-FY2010: Special Federal
Payment ................................................................................................................................. 39
Table 8. Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2009 to FY2010 .......................................... 45
Table 9. Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations,
FY2009 to FY2010 ................................................................................................................ 52

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 74
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 74

Congressional Research Service

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
On July 16, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, FY2010. The House approved $46.389 billion for FSGG programs and
agencies, a 4.1% increase from FY2009 enacted appropriations.1 On July 9, 2009, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported its FY2010 FSGG appropriations bill, S. 1432. The Senate
bill would provide $46.479 billion for FSGG programs and agencies, a 4.3% increase from
FY2009 enacted appropriations.2 Table 1, below, reflects the status of the FY2010 FSGG
appropriations bill.
Table 1. Status of FY2010 Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations
Subcommittee
Markup
Enactment
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conference
Public
House Senate Report Passage Report Passage
Report
House Senate Law
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
06/25/09 07/08/09 111-202
07/16/09
111-43





07/07/09
07/09/09
Introduction
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee structures
in early 2007. Each chamber created a new Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government (FSGG). In the House, the jurisdiction of the FSGG Subcommittee was formed
primarily of agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and
Independent Agencies, commonly referred to as “TTHUD.”3 In addition, the House FSGG
Subcommittee was assigned four independent agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the
Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.4

1 House approved amount includes $46.228 billion from H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2010, and $161 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), provided
through H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010. Appropriations for the CFTC are under the jurisdiction of the Financial Services and General
Government (FSGG) Subcommittee in the Senate, and the Agriculture Subcommittee in the House. CFTC funding is
included in House Committee totals throughout this report for purposes of comparison with Senate funding amounts.
FY2009 enacted appropriations do not include supplemental or emergency appropriations.
2 S.Rept. 111-43.
3 The agencies previously under the jurisdiction of the TTHUD Subcommittee that did not become part of the FSGG
subcommittee were the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, the National
Transportation Safety Board, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, and the United States Interagency Council
on Homelessness.
4 The agencies are the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

In the Senate, the jurisdiction of the new FSGG Subcommittee was a combination of agencies
from the jurisdiction of three previously existing subcommittees. The District of Columbia, which
had its own subcommittee in the 109th Congress, was placed under the purview of the FSGG
Subcommittee, as were four independent agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.5 Additionally, most of the
agencies that had been under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury,
the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies were assigned to the
FSGG Subcommittee.6 As a result of this reorganization, the House and Senate FSGG
Subcommittees have nearly identical jurisdictions.7
Overview of FY2010 Appropriations
On May 7, 2009, the Obama Administration delivered its FY2010 budget request to Congress.
The Administration requested $46.439 billion for FSGG agencies and programs, an increase of
$1.857 billion (+4.2%) over FY2009 enacted appropriations.8 The House approved $46.389
billion for FSGG agencies, an increase of $1.807 billion (+4.1%) over FY2009 enacted
appropriations, and $50 million less than the Administration requested.9 The Senate
Appropriations Committee has recommended $46.479 billion, an increase of $1.897 billion
(+4.3%) over FY2009 enacted appropriations, and $40 million more than the Administration
requested. Table 2 lists the enacted amounts for FY2009, emergency appropriations for FY2009,
the Administration’s FY2010 request, the House approved amounts for FY2010, and the Senate
Appropriations Committee’s recommendations for FY2010.
Table 2. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations,
FY2009-FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
FY2010

Enacted
Emergency
Total
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Department
$12,687 $187
$12,874
$13,368
$13,446
$13,482
of the
Treasury
Executive
728 3
731
904
754
785

Office of the
President
The Judiciary
6,481
10
6,491
7,036
6,942
6,929

District of
742
0
742
739
768
727


5 The agencies are the FCC, FTC, SEC, and SBA.
6 The agencies that did not transfer from TTHUD to FSGG were Transportation, HUD, the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the Federal Maritime Commission, the National Transportation Safety
Board, the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, and the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.
7 The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is under the jurisdiction of the FSGG Subcommittee in the Senate but
not in the House.
8 S.Rept. 111-43. FY2009 enacted figures do not include emergency or supplemental appropriations.
9 FY2010 House approved figure includes funding for the CFTC.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2009
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
FY2010

Enacted
Emergency
Total
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Columbia
Independent
23,942 6,689
30,631
24,392
24,479 24,556
Agencies
Total $44,582
$6,889
$51,471
$46,439
$46,389
$46,479

Sources: FY2010 House Passed figures are taken from H.Rept. 111-202 and H.Rept. 111-181. Figures from al
other columns are taken from S.Rept. 111-43.
Notes: All columns include CFTC funding. FY2010 House Approved figures include $161 million for CFTC
provided in H.R. 2997, the FY2010 Agriculture appropriations bill, which passed the House on July 9, 2009.
Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
Key Issues
The wide scope of FSGG appropriations—which provide funding for two of the three branches of
the federal government, a city government, and 26 independent agencies with a range of
functions—encompasses a number of potentially controversial issues, some of which are
identified below.
• Department of the Treasury. Is the proposed funding for enforcement, taxpayer
services, and business systems modernization at the Internal Revenue Service
adequate for lowering the federal tax gap?
• Executive Office of the President (EOP). Should Congress consider proposals
from the Obama Administration to combine the White House Office and the
Office of Policy Development accounts, and to increase National Security
Council funding and staff levels under the EOP appropriation?
• The Judiciary. What level of funding should Congress provide for judicial
security enhancements and other administrative issues, such as hiring of
additional staff to meet the demands of rising workloads due to increases in
bankruptcy filings and criminal cases, and increasing the hourly rates paid to
public defenders?
• United States Postal Service. In light of the U.S. Postal Service’s financial
challenges, should Congress consider removing the six-day delivery requirement
that has appeared in annual appropriations laws?
Department of the Treasury10
This section examines FY2010 appropriations for the Treasury Department and its operating
bureaus, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Table 3 shows the enacted amounts for
FY2009, the Obama Administration’s budget request for FY2010, the amounts for FY2010 in
H.R. 3170 as passed by the House, and the Senate Appropriations Committee’s recommendations
for FY2010 in S. 1432.

10 This section was written by Gary Guenther, Analyst in Industry Economics, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Table 3. Department of the Treasury Appropriations,
FY2009 to FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Program or Account
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Departmental Offices
$279
$302
$303
$306

Department-wide Systems and
27 10 10
10

Capital Investments
Office of Inspector General
26
27
30
30

Treasury Inspector General for
146 149 149
152

Tax Administration
Community Development
107 244 244
247

Financial Institutions Fund
Financial Crimes Enforcement
91 103 118a 104

Network
Financial Management Service
240
244
244
244

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
99 105d 100
103

Trade Bureau
Bureau of the Public Debt
177
182
182
182

Payment of Losses in Shipment
2
2
2
2

Internal Revenue Service, Total
11,523b 12,126
12,130
12,152

Taxpayer
Services
2,293
2,270
2,274
2,276
Enforcement
5,117
4,904
4,904
5,504
Enhanced
Tax
Enforcement
- 600 600
-

Activities
Operations
Support
3,867
4,083
4,083
4,083
Business
Systems
230 254 254
274

Modernization
Health Insurance Tax Credit
15 16 16
16

Administration
Rescissions: Treasury Forfeiture
(-30) (-50) (-50)
(-50)

Fund
Total: Department of the
$12,687c $13,368e $13,446
$13,482

Treasury
Sources: FY2009 Enacted, FY2010 Request, and House-passed FY2010 figures are taken from H.Rept. 111-202.
Senate Committee FY2010 figures are taken from S.Rept. 111-43.
Note: Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
a. Includes $15 million that was added through an amendment adopted by the House by voice vote.
b. Does not include an emergency appropriation of $80 million provided through P.L. 111-5.
c. Does not include $187 million in supplemental appropriations provided through P.L. 111-5.
d. Total proposed budget authority is $105 million, with $75 million to be funded through collections and $30
million through direct appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

e. Total does not include $75 million in budget authority for the Alcohol, Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
which would be funded through collections.
Department of the Treasury: Budget and Policy Issues
The Treasury Department performs a variety of critical governmental functions. They can be
summarized as protecting the nation’s financial system against a host of illicit activities (e.g.,
money laundering and terrorist financing), collecting tax revenue, enforcing tax laws, managing
and accounting for federal debt, administering the federal government’s finances, regulating
financial institutions, and producing and distributing coins and currency.
At its most basic level of organization, Treasury consists of departmental offices and operating
bureaus. In general, the offices are responsible for formulating and implementing policy
initiatives and managing Treasury’s operations, while the bureaus perform specific tasks assigned
to Treasury, mainly through statutory mandates. In the past decade or so, the bureaus have
accounted for over 95% of the agency’s funding and work force.
With one exception, the bureaus can be divided into those engaged in financial management and
regulation and those engaged in law enforcement. In recent decades, the Comptroller of the
Currency, U.S. Mint, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Financial Management Service (FMS),
Bureau of the Public Debt, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI), and
Office of Thrift Supervision have taken on responsibilities related to the management of the
federal government’s finances or the supervision and regulation of the U.S. financial system. In
contrast, law enforcement arguably has been the primary focus of the responsibilities handled by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; U.S. Secret Service; Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center; U.S. Customs Service; Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN); and
the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. With the advent of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002,
Treasury’s direct involvement in law enforcement has shrunk considerably. An exception to this
simplified dichotomy is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), whose main responsibilities
encompass both the collection of tax revenue and the enforcement of tax laws and regulations.
Overview of FY2009 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus
Funding for many bureaus comes largely from direct appropriations. This is the case for the IRS,
FMS, Bureau of Public Debt, FinCEN, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATB), Office
of the Inspector General (OIG), Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), and
the CDFI. By contrast, operating funds for the Treasury Franchise Fund, U.S. Mint, Bureau of
Engraving and Printing, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift
Supervision come largely from the fees they charge for services and products they provide.
In FY2009, Treasury is receiving $12.687 billion in appropriated funds (excluding $187 million
in supplemental appropriations authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 ─ ARRA, P.L. 111-5), or 3.5% more than the amount enacted for FY2008. As usual, most of
this money is being used to finance the operations of the IRS, which is receiving $11.523 billion
in FY2009, or 91% of total appropriations for Treasury. The remaining $1.164 billion is spread
among Treasury’s other main appropriations accounts in the following amounts: departmental
offices (which includes the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence—or TFI—and the
Office of Foreign Assets Control) is receiving $279 million; department-wide systems and capital
investments, $27 million; OIG, $26 million; TIGTA, $146 million; CDFI, $107 million; FinCEN,
$91 million; FMS, $240 million; ATB, $99 million; and Bureau of the Public Debt, $177 million.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010 Appropriations for Treasury Offices and Bureaus
On the whole, the Obama Administration is requesting $13.366 billion in direct appropriations for
Treasury in FY2010, or 5.3% more than the amount enacted for FY2009. Under the budget
proposal, the IRS would receive $12.126 billion (or again 91% of the total). The remaining
$1.240 billion would be divided among Treasury’s other appropriations accounts in the following
amounts: departmental offices would receive $302 million; departmental systems and capital
investments, $10 million; OIG, $27 million; TIGTA, $149 million; CDFI, $244 million; FinCEN,
$103 million; FMS, $244 million; ATB, $105 million (with a direct appropriation of $30 million);
and Bureau of the Public Debt, $182 million. All the accounts except departmental systems and
capital investments would be funded at or above the amounts enacted for FY2009.
The budget request is built on the assumption that these offices and bureaus will receive $476
million in payments for services from other federal agencies and state governments in FY2010,
bringing their total funding for FY2010 to $13.842 billion ($13.366 direct appropriations + $476
million in what is referred to as offsetting collections or reimbursables in Treasury budget
documents).
To bolster the federal government’s resources for stabilizing the domestic financial system, the
Administration is also seeking a $250 billion contingent reserve, which could be used to support
$750 billion in asset purchases from troubled financial institutions. The reserve does not represent
a specific budget request, but it is a net cost to the federal government.11
What follows is a detailed examination of the Obama Administration’s FY2010 budget request
for each of Treasury’s offices and bureaus (including the IRS) that receive direct appropriations,
congressional action on the request, and some of the policy issues (if any) associated with the
request.
Departmental Offices (DO)
Purpose: This account provides funding for Treasury offices that perform some of the critical
tasks related to the Department’s mission, which is to promote the “economic prosperity and
financial security of the United States.” 12 Among the offices covered by this account are the
Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, the Office of International Affairs, the Office of
Domestic Finance, the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI), the Office of Tax
Policy, and the Office of Economic Policy. Funds from this account allow Treasury to recommend
and implement domestic and international economic and tax policy, formulate fiscal policy, track
and disrupt efforts to channel money to domestic and foreign terrorist groups, protect the U.S. and
world financial systems from financial crimes such as money laundering, manage the public debt
and government finances, oversee international development policy, and finance its operations,
among other things.
Obama Administration’s FY2010 Budget Report: The Obama Administration is asking for
$302 million in appropriated funds for DO in FY2010, or $23 million more than the amount
enacted for FY2009. According to Treasury budget documents, about $20 million of the proposed
increase in budget authority would be used to bolster Treasury’s expertise and manpower in

11 U.S. Department of the Treasury, The Budget in Brief FY2010 (Washington, 2009), p. 5.
12 Ibid., p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

housing finance, capital markets, tax administration, and information technology management,
and to administer the tax credit exchange program authorized by the ARRA.13 Under the
Administration’s request, funding for TFI would rise from $62 million in FY2009 to $67 million
in FY2010. A proposed increase of $11.5 million in appropriations for financial policies and
programs account for nearly half of the proposed increase in DO direct appropriations for
FY2010. Funding for the Office of Financial Stability (OFS) comes through that account. OFS is
responsible for implementing and managing the programs aimed at stabilizing financial markets
and restoring the flow of credit to consumers and companies that Treasury established in the wake
of the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA, P.L. 110-343).
Senate Action on the Request: DO would receive $306 million in direct appropriations under a
bill (S. 1432) approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 9, 2009. In its report on
the bill (S.Rept. 111-43), the Committee noted that the entire amount of its recommended $3.3
million increase over the Administration’s DO budget request should be used to finance two
studies by the National Academy of Sciences (one of which would involve an assessment of the
federal tax provisions that have the biggest impact on current carbon and other greenhouse gas
emissions) and the financial literacy programs administered by Treasury’s Office of Financial
Education.14 The Committee also endorsed the proposed increases in funding for several DO
programs from FY2009.
In its report, the Committee also aired its concerns about several programs managed by Treasury
offices that receive most of their funding through the DO appropriation. Specifically, it directed
Treasury to find a better way to explain to Congress and the general public how the Troubled
Assets Relief Program (TARP) is supposed to operate, and to require more detailed reporting by
financial firms receiving TARP funds. The Committee also asked Treasury to “expand its efforts
to address the foreclosure crisis beyond the scope of voluntary programs,” and to provide the
Committee with a monthly report on the number and value of foreclosures prevented through
Treasury programs to date.15 Another concern addressed in the report was TFI’s management of
existing economic and trade sanctions. The Committee urged Treasury to “fully implement all
sanctions and divestment measures, particularly those applicable to North Korea, Burma, Iran,
Sudan and Zimbabwe.”16
House Action on the Request: A bill (H.R. 3170) passed by the House on July 16 would provide
$303 million in direct appropriations for DO, or $1 million more than the budget request. Nearly
half of that additional amount would be used to expand current efforts by the Department’s Office
of Financial Education to improve the financial literacy of elementary school and high school
students. Another $1.5 million of the DO funding would be used to pay for a so-called carbon
audit of the federal tax code that was authorized by the EESA.
The report to accompany H.R. 3170 (H.Rept. 111-202) expressed House appropriators’ concerns
about the manner in which the Obama Administration is reviewing the operating budget for the
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP). The office was
established by the EESA. SIGTARP’s main purpose is to oversee Treasury’s management of the

13 Ibid., p. 11.
14 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2010 report to accompany S. 1432, 111th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 111-43 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 10.
15 Ibid., p. 12.
16 Ibid., p. 13.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

TARP and the trillions of dollars that could be spent under it to stabilize and revitalize domestic
financial markets. Under the act, SIGTARP’s budget authority was set at $50 million. In its
review of the budget, the Administration is trying to determine whether additional funds will be
needed in the next year or two. The Committee wants the Administration to submit a FY2010
budget amendment “well before the conclusion of the current fiscal year,” if it were to decide
more funding is needed.17
Exercising its powers of oversight, the Committee also directed the Department to submit
quarterly reports for the next year, beginning September 1, 2009, on its efforts to implement
recommendations made by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), SIGTARP, and the
Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP on how to use TARP to achieve its intended benefits at
the lowest possible cost. Treasury is also supposed to report to the Committee no later than
September 1 on the Department’s plans for using TARP funds beyond the end of 2009, whether
Treasury has the resources needed to carry out any such plans, and how those plans would
promote the main goals of the federal government’s financial stabilization programs.18
Key Issues: Funding for two of the critical functions performed by Treasury comes from the DO
account: its management of the financial stabilization programs created under EESA (including
TARP), and its leading role in federal efforts to track and disrupt or thwart financial crimes such
as money laundering and terrorist financing. Congress may wish to use its oversight powers to
look into whether proposed FY2010 funding for both functions is adequate in light of their main
objectives, and whether Treasury’s proposed use of those funds would constitute an efficient and
effective way to accomplish those objectives.
Department-Wide Systems and Other Capital Investment Programs (DSCIP)
Purpose: This account provides funding mainly for programs to modernize Treasury’s business
processes through investments in information technology that affect more than one Treasury
bureau or its connections to other federal agencies.
Administration’s FY2010 Budget Request: The Obama Administration is requesting $9.5
million in appropriated funds for DSCIP, or $17.4 million less than the amount enacted for
FY2009. Of the requested funding, $4.5 million would be used to continue the ongoing Treasury
annex repair and maintenance project; $3 million would be used to improve the security of
Treasury’s information systems and other cyber assets; and $2 million would be used to enhance
the capabilities of the Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network.
Senate Action on the Request: As passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee, S. 1432
endorses the Administration’s funding request for DSCIP. According to the Committee’s report on
the bill, the decrease in funding for the account from FY2009 would reflect the termination of
three previous DSCIP initiatives: the E-government initiative, enterprise content management,
and the Treasury secure data network.
House Action on the Request: As passed by the House, H.R. 3170 also endorsed the
Administration’s FY2010 funding request for DSCIP. The House Appropriations Committee

17 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill,
2010, report to accompany H.R. 3170, 111th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 13.
18 Ibid., p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

report on the measure specified that all appropriated funds would be available for use until
September 30, 2012.
Office of Inspector General (OIG)
Purpose: OIG conducts audits and investigations of all Treasury operations in an effort to prevent
or resolve problems that can lead to waste, fraud, and mismanagement. The office undertakes
three kinds of audits: contract, program, and financial statement. Contract audits advise OIG
contract officers on accounting and financial matters related to contracts they manage; program
audits review and assess all aspects of Treasury operations; and financial statement audits
examine the accuracy of OIG financial statements, whether current accounting controls are
adequate, and the results of operations.
Administration’s FY2010 Request: The Obama Administration is asking for $27 million in
direct appropriations for OIG in FY2010, or about $1 million more than the amount enacted for
FY2009. According to Treasury budget documents, the requested funding will allow OIG to carry
out its mandated responsibilities, including investigations of failures of financial institutions
regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS) that result in material losses to the federal deposit insurance fund. In addition,
the proposed funding is intended to enable OIG to conduct audits of Treasury’s five riskiest
operations and programs. These include programs to ensure the safety and soundness of domestic
financial markets, programs to foster economic recovery, and programs to combat terrorist
financing and money laundering.19
Senate Action on the Bill: Under S. 1432, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
OIG would receive $30 million in appropriated funds in FY2010. The Committee cited the
increased workload on OIG staff from conducting “required reviews of certain bank failures” as
the chief justification for recommending $3 million more in funding than the budget request.20
House Action on the Request: The version of H.R. 3170 passed by the House would also
provide OIG with $30 million in appropriated funds in FY2010. According to the House
Appropriations Committee report on the bill, the increase is intended to allow the office to both
undertake its “core” audits and investigations and conduct required reviews of the material losses
of failed banks regulated by OCC or OTS.21
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)
Purpose: TIGTA traces its origins to the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998. It conducts audits, investigations, and assessments of IRS programs and operations and
related entities, such as the IRS Oversight Board. Those audits and investigations are mainly
intended to promote the efficient and effective administration of federal tax laws, detect and deter
fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in IRS programs and operations, and recommend steps the IRS
could take to remedy any problems that are discovered. TIGTA also assesses the impact of current

19 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief FY2010, p. 21.
20 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 15.
21 House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

laws and regulations governing the IRS and proposed changes to them on the efficiency and
effectiveness of tax administration.
Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration is asking for $149
million in direct appropriations for TIGTA in FY2010, or an increase of $3 million in the amount
enacted for FY2009. This added amount is intended to allow TIGTA to maintain its current
operating level. Among the bureau’s priorities in FY2010 are assessing the risks to the IRS posed
by its business system modernization (BSM) program, the tax gap—the difference between the
amount of all taxes owed by taxpayers and the amount of taxes paid voluntarily on time—and the
challenge of recruiting and training thousands of new employees; improving the integrity of IRS
operations; and responding to threats to and attacks on IRS employees, property, and sensitive
information.22
Senate Action on the Request: S. 1432, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
would give TIGTA $152 million in direct appropriations for FY2010, or $3 million more than the
amount requested by the Obama Administration. In recommending this increase, the Committee
pointed to the added demands on the office’s resources as it addresses increasingly complex
issues related to IRS programs and operations.23 These issues include the investigation of
electronic crimes, review of IRS’s procurement activities, and the protection of taxpayer privacy.
House Action on the Request: H.R. 3170, as passed by the House, would provide the same level
of funding for TIGTA as the budget request.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI)
Purpose: The CDFI expands the supply of credit, investment capital, and financial services in
economically distressed urban and rural communities. It does so primarily by making investments
in the form of grants, loans, deposits, equity shares, and technical assistance in so-called
community development financial institutions. Foremost amount those institutions are
community development banks, credit unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and
microloan funds. Recipients of CDFI investments use the funds to support local affordable
housing projects, small firms, and community development efforts in underserved areas. CDFI
also administers the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) program and the New Markets Tax Credit
(NMTC).
Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration is asking for $244
million in direct appropriations for CDFI in FY2010, or an increase of $137 million in the amount
enacted for FY2009. A newly authorized program called the Capital Magnet Fund would account
for $80 million (or 58%) of that increase; the Fund offers competitive grants for the construction,
preservation, rehabilitation, or acquisition of affordable housing for low-income families, and for
economic development projects in communities where this housing is located. Another $54
million (or 39%) of the proposed increase in CDFI appropriations would be used to expand the
program grants made by CDFI. These grants enlarge the capacity of community development
financial institutions to offer loans, equity investments, and financial services in underserved
communities; according to Treasury budget documents, each dollar of a program grant supports

22 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 27.
23 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

or leverages $15 of private investment in underserved communities.24 The Administration’s
budget request also calls for relatively small increases in funding for the BEA program ($3
million) and the Native American Initiatives ($1.5 million). In addition, it is seeking a waiver in
FY2010 both of the statutory $5 million cap on grant amounts, and of the matching funds
requirement for grant recipients.
Senate Action on the Request: As passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee, S. 1432
would provide $247 million in direct appropriations for CDFI in FY2010, or $3 million more
than the budget request. Of this amount, $12 million would be set aside for the Native American
Initiatives, and $3 million would be used to finance a pilot program in Hawaii for financial
education and home ownership counseling. The bill also recommends that the Capital Magnet
Fund receive $80 million in direct appropriations, but only as a temporary injection of start-up
capital until Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are capable of making their required contributions to
the fund.25 In its report on H.R. 3170, the Committee backed the Administration’s request for a
continuation in FY2010 of the existing waiver of the matching funds requirement for CDFI
program grants.
House Action on the Request: As passed by the House, H.R. 3170 would provide the same
amount in direct appropriations for CDFI in FY2010 as the budget request. Of the $244 million
recommended in the bill, $18 million would be used to cover the administrative costs for CDFI,
$10 million would be set aside for the Native American Initiatives, $22 million would go to the
BEA program, and $1 million would be used to fund the financial counseling grants pilot program
established by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-289). The bill also
provides $80 million for the Capital Magnet Fund, which was authorized by the same act.
Key Issues: A report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in June 2009 on the
NMTC program found that a small share of NMTC applications for tax credit authority submitted
to the CDFI by minority-owned community development entities (CDEs) from 2005 through
2008 gained approval.26 According to the report, 9% of such applications were successful, and
they received only $354 million of the $8.7 billion in tax credit authority (or 4%) they sought. By
contrast, 27% of applications submitted by other CDEs were approved, and they received $13.2
billion of the $89.7 billion in tax credit authority (or 15%) they requested in the same period.
Congress may wish to investigate whether CDFI is taking any actions to increase the percentage
of minority-owned CDEs that participate in the NMTC program, and if so, whether it has
adequate funding for that purpose.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Purpose: FinCEN is a bureau within TFI whose mission is to protect the domestic financial
system from crimes such as terrorist financing and money laundering. It does so by administering
the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA); supporting investigations by law enforcement, regulatory, and
intelligence agencies through providing and analyzing financial intelligence; and working with
financial intelligence agencies in other countries to devise effective global strategies for

24 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 32.
25 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 23.
26 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, New Markets Tax Credit: Minority Entities Are Less Successful in
Obtaining Awards than Non-Minority Entities, GAO-09-795T (Washington: June 2009).
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

combating terrorist financing and money laundering. As the designated enforcer of the BSA
within the federal government, FinCEN develops and implements rules and regulations related to
the act, supervises the work of the eight federal agencies responsible for monitoring the
compliance of different segments of the financial services industry with the requirements of the
BSA, and collects and disseminates the information reported by financial institutions under the
BSA.
Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration is asking for $103
million in direct appropriations for FinCEN in FY2010, or about $12 million more than the
amount enacted for FY2009. Of that increase, $1.3 million would be used to maintain the
bureau’s current operations, and $10 million would be funneled into an effort to modernize the
information system used to collect, report, manage, and analyze BSA data.
Senate Action on the Request: S. 1432, as passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
would give FinCEN $104 million in direct appropriations in FY2010, or $1.5 million more than
the budget request. The bill backs the Administration’s request for $10 million to modernize the
“technical environment for the implementation of the Bank Secrecy Act.”27 In its report on S.
1432, the Committee noted that the current information system for collecting and analyzing BSA
data is outdated and limits the ability of users (e.g., law enforcement agencies) to track and
combat criminal activities such as money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorist financing. While
the Committee expressed satisfaction with the steps taken by FinCEN so far to improve its
oversight of the BSA technology modernization project after a previous failure, it directed the
bureau to make it a “top priority” to oversee the performance of contractors and to involve all
interested parties in the development of the new system. The added $1.5 million recommended in
S. 1432 would be used to improve FinCEN’s collaboration with foreign financial intelligence
agencies to develop and implement more effective approaches to combating money laundering
and terrorist financing.
House Action on the Request: As passed by the House, H.R. 3170 would give FinCEN $15
million more in direct appropriations for FY2010 than the budget request. The increase was
adopted as an amendment to the bill during the floor debate. H.R. 3170 supports the
Administration’s request for $10 million to modernize the BSA information system. In its report
on the bill, the House Appropriations Committee admonished the bureau to take the necessary
steps to avoid the mistakes that doomed a previous attempt to modernize the system. The
Committee also acknowledged that the modernization project would be likely to last more than a
few years, and that it would support the use of funds from the Treasury Asset Forfeiture Fund to
accelerate work on the project, if the needed funds are available.28
Financial Management Service (FMS)
Purpose: FMS is responsible for the management of federal finances and the collection of federal
(and selected non-federal) non-tax debt. In its role as the federal government’s primary financial
agent, the bureau receives and disburses federal funds, maintains federal financial accounts, and
issues reports on the state of the government’s finances. In addition, FMS devises and implements
payment policies and procedures for federal agencies, promotes the use of electronic payment
systems, and provides debt collection services to federal and state government agencies.

27 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 18.
28 House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 16.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration is asking for $244
million in direct appropriations for FMS in FY2010, or $4 million more than the amount enacted
for FY2009. According to Treasury budget documents, the requested appropriation would
represent a little more than half of the operating budget for FMS in the next fiscal year, as it is
expected to receive offsetting collections (or reimbursables) of $235 million. All of the additional
$4 million in direct appropriations would be used to maintain the current operating level at FMS.
An unspecified amount would be used to continue two significant modernization projects:
Financial Information Reporting Standardization and the Cash Management Modernization.29In
addition, the budget request includes two legislative proposals intended to remove certain
obstacles to the collection of delinquent taxes from federal contractors through the Federal
Payment Levy Program.
Senate Action on the Request: S. 1432, as passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
would match the budget request for FMS. In its report on the bill, the Committee expressed
concern about the interchange and other fees paid by federal agencies on transactions involving
the use of debit and credit card to pay for goods and services they acquire from other agencies.
FMS processes those payments and obtains credit and debit cards for a majority of those
agencies. The Committee directed the bureau to report to the Committee within 180 days of the
enactment of the bill on the cost savings and other benefits the federal government might realize,
if FMS were to negotiate lower rates and fees from credit and debit card networks and fewer
restrictions on which card payments the government can accept and how those payments are
processed.30
House Action on the Request: As passed by the House, H.R. 3170 would provide FMS with the
same level of direct appropriations as the budget request. The bill specifies that up to $9 million
should be used for “information systems modernization initiatives,” and that this money would be
available for that purpose through the end of FY2011. In its report on H.R. 3170, the Committee
directed FMS to include additional data on foreign buyers of Treasury securities in its Monthly
Treasury Statement.31
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (ATB)
Purpose: The ATB was established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Its primary mission is
to enforce certain laws and regulations relating to the production and sale of products containing
alcohol or tobacco. In managing this responsibility, ATB collects federal excise taxes on alcohol,
tobacco, firearms, and ammunition, and it protects the general public from harmful practices by
regulating the production, labeling, and marketing of alcohol products.
Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration is asking for net
direct appropriations for ATB in FY2010 of $25 million. This is a net figure because the budget
request for the bureau is $105 million, and the Administration wants to raise most of that amount
by assessing an annual fee on the companies and other entities ATB regulates, beginning in
FY2010. Congress would have to pass legislation authorizing such a fee before the ATB could
begin to collect it. The fees would be used to fund ATB operations. According to Treasury budget

29 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 47.
30 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, pp. 19-
20.
31 House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 17.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

documents, the proposed fee would generate $80 million in revenue in FY2010, leaving a gap
between ATB’s funding and requested budget of $25 million that would be filled by direct
appropriations.32
The budget request of $105 million is $6 million above the amount enacted for FY2009. About
$0.5 million of the proposed increase would be used to maintain current operating levels, and the
remaining $5.5 million would cover the cost of establishing and operating a permanent program
to assess annual fees on alcohol industry members.
Senate Action on the Request: As approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, S. 1432
would grant ATB $103 million in direct appropriations in FY2010, or $2 million below the
budget request. In its report on the bill, the Committee expressed opposition to the proposed
annual fee on producers, distributors, and retailers of alcohol products to fund ATB’s operations.33
The recommended $2 million decrease in budget authority reflects the estimated cost of
implementing the proposed fee collections.
House Action on the Request: H.R. 3170, as passed by the House, would provide ATB with
$99.5 million in direct appropriations for FY2010, or $5.5 million less than the budget request.
The lower amount reflects opposition to the proposed annual fee. Consequently, H.R. 3170 would
allow ATB to maintain its current level of operations but deny the bureau the authority to collect
annual fees from alcohol industry members.
Key Issues: In working to protect the public interest, ATB enforces federal regulations related to
the production, labeling, advertising, and marketing of products containing alcohol. The bureau
does this by conducting investigations, reviewing applications, testing products in laboratories,
and offering educational programs for industry members. These efforts are aimed at ensuring that
the alcohol products sold domestically are not contaminated, mislabeled, and marketed or
distributed illegally. It can be argued that ATB’s enforcement activities help establish a level
playing field among companies that make, sell, and distribute those products, and that a fair
system of competition geared toward the protection of consumers has significant benefits for
those companies. Congress may want to examine in depth the rationale for paying for those
activities through direct appropriations and not through user fees imposed on the companies that
benefit from the activities.
Bureau of Public Debt (BPD)
Purpose: The BPD borrows the funds needed to keep the federal government in operation. It also
accounts for the resulting debt and provides reimbursable support services to other federal
agencies. In performing these functions, the bureau annually auctions and issues trillions of
dollars of Treasury bills, notes, and bonds; regulates the primary and secondary Treasury
securities markets; issues and redeems more than 70 million paper savings bonds each year;
administers more than $4 trillion in investments for federal trust funds; and prepares regular
reports on the status of the public debt.
Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration is asking for $182
million in direct appropriations for BDP in FY2010, or about $5 million more than the amount

32 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 43.
33 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

enacted for FY2009. This total represents a net figure, as the budget request calls for $192 million
in appropriations, reduced by the collection of $10 million in user fees from account holders in
the Legacy Treasury Direct system. All of the $5 million in added funding would be used to
maintain BPD’s current operating level. A top priority for the budget request is ensuring that the
bureau is using the most efficient information systems to conduct debt operations and deliver
services to investors.34 In FY2008, BPD introduced an improved auction system known as the
Treasury Automated Auction Processing System. The bureau also continues to invest in
upgrading the Treasury Direct system, which allows investors to purchase and manage their
holdings of Treasury securities online.
Senate Action on the Request: As approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, S. 1432
endorses the budget request for BPD in FY2010.
House Action on the Request: As approved by the House, H.R. 3170 also endorses the budget
request for BPD in FY2010.
Internal Revenue Service
Purpose: To finance its operations and many spending programs, the federal government levies
individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes,
customs duties, and miscellaneous taxes and fees. The federal agency responsible for
administering and collecting these taxes and fees (except for customs duties) is the IRS. In
handling this responsibility, the IRS receives and processes tax returns, related documents, and
tax payments; disburses refunds; enforces compliance through audits and other procedures;
collects delinquent taxes; and provides a host of services to taxpayers with the aim of helping
them understand their rights and responsibilities under the federal tax code and resolving
problems without litigation.
In FY2008, the IRS collected $2.3 trillion in revenue, net of refunds, and processed 250.4 million
tax returns, 101.5 million of which were filed electronically. As part of its effort to ensure that
taxpayers file accurate returns and pay the taxes they owe on time, the agency received 1.9
million information returns. It also collected $56.4 billion in enforcement revenue in FY2008.
Visits to Taxpayer Assistance Centers that year totaled 6.9 million, and IRS personnel handled
40.4 million live toll-free calls for taxpayer assistance. In addition, the IRS delivered $94.3 billion
in economic stimulus payments to 116.2 taxpayers in FY2008.
The IRS receives funding for its operations from three sources: appropriated funds, user fees, and
offsetting collections (or reimbursables), which are payments the IRS receives from other federal
agencies and state governments for services it provides. In FY2009, appropriated funds account
for more than 97% of IRS’s operating budget of $11.842 billion, user fees for 1.5%, and offsetting
collections for 1.2%.
Appropriated funds are distributed among five budgetary categories:
• (1) taxpayer services, which provides resources for pre-filing taxpayer
assistance, filing and account services, administrative services for IRS
employees, and senior IRS management;

34 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 51.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• (2) enforcement, which covers the cost of compliance services, research and
statistical analysis, and administration of the earned income tax credit;
• (3) operations support, which addresses the resources needed for planning and
the overall direction of the IRS, including shared service support for facilities,
rent payments, printing, postage, security, strategic planning, finance, human
resources, and improvement and maintenance of the agency’s information and
management systems;
• (4) business systems modernization (or BSM), which provides funds for
developing new information systems for tax administration and acquiring the
hardware and software needed to integrate them into IRS’s operations; and
• (5) health insurance tax credit administration, which covers the cost of
administering the refundable tax credit for health insurance established by the
Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002.
Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration is asking for
$12.126 billion in direct appropriations for the IRS in FY2010, or $603 million more than the
amount enacted for FY2009. Of the requested funding, $2.270 billion would be used for taxpayer
services (a decline of $23.2 million from FY2009), $5.504 billion for enforcement (an increase of
$387 million), $4.083 billion for operations support (an increase of $216 million), $254 million
for the BSM (an increase of $24 million), and $15.5 million for the administration of the health
insurance tax credit (an increase of $0.1 million).
The requested $603 million in added appropriations for FY2010 would result from combining
$256 million in added spending to maintain current operating levels and $463 million in added
spending to improve enforcement, address critical information security needs, and accelerate the
development of a critical taxpayer account database, with a reduction in spending of $116 million
from savings from reinvestments and improved efficiency in IRS operations. In justifying the
request, the Administration claims the additional spending will enable the agency to collect $2
billion more in enforcement revenue by FY2012.35
Though the Administration is asking for a decrease in appropriations for taxpayer services of 1%
relative to the amount enacted for FY2009, it says the decrease does not represent a reduction in
the resources available for that purpose. Savings from non-recurring activities would make this
possible. Of the proposed funding for taxpayer services in FY2010, $676 million would be used
for pre-filing taxpayer assistance and education, and $1.6 billion for filing and account services.
Most of the proposed $387 million increase in appropriations for enforcement would be used to
support an ongoing effort to lower the tax gap. In 2001, the most recent year for which an
estimate is available, the gross tax gap was $345 billion and the net gap $290 billion.36 Under the
budget request, $128 million would be used to reduce the tax gap tied to international activities,
$94 million to improve the reporting compliance of small firms and high-income taxpayers, $26

35 Ibid., p. 59.
36 The gross tax gap is the difference between total taxes owed and total taxes paid voluntarily on time in a tax year.
The net gap is the amount of the gross gap for that year that remains after accounting for all late payments and all
revenue raised through enforcement activities. For more details on the tax gap and legislation to reduce it, see CRS
Report R40219, Tax Gap, Tax Enforcement, and Tax Compliance Proposals in the 111th Congress, by James M.
Bickley.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

million to expand the document-matching program for business taxpayers, and $84 million to
improve the collection coverage for non-filing and underpayment of taxes.
The proposed added funding for BSM ($23 million) would allow the IRS to continue a project
intended to modernize the core taxpayer account database. This database is intended to play a key
enabling role in the “next generation of IRS service and enforcement initiatives.”
Budget Recommendations of the IRS Oversight Board: Under the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998, the IRS Oversight Board has the responsibility of overseeing IRS’s
administration of the federal tax code and ensuring that the IRS’s budget and operations allow the
agency to perform its main functions. Section 7802 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
authorizes the Board to review and approve the IRS’s annual budget request, and to ensure that
the budget request for the agency submitted to Congress supports the strategic plans of the IRS.
The President must submit the Board’s budget recommendation, without revision, to Congress,
along with the Administration’s budget request.
For FY2010, the Board recommends that the IRS receive $12.489 billion in direct appropriations,
or $363 million more than the budget request.37 The recommendation is intended to address what
the Board sees as two major problems with the U.S. system of tax administration: a tax gap of an
estimated $290 billion and the antiquated information systems relied upon by the IRS to manage
its operations. To address the first problem, the Board calls for a budget for enforcement in
FY2010 of $5.5 billion, which is the same as the budget request. But in keeping with the Board’s
stated belief that reducing the tax gap requires a “multi-faceted, multi-year approach,” it
recommends spending $32 million more than the budget request for taxpayers services, $146
million more for the BSM, $184 million more for operations support. The larger budgets for BSM
and operations support would also address the second problem.
Senate Action on the Request: S. 1432, as passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee,
recommends that the IRS receive $12.152 billion in direct appropriations in FY2010, or $26
million more than the budget request. In its report on the bill, the Committee urged the IRS to use
whatever increase in funding from FY2009 it receives to take steps to lower the tax gap related to
international tax evasion, to upgrade its information systems, to streamline its operations, to
protect taxpayer information, and to replace an antiquated infrastructure.
S. 1432 would give the IRS $2.276 billion for taxpayer services, or $6 million above the budget
request. Of that total, not less than $6.1 million should be used for the Tax Counseling for the
Elderly program, $9.5 million for low-income taxpayer clinic grants, $12 million (to be available
through the end of FY2011) in matching grants for the community volunteer income tax
assistance program (VITA), and $206 million for the Taxpayer Advocate Service.
The bill would provide $5.504 billion in direct appropriations for enforcement, the same amount
as the budget request. In its report, the Committee expressed support for the Administration’s
stated intention of using the added resources for enforcement to reduce the tax gap resulting from
international transactions, in part by hiring another 784 auditors. But it also directed the IRS to
provide the Committee with detailed information on the cost of and revenues raised by the
“implementation of the new enforcement initiatives.”38

37 IRS Oversight Board, FY2010 IRS Budget Recommendation: Special Report (Washington, June 2009), p. 3.
38 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 30.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

S. 1432 recommends that the IRS receive $4.083 billion in direct appropriations for operations
support, or the same as the budget request. The Committee noted that there have been “major
problems” with IRS’s management of non-BSM information technology projects and directed the
agency to do a better job of making sure that each such project has been properly classified, has
risk management and contingency plans, and gives the IRS the authority to impose penalties on
and demand repayment from contractors whose performance fails to meet the terms of contracts.
Under the bill, the BSM would receive $274 million in direct appropriations, or $20 million more
than the budget request. The Committee expects the IRS to devote the additional funds to expand
the agency’s efforts to develop a new customer account data engine (CADE), which is intended to
serve as the central repository of tax account information for individuals.
House Action on the Request: H.R. 3170, as passed by the House, would give the IRS $12.130
billion in direct appropriations in FY2010, or $4 million more than the budget request. The entire
amount of the increase would go to taxpayer services, which would receive $2.274 billion in
appropriations. Under the bill, not less than $10 million would be used for low-income taxpayer
clinic grants, $5.1 million for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program, $9 million for VITA
matching grants, and $206 million for the Taxpayer Advocate Service. In its report on H.R. 3170,
the House Appropriations Committee directed the IRS to continue efforts to improve the service
available to taxpayers on “IRS 1-800 help lines.”39 It also urged the agency to explore new ways
of getting refunds to low-income taxpayers sooner so they are less likely to use refund
anticipation loans. H.R. 3170 would appropriate the same amount for enforcement, operations
support, BSM, and the administration of the health insurance tax credit as the budget request.
Key Issues: In a bid to lower the tax gap and reduce the cost of tax administration, Congress may
wish to examine several options. One is to simplify the tax code by requiring the IRS to use plain
English in all tax forms and publications. Another option is to allow taxpayers to pay taxes
without filing a return. A third option is to pass legislation that addresses the consumer fraud that
occurs when taxpayers allow someone to prepare their tax returns for a fee. Finally, Congress
could use the appropriations process to require the IRS to hire thousands of more auditors for the
purpose of examining the tax returns of passthrough entities like partnerships and S corporations.
Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President40
The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill provides funding for
all but three offices under the Executive Office of the President (EOP)41 Table 4 shows

39 House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 22.
40 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
41 Of the three exceptions, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Environmental Quality are funded
in the House and Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The Office of Science and
Technology Policy and the Office of the United States Trade Representative are funded in the House and Senate
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. During debate on H.R. 3170 on July 16, 2009,
the House of Representatives did not agree to an amendment (No. 6) offered by Representative Paul Broun that would
have prohibited funds appropriated in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act from being
used to pay the salaries of the Assistant to the President on Energy and Climate Change, the Deputy Assistant to the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

appropriations enacted for FY2009, amounts requested by the President for FY2010,
appropriations provided by the House in H.R. 3170 for FY2010, and amounts recommended by
the Senate Committee on Appropriations for FY2010.
Table 4. Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President,
FY2009 to FY2010
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Office
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
The White House (total)
$187,342
$207,818
$207,818
$207,818

Compensation of the President
450
450
450
450

The White House Office
53,899 59,319
59,319
59,319

(salaries and expenses,
including Office of Policy
Development for FY2010)
Executive Residence, White
13,363 13,838
13,838
13,838

House (operating expenses)
White House Repair and
1,600 2,500
2,500
2,500
Restoration
Council of Economic Advisers
4,118
4,200
4,200
4,200

Office of Policy Development
3,550
—
—
—

National Security Councila 9,029
12,231
12,231
12,231

Office of Administration
101,333
115,280
115,280
115,280

Office of Management and
87,972 92,687
92,687
92,687
Budget
Federal Drug Control Programs
438,900 422,575
407,975
438,325

(total)
Office of National Drug Control
27,200 27,575
27,575
28,575

Policy
High Intensity Drug Trafficking
234,000 220,000
248,000
234,000

Areas Program
Other Federal Drug Control
174,700 174,000
132,400
174,750

Programs
Counterdrug Technology
3,000 1,000
—
1,000
Assessment Center
Unanticipated Needs
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000

Partnership Fund for Program
— 175,000
40,000
40,000

Integrity Innovation
Presidential transition
8,000 —
—
—

administrative support

(...continued)
President on Energy and Climate Change, or any position in the Council on Environmental Quality. The vote was 149-
282 (Roll No. 558). Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155, July 16, 2009, pp. H8238-H8239.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Office
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Special Assistance to the
4,496 4,604
4,604
4,604
President (salaries and
expenses)
Official Residence of the Vice
323 330
330
330
President (operating expenses)
Total: EOP and Funds
$728,033a $904,014
$754,414
$784,764

Appropriated to the
President
Sources: Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2009 (Div. D, P.L. 111-8), FY2010
Budget, Appendix, pp. 1103-1114 and 1227-1229, U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2010
Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: February 2009), H.Rept. 111-202, and S.Rept. 111-43.
a. Does not include $2,936,000 in emergency appropriations provided to the National Security Council
through P.L. 111-32.
President’s Budget Request and Key Issues
The Administration’s FY2010 budget requested an appropriation of $904 million for the EOP and
funds appropriated to the President, an increase of $173 million or almost 24% above the $731
million appropriated for FY2009. The budget also proposed that the accounts covering the White
House Office (WHO) and the Office of Policy Development (OPD) be consolidated as “both
provide policy advice and assistance to the President” and “share facilities and supporting
infrastructures.”42 The budget requested increased appropriations for each of the accounts under
the White House, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Special Assistance to the
President (Vice President), and the Official Residence of the Vice President; the same
appropriation ($1 million) for Unanticipated Needs; and reduced appropriations for all but one of
the accounts under the federal drug control programs as follows.
• The White House accounts (+$17.5 million or +9.2%), including the WHO
(including the OPD) (+$1.9 million or +3.3%), the Executive Residence
(+$475,000 or +3.6%), White House Repair and Restoration (+$900,000 or
+56.3%), the Council of Economic Advisers (+$82,000 or +2.0%), the National
Security Council (NSC, +$266,000 or +2.2%), and the Office of Administration
(OA, +$13.9 million or +13.8%).
• OMB (+$4.7 million or +5.4%). The budget also proposed a Partnership Fund for
Program Integrity Innovation and requested funding of $175 million that would
be administered by OMB. According to the EOP’s FY2010 budget justification,
the purpose of the partnership fund:
is to reduce error and improve efficiency and service in Federal assistance programs
administered by States. Many State-administered programs operate independently of each
other yet serve similar low-income populations. In addition, Federal and State officials
responsible for improving program services often work independently of those responsible
for program oversight and reducing improper payments. Through modern technology,
solutions can be found that simultaneously support multiple objectives of improving program

42 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: February
2009), p. EOP-4.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

integrity through reduction in error, improving administrative efficiency, and improving
service to eligible beneficiaries.43
• Special Assistance to the President (+$108,000 or +2.4%) and the Official
Residence of the Vice President (+$7,000 or +2.2%).
• The Federal Drug Control Programs (-$16.3 million or +3.7%), including the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP, +$375,000 or +1.4%), the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program (HIDTAP, -$14 million or +6.0%), the
Other Federal Drug Control Programs (OFDCP, -$700,000 or +0.4%), and the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC, -$2 million or +66.7%).
Committee Recommendations
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed an appropriation of
$754.4 million for the EOP and funds appropriated to the President, a decrease of $149.6 million
or 16.5% from the President’s request of $904 million. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended an appropriation of $784.8 million, $119.2 million or 13.2% less than the
President’s request. The House Committee recommended, the House passed, and the Senate
Committee recommended the appropriations requested by the President for the accounts covering
the White House,44 OMB (except for that for the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity
Innovation), and the Vice President. Both the House and Senate committees recommended that
the WHO and OPD accounts be consolidated as the President requested. The WHO appropriation
includes $1.4 million for the White House Office of National AIDS policy and funding for the
new Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator required by Title III of P.L. 110-403, the
Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008. Installation of a
backup steam generating station is funded in the appropriation for White House Repair and
Restoration. The NSC appropriation includes funding for the continued support of additional
staff, the transition costs of converting positions currently held by detailees to NSC staff
positions, and implementing the recommendations on integrating the Homeland Security Council
and the NSC. The $115.3 million appropriation for the Office of Administration (OA) includes
$16.8 million for the continued modernization of the infrastructure for information technology
within the EOP. OMB’s appropriation includes funding to hire new staff. The agency expects to
have a full-time equivalent level of 528 by the end of FY2009. The agency’s appropriation could
not be
• used to review any agricultural marketing orders or any activities or regulations
under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937;
• expended to alter the transcript of actual testimony of witnesses, except the
testimony of OMB officials before the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations or their subcommittees;
• used, directly or indirectly, by OMB to evaluate or determine if water resource
project or study reports submitted by the Chief of Engineers are in compliance

43 Ibid., p. OMB-13.
44 During debate on H.R. 3170 on July 16, 2009, the House of Representatives did not agree to an amendment (No. 3)
offered by Representative Paul Broun that would have struck the funding of $4.2 million for the Council of Economic
Advisers. The vote was 146-279 (Roll No. 555). Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155, July 16, 2009, pp. H
8234-H8235.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

with applicable laws, regulations, and requirements relevant to the Civil Works
water resource planning process. OMB would not have more than 60 days to
perform budgetary policy reviews of water resource matters reported on by the
Chief of Engineers and the OMB Director would notify the appropriate House
and Senate authorizing and appropriations committees when the review is
initiated. If water resource reports have not been transmitted to the appropriate
authorizing and appropriations committees within 15 days after the OMB review
period ends, Congress would assume that OMB concurs with the report and act
accordingly.
With regard to the partnership fund, the House Committee recommended, the House passed, and
the Senate Committee recommended an appropriation of $40 million, a reduction of $135 million
or more than 77% from the $175 million requested by the President. The funding would remain
available until September 30, 2012, and could be used for grants, contracts, cooperative
agreements, and administrative costs in carrying out pilot projects under the partnership fund. The
House-passed bill provides that the OMB Director would transfer funds to appropriate agencies to
carry out pilot projects and conduct or provide for their evaluation. Funds could not be obligated
for a pilot project unless the OMB Director determined that the project meets four criteria: (1)
addresses programs that have a substantial state role in eligibility determination or administration
or where federal-state cooperation could otherwise be beneficial; (2) in aggregate, is expected to
save at least as much money as it costs; (3) demonstrates the potential to streamline
administration and strengthen program integrity; and (4) does not achieve savings primarily by
reducing the participation of eligible beneficiaries. The OMB Director would notify the House
and Senate committees of each determination with regard to the four criteria at least 15 days in
advance of obligating funds for the pilot project. The notification would state the purposes and
objectives of the pilot project and a plan for its evaluation. The OMB Director would report to the
House committee on the progress of activities funded under the partnership fund appropriation by
September 30, 2010, and annually thereafter for the next four years. The Senate-reported bill
provides that the OMB Director would transfer funds to appropriate agencies to carry out the pilot
projects, contingent upon a determination by the Director, in consultation with an interagency
council of representatives of appropriate federal agencies, States, and other stakeholders, that the
pilot projects address the four criteria stated above.
The House Committee on Appropriations report and the Senate Committee on Appropriations
report included several directives for accounts under the EOP as follows.
• The OA is directed to report annually to the committee, at the same time that the
President’s budget is submitted to Congress, on progress in modernizing
information technology, funding obligated and expended (and for what
purposes), specific milestones achieved, and requirements and plans for further
investment. (House report)
• The Obama Administration is directed to coordinate an effort across the
government to develop and implement a national AIDS strategy with targets to
improve prevention and the outcome of treatments. (Senate report)
• Officials, whether employed in whole or in part by the EOP, and designated by
the President to coordinate policy agendas across the executive branch are
expected to fully and regularly inform Congress of their activities. (Senate report)
• The OA is directed to implement comprehensive policies and procedures to
preserve all records, including electronic mail, videos, and social networking
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

communication, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act, the Federal
Records Act, and other pertinent laws as a top priority. The OA is to work closely
with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to ensure that
electronic records that will eventually be turned over the NARA are fully
maintained and formatted. The committee awaits the report previously requested
on this issue and expects the OA to keep it fully informed of the funding needed
for record preservation. (Senate report)
• OMB is urged to plan and implement a modernization of the core budgeting
system for the federal government that is used by all federal agencies to
document and estimate budget activities, ensure data integrity with other
financial and accounting systems, and develop the President’s budget proposals.
OMB is also directed to annually include a justification for each of the
government-wide councils, including the President’s Management Council, the
Chief Financial Officers Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the
Chief Human Capital Officers Council, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council,
and the Performance Improvement Council, in the EOP’s budget request
beginning with FY2011. (Senate report)
• The interagency council for the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity
Innovation, in consultation with OMB, is directed to submit a report on the
partnership fund to the committee by March 30, 2010, and semiannually
thereafter, until the program concludes. The report is to include the goals and
objectives, and a performance evaluation, of the partnership fund and each pilot
project, and an operating plan with current and future funding allocations for
each pilot project. (Senate report)
Federal Drug Control Programs
As for the accounts under the Federal Drug Control Programs, the House committee
recommended and the House passed an appropriation of $408 million, a reduction of $14.6
million or 3.5% from the $422.6 million requested by the President. The Senate Committee
recommended an appropriation of $438.3 million, an increase of $15.7 million or 3.7% above the
President’s request. Each of the accounts under the Federal Drug Control Programs are funded as
follows.
• ONDCP - The House committee recommended and the House passed an
appropriation of $27.6 million, the same amount as requested by the President.
The Senate committee recommended an appropriation of $28.6 million, $1
million or 3.6% more than the President’s request. Both the House-passed and the
Senate-reported bills would allocate $1.3 million of the total appropriation for
policy research and evaluation.
• HIDTAP - The House committee recommended and the House passed an
appropriation of $248 million, $28 million or 12.7% above the President’s
request of $220 million. The Senate committee recommended an appropriation of
$234 million, $14 million or 6.4% more than the President’s request. Both the
House-passed and the Senate-reported bills would provide that of the total, not
less than 51% would be transferred to State and local entities for drug control
activities and would be obligated within 120 days after the act’s enactment. Up to
49% of the total could be transferred to federal agencies and departments as
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

determined by the ONDCP Director, including not more than $2.7 million for
auditing services and associated activities (including $250,000 (House) and
$500,000 (Senate) for the continued operation and maintenance of the
Performance Management System). Within 45 days after the act’s enactment, the
Director would notify the committees of the initial allocation of FY2010 funding
among HIDTAs. Not later than 90 days after the act’s enactment, the Director
would notify the committees of planned uses of discretionary HIDTA funding, as
determined in consultation with the HIDTA Directors (House) or according to a
framework proposed jointly by the HIDTA Directors and ONDCP (Senate). The
House-passed bill would provide that each High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(HIDTA) designated as of September 30, 2009, would be funded at not less than
the FY2009 base level unless the Director submits to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations justification for changes to those levels based on
clearly articulated priorities and published ONDCP performance measures. The
Senate-reported bill would provide that, notwithstanding the requirements of P.L.
106-58, any unexpended funds obligated prior to FY2008 for programs on the
treatment or prevention of drug use as part of the approved strategy for a
designated HIDTA could be used for other approved activities of that area.
• CTAC - The House committee recommended and the House passed no
appropriation. The Senate committee recommended the same appropriation ($1
million) as the President requested for counternarcotics research and
development projects. The funding could be transferred to other federal
departments or agencies. Within 90 days after the act’s enactment, the ONDCP
would submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a detailed
spending plan for the use of the funds.
• OFDCP - The House committee recommended and the House passed an
appropriation of $132.4 million, $41.6 million or 23.9% less than the President’s
request of $174 million. A grantee under the Drug-Free Communities Program
who is seeking a renewal grant and is not awarded renewal funding would be
afforded a fair, timely, and independent appeal of the non-renewal decision prior
to the beginning of the funding year. The Senate committee recommended an
appropriation of $174.8 million, $750,000 or 0.4% more than the President’s
request. Table 5 shows the allocation of the funding for the OFDCP accounts.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Table 5. Other Federal Drug Control Programs: FY2010 Appropriations for Accounts
House-
Other Federal Drug Control
Reported and
Programs Account
House-Passed Senate-Reported
Outreach and media activities related to
$20 milliona
$70 million, including $8 million for messages on
drug abuse prevention
methamphetamine prevention. ONDCP would
maintain funding for non-advertising services for
the media campaign at not less than the fiscal year
2003 ratio of service funding to total funds and
continue the corporate outreach program. Not
more than 10% of the funds appropriated for a
national media campaign would be for
administration, advertising production, research
and testing, labor, and related costs.
Drug Free Communities Program $98
million $90,750,000
National Drug Court Institute
$1 million
$1 million
United States Anti-Doping Agency
$10 million
$9.6 million
World Anti-Doping Agency dues
$1.9 million
$1.9 million
National Alliance for Model State Drug
$1,250,000 $1,250,000
Laws
National Drug Control Program
$250,000 $250,000
performance measures, for evaluations
and research, may be transferred to other
federal departments and agencies
Total $132,400,000
$174,750,000
Source: H.Rept. 111-202, H.R. 3170, and S.Rept. 111-43.
a. The Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3170 states a concern that the funding requested for the
national media campaign is redirected to HIDTAP. (U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 3170, July 15, 2009, p. 3.)
The House-passed and Senate-reported bills include three administrative provisions related to the
ONDCP. Section 202 of the House-passed bill would provide that the ONDCP Director would
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of the act’s
enactment, and prior to the obligation of more than 20% of the funds appropriated in any account
under the headings “Office of National Drug Control Policy” and “Federal Drug Control
Programs,” a detailed narrative and financial plan on the proposed uses of all funds under the
account by program, project, and activity. The report would be updated and submitted to the
committees every six months and would include information on how previous estimates and
assumptions changed. Section 202 of the Senate-reported bill would provide that the President
would submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of the act’s
enactment, and prior to the initial obligation of funds appropriated under the heading “Office of
National Drug Control Policy,” a detailed narrative and financial plan on the proposed uses of all
funds under the heading by program, project, and activity. Up to 20% of the funds appropriated
under the heading could be obligated before the report is submitted with the prior approval of the
House and Senate committees. The report would be updated and submitted to the committees
every six months and would include information on how previous estimates and assumptions
changed. Any new projects, and changes in the funding of ongoing projects would be approved in
advance by the House and Senate committees. Under Section 203, up to two percent of any
ONDCP appropriations could be transferred between appropriated programs with the advance
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

approval of the House and Senate committees. A transfer could not increase or decrease an
appropriation by more than three percent. Section 204 would authorize the reprogramming of up
to $1 million of any ONDCP appropriations within a program, project, or activity with the
advance approval of the House and Senate committees.
The reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations included several directives
for the accounts under Federal Drug Control Programs as follows.
• ONDCP is directed to work with agencies, including the Departments of Justice,
State, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, and State and local
governments to develop and implement strategies to reduce the demand for and
supply of methamphetamine in the United States. (House report) ONDCP is to
focus methamphetamine prevention advertising on geographic areas within a
State with the highest levels of drug abuse. (Senate report)
• ONDCP is directed to reinstate the organizational structure that was in place prior
to the reorganization announced in a December 1, 2006, letter to the committee
and must notify the committee, in writing, of actions to implement the directive
within 45 days after the act’s enactment. (Senate report)
• ONDCP is to keep the committee informed as it implements the
recommendations and actions proposed by the National Academy of Public
Administration in a November 2008 report. (Senate report)
• ONDCP is directed to consult with the HIDTAs before deciding on programmatic
spending allocations for discretionary (supplemental) funding. The committee
strongly recommends that the Hawaii HIDTA be considered for an increased
allocation. HIDTA funds are to be transferred to the appropriate drug control
agencies expeditiously. (Senate report)
• ONDCP is directed to withhold all HIDTA funds from a State until the State or
locality has met its financial obligation. (Senate report)
• ONDCP is to outline and submit to the committee a detailed plan, including
funding, for evaluation projects that assess the effectiveness of the National Drug
Control strategy and develop and improve data sources, within 120 days after the
act’s enactment. (Senate report)
Transfer Authority
As recommended by both the House and Senate committees and as passed by the House, the
provision that authorizes the transfer of up to 10% of appropriated funds among the accounts for
the White House,45 and the Special Assistance to the President (Vice President), and the Official
Residence of the Vice President (transfers would be subject to the approval of the Vice President)
is continued at Section 201. The OMB Director (or such other officer as the President designates
in writing) would be able, 15 days after notifying the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, to transfer up to 10% of any such appropriation to any other such appropriation.
The transferred funds would be merged with, and available for, the same time and purposes as the

45 The accounts under the White House are Compensation of the President, the White House Office, including the
Office of Policy Development, the Executive Residence at the White House, White House Repair and Restoration, the
Council of Economic Advisers, the National Security Council, and the Office of Administration.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

appropriation receiving the funds. Such transfers could not increase an appropriation by more
than 50%.46
The Judiciary47
As a co-equal branch of government, the judiciary presents its budget to the President, who
transmits it to Congress unaltered. Table 6 shows appropriations for the judiciary as enacted for
FY2009, as requested for FY2010, as passed by the House, and as recommended by the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
Table 6. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2009 to FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
Budget Groupings and Accounts
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Supreme Court (total)
$88.2
$89.3
$88.6a $88.6b

Salaries and Expenses
69.8
74.7
74.0
74.1

Building and Grounds
18.4
14.6
14.5 14.5
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit
30.4 37.0 33.6
32.3
U.S. Court of International Trade
19.6
21.517
21.4c 21.4d
Courts of Appeals, District Courts,
and Other Judicial Services (total)
6,146.1e 6,677.4 6,588.5
6,577.4

Salaries and Expenses
4,801.4e 5,162.3 5,080.7
5,076.8

Court Security
428.9
463.6
457.4
457.4

Defender Services
849.4
982.6
982.7
975.5

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
62.2
63.4
62.3
62.3

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust
Fund
4.3 5.4 5.4
5.4
Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts
79.0 84.0 83.1
83.1
Federal Judicial Center
25.7
27.5
27.3
27.3
United States Sentencing Commission
16.2
17.1
16.8
16.8

46 Section 533, Title V, Division H of P.L. 108-447, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005, authorized
transfers of up to 10% of FY2005 appropriated funds among the accounts for the White House Office, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Special Assistance to the President (Vice
President), and the Official Residence of the Vice President. For FY2006, Section 725 of P.L. 109-115, the
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 authorized transfers of up to 10% among the accounts for the White House, the
Special Assistance to the President (Vice President), and the Official Residence of the Vice President. Section 201 of
P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008, and Section 201 of P.L. 111-8, the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for FY2009, continued this practice.
47 This section was written by Lorraine Tong, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
Budget Groupings and Accounts
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Judicial Retirement Funds
76.1
82.4
82.4
82.4
Total: The Judiciary
$6,481.4e $7,036.1 $6,941.6
$6,929.3
Sources: Budget authority figures, other than FY2010 Senate Committee data, are taken from H.Rept. 111-202
and H.R. 3170 as enacted. The Senate data are from S.Rept. 111-43.
Notes: All figures are rounded, and columns also may not equal the total due to rounding.
a. House passed a total of $88.559 million, which is $749,000 less than the FY2010 request.
b. The Senate committee recommended a total of $88.606 million, which is $702,000 less than the FY2010
request.
c. House passed $21.350 million, which is $167,000 less than the FY2010 request.
d. The Senate recommendation of $21.374 million, which is $143,000 less than the FY2010 request.
e. $10 million provided in Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32) is not included in this total.
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues
Appropriations for the judiciary—about two-tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire federal budget—
are divided into budget groups and accounts. Two accounts that fund the Supreme Court (salaries
and expenses of the Court and expenditures for the care of its building and grounds) together total
about 1% of the total judiciary budget. The structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court
building, and care of its grounds, are the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol. The rest of
the judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal courts and related judicial
services. The largest account, about 73% of the total budget—the Salaries and Expenses account
for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—covers the salaries
of circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States),
justices and judges retired from office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and other officers and employees of the
federal judiciary not specifically provided for by other accounts. It also covers the necessary
expenses of the courts. The remaining 26% of the judiciary budget is disbursed among these
accounts: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. Court of International Trade,
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judicial Center, U.S. Sentencing Commission,
and Judicial Retirement Funds.
The judiciary budget does not fund three “special courts” in the U.S. court system: the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the Department of Defense appropriations bill), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (funded in the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies appropriations bill), the U.S. Tax Court (funded under Independent
Agencies, Title V, of the FSGG bill). Federal courthouse construction is funded within the
General Services account under Independent Agencies, Title V, of the FSGG bill.
The judiciary also uses non-appropriated funds to offset its appropriations requirement. The
majority of these non-appropriated funds are from fee collections, primarily from court filing
fees. These monies are used to offset expenses within the Salaries and Expenses account. In some
instances, the judiciary also has funds which may carry forward from one year to the next. These
funds are considered “unencumbered” because they result from savings from the judiciary’s
financial plan in areas where budgeted costs did not materialize. According to the judiciary, such
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

savings are usually not under its control (e.g., the judiciary has no control over the confirmation
rate of Article III judges and must make its best estimate on the needed funds to budget for
judgeships, rent costs based on delivery dates, and technology funding for certain programs).
The judiciary also has “encumbered” funds—no-year authority funds for specific purposes, which
are used when planned expenses are delayed, from one year to the next (e.g., costs associated
with space delivery, and certain technology needs and projects).48
Judge Julia S. Gibbons, chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, 49 expressed the judiciary’s recognition that the country had been experiencing very serious
financial difficulties. In her March 19, 2009 written testimony submitted to the House
Subcommittee on the judiciary’s FY2010 budget request, Judge Gibbons cited the statement of
Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ 2008 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary:
During these times, when the Nation faces pressing economic problems, resulting in business
failures, home foreclosures, and bankruptcy, and when Congress is called upon to enact
novel legislation to address those challenges, the courts are a source of strength. They
guarantee that those who seek justice have access to a fair forum where all enter as equals
and disputes are resolved impartially under the rule of law.50
Judge Gibbons further stated that the courts were already feeling the impact of the deteriorating
economy. For example, a significant rise in bankruptcy filings has increased the workload of the
bankruptcy courts.51
Cost Containment Initiatives
According to Judge Gibbons, the judiciary has adopted a comprehensive strategy since 2004 that
included sweeping cost-containment measures to control costs and allow for more modest budget
requests. Among the steps already taken “have reduced future costs for rent, information
technology, compensation, magistrate judges, law enforcement activities, law books, probation
and pretrial services supervision work, and other areas.” Judge Gibbons identified several areas
for future initiatives to further contain costs.
To control court space costs, the Judicial Conference at its September 2008 biannual meeting
adopted a revised policy under which two senior district judges would share one courtroom in
new courthouses. The judiciary is also pursuing the development of a courtroom-sharing policy
for magistrate judges, and studying the feasibility of courtroom-sharing for district judges in large
courthouses as well as in bankruptcy courts. The judiciary has worked with the General Services
Administration (GSA) to limit rent costs through a memorandum of agreement on rent

48 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Budget Summary
(Washington: February 2008), pp. 40-41. Hereafter cited as Judiciary FY2010 Congressional Budget Summary.
49 The Judicial Conference of the United States is the principal policymaking body for the federal courts system. The
Chief Justice is the presiding officer of the conference, which comprises the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a
district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade.
50 Statement of Honorable Julia S. Gibbons, Chair, Committee on the Budget of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, U.S. House, Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government,
March 19, 2009, p. 2. Hereafter cited as Judge Gibbons’ March 19, 2009, Statement. The Chief justice’s report is
available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2008year-endreport.pdf.
51 Judge Gibbons’ March 19, 2009, Statement, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

calculation. Currently, the rent cap is established at 4.9% in annual rate of growth. According to
Judge Gibbons, the projected FY2010 rent will be $200 million less (17%) than the amount paid
in FY2005. The Judicial Conference also has adopted policies to reduce personnel costs,
including the cost of judges’ chamber staff by limiting judges to one career law clerk and setting
more restrictive salary policies for new law clerks.52
Other initiatives include using information technology to consolidate computer servers around the
country to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness; improve courthouse operations, and
enhance public security and access to the courts. Among these initiatives is an eJuror pilot
program to facilitate citizens’ access to their jury service information, including the ability to
submit their jury questionnaire electronically.
Judicial Security
The safe conduct of court proceedings and security of judges in courtrooms and off-site continue
to be a concern. The 2005 Chicago murders of family members of a federal judge; the Atlanta
killings of a state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy at a courthouse; and the 2006
sniper shooting of a state judge in his Reno office spurred efforts to improve judicial security. In
the 110th Congress (2007-2008), the President signed into law, the Court Security Improvement
Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-177), which was designed to enhance security for judges and court
personnel as well as courtroom safety for the public. Legislation enacted in the 109th Congress
(P.L. 109-13) included a provision that provided intrusion detection systems for judges in their
homes. Threats against judges, however, have not abated.
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) has primary responsibility for the protection and security of
more than 2,000 sitting judges, as well as approximately 5,250 other court officials at over 400
court facilities in the United States and its territories. In FY2003, threats and inappropriate
communications against USMS protectees53 numbered 592. That figure more than doubled in
FY2008, which it reached 1,278. For the current fiscal year, threats and inappropriate
communications have reached 1,141 as of July 28, 2009.54
The FY2010 bill included authority to continue a pilot program for the USMS to assume
responsibility for perimeter security at selected courthouses that were previously the
responsibility of the Federal Protective Service (FPS). This pilot was undertaken in FY2009
enacted legislation as a result of the judiciary’s concerns that FPS was providing adequate
perimeter security. After the initial planning phase, USMS implemented the pilot program on
January 5, 2009, and assumed primary responsibility for security functions at seven courthouses
located in Chicago, Detroit, Phoenix, New York, Tucson, and two in Baton Rouge. The judiciary
and USMS plan to evaluate the program throughout the program and identify areas for
improvement. A general provision in the House bill directs the judiciary to reimburse USMS for
these services.

52 Ibid., pp. 4-5.
53 In addition to U.S. Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges, USMS may also protect Tax Court judges, U.S.
deputy attorney general, director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S.
Attorneys, federal public defenders, clerk of courts, probation officers, pre-trial services officers, U.S. trustees, jurors,
witnesses, and USMS employees. For more details about the U.S. Marshals Service’s judicial security responsibilities,
see http://www.usmarshals.gov/judicial/index.html.
54 USMS provided the data to the author on July 28, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Workload
Judge Gibbons, in her March 19, 2009, written testimony submitted to the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government stated that the FY2010 judiciary
request included $30 million for 754 additional court support staff positions primarily as a result
of increased requirements for probation and pretrial services offices, and bankruptcy and district
clerks’ offices. Judge Gibbons stated, “Our projections indicate that caseload will increase
slightly in probation (+3%) and pretrial services (+3%) and increase substantially for bankruptcy
filings (+27%).” Caseload projections in 2009, compared to the previous year, are estimated to
decline in civil (-3%) criminal (-4%) and appellate (-5%) filings.”55
Judgeships
Since the enactment of an omnibus judgeship bill in 1990 (P.L. 101-650), according to the
Judicial Conference, the number of appellate judgeships has remained at 179 while appellate
court case filings have increased by 42% over the last 19 years. During this same time period,
Congress enacted legislation that increased the number of district judgeships by 4% (from 645 to
674) while district court case filings increased by 34%.
At its biannual meeting on March 17, 2009, the Judicial Conference of the United States voted to
ask Congress to create 63 new federal judgeships: 12 in the courts of appeals (nine permanent and
three temporary), and 51 in the district courts (38 permanent and 13 temporary).56 The
Conference made a similar request in the 110th Congress. Subsequent legislation was introduced
in both the House and Senate to address this request, but no final action was taken before the
110th Congress adjourned.57
The Judicial Conference also submitted a recommendation to Congress in February 2009 to
create 13 additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships in 10 judicial districts, convert 22 existing
temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent in 15 judicial districts, and extend two existing
temporary bankruptcy judgeships for five years. This action was taken in response to a significant
rise in bankruptcy filings and to ensure that the bankruptcy system continues to operate
efficiently. These recommendations were supported by Judge Barbara Lynn, chair of the Judicial

55 Judge Gibbons’ March 19, 2009 Statement, pp. 9-10.
56See [ http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2009/recommendations.pdf] for a list of the Conference’s judgeship
recommendations.
57 In March 2007, the Judicial Conference asked Congress to create 67 new federal judgeships—15 for the courts of
appeals (13 permanent, 2 temporary) and 52 for the district courts (38 permanent, 14 temporary)—to make permanent
five temporary judgeships, and to extend another temporary judgeship for five years. Subsequent to the conference’s
recommendation, on September 10, 2007, Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr., introduced H.R. 3520, the
Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2007. Among other things, the bill would authorize the
appointment of an additional nine permanent and three temporary federal circuit judges, and an additional 44
permanent and 12 temporary district judges; establish a judicial district in the Virgin Islands; and provide for additional
bankruptcy judgeships. H.R. 3520 would amend the federal judicial code to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit into the
Ninth Circuit (to be composed of California, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands) and the Twelfth Circuit
(to be composed of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). On March 13, 2008, Senate
Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick J. Leahy introduced S. 2774, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2008. The proposed
legislation provided for the appointment of an additional 12 permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 permanent district
court judgeships, and the conversion of five existing temporary judgeships into permanent positions. In addition, 14
temporary district court judgeships, two temporary circuit judgeships, and one existing temporary district court
judgeship under S. 2774 would have been extended.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Conference Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System in testimony before the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on June 16, 2009.58
In the 111th Congress, several bills have been introduced to create or extend judgeships although
none reflected the recommendations of the Judicial Conference as a whole. Among these bills are
S. 193, H.R. 191, H.R. 314, H.R. 349, H.R. 1272, H.R. 2961, H.R. 3161. To date, no action has
been taken on these bills.
Judicial Pay
Another key issue of continuing interest is the judiciary’s advocacy for raising judicial pay.59
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. reaffirmed his support for significant increases in judicial
salaries in his 2008 End-of-the-Year Report on the Federal Judiciary. Chief Justice Roberts
maintained that the salary of judges had not kept pace with inflation over the years and led judges
to leave the bench in increasing numbers.
During the 110th Congress, legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate to
substantially increase judicial salaries, but no final action was taken on the bills before Congress
adjourned.60 Federal judges received a cost of living adjustment for 2009.
To date, legislation to increase judicial pay substantially has not been introduced in the 111th
Congress. The Senate Appropriations Committee, however, has recommended a 2010 salary
adjustment for Justices and judges under Section 307(S.Rept. 111-43).61
House Budget Hearings
On March 19, 2009, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government held a hearing on the FY2010 federal judiciary budget request. The subcommittee
heard testimony from Judge Julia S. Gibbons, and James C. Duff, director of the Administrative

58 See http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2009/TestimonyofJudgeBarbaraLynn.pdf ] for Judge Lynn’s testimony
and details of the bankruptcy judgeships request.
59For further information about judicial pay issues, see CRS Report RL34281, Judicial Salary: Current Issues and
Options for Congress, by Denis Steven Rutkus; CRS Report RS20388, Salary Linkage: Members of Congress and
Certain Federal Executive and Judicial Officials, by Barbara L. Schwemle; and CRS Report RL33245, Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial Officials: Process for Adjusting Pay and Current Salaries, by Barbara L. Schwemle.
60 On June 15, 2007, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced S. 1638, the “Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2008,”
that, before markup, would have provided a 50% pay adjustment for justices and judges. Representative John Conyers
Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3753, “Federal Judicial Salary
Restoration Act of 2007,” on October 4, 2007. The House bill, before markup, would have provided for a 41.3% pay
adjustment. As amended in markup, and ordered to be reported by the respective committees, S. 1638 and H.R. 3753,
would authorized pay increases of 28.7% to 28.8% respectively. On November 14, 2007, Senator Richard J. Durbin
introduced S. 2353, the Fair Judicial Compensation Act of 2007, to authorize a 16.5% increase in the annual salaries of
the Chief Justice of the United States, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, courts of appeals judges, district court
judges, and judges of the United States Court of International Trade, and to increase fees for bankruptcy trustees. S.
2353 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. No further action was taken on any of these bills.
61 For further details about these bills and judicial pay issues, see CRS Report RL34281, Judicial Salary: Current
Issues and Options for Congress, by Denis Steven Rutkus; CRS Report RS20388, Salary Linkage: Members of
Congress and Certain Federal Executive and Judicial Officials, by Barbara L. Schwemle; and CRS Report RL33245,
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Officials: Process for Adjusting Pay and Current Salaries, by Barbara L.
Schwemle.
Congressional Research Service
32

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). Among issues raised at the hearing were the dramatic
increase in bankruptcy filing, educational assistance the judiciary has been providing citizens
considering bankruptcy, compensation for public defenders, security and crime along the U.S.
border, judicial security, rent paid to GSA, judicial workload, and initiatives taken to contain
judicial spending.
In prepared testimony on the FY2010 judicial budget request, Judge Gibbons stated
This fiscal year 2010 request includes modest staffing increases in the courts in order to
address increased workload requirements, as well as obtain funding for several much needed
program enhancements. We believe the requested funding level represents the minimum
amount required to meet our constitutional and statutory responsibilities. while this may
appear high in light of the fiscal constraints under which you re operating. I would note that
the Judiciary does not have the flexibility to eliminate or cut programs to achieve budget
savings as the Executive Branch does. The Judiciary’s funding requirements essentially
reflect basic operating costs, of which more than 80 percent are for personnel and space
requirements.62
On April 23, 2009, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer appeared
before the Subcommittee to give testimony on the FY2010 Supreme Court budget request. Issues
raised at the hearing included funding to provide staff and resources for an enhanced Supreme
Court’s public website, caseload trends over the years, minority clerk hiring efforts, and possible
television coverage of Supreme Court proceedings.
FY2010 Request and Congressional Action63
For FY2010, the judiciary requested $7.036.1 billion in total appropriations, an increase of $544.7
million (about 7.7%) above the $6.491.4 billion enacted for FY2009. Approximately 86% of the
increase was requested to cover pay adjustments, inflation, and current services. The FY2010
request included funding for an additional 697 full-time-equivalent (FTE) positions to meet
increased workload requirements. The increase is approximately 2% over the 33,842 FTEs the
judiciary anticipated to be funded in 2009.64
For FY2010, the House Appropriations Committee recommended and the House passed a
judiciary appropriation totaling $6.941 billion. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $6.929 billion. The following highlights the FY2010 judiciary budget request,
FY2009 enacted amount, and House Appropriations Committee recommendation and House
passed amount, and the recommendation of the Senate Appropriations Committee.65

62 Judge Gibbons’ March 19, 2009, Statement, p.13.
63 U.S. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Budget Summary
(Washington: February 2009). Hereafter cited as Judiciary FY2010 Congressional Budget Summary.
64 Judiciary FY2010 Congressional Budget Summary, p.5.
65 Data are rounded, which may result in slight differences when figures are added or subtracted. Percentages are based
on data prior to rounding and may result in very minor differences.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Supreme Court
For FY2010, the total request for the Supreme Court (salaries and expenses plus buildings and
grounds) was $89.308 million, a $1.1 million (1.2 %) increase over the FY2009 appropriation of
$88.2 million. The FY2010 request contained two accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses: $74.740
million was requested, an increase of $4.964 million (7.1%) over the $69.777 million enacted for
FY2009; and (2) Care of the Building and Grounds: $14.568 million for a decrease of about
$3.879 million (-21.0%) over the $18.447 million enacted for FY2009. The request included pay
and benefits increases to maintain FY2009 services. The Court requested seven new positions (or
four FTEs) and hardware needed to support and enhance the Court’s public website. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended and the House passed a total of $88.559 million for the
Supreme Court, which is $749,000 less than the request. The Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended a total of $88.606 million, which is $702,000 less than the total request for the
Court.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
This court, consisting of 12 judges, has jurisdiction and reviews, among other things, certain
lower court rulings on patents and trademarks, international trade, and federal claims cases. The
FY2010 request for this account was $37.0 million, a $6.6 million (21.7%) increase over the
$30.4 million appropriated for FY2009. The request would provide for standard pay and other
inflationary adjustments, rental space costs for senior judges, and annualization of pay for
anticipated new law clerks and other staff hired in 2009. Other costs include pay for four FTEs
positions (support staff), technology improvements for the courtrooms, and the upgrade of
existing library space. The House Appropriations Committee recommended and the House passed
$33.6 million for FY2010. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $32.3 million in
funding.
U.S. Court of International Trade
This court has exclusive jurisdiction nationwide over the civil actions against the United States,
its agencies and officers, and certain civil actions brought by the United States arising out of
import transactions and the administration as well as enforcement of federal customs and
international trade laws. The FY2010 request was $21.517 million, a $1.9 million (9.8%) increase
over the FY2009 appropriation of $19.605 million. The budget request would pay for standard
pay and other inflationary adjustments, a substantial increase in GSA rent charges, and to
maintain current services. The House Appropriations Committee recommended and the House
passed $21.350 million, which is $167,000 less than the FY2010 request. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $21.374 million, which is $143,000 less than the
request.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
The FY2010 funding request for this budget group covers 12 of the 13 courts of appeals and 94
district judicial courts located in the 50 states, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. The appropriations requested for this budget group comprises about 90% of the
judiciary budget for salaries and expenses, court security, defender services, and fees of jurors
and commissioners which funds most of the day-to-day activities and operations of the circuit and
Congressional Research Service
34

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

district courts. The FY2010 request was $6.677 billion, a 521.3 million (8.5%) increase over the
FY2009 enacted amount of $6.156 billion. For FY2010, the House Appropriations Committee
recommended and the House passed $6.589 billion for this budget group. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $6.577 billion.
The total of this budget group comprised the following accounts:
Salaries and Expenses
The FY2010 request for this account was $5.162 billion, a $350.9 million (7.3%) increase over
the FY2009 level of $4.811 billion. According to the budget request, this increase was needed
primarily for inflationary and other adjustments to maintain the courts’ current services. Of this
total, 32% was for court support personnel salaries, 21% for judges and chambers staff salaries
and benefits, 18% for rent, 10% for court support personnel benefits, 10% for operations and
maintenance, and 8% for information technology. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended and the House passed $5.081 billion for FY2010. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $5.077 billion.
Court Security
This account provides for protective guard services, security systems, and equipment needs in
courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure the safety of judicial officers, employees, and
visitors. Under this account, the majority of funding for court security is transferred to the U.S.
Marshals Service to pay for court security officers under the Judicial Facility Security Program.
The request would fund salary adjustments and inflationary increases to maintain current
services. The request includes 20 additional court security officers associated with new and
existing space, increases for the Federal Protective Service that covers both basic security and
building-specific operating expenses, information technology improvements, and enhancements
to security systems and equipment. The FY2010 request was $463.6 million, a $34.8 million
(8.1%) increase over the FY2009 appropriation of $428.9 million. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended and the House passed $457.4 million for FY2010. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended an identical amount.
Defender Services
This account funds the operations of the federal public defender and community defender
organizations, and compensation, reimbursements, and expenses of private practice panel
attorneys appointed by federal courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals. The
FY2010 request for these services was $982.6 million, a $133.2 million (15.7 %) increase over
the FY2009 appropriation of $849.4. The request includes additional FTE positions to handle
increased caseload of drug, fraud, and other criminal cases. The request also raises non-capital
panel attorneys’ hourly rates from $110 to $142 per hour. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended and the House passed $982.7 million for FY2010. The Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $975.5 million.
Congressional Research Service
35

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners
This account funds the fees and allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and compensation
for jury and land commissioners. The FY2010 request was $63.4 million, a $1.2 million (1.9%)
increase over the FY2009 appropriation of $62.2 million. The requested increase is primarily for
base adjustments to allow payment for statutory fees and expenses. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended and the House passed $62.3 million for FY2010. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount.
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund
Established to address a perceived crisis in vaccine tort liability claims, the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program funds a federal no-fault program that protects the availability of vaccines
in the nation by diverting substantial number of claims from the tort arena. The FY2010 request
for the Trust Fund account was $5.4 million, an increase of $1.2 million (27.6%) above the
FY2009 enacted amount of $4.3 million. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
and the House passed the full amount requested for FY2010. The Senate Appropriations
Committee also recommended the full amount.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)
As the central support entity for the judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of
administrative, management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts.
AOUSC also provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and implements
conference policies and applicable federal statutes and regulations. The FY2010 request for
AOUSC was $84.0 million, a $5.0 million (6.2%) increase over the FY2009 level of $79.0
million. The request would fund adjustments to its base, and maintain current services, including
recurring costs such as travel, communications, service agreements, and supplies. No program
increases have been requested. AOUSC also receives non-appropriated funds from fee collections
and carry-over balances to supplement its appropriations requirements. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended and the House passed $83.1 million for FY2010. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount.
Federal Judicial Center
As the judiciary’s research and education entity, the Federal Judicial Center undertakes research
and evaluation of judicial operations for the Judicial Conference committees and the courts. In
addition, the center provides judges, court staff, and others with orientation and continuing
education and training. The center’s FY2010 request was $27.5 million, a $1.8 million (6.8%)
increase over the FY2009 appropriation of $25.7 million. The request would cover standard pay
and other inflationary adjustments, two additional FTE positions, annualization of three new staff
members hired in FY2009, and enhancement of existing education and training program for
judges on case management, as well as legal and leadership training for court staff. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended and the House passed $27.3 million for FY2010. The
Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount.
Congressional Research Service
36

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

United States Sentencing Commission
The commission promulgates sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal
criminal justice system. The FY2010 request was $17.1 million, about a $0.9 million (5.1%)
increase over the FY2009 appropriation of $16.2 million. The request is for pay and other
inflationary adjustments. The House Appropriations Committee recommended and the House
passed $16.8 million for FY2010. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the same
amount.
Judiciary Retirement Funds
This mandatory account provides for three trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy
and magistrate judges, retired Court of Federal Claims judges, and the spouses and dependent
children of deceased judicial officers. The FY2010 request was $82.4 million, about a $6.3
million (8.2%) increase over the FY2009 appropriation of $76.1 million. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended and the House passed the full amount requested for
FY2010. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount.
General Provision Changes
According to the FY2010 budget request submission, the judiciary proposed the following new
language under general provisions:
• Sec. 302, which would allow the judiciary to deposit unobligated balances of
prior appropriations into the Special Fund in the Treasury each fiscal year to be
used to reimburse general expenses authorized for the accounts under the Court
of Appeals, District Courts, and other Judicial Services.
• Sec. 305, which would grant the judiciary the same tenant alteration authorities
as the executive branch to contract directly for space alteration projects no
exceeding $100,000 without having to go through GSA.
• Sec. 310, which could allow federal judges to receive the same automatic annual
cost of living adjustments that Members of Congress are authorized.
The following requested provisions are proposed reauthorizations and extensions:
• Sec. 306, which would reauthorize the pilot program for the USMS to provide
perimeter security at selected courthouses for FY2010.
• Sec. 308, which would extend the temporary district judgeships in Kansas and
the Northern District of Ohio to 2012.
The budget submission also proposed technical deletion of provisions regarding
bankruptcy and territorial judges with insurance benefits and certain procurement
authorities that were provided for in legislation already enacted.
As passed, the House bill included the following provisions which the House Appropriations
Committee had also recommended:
Sec. 301, which would continue language to permit funding in the bill for salaries and expenses to
employ experts and consultant services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Congressional Research Service
37

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Sec. 302, which would permit the transfer not to exceed 5% of FY2010 appropriations between
judiciary appropriations accounts, provided that no appropriation except “Courts of Appeals,
District Courts, and Other Judicial Services—Defender Services and Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, and Other Judicial Services—Fees of Jurors and Commissioners” shall be increased by
more than 10% by any such transfer, provided that any transfer pursuant to this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under sections 604 and 608 of this act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set forth in
section 608.
Sec. 303, which would authorize official reception and representation expenses, not to exceed
$11,000, incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Sec. 304, which would require a financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days of enactment of
this act to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations a comprehensive financial plan for
the judiciary allocating all sources of available funds including appropriations, fee collections,
and carryover balances, to include a separate and detailed plan for the Judiciary Information
Technology Fund (which would establish the baseline referred to in the second provision of
section 608).
Sec. 305, which would apply Section 3314(a) of title 40, United States Code to the judiciary and
grant it the same tenant alteration authorities as the executive branch to contract directly for space
alteration projects not exceeding $100,000 without having to go through GSA.
Sec. 306, which would authorize the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to provide for certain
security functions at courthouses for a pilot program as the Director of USMS may designate in
consultation with the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC),
provided that AOUSC shall reimburse the USMS for the services rather than the Department of
Homeland Security.
Sec. 307, which would amend Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (P.L.
101-650; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) to extend by one year each the judgeships for the District of Kansas
and the Northern District of Ohio.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended the same provisions as the House for
Sections 301 through 306, but added the following provision:
• Sec. 307, which would allow for a salary adjustment for Justices and judges.
District of Columbia66
The authority for congressional review and approval of the District of Columbia’s budget is
derived from the Constitution and the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government
Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home Rule Act).67 The Constitution gives Congress the power to
“exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” pertaining to the District of Columbia. In

66 This section was written by Eugene Boyd, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division, and David Smole, Specialist in Education Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
67 See Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 801.
Congressional Research Service
38

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

1973, Congress granted the city limited home rule authority and empowered citizens of the
District to elect a mayor and city council. However, Congress retained the authority to review and
approve all District laws, including the District’s annual budget. As required by the Home Rule
Act, the city council must approve a budget within 56 days after receiving a budget proposal from
the mayor.68 The approved budget must then be transmitted to the President, who forwards it to
Congress for its review, modification, and approval.69
On March 20, 2009, the Mayor of the District of Columbia submitted a proposed $8.9 billion
general operating fund budget to the District of Columbia Council. On July 16, 2009, the mayor
forwarded a revised budget to the council for its approval. District officials efforts to address a
widening budget gap caused by revenue shortfalls resulting from the current economic recession
has delayed submission of the District’s budget for congressional review. Because of efforts to
close a combined $603 million budget gap for FY2009 ($453 million) and FY2010 ($150
million), District official have not yet formally submitted its general fund operating budget for
congressional consideration. However, both the House and the Senate have taken up
consideration of other components of the District of Columbia appropriations act; namely, special
federal payments and general provisions.
Both the President and Congress may propose financial assistance to the District in the form of
special federal payments in support of specific activities or priorities. Table 7 shows details of the
District’s special federal payments, including the FY2009 enacted amounts, the amounts included
in the President’s FY2010 budget request, and the amounts passed by the House and
recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committees.
Table 7. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2009-FY2010:
Special Federal Payment
(in millions of dollars)

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Resident Tuition
$35.1 35.1
35.1
35.1

Support
Emergency Planning
39.2 15.0
15.0
15.4
and Security

District of Columbia
248.4 249.0
268.9
258.5
Courts

Defender Services
52.5
52.5
55.0
55.0

Court Services and
203.5 212.4
212.4
212.4
Offender Supervision

Agency
Public Defender
35.7 37.3
37.3
37.3

Service
Criminal Justice
1.8 1.8
2.0
1.8
Coordinating Council


68 120 Stat. 2028.
69 87 Stat. 801.
Congressional Research Service
39

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010

Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Judicial Commissions
—
0.5
0.5
0.5

Water and Sewer
16.0 20.0
20.4
20.0
Authority

Office of the Chief
4.9 0.0
1.7
1.0
Financial Officer

Living Classrooms
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

Nat. Building
0.0 0.0
0.15
0.0
Museum

Samaritan Ministry
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

Washington Center
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.0

Wash. Hosp. Center
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.0

Whitman-Walker
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
Clinic

Youth Power Center
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

I Have a Dream
0.8 0.0
0.0
0.0
Foundation

Boys and Girls Club
0.1 0.0
0.0
0.0
Project Learn

Capital Area Food
2.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
Bank

Children’s National
2.9 0.0
0.0
1.0
Medical Center

Literacy
Education 0.8
0.0 0.0 0.0
Education
0.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
Advancement Alliance

Everybody Wins
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

Excel-Automotive
0.3 0.0
0.0
0.0
Workforce Dev.

National Children’s
0.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
Alliance

Safe Kids
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0

Georgetown Metro
0.1 0.0
0.12
0.0
Connection

The Perry School for
0.1 0.0
0.0
0.0
Econ. Empowerment

Executive Office of the
3.4 0.0
0.0
0.0
Mayor

Marriage Initiative
1.3 0.0
0.0
0.0
Matching Funds

Marriage
2.1 0.0
0.0
0.0
Development

Accounts
School Improvement
54.0
74.4
74.4
75.4

Congressional Research Service
40

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010

Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Public Schools
20.0
42.2
42.2
42.2

Public Charter
20.0 20.0
20.0
20.0

Schools
Education Vouchers
14.0
12.2
12.2
13.2

Jump Start Public
20.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
School Reform

Consolidated
21.0 15.0
15.0
15.0
Laboratory Facility

Central Library and
7.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
Branches

D.C. National Guard
0.0
2.0
2.4
0.0

Perm. Supportive
0.0 19.2
19.2
0.0

Housing
Disconnected Youth
0.0
5.0
5.0
0.0

Public Health Services
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0

Special Federal
$742.4 $739.1
$768.3
$727.4
Payments (total)

Sources: FY2009 Enacted, FY2010 Request, and FY2010 figures are taken from the H.Rept. 111-202
accompanying H.R. 1170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, FY2010 and
S.Rept. 111-43, accompanying S. 1432, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Act,FY2010. Columns may not equal the total due to rounding
The District of Columbia Budget and General Provisions
The President’s Budget Request
On May 7, 2009, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget requests for FY2010.
The Administration’s proposed budget requested $738.8 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia. Approximately three-quarters ($544 million) of this budget request would
be targeted to the courts and criminal justice system. The President’s budget also requested
$109.5 million in support of education including $74.4 million to support elementary and
secondary education, and $35.1 million for college tuition assistance. This comprises 17% of the
Administration’s budget request. The President’s total budget request of $739.1 million represents
a slight decrease in the FY2009 appropriations of $742.4 million.
District’s Budget
On March 20, 2009, the Mayor of the District of Columbia submitted a proposed budget to the
District of Columbia Council. The mayor proposed a general fund operating budget of $8.9
billion, and an additional $1.4 billion in proposed enterprise fund spending. However, on July 16,
2009 the mayor submitted a revised budget for the council’s review. The city faces the task of
closing what was projected in June as a $340 million budget gap—including a $190 million
shortfall in its current FY2009 budget, and a $150 million projected shortfall for FY2010. Much
of the funding gap is caused by the decline in revenue projections related to the current economic
Congressional Research Service
41

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

recession according to June 2009 Revenue Estimates issued by the District’s Office of the Chief
Financial Officer.70 As of July 16, 2009, the projected budget shortfall has grown to $603 million,
including $453 million in FY2009, and a projected $150 million for FY2010. In a press release
dated July 16, 2009, the mayor noted that the budget shortfalls for FY2009 and FY2010 will be
addressed by the reallocation or conversion of previous years’ unspent dedicated tax revenues and
special funds into local funds, agency spending reductions and savings, federal stimulus funding
from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the sale of District assets, and the use of the
city’s contingency reserve fund, which must be replenished within two years.71 City officials hope
to complete action on the revised budget by July 31, 2010.
Congressional Action
Because of efforts to close a significant budget gap, as noted earlier, District officials have not yet
submitted a general fund operating budget for congressional consideration. However, both the
House and the Senate have taken up consideration of other components of the District of
Columbia appropriations act; namely, special federal payments and general provisions.
House Bill
On June 25, 2009, a House subcommittee conducted a markup of the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act of 2010, H.R. 3170, and forwarded the bill to the
Appropriations Committee for its consideration. On July 10, 2009, the committee reported the bill
(H.Rept. 111-202), which included $768.3 million in special federal payments to the District. This
is $29.5 million more than requested by the Administration and $25.8 million more than
appropriated for FY2009. The bill includes a substantial increase ($20 million) above the amount
requested by the Administration for court operations. The bill also directs $20 million in
additional funding to support the District of Columbia Public Schools while reducing funding for
school vouchers by almost $2 million.
General Provisions
The House bill includes several general provisions relating to statehood or congressional
representation for the District, including provisions that would continue to prohibit the use of
federal funds to:
• support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state
legislature;
• cover salaries expenses and other cost associated with the office of Statehood
Representative and Statehood Senator for the District of Columbia; and
• support efforts by the District of Columbia Attorney General or any other
officer of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive

70 Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, June 2009 Revenue Estimates,
Washington, , D.C., June 22, 2009, http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/cfo/section/2/release/17431.
71 Executive Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, “Fenty Outlines Proposal to Close District’s Budget
Gap,” press release, July 16, 2009, http://dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1640&mon=200907.
Congressional Research Service
42

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the
District.72
The bill includes significant changes in a number of controversial provisions (often called social
riders) that city officials have sought to eliminate or modify, including those related to medical
marijuana, needle exchange, and abortion services. Despite objections raised by Republican
Members of the House, the bill was brought to the floor under a restrictive rule (H.Res. 644) that
did not allow Members to offer amendments on several controversial provisions related to
medical marijuana, needle exchange, and abortion services. As passed by the House, H.R. 3170
would:
• lift the prohibition on the use of District funds to provide abortion services;
• allow the use of District funds to regulate and decriminalize the medical use of
marijuana; and
• eliminate the prohibition on the use of both federal and District funds to support a
needle exchange program so long as the distribution of sterile syringes was not
conducted within 1,000 feet of certain public facilities or youth-oriented activity
centers including schools, colleges and universities, parks, playgrounds, and
youth centers.
The House passed provisions represent a lifting of restrictions and prohibitions put in place when
Republicans controlled the House. Removal of these so called social riders have been long sought
by District officials who viewed them as antithetical to the concept of home rule. For a discussion
of the history of these provisions see the Key Issues section of the CRS Report R40743, FY2010
Appropriations: District of Columbia , by Eugene Boyd.
Senate Bill
On July 8, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported, S. 1432, its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2010, with an
accompanying report (S.Rept. 111-43). As reported, the bill recommends $727.4 million in
special federal payments to the District. This is approximately $40 million less than
recommended by the House, and $11.4 million less than requested by the Administration. The bill
includes approximately $10 million less in funding for court operations than recommended by the
Administration. It would appropriate an additional $21 million in funding to support the District
of Columbia Public Schools while reducing funding for school vouchers by almost $1 million.
General Provision
The Senate bill’s general provisions mirror some of the language included in the House bill. Like
the House bill, S. 1432 include provisions restricting the use of federal funds to support District
statehood or congressional voting representation, including provisions that would continue to
prohibit the use of federal funds to:

72 For a detailed discussion of voting representation issues see CRS Report RL33830, District of Columbia Voting
Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative Proposals, by Eugene Boyd, and CRS Report RL33824, The
Constitutionality of Awarding the Delegate for the District of Columbia a Vote in the House of Representatives or
the Committee of the Whole, by Kenneth R. Thomas.
Congressional Research Service
43

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state
legislature;
• cover salaries expenses and other cost associated with the office of Statehood
Representative and Statehood Senator for the District of Columbia; or
• support efforts by the District of Columbia Attorney General or any other
officer of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive
or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the
District.73
The bill also includes significant changes in a number of provisions that city official have sought
to eliminate or modify. The bill would:
• lift the prohibition on the use of District funds to provide abortion services;
• maintain the prohibition of the use of federal and District funds to regulate and
decriminalize the medical use of marijuana—unlike the House bill, which would
allow the use of District funds to regulate the medical use of marijuana; and
• maintain the current prohibition on the use of federal funds to support a needle
exchange program—unlike the House bill, which would lift the restriction on
both federal and District for such a program.
For a discussion of the history of these provisions see the Key Issues section of the
CRS Report R40743, FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia , by Eugene
Boyd.
Independent Agencies
In FY2010, a collection of 26 independent entities are slated to receive funding through the
FSGG appropriations bill. Table 8 lists appropriations as enacted for FY2009, as requested by the
President for FY2010, as passed by the House and recommended by the Senate Committees on
Appropriations.

73 See footnote 72.
Congressional Research Service
44

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Table 8. Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2009 to FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Agency
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Administrative Conference of the
$1.5 $2.6 $1.5
$1.5

United States
Christopher Columbus Fel owship
1.0 — —
1.0

Foundation
Commodity Futures Trading
146 161 161b 177

Commissiona
Consumer Product Safety
105 107 113
115

Commission
Election Assistance Commission
124
69
124
69
Federal Communications
— 1 1
—

Commissionc
Federal Deposit Insurance
(27) (38) (38)
(38)

Corporation: Office of Inspector
General (by transfer)d
Federal Election Commission
64
64
65
67
Federal Labor Relations Authority
23
25
25
25
Federal Trade Commissione 70
166
171
166

General Services Administration
577f 644 578
598

Merit Systems Protection Board
41
43
43
43
Morris K. Udal Foundation
6
6
6
7
National Archives and Records
447 454 457
456

Administration
National Credit Union
1 1 1
1

Administration
Office of Government Ethics
13
14
14
14
Office of Personnel Management
20,360 20,369 20,373
20,368

(total)
Salaries and Expenses
93
95
98
95
Government Payments for
9,533 9,814 9,814
9,814

Annuitants, Employee Health
Benefits
Government Payments for
46 48 48
48

Annuitants, Employee Life
Insurance
Payment to Civil Service
10,550 10,276 10,276
10,276

Retirement and Disability Fund
Office of Special Counsel
17
18
18
18
Postal Regulatory Commissiong 14
14
14 14

Congressional Research Service
45

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2010
FY2009
FY2010
House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Agency
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Privacy and Civil Liberties
1.5 2.0 2.0
1.5

Oversight Boardh
Securities and Exchange
894 1,016 1,026
1,116

Commissioni
Selective Service System
22
24
24
24
Smal Business Administration
613j 779 848
861

United States Postal Service
351
363
363
363
United States Tax Court
48
49
49
49
Total: Independent Agencies
$23,942k $24,392 $24,479
$24,556

Sources: FY2009 Enacted, FY2010 Request, and FY2010 Senate Committee amounts are taken from S.Rept.
111-43, FY2010 House passed amounts are taken from H.Rept. 111-202 and H.Rept. 111-181.
Note: Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
a. The CFTC is funded in the House through the Agriculture appropriations bill and in the Senate through the
Financial Services and General Government bill.
b. Amount is taken from H.R. 2997, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.
c. Amount represents only direct appropriations and does not include fees col ected that are also used to fund
agency activities.
d. Budget authority transferred to FDIC is not included in total appropriations; it is counted as part of the
budget authority in the appropriation account from which it came.
e. Amount represents only direct appropriations and does not include fees col ected that are also used to fund
agency activities.
f.
Amount does not include $5.857 billion in emergency appropriations provided through P.L. 111-5.
g. FY2009 was the first year the PRC was funded through the FSGG appropriations bill. Funding for the PRC is
discussed in the United States Postal Service section.
h. FY2008, the PCLOB was considered a component of the Executive Office of the President and was funded
through EOP appropriations. The PCLOB has since been established as an independent agency, and the
President requested a separate appropriation for the agency for the first time in FY2009.
i.
Amounts listed in Table 8 for the SEC include fees collected by the agency. This is not consistent with the
treatment of fees for the FCC and the FTC, but it fol ows the source documents for amounts listed in
Table 8. Amount for FY2009 Enacted does not include emergency appropriations provided through P.L.
111-32.
j.
Amount does not include $730 million in emergency appropriations provided through P.L. 111-5.
k. Total does not include $6.689 billion in emergency appropriations provided through P.L. 111-5 and P.L. 111-
32.
Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)74
The CFTC is the independent regulatory agency charged with oversight of derivatives markets.
The CFTC’s functions include oversight of trading on the futures exchanges, registration and

74 This section was written by Mark Jickling, Specialist in Financial Economics, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
46

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

supervision of futures industry personnel, prevention of fraud and price manipulation, and
investor protection. Although most futures trading is now related to financial variables (interest
rates, currency prices, and stock indexes), congressional oversight remains vested in the
agriculture committees because of the market’s historical origins as an adjunct to agricultural
trade. Appropriations for the CFTC are under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Subcommittee in
the House, and the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittee in the
Senate. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the CFTC was funded in Division A,
Agriculture and Related Agencies. In the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, the CFTC was
funded in Division A, Financial Services and General Government.
For FY2010, the Administration requested $160.6 million, 10% more than the FY2009 enacted
amount of $146.0 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $177.0 million,
an increase of 10.2% over the Administration’s request, and 21.2% over FY2009 enacted
appropriations. The House approved $161.0 million for the CFTC for FY2010, Administration’s
request and 9.3% more than FY2009 enacted appropriations.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)75
The CPSC is an independent federal regulatory agency whose primary responsibilities include
protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products;
developing uniform safety standards for consumer products and minimizing conflicting state and
local regulations; and promoting research and investigation into the causes and prevention of
product-related deaths, illnesses, and injuries.
For FY2010, the Administration requested $107 million in funding for the CPSC, $1.6 million
more than FY2009 enacted appropriations. The House Committee on Appropriations has
recommended $113.3 million, an increase of $7.9 million above the amount appropriated in
FY2009 and $6.3 above the amount requested by the Administration. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations, for its part, has recommended $115 million for the CPSC, which is $9.6 million
more than the FY2009 funding level and $8 million more that requested by the Administration.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)76
The EAC was established in 2002 by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).77 The agency provides
grant funding to the states to meet the requirements of the act and for election reform programs,
provides for testing and certification of voting machines, studies election issues, and promulgates
voluntary guidelines for voting systems standards and issues voluntary guidance with respect to
the act’s requirements. The commission was not given express rule-making authority under
HAVA, although the law transferred responsibilities for the National Voter Registration Act
(NVRA) from the Federal Election Commission to the EAC; these responsibilities include NVRA
rule-making authority. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcement responsibility.

75 This section was written by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Business and Government Relations, Government and
Finance Division.
76 This section was written by Kevin Coleman, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
77 42 U.S.C. 15301 et. seq.
Congressional Research Service
47

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

For FY2010, the President’s budget request included $16.5 million for the EAC and $106 million
for requirements payments to the states and other election reform programs. H.R. 3170 would
provide $17.9 million for the EAC, of which $3.5 million would be transferred to the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for election reform activities, $750,000 would be
for the Help America Vote College Program, and $300,000 would be for a competitive grant
program to support student and parent mock elections. That amount is $1.4 million more than the
budget request. The bill would also provide $100 million for requirements payments to the states,
$4 million for research grants to support voting technology improvements, and $2 million to
continue a pilot program to provide grants to states and localities for pre-election logic and
accuracy testing for post-election voting systems verification. S. 1432 would provide $16.5
million for the EAC, of which $3.3 million would be transferred to NIST, and $52 million for
requirements payments to the states. Those amounts are the same as the budget request for both
EAC salaries and expenses and election reform programs.
The President’s budget request for FY2009 included $16.7 million for EAC salaries and
expenses. The Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 provided $18 million for the EAC, with $4
million of that to be transferred to NIST, $750,000 for the College Program, and $300,000 for the
high school mock election program. It also provided funding for requirements payments to the
states in the amount of $100 million, with an additional $5 million for grants for research on
voting technology improvements and $1 million for a pilot program for grants to states and
localities to test voting systems before and after elections.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)78
The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency charged with regulating
interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The
FCC is also charged with promoting the safety of life and property through wire and radio
communications. The mandate of the FCC under the Communications Act is to make available to
all people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio
communications service. The FCC performs five major functions to fulfill this charge: spectrum
allocation, creating rules to promote fair competition and protect consumers where required by
market conditions, authorization of service, enhancement of public safety and homeland security,
and enforcement. The FCC obtains the majority—and sometimes all—of its funding through the
collection of regulatory fees pursuant to Title I, Section 9, of the Communications Act of 1934;
therefore, its direct appropriation is considerably less than its overall budget; sometimes, as is the
case for FY2009, there is no direct appropriation.
For FY2010, the House of Representatives passed a budget of $335.794 million (a direct
appropriation of $1 million and the remainder to be collected through regulatory fees), the same
as the President=s request.
For FY2010, the Senate Subcommittee also recommended a budget of $335.794 million, but with
no direct appropriation (i.e., the entire sum would be collected through regulatory fees).
The Senate bill includes language that would

78 This section was written by Patricia Moloney Figliola, Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
48

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• extend the FCC’s exemption from the Anti-deficiency Act until December 31, 2010. The
ADA contains accounting rules which could complicate the operation of the FCC’s
universal service E-Rate program; and
• prohibit the FCC from limiting universal support to one line, on the grounds that such a
limitation would hurt small businesses, especially in rural areas, that might need a second
line for fax or other business purposes.
In addition, S.Rept. 111-43 directs the FCC to report to the Senate Committee on Appropriations
all audit activity since FY2007 conducted by FCC, Universal Service Administrative Corporation
and the FCC Inspector General, including the cost of audit activity, audit methodologies, and the
results of such audits.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): OIG79
The FDIC’s Office of the Inspector General is funded from deposit insurance funds; the OIG has
no direct support from federal taxpayers. Before FY1998, the amount was approved by the FDIC
Board of Directors; the amount is now directly appropriated (through a transfer) to ensure the
independence of the OIG.
The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-8) provided for a FY2009 budget of $27.5
million for the OIG. The President requested $37.9 million for FY2010, an increase of 38% from
the FY2009 appropriation. Both the Senate Committee on Appropriations and the full House
recommended, $37.9 million for FY2010.
Federal Election Commission (FEC) 80
The FEC administers, and enforces civil compliance with, the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA) and campaign finance regulations.81 The agency does so through educational outreach,
rulemaking, and litigation, and by issuing advisory opinions.82 The FEC also administers the
presidential public financing system.83 In recent years, FEC appropriations have generally been
noncontroversial and subject to limited debate in committee or on the floor.84
For FY2010, the President requested $64.0 million for the FEC. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $65.1 million.85 The committee noted that the increased funding was

79 This section was written by Pauline Smale, Economic Analyst, Government and Finance Division.
80 This section was written by Sam Garrett, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
81 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.
82 The FEC can refer criminal cases to the Justice Department.
83 The Treasury Department and IRS also have administrative responsibilities for presidential public financing.
However, Congress does not appropriate funds for the program. For additional discussion, see CRS Report RL34534,
Public Financing of Presidential Campaigns: Overview and Analysis, by R. Sam Garrett.
84 For additional discussion of current campaign finance issues, see CRS Report R40091, Campaign Finance: Potential
Legislative and Policy Issues for the 111th Congress, by R. Sam Garrett.
85 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 3170, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 10, 2009, Report 111-202 (Washington: GPO,
2009), p. 63.
Congressional Research Service
49

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

intended to cover salaries, rent, and information technology costs required to maintain current
services.86 The House appropriated $65.1 million (of which no more than $5,000 is to be for
“reception and representation,” language that has long been included in FEC appropriations
provisions). The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $67.0 million. Report language
accompanying the Senate bill (S. 1432) noted that the additional amounts are to be used for costs
related to information technology, enhanced public access to electronic records, and salaries.87
Unlike in previous years, neither chamber proposed Government Accountability Office (GAO) or
other research regarding campaign finance issues.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)88
The Federal Trade Commission is an independent agency. It seeks to protect consumers and
enhance competition by eliminating unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the marketing of
goods and services and by ensuring that consumer markets function competitively. For FY2010,
the Administration requested $287.2 million, and increase of $28 million over FY2009 enacted
appropriations. Of the amount provided, $110 million would be derived from pre-merger filing
fees, $19 million from Do-Not-Call fees, and the remaining amount―$158 million―would be
provided by a direct appropriation.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommends a FY2010 total budget authority of $291.7
million for the FTC, which is $32.5 million above the FY2009 level and $4.5 million above the
Administration’s request. The Committee assumes $110 million in collections from Hart-Scott-
Rodino pre-merger filing fees, $19 million from Do-Not-Call fees, and a direct appropriation of
$162.7 million. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends $289.3 million, $2.4 less
than its House counterpart. More specifically, the Senate committee recommends $102 million
from pre-merger filing fees, $21 million from Do-Not-Call fees, and a direct appropriation of
$166.3 million.
General Services Administration (GSA)89
The General Services Administration administers federal civilian procurement policies pertaining
to the construction and management of federal buildings, disposal of real and personal property,
and management of federal property and records. It is also responsible for managing the funding
and facilities for former Presidents and presidential transitions. Typically, only about 1% of
GSA’s total budget is funded by direct appropriations.
For FY2010, the President requested $65.2 million for government-wide policy and $71.8 million
for operating expenses, $60.1 million for the Office of Inspector General (OIG), $3.8 million for
allowances and office staff for former presidents, and $36.5 million to be deposited into the
Federal Citizen Information Center Fund (FCICF). The House approved $63.2 million for

86 Ibid.
87 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Bill, 2010, report to accompany S. 1432, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 9, 2009, 111-43 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 83.
88 This section was written by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Business and Government Relations, Government and
Finance Division.
89 This section was written by Garrett Hatch, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
Congressional Research Service
50

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

government-wide policy, $72.9 million for operating expenses, $60.1 million for the OIG, $3.8
million for allowances and office staff for former presidents, and $36.5 million to be deposited
into the FCICF. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $61.2 million for
government-wide policy, $71.9 million for operating expenses, $58.0 million for the OIG, $3.8
million for allowances and office staff for former presidents, and $36.5 million for the FCICF.
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF)
Most GSA spending is financed through the Federal Buildings Fund. Rent assessments from
agencies paid into the FBF provide the principal source of its funding. Congress may also provide
direct funding into the FBF. Congress directs the GSA as to the allocation or limitation on
spending of funds from the FBF in provisions found accompanying GSA’s annual appropriations.
For FY2010, the President has requested that an additional amount of $525 million be deposited
in the FBF, and that $658 million of FBF revenues remain available until expended for
construction and acquisition of facilities. The House-passed bill would provide an additional
amount of $460 million be deposited in the FBF, and $723 million be made available for
construction and acquisition of facilities. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
that an additional amount of $483 million be deposited in the FBF, and $734 million be made
available for construction and acquisition of facilities, both more than the President’s request.
Enacted appropriations for FY2009 included $651 million for deposit in the FBF, and $746
million for construction and acquisition of facilities.
Electronic Government Fund (E-Gov Fund)90
Originally unveiled in advance of the President’s proposed budget for FY2002, the E-Gov Fund
and its appropriation have been a somewhat contentious matter between the President and
Congress. The President’s initial $20 million request was cut to $5 million, which was the amount
provided for FY2003, as well. Funding thereafter was held at $3 million for FY2004, FY2005,
FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008. Created to support interagency e-gov initiatives approved by the
Director of OMB, the fund and the projects it sustains have been subject to close scrutiny by, and
accountability to, congressional appropriators. President Obama requested $33 million for
“necessary expenses in support of 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.”91 This request
was $28 million more than former President Bush’s FY2009 request, and $33 million more than
the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, which did not appropriate any funding to the E-Gov
Fund.92

90 This section was written by Wendy Ginsberg, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
91 Office of Management and Budget, FY2010 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, Executive Office of the
President, Washington, DC, February 26, 2009, p. 1127, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/
appendix.pdf.
92 The E-Gov Fund, in previous years, was not spending its full appropriation. For FY2009, therefore, House
appropriators recommended no additional funding for the account, and Senate appropriators recommended $1 million
for the fund. The consolidated continuing appropriations act temporarily returned the E-Gov Fund to a $3 million
appropriation for FY2009. The omnibus budget, however, eliminated all FY2009 E-Gov Fund appropriations. The E-
Gov Fund received no FY2009 appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
51

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

House appropriators recommended the same funding level as requested by President Obama for
FY2010. In accompanying report language, House appropriators recommended that GSA “submit
a detailed expenditure plan prior to obligation of funds under [the E-Gov Fund] account. The plan
should describe projects selected, and the budget, timeline, objectives and expected benefits for
each project.”93
Senate appropriators recommended $35 million for the E-Gov Fund, $2 million more than both
the President and House appropriators. In detailed report language, the Senate appropriators
included the following:
The Committee strongly supports the activities of the Federal [Chief Information Officer]
Council related to ‘cloud computing’ and encourage the council to continue to assess and
address the escalating costs, inefficiencies, and stove-piping related to the management of
Federal data.94
The Senate’s report said that $15 million was to be used “for improving innovation, efficiency
and effectiveness in Federal IT, including an initiative on optimizing common services and
solutions/cloud-computing.”95 Within the $15 million, $7.5 million was recommended for the
Government Services Administration’s (GSA’s) proposed Center for IT Excellence. $6 million
was recommended for USASpending.gov, a website that details where the government spends its
money and whether those expenditures yielded measurable results. In addition, $7 million was
recommended for an Efficient Federal Workforce initiative, which aims to share technologies
across federal agencies. $4 million was recommended for the “development and deployment of
Web 2.0 technologies” to “encourage citizen participation and collaboration.” $3 million was
recommended for Data.gov, an online, publicly accessible repository for federal data.96
Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management
The FSGG appropriations bill includes funding for four agencies with personnel management
functions: the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).
Table 9 shows appropriations as enacted for FY2009, as requested for FY2010, and as
recommended by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, for FY2010, for each of
these agencies.
Table 9. Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations,
FY2009 to FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Agency
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Federal Labor Relations
$22.7 $24.8
$24.8
$24.8
Authority

93 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 72.
94 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 95.
95 Ibid., p. 95-96.
96 Ibid., p. 96.
Congressional Research Service
52

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Agency
Enacted
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Merit Systems Protection
41.4 42.9
42.9
42.9
Board (total)
Salaries and Expenses
38.8
40.3
40.3
40.3

Limitation on
2.6 2.6
2.6
2.6
Administrative Expenses
Office of Personnel
20,360.5 20,368.8
20,372.8
20,368.3

Management (total)
Salaries and Expenses
92.8
95.0
98.0
95.0

Limitation on
118.1 113.2
113.2
112.7
Administrative Expenses
Office of Inspector
1.8 2.1
3.1
2.1
General (salaries and
expenses)
Office of Inspector
18.8 20.4
20.4
20.4
General (limitation on
administrative expenses)
Government Payments for
9,533.0 9,814.0
9,814.0
9,814.0

Annuitants, Employee
Health Benefitsa
Government Payments for
46.0 48.0
48.0
48.0
Annuitants, Employee Life
Insurancea
Payment to Civil Service
10,550.0 10,276.0
10,276.0
10,276.0

Retirement and Disability
Funda
Office of Special Counsel
$17.5
$18.5
$18.5
$18.5

Sources: Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, FY2009 (Div. D, P.L. 111-8), FY2010
Budget, Appendix, pp. 1233, 1244-1245, 1147-1156, and 1272; H.Rept. 111-202, and S.Rept. 111-43.
a. The annual appropriations act provides “such sums as may be necessary” for the health benefits, life
insurance, and retirement accounts. The Office of Personnel Management’s Congressional Budget Justification
for FY2010 states the FY2010 amounts for these accounts as $10,084.0 million (health benefits), $48 million
(life insurance), and $10,272.0 million (retirement) at pp. 117-119. The FY2010 Budget Appendix, at p. 1150,
states the same amounts as the budget justification, except for $11,052.0 million (retirement).
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) 97
The FLRA is an independent federal agency that administers and enforces Title VII of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978. Title VII gives federal employees the right to join or form a union
and to bargain collectively over the terms and conditions of employment. Employees also have
the right not to join a union that represents employees in their bargaining unit. The statute
excludes specific agencies (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence

97 This section was written by Gerald Mayer, Analyst in Public Finance, Domestic Social Policy Division and Barbara
L. Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
53

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Agency) and gives the President the authority to exclude other agencies for reasons of national
security.
The FLRA consists of a three-member authority, the Office of General Counsel, and the Federal
Services Impasses Panel (FSIP). The authority resolves disputes over the composition of
bargaining units, charges of unfair labor practices, objections to representation elections, and
other matters. The General Counsel’s office conducts representation elections, investigates
charges of unfair labor practices, and manages the FLRA’s regional offices. The FSIP resolves
labor negotiation impasses between federal agencies and labor organizations.
The President’s FY2010 budget proposed an appropriation of $24.8 million for the FLRA, $2.1
million (9.3%) above the agency’s FY2009 appropriation of $22.7 million. The agency’s full-time
equivalent (FTE) employment level is estimated to be 142 for FY2010, 18 more than the FTE
level of 124 for FY2009. The House passed, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $24.8 million for FY2010, the same as the President requested. According to the
House committee report, “the increased staffing and funding resources provided will be used to
clear case backlogs and implement management initiatives to reduce attrition and improve
employee morale.”98 The Senate committee, in its report, expresses support for FLRA’s efforts to
reduce the case backlog and move to the filing of public records electronically.
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 99
The President’s budget requested an FY2010 appropriation of $42,918,000 for the MSPB, an
amount that is $1.5 million or 3.7% above the FY2009 funding of $41,390,000. The agency’s
FTE employment level is estimated to be 208 for FY2010, the same as that for FY2009. The
House Committee on Appropriations recommended, the House passed, and the Senate Committee
on Appropriations recommended the same appropriation as the President requested. The House
committee report stated that the increased funding is for “mandatory pay raises, increased rent
payments, and other non-personnel cost increases.”100
Unlike previous submissions in the Budget Appendix document, MSPB’s request for FY2010 did
not include data on the actual number of decisions made and the projected number of decisions
anticipated to be made by the agency. MSPB’s authorization expired on September 30, 2007. The
110th Congress considered, but did not act upon, legislation (S. 2057, H.R. 3551) that would have
reauthorized the MSPB for three years and enhanced the agency’s reporting requirements.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)101
The President’s budget requested an FY2010 appropriation of $94,970,000 for salaries and
expenses (S&E) for OPM, an amount that is $2.1 million or 2.3% above the FY2009 funding of
$92,829,000. This amount included funding of $5.9 million for the Enterprise Human Resources

98 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 64.
99 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
100 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 75.
101 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
54

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Integration (HRI) project and $1.4 million for the Human Resources Line of Business (HRLOB)
project. The agency’s FTE employment level is estimated to be 5,020 for FY2010, 66 more than
the FTE level of 4,954 for FY2009.
OPM’s budget submission states that “New human resources management strategies will
streamline the Federal hiring process, decrease time to hire, and change how Federal employees’
job performance is evaluated,” but does not provide any details on these strategies. The agency
states that its budget request “includes funding to maintain timely processing of retirement
claims, provide services to Federal annuitants, and continue the conversion of hard-copy
retirement records to electronic format while OPM reviews the long-term strategic objectives and
requirements for retirement system modernization.” According to OPM, it “will work
aggressively with health insurance plans to hold down premium costs while at the same time
negotiating expanded coverage.” The agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) expects to
continue audits of pharmacy benefit managers “to recover inappropriate charges, negotiate more
favorable contracts, control future cost growth, and improve benefits provided to program
enrollees.” The OIG’s Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) data warehouse
initiative that “streamlines and enhances the various administrative and analytical procedures
involved in the oversight of FEHBP” will continue.102
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed a total
appropriation of $20,372,784,000 for OPM, an increase of more than $4 million above the
President’s request of $20,368,772,000 while the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended a total of $20,368,272,000 a decrease of $500,000 from the President’s request. For
the S&E account, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended and the House passed
funding of $97,970,000, an amount that is $3 million more than the President’s request. The
House committee report states that the increased funding is to support the new initiatives to
expand the government-wide recruitment and hiring of veterans and to “create a central ‘registry’
of qualified applicants for the most recruited positions in the Federal government in order to
streamline Federal hiring practices.”103 The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended
the same appropriation for the S&E account as the President requested. Both the House-passed
and Senate-reported bills would allocate the funding for the HRI and HRLOB projects as the
President requested. With regard to the account for the S&E “limitation on transfers from the trust
funds,” the House committee recommended and the House passed the same funding as the
President requested ($113,238,000), while the Senate committee recommended $112,738,000, a
reduction of $500,000 in the amount provided. The House-passed bill’s allocation of the total
would include $9.4 million for the cost of implementing the new integrated financial system and
$4.2 million for the cost of automating the systems for retirement recordkeeping. The Senate-
reported bill’s allocation of the total would include $9.3 million and $4 million, respectively, for
these systems. In its report, the Senate committee states that “Getting [retirement systems
modernization] back on track with appropriate management leadership, controls, oversight, and
with the goal of ensuring accurate and timely computation of annual annuities for all Federal
retirees, is a high priority.”104 As for the OIG S&E account, the House committee recommended
and the House passed an appropriation of $3,148,000, an amount that is a little more than $1
million above the President’s request of $2,136,000. According to the House committee report,
the increased funding will “enable the OIG to hire additional staff in order to improve its statutory

102 FY2010 Budget, Appendix, pp. 1147-1149.
103 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 82.
104 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 109.
Congressional Research Service
55

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

oversight over OPM’s revolving fund programs.”105 The Senate committee recommended the
same amount as the President requested for this account. The House committee recommended,
the House passed, and the Senate committee recommended the same appropriations as the
President requested for the other accounts under the appropriation for OPM.
Both the House and Senate committees included directives for OPM in their respective reports as
follows:
• OPM is to submit a report, concurrent with its fiscal year 2012 budget
submission in February 2011, that would state for each agency the number of
veterans hired in the Executive Branch during fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
(House report)
• OPM is to continue to submit quarterly reports on the retirement modernization
program, include GAO in the distribution of the report, and carry out future work
on the retirement modernization program within the framework of the six
recommendations made by GAO in its April 2009 report. (House report)
• OPM is to report “on the number of fraud cases involving fabricated background
investigations, the number of cases prosecuted in Federal court (including case
disposition), and what, if any, quality control measures OPM has implemented to
prevent further fraud in this program as well as to ensure early detection of
fabricated reports within 60 days of the act’s enactment.” (House report)
• OPM is to continue to make publicly available the data from the Human Capital
Survey in a consistent, consolidated, and timely manner. (House report)
• OPM is urged to continue looking for “ways to diversify the Federal workforce”
and “encourage individual human resource offices to take advantage of the talent
pool that exists in the U.S. territories.” (House report)
• OPM is “to consider alternatives to paying healthcare deductibles out-of-pocket
at the time of service, and the feasibility and the cost of implementing any such
alternatives,” including “allowing Federal employees to voluntarily enroll in a
payroll deduction credit program that would allow them to repay healthcare
expenses over time through pre-tax payroll deductions at low, affordable rates,”
and report on its consideration of alternatives within 120 days after the act’s
enactment.106 (House report)
• OPM is “to work expeditiously to improve the USAJOBS site to make
information about Schedule A authority more readily accessible”107 and report
specific actions taken within 120 days after the act’s enactment. (Senate report)
• With regard to a previously requested report from OPM on employment for the
blind, to include the views of federal labor organizations, the committee report
states that the Members look forward to receiving and considering the OPM
study. (Senate report)

105 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 85
106 H.Rept. 111-202, pp. 83-84.
107 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 109.
Congressional Research Service
56

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• OPM is “to carry out the Intergovernmental Personnel Act [IPA] Mobility
Program with special attention provided to Federal agencies employing more
than 2,000 nurses” and “should work with the Committee to determine the best
approach to assigning Government-employed nurses to public and private
universities and ways to encourage accredited schools of nursing to promote
nursing careers in Federal agencies.” The Senate committee report states that:
OPM may develop guidelines that provide Federal agencies direction or guidance in using
their authority under the [IPA] Mobility Program to provide financial assistance to Federal
employees holding a degree in nursing to accept an assignment to teach in an accredited
school of nursing in exchange for a commitment from the individual to serve for an
additional term in Federal service or a commitment from the school of nursing to take
additional steps to increase its number of nursing students that will commit to Federal service
upon graduation; and to provide financial or other assistance to Federal employees who have
served as a nurse in the Federal Government, are eligible for retirement, and are qualified to
teach to expedite the transition of such individuals into nurse faculty positions.108
Office of Special Counsel (OSC)109
The President’s budget requested an FY2010 appropriation of $18,495,000 for the OSC, an
amount that is more than $1 million or 5.9% above the FY2009 funding of $17,468,000. The
agency’s FTE employment level is estimated to be 111 for FY2010, 5 more than the FTE level of
106 for FY2009. The agency’s budget submission projected a continued increase in the number of
Hatch Act, prohibited personnel practices, and disclosure cases received. According to OSC, it
will continue to focus on improved performance in the timely handling of cases, the quality of
agency products and decisions, and fulfilling responsibilities for education and outreach. The
House committee recommended, the House passed, and the Senate committees recommended the
same appropriation as the President requested. The House committee report states that the
funding will support “standard pay and non-pay adjustments as well as higher projected rent costs
associated with starting a new 10-year space lease with the General Services Administration in
October 2009.”110 The Senate committee, in its report, “strongly urges the OSC to work with
whistleblower advocacy organizations to promote the highest level of confidence in the
Whistleblower Protection Act “ and the agency and encourages OSC to continue “case processing
efficiencies.”111
OSC’s authorization expired on September 30, 2007. The 110th Congress considered, but did not
act upon legislation (S. 2057, H.R. 3551) that would have reauthorized the agency for three years
and included provisions to enhance OSC’s reporting requirements.112

108 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 110.
109 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
110 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 87.
111 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 114.
112 5 U.S.C. 5509.
Congressional Research Service
57

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)113
The President’s FY2010 request for NARA was $466.9 million, which is about $7.6 million more
than the $459.3 million appropriated for FY2009. President Obama’s request was $62 million
more than the FY2009 budget request submitted by then-President George W. Bush. Of this
requested amount, almost $339.8 million was sought for operating expenses, an increase of $12.5
million over the FY2009 appropriation for this account.
Within NARA’s operating expenses, the President’s budget request included funding for two
specific offices. The President requested $1.9 million for the creation of the Controlled
Unclassified Information Office (CUIO), which was established at the direction of former
President George W. Bush to offer agencies guidance on how to preserve certain records.
President Obama also requested $1.4 million to establish the Office of Government Information
Services (OGIS). The OGIS was established to (1) review agency compliance with FOIA
policies, (2) recommend policy changes to Congress and the President, and (3) offer mediation
services between FOIA requesters and agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. The
George W. Bush Administration had requested no funding for OGIS, and requested that
Department of Justice carry out the responsibilities of the office using funds from its general
administration account.114 In FY2009, OGIS was appropriated $1 million.
Unlike previous years in which funds for the NARA Office of Inspector General (OIG) were
included within the operating expenses appropriation, the President’s FY2010 budget requested a
separate $4.1 million for the OIG.115 For the electronic records archive, the President sought $85.5
million, an $18.5 million increase over the previous fiscal year allocation; for repairs and
restoration, a little more than $27.5 million was sought, a much lower amount than the FY2009
appropriation of more than $50 million; and for the National Historical Publications and Records
Commission, a $10 million appropriation was requested. Former President George W. Bush had
requested no funding for the NHPRC for the previous three fiscal years, although Congress
appropriated $7 million for FY2007, more than $9 million for FY2008, and more than $11
million in FY2009.
The House approved, and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended, the amounts
requested by the President, with the exception of funding for the NHRPC. The House-passed bill
included $13 million for the NHPRC, $3 million more than the President’s request. According to
House report language, NHRPC funding included $4.5 million for “the initiative to provide
online access to the papers of the Founding Fathers.”116 Senate appropriators recommended $12
million for the NHPRC, $2 million more than the President requested. In report language, Senate
appropriators directed that three NHPRC initiatives each receive $3 million: (1) accelerating “the
Founding Fathers Online project,” (2) publishing “historical papers of key figures and movements
in our Nation’s history,” and (3) advancing “archives preservation, access, and digitization
projects within the interlocking repositories of historic records and hidden collections.”117

113 This section was written by Wendy Ginsberg, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
114 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009—Appendix
(Washington: GPO, 2008), p. 239.
115 The separate line item for OIG is required by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-409).
116 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 79.
117 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 106.
Congressional Research Service
58

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

House appropriators also stated in report language that they were “greatly disturbed by the news
of the loss of a computer hard drive from the NARA facility in College Park, Maryland.”
According to the report, the hard drive included information from the White House and the Secret
Service, including information that could identify particular individuals. The appropriators
pointed to the “extreme sensitivity” of the information and called on NARA to “adhere to proper
information security procedures.” The report recommended that NARA issue a report to Congress
30 days after enactment of the appropriations bill detailing “improvements made or planned to
NARA’s information security posture, to ensure the security of sensitive information.”118 House
appropriators also commended NARA “for its special exhibits and public programs.”119
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)120
The NCUA is an independent federal agency funded entirely by the credit unions that the agency
charters, insures, and regulates. Two entities managed by the NCUA are addressed by the
Financial Services and General Government bill. One of these, the Community Development
Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF), makes low-interest loans and technical assistance grants to low-
income credit unions. Earnings generated from the CDRLF are available to fund technical
assistance grants in addition to funds provided for specifically in appropriations. The Omnibus
Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-8) appropriated $1 million, for technical assistance grants,
for FY2010. The President requested and Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended, $1
million for FY2009. The House recommended raising the funding level to $1.25 million for
FY2010.
The other entity managed by the NCUA, the Central Liquidity Facility (CLF), provides a source
of seasonal and emergency liquidity for credit unions. Provisions in the appropriations bill set a
borrowing limit for the CLF each fiscal year. To provide the NCUA with increased flexibility to
assist with credit unions’ financial liquidity during the recent economic downturn, the limit for
FY2009, was set by P.L. 111-8, at the maximum level authorized by the Federal Credit Union
Act.121 The limit is 12 times the subscribed capital stock and surplus of the CLF. This increase is
equivalent to a cap of about $41 billion. Both the Senate bill, as reported by the Appropriations
Committee, and the House bill, as passed, would provide the CLF with the ability to lend up to
the maximum level provided for by the Federal Credit Union Act for FY2010.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)122
Originally established in 2004 by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act as an
agency within the Executive Office of the President (EOP),123 the PCLOB was reconstituted as an
independent agency within the executive branch by the Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53).124 The board assumed its new status on January 30,

118 H.Rept. 111-202, pp. 76-77.
119 Ibid., p. 77.
120 This section was written by Pauline Smale, Economic Analyst, Government and Finance Division.
121 12 U.S.C. 1795f(a)(4)(A).
122 This section was written by Garrett Hatch, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
123 118 Stat. 3638 at 3684.
124 121 Stat. 266 at 352.
Congressional Research Service
59

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

2008; its FY2009 appropriation was its first funding as an independent agency.125 Among its
responsibilities, the five-member board is to (1) ensure that concerns with respect to privacy and
civil liberties are appropriately considered in the implementation of laws, regulations, and
executive branch policies related to efforts to protect the nation against terrorism; (2) review the
implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch policies related to efforts to protect the
nation from terrorism, including the implementation of information sharing guidelines; and (3)
analyze and review actions the executive branch takes to protect the nation from terrorism,
ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil
liberties. The board advises the President and the heads of executive branch departments and
agencies on issues concerning, and findings pertaining to, privacy and civil liberties. The board
provides annual reports to Congress detailing its activities during the year, and board members
appear and testify before congressional committees upon request.
The President’s FY2010 request for the PCLOB is $2.0 million, which is $500,000 above
FY2009 enacted appropriations of $1.5 million. The House approved $2.0 million for the PCLOB
for FY2010, the same amount as requested. Senate appropriators recommended $1.5 million for
the PCLOB, $500,000 less than the President’s request. In their report, Senate appropriators wrote
that they were “concerned’” that the board had not yet been “reconstituted and staffed as required
by P.L. 110-53.” Senate appropriators further “urge(s) the Administration” to nominate members
to the PCLOB “as expeditiously as possible” and then “promptly provide a detailed budget
justification to the Committee.”
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)126
The SEC administers and enforces federal securities laws to protect investors from fraud, to
ensure that sellers of corporate securities disclose accurate financial information, and to maintain
fair and orderly trading markets. The SEC’s budget is set through the normal appropriations
process, but funds for the agency come from fees that are imposed on sales of stock, new issues
of stocks and bonds, corporate mergers, and other securities market transactions. When the fees
are collected, they go to a special offsetting account available to appropriators, not to the
Treasury’s general fund. The SEC is required to adjust the fee rates periodically in order to make
the amount collected approximately equal to target amounts set in statute.
The SEC’s FY2009 appropriation was $960 million.127 For FY2010, the Administration requested
$1,026 million, an increase of 6.9%.
The House Committee recommended $1,036.0 million, an increase of $76 million, or 7.9%, over
the FY2009 appropriation. The House bill adopted the Committee’s figure. Of the $1,036.0
million, $10.2 million is to come from prior-year unobligated balances. Fees collected during the
fiscal year will account for the rest: the total amount appropriated shall be reduced as such
offsetting fees are received so as to result in a final total FY2010 appropriation from the general
fund estimated at not more than $0.

125 See CRS Report RL34385, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: New Independent Agency Status, by
Garrett Hatch.
126 This section was written by Mark Jickling, Specialist in Public Finance, Government and Finance Division.
127 The SEC received an additional $10 million in supplemental appropriations through P.L. 111-32.
Congressional Research Service
60

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Selective Service System (SSS)128
The SSS is an independent federal agency operating with permanent authorization under the
Military Selective Service Act.129 It is not part of the Department of Defense, but its mission is to
serve the emergency manpower needs of the military by conscripting personnel when directed by
Congress and the President.130 All males ages 18 through 25 and living in the United States are
required to register with the SSS. The induction of men into the military via Selective Service
(i.e., the draft) terminated in 1972. In January 1980, President Carter asked Congress to authorize
standby draft registration of both men and women. Congress approved funds for male-only
registration in June 1980.
Since 1972, Congress has not renewed any President’s authority to begin inducting (i.e., drafting)
anyone into the armed services. In 2004, an effort to provide the President with induction
authority was rejected.131
Funding of the Selective Service has remained relatively stable over the last decade. For FY2010,
the President requested and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $24.4 million,
an increase of $2.4 million from FY2009 enacted appropriations. The House-passed bill would
provide $24.15 million for FY2010, and increase of $2.15 million over FY2009 enacted
appropriations.
Small Business Administration (SBA)132
Although the SBA administers a number of programs intended to assist small firms, arguably its
three most important functions are to guarantee—principally through the agency’s Section 7(a)
general business loan program—business loans made by banks and other financial institutions; to
make long-term, low-interest loans to small businesses, nonprofits, and households that are
victims of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, other physical disasters, and acts of terrorism; and to
serve as an advocate for small business within the federal government.
For FY2010, the President has requested a total of $779.3 million for SBA, an increase of 27.3%
over the FY2009 enacted amount of $612.3 million (P.L. 111-8).133 The Administration’s FY2010
request includes $422.0 million for salaries and expenses, a decrease of 7.4% under the FY2009
enacted amount. The President’s FY2010 request includes $102.3 million for management of the
SBA’s disaster loan program and $1.7 million for disaster loan subsidies. No new budget
authority for disaster loans was requested in FY2009. The Administration’s request also includes
$137.9 million in funding for non-credit programs such as Historically Underutilized Business
Zones (HUBZones), Microloan Technical Assistance, the National Women’s Business Council,

128 This section was written by David Burrelli, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division.
129 50 U.S.C. App. §451 et seq.
130 See http://www.sss.gov/.
131 See H.R. 163, October 5, 2004, failed by Yeas and Nays (Roll no. 494).
132 This section was written by Oscar Gonzalez, Analyst in Economics, Government and Finance Division.
133 In addition to FY2009 regular appropriations, SBA received $730 million in supplemental appropriations under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). For additional information, see CRS Report R40241,
Small Business Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by N. Eric Weiss and Oscar R.
Gonzales.
Congressional Research Service
61

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Native American Outreach, small business counseling under the Service Corps of Retired
Executives (SCORE), Small Business Development Centers, Veteran’s Business Development,
and Women’s Business Center Grants. Finally, the Administration’s budget authority requested
for SBA is expected to support up to $28 billion in loan guarantees, including guarantees up to
$17.5 billion of 7(a) loans, up to $7.5 billion for the 504 certified development company loans, up
to $3.0 billion for Small Business Investment Company debentures, and up to $12.0 billion for
the secondary market guarantee program. These are the same levels as in FY2009.
The House-passed bill (H.R. 3170) would provide a total of $847.9 million for the SBA, which is
8.8% above the FY2010 Administration’s request. The House-passed bill includes $428.4 million
for salaries and expenses, an increase of 1.5% over the Administration’s FY2010 request. The
House-passed bill recommended $102.3 million for the SBA’s disaster loan program and $1.7
million for disaster loan subsidies, the same level requested by the Administration. The bill
passed by the House Appropriations Committee would provide $157.3 million for non-credit
programs, an increase of 12.3% over the Administration’s request. The House-passed bill is
expected to support up to $28 billion in loan guarantee debentures, the same amounts provided in
the Administration’s request.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommends a total of $860.9 million for the SBA , an
increase of 9.5% over the Administration’s FY2010 request. The Senate committee-reported bill
includes $444.0 million for salaries and expenses, an increase of 5.2% over the Administration’s
FY2010 request. The Senate committee-reported bill includes the same amounts as the
Administration and the House-passed bill for the disaster loan program and disaster loan
subsidies. The Senate Appropriations Committee includes $157.3 million for non-credit programs
such as Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones), Microloan Technical Assistance,
National Women’s Business Council, Native American Outreach, small business counseling
under the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), Small Business Development Centers,
Veteran’s Business Development, and Women’s Business Center Grants. This amount is 26%
above the Administration’s request. The Senate committee-reported bill is expected to support up
to $28 billion in loan guarantee debentures, the same amounts provided in the Administration’s
request.
United States Postal Service (USPS)134
The U.S. Postal Service generates nearly all of its funding—about $75 billion annually—by
charging users of the mail for the costs of the services it provides.135 However, Congress does
provide an annual appropriation to compensate the USPS for revenue it forgoes in providing free
mailing privileges to the blind136 and overseas voters.137 Congress authorized appropriations for

134 This section was written by Kevin Kosar, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division. Also see CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues,
by Kevin R. Kosar.
135 U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Annual Report 2008 (Washington: USPS, 2008), p. 3.
136 84 Stat. 757; 39 U.S.C. 3403. See also USPS, Mailing Free Matter for Blind and Visually Handicapped Persons:
Questions and Answers, Publication 347 (Washington: USPS, May 2005), available at http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/
pubs/pub347.pdf.
137 Members of the Armed Forces and U.S. citizens who live abroad are eligible to register and vote absentee in federal
elections under the provisions of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C.
1973ff-ff-6). See CRS Report RS20764, The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act: Overview and
Issues, coordinated by Kevin J. Coleman.
Congressional Research Service
62

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

these purposes in the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993 (RFRA).138 This act also permitted
Congress to provide the USPS with a $29 million annual reimbursement until 2035 to pay for the
costs of postal services provided at below-cost rates to not-for-profit organizations in the early
1990s.139 Funds appropriated to the USPS are deposited in the Postal Service Fund, a revolving
fund at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), which was enacted on December 20,
2006, first affected the postal appropriations process in FY2009.140 While the PAEA did not
authorize any additional appropriations to the Postal Service Fund, it did alter the budget
submission process for the USPS’s Office of Inspector General (USPSOIG) and the Postal Rate
Commission (PRC). In the past, the USPSOIG and the PRC submitted their budget requests to the
USPS’s Board of Governors. Accordingly, past presidential budgets did not include the
USPOIG’s or PRC’s funding requests or appropriations therefore. Under the PAEA, both the
USPSOIG and the PRC—which the PAEA renamed the Postal Regulatory Commission—must
submit their budget requests to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget (120 Stat.
3240-3241), and they are to be paid from the Postal Service Fund. The law further requires
USPSOIG’s budget submission to be treated as part of USPS’s total budget, while the PRC’s
budget, like the budgets of other independent regulators, is treated separately.
For FY2010, the USPS requested a $161.8 million appropriation to the Postal Service Fund.141 Of
this amount, $132.8 million would be for revenue forgone, and $29 million would be for the
annual RFRA reimbursement. The USPS’s FY2009 request was $117.7 million. The FY2010 is
larger because of a large increase in reimbursement for free mail for the blind and overseas voting
mail—from $69.8 million in FY2009 to $91.9 million in FY2010.
The USPSOIG requested a $244.4 million appropriation,142 and the PRC requested a $14.3
million appropriation.143 These requests are slightly above last year’s requests of $241.3 million
and $14 million, respectively.144
The President’s FY2010 budget proposes a $362.7 million total postal appropriation.145 It
includes $118.3 million for the USPS, with $89.3 million appropriated for revenue forgone and
$29 million for the annual RFRA reimbursement.146

138 P.L. 103-123, Title VII; 107 Stat. 1267, 39 U.S.C. 2401(c)-(d).
139 See CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues, by Kevin R.
Kosar.
140 P.L. 109-435; 120 Stat. 3198. On PAEA’s major provisions, see CRS Report RS22573, The Postal Accountability
and Enhancement Act, by Kevin R. Kosar.
141 Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2010 (Washington:
OMB, 2009), p. 1274, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/oia.pdf.
142 U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, FY 2010 Budget (Washington: 2009), p. OIG-2, at
http://www.uspsoig.gov/OIG_Budget_FY2010.pdf.
143 Postal Regulatory Commission, Performance Budget Plan Fiscal Year 2010 (Washington: PRC, 2008), p.1.
144 U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, FY 2009 Budget (Washington: 2008), p. 1; and Postal Regulatory
Commission, Performance Budget Plan Fiscal Year 2009 (Washington: PRC, 2008), p. 3.
145 Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2010, pp. 1274 and 1276.
146 The Administration of George W. Bush did not propose funds for the annual RFRA reimbursement in its FY2005
through FY2009 budgets. Congress, however, has provided $29 million for the annual RFRA reimbursement each
fiscal year since FY1994.
Congressional Research Service
63

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

The President’s budget also would provide a $244.4 million transfer of funds from the Postal
Service Fund to the USPSOIG.147 Separately, the President’s budget proposed a $14.3 million
“transfer of funds” from the USPS’s Postal Fund to the PRC.148
The House Committee on Appropriations agreed with the President’s proposed postal
appropriation (H.R. 3170; H.Rept. 111-202). On July 10, 2009, it recommended a $362.7 million
total postal appropriation, which includes $118.3 million for USPS—$89.3 million for revenue
forgone, $29 million for the RFRA reimbursement—and $244.4 million for the USPSOIG.
Separately, the committee recommended a $14.3 million transfer of funds from the Postal Service
Fund to the PRC.
The committee also included its annual requirement that “6-day delivery and rural delivery of
mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 level.”149 It recommended that the USPS:
explore potential revenues and savings that may be derived from vehicle-to-grid partnerships
with entities engaged in energy production and storage as well as with electric vehicle
manufacturers. Further, the Committee recommends the Postal Service investigate the
capacity of USPS vehicle maintenance centers to generate and use revenue derived from the
service of electric vehicles.
And it the committee expressed its concern
about the condition of postal facilities in a number of municipalities including Hemet and
Indio, California. The Committee recommends that the Postal Service, working with local
officials and community leaders, evaluate the needs of these communities and report back to
the Committee on Appropriations regarding its findings.
The House affirmed the committee’s recommended appropriation in a July 16 vote.
On July 9, 2009, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1432 (S.Rept. 111-43),
which recommends postal appropriations identical to those proposed by the President and
approved by the House. The committee also provided that “6-day delivery and rural delivery of
mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 level,” and in its report stated “[t]he Committee
believes that 6-day mail delivery is one of the most important services provided by the Federal
Government to its citizens. Especially in rural and small town America, this critical postal service
is the linchpin that serves to bind the Nation together.”
Additionally, the committee directed the USPS to “continue rural airmail delivery service in
Idaho.” To reduce costs, the USPS had proposed ending this service.150 It also responded to a
USPS mail processing plant consolidation study announcement:

147 Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2010, p. 1276.
148 The USPS’s budget request did not include this transfer of funds because the PRC is a regulatory agency that is
independent of USPS. Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2010,
p. 1277
149 On this provision, see CRS Report R40626, The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress, by
Wendy R. Ginsberg.
150 Jessie L. Bonner, Associated Press, “Air delivery keeps remote Idaho supplied,” Washington Times, June 30, 2009,
at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/30/mailman-in-the-wilderness-remote-idaho-needs-air-d/print/.
Congressional Research Service
64

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

The Committee is aware that the Quincy, Illinois AMP is among the facilities for which a
possible realignment feasibility study has been announced. The Committee is concerned
about the impact on the community and postal customers of eliminating jobs or transferring
functions. The Committee directs the Postal Service to provide the Committee with a
detailed explanation of the criteria used to select the Quincy AMP for a study no later than
30 days after enactment. The Committee further directs the Postal Service to not proceed
with the Quincy AMP study or any other related actions to implement that study during
fiscal year 2010.151
Finally, the Senate Appropriations Committee said that it “remains concerned about the fiscal
health of the Postal Service.” It recognized the USPS’s efforts to cut costs, and expressed its
willingness to consider altering the USPS’s future retiree health benefits fund payment schedule
to provide the USPS with financial relief.152 To this end, the committee directs the USPS
in coordination with OPM and OMB, to develop a fiscally responsible legislative proposal to
grant a limited measure of relief from the PAEA requirements to pre-fund retiree health
benefits. These proposals should consider: (1) whether the PAEA-mandated stream of future
payments overfunds through fiscal year 2016 the anticipated liability of the Postal Service
for future retiree health benefits, (2) whether modifications to the mandated payments could
meet the unliquidated liability goals contained in the PAEA, and (3) whether a decrease in
mandated payments will reduce the incentive of the Postal Service to continue to cut
additional costs, including the labor costs that account for the most significant portion of
annual total costs. Additionally, these proposals should take into account the result of the
PRC’s study of the PAEA payments.153
United States Tax Courts (USTC) 154
A court of record under Article I of the Constitution, the United States Tax Court is an
independent judicial body that has jurisdiction over various tax matters as set forth in Title 26 of
the United States Code. The court is headquartered in Washington, DC, but its judges conduct
trials in many cities across the country.
The President requested, the House approved, and Senate appropriators recommended, $49.2
million for USTC for FY2010, an increase of $778,000 over the agency’s FY2009 enacted
appropriation of $48.5 million.

151 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 131.
152 The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA; P.L. 109-435; 120 Stat. 3221) requires the USPS
to prefund future retiree health benefits, at a cost of about $5.6 billion per year. U.S. Postal Service, Annual Report
2008 (Washington: USPS, 2008), p. 20.
153 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 131.
154 This section was written by Garrett Hatch, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
Congressional Research Service
65

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

General Provisions Government-Wide155
The Financial Services and General Government appropriations language includes general
provisions which apply either government-wide or to specific agencies or programs. An
Administration’s proposed government-wide general provisions for a fiscal year are generally
included in the Budget Appendix.156 Most of the provisions continue language that has appeared
under the General Provisions title for several years as Congress has decided to reiterate the
language rather than making the provisions permanent. The FY2010 budget proposes that some
of the government-wide general provisions that were included in P.L. 111-8, the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for FY2009, be discontinued and these provisions (the section numbers refer
to the provisions as they were included in P.L. 111-8) are listed below. Whether the House-passed
and Senate-reported bills continue a provision is noted.157
• Communication with Congress. Section 714, which prohibits the payment of
any employee who prohibits, threatens, prevents, or prevents another employee
from communicating with Congress. The House-passed and Senate-reported bills
would continue the provision at Section 714.158
• Employee Training. Section 715, which prohibits federal training not directly
related to the performance of official duties. The House-passed and Senate-
reported bills would continue the provision at Section 715.
• Non-disclosure Agreements. Section 716, which prohibits the expenditure of
funds for implementation of agreements in non-disclosure policies unless certain
provisions are included. The House-passed and Senate-reported bills would
continue the provision at Section 716.
• Publicity or Propaganda. Section 717, which prohibits other than for normal
and recognized executive-legislative relationships, propaganda, publicity and
lobbying by executive agency personnel in support or defeat of legislative
initiatives. The House-passed and Senate-reported bills would continue the
provision at Section 717. Section 720, which prohibits the use of funds for
propaganda and publicity purposes not authorized by Congress. The House-
passed and Senate-reported bills would continue the provision at Section 720.
• Release of Non-public information. Section 719, which prohibits funds to be
used to provide non-public information such as mailing or telephone lists to any
person or organization outside the government without the approval of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The House-passed and Senate-
reported bills would continue the provision at Section 719.

155 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
156 For FY2010, the provisions are listed in the Budget, Appendix at pp. 9-16.
157 General provisions related to contracting are discussed in the section of this report on competitive sourcing.
158 The Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 3170 states a constitutional concern about Section 714 that the
provision “is phrased in a manner that could be construed to require the Executive Branch to disclose, without
discretion, certain classified and other privileged information, in which case it would intrude on the President’s
discharge of his constitutional duties.” (U.S. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,
Statement of Administration Policy, H.R. 3170, July 15, 2009, p. 3.)
Congressional Research Service
66

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• E-Government. Section 733, which concerns transfers or reimbursements for E-
Government initiatives. The House-passed bill would continue the provision at
Section 733. The Senate-reported bill does not include the provision.
• Midway Atoll Airfield. Section 734, which provides funds for the Midway Atoll
Airfield. The House-passed bill does not include the provision. The Senate-
reported bill would continue the provision at Section 733.
• Privacy Act. Section 740, which prohibits use of funds in contravention of the
Privacy Act and implementing regulations. The House-passed and the Senate-
reported bills would continue the provision at Section 736 and Section 738,
respectively.
• Great Lakes Restoration. Section 742, which requires OMB to submit a report
on budget information relating to Great Lakes restoration activities. The House-
passed bill would continue the provision at Section 738. The Senate-reported bill
does not include the provision.
• Regulatory Policy. Section 746, which prohibits funds from being used to
implement the provisions on Regulatory Policy Officers in Executive Order
13422.159 On January 30, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order
13497 to revoke Executive Order 13422.160
• Energy and Water Efficiency. Section 748, which provides that the federal
government is expected to conduct its business in an environmentally,
economically, fiscally sound and scientifically defensible manner in carrying out
Executive Order 13423 related to energy and water efficiency and use of
renewable fuels in the federal government. The House-passed bill would continue
the provision at Section 741. Section 744 of the Senate-reported bill would repeal
Section 748 of P.L. 111-8 that made Executive Order 13423 permanent, as the
FY2010 budget proposed.161
• Executive Branch Workforce. Section 752, which requires the OMB Director to
submit a report by department and agency on the number of civilian, military and
contract workers. The House-passed and the Senate-reported bills would continue
the provision at Section 742 and Section 745, respectively.
New general provisions that were proposed in the FY2010 budget included these:
• Response to Catastrophic Event. Section 734 would provide that the head of a
federal department or agency could, subject to prior written approval from the
OMB Director, transfer any unobligated funds between appropriations within the
department or agency in order to expedite a more rapid and effective response to
a catastrophic event as provided in the National Response Plan under P.L. 107-
296. The amounts transferred would be available for the purposes and subject to

159 For an analysis of the Executive Order, see CRS Report RL33862, Changes to the OMB Regulatory Review Process
by Executive Order 13422, by Curtis W. Copeland. See also, CRS Report RL34354, Congressional Influence on
Rulemaking and Regulation Through Appropriations Restrictions, by Curtis W. Copeland.
160 U.S. President (Obama), “Revocation of Certain Executive Orders Concerning Regulatory Planning and Review,”
Executive Order 13497, Federal Register, vol. 74, February 4, 2009, p. 6113.
161 FY2010 Budget, Appendix, Sec. 733, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
67

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

the limitations of the account to which the funds are being transferred. The
department or agency head would notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations of such a transfer within 15 days of its occurrence.
• Federal Real Property Management. Section 735 would permit agencies to
retain the proceeds from the transfer or sale of real property, and use those
proceeds for real property activities. The section would also establish a pilot
program to expedite real property disposal, and require GSA to allow the public
to have access to a “single, comprehensive, and descriptive database of all
Federal real property assets under the custody and control of all executive
agencies” other than properties excluded for national security reasons.
• Student Loan Repayment. Section 736 would provide that notwithstanding any
other provision of law, a public or private institution of higher education could
offer to provide to an officer or employee of the federal government or the
District of Columbia (DC) government who is a current or former student of the
institution, financial assistance to repay a student loan or forbear repayment of
the student loan. An officer or employee of the federal or DC governments could
seek or receive such assistance or forbearance.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended the following new general provisions
that are included in the House-passed bill:
• Foreign Terrorism Suspects. Section 744 directs the Attorney General to
transmit to Congress records regarding notification of rights under Miranda v.
Arizona given to captured foreign terrorism suspects within 14 days of the act’s
enactment.
• Auto Dealers. Section 745 would require automobile companies that receive
federal funds and are partially owned by the federal government to reinstate
agreements with franchise dealerships to the extent that a valid dealer agreement
existed prior to a Chapter 11 proceeding.162
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the following general provision on the
pay adjustment for federal civilian employees.
• Federal Civilian Pay. Section 736 would provide a 2.9% pay adjustment. The
House committee and the House-passed bill were silent on the pay adjustment,
endorsing the 2.0% increase proposed in the FY2010 budget.
Competitive Sourcing163
Selective Moratorium on Competitive Sourcing
If enacted, Section 734 of H.R. 3170 (or Section 734 of S. 1432, which includes the same
language) would prohibit the use of any funds appropriated by this act, or any other

162 CRS Report R40712, U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry Restructuring and Dealership Terminations, by Bill Canis and
Michaela D. Platzer.
163 This section was written by L. Elaine Halchin, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
Congressional Research Service
68

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

appropriations act for the same fiscal year (FY2010), to begin or announce a public-private
competition.164 The prohibition would apply to a “public-private competition regarding the
conversion to contractor performance of any function performed by Federal employees.... ”165
That is, this section apparently would apply only to competitions that involve work being
performed by federal employees, but it would not apply to public-private competitions involving
work being performed by contractor employees. Conversion to contractor performance is only
one of the possible outcomes of a public-private competition, however, which might lead some
observers to conclude that the provision is somewhat ambiguous.
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations both note, in the reports accompanying
their respective bills, that Section 734 continues a provision that was included in the previous
fiscal year’s appropriations act.166 The House committee’s report adds that the extension of the
moratorium on new public-private competitions provides the Administration with additional time
for reviewing and developing Federal workforce policies.167
Inventory of Services Contracts
Another provision of H.R. 3170 which involves competitive sourcing is Section 743. If this
provision is enacted, each agency, excluding the Department of Defense (DOD), would be
required to compile and submit to Congress an annual inventory of activities that were performed
by contractors (i.e., an inventory of services contracts) during the preceding fiscal year.168 The
initial inventory would be due by the end of the third quarter of FY2010. Information required for
each inventory entry would include, for example, the functions performed by the contractor, the
dollar value of the contract, and the number of full-time contractor employees paid for
performing the activity or activities. Each entry in the inventory also would indicate whether it is
a personal services contract, noncompetitive procedures were used, or contract performance has
been poor. 169
The agency head would be required to review the inventory and make it available to the public. In
reviewing the inventory, the agency head would be required to ensure that:

164 Section 734 states: “[n]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act or any other Act may
be used.... ” (Italics added for emphasis.) The words in this phrase—“or any other act”—are “not words of futurity.
They merely refer to any other appropriation act of the same fiscal year.” ( U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition, Volume I, GAO-04-261SP, January 2005, p. 2-36, at
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/d04261sp.pdf.
165 Sec. 734 of H.R. 3170.
166 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 3170, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 10, 2009, H.Rept.
111-202, p. 105; U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Bill, 2010, report to accompany S. 1432, 111th Cong., 1st sess., July 9, 2009, S.Rept. 111-43, p. 138.
167 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 105.
168 Aside from the exclusion of DOD from this requirement, Section 743 is unclear regarding the applicability of the
provision. The relevant language, which might be missing one or more words, reads: “Not later than the end of the third
quarter of fiscal year 2010 and each subsequent fiscal year, and for each department or agency not later than its
inventory required under the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998.... ” (Sec. 743(a)(1) of H.R. 3170.)
(Italics added to aid in identifying the language in question.)
169 Sec. 743(a)(1) of H.R. 3170.
Congressional Research Service
69

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements were followed for any contract
identified as a personal services contract.
• No inherently governmental functions appear on the inventory.
• To the maximum extent practicable, no functions closely associated with
inherently governmental functions appear on the list.170
Using the inventory, the agency head would identify any activities that should be considered for
conversion to government employee performance, or conversion to an acquisition approach that
would be more advantageous to the department or agency than, apparently, the agency’s current
approach.171 Section 743(c)(4) would require the agency head to develop a plan to guide
consideration of the conversion of activities.
Section 735 of S. 1432 also includes, among other things, a requirement for agencies to compile
inventories of their services contracts. Significant differences from Section 743 of H.R. 3170
include the following:
• Only those agencies subject to P.L. 105-270, Federal Activities Inventory Reform
Act of 1998 (FAIR Act), would be subject to the inventory requirement. (Similar
to Section 743 of H.R. 3170, DOD would be excluded from this requirement.)172
• Agencies would be required submit their inventories to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), which would prepare and submit to Congress a
governmentwide inventory report on the agencies’ inventories. OMB also would
make its report available to the public.173 (Similar to the House bill, an agency
head would be required to make his or her agency’s report available to the
public.)
• Language that would require an agency head to identify activities that should be
considered for conversion to federal employee performance or a different
acquisition approach specifically mentions that inherently governmental
functions and functions closely associated with inherently governmental
functions “should be considered for special consideration for conversion.... ”174
• An agency would be required to submit its plan regarding considering activities
for conversion with the inventory it submits to OMB in FY2011.175
• Agency heads would have to submit their inventories of services contracts to
OMB before submitting their FAIR Act inventories to OMB.176
• None of the funds appropriated by this appropriations act or any other FY2010
appropriations act could be used to begin, plan for, or announce a public-private
competition regarding the conversion to contractor performance of work

170 Sec. 743(c)(1) and (2) of H.R. 3170.
171 Sec. 743(c)(3) of H.R. 3170.
172 Sec. 735(a) of S. 1432.
173 Sec. 735(a), (c), and (d) of S. 1432.
174 Sec. 735(e)(3)(A) of S. 1432.
175 Sec. 735(e)(4) of S. 1432.
176 Sec. 735(f) of S. 1432.
Congressional Research Service
70

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

performed by federal employees unless an agency has submitted its inventory
and the agency head has reviewed the inventory per the instructions in this
section.177
• OMB would be required to issue guidance and implementation instructions for
all agencies, excluding DOD, regarding periodic independent reviews of services
contracts. 178 Details regarding the scope, procedures, and elements of
independent reviews may be found at Section 743(h)(2)-(4).
Section 745 also would require several reports.
• OMB would be required to submit a report to the Senate and House Committees
on Appropriations regarding the guidance and instructions issued for conducting
independent reviews of services contracts.179
• GAO would be required to submit a report to the Senate and House Committees
on Appropriations regarding the implementation of the guidance and instructions
issued for conducting independent reviews of services contracts.180
• The Comptroller General would be required to submit a report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on certain reporting requirements found in several public laws,
the President’s March 4, 2009, memorandum on government contracting, and if
enacted, S. 1432.181
• OMB would be required to submit to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations a report on “the impact of reports, guidelines, and regulations
described under subsection (h)(1)(A) on agency personnel policy.... ”182
Cuba Sanctions183
Background
Since the early 1960s, U.S. policy toward communist Cuba has consisted largely of efforts to
isolate the island nation through comprehensive economic sanctions, including prohibitions on
U.S. financial transactions—the Cuban Assets Control Regulations (CACR)—that are
administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).
Under U.S. sanctions, some U.S. commercial agricultural exports to Cuba have been allowed
since 2001 pursuant to the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, or

177 Sec. 735(g) of S. 1432.
178 Sec. 735(h)(1) of S. 1432.
179 Sec. 735(h)(5)(A) of S. 1432.
180 Sec. 735(h)(5)(B) of S. 1432.
181 Sec.735(i) of S. 1432.
182 Sec. 735(j) of S. 1432. Subsection (h)(1)(A) does not exist.
183 This section was written by Mark Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and
Trade Division. For additional information, see CRS Report R40193, Cuba: Issues for the 111th Congress, by Mark P.
Sullivan, and CRS Report RL31139, Cuba: U.S. Restrictions on Travel and Remittances, by Mark P. Sullivan.
Congressional Research Service
71

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

TSRA (Title IX of P.L. 106-387). However, there are numerous restrictions and licensing
requirements for these exports. For instance, exporters are denied access to U.S. private
commercial financing or credit, and all transactions must be paid for in cash in advance or with
financing from third countries. The Bush Administration tightened sanctions on Cuba in February
2005 by further restricting how U.S. agricultural exporters may be paid for their product. OFAC
amended the CACR to clarify that the term “payment of cash in advance” for U.S. agricultural
sales to Cuba means that the payment is to be received prior to the shipment of the goods. This
differs from the practice of being paid before the actual delivery of the goods, a practice that had
been utilized by many U.S. agricultural exporters to Cuba since such sales were legalized in late
2001. U.S. agricultural exporters and some Members of Congress strongly objected to this
“clarification” on the grounds that the action constituted a new sanction that violated the intent of
TSRA, and could jeopardize millions of dollars in U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba. Then OFAC
Director Robert Werner maintained that the clarification “conforms to the common understanding
of the term in international trade.”184
Since 2002, the United States has been Cuba’s largest supplier of food and agricultural products,
and Cuba has purchased almost $2.7 billion in agricultural products from the United States.185
Overall U.S exports to Cuba rose from about $7 million in 2001 to $404 million in 2004. U.S.
exports to Cuba declined in 2005 and 2006 to $369 million and $340 million, respectively, but
increased to $447 million in 2007. In 2008, U.S. exports to Cuba rose to $712 million, far higher
than in previous years, in part because of the rise in food prices and because of Cuba’s increased
food needs in the aftermath of several hurricanes and tropical storms that severely damaged
Cuba’s agricultural sector. In the first five months of 2009, U.S. exports to Cuba were valued at
$280 million, slightly lower than the same time period in 2008.186
Legislative Action
From 2000-2007, either one or both houses of Congress included provisions in the annual
Treasury Department appropriations bill that would have eased U.S. economic sanctions on Cuba
(especially on travel and on U.S. agricultural exports), but none of these provisions were enacted.
The Bush Administration regularly threatened to veto legislation if it included any provision
weakening sanctions on Cuba. In 2008, both House and Senate Appropriations Committee
versions of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill for FY2009, H.R.
7323 and S. 3260, contained various provisions easing restrictions on travel and on payment
terms related to the payment of cash in advance for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba.
Final action on the FY2009 appropriations measure was delayed until the 111th Congress when it
was included in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (H.R. 1105/P.L. 111-8) signed into law in
March 2009. Unlike the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration did not threaten to veto
the measure if it included provisions easing Cuba sanctions. The omnibus appropriations measure
ultimately included three Cuba provisions that eased restrictions on family travel and travel for
the marketing and sale of U.S. agricultural and medical exports to Cuba, and were intended to

184 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Testimony of Robert Werner, Director, OFAC, before the House Committee on
Agriculture, March 16, 2005.
185 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Office of Global Analysis, “Cuba’s Food &
Agriculture Situation Report,” March 2008.
186 World Trade Atlas, which uses Department of Commerce Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
72

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

ease payment provisions for U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba. The Treasury Department’s
interpretation of the latter provision, however, mitigated its practical effect.
As set forth in the omnibus measure, section 622 of Division D prohibits funds in the act from
being used to administer, implement, or enforce an amendment to the Cuban embargo regulations
issued on February 25, 2005, requiring that U.S. agricultural exporters using the “cash in
advance” payment mechanism for selling their goods to Cuba must be paid in cash for their goods
before the goods leave U.S. ports. As noted above, TSRA requires either the “payment of cash in
advance” for such exports (or financing by third country financial institutions), but does not
provide a definition of cash in advance. Prior to the February 2005 amendment to the Cuban
embargo regulations, U.S. exporters could be paid for the goods before they were unloaded in
Cuba. OFAC guidance on the implementation of this provision states that TSRA’s statutory
provisions remain in place that agricultural exports to Cuba be either paid for by “cash in
advance” or financed using a third-country bank.187 During Senate consideration of the omnibus
measure, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner provided additional guidance on the
implementation of this provision in a letter published in the Congressional Record that states that
“exporters will still be required to receive payment in advance of shipment.”188 This appears to
continue the Bush Administration policy imposed in February 2005. Given the Secretary’s
interpretation, the omnibus provision will have little, if any, practical effect. While the Secretary’s
response ameliorated the concerns that several Senators had regarding the provision, it also
triggered concerns by other Senators who maintained that the Secretary’s action ignored the
legislative intent of the Cuba provision to ease restrictions on agricultural sales to Cuba.189
As a result of the Treasury Department’s action, both the House-passed and Senate
Appropriations Committee-reported versions of the FY2010 Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 3170 and S. 1432, have identical provisions (section 618 in
the House bill and section 617 in the Senate bill) stating that the term “payment of cash in
advance” as used in TSRA “shall be interpreted as payment before the transfer of title to, and
control of, the exported items to the Cuban purchaser.” In its report to the bill (S.Rept. 111-43),
the Senate Appropriations Committee maintains that it is aware that the Treasury Department is
continuing to require the sellers of agricultural goods to Cuba to receive cash payments in
advance of shipping rather than in advance of delivering the goods, and asserts that the policy
impedes U.S. sales since it increases the cost of doing business. In the report, the committee urges
the Treasury Department to use its rulemaking authority to permanently amend the Cuban Assets
Control Regulations and remove impediments to U.S. agricultural sales to Cuba.


187 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, “Guidance on Implementation of Cuba Travel
and Trade-Related Provisions of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” March 11, 2009.
188 Congressional Record, March 10, 2009, p. S2933.
189 Caitlin Webber, “Obama Accused of Ignoring Legislators’ Bid to Ease Cuba Trade Restrictions,” CQ Today, March
18, 2009; and Jerry Hagstrom, “Bipartisan Senate Group Pushes Geithner on Cuba Trade,” Congress Daily PM,
National Journal, March 17, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
73

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Garrett Hatch, Coordinator
R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
Analyst in American National Government
ghatch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7822
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443
Gary Guenther
Gerald Mayer
Analyst in Public Finance
Analyst in Labor Policy
gguenther@crs.loc.gov, 7-7742
gmayer@crs.loc.gov, 7-7815
Barbara L. Schwemle
Mark Jickling
Analyst in American National Government
Specialist in Financial Economics
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov, 7-8655
mjickling@crs.loc.gov, 7-7784
Lorraine H. Tong
David F. Burrelli
Analyst in American National Government
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
ltong@crs.loc.gov, 7-5846
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8033
Eugene Boyd
Oscar R. Gonzales
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Policy
ogonzales@crs.loc.gov, 7-0764
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
David P. Smole
Kevin R. Kosar
Specialist in Education Policy
Analyst in American National Government
dsmole@crs.loc.gov, 7-0624
kkosar@crs.loc.gov, 7-3968
Bruce K. Mulock
L. Elaine Halchin
Specialist in Government and Business
Specialist in American National Government
bmulock@crs.loc.gov, 7-7775
ehalchin@crs.loc.gov, 7-0646
Kevin J. Coleman
Mark P. Sullivan
Analyst in Elections
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
kcoleman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7878
msullivan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7689
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Wendy R. Ginsberg
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications
Analyst in Government Organization and
Policy
Management
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov, 7-2508
wginsberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-3933
Pauline Smale

Analyst in Financial Economics
psmale@crs.loc.gov, 7-7832

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Coordinator Garrett
Hatch
7-7822
ghatch@crs.loc.gov
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service
Gary Guenther
7-7742
gguenther@crs.loc.gov
Executive Office of the President
Barbara Schwemle
7-8655
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Judiciary Lorraine
Tong
7-5846
ltong@crs.loc.gov
District of Columbia
Eugene Boyd
7-8689
eboyd@crs.loc.gov
District of Columbia Education Issues
David P. Smole
7-0624
dsmole@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
74

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Area of Expertise
Name
Phone
E-mail
Consumer Product Safety Commission Bruce Mulock
7-7775
bmulock@crs.loc.gov
Election Assistance Commission
Kevin Coleman
7-7878
kcoleman@crs.loc.gov
E-Government Fund in GSA
Wendy Ginsberg
7-3933
wginsberg@crs.loc.gov
Federal Communications Commission
Patty Figliola
7-2508
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation: OIG
Pauline Smale
7-7832
psmale@crs.loc.gov
Federal Election Commission
R. Sam Garrett
7-6443
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Gerald Mayer
7-7815
gmayer@crs.loc.gov
Federal Trade Commission
Bruce Mulock
7-7775
bmulock@crs.loc.gov
General Services Administration
Garrett Hatch
7-8674
ghatch@crs.loc.gov
Merit Systems Protection Board
Barbara Schwemle
7-8655
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
National Archives and Records
Administration
Wendy Ginsberg
7-3933
wginsberg@crs.loc.gov
National Credit Union Administration
Pauline Smale
7-7832
psmale@crs.loc.gov
Office of Personnel Management
Barbara Schwemle
7-8655
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Office of Special Counsel
Barbara Schwemle
7-8655
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board
Garrett Hatch
7-7822
ghatch@crs.loc.gov
Securities and Exchange Commission
Mark Jickling
7-7784
mjickling@crs.loc.gov
Selective Service System
David Burrelli
7-8033 dburrelli@crs.loc.gov
Smal Business Administration
Oscar Gonzalez
7-0764
ogonzales@crs.loc.gov
U.S. Postal Service
Kevin Kosar
7-3968
kkosar@crs.loc.gov
Government-wide General Provisions
Barbara Schwemle
7-8655
bschwemle@crs.loc.gov
Competitive Sourcing
L. Elaine Halchin
7-0646
ehalchin@crs.loc.gov
Cuba Mark
Sullivan
7-7689 msullivan@crs.loc.gov





Congressional Research Service
75

---