Financial Services and General Government
(FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations
Garrett Hatch, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
February 4, 2010
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. A continuing resolution (CR) went into
effect October 1, 2009, which generally provided funding for FSGG programs and activities at
FY2009 levels through October 31, 2009. P.L. 111-88, enacted October 30, 2009, extended
funding under the CR through December 18, 2009. FSGG appropriations were ultimately
provided through a consolidated budget bill (H.R. 3288) that was signed into law (P.L. 111-117)
by President Obama on December 16, 2009. FSGG agencies were provided $46.435 billion in
enacted appropriations for FY2010, which is $4 million less than the Administration requested.
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?

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 ......................................................................................................... 4
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................................ 21
President’s Budget Request and Key Issues ......................................................................... 22
Committee Recommendations ....................................................................................... 23
P.L. 111-117.................................................................................................................. 26
Federal Drug Control Programs........................................................................................... 26
Transfer Authority............................................................................................................... 31
The Judiciary ............................................................................................................................ 31
The Judiciary Budget and Key Issues .................................................................................. 33
Cost Containment Initiatives ......................................................................................... 34
Judicial Security............................................................................................................ 35
Workload ...................................................................................................................... 36
Judgeships .................................................................................................................... 36
House Budget Hearings....................................................................................................... 37
FY2010 Request and Congressional Action ................................................................... 38
Supreme Court .............................................................................................................. 38
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ................................................................ 39
U.S. Court of International Trade .................................................................................. 39
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ..................................... 39
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund ...................................................................... 40
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) ...................................................... 41
Federal Judicial Center.................................................................................................. 41
Judiciary Retirement Funds ........................................................................................... 42
United States Sentencing Commission........................................................................... 42
General Provision Changes ........................................................................................... 42
District of Columbia.................................................................................................................. 44
The District of Columbia Budget and General Provisions .................................................... 47
The President’s Budget Request .................................................................................... 47
District’s Budget ........................................................................................................... 47
Congressional Action .......................................................................................................... 47
House Bill..................................................................................................................... 48
Senate Bill .................................................................................................................... 49
Enacted Provisions........................................................................................................ 50
Independent Agencies ......................................................................................................... 51
Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ...................................................... 53
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)............................................................. 54
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) ........................................................................ 54
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)................................................................ 55
Congressional Research Service

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): OIG..................................................... 56
Federal Election Commission (FEC) ............................................................................ 57
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ................................................................................. 58
General Services Administration (GSA) ........................................................................ 58
Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management.............................................. 60
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) .................................................................. 62
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ..................................................................... 62
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)....................................................................... 63
Office of Special Counsel (OSC)................................................................................... 66
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) ............................................... 66
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)............................................................. 68
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB).................................................. 69
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)................................................................. 70
Selective Service System (SSS)..................................................................................... 70
Small Business Administration (SBA) ........................................................................... 71
United States Postal Service (USPS) ............................................................................. 72
United States Tax Courts (USTC) ................................................................................. 76
General Provisions Government-Wide....................................................................................... 76
Competitive Sourcing.......................................................................................................... 79
Selective Moratorium on Competitive Sourcing ............................................................ 79
Inventory of Services Contracts..................................................................................... 80
Cuba Sanctions ................................................................................................................... 82
Background .................................................................................................................. 82
Legislative Action ......................................................................................................... 83

Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2010 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations............... 1
Table 2. Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, FY2009-FY2010 .............. 3
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 ................................................................................................................ 21
Table 5. Other Federal Drug Control Programs: FY2010 Appropriations for Accounts ............... 29
Table 6. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2009 to FY2010 ....................................................... 32
Table 7. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2009-FY2010: Special Federal
Payment ................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 8. Independent Agencies Appropriations, FY2009 to FY2010 .......................................... 52
Table 9. Independent Agencies Related to Personnel Management Appropriations,
FY2009 to FY2010 ................................................................................................................ 61

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 85
Key Policy Staff........................................................................................................................ 85

Congressional Research Service

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Most Recent Developments
The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations were provided through a
consolidated budget bill (H.R. 3288) that was signed into law (P.L. 111-117) by President Obama
on December 16, 2009. Prior to the enactment of the consolidated bill, two continuing resolutions
had provided funding for FSGG programs and activities between October 1, 2009, and December
18, 2009, generally at FY2009 rates.1
The House passed H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Act, FY2010, on July 16, 2009. The House approved $46.389 billion for FSGG programs and
agencies, a 4.1% increase from FY2009 enacted appropriations.2 The Senate Appropriations
Committee reported its FY2010 FSGG appropriations bill, S. 1432, on July 9, 2009. The Senate
bill would have provided $46.479 billion for FSGG programs and agencies, a 4.3% increase from
FY2009 enacted appropriations.3 P.L. 111-117 provides $46.435 for FSGG agencies, a 4.0%
increase from FY2009 enacted levels.4 Table 1, below, reflects the status of various FY2010
FSGG appropriations bills at key points in the appropriations process.
Table 1. Status of FY2010 Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
Report Passed
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
—
H.Rept. 111-
07/07/09
07/09/09
366 12/08/09 12/10/09 12/13/09 111-
117
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

1 P.L. 111-68. Sec. 126 of Division B permits the District of Columbia to expend local funds for programs and
activities under Title IV of S. 1432 (111th Congress) at the rate set forth under “District of Columbia Funds” in the
Second Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request Act (D.C. Act 18-188). The CR also allowed the USPS to reduce by $4.0
billion a payment that was designed to prefund retiree health benefits.
2 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
and prior year appropriations. FY2009 enacted appropriations do not include supplemental appropriations.
3 S.Rept. 111-43.
4 Figure includes $169 million provided for the CFTC in P.L. 111-80.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Independent Agencies, commonly referred to as “TTHUD.”5 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.6
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.7 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.8 As a result of this reorganization, the House and Senate FSGG
Subcommittees have nearly identical jurisdictions.9
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.10 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.11 The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $46.479 billion, an increase of $1.897 billion (+4.3%)
over FY2009 enacted appropriations, and $40 million more than the Administration requested.
P.L. 111-117, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, provides $46.265 billion for FSGG
agencies in FY2010, and P.L. 111-80 provides an additional $169 million for the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), for a total of $46.435 billion. Table 2 lists the enacted
amounts for FY2009, emergency appropriations for FY2009, the Administration’s FY2010
request, the House approved amounts for FY2010, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s
recommendations for FY2010, and enacted appropriations for FY2010.

5 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.
6 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).
7 The agencies are the FCC, FTC, SEC, and SBA.
8 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.
9 The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is under the jurisdiction of the FSGG Subcommittee in the Senate but
not in the House.
10 S.Rept. 111-43. FY2009 enacted figures do not include emergency or supplemental appropriations.
11 FY2010 House approved figure includes funding for the CFTC.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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
$13,465
of the
Treasury
Executive
728 3
731
904
754
785
772
Office of the
President
The Judiciary
6,481
10
6,491
7,036
6,942
6,929
6,861
District of
742 0
742
739
768
727
752
Columbia
Independent
23,942 6,689
30,631
24,392
24,479 24,556
24,585
Agencies
Total $44,582
$6,889
$51,471
$46,439
$46,389
$46,479
$46,435
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, except enacted figures, which are from H.Rept. 111-366.
Notes: All columns include CFTC funding. Columns may not add to 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?
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Department of the Treasury12
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 and the enacted amounts for FY2010.
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
$305
Department-wide Systems and
27 10 10
10 10
Capital Investments
Office of Inspector General
26
27
30
30
30
Treasury Inspector General for
146 149 149
152 152
Tax Administration
Community Development
107 244 244
247 247
Financial Institutions Fund
Financial Crimes Enforcement
91 103 118a 104
111
Network
Financial Management Service
240
244
244
244
244
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
99 105d 100
103 103
Trade Bureau
Bureau of the Public Debt
177
182
182
182
182
Payment of Losses in Shipment
2
2
2
2
2
Internal Revenue Service, Total
11,523b 12,126
12,130
12,152 12,146
Taxpayer
Services
2,293
2,270
2,274
2,276
2,279
Enforcement
5,117
4,904
4,904
5,504
4,904
Enhanced
Tax
Enforcement
- 600 600
- 600
Activities
Operations
Support
3,867
4,083
4,083
4,083
4,084
Business
Systems
230 254 254
274 264
Modernization
Health Insurance Tax Credit
15 16 16
16 16
Administration
Rescissions: Treasury Forfeiture
(-30) (-50) (-50)
(-50) (-90)
Fund

12 This section was written by Gary Guenther, Analyst in Industry Economics, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Program or Account
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Total: Department of the
$12,687c $13,368e $13,446
$13,482 $13,463
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.
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
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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.
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.13
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
and congressional action on the request. In some cases, there is a discussion of policy issues that
Congress may wish to address when it considers the Obama Administration’s budget request for
Treasury in FY2011 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

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

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

financial security of the United States.”14 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 Request: The Obama Administration asked 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
housing finance, capital markets, tax administration, and information technology management,
and to administer the tax credit exchange program authorized by the ARRA.15 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 would 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 (P.L. 110-343, EESA)
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.16 The Committee also endorsed the proposed increases in funding for several DO
programs from FY2009.
In its report, the Committee also expressed 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.17 Another concern addressed in the report was
TFI’s management of existing economic and trade sanctions. The Committee urged Treasury to

14 Ibid., p. 1.
15 Ibid., p. 11.
16 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.
17 Ibid., p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

“fully implement all sanctions and divestment measures, particularly those applicable to North
Korea, Burma, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe.”18
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 would be used to pay for a so-called carbon audit of the federal tax
code that was authorized by the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343).
The report (H.Rept. 111-202) on H.R. 3170 issued by the House Appropriations Committee
expressed some concern 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 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
(EESA). SIGTARP’s main purpose is to oversee Treasury’s management of the TARP and the
trillions of dollars that could be spent under it to stabilize and revive domestic financial markets.
Under the act, SIGTARP’s budget authority was set initially 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 should decide more
funding is needed.19
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 funds to achieve their 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 those funds beyond the end of 2009,
whether Treasury has the staff and funds needed to carry out any such plans, and how those plans
would promote the main goals of federal financial stabilization programs.20
Final Action: Under the conference agreement for the FY2010 Transportation, Housing, and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 3288) approved by the
House and Senate, DO is receiving $305 million in direct appropriations in FY2010. Of this
amount, $65 million is designated for terrorism and financial intelligence, $49 million for
financial policies and programs, and $47 million for economic policies and programs. Like the
House-passed version of H.R. 3170, the agreement directed Treasury’s Office of Financial
Education to spend $1 million more than the amount requested by the administration on
continuing efforts to improve financial literacy. The agreement also set aside $1.5 million within
the budget for economic policies and programs for a “comprehensive” carbon audit of the Internal
Revenue Code. House and Senate conferees agreed that Treasury should “fully implement”
existing trade and financial sanctions against North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Sudan
and notify the Appropriations Committees if it lacks the resources to do so in FY2010. In
addition, they endorsed the detailed reporting requirements for Treasury’s management of TARP

18 Ibid., p. 13.
19 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.
20 Ibid., p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

spelled out in H.Rept. 111-202 and directed Treasury to find a better way to communicate with
Congress and other stakeholders about its efforts to stabilize financial markets and promote
economic growth, require entities receiving TARP funds to provide more detailed reports on their
use of the funds, and provide Congress with monthly reports on the number and value of
foreclosures prevented so far through Treasury programs.
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 requested $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
report on the measure specified that all appropriated funds would be available for use until
September 30, 2012.
Final Action: The conference agreement for H.R. 3288 allotted $9.5 million in direct
appropriations for DSCIP and specified that the funds will remain available through FY2011.
Nearly half that amount ($4.5 million) is to be used for repairs to the Treasury Annex Building.
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 Budget Request: The Obama Administration asked 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 would 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
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Supervision (OTS) that result in material losses to the federal deposit insurance fund. In addition,
the proposed funding was 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.21
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.22
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.23
Final Action: The conference agreement on H.R. 3288 gave OIG $30 million in appropriated
funds for FY2010.
Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP)
Final Action: No funding for SIGTARP was included in the Obama Administration’s budget
request for FY2010. And neither H.R. 3170 (as passed by the House) nor S. 1432 (as passed by
the Senate Appropriations Committee) provided funding for SIGTARP as a separate
appropriations account. The principal reason for this absence lay in the act that established the
entity: EESA. Under the act, SIGTARP received a direct appropriation of $50 million to cover its
projected operating costs until the program ceased to exist. But the conference agreement on H.R.
3288 included an additional $23 million for salaries and other expenses of the entity in FY2010.
The conferees were concerned that the initial appropriation would allow SIGTARP to continue its
work for only part of the current fiscal year.
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
laws and regulations governing the IRS and proposed changes to them on the efficiency and
effectiveness of tax administration.

21 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief FY2010, p. 21.
22 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 15.
23 House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration sought $149 million
in direct appropriations for TIGTA in FY2010, or an increase of $3 million in the amount enacted
for FY2009. This added amount would 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 BSM
program, the tax gap, 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.24
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.25 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.
Final Action: Under the conference agreement for H.R. 3288, TIGTA is receiving $152 million
in appropriated funds in FY2010.
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 requested $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 bolster 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
or leverages $15 of private investment in underserved communities.26 The Administration’s

24 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 27.
25 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 16.
26 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 32.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

budget request also called for relatively small increases in funding for the BEA program ($3
million) and the Native American Initiatives ($1.5 million). In addition, it asked for a waiver in
FY2010 of both the statutory $5 million cap on grant amounts and 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.27 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. The bill also provides $80
million for the Capital Magnet Fund, which was authorized by the same act.
Final Action: The conference agreement for H.R. 3288 provided $247 million in funding for
CDFI in FY2010. Of that amount, $12 million is designated for technical assistance to native
American, Hawaiian, and Alaskan communities. In addition, $80 million is to be transferred to
the Capital Magnet Fund to support affordable housing and related community development
projects. The transfer represents temporary funding in lieu of contributions from Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. House and Senate conferees also specified that $4.1 million be used for a pilot grant
program intended to offer financial counseling to prospective homebuyers, as authorized by the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. And they directed Treasury to spend a minimum
of $25 million on the Bank Enterprise Award program.
Policy Issues: A report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in June 2009 on
the NMTC program found that a notably 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.28 According to the report, 9% of such applications were
successful, and they received $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.

27 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 23.
28 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
12

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

In considering the FY2011 budget request for Treasury, 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
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 requested $103
million in direct appropriations for FinCEN in FY2010, or about $11 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.”29 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 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 in 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

29 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 18.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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.30
Final Action: The conference agreement on H.R. 3288 gave FinCEN $111 million in direct
appropriations for FY2010. At least $2 million must be used to improve the agency’s
collaboration with other financial intelligence agencies around the world in tracking and
disrupting money laundering and terrorist financing operations and in bolstering their analytical
capabilities. Concerned about FinCEN’s management of an ongoing information technology
modernization project, the conferees also directed the agency to submit semi-annual reports on its
status to the Appropriations Committees.
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 collects unpaid debts owed to federal and state government agencies.
Administration’s Budget Request for FY2010: The Obama Administration asked 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 that 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.31 In addition,
the budget request included 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.32

30 House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 16.
31 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 47.
32 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, pp. 19-
20.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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.33
Final Action: Under the conference agreement for H.R. 3288, FMS is receiving $244 million in
direct appropriations for FY2010. The conferees directed the agency to include the amount of
Treasury securities sold to foreign investors and a breakdown by country of foreign ownership of
such securities in its Monthly Treasury Statement. They also specified that FMS issue a report to
the Appropriations Committees within 180 days of the enactment of the act on the potential cost
savings and other benefits to the federal government of authorizing the agency to negotiate
changes in the rates and fees charged by credit and debit card networks and any rules that restrict
the government’s ability to determine the card payments it accepts and the methods by which
those transactions are processed.
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 requested direct
appropriations for ATB in FY2010 of $25 million. This is a net figure because the budget request
for the bureau was $105 million, and the Administration expected 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
collecting it. The fees would be used to fund ATB operations. According to Treasury budget
documents, the proposed fee would generate $80 million in revenue in FY2010, leaving a gap
between ATB’s funding and the requested budget of $25 million, which would be filled by direct
appropriations.34
The budget request of $105 million was $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.35

33 House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 17.
34 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 43.
35 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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 the bill’s 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.
Final Action: The conference agreement gave ATB $103 million in direct appropriations for
FY2010, $3 million of which will be available through FY2011 for the hiring, training, and
equipping of special agents and support personnel.
Policy 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. ATB’s enforcement activities arguably help establish a level playing field
among companies that make, sell, and distribute those products. It can also be argued that these
companies derive significant benefits from regulated markets intended to protect consumer
welfare. In evaluating the Obama Administration’s budget request for FY2011, Congress may
want to consider further the rationale for paying for the work done by ATB through direct
appropriations rather than user fees paid by the companies that benefit from those 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 sought $182 million
in direct appropriations for BPD in FY2010, or about $5 million more than the amount enacted
for FY2009. This total was a net figure, as the budget request called for $192 million in
appropriations, reduced by the collection of $10 million in user fees from account holders in the
Legacy Treasury Direct system. The $5 million in added funding would be used to maintain
BPD’s current operating level. A top priority for FY2010 is ensuring the bureau uses the most
efficient information systems to conduct debt operations and deliver services to investors.36 In
FY2008, BPD introduced an improved auction system known as the Treasury Automated Auction
Processing System. The bureau has also invested in recent years in upgrading the Treasury Direct
system, which allows investors to purchase and manage their holdings of Treasury securities
online.

36 Treasury Department, Budget in Brief 2010, p. 51.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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.
Final Action: Under the conference agreement for H.R. 3288, BPD is receiving $192 million in
direct appropriations for FY2010. The conferees directed the agency to collect up to $10 million
in user fees so the net cost to the Treasury comes to $182 million. The fees apply to definitive
security issues and the maintenance of Treasury Direct Investor Accounts.
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 accounted
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;
• (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;
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• (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 asked 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 $603 million in additional appropriations for FY2010 would result from combining another
$256 million to maintain current operating levels and another $463 million 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 claimed the additional spending would enable the agency to collect $2 billion
more in enforcement revenue by FY2012.37
Though the Administration sought a decrease in direct appropriations for taxpayer services of 1%
compared to FY2009, it maintained the decrease would 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
bolster ongoing efforts to lower the tax gap, which basically is the difference between the amount
of all taxes owed by taxpayers and the amount of taxes paid voluntarily and on time. 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.38 Under the budget request, $128 million would be used to reduce the portion of
the tax gap attributable to international activities, $94 million to improve the reporting
compliance of small firms and high-income taxpayers, $26 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 $23 million in added funding for BSM would allow the IRS to continue a project
aimed at modernizing the core taxpayer account database, which is supposed to play a key role in
the “next generation of IRS service and enforcement initiatives.”

37 Ibid., p. 59.
38 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
18

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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 recommended that IRS receive $12.489 in direct appropriations, or $363
million more than the budget request.39 The recommendation addressed what the Board saw 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 used by the IRS to manage its operations. To
address the first problem, the Board called 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 recommended 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,
recommended 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 received to take added 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.”40
S. 1432 recommended that the IRS receive $4.083 in direct appropriations for operations support,
or the same amount as the budget request. The Committee noted there have been “major
problems” with IRS’s management of non-BSM information technology projects and directed the
agency to make sure they are properly classified, have risk management and contingency plans,
and allow the IRS to penalize and gain reimbursement from contractors whose performance fails
to meet the terms of contracts.

39 IRS Oversight Board, FY2010 IRS Budget Recommendation: Special Report (Washington, June 2009), p. 3.
40 Senate Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 30.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Under the bill, the BSM would receive $274 million in direct appropriations, or $20 million more
than the budget request. The Committee ordered the IRS to expand its 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.”41 It also urged the agency to explore ways of
getting refunds to low-income taxpayers sooner so they are less likely to resort to 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 administration
requested.
Final Action: The conference agreement for H.R. 3288 provided $12.146 billion in direct
appropriations for the IRS in FY2010, or $544 million more than the amount enacted for FY2009.
Of the amount appropriated for the current fiscal year, $2.279 billion goes to taxpayer services,
$4.904 billion to enforcement activities, $600 million to enhanced enforcement activities, $4.084
billion to operations support, $264 million to the BSM program, and $15.5 million to
administering the health insurance tax credit.
The conferees ordered the IRS to spend at least $10 million for low-income taxpayer clinic
grants, at least $6.1 million for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program, and at least $206
million for the operating expenses of the Taxpayer Advocate Service from the funding for
taxpayer services. The funding also includes $12 million for matching grants under the
Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program; the funds will be available until the end
of FY2011. Reflecting continuing concerns in Congress about the IRS’s strategy for providing
timely, accurate, and useful assistance to taxpayers, the conferees directed the agency to submit to
the Appropriations Committees annual updates to its Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint and to work
closely with the IRS Oversight board and the IRS Taxpayer Advocate in crafting the updates.
The overall enforcement budget includes $600 million for expanding IRS’s efforts to measure and
shrink the tax gap. At the same time, the conference agreement prohibits the IRS from entering
into or renewing any contract for private tax debt collection.
Under the conference agreement, the BSM program is receiving $10 million more than the budget
request. The conferees directed the IRS to use the added funds to support the further development
of CADE. They also backed an option for increasing available funding for the initiative by
drawing upon user fees collected by the IRS, provided it “determines that these funds are
available and warranted.” The agreement also extends a provision from appropriations laws going
back to FY1999 requiring the IRS to gain the approval of the Appropriations Committees for any
BSM spending plans that satisfy six conditions (including review by the Government
Accountability Office) before obligating any funds.

41 House Appropriations Committee, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill, 2010, p. 22.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Policy Issues: In reviewing the Obama Administration’s budget request for FY2011, Congress
may wish to examine the advantages and disadvantages of several proposed options for
improving taxpayer compliance and reducing the cost of tax administration. 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 puts an end to the consumer fraud that seems inherent in letting anyone prepare a
tax return for a fee. Finally, Congress could use the appropriations process to require the IRS to
hire thousands of more auditors for the express purpose of examining the tax returns of
passthrough entities like partnerships and S corporations.
Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President42
The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill provides funding for
all but three offices under the Executive Office of the President (EOP)43 Table 4 shows
appropriations enacted for FY2009, amounts requested by the President for FY2010,
appropriations provided by the House in H.R. 3170 for FY2010, amounts recommended by the
Senate Committee on Appropriations in S.Rept. 111-43 for FY2010, and appropriations provided
by P.L. 111-117 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
$207,642
Compensation of the President
450
450
450
450
450
The White House Office
53,899 59,319 59,319
59,319 59,143
(salaries and expenses,
including Office of Policy
Development for FY2010)
Executive Residence, White
13,363 13,838 13,838
13,838 13,838
House (operating expenses)
White House Repair and
1,600
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500

42 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
43 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
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
21

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Office
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Restoration
Council of Economic Advisers
4,118
4,200
4,200
4,200
4,200
Office of Policy Development
3,550
—
—
—
—
National Security Councila 9,029
12,231 12,231 12,231 12,231
Office
of
Administration 101,333
115,280
115,280 115,280
115,280
Office of Management and
87,972 92,687 92,687
92,687 92,863
Budget
Federal Drug Control Programs
438,900 422,575 407,975
438,325 427,975
(total)
Office of National Drug Control
27,200 27,575 27,575
28,575 29,575
Policy
High Intensity Drug Trafficking
234,000 220,000 248,000
234,000 239,000
Areas Program
Other Federal Drug Control
174,700 174,000 132,400
174,750 154,400
Programs
Counterdrug Technology
3,000 1,000
—
1,000 5,000
Assessment Center
Unanticipated Needs
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
Partnership Fund for Program
— 175,000 40,000
40,000 37,500
Integrity Innovation
Presidential transition
8,000 —
—
—
—
administrative support
Special Assistance to the
4,496 4,604 4,604
4,604 4,604
President (salaries and
expenses)
Official Residence of the Vice
323 330 330
330 330
President (operating expenses)
Total: EOP and Funds
$728,033a $904,014
$754,414
$784,764 $771,914
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, S.Rept. 111-43, and H.Rept. 111-
366.
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
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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.”44 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 to 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
integrity through reduction in error, improving administrative efficiency, and improving
service to eligible beneficiaries.45
• 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,46 OMB (except for that for the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity

44 U.S. Executive Office of the President, Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Budget Submission (Washington: February
2009), p. EOP-4.
45 Ibid., p. OMB-13.
46 During debate on H.R. 3170 on July 16, 2009, the House of Representatives did not agree to an amendment (No. 3)
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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
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. P.L. 111-117 provides
funding of $37.5 million, $137.5 million or 78.6% below the President’s request. 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 provided 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

(...continued)
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
24

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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 and P.L. 111-117 provide that the OMB Director will 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 Conference Report (H.Rept. 111-366) states that
The conferees expect OMB to play a coordinating role in designing pilots, developing
performance measures, and allocating funds, but intend that the interagency council will be
the exclusive decision making body and that funds will be transferred to appropriate Federal
agencies to manage and evaluate the individual pilot projects. The OMB Director, as chair of
the council, should seek consensus and maximum input from council members and
participating Federal and State agencies. 47
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
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

47 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155, December 8, 2009, p. H14040.
Congressional Research Service
25

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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. P.L. 111-117 includes this provision, but adds performance
measures to the report and changes the date of the report to March 31, 2010.
P.L. 111-117
The law provides appropriations for the EOP and funds appropriated to the President in the same
amounts as the President requested except for these accounts (and the Partnership Fund discussed
earlier):
• The White House Office, including the Office of Policy Development,
appropriation of more than $59.1 million is $176,000 or 0.3% below the
President’s request. Within the total appropriation is $1.4 million for the Office of
National AIDS Policy. The conference report (H.Rept. 111-366) states that the
$176,000 is shifted to OMB “to reflect the Administration’s decision to locate the
new Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at OMB rather than the
White House.”48
• The OMB appropriation of almost $92.9 million is $176,000 or 0.2% more than
the President’s request. The conference report states that OMB is urged “to focus
efforts on planning and implementing a modernization of the Federal
Government’s core budgeting system using funds provided for fiscal years 2009
and 2010.”49
• The overall appropriation of more than $207.6 million for the EOP and funds
appropriated to the President is $132.1 million or 14.6% below the President’s
request.
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

48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

President’s request. P.L. 111-117 provides an appropriation of almost $428 million, $5.4 million
or 1.3% 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. P.L. 111-117 provides an
appropriation of $29.6 million, $2 million or 7.3% above the President’s request.
The House-passed and the Senate-reported bills and the law allocate $1.3 million
of the total appropriation for policy research and evaluation. The conference
report (H.Rept. 111-366) states that the funding “is intended to allow for an
increase in ONDCP staff to as close to 118 full-time equivalents as possible.” The
report also directs that the ONDCP congressional budget justification continue as
a separate document, but be summarized within the EOP justification, and, for
FY2011, include “more detail and context ... so that the Committee can better
understand the scope and intended direction of the programs.” Quarterly staffing
reports that include current staffing levels, vacancies, and new hires (on-board
and planned) and office, position title, job classifications, and bonuses,
retroactive to FY2009 are requested by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.50
• 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. P.L. 111-
117 provides an appropriation of $239 million, $19 million or 8.6% above the
President’s request. The House-passed and the Senate-reported bills and the law
provide that of the total, not less than 51% be transferred to State and local
entities for drug control activities and 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 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 and P.L. 111-117) for the continued operation and
maintenance of the Performance Management System. Within 45 days after the
act’s enactment, the Director must notify the committees of the initial allocation
of FY2010 funding among HIDTAs. Not later than 90 days after the act’s
enactment, the Director must notify the committees of planned uses of
discretionary HIDTA funding, as determined in consultation with the HIDTA
Directors (House and P.L. 111-117) or according to a framework proposed jointly
by the HIDTA Directors and ONDCP (Senate). The House-passed bill and the
law provide that each High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) designated
as of September 30, 2009, 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 have provided that, notwithstanding the requirements of P.L.
106-58, any unexpended funds obligated prior to FY2008 for programs on the

50 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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. P.L. 111-117 provides an appropriation of
$5 million, $4 million or 400% above the President’s request. The conference
report explains the funding:
Now that ONDCP has signaled a new direction for the program, more tailored to its original
mission, the conference agreement provides $5,000,000 for a newly-invigorated program,
contingent upon receipt and approval by the Committees on Appropriations of information
including the mission, detailed program description, and spending plan for CTAC. The
conferees understand that CTAC’s new program will supplement and enhance other
government-sponsored research in both drug supply and drug demand reduction, with a
focus on development of new scientific technologies, including prevention technology
research.51
• 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. P.L. 111-117 provides an appropriation of $154.4 million, $19.6 million
or 11.3% below the President’s request. Table 5 shows the allocation of the
funding for the OFDCP accounts.

51 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Table 5. Other Federal Drug Control Programs: FY2010 Appropriations for Accounts
Other Federal Drug
House-Reported

Control Programs
and House-
Account
Passed Senate-Reported FY2010 Enacted
Outreach and media
$20 milliona
$70 million, including $8
$45 million
activities related to drug
million for messages on
abuse prevention
methamphetamine

prevention.
Same provisions as Senate-
ONDCP would maintain
reported bill.
funding for non-advertising

services for the media
campaign at not less than the
FY2003 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
$98 million
$90,750,000
$95 million
Program
National Drug Court
$1 million
$1 million
$1 million
Institute
United States Anti-Doping
$10 million
$9.6 million
$10 million
Agency
World Anti-Doping Agency
$1.9 million
$1.9 million
$1.9 million
dues
National Alliance for Model
$1,250,000 $1,250,000
$1,250,000
State Drug Laws
National Drug Control
$250,000 $250,000
$250,000
Program performance
measures, for evaluations
and research, may be
transferred to other federal
departments and agencies
Total $132,400,000
$174,750,000
$154,400,000
Source: H.Rept. 111-202, H.R. 3170, S.Rept. 111-43, and H.Rept. 111-366.
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 and P.L. 111-117 include three administrative
provisions related to the ONDCP. Section 202 of the House-passed bill provided 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
Congressional Research Service
29

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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 and P.L. 111-117 provide that the
President will 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,” except for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment
Center,52 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 must be updated and submitted to the committees every six months and
include information on how previous estimates and assumptions changed. Any new projects, and
changes in the funding of ongoing projects must 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 approval of the House and Senate
committees. A transfer could not increase or decrease an appropriation by more than three
percent. Section 204 authorizes 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) The conference report
(H.Rept. 111-366) reiterates this provision.
• 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)

52 The provision in the Senate-reported bill referred to the heading “Office of National Drug Control Policy.”
Congressional Research Service
30

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• 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, as passed by the House, and as
included in P.L. 111-117, the provision that authorizes the transfer of up to 10% of appropriated
funds among the accounts for the White House,53 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) may, 15 days after notifying the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, transfer up to 10% of any such appropriation to any other such
appropriation. The transferred funds may be merged with, and available for, the same time and
purposes as the appropriation receiving the funds. Such transfers may not increase an
appropriation by more than 50%.54
The Judiciary55
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 recommended by the House Appropriations Committee and
passed by the House for FY2010, as recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee for
FY2010, and as enacted for FY2010.


53 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.
54 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.
55 This section was written by Lorraine Tong, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
Congressional Research Service
31

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Table 6. The Judiciary Appropriations, FY2009 to FY2010
(in millions of dollars)




FY2010
FY2010
Budget Groupings and
FY2009
FY2010
House
Senate
FY2010
Accounts
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Supreme Court (total)
$88.2
$89.3
$88.6a $88.6b 88.5c
Salaries and Expenses
69.8
74.7
74.0
74.1
74.0
Building and Grounds
18.4
14.6
14.5 14.5 14.5
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
30.4
37.0
33.6
32.3
32.6
Federal Circuit




U.S. Court of International
19.6
21.5
21.4d
21.4e
21.4f
Trade




Courts of Appeals, District
6,156.1g
6,677.4
6,588.5
6,577.4
6,508.7
Courts, and Other Judicial
Services (total)




Salaries and Expenses
4,811.4g 5,162.3 5,080.7 5,076.8 5,011.0
Court Security
428.9
463.6
457.4
457.4
452.6
Defender Services
849.4
982.6
982.7
975.5
977.7
Fees of Jurors and
Commissioners
62.2 63.4 62.3 62.3 61.9
Vaccine Injury Compensation
Trust Fund
4.3 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts
79.0 84.0 83.1 83.1 83.1

Federal Judicial Center
25.7
27.5
27.3
27.3
27.3
United States Sentencing

Commission
16.2 17.1 16.8 16.8 16.8

Judicial Retirement Funds
76.1
82.4
82.4
82.4
82.4
Total: The Judiciary
$6,491.4g $7,036.1 $6,941.6 $6,929.3 $6,860.7
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. FY2010 enacted data are from H.Rept. 111-
366.
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. The FY2010 enacted amount is the same as House-passed amount ($88.559 million).
d. House passed $21.350 million, which is $167,000 less than the FY2010 request.
Congressional Research Service
32

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

e. The Senate recommendation of $21.374 million, which is $143,000 less than the FY2010 request.
f.
The FY2010 enacted amount is the same as the House-passed amount ($21.350).
g. $10 million provided in Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32) is included in this amount.
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
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).56

56 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.
Congressional Research Service
33

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Judge Julia S. Gibbons, chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, 57 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.58
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.59
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
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.60
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

57 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.
58 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.
59 Judge Gibbons’ March 19, 2009, Statement, p. 2.
60 Ibid., pp. 4-5.
Congressional Research Service
34

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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. On January 4, 2010, a gunman
wounded a deputy U.S. marshal and killed a court security officer at the Lloyd George U.S.
Courthouse and Federal Building in Las Vegas. Threats in the first week of 2010 included
suspicious substances in letters sent to courthouses in Alabama. These recent incidents will likely
result in review and increased oversight of judicial security at court facilities to ensure that
adequate protective policies, procedures, and practices are in place. Additionally, increased
security enhancements may be necessary for federal courthouses for possible trials of suspects
charged with acts of terrorism.
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 protectees61 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, 2009.62
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.

61 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.
62 USMS provided the data to the author on July 28, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
35

---

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.”63
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).64 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.
On September 8, 2009, Senator Patrick J. Leahy introduced (for himself and Senators Dianne
Feinstein, Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Edward E. Kaufman, Al
Franken, Tom Harkin, Jeff Bingaman, Patty Murray, Sherrod Brown, Evan Bayh, Michael
Bennet, Barbara Boxer, Jeanne Shaheen, Daniel K. Inouye, John F. Kerry, and Daniel K. Akaka)
S. 1653, the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009, to authorize the establishment of additional federal
circuit and district judges to help reduce backlogs in the nation’s caseload. The bill would
authorize the appointment of 63 permanent and temporary judgeships across the country,
including 12 circuit judgeships. S. 1653 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it
is pending. Representative Hank Johnson introduced (for himself and Representatives John
Conyers, Silvestre Reyes, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Robert Wexler), a companion bill, H.R. 3662,
Federal Judgeship Act of 2009, on September 29, 2009. The bill was referred to the House
Judiciary Committee where it is pending.
Several other bills (with more limited scope) have been introduced to create or extend temporary
judgeships. Among them were S. 193, H.R. 91, H.R. 314, H.R. 349, H.R. 1272, H.R. 2961, and
H.R. 3161.

63 Judge Gibbons’ March 19, 2009 Statement, pp. 9-10.
64 See http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/2009/recommendations.pdf for a list of the Conference’s judgeship
recommendations.
Congressional Research Service
36

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Judicial Pay
Another issue of continuing interest is the judiciary’s advocacy for raising judicial pay.65 Chief
Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. reaffirmed his support for significant increases in judicial salaries in
his 2008 Year-End 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.66 Federal judges received a salary adjustment for 2009.
Near the end of the first session of the 111th Congress on November 3, 2009, Senator Dianne
Feinstein introduced (for herself and Senators Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leahy, and Lindsey Graham)
S. 2725, the Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2009. The bill would repeal existing law requiring
that salary increases for federal judges or Supreme Court Justices be specifically authorized by
acts Congress, and would apply the same automatic annual cost-of-living adjustment to judicial
salaries as takes effect under the General Schedule for civilian federal employees.
Although the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a 2010 salary adjustment for
Justices and judges under Section 307 (S.Rept. 111-43),67 the enacted legislation did not provide
for the salary adjustment.
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
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.

65For 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.
66 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.
67 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
37

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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.68
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 Action69
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 2009.70
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 FY2010 enacted amount was $6.861 billion.
The following highlights the FY2009 enacted amount, FY2010 judiciary budget request, House
Appropriations Committee recommendation and House passed amount for FY2010, the Senate
Appropriations Committee recommendation for FY2010, and the FY2010 enacted amount.71
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

68 Judge Gibbons’ March 19, 2009, Statement, p.13.
69 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.
70 Judiciary FY2010 Congressional Budget Summary, p.5.
71 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
38

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

$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. The total FY2010 enacted amount was $88.6 million (the total for $74.0 million as
proposed by the House for Salaries and Expenses, and $14.5 million as proposed by both
chambers for buildings and grounds).
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. The FY2010 enacted amount was $32.6 million.
U.S. Court of International Trade
This court has exclusive jurisdiction nationwide over the civil actions against the United States,
its agencies and officers, and certain civil actions brought by the United States 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. The FY2010 enacted amount was $21.350 million.
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
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
Congressional Research Service
39

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

recommended and the House passed $6.589 billion for this budget group. The Senate
Appropriations Committee recommended $6.577 billion. The FY2010 enacted amount was
$6.509 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. The FY2010 enacted amount was $5.011 billion.
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. The FY2010 enacted amount was $5.4 million, as
requested.
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. The FY2010 enacted amount was $977.7 million.
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
Congressional Research Service
40

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Appropriations Committee recommended the same amount. The FY2010 enacted amount was
$61.9 million.
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. The FY2010 enacted amount was
$452.6 million (this amount reflected updated estimates for reimbursing the Federal Protective
Services).
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. The FY2010 enacted amount was
$83.1 million, as proposed by both chambers.
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. The FY2010 enacted amount
was $27.3 million, as proposed by both chambers.
Congressional Research Service
41

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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. The FY2010
enacted amount was $82.4 million, as proposed by both chambers.
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. The FY2010 enacted amount was $16.8 million, as proposed by both chambers.
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:
Congressional Research Service
42

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• 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.
• 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.
The provisions as enacted for FY2010 are as follows:
• Section 301 makes funds appropriated for salaries and expenses available for
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
• Section 302 provides transfer authority among judiciary appropriations.
• Section 303 permits not more than $11,000 for official reception and
representation expenses of the Judicial Conference.
Congressional Research Service
43

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• Section 304 requires a comprehensive financial plan from the judiciary (which
would establish a baseline for reprogrammings and transfers).
• Section 305 extends through FY2010 the delegation of authority to the Judiciary
for contracts for repairs of less than $100,000, as proposed by the House. The
Senate proposed language amending 40 U.S.C. 3314(a) to make this delegation
permanent.
• Section 306 continues a pilot program under which the United States Marshals
Service provides perimeter security services at selected courthouses.
• Section 307 extends for one year the authorization of temporary district
judgeships in Kansas, Ohio, and Hawaii. (The House bill had proposed language
extending the judgeships in Kansas and Ohio. The Senate bill contained no
similar provisions.)
District of Columbia72
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).73 The Constitution gives Congress the power to
“exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” pertaining to the District of Columbia. In
1973, Congress granted the city limited home rule authority and empowered citizens of the
District to elect a mayor and city council. However, Congress retained the authority to review and
approve all District laws, including the District’s annual budget. As required by the Home Rule
Act, the city council must approve a budget within 56 days after receiving a budget proposal from
the mayor.74 The approved budget must then be transmitted to the President, who forwards it to
Congress for its review, modification, and approval.75
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
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 officials did not complete legislation action on its general fund operating budget until
August 26, 2009. However, both the House and the Senate took up consideration of other
components of the District of Columbia appropriations act; namely, special federal payments and
general provisions before the mayor signed the District of Columbia Budget Request Act. on
August 26, 2009.
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

72 This section was written by Eugene Boyd, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division, and Erin Caffrey, Analyst in Education Policy, Domestic Social Policy Division.
73 See Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 801.
74 120 Stat. 2028.
75 87 Stat. 801.
Congressional Research Service
44

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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, recommended
by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and enacted as a part of P.L. 111-117, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of FY2010.
Table 7. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2009-FY2010:
Special Federal Payment
(in millions of dollars)

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Enacted
Request
Passage
Committee
Enacted
Resident Tuition
$35.1 35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
Support
Emergency Planning
39.2 15.0
15.0
15.4
15.0
and Security
District of Columbia
248.4 249.0
268.9
258.5
261.2
Courts
Defender Services
52.5
52.5
55.0
55.0
55.0
Court Services and
203.5 212.4
212.4
212.4
212.4
Offender Supervision
Agency
Public Defender
35.7 37.3
37.3
37.3
37.3
Service
Criminal Justice
1.8 1.8
2.0
1.8
2.0
Coordinating Council
Judicial Commissions
—
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Water and Sewer
16.0 20.0
20.4
20.0
20.0
Authority
Office of the Chief
4.9 0.0
1.7
1.0
1.9
Financial Officer
Living Classrooms
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
Nat. Building
0.0 0.0
0.15
0.0 0.15
Museum
Samaritan Ministry
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
Washington Center
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.13
Wash. Hosp. Center
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.0
0.05
Whitman-Walker
0.0 0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
Clinic
Youth Power Center
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
I Have a Dream
0.8 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Foundation
Boys and Girls Club
0.1 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Project Learn
Capital Area Food
2.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bank
Children’s National
2.9
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
Congressional Research Service
45

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010

Enacted
Request
Passage
Committee
Enacted
Medical Center
Literacy
Education 0.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Education
0.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Advancement Alliance
Everybody Wins
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Excel-Automotive
0.3 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Workforce Dev.
National Children’s
0.2 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Alliance
Safe Kids
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
Georgetown Metro
0.1 0.0
0.12
0.0
0.0
Connection
The Perry School for
0.1 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Econ. Empowerment
Executive Office of the
3.4 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mayor
Marriage Initiative
1.3 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Matching Funds
Marriage
2.1 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Development
Accounts
School Improvement
54.0
74.4
74.4
75.4
75.4
Public Schools
20.0
42.2
42.2
42.2
42.2
Public Charter
20.0 20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Schools
Education Vouchers
14.0
12.2
12.2
13.2
13.2
Jump Start Public
20.0
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
School Reform
Consolidated
21.0 15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Laboratory Facility
Central Library and
7.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Branches
D.C. National Guard
0.0
2.0
2.4
0.0
0.38
Perm. Supportive
0.0 19.2
19.2
0.0
17.0
Housing
Disconnected Youth
0.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
4.0
Public Health Services
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
Special Federal
$742.4 $739.1
$768.3
$727.4
752.2
Payments (total)
Sources: FY2009 Enacted, FY2010 Request, and FY2010 figures are taken from the H.Rept. 111-202
accompanying H.R. 3170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, FY2010 and
S.Rept. 111-43, accompanying S. 1432, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Congressional Research Service
46

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Act,FY2010, and H.Rept. 111-366 accompanying H.R. 3170, 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 faced 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 was caused by the decline in revenue projections related to the current
economic recession according to June 2009 Revenue Estimates issued by the District’s Office of
the Chief Financial Officer.76 By July 16, 2009, the projected budget shortfall had 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
were to 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.77
City officials completed action on the revised budget in August with the mayor signing the budget
on August 26, 2009.
Congressional Action
Because of efforts to close a significant budget gap, as noted earlier, District officials did not
submitted a general fund operating budget for congressional consideration until late in the fiscal
year. However, both the House and the Senate took up consideration of other components of the
District of Columbia appropriations act; namely, special federal payments and general provisions.
On October 1, 2009, President Obama signed, P.L. 111-68, Continuing Appropriations Resolution

76 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.
77 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
47

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

for FY2010. The act included a provision (Division B, Sec. 126) allowing the District of
Columbia government to spend locally generated funds at a rate set forth in the budget approved
by the District of Columbia on August 26, 2009.
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 included a substantial increase ($20 million) above the amount
requested by the Administration for court operations. The bill also directed $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 included several general provisions relating to statehood or congressional
representation for the District, including provisions that would have continued prohibiting 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
or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the
District.78
The bill included significant changes in a number of controversial provisions (often called social
riders) that city officials had 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 have:
• 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

78 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
48

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• 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 represented a lifting of restrictions and prohibitions put in place
when Republicans controlled the House. Removal of these so called social riders had 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 recommended $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
included approximately $10 million less in funding for court operations than recommended by the
Administration. It would have appropriated 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 mirrored some of the language included in the House bill.
Like the House bill, S. 1432 included provisions restricting the use of federal funds to support
District statehood or congressional voting representation, including provisions that would have
continued prohibiting 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; 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.79
The bill also included significant changes in a number of provisions that city official had sought
to eliminate or modify. The bill would have:
• lifted the prohibition on the use of District funds to provide abortion services;

79 See footnote 78.
Congressional Research Service
49

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• maintained 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
• maintained the prohibition on the use of federal funds to support a needle
exchange program—unlike the House bill, which would have lifted 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.
Enacted Provisions
On December 8, 2009, a conference committee reported H.R. 3170, which included FY2010
appropriations for the District of Columbia. The conference report, H.Rept. 111-366, was
approved by the House on December 10, 2009, the Senate on December 13, 2009, and was signed
into law as P.L. 111-117, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY2010, by the President on
December 16, 2009. The act included $752.2 million in special federal payments to the District of
Columbia. This is $13.1 million more than requested by the President, $24.8 million more than
recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee, but $16.1 million less than
recommended by the House. The act included a substantial increase ($12 million) above the
amount appropriated in FY2009 for court operations. The act also directed $20 million in
additional funding to support the District of Columbia Public Schools while reducing funding for
school vouchers by almost $1 million.
General Provisions
Consistent with the House bill, P.L. 111-117 included several general provisions relating to
statehood or congressional representation for the District, including provisions that continued the
practice of prohibiting the use of federal funds to:
• support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state
legislature;
• cover salaries expenses and other costs 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
or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the
District.80
The act included significant changes in a number of controversial provisions related to medical
marijuana, needle exchange, and abortion services. P.L. 111-117:

80 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
50

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• lifts the prohibition on the use of District funds to provide abortion services, but
continues restricting the use of federal funds for such purposes, except in cases of
rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s life;
• allows the use of District, but not federal, funds to regulate and decriminalize the
medical use of marijuana; and
• eliminates the prohibition on the use of both federal and District funds to support
a needle exchange program.
Removal of these so called social riders had 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.
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, and as enacted.
Congressional Research Service
51

---

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
$1.5
United States
Christopher Columbus Fel owship
1.0 — —
1.0
0.8
Foundation
Commodity Futures Trading
146 161 161b 177 169
Commissiona
Consumer Product Safety
105 107 113
115
118
Commission
Election Assistance Commission
124
69
124
69
93
Federal Communications
— 1 1
— —
Commissionc
Federal Deposit Insurance
(27) (38) (38)
(38)
(38)
Corporation: Office of Inspector
General (by transfer)d
Federal Election Commission
64
64
65
67
67
Federal Labor Relations Authority
23
25
25
25
25
Federal Trade Commissione
70 166 171
166 169
General Services Administration
577f 644 578
598
653
Merit Systems Protection Board
41
43
43
43
43
Morris K. Udal Foundation
6
6
6
7
6
National Archives and Records
447 454 457
456
457
Administration
National Credit Union
1 1 1
1
1
Administration
Office of Government Ethics
13
14
14
14
14
Office of Personnel Management
20,360 20,369 20,373
20,368
20,378
(total)
Salaries and Expenses
93
95
98
95
103
Government Payments for
9,533 9,814 9,814
9,814
9,814
Annuitants, Employee Health
Benefits
Government Payments for
46 48 48
48
48
Annuitants, Employee Life
Insurance
Payment to Civil Service
10,550 10,276 10,276
10,276
10,276
Retirement and Disability Fund
Office of Special Counsel
17
18
18
18
18
Postal Regulatory Commissiong 14 14 14
14
14
Congressional Research Service
52

---

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
1.5
Oversight Boardh
Securities and Exchange
894 1,016 1,026
1,116 1,095
Commissioni
Selective Service System
22
24
24
24
24
Smal Business Administration
613j 779 848
861
824
United States Postal Service
351
363
363
363
363
United States Tax Court
48
49
49
49
49
Total: Independent Agencies
$23,942k $24,392 $24,479
$24,556
$24,585
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)81
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

81 This section was written by Mark Jickling, Specialist in Financial Economics, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
53

---

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. CFTC was ultimately provided
$168.8 million through the Agriculture appropriations division of P.L. 111-80.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)82
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
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 recommended $115 million for the CPSC, which would have been $9.6 million
more than the FY2009 funding level and $8 million more than requested by the Administration.
P.L. 111-117 provides the agency with $118.2 million, $3.2 million more than recommended by
the Senate and $4.9 million more than recommended by the House.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC)83
The EAC was established under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA, P.L. 107-252). The
commission provides grant funding to the states to meet the requirements of the act and 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, P.L. 103-31) from the Federal Election Commission to the EAC;

82 This section was written by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Business and Government Relations, Government and
Finance Division.
83 This section was written by Kevin Coleman, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
Congressional Research Service
54

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

these responsibilities include NVRA rule-making authority. The Department of Justice is charged
with enforcement responsibility.
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. The proposed
Financial Services and General Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3170), which passed the House
on July 20, 2009, called for $17.9 million for the EAC, of which $3.5 million would have been
transferred to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for election reform
activities, $750,000 would have been for the Help America Vote College Program, and $300,000
would have been for a competitive grant program to support student and parent mock elections.
That amount was $1.4 million more than the budget request. The bill also provided $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 and post-election voting systems
verification. The Senate companion bill (S. 1432) called for $16.5 million for the EAC, of which
$3.3 would have been transferred to NIST, and $52 million would have been for requirements
payments to the states. Those amounts were the same as the budget request for both EAC salaries
and expenses and election reform programs.
The conference report to H.R. 3288 (Rept. 111-366) includes $17.9 million for the EAC, of which
$3.5 million is to be transferred to NIST, $750,000 is for the Help America Vote College Program,
and $300,000 is for a competitive grant program to support student and parent mock elections. It
also includes $75 million for election reform programs, with $70 million of that amount for
requirements payments, $3 million for research grants to improve voting technology with respect
to disability access, and $2 million for grants to states and localities for voting system logic and
accuracy testing.
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)84
The Federal Communications Commission, created in 1934, is an independent agency charged
with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite,
and cable. The FCC is also charged with promoting the safety of life and property through wire
and radio communications. The mandate of the FCC under the Communications Act is to make
available to all people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and
radio communications service. The FCC performs five major functions to fulfill this charge:
spectrum allocation, creating rules to promote fair competition and protect consumers where
required by market conditions, authorization of service, enhancement of public safety and
homeland security, and enforcement. The FCC obtains the majority—and sometimes all—of its

84 This section was written by Patricia Moloney Figliola, Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy,
Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Congressional Research Service
55

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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, P.L. 111-117 includes $335,794,000 for agency salaries and expenses with no direct
appropriation (all funding will be obtained through the collection of regulatory fees). The
conference report (H.Rept. 111-366) also
• Directs the FCC to work expeditiously to conduct a successful auction of the D
Block spectrum so that first responders have an interoperable communications
network.
• Urges the FCC to ensure that public, educational, and governmental (PEG)
channels remain on the basic service tier of programming and to prevent cable
service providers from impeding the public’s access to PEG programming.
• Directs the FCC to work with the Universal Service Administrative Company
and the FCC Inspector General to re-evaluate auditing processes to ensure that
audits are more uniform and not unduly onerous, that all auditors are familiar
with the telecommunications industry, and that lessons learned from audits are
translated into better performance in the future; a report on Universal Service
Fund audit activity is due to Congress within 60 days of enactment of this bill.
• Extends the FCC’s exemption from the Anti-deficiency Act (ADA) until
December 31, 2010. The ADA contains accounting rules which could complicate
the operation of the FCC’s universal service electronic rate program.
• Prohibits the FCC from limiting universal support to one line.
• Directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to update its 2005 report
on improving controls over wireless networks (GAO–05–383); GAO shall report
its findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120
days of enactment of this bill.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC): OIG85
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. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-117)
provided for a FY2010 budget of $37.9 million.

85 This section was written by Pauline Smale, Economic Analyst, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
56

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Federal Election Commission (FEC) 86
The FEC administers, and enforces civil compliance with, the Federal Election Campaign Act
(FECA) and campaign finance regulations.87 The FEC also administers the presidential public
financing system.88 In recent years, FEC appropriations have generally been noncontroversial and
subject to limited debate in committee or on the floor.89
For FY2010, the President requested $64.0 million for the FEC. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $65.1 million.90 The committee noted that the increased funding was
intended to cover salaries, rent, and information technology costs required to maintain current
services.91 The House approved $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.92
Unlike in previous years, neither chamber proposed Government Accountability Office (GAO) or
other research regarding campaign finance issues.
P.L. 111-117 provides $66.5 million for the agency for FY2010. The law itself contains no
explicit FEC provisions beyond the appropriation and the condition that representation and
reception expenses not exceed $5,000. The conference report, however, noted that of the
additional $2.5 million appropriated above the President’s $64.0 million request, $1.5 million was
to be used for maintaining staffing and services, and $1 million was to be used for information
technology, public access to electronic records, and “increased workload demands.”93 At least
some of the additional $1 million appears to be relevant for the Commission’s ongoing Website
Improvement Initiative.94

86 This section was written by Sam Garrett, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
87 2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.
88 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.
89 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.
90 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, H.Rept. 111-202 (Washington: GPO,
2009), p. 63.
91 Ibid.
92 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.
93 U.S. Congress, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3288, Departments of Transportation and Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, committee print, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December
8, 2009, Rpt. 111-366 (Washington: GPO, 2009), pp. 914-915.
94 Among other points, the Website Improvement Initiative has resulted in posting historical enforcement data and
advisory opinions to the FEC website. Previously, historical data was generally unavailable electronically.
Congressional Research Service
57

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)95
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 recommended 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 assumed $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 recommended $289.3
million, $2.4 less than its House counterpart. More specifically, the Senate committee
recommended $102 million from pre-merger filing fees, $21 million from Do-Not-Call fees, and
a direct appropriation of $166.3 million. P.L. 111-117 mirrors the House recommendations
providing a FY2010 total budget authority of $291.7 million for the FTC, as well as the same fees
and direct appropriation.
General Services Administration (GSA)96
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
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.
P.L. 111-117 provides $59.7 million for government-wide policy, $72.9 million for operating
expenses, $59 million for the OIG, $3.8 million for former presidents, and $36.5 million for the
FCICF.

95 This section was written by Bruce Mulock, Specialist in Business and Government Relations, Government and
Finance Division.
96 This section was written by Garrett Hatch, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
Congressional Research Service
58

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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 have provided an
additional amount of $460 million be deposited in the FBF, and made $723 million 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 that $734 million be made
available for construction and acquisition of facilities, both more than the President’s request. P.L.
111-117 provides an additional $538 million for the FBF and makes $894 million available for
construction and acquisition of facilities.
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)97
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.”98 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.99
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

97 This section was written by Wendy Ginsberg, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
98 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.
99 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
59

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

should describe projects selected, and the budget, timeline, objectives and expected benefits for
each project.”100
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.101
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.”102 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.103
P.L. 111-117 provides $34 million for the Electronic Government Fund, splitting the difference
between the House and Senate recommendations.104 The appropriation is $1 million more than
was requested by President Obama and recommended by the House. The conference report did
not include Senate language recommending funds be directed toward particular projects. It did,
however, include language similar to the House recommendation that allows funds to “be
transferred to other Federal agencies … but only after a spending plan and explanation for each
project has been submitted to the Committees on Appropriations.”105 Neither the conference
report nor the bill mentioned the Office of Government Information services.
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, as recommended
by the House Committee on Appropriations and passed by the House for FY2010, as
recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations in S.Rept. 111-43 for FY2010, and as
provided by P.L. 111-117 for FY2010, for each of these agencies.

100 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 72.
101 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 95.
102 Ibid., p. 95-96.
103 Ibid., p. 96.
104 Ibid. p. 919.
105 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
60

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Federal Labor Relations
$22.7 $24.8 $24.8
$24.8
$24.8
Authority
Merit Systems Protection
41.4 42.9 42.9
42.9
42.9
Board (total)
Salaries and Expenses
38.8
40.3
40.3
40.3
40.3
Limitation on Administrative
2.6 2.6 2.6
2.6
2.6
Expenses
Office of Personnel
20,360.5 20,368.8 20,372.8
20,368.3
20,378.1
Management (total)
Salaries and Expenses
92.8
95.0
98.0
95.0
103.0
Limitation on Administrative
118.1 113.2 113.2
112.7
112.7
Expenses
Office of Inspector General
1.8 2.1 3.1
2.1
3.1
(salaries and expenses)
Office of Inspector General
18.8 20.4 20.4
20.4
21.2
(limitation on administrative
expenses)
Government Payments for
9,533.0 9,814.0 9,814.0
9,814.0
9,814.0
Annuitants, Employee Health
Benefitsa
Government Payments for
46.0 48.0 48.0
48.0
48.0
Annuitants, Employee Life
Insurancea
Payment to Civil Service
10,550.0 10,276.0 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
$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, S.Rept. 111-43, and H.Rept. 111-
366.
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).
Congressional Research Service
61

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) 106
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
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, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended, and P.L. 111-117 provides $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.”107 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) 108
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, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended, and P.L. 111-117 provides 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.”109
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

106 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.
107 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 64.
108 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
109 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 75.
Congressional Research Service
62

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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)110
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 includes funding of $5.9 million for the Enterprise Human Resources
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.111
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 stated 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.”112 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 allocated 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 included $9.4
million for the cost of implementing the new integrated financial system and $4.2 million for the

110 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
111 FY2010 Budget, Appendix, pp. 1147-1149.
112 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 82.
Congressional Research Service
63

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

cost of automating the systems for retirement recordkeeping. The Senate-reported bill’s allocation
of the total included $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.”113 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 oversight over OPM’s
revolving fund programs.”114 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 FY2012 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) (P.L.
111-117 reiterates this provision.)
• 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.115 (House report)

113 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 109.
114 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 85
115 H.Rept. 111-202, pp. 83-84.
Congressional Research Service
64

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• OPM is “to work expeditiously to improve the USAJOBS site to make
information about Schedule A authority more readily accessible”116 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)
• 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.117 (P.L. 111-
117 reiterates this provision.)
P.L. 111-117 provides an overall appropriation of $20,378 million for OPM for FY2010, $9.3
million or 0.05% above the President’s request. Accounts within the appropriation are funded as
follows:
• Salaries and expenses (S&E) - $103 million, $8 million or 8.4% above the
President’s request. The law allocates the funding for the HRI and HRLOB
projects as the President requested. The conference report (H.Rept. 111-366)
states that the OPM appropriation includes “funding for new initiatives to expand
the recruitment and hiring of veterans government-wide, and to streamline the
Federal hiring process” and “funding to pilot several wellness initiatives for
Federal employees in areas such as smoking cessation, disease management and
prevention, and risk assessment, as well as funding to conduct an Employee
Viewpoint Survey (formerly known as the Human Capital Survey) annually
instead of every other year as is the current practice, and with more
comprehensive data analysis.”118
• Limitation on trust fund transfers (S&E) - $112.7 million, $500,000 or 0.4%
below the President’s request. The allocation of the appropriation includes up to
$9.3 million for the cost of implementing the new integrated financial system and
up to $4 million for the cost of automating the systems for retirement
recordkeeping.

116 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 109.
117 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 110.
118 Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155, December 8, 2009, p. H14046.
Congressional Research Service
65

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

• Office of Inspector General (OIG) salaries and expenses - $3.1 million, $1
million or 47.6% above the President’s request.
• Limitation on trust fund transfers (OIG) - $21.2 million, $800,000 or 3.9%
above the President’s request.
• The health benefits, life insurance, and retirement and disability fund accounts
are funded at the levels requested by the President.
Office of Special Counsel (OSC)119
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, the Senate committee recommended, and P.L.
111-117 provides 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.”120 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.”121
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.122
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)123
The President’s FY2010 request for NARA was $466.9 million, which would have provided
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

119 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
120 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 87.
121 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 114.
122 5 U.S.C. 5509.
123 This section was written by Wendy Ginsberg, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
Congressional Research Service
66

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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.124 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.125 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.”126 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.”127
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.”128 House
appropriators also commended NARA “for its special exhibits and public programs.”129

124 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009—Appendix
(Washington: GPO, 2008), p.239.
125 The separate line item for OIG is required by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-409).
126 H.Rept. 111-202, p. 79.
127 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 106.
128 H.Rept. 111-202, pp. 76-77.
129 Ibid., p. 77.
Congressional Research Service
67

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

In conference, the House and Senate agreed to appropriate $339.8 million for NARA operating
expenses, the amount requested by the President and approved by both chambers.130 The
conference report adopts House language that requires NARA to report—within 30 days after
enactment of the appropriations bill—to the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on
“information security improvements made or planned by NARA.”131 These security
improvements are required to prevent “theft of electronic materials which may contain personally
indentifying information.”132
The conference report also includes $4.1 million for the OIG and $27.5 million for repairs and
restorations at NARA facilities.133 Both appropriations are equal to President Obama’s request
and in line with the recommendations of both chambers. Within the appropriation for repairs and
restorations, $17.5 million is set aside for “necessary expenses related to the repair and renovation
of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park.”134 The conference agreement
provides $85.5 million for ERA, which is equal to the President’s request and the House and
Senate recommendations. Nearly $61.8 million of the ERA funding is required to be made
available until September 30, 2012. The report also requires GAO to review any spending plans
for ERA prior to NARA obligating any funding.135
The conference agreement adopted the House’s recommendation of $13 million for NHPRC. Of
that appropriation, the agreement requires $4.5 million for “the initiative to provide online access
to the papers of the Founding Fathers.”136
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)137
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 FY2009. The President requested $1 million for FY2010. The Consolidated Appropriations
Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-117) provides $1.25 million for FY2010.

130 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, report to accompany H.R. 3288, 111th Cong., 1st sess., December 8, 2008,
H.Rept. 11-366 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 920.
131 This provision may be a response to NARA’s loss of a Clinton Administration computer hard drive that contained
Executive Office of the President data, among other data-protection concerns. For more information about the Clinton
Administration data, see U.S. National Archives, “Mission Clinton Administration Hard Drive,” press release, May 28,
2009, http://www.archives.gov/news/clinton-hard-drive-faq-2009-5-20.pdf.
132 Ibid.
133 Ibid., p. 921.
134 Ibid.
135 Ibid.
136 Ibid.
137 This section was written by Pauline Smale, Economic Analyst, Government and Finance Division.
Congressional Research Service
68

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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
(12 U.S.C. 1795f(a)(4)(A)). 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. P.L. 111-117 continues to provide
the CLF with the ability to lend up to the maximum level provided for by the Federal Credit
Union Act for FY2010. The administrative expenses of the CLF were limited to $1.25 million in
FY2009 and this limit was also imposed on FY2010 expenses.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)138
Originally established in 2004 by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act as an
agency within the Executive Office of the President (EOP),139 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).140 The board assumed its new status on January 30,
2008; its FY2009 appropriation was its first funding as an independent agency.141 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.” P.L. 111-117 provides $1.5 million for the PCLOB.

138 This section was written by Garrett Hatch, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
139 118 Stat. 3638 at 3684.
140 121 Stat. 266 at 352.
141 See CRS Report RL34385, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board: New Independent Agency Status, by
Garrett Hatch.
Congressional Research Service
69

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)142
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.143 For FY2010, the Administration requested
$1,026 million, an increase of 6.9%. The House Committee recommended $1,036 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 million, $10 million would have come from prior-year
unobligated balances. Fees collected during the fiscal year would have accounted for the rest: the
total amount appropriated was to 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. The
Senate proposed $1,126 million, with $10 million coming from prior-year unobligated balances
and $1,116 million from offsetting fees. P.L. 111-117 provided $1,111 million for the SEC, $16
million will come from prior-year unobligated balances and the remaining $1,095 million coming
from offsetting collections, so that there will be no appropriation from the general fund for
FY2010.
Selective Service System (SSS)144
The SSS is an independent federal agency operating with permanent authorization under the
Military Selective Service Act.145 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.146 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.147

142 This section was written by Mark Jickling, Specialist in Public Finance, Government and Finance Division.
143 The SEC received an additional $10 million in supplemental appropriations through P.L. 111-32.
144 This section was written by David Burrelli, Specialist in National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division.
145 50 U.S.C. App. §451 et seq.
146 See http://www.sss.gov/.
147 See H.R. 163, October 5, 2004, failed by Yeas and Nays (Roll no. 494).
Congressional Research Service
70

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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.
The House-passed bill would provide $24.15 million for FY2010. P.L. 111-117 provides $24.275
million, an increase of $2.275 million over FY2009 enacted appropriations.
Small Business Administration (SBA)148
The SBA administers a number of programs intended to assist small firms. Arguably, the SBA’s
four 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, nonprofit organizations, and households
that are victims of hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, other physical disasters, and acts of terrorism;
to finance training and technical assistance programs for small business owners, and to serve as
an advocate for small business within the federal government.
For FY2010, President Obama requested $779.3 million for the SBA, an increase of 27.3% over
the FY2009 enacted amount of $612.3 million (P.L. 111-8).149 The Administration requested
$422.0 million for salaries and expenses. Included in that amount was $137.9 million for non-
credit programs, such as Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones), Microloan
Technical Assistance, the National Women’s Business Council, Native American Outreach, the
Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), Small Business Development Centers, Veteran’s
Business Development, and Women’s Business Centers. The Administration also requested $16.3
million for the SBA’s Office of Inspector General, $1 million for the SBA’s surety bond
guarantees revolving loan fund, $236 million for the SBA’s business loan programs, and $104
million for the SBA’s disaster loan program. Finally, the Administration’s budget request for the
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/CDC (certified development company) loans,
up to $3.0 billion for Small Business Investment Company debentures, as well as up to $12.0
billion for the secondary market guarantee program. These are the same levels as in FY2009.
The House passed Appropriations bill (H.R. 3170) authorized an appropriation of $847.9 million
for the SBA, 8.8% above the FY2010 Administration’s request. It included $428.4 million for
salaries and expenses. Included in that amount was $157.3 million for non-credit programs. The
bill also authorized the appropriation of $16.3 million for the SBA’s Office of Inspector General,
$1 million for the SBA’s surety bond guarantees revolving loan fund, $236 million for the SBA’s
business loan programs, and $104 million for the SBA’s disaster loan program. It also would
authorize the appropriation of $62.3 million for small business development and entrepreneurship
initiatives, including programmatic and construction activities. It would have supported up to $28
billion in loan guarantees and up to $12 billion for the secondary market guarantee program, the
same amounts provided in the Administration’s request.
The Senate passed Appropriations bill (H.R. 3288) authorized the appropriation of $860.9 million
for the SBA , 9.5% over the Administration’s FY2010 request. The Senate bill included $444.0

148 This section was written by Oscar Gonzalez, Analyst in Economics, Government and Finance Division.
149 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
71

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

million for salaries and expenses. Included in that amount was $157.3 million for non-credit
programs. It also authorized the appropriation of $16.3 million for the SBA’s Office of Inspector
General, $1 million for the SBA’s surety bond guarantees revolving loan fund, $236 million for
the SBA’s business loan programs, and $104 million for the SBA’s disaster loan program. It also
would authorize the appropriation of $59.6 million for small business development and
entrepreneurship initiatives, including programmatic and construction activities. It would have
supported up to $28 billion in loan guarantees and up to $12 billion for the secondary market
guarantee program, the same amounts provided in the Administration’s request and House passed
Appropriations bill.
P.L. 111-117, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, appropriates $824 million for the SBA,
an increase of 5.7% over the Administration’s proposal of $779.3 million and an increase of
34.6% over the FY2009 enacted amount of $612.3 million. It includes $433.4 million for salaries
and expenses. Included in that amount is $185.4 million for the following non-credit programs:
Veteran’s Programs, 7(j) Technical Assistance Programs, Small Business Development Centers,
the Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), Women’s Business Centers, National
Women’s Business Council, Native American Outreach, Microloan Technical Assistance, PRIME,
Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZones), and the Entrepreneurial Development
Initiative. It also appropriates $16.3 million for the SBA Office of Inspector General, $1 million
for the SBA’s surety bond guarantee revolving fund, $236 million for the SBA’s business loan
programs, and $78.3 million for the SBA’s disaster loan program. It also appropriates $59 million
for small business development and entrepreneurship initiatives, including programmatic and
construction activities. The act also supports up to $28 billion in loan guarantees and up to $12
billion for the secondary market guarantee program.
In addition, P.L. 111-118, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, provides the SBA
an additional $125 million to extend the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’s
(P.L. 111-5) fee reductions and eliminations for the SBA’s 7(a) and 504/CDC programs and 90%
loan guarantee limit for the SBA’s 7(a) program through February 28, 2010.
United States Postal Service (USPS)150
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.151 However, Congress does
provide an annual appropriation to compensate the USPS for revenue it forgoes in providing free
mailing privileges to the blind152 and overseas voters.153 Congress authorized appropriations for

150 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.
151 U.S. Postal Service, United States Postal Service Annual Report 2008 (Washington: USPS, 2008), p. 3.
152 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.
153 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, by Kevin J.
Coleman.
Congressional Research Service
72

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

these purposes in the Revenue Forgone Reform Act of 1993 (RFRA).154 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.155 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 FY2009.156 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.157 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
request 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,158 and the PRC requested a $14.3
million appropriation.159 These requests are slightly above last year’s requests of $241.3 million
and $14 million, respectively.160
The President’s FY2010 budget proposed a $362.3 million total postal appropriation.161 It
included $118.3 million for the USPS, with $89.3 million appropriated for revenue forgone and
$29 million for the annual RFRA reimbursement.162 The President’s budget also would have

154 P.L. 103-123, Title VII; 107 Stat. 1267, 39 U.S.C. 2401(c)-(d).
155 See CRS Report RS21025, The Postal Revenue Forgone Appropriation: Overview and Current Issues, by Kevin R.
Kosar.
156 P.L. 109-435; 120 Stat. 3198. On PAEA’s major provisions, see CRS Report R40983, The Postal Accountability
and Enhancement Act: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Kevin R. Kosar.
157 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.
158 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.
159 Postal Regulatory Commission, Performance Budget Plan Fiscal Year 2010 (Washington: PRC, 2008), p.1.
160 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.
161 Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2010, pp. 1274 and 1276.
162 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
73

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

provided a $244.4 million transfer of funds from the Postal Service Fund to the USPSOIG.163
Separately, the President’s budget proposed a $14.3 million “transfer of funds” from the USPS’s
Postal Fund to the PRC.164
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 $362.3 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.”165 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 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 recommended 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.166 It also responded to a
USPS mail processing plant consolidation study announcement:

163 Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 2010, p. 1276.
164 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
165 On this provision, see CRS Report R40626, The U.S. Postal Service and Six-Day Delivery: Issues for Congress, by
Wendy R. Ginsberg.
166 Jessie L. Bonner, Associated Press, “Air delivery keeps remote Idaho supplied,” Washington Times, June 30, 2009,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
74

---

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 2010.167
Finally, the Senate Appropriations Committee said that it remained “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.168 To this end, the committee directed 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.169
Ultimately, Congress appropriated funds to the USPS in the same amounts as those proposed by
the President and approved by the House—a $362.3 million total postal appropriation, with
$118.3 million for the USPS, and $244.4 million for the USPSOIG. Congress also provided a
$14.3 million transfer of funds from the Postal Service Fund to the PRC.
H.Rept. 111-366 also included language on the subject of the proposed closure of postal facilities.
The conferees are aware of considerable public concerns about plans by the Postal Service to
close or consolidate retail post offices and other mail facilities, and believe that the Postal
Regulatory Commission has an important role to play in evaluating those concerns and
fostering well-informed decision making. The conferees commend the Commission for
undertaking its current investigation of the national service implications of the Postal Service
‘‘Station and Branch Optimization and Consolidation Initiative’’ and urge the Commission
to initiate such other proceedings as appropriate to fully evaluate the effects of proposed
closings and consolidations on service levels, costs, postal employees, and the affected
communities. Among other issues, the Commission should examine whether Postal Service
actions, including notification and appeal procedures, are in accord with applicable law [....]

(...continued)
at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/30/mailman-in-the-wilderness-remote-idaho-needs-air-d/print/.
167 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 131.
168 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.
169 S.Rept. 111-43, p. 131.
Congressional Research Service
75

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

In addition, the conferees direct the Government Accountability Office to update its previous
studies regarding Postal Service initiatives to realign its mail processing network, including
proposed closures or consolidations of area mail processing facilities, and to report to the
Committees on Appropriations and other appropriate congressional committees not later than
6 months after enactment of this Act. GAO’s study should address the criteria used in
selecting facilities for closure or consolidation, whether those criteria are being applied
reasonably and consistently in particular cases, the adequacy of efforts to communicate and
consult with affected communities and stakeholders, and the quality of efforts to evaluate the
results of closures and consolidations.170
Finally, the conferees reiterated the Senate Appropriations Committee’s concern with the financial
health of the Postal Service, and directed the USPS to
coordinate with OPM and OMB to develop a fiscally responsible legislative proposal, for
consideration by the appropriate congressional committees, that would 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.171
United States Tax Courts (USTC) 172
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. P.L. 111-117 provides $49.2 million for USTC for FY2010.
General Provisions Government-Wide173
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.174 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 proposed that some

170 H.Rept. 111-366, pp. 923-924 and 936.
171 Ibid., pp. 936-937.
172 This section was written by Garrett Hatch, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
173 This section was written by Barbara Schwemle, Analyst in American National Government, Government and
Finance Division.
174 For FY2010, the provisions are listed in the Budget, Appendix at pp. 9-16.
Congressional Research Service
76

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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, and P.L. 111-117 continue a provision is noted.175
• 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, and the law continue the provision at Section 714.176
• Employee Training. Section 715, which prohibits federal training not directly
related to the performance of official duties. The House-passed and Senate-
reported bills, and the law 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, and the law
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, and the law 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, and the law 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, and the law continue the provision at Section 719.
• E-Government. Section 733, which concerns transfers or reimbursements for E-
Government initiatives. The House-passed bill and the law 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. The law continues the
provision at Section 734.
• Privacy Act. Section 740, which prohibits use of funds in contravention of the
Privacy Act and implementing regulations. The House-passed and the Senate-

175 General provisions related to contracting are discussed in the section of this report on competitive sourcing.
176 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
77

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

reported bills would continue the provision at Section 736 and Section 738,
respectively. The law continues the provision at Section 737.
• 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. The law continues the provision at Section 739.
• Regulatory Policy. Section 746, which prohibits funds from being used to
implement the provisions on Regulatory Policy Officers in Executive Order
13422.177 On January 30, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order
13497 to revoke Executive Order 13422.178
• 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.179 The law, at Section 742, repeals Section 748 of P.L.
111-8.
• 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. The law does not
include this provision.
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
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

177 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.
178 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.
179 FY2010 Budget, Appendix, Sec. 733, p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
78

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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 were included in the House-passed bill:
• Foreign Terrorism Suspects. Section 744 would have directed 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. The law does not include this provision. The conference
report (H.Rept. 111-366) states that the conferees understand that this issue has
been addressed in P.L. 111-84.
• 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.180 The law includes this provision at
Section 747.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended the following general provision on the
pay adjustment for federal civilian employees.
• Federal Civilian Pay. Section 736 would have provided 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. The
law provides a 2.0% pay adjustment, allocated as 1.5% base and 0.5% locality, at
Section 744(a).
Competitive Sourcing181
Selective Moratorium on Competitive Sourcing
Section 735 of P.L. 111-117 would prohibit the use of any funds appropriated by this act, or any
other appropriations act for the same fiscal year (FY2010), to begin or announce a public-private
competition.182 The prohibition would apply to a “public-private competition regarding the

180 CRS Report R40712, U.S. Motor Vehicle Industry Restructuring and Dealership Terminations, by Bill Canis and
Michaela D. Platzer.
181 This section was written by L. Elaine Halchin, Analyst in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
182 Section 735 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.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
79

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

conversion to contractor performance of any function performed by Federal employees pursuant
to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other administrative regulation,
directive, or policy.”183 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.
Inventory of Services Contracts
Another provision that involves competitive sourcing, as well as other aspects of government
procurement, is Section 743. Each agency that is subject to the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform (FAIR) Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-270), excluding the Department of Defense (DOD), is
required to compile and submit to OMB “an annual inventory of service contracts awarded or
extended through the exercise of an option on or after April 1, 2010, for or on behalf of such
agency.”184 The initial inventory is due by December 31, 2010.185 Beginning in FY2011, if an
agency fails to submit an inventory to OMB for the previous fiscal year, it “may not begin, plan
for, or announce a study or public-private competition regarding the conversion to contractor
performance of any function performed by Federal employees….”186 In addition to the
requirement that each agency make its inventory available to the public, OMB shall provide a
report to Congress that indicates whether agencies subject to the inventory requirement have
complied and includes a summary of each agency’s inventory. OMB shall make this report
available to the public on its website.187 Section 743(a)(3) lists the information to be provided for
each entry in an agency inventory.
Within 180 days of the deadline for submitting the inventory to OMB, an agency head, or his or
her designee, in addition to reviewing the inventory, shall ensure the following:

(...continued)
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.)
183 Sec. 735, Division C, of P.L. 111-117.
184 Sec. 743(a)(3), Division C, of P.L. 111-117. The requirement for certain federal agencies to compile, and submit to
OMB, inventories of their services contracts complements requirements for submitting inventories of commercial
activities and inherently governmental activities. The FAIR Act requires certain federal agencies to compile, and
submit to OMB, inventories of agency functions that have been designated as “commercial activities.” Beginning in
2001, OMB requires agencies to compile, and submit to OMB, inventories of their inherently governmental activities.
(Sean O’Keefe, Deputy Director, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, “Year 2001 Inventory of Commercial
Activities,” memorandum M-01-16, April 3, 2001, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m01-16.pdf.) A
commercial activity or function is a “recurring service that could be performed by the private sector. This recurring
service is an agency requirement that is funded and controlled through a contract, fee-for-service agreement, or
performance by government personnel. Commercial activities may be found within, or throughout, organizations that
perform inherently governmental activities or classified work.” (Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-76
(Revised), May 29, 2003, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a076/a76_incl_tech_correction.pdf,
p. D-2.) An inherently governmental function is an “activity that is so intimately related to the public interest as to
mandate performance by government personnel as provided by Attachment A [of Circular A-76].” (Ibid., p. D-6.)
185 Sec. 743(a)(3), Division C, of P.L. 111-117.
186 Sec. 743(g), Division C, of P.L. 111-117.
187 Sec. 743(c) and (d), Division C, of P.L. 111-117.
Congressional Research Service
80

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

that (A) each contract in the inventory that is a personal services contract has been entered
into, and is being performed, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations; (B) the
agency is giving special management attention to functions that are closely associated with
inherently governmental functions; (C) the agency is not using contractor employees to
perform inherently governmental functions; (D) the agency has specific safeguards and
monitoring systems in place to ensure that work being performed by contractors has not
changed or expanded during performance to become an inherently governmental function;
(E) the agency is not using contractor employees to perform critical functions in such a way
that could affect the ability of the agency to maintain control of its mission and operations;
and (F) there are sufficient internal agency resources to manage and oversee contracts
effectively; (3) identify contracts that have been poorly performed, as determined by a
contracting officer, because of excessive costs or inferior quality; and (4) identify contracts
that should be considered for conversion to—(A) performance by Federal employees of the
executive agency in accordance with agency insourcing guidelines required under section
736 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-
111–8, division D); or (B) an alternative acquisition approach that would better enable the
agency to efficiently utilize its assets and achieve its public mission.188
Each agency is required to submit a report to OMB that summarizes the actions taken pursuant to
Section 743(e) (see the excerpt above). The report is to be submitted with the next annual
inventory of services contracts and made available to the public.189
Apparently, this particular provision was fashioned to ensure, among other things, that inherently
governmental functions are performed by federal government employees. It is the policy of the
federal government that “[c]ontracts shall not be used for the performance of inherently
governmental functions.”190 Under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76,
only agency functions designated as commercial functions may be subjected to private-public
competition. Some observers have suggested, however, that despite FAR Subpart 7.5 and Circular
A-76, some contractor employees perform inherently governmental functions.
The above excerpt from the statute also includes a requirement that agency heads identify
contracts that should be considered for conversion to performance by federal government
employees. Since the inception of Circular A-76, which was issued initially in 1966, most public-
private competitions have involved functions where federal government employees are the
incumbent workforce. In July 2009, OMB issued insourcing guidance, which was developed to
facilitate the application of insourcing requirements found in Section 736, Division D, of P.L.
111-8, FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.191
Section 743(f) requires the Comptroller General to issue several reports regarding OMB’s actions
and agencies’ inventories of services contracts.

188 Sec. 743(e), Division C, of H.R. 3170. (Italics added to aid in identifying relevant text.)
189 Sec. 743(f), Division C, of P.L. 111-117.
190 FAR 7.503(a). (The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) “is the primary regulation for use by all Federal
Executive agencies in their acquisition of supplies and services with appropriated funds.”) (FAR, “Foreword.”)
191 OMB’s insourcing guidance may be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m-09-
26.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
81

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Cuba Sanctions192
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
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.”193
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.194
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 10 months of 2009, U.S. exports to Cuba were valued at
$449 million, 25% lower than the same time period in 2008.195

192 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.
193 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Testimony of Robert Werner, Director, OFAC, before the House Committee on
Agriculture, March 16, 2005.
194 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Office of Global Analysis, “Cuba’s Food &
Agriculture Situation Report,” March 2008.
195 World Trade Atlas, which uses Department of Commerce Statistics.
Congressional Research Service
82

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

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
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.196 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.”197 This appeared to
continue the Bush Administration policy imposed in February 2005. Given the Secretary’s
interpretation, the omnibus provision had 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.198
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

196 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.
197 Congressional Record, March 10, 2009, p. S2933.
198 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
83

---

Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2010 Appropriations

Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 3170 and S. 1432, had an identical provision (section 618
in the House bill and section 617 in the Senate bill) stating that during FY2010, 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 maintained that it was aware that the
Treasury Department was 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
asserted that the policy impedes U.S. sales since it increases the cost of doing business. In the
report, the committee urged 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.
The provision defining the term “payment of cash in advance” for FY2010 was ultimately
included as Section 619 in the enacted version of the FY2010 Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act, which Congress incorporated as Division C of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 (H.R. 3288/ P.L. 111-117). Supporters of the provision maintain that it
restores congressional intent on the matter, and will make it easier for U.S. agricultural producers
to export to Cuba, while opponents maintain the provision constitutes a foreign policy change
included in a must-pass spending bill without appropriate congressional consideration.199


199 “New Law Lets Cuba Pay U.S. Suppliers Directly,” CubaNews, December 2009; Rosella Brevetti, “Agriculture:
Senate OKs Provision Facilitating U.S. Agricultural Exports to Cuba,” International Trade Reporter, December 17,
2009.
Congressional Research Service
84

---

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 American National Government
Policy
ogonzales@crs.loc.gov, 7-0764
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
Erin D. Caffrey
Kevin R. Kosar
Analyst in Education Policy
Analyst in American National Government
ecaffrey@crs.loc.gov, 7-9447
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
Erin Caffrey
7-9447
ecaffrey@crs.loc.gov
Congressional Research Service
85

---

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
86

---